Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Lihu]

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.

Scientific hypothesis.

[saevel25]

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.

I did, until @iacas beat me over the head with logic till I was reformed.

[Dave2512]

I haven't read the book yet and I see the value of distance. Only have to look at my own stats to see the proof. I have to get pretty close the green before I would consider the next shot to be "comfort zone" and even then no assurances I will hit the perfect shot. But after a round and I input my stats the majority of my GIR are the result of good tee shots. Anything else is just luck.

[iacas]

Yes they measured distances and were working with the players in question to judge arousal state

I'm not sure what you mean by "they measured distances", but I'll see later this week (book arrives Wednesday).

The stats don't show that.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.076.2014.html

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.074.2014.html

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

Thanks. Let's talk about amateurs now.

[Moppy]

Who knew a thread about mensuration could go on for this long on a site mostly viewed by guys?

[Lihu]

Who knew a thread about mensuration could go on for this long on a site mostly viewed by guys?

Had to look at this word three times.

[Dave2512]

Can't say I know many female math nerds.

[jamo]

Can't say I know many female math nerds.

You gotta work in engineering. (Okay, so there still aren't many .)

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

Can't say I know many female math nerds.

You gotta work in engineering.

(Okay, so there still aren't many.)

SW Engineering, dude.

[Pretzel]

You gotta work in engineering. (Okay, so there still aren't many .)

I dunno, I'm on a competitive robotics team that's traveled from Utah to Indianapolis and most places in between, and I'd say there are a fair number of girls who like math and engineering. Certainly not as many as the guys, but they're not quite as mystical add unicorns. Could be a generation gap though, since these are all high school students.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

You gotta work in engineering.

(Okay, so there still aren't many.)

I dunno, I'm on a competitive robotics team that's traveled from Utah to Indianapolis and most places in between, and I'd say there are a fair number of girls who like math and engineering. Certainly not as many as the guys, but they're not quite as mystical add unicorns. Could be a generation gap though, since these are all high school students.

Nah, most of them live in the Bay Area.

Check out "Google" and "Apple" and a few other companies around there. . .

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

Can't say I know many female math nerds.

You gotta work in engineering.

(Okay, so there still aren't many.)

I married one 28 years ago. Of course, she is a lawyer now.

BTW, she would look at the stats and say, "Distance is a little more important than accuracy.".  She's working on strength and fitness with a personal trainer and her driving distance and accuracy have improved as has her scoring.  Go figure.

[Somerset Simon]

Sorry, but I'm going to give another anecdote...

Over the christmas holiday, I met up with a couple of old friends who are now pros.

We played 18 holes on the Burnham and Berrow Channel Course in my home county of Somerset.

This is a superb 9 hole links course. Not quite as long as the Championship Course, but plenty long enough to test a pro in soft winter conditions.

Both pros are very similar players.

Both drive the ball around 270-290, about 20 yards longer than me.

Both are very solid ball strikers.

Both have excellent short games.

Pro A was having a good day and played roughly to par.

Pro B was striking it solidly but was struggling to find the fairway and lost 5 or 6 balls (very easy to do on a championship links course) and shot in the 80's.

I played fairly solid and shot a couple over.

The difference between Pro A and me was length, and he beat me by a couple of shots.

The difference between Pro A and Pro B was accuracy, and Pro A won by about ten shots.

This is my experience of playing golf for several decades.

The longer hitters have a slight advantage if they're accurate enough to keep it in play.

But accuracy make a much bigger difference.

I totally get the idea that all things being equal you are better off being closer to the hole.

But it's only a slight advantage, probably no more than 2 or 3 shots per round for 20 yards extra length.

Whereas small differences in accuracy can easily gain or lose you ten shots per round.

Plus, lots of people keep saying that distance equals accuracy, but the converse is also true.

A straight drive down the fairway will finish a lot closer to the green than an equally well struck slice or hook in the rough.

Not to mention you will have a better lie.

To me the key to shooting low scores is consistency and accuracy combined with "enough" distance.

Beyond a certain point, extra length has diminishing returns as it's too hard to keep the ball in play.

[iacas]

To me the key to shooting low scores is consistency and accuracy combined with "enough" distance.

No shit, Sherlock. Nobody here is saying any differently. The point is, many golfers don't have "enough" distance, and increasing distance will be both easier (smaller gains) leading to larger gains in stroke reduction. Look at the chart with the colored ovals.

If you're hitting the ball 250-270+, you're not "the amateur" being discussed. You're at the fringe of the discussion. People have pointed this out to you a few times now (just as they've pointed out the pointlessness of anecdotes*). I will once again encourage you to post elsewhere on the site. LOTS of golf discussion here.

I played with a guy recently who averages 30 yards longer than me off the tee. He's a beast. I hit three more fairways than he did, but he hit 4 more GIR than me, not including two par fives in two that I hit in three. I shot 73. He shot 65, despite my increased "accuracy."

There's another anecdote. Does it nullify yours?

No. They're just anecdotes. They're useless.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

To me the key to shooting low scores is consistency and accuracy combined with "enough" distance.

No shit, Sherlock. Nobody here is saying any differently. The point is, many golfers don't have "enough" distance, and increasing distance will be both easier (smaller gains) leading to larger gains in stroke reduction. Look at the chart with the colored ovals.

If you're hitting the ball 250-270+, you're not "the amateur" being discussed. You're at the fringe of the discussion. People have pointed this out to you a few times now (just as they've pointed out the pointlessness of anecdotes*). I will once again encourage you to post elsewhere on the site. LOTS of golf discussion here.

@Somerset Simon , did you take a few weeks off just to come up with more anecdotes that are anomalies?

[Somerset Simon]

@Somerset Simon , did you take a few weeks off just to come up with more anecdotes that are anomalies?

I went away for xmas and have been catching up with the discussion.

I read everyone's opinions and comments with an open mind (really), but I still feel the pro-distance argument is too simplistic and sends the wrong message to young golfers:

"If you don't hit it long, you can't compete."

I also noticed you were giving @ 4Aces and others a bit of a hard time when they dared to suggest distance might not be quite as important to amateurs as you seem to think, so I thought I would post my story from Burnham and Berrow.

Yes it's just another anecdote, but how many individual cases does it take to make a significant sample?

Maybe you can post some of your stories to illustrate the importance of distance?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

@Somerset Simon , did you take a few weeks off just to come up with more anecdotes that are anomalies?

I went away for xmas and have been catching up with the discussion.

I read everyone's opinions and comments with an open mind (really), but I still feel the pro-distance argument is too simplistic and sends the wrong message to young golfers:

"If you don't hit it long, you can't compete."

I also noticed you were giving @4Aces and others a bit of a hard time when they dared to suggest distance might not be quite as important to amateurs as you seem to think, so I thought I would post my story from Burnham and Berrow.

Yes it's just another anecdote, but how many individual cases does it take to make a significant sample?

Maybe you can post some of your stories to illustrate the importance of distance?

A whole lot more than the few you have given.  You were presented data from a large sample set of a wide range of abilities, but you discount it.  $Aces and other went down the same anecdotal path that you did and from the same perspective of golfers of top notch ability and not the general golfer.  They also read the responses as absolutes, as you did, instead of the "distance has a slightly greater effect on lowering scores than accuracy" statements that have been made.

[billchao]

Yes it's just another anecdote, but how many individual cases does it take to make a significant sample?

Thousands. Tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands. Basically anything we can possibly come up with here in this discussion won't be a significant sample.