Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[CarlSpackler]

I think it's up to every individual to asses their game with their instructor and determine a priority. As I've said before, if you improve your swing, then your distance AND accuracy will improve. Perhaps there are many people here that equate the term Amateur in the subject to Beginner. An amateur can be an absolute beginner or a very accomplished golfer that has not turned pro. The bottom line is that distance is definitely important to becoming an accomplished golfer. Isn't this everyone's goal? If someone is lucky to make contact with the ball with their driver, then clearly they need to fix some fundamental issues. I've always hated the approach that a golfer should leave the driver in the bag if they are slicing it OB, topping it, whiffing, etc. My thought has always been to get some lessons and learn to hit the dang thing better.

[nick1998bunker]

I'm done arguing but if you map out the advantages and disadvantages of distance and accuracy you will see what I mean. Being closer to the hole from a longer drive is not an advantage because for amatuers who hit it generally in the 170-300 range, and are playing THE CORRECT TEES FOR THEIR DISTANCE ( this is crucial because it is what differentiates ameaturr golf which the OP is most likely implying recreation golf from pro golf which he most likely is implying tournament golf. That is the purpose of different tees and why every rec player I know utilizes them. It is to as best as possible way to eliminate the distance inequality. If yall are talking about everybody is talking the same tees then yes distance is a huge advantage but that would make this thread pointless as your proximity to the hole stats and general experience proves this, but it's not, because that's not how Rec golf works and the OP specifically stated amateurs. Which was imputed to clearly differentiate between the 2 types. If he did not mean that then he should have chosen his words more carefully.) when you play the correct tees (proportionate to distance) than you will have a LONGER distance out for approaches than a shorter hitter. Tell me that when you play old men that they have 200 plus yards for each approach. [quote name="CarlSpackler" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/700_100#post_1091314"]I think it's up to every individual to asses their game with their instructor and determine a priority. As I've said before, if you improve your swing, then your distance AND accuracy will improve. Perhaps there are many people here that equate the term Amateur in the subject to Beginner. An amateur can be an absolute beginner or a very accomplished golfer that has not turned pro. The bottom line is that distance is definitely important to becoming an accomplished golfer. Isn't this everyone's goal? If someone is lucky to make contact with the ball with their driver, then clearly they need to fix some fundamental issues. I've always hated the approach that a golfer should leave the driver in the bag if they are slicing it OB, topping it, whiffing, etc. My thought has always been to get some lessons and learn to hit the dang thing better. [/quote] Yes because an accomplished golfer is one who plays what I called "real" golf at a high level. Real not necessarily tournament golf but similar conditions where yes distance is important due to the same tees. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/700_100#post_1091286"]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. [rule] Random (meaningless) anecdote:  I shot a [URL=http://www.gamegolf.com/player/golfingdad/round/165699]78 yesterday on a 72.2/125/6800yd course[/URL].  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. [/quote] why does distance matter? I do agree that distance is a form of accuracy, but from correct tees you are handicapped to compensate. This thread would be pointless if it is about playing the same tees. But it's not

[CarlSpackler]

I'm done arguing but if you map out the advantages and disadvantages of distance and accuracy you will see what I mean. Being closer to the hole from a longer drive is not an advantage because for amatuers who hit it generally in the 170-300 range, and are playing THE CORRECT TEES FOR THEIR DISTANCE ( this is crucial because it is what differentiates ameaturr golf which the OP is most likely implying recreation golf from pro golf which he most likely is implying tournament golf. That is the purpose of different tees and why every rec player I know utilizes them. It is to as best as possible way to eliminate the distance inequality. If yall are talking about everybody is talking the same tees then yes distance is a huge advantage but that would make this thread pointless as your proximity to the hole stats and general experience proves this, but it's not, because that's not how Rec golf works and the OP specifically stated amateurs. Which was imputed to clearly differentiate between the 2 types. If he did not mean that then he should have chosen his words more carefully.) when you play the correct tees (proportionate to distance) than you will have a LONGER distance out for approaches than a shorter hitter. Tell me that when you play old men that they have 200 plus yards for each approach.

Yes because an accomplished golfer is one who plays what I called "real" golf at a high level. Real not necessarily tournament golf but similar conditions where yes distance is important due to the same tees.

why does distance matter? I do agree that distance is a form of accuracy, but from correct tees you are handicapped to compensate.

This thread would be pointless if it is about playing the same tees. But it's not

I have to admit that I am having trouble following you or getting your point.

[Golfingdad]

I have to admit that I am having trouble following you or getting your point.

I'm completely clueless as well.  I do have one response though;

... if you map out the advantages and disadvantages of distance and accuracy you will see what I mean.

Wait, have you actually done this?  (For anybody except yourself)  Do you know anybody who's done this for 1000's upon 1000's of golfers of all abilities to come to the conclusions that they've come to?

What if I told you that those people were the very people that you are calling wrong?  Would that matter?  Of course it wouldn't because "you know."

[4Aces]

The different tee thing is focusing on tee shots and reaching the desired approach distance. Most people have been debating yardage on shots into the green. When the two are blended nothing makes sense.

[4Aces]

Do you know anybody who's done this for 1000's upon 1000's of golfers of all abilities to come to the conclusions that they've come to?

Does that really make a difference? I've been pointing out the research that Dr. Graham conducted for her PhD under rigorous scientific standards and what her and Jon continued to do over thirty years on all of the major tours, including personally working with PGA Tour members who have won majors.

You see how far that got me

BTW, one of their concepts that I found interesting and is somewhat on point to this thread is ultimate arousal states. The very basic version of their theory is you need that little spike of arousal on the tee box and as you get closer to the hole you need to calm that down for putting. You don't want to be too jacked up on the tee nor sleepy on the greens.

[iacas]

The different tee thing is focusing on tee shots and reaching the desired approach distance. Most people have been debating yardage on shots into the green. When the two are blended nothing makes sense.

There is no "different tee thing." That's purely @nick1998bunker 's "contribution" to this thread.

This thread is about distance. It's not even really about accuracy.

@4Aces , did you see my #post_1091220 ?

[Dave2512]

Does that really make a difference? I've been pointing out the research that Dr. Graham conducted for her PhD under rigorous scientific standards and what her and Jon continued to do over thirty years on all of the major tours, including personally working with PGA Tour members who have won majors.

You see how far that got me

BTW, one of their concepts that I found interesting and is somewhat on point to this thread is ultimate arousal states. The very basic version of their theory is you need that little spike of arousal on the tee box and as you get closer to the hole you need to calm that down for putting. You don't want to be too jacked up on the tee nor sleepy on the greens.

I suppose it depends on who and what you believe. It's the numbers I look at because it is what it is, kind of tough to spoil a large sample with opinion. But it wouldn't be the first time an expert was mistaken. Some very high profile people in the golf world have been incorrect before.

[4Aces]

I suppose it depends on who and what you believe. It's the numbers I look at because it is what it is, kind of tough to spoil a large sample with opinion. But it wouldn't be the first time an expert was mistaken. Some very high profile people in the golf world have been incorrect before.

Agreed. It also helps if one person is someone you know.

Also players and equipment change. I was rereading Hogan's book and while there are a few solid things, several ideas were just really outdated.

[iacas]

Does that really make a difference? I've been pointing out the research that Dr. Graham conducted for her PhD under rigorous scientific standards and what her and Jon continued to do over thirty years on all of the major tours, including personally working with PGA Tour members who have won majors.

Let's take a look at that:

I also recently spent hours discussing the mental side of golf with Jon Stabler who co-authored with Dr. Deborah Graham "The 8 Traits of Champion Golfers". This was a point he makes in his workshop. He has worked with over 300 professionals on all the major tours. When the pressure is on find your most comfortable distance. That may be a 90 yard gap wedge. Avoid the in between shots, the shots requiring delicate touch. You like being close and having to flop something to a short pin? Great. That's your comfort shot. I'd rather be a bit farther back and hit something firmer. But to make a blanket statement that everyone should always try to be as close to the green as possible doesn't ring true with me.

Where's the science here? You didn't cite any. Is it just about when golfers feel comfortable, or did they actually measure results (distance from the hole, scoring, etc.)? And last time I checked most PGA Tour players are not "amateurs" (the topic of this thread).

We have a ton as well: ShotLink data is fairly extensive, and guess what: the closer PGA Tour pros get to the hole, the closer their next shot is likely to end up. Across the board. Also, I've worked with PGA Tour players too. A lot of them get this stuff wrong, too. They're on the PGA Tour because they're good at hitting a ball; they hire statisticians because it's not their area of expertise.

But again, this thread isn't about PGA Tour players… though the same things hold with them, they apply even more to regular golfers.

Agreed. It also helps if one person is someone you know.

Also players and equipment change. I was rereading Hogan's book and while there are a few solid things, several ideas were just really outdated.

"Lay up to a comfortable yardage" is one of those outdated ideas.

[4Aces]

Listen, obviously this site is about you and your book. I'm sorry I entered the conversation. If you really are interested, their book is The 8 Traits of Champion Golfers , it is available from Amazon and others. Simon and Shuster is the publisher. By the way congrats on getting your book financed and published. That is an accomplishment to be proud of. I would like to read your book, where can I find one?

[Lihu]

Listen, obviously this site is about you and your book. I'm sorry I entered the conversation. If you really are interested, their book is The 8 Traits of Champion Golfers, it is available from Amazon and others. Simon and Shuster is the publisher. By the way congrats on getting your book financed and published. That is an accomplishment to be proud of. I would like to read your book, where can I find one?

http://lowestscorewins.com/buy

It's a good read. I am basically following it like an instruction manual from a beginner to who knows?

[iacas]

Listen, obviously this site is about you and your book. I'm sorry I entered the conversation.

I responded to that earlier. This site is not "about [me] and [my] book." Not only is there a bunch of information in this thread, but I've spent thousands of hours and made thousands of posts you can read, for free, on this forum. C'mon…

You could probably spend a few days looking through just http://thesandtrap.com/f/4088/swing-thoughts if you wanted…

I've asked you some questions. You've chosen not to answer. That's fine, but let's not pretend all I'm doing is telling you to buy a book, or telling anyone to buy a book, and withholding information so that I can make enough money for a value menu item at McDonald's. I've freely shared information for a decade now, and will continue to do so. I know no other way. I believe in helping golfers. Always have.

P.S. I bought the book, but I'm skeptical: it says "mental game" in the title, and I don't think it's particularly relevant for two reasons: 1) what shots golfers are comfortable with are not always the same as the ones they're likely to get closest, and 2) this thread is still not about PGA Tour players. Accuracy matters a bit more to them (because they all have distance) than it does to amateurs. We covered this probably 10 or 20 pages ago…

[4Aces]

What question have you asked that I have not answered?

And I apologize for the way I phrased my comment. There are certain forums with strong personalities or devoted to a certain idea. You have many fans here and that dominates the board. The people are friendly, the writing  and views expressed are well done and beyond most forums. But with legions on one side, that obviously believe in your research there just is little room for a dissenting view. It becomes one versus many. I understand it isn't personal, it isn't being ganged up on. But after many years on forums, and almost as many as an administrator, I understand what makes this site popular with the posters. It seems like a great golf site. But I know if after one day on a board I am knee deep in controversy it just isn't a good fit.

[iacas]

What question have you asked that I have not answered?

For starters, here's the most relevant:

Where's the science here? You didn't cite any. Is it just about when golfers feel comfortable, or did they actually measure results (distance from the hole, scoring, etc.)? And last time I checked most PGA Tour players are not "amateurs" (the topic of this thread).

We have a ton as well: ShotLink data is fairly extensive, and guess what: the closer PGA Tour pros get to the hole, the closer their next shot is likely to end up. Across the board. Also, I've worked with PGA Tour players too. A lot of them get this stuff wrong, too. They're on the PGA Tour because they're good at hitting a ball; they hire statisticians because it's not their area of expertise.

I don't really wish to continue to talk about PGA Tour players much, because they're not the topic, and because distance and accuracy are bit different for them (they're elite-level at both, and very few of them are leaving distance in the bag), but again, a book about the mental game is entirely different than a book about scoring, proximity, etc. PGA Tour pros are not rocket scientists. They do lots of dumb things.

And by "you didn't cite any" I mean you didn't really demonstrate any "science" from the book.

If this thread doesn't appeal to you anymore, that's cool… but by all means… please look at the thousands and thousands of other threads here.

[CarlSpackler]

Listen, obviously this site is about you and your book. I'm sorry I entered the conversation. If you really are interested, their book is The 8 Traits of Champion Golfers , it is available from Amazon and others. Simon and Shuster is the publisher. By the way congrats on getting your book financed and published. That is an accomplishment to be proud of. I would like to read your book, where can I find one?

I wouldn't this site is meant to sell the book. You will find many of the concepts in it being discussed here, but it isn't required reading material. ;-) I'm trying to focus on the fact that the thread is not called "Is distance more important than accuracy". I'm confused why there are so many arguments against the importance of hitting the ball as far as possible. Not to sound like a broken record, but if you improve your swing, you should get more distance AND accuracy.

[4Aces]

Yes they measured distances and were working with the players in question to judge arousal state. They also differentiated between high pressure situations and common. They have extended their research and have worked with college and high school players and teams. Their book is in the 7th reprinting since being published in 1999. Their weekend program is really for serious students willing to spend $1000. But now I am starting to sound like an infomercial which I was really trying to avoid.

Again, I will bow to your arguments. They are well reasoned and you certainly have a lot of numbers to back up your opinion.

[mvmac]

How hard is it to understand that on average it is better to be closer because it leads, on average, to a lower score?

Harder than you think

I wonder if people just have a hard time letting go of things they learned when they were younger or if they just base everything off their own experiences.

Listen, obviously this site is about you and your book. I'm sorry I entered the conversation.

@iacas and I provide A LOT of free content on this site. I also don't make a dime off the book, so no the site isn't about selling you LSW. The site has been around since 2004, book came out in May.