Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[dkolo]

Right, the main takeaway I have is that you had the distance you needed to score lower with a 265 yard driver carry. This is what we are arguing about, not that you use a shorter club on holes that require you to use something other than your driver off the tee.

Yeah, I'll piggyback on this and add my own anecdotal experience of debatable value: I was playing off of a 30 cap going into this golf season and I gave up hitting driver because I couldn't control it (as in I couldn't tell you whether I'd hit my fairway or the one on either of the adjacent holes, haha). I switched to driving 3 wood. And it was good! I improved my game by getting better at that club. It went from a 180 club to a 220-230 club, with the odd 240, 250, especially once I switched to a 13° 3 wood. But I was convinced by folks on here I was costing myself strokes by leaving my potential driver distance on the table. I took a lesson (and combined it with instruction from this site), and got the driver under control and back in my bag. I could hit 230-240 easy, and get it up way past that on my better strikes. I put it back in my bag and the very first time I played with it, I finally broke 90. I missed some more fairways, but even recovery shots were easier because I was 30 yards closer on most holes than I had been before. Being closer to the hole by way of driver distance helped my game. Distance for the sake of distance wasn't helping me when I had no idea where I was hitting it and when results could be catastrophic, but a calculated risk of having a so-so lie but being closer vs. being in the fairway and farther back is the decision I have, and I choose to take my chances being closer.

[nick1998bunker]

Then you have a ton to learn. That is bad.

I used that score as a comparison because that's what I shoot when I hit the same. Club off the tee as I would from back, to keep it fair. If I hit pw or something off each tee to the same landing area as back yes I shoot better, much better

[Osmond]

I used that score as a comparison because that's what I shoot when I hit the same. Club off the tee as I would from back, to keep it fair. If I hit pw or something off each tee to the same landing area as back yes I shoot better, much better

You're making no sense. If there's a water hazard 200y from the ladies tee (and 270y from the tee further back) you still hit the driver and take the penalty "to keep it fair"? This is getting funnier by the minute. I love these examples like "I'd rather be on the fairway 100y away than than buried behind the lip of a bunker 70y away". How hard is it to understand that on average it is better to be closer because it leads, on average, to a lower score? Your pw example was great, it proves you understand after all that distance is crucial. If you have the distance that allows you to play a shorter and more accurate club, you score much better. Thus, distance is crucial.

[nick1998bunker]

You're making no sense. If there's a water hazard 200y from the ladies tee (and 270y from the tee further back) you still hit the driver and take the penalty "to keep it fair"? This is getting funnier by the minute. I love these examples like "I'd rather be on the fairway 100y away than than buried behind the lip of a bunker 70y away". How hard is it to understand that on average it is better to be closer because it leads, on average, to a lower score? Your pw example was great, it proves you understand after all that distance is crucial. If you have the distance that allows you to play a shorter and more accurate club, you score much better. Thus, distance is crucial.

I was using it as an example to reduce variables because it would defeat the purpose of the explanation to talk about when I hit irons off the tee. I was talking more about a big wide fairway 150 out compared to a tiny fairway surrounded by bunkers and rough 30 yards out. And I always maintained that distance is important from the same tees like in tournaments. This thread was about amateurs specifically so I concluded that must mean standard recreational play. Where it is very very common for people to choose tees based on their distance. The only applicable difference I could find between amateurs and pros

[Osmond]

I was using it as an example to reduce variables because it would defeat the purpose of the explanation to talk about when I hit irons off the tee. I was talking more about a big wide fairway 150 out compared to a tiny fairway surrounded by bunkers and rough 30 yards out. And I always maintained that distance is important from the same tees like in tournaments. This thread was about amateurs specifically so I concluded that must mean standard recreational play. Where it is very very common for people to choose tees based on their distance. The only applicable difference I could find between amateurs and pros

But isn't it obvious that, no matter what tee you play, the closer you are to the pin on average the better you score? I don't quite understand the need to talk about different tees. As for the word "amateur", there's a hundred million or so amateur golfers in the world, ranging from people who score in the 60s from the back tees to people who don't have the swing to card a score on most holes. What applies to all, though, is that the closer they are to the pin the more likely they are to score well. You could always argue that most amateurs play golf just for the fun of it. Thus, for many people, distance and many other things might not be that "important" after all.

[nick1998bunker]

But isn't it obvious that, no matter what tee you play, the closer you are to the pin on average the better you score? I don't quite understand the need to talk about different tees. As for the word "amateur", there's a hundred million or so amateur golfers in the world, ranging from people who score in the 60s from the back tees to people who don't have the swing to card a score on most holes. What applies to all, though, is that the closer they are to the pin the more likely they are to score well. You could always argue that most amateurs play golf just for the fun of it. Thus, for many people, distance and many other things might not be that "important" after all.

guy 1 hits his ball 180 off tee and has 7 iron in. Guy 2 hits it 350 from his tee and has 7 iron in because he played the right tees for his length. Who is gonna score lower. Assuming same skill level my money is on guy one.

[Osmond]

guy 1 hits his ball 180 off tee and has 7 iron in. Guy 2 hits it 350 from his tee and has 7 iron in because he played the right tees for his length. Who is gonna score lower. Assuming same skill level my money is on guy one.

Bizarre example. First of all, Guy 2 must have a i7 for his second shot on a par 5. I'd say it's more than likely that he makes a birdie. Second, is there a par 4 somewhere with 200 yards separating the tips and the ladies tee? You keep talking about "the right tees". Not only is it... well, bizarre... it is also off topic.

And to your question: Guy 2 is most likely a considerably better golfer and thus more accurate with his i7. I'd put my money on him.

Finally: Does this have anything to do with the topic? If Guy 1 hits the ball 40 yards longer, he has a wedge in and on average makes a better score than by approaching with a 7-iron. Isn't this as simple as it gets?

[iacas]

guy 1 hits his ball 180 off tee and has 7 iron in. Guy 2 hits it 350 from his tee and has 7 iron in because he played the right tees for his length. Who is gonna score lower. Assuming same skill level my money is on guy one.

Nick, just stop. These examples with different tees are pointless.

Two guys play the same course. One hits his driver 200 yards. The other 240. Who is likely to score better?

The second player. If there's trouble at 220, he can hit a 5W or something and still get to 200 yards, but then probably have a shorter club in from the same yardage.

Distance is important for amateurs. Not 100% important over accuracy, but important.

Stop talking about different tees. That is not what's being discussed.

[Dave2512]

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. You can simplfy it to the most basic principal yet people contiinue to offer bizarre scenarios why they have doubts.

[4Aces]

Accuracy over distance part whatever

The OP said for amateurs. Last I looked the average amateur doesn't keep a handicap and rarely, if ever, breaks 100. If y'all are talking about amateurs that break 80 regularly then we have a completely different player in mind.

If a player can hit 150 with some accuracy he can break 90 on most courses. I've taken players who have never broken 100 and had them shoot in the 80s just by hitting back to back 150 yard shots on Par 4s and three times on par 5s. From there they are even more accurate because as y'all have proven closer is more accurate. They are putting for par on the majority of holes. Stay in the fairway, avoid penalty strokes, bunkers, tall rough, and all the other shot wasters, put for par on most holes, and you have a nice recipe for the average golfer to score their lowest rounds. Even better, the game is less frustrating and they have a good time until one of their buddies they beat convinces them that isn't how the game is played.

I spend 150 days a year each evening with players from low handicap to beginners who have never played before. It's a winning formula to keep people in the game, not get too frustrated, and eventually turn themselves into solid players. Again, if you want to break 80 regularly you do need distance, but accuracy is important, I'd place the overall rate for amateurs at 65-75% accuracy for a better game. As they say the woods are full of long hitters.

[iacas]

If a player can hit 150 with some accuracy he can break 90 on most courses.

It's highly unlikely. After all, as you point out, most golfers might not even do that hitting the ball farther.

Could I break 90 hitting my 8-iron everywhere? Yes. But I'm also more accurate (and I get to hit an 8-iron…), and I'm not going to break 70 as I can hitting the ball farther, too. A lot of the people you're talking about are probably hitting 5-irons. They're poor golfers. They're still going to fat some balls, shank one or two, slice the majority, duff a chip, three-putt… etc.

Several things are generally true, and I don't think you can disagree with them too much:

• Most golfers are already reasonably accurate. There's a chart below, that was used a few times in this thread, which speaks to this.
• Most golfers improve their accuracy as their distance improves. They're intertwined "golf skills."
• All else being equal , golfers are generally better off being closer to the hole than farther away. The guy who has yips or something from 60 yards so he's better from 100 yards is the rare exception.
• Nobody is saying to hit it into a super-tight area of the fairway with OB and fairway bunkers looming.
• Accuracy is important, and nobody's saying it's not, but so is distance. This is not an "all-or-nothing" scenario. Even if distance were only 40% that would still rank as "important" by my definition of the word.
• Distance is a FORM of accuracy, as shown above with some bullseyes, even if lateral accuracy decreases slightly as distance increases.

Let's stop concocting scenarios, too, please. We had amateurs hit thousands of shots. EVERY category of golfer (including 19+ handicappers) scored better from closer than from farther away from the green, regardless of where we had them aim their shots. It's in the #DeadCenter chapter.

Stay in the fairway, avoid penalty strokes, bunkers, tall rough, and all the other shot wasters

I agree with he bold. The first part, not so much. I'll take 280 with 60% fairways over 250 with 75% fairways almost every day of the week on almost every golf course known to man. Very few golf courses are incredibly penal on both sides of the fairway.

Again, if you want to break 80 regularly you do need distance, but accuracy is important, I'd place the overall rate for amateurs at 65-75% accuracy for a better game.

Have you seen this graphic?

Accuracy goes from about 7° to about 6° from 100 to 80. Distance goes from 195 to 255.

As they say the woods are full of long hitters.

So is the winner's circle.

If this thread bugs you, and you don't want to talk about it anymore, there are thousands of other great ones.

---

FWIW, since you mentioned it earlier, I don't care if you buy the book that I co-wrote or not. I make a few bucks from it, but it doesn't support a trip to Starbucks, if you know what I mean. I think if you look around this site you'll find that I've given information away fro free for a long, long, long time. LOTS of information. Right here. Free for you to use, disagree with, argue with, etc. My main goal is to help golfers get better, enjoy golf more, and have happier lives. The site, the book, they're all trying to fulfill that goal. It's not about "pitching a product" or "making mad dough." I'd not have written a book and I wouldn't give all sorts of info away free here if that was the point.

I also don't mind being challenged. I like it, in fact - as it makes me examine things and think through things again (or more thoroughly). I'm a cynical person by trade. I don't accept anything. I work with cynical doubters as well - we challenge everything (including our own ideas) constantly. That's a big part of what makes us good at what we do.

So, buy the book, don't buy the book… it doesn't really matter to me. I think you're missing out, and others who have read it will tell you the same. I'm as aware as any that the golf industry is full of poo, but people like what I/we do here because we've established a deep line of credibility. LSW is not poo, and you're missing out… but again, buy it, don't buy it… doesn't really matter to me.

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Aces

There are two games in question, the game you are playing today and the game you are trying to get to. I'll focus on today's game. Hole strategy should be handled backwards from the green. Too many amateurs try to hit it as far as they can off the tee, then as far as they can on the next until they reach the green. If your best tee shot *today* is 225 and your best 3W is 200  and the hole is 440 then way even consider hitting the green in two?  Instead plan on two high percentage shots to move you down the fairway to your best iron distance. Accuracy is your friend in this scenario. Same thing on difficult par 5s.

Now for the game you are trying to get to you need some length to play long par 4s and probably those 200 yard par 3s. But trying to hit well beyond your "normal" distance leads to embarrassing mistakes (whiffs, shanks, penalties)

Have you read the thread or any of the supporting threads with massive amounts of statistical analysis that supports the validity of this strategy?

You said this:

Quote:

Too many amateurs try to hit it as far as they can off the tee, then as far as they can on the next until they reach the green.

which with a slight tweak (red text) is actually the best strategy you can have because the closer you are to the hole on any given shot, the closer to the hole you will hit it.

Quote:

amateurs should try to hit it as far as they safely can off the tee, then as far as they safely can on the next until they reach the green.

Your memory is a terrible golf coach because it tends to be very selective. Anyone who truly believes that they have a statistical advantage from 100y versus 50y is either fooling themselves with selective memory or they really, really, really suck at the short game which is something that can be very easily addressed because the short game is pretty simple stuff. I'm a 20 and I can stick chips and pitches pretty damn close with very minimal practice; WAY closer on average than I can from 100y with a full wedge. Now I can also occasionally hit one pretty stiff with a full wedge as I am pretty good with wedges (and my memory latches on to those because it so much more difficult) but I know that if I were to hit 20 balls from 100y and 20 balls from 50y there is absolutely no question as to with position is going to yield the better average, if you don't believe me try it yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

Uh yeah moving up a set of tees pretty much defines why distance is important. The distance we are talking about here is proximity to the hole. Closer is better.

That is quite possibly the most concise point made yet.

---

EDIT* I stopped reading at this post which I believe sums up the problem with the naysayer's arguments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Things which do not ring true are not necessarily wrong. Often they are true. Keep your mind open.

So, it's possible I missed a later epiphany, but I highly doubt it.

[Dave2512]

Accuracy over distance part whatever

The OP said for amateurs. Last I looked the average amateur doesn't keep a handicap and rarely, if ever, breaks 100. If y'all are talking about amateurs that break 80 regularly then we have a completely different player in mind.

If a player can hit 150 with some accuracy he can break 90 on most courses. I've taken players who have never broken 100 and had them shoot in the 80s just by hitting back to back 150 yard shots on Par 4s and three times on par 5s. From there they are even more accurate because as y'all have proven closer is more accurate. They are putting for par on the majority of holes. Stay in the fairway, avoid penalty strokes, bunkers, tall rough, and all the other shot wasters, put for par on most holes, and you have a nice recipe for the average golfer to score their lowest rounds. Even better, the game is less frustrating and they have a good time until one of their buddies they beat convinces them that isn't how the game is played.

I spend 150 days a year each evening with players from low handicap to beginners who have never played before. It's a winning formula to keep people in the game, not get too frustrated, and eventually turn themselves into solid players. Again, if you want to break 80 regularly you do need distance, but accuracy is important, I'd place the overall rate for amateurs at 65-75% accuracy for a better game. As they say the woods are full of long hitters.

I think you kind of answered your own question here. First thing, and it's mentioned in the thread, is nobody is suggesting every golfer needs to hit the club they can potentially hit the furthest from every tee box. But course strategy is a completely different topic. In the distance/accuracy argument the distance proponents will agree to hit the club best suited for the layout of the hole. But I think you know this. The reason the unskilled golfer struggles is because they don't do much of anything well. Putting a shorter club in their hands just minimizes the penalty of a flawed swing because the ball can't travel as far off line. They are still going to hit more bad shots than good. I don't see people that struggle to break 100 that have a money shot, they aren't going to hit a succession of quality 150 yard shots.

Let's get back to your hypothetical golfer. What you suggest may lead to temporary better scoring, my guess is it could or could not, but at best it's a Band-Aid. At some point to be able to score better and continue to enjoy the game they are going to need to be closer to the hole. If all of a sudden via whatever this golfer can hit a 200 yard shot that lands in a favorable area then a 150 shot they are 50 yards closer to the hole in those two shots. As that distance increases they are in a better position to score. But if you take this same golfer and decrease the first example of 150/150 to 120/120 it decreases their chances to score better at 100/100 it would be worse. So even to this golfer distance is important.

[nick1998bunker]

Nick, just stop. These examples with different tees are pointless. Two guys play the same course. One hits his driver 200 yards. The other 240. Who is likely to score better? The second player. If there's trouble at 220, he can hit a 5W or something and still get to 200 yards, but then probably have a shorter club in from the same yardage. Distance is important for amateurs. Not 100% important over accuracy, but important. Stop talking about different tees. That is not what's being discussed.

actually the tees are very important and if you can't see that your missing the point. Yalls only argument is that the extra distance creates a closer proximity to the hole, yes from the same tees but that does not happen in amateur golf which is the point I'm trying to think. Your removing a key variable and completely neglecting the obvious correlation between ability and distance. If you simplify the problem correctly using logic you get the question is the ability to stop the ball faster and have more club speed in the rough outweighs the significant loss in accuracy. Your not using logic tofullyunderstand the problem and answer it correctly. That is why you are still wrong.

[Dave2512]

actually the tees are very important and if you can't see that your missing the point. Yalls only argument is that the extra distance creates a closer proximity to the hole, yes from the same tees but that does not happen in amateur golf which is the point I'm trying to think. Your removing a key variable and completely neglecting the obvious correlation between ability and distance. If you simplify the problem correctly using logic you get the question is the ability to stop the ball faster and have more club speed in the rough outweighs the significant loss in accuracy. Your not using logic tofullyunderstand the problem and answer it correctly. That is why you are still wrong.

Ugh.

[Golfingdad]

actually the tees are very important and if you can't see that your missing the point. Yalls only argument is that the extra distance creates a closer proximity to the hole, yes from the same tees but that does not happen in amateur golf which is the point I'm trying to think. Your removing a key variable and completely neglecting the obvious correlation between ability and distance. If you simplify the problem correctly using logic you get the question is the ability to stop the ball faster and have more club speed in the rough outweighs the significant loss in accuracy. Your not using logic tofullyunderstand the problem and answer it correctly. That is why you are still wrong.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.  In fact, I don't actually understand what you're even saying here.

Distance matters to everybody.  Accuracy matters to everybody.  Distance matters slightly more.  And on top of that, distance is a form of accuracy.

---

Random (meaningless) anecdote:  I shot a 78 yesterday on a 72.2/125/6800yd course .  I had 31 putts and 8 GIR.  I hit ZERO fairways.  If I would have backed off the driver (I hit driver on every non Par 3) to find the fairway more often, I would have scored higher.  Guaranteed.  With a 3 wood it's a guarantee that I'd have been 15-20 yards further from the hole on every hole (except maybe #7 where I skied my drive), however, it's NOT a guarantee that I would have hit every fairway.  So I'd have "gained" a nice fairway lie a FEW times, while having to come into EVERY green with one or two more clubs.

[4Aces]

I think you kind of answered your own question here. First thing, and it's mentioned in the thread, is nobody is suggesting every golfer needs to hit the club they can potentially hit the furthest from every tee box. But course strategy is a completely different topic. In the distance/accuracy argument the distance proponents will agree to hit the club best suited for the layout of the hole. But I think you know this. The reason the unskilled golfer struggles is because they don't do much of anything well. Putting a shorter club in their hands just minimizes the penalty of a flawed swing because the ball can't travel as far off line. They are still going to hit more bad shots than good. I don't see people that struggle to break 100 that have a money shot, they aren't going to hit a succession of quality 150 yard shots.

Let's get back to your hypothetical golfer. What you suggest may lead to temporary better scoring, my guess is it could or could not, but at best it's a Band-Aid. At some point to be able to score better and continue to enjoy the game they are going to need to be closer to the hole. If all of a sudden via whatever this golfer can hit a 200 yard shot that lands in a favorable area then a 150 shot they are 50 yards closer to the hole in those two shots. As that distance increases they are in a better position to score. But if you take this same golfer and decrease the first example of 150/150 to 120/120 it decreases their chances to score better at 100/100 it would be worse. So even to this golfer distance is important.

Actually not hypothetical, as noted I have used this with a lot of players. Learning to control where the ball is going is critical at any level of play. Most everyone here rightfully agrees that accuracy into the greens is important. I take it to the earlier shots as well. Every shot has a target (or at least they should). Hitting that target leads to better scores.  Hitting as far as you can with accuracy has worked into lower scores. Most of those 100 shooters racks up several or more penalty shots each round. Eliminating them lowers scores. The average amateur, as you noted doesn't do much well. I believe each person here could teach them a 150 iron shot that hits 75% of the fairways long before they can teach them a 225 yard driver that isn't spraying everywhere.

But hey, as I said YMMV.  I've spent a lot of time working with average amateurs. I've tried teaching distance first then accuracy and I've tried accuracy first. Now I blend the two, but work harder on accuracy. I've also worked with players on keeping their game together under pressure and I know what has worked for the majority of my players. As was mentioned to me, keep an open mind. But my career depends on developing golfers so this isn't a theoretical discussion.

[MiniBlueDragon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

I think the entire focus should be on the handicap you're playing off at the time. By that I mean if you're a 28 capper you're being given a lot of "free" shots so there's no need to focus on distance as a priority, you're better off focusing on accuracy.

Take my father-in-law as an example; he's won quite a few local tourneys, society days etc and for several years only used irons, wedges and his putter; not a wood in the bag. Every tee shot was way behind his opponents but down the middle and then the next shot he'd be closer to the hole than them. All his equipment is second hand from car boot sales and he's never had proper lessons. It's only now that he's won many times and had his handicap cut that he's struggling to win tourneys and is focusing on getting distance off the tee to gain extra shots.

In an ideal world you'd have a combination of distance and accuracy but if I had to choose one only it'd be accuracy to start with and then distance.

Either he played some really short courses or he hit his irons really really long. Some of the courses I play would be really hard if you hit 3i off every tee. They are already hard with a driver.

You may be right; I really didn't question him about just how long the courses were. I know he hit's the ball a fair distance but I've never seen him hit a "wow" distance shot so it's likely they were shorter courses. Also I think many courses here in the UK are shorter than the US anyway.