Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[saevel25]

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?

There are not enough anecdotes to overturn the sample size of the data that already been collected.

This thread doesn't need stories because the research has already been done. Not stories, actual research.

[Dave2512]

Pretty sure people don't understand the depth of the ShotLink data. Ten plus years of tracking shots and analysis is out there.

[Somerset Simon]

There are not enough anecdotes to overturn the sample size of the data that already been collected.

This thread doesn't need stories because the research has already been done. Not stories, actual research.

But a good theory will have very few counter examples.

I don't have to look very far to find counter examples to the distance trumps accuracy theory.

Therefore, it seems to be quite a weak theory to me.

Whereas you are selling it as the "final word on golf".

I just think it's not so clear cut.

Some players who don't have "enough" length will get better results by focusing on distance.

Others who already have enough length will get better results by focusing on reducing their shot dispersion.

The tipping point will vary depending on lots of factors, course type being very important.

On wide open parkland courses, distance probably does trump accuracy off the tee.

But on tight links courses like Burnham and Berrow, accuracy definitely trumps distance.

Simon

[CarlSpackler]

I would love to try this experiment:

Play several rounds on the same course under similar conditions. Round A would place the ball with a driving distance of about 300 yards and Round B would put the ball at a 240 yard driving distance. You could even give the 240 yard ball more accuracy in terms of hitting the fairway. Count that as 1, then play the hole in to see which ball has the better score.

The 300 yard ball will win most of the time.

[Somerset Simon]

I would love to try this experiment:

Play several rounds on the same course under similar conditions. Round A would place the ball with a driving distance of about 300 yards and Round B would put the ball at a 240 yard driving distance. You could even give the 240 yard ball more accuracy in terms of hitting the fairway. Count that as 1, then play the hole in to see which ball has the better score.

The 300 yard ball will win most of the time.

Not on a course like Burnham & Berrow.

If I extended the flight of my ball to 300 yards, I would probably lose at least 5 or 6 balls per round.

Courses like Burnham & Berrow, you only get ten yards of semi rough, then you're in water or gorse bushes.

[CarlSpackler]

Not on a course like Burnham & Berrow.

If I extended the flight of my ball to 300 yards, I would probably lose at least 5 or 6 balls per round.

Courses like Burnham & Berrow, you only get ten yards of semi rough, then you're in water or gorse bushes.

You are talking about a specific course that sounds like it is short but treacherous. I play many courses that favor placement over distance too. That's where decision needs to come in, but with the "typical" par 4/5 that is straight away with maybe a slight dogleg, distance will win out.

There are holes that would need to be excluded from this experiment such as par 3s, 90* dogleg par 4s, etc.

[Dave2512]

Not on a course like Burnham & Berrow.

If I extended the flight of my ball to 300 yards, I would probably lose at least 5 or 6 balls per round.

Courses like Burnham & Berrow, you only get ten yards of semi rough, then you're in water or gorse bushes.

None of that matters. The fact that you have the ability to hit it as far as you can and land it somewhere behind trouble still rings true for the distance matters argument. Course management is a different topic.

[saevel25]

But a good theory will have very few counter examples.

It isn't a theory it is fact. A theory would be asking, "At what level would the strokes gained by adding 20 yards of distance equal the strokes gained by adding 1 degree of accuracy". Then you go about finding out what level that would be. It has been found out, and has been stated in this thread.

You are specifically looking at outliers and hypothetical examples.

Not on a course like Burnham & Berrow.

If I extended the flight of my ball to 300 yards, I would probably lose at least 5 or 6 balls per round.

Courses like Burnham & Berrow, you only get ten yards of semi rough, then you're in water or gorse bushes.

Still the guy who hits it farther will play better. Why, because even if he is forced to hit the ball 220 yards he will be hitting 4 irons compared to the guy who has to hit driver. He will then be even more accurate than the guy who maxes out at 220 yards.

Distance is a big advantage. Again you are giving specific examples. The data given in this thread is based on thousands of shots taken over many different situations. In the end the golfer still has to adapt to the golf course they play. Yet overall, in the long run an amateur would help his game more by gaining distance.

[turtleback]

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?

Oh they can compete.  They will just lose.  Funny how you keep wanting to use high end golfers in your scenarios, yet in the stats on the highest end golfers of all, PGA tour players, you cannot even get on the list without being very very long.  Justin Leonard was 177th in driving distance for 2014, averaging 270.  270 is longer than 99%of golfers in general.  So it certainly seems like it is true on the PGA tour that if you cannot hit it long you cannot compete, because I do not see anyone averaging 250 making a living on tour.

But a good theory will have very few counter examples.

Not in the field of statistical inference.  Are you sure you know anything about math(s)?

I would love to try this experiment:

Play several rounds on the same course under similar conditions. Round A would place the ball with a driving distance of about 300 yards and Round B would put the ball at a 240 yard driving distance. You could even give the 240 yard ball more accuracy in terms of hitting the fairway. Count that as 1, then play the hole in to see which ball has the better score.

The 300 yard ball will win most of the time.

You didn't need the spoiler tag.  We already knew.

Not on a course like Burnham & Berrow.

If I extended the flight of my ball to 300 yards, I would probably lose at least 5 or 6 balls per round.

Courses like Burnham & Berrow, you only get ten yards of semi rough, then you're in water or gorse bushes.

Now you are getting silly.  Do you really think that someone who can hit it 300 is going to hit driver in that case?  You seem to think this discussion is like the old joke about the golfing gorilla.  He gets to the first tee and WHAP he launches it 400 yards (it was originally 300 yards but with the improvements in equipment, technique and training methods the joke had to be updated) right onto the green.  He gets to the green, lines up his putt, and WHAP, 400 yards.

No one ever said to always hit it as far as you can.  And even on your Burnham course who is going to score better?  The guy who hasn't got much distance and therefore has to hit driver despite the tightness because he cannot afford to drop down to a fairway wood or iron?  Or the guy who has plenty of distance and can play the course by teeing off with fairway woods and irons?  Who is going to score better, the guy hitting 7-iron from 150 or the guy hitting PW from 150?

[golf-noob-bruce]

Distance is a big advantage. Again you are giving specific examples. The data given in this thread is based on thousands of shots taken over many different situations. In the end the golfer still has to adapt to the golf course they play. Yet overall, in the long run an amateur would help his game more by gaining distance.

Seems to me that all amateurs need to do is work on improving their swing and stop worrying about distance vs. accuracy. Improving swing = increased distance and accuracy, right?

[Golfingdad]

Not on a course like Burnham & Berrow.

If I extended the flight of my ball to 300 yards, I would probably lose at least 5 or 6 balls per round.

Courses like Burnham & Berrow, you only get ten yards of semi rough, then you're in water or gorse bushes.

@Somerset Simon I can see that at your course, missing the fairway by only a bit can really harm your score.  I can appreciate that.  I am somebody who struggles to hit the driver straight oftentimes.  I currently average about 260 or so off the tee, hit 1/3 of the fairways, and to top it off, I miss left and right almost equally.  If I play a course like yours, I recognize that if I have an off day, I can get into a lot of trouble.  However, I'm capable of hitting low 3-woods out to 230 or hybrids to 220 or even 4-irons to 210 to keep it in play.

Now, for arguments sake, lets say my buddy is a little weaker than me (say his driver goes 240) but a little straighter.  If I play dumb and keep bombing my driver OB, then I'll probably shoot 95 and lose, but if I dial it back, I can still nearly reach the same spots in the fairway as him, AND have less club coming into the green than him because I'm a longer hitter.  So who's got the advantage in that scenario?  Me, right?

So ask yourself ... is it because I'm more accurate than he is, or is it because I've got a distance cushion that I can use to my advantage?

EDIT:  Seems at @saevel25 and @turtleback beat me to it.  I gotta learn to type faster.

[Somerset Simon]

Oh they can compete.  They will just lose.  Funny how you keep wanting to use high end golfers in your scenarios, yet in the stats on the highest end golfers of all, PGA tour players, you cannot even get on the list without being very very long.  Justin Leonard was 177th in driving distance for 2014, averaging 270.  270 is longer than 99%of golfers in general.  So it certainly seems like it is true on the PGA tour that if you cannot hit it long you cannot compete, because I do not see anyone averaging 250 making a living on tour.

Not in the field of statistical inference.  Are you sure you know anything about math(s)?

You didn't need the spoiler tag.  We already knew.

Now you are getting silly.  Do you really think that someone who can hit it 300 is going to hit driver in that case?  You seem to think this discussion is like the old joke about the golfing gorilla.  He gets to the first tee and WHAP he launches it 400 yards (it was originally 300 yards but with the improvements in equipment, technique and training methods the joke had to be updated) right onto the green.  He gets to the green, lines up his putt, and WHAP, 400 yards.

No one ever said to always hit it as far as you can.  And even on your Burnham course who is going to score better?  The guy who hasn't got much distance and therefore has to hit driver despite the tightness because he cannot afford to drop down to a fairway wood or iron?  Or the guy who has plenty of distance and can play the course by teeing off with fairway woods and irons?  Who is going to score better, the guy hitting 7-iron from 150 or the guy hitting PW from 150?

You're the one getting silly by exaggerating to the point of the gorilla joke.

All I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns from hitting the ball further, especially when there is lots of deep rough, water, trees, etc. waiting for errant shots.

I'm not sure a 240 yard driver is any less accurate than a 240 yard 3-wood, given equally good technique.

If anything, driver will be more accurate because bigger sweet spot and lower spin.

Same goes for 7-iron vs. PW from 150.

The PW will land more softly, but the 7-iron will be less vulnerable to being blown off course by gusts of wind.

Again, you are selling it as the final word in golf, but I think there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides.

[Zeph]

I can hit it a good ways out there when my swing is working, and there is no doubt that the farther I get my drives, tee shots, etc., the better I'm posed to score. Being 120 yards from the green is a advantage from being 150 yards out. As is being 100 instead of 120. If you got a good system on your wedge approach shots and know how to hit less than full wedges, you can score.

But you need to keep the ball in play, that goes without saying. It's no use hitting it 280 yards if you hit it out of bounds. But when you do have the control to keep it in play, go long, but always consider the shot zone and the potential outcomes of going for it. The risk is sometimes greater than what it's worth. Play smart, but play long when you can.

Golf is not a game of absolutes, but if I add all the shots I'm taking during a year of golf, I'll want to try getting it as far as I can on most of the shots that are not approach shots.

[saevel25]

All I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns from hitting the ball further, especially when there is lots of deep rough, water, trees, etc. waiting for errant shots.

Sure there is, but not as extreme as you make it out to be.

Again, NO ONE is saying just go up and hit the ball has hard as possible, or not take into account how the hole is designed. People play too conservative. Get as much distance as possible taking into consideration the shot at hand. Overall, I emphasis overall an amateur will benefit more from hitting the ball further.

Same goes for 7-iron vs. PW from 150.

The PW will land more softly, but the 7-iron will be less vulnerable to being blown off course by gusts of wind.

Again you are nit picking scenarios. Generally speaking a player who hits a PW which would probably 46-48 degrees of loft, about 35.5-35.75 inches long compared to a 7 iron at 32-34 degrees of loft and 36.75 to 37 inches long the PW will be more accurate because it is a shorter club and higher lofted .

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

Not on a course like Burnham & Berrow.

If I extended the flight of my ball to 300 yards, I would probably lose at least 5 or 6 balls per round.

Courses like Burnham & Berrow, you only get ten yards of semi rough, then you're in water or gorse bushes.

@Somerset Simon I can see that at your course, missing the fairway by only a bit can really harm your score.  I can appreciate that.  I am somebody who struggles to hit the driver straight oftentimes.  I currently average about 260 or so off the tee, hit 1/3 of the fairways, and to top it off, I miss left and right almost equally.  If I play a course like yours, I recognize that if I have an off day, I can get into a lot of trouble.  However, I'm capable of hitting low 3-woods out to 230 or hybrids to 220 or even 4-irons to 210 to keep it in play.

Now, for arguments sake, lets say my buddy is a little weaker than me (say his driver goes 240) but a little straighter.  If I play dumb and keep bombing my driver OB, then I'll probably shoot 95 and lose, but if I dial it back, I can still nearly reach the same spots in the fairway as him, AND have less club coming into the green than him because I'm a longer hitter.  So who's got the advantage in that scenario?  Me, right?

So ask yourself ... is it because I'm more accurate than he is, or is it because I've got a distance cushion that I can use to my advantage?

EDIT:  Seems at @saevel25 and @turtleback beat me to it.  I gotta learn to type faster.

Yeah, but you used the term "distance cushion". I like that one.

[Dave2512]

Generally speaking a player who hits a PW which would probably 46-48 degrees of loft, about 35.5-35.75 inches long compared to a 7 iron at 32-34 degrees of loft and 36.75 to 37 inches long the PW will be more accurate because it is a shorter club and higher lofted.

This is the biggest thing the dial it back folks seem to be missing.

[14ledo81]

I'm not sure a 240 yard driver is any less accurate than a 240 yard 3-wood, given equally good technique.

If anything, driver will be more accurate because bigger sweet spot and lower spin.

What about the 240 yard 5 wood?  Or the long hitter than can hit 240 off the tee with an iron?

[boogielicious]

@Somerset Simon

I can counter your anecdotes with other data.  In my golf league of 16 players, the longest hitters have the lowest handicaps.  You can almost linearly match the handicap to distance.  We all play the same course and the same tees.  But round after round, the longer hitters score lower on average.  Why?  Because they are closer to the hole after the tee shot.  Simple.

The same applied to my last league with the exception of one outlier who just tried to bomb it every hole.  He was long with the driver but played stupid.