Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[turtleback]

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.

Sentence 1:  you obviously did not get the point.  Only a gorilla would be trying to hit it 300 at your course, just as only a gorilla would ignore the fact that he is on the green and whap it 400 yards..  It is about paying attention to the whole of the shot.  Something your "extend my drives out to 300 yards and I get in trouble at my course" attempt at an argument failed to do.

Sentence 2:  No one other than you has said anything different except we replace your word "especially" with the word "when".  I would say it as "It is always best to hit it as far as you can taking into account the tightness of the fairway and the distance at which obstacles threaten you.  Try to hit the shot that gives you the best chance of not being in trouble and being as close to the green as possible."

[Aflighter]

I think the man got it right on page one.  Longer hitters tend to be more accurate.  To be a reliable long hitter you need to have some kind of reliable golf swing, which is also a prerequisite to accuracy.  I would rather place a par four drive onto short grass with no trouble between my second shot and the pin than to be 30 yards closer pitching over a greenside bunker.  But I hit either a clear 150  or a 100 - 120 with notable inaccuracy, and thats why I'm stuck on a bogey golf plateau.  Distance versus accuracy off the tee is sort of a false dilemma.  I believe to get under bogey golf I need reliable distance and accuracy with my lofted clubs, which is why I spent more time practicing with lofted clubs this season.

I honestly think that first statement is not true.Ive seen plenty of long hitters to me and i would never say they are more accurate.Just because you can hit it a long way doesnt mean your accurate.

[Dave2512]

"It is always best to hit it as far as you can taking into account the tightness of the fairway and the distance at which obstacles threaten you.  Try to hit the shot that gives you the best chance of not being in trouble and being as close to the green as possible."

This. At the course I played most in 2014 I averaged 8 drivers a round. With 5 par 3's and two short par 4's I usually hit irons from the tee on 7 holes. There are always exceptions. Decisions change as the situation calls for it.

[billchao]

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.

Not this again. Come on man, if you could hit it 300 yards instead of whatever you hit now, you'd aim at a completely different spot down the fairway. Why would you pick a landing spot that isn't in play?

[Ernest Jones]

I think @Somerset Simon is getting too hung up on drivers off the tee. If I'm 150y from the green and I need a 7 iron to get that distance and my buddy is 150y out and can get there with a 9 iron who do you think will be closer on average? Not a one off, once in a lifetime, greatest shot you've ever made but on average? Let's say we both hit ten shots, who is gonna have a closer average? Forget wind, forget sprinkler heads, forget seagulls that deflect your shot, just average it out over ten shots.

Let's say me and my buddy are exactly the same in terms of accuracy. No scratch that, lets say that I am a little more accurate but a shorter hitter. If we're both hitting 7 irons then I will get the better average and win the contest, but here's the thing, we aren't both hitting 7 irons, he is HITTING A 9 IRON because of his length...do you get it now?

The 9 iron is going to have a tighter dispersion than the 7 iron even on Burnham and Berrow even though I am more accurate than him because we are not playing the same club. I would have to be WAY more accurate than him to overcome the difference between a 9i and a 7i.

If you still can't grasp this then I give up.

[CarlSpackler]

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?

Apparently not everyone.

[Osmond]

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.

The longer player would hit a 3-iron or something shorter than driver on this course, it seems. On the tighter holes he'd hit it every yard as long as you with your driver and more accurately. Thus, he'd have an enormous advantage. I find it funny that you think a longer player would lose 5-6 balls and you, hitting it 250 to 270, lose none.

[mvmac]

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

I'd rather go with data than "stories"

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.

Yeah that sounds like your average, typical golf course (sarcasm). Come on dude.

Also as others have pointed out, the longer player still has an advantage.

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

Blame it on the time zone difference.

I honestly think that first statement is not true.Ive seen plenty of long hitters to me and i would never say they are more accurate.Just because you can hit it a long way doesnt mean your accurate.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/738#post_1091220

[misty_mountainhop]

Amazing. 46 pages and counting. Would have thought a single response to the OP (i.e. "Yes!") would have been the end of it....

[Pretzel]

For those having a hard time understanding the concept, picture this:

You and I will play a round together (with strokes for handicap purposes to make it fair, of course) with a slight twist. Every time that I hit a tee shot on a par four or a par five, you will pick my ball up and carry it 20 yards further upon the line that it was traveling in the air (so essentially 20 yards longer with the same number of degrees offline). Would you bet money in such a scenario, where I am given 20 free yards (with the same accuracy) on every tee shot? Keep in mind that all I need to do to avoid allowing you to drop my ball into a hazard on a tight hole is hit a shorter club (that still gets those same 20 free yards) that I can play more accurately.

Alternately, we can play this round in a different manner. Instead of adding 20 yards to every one of my tee shots, we will do something different. This time, every time you hit a tee shot on a par four or five, I will take your ball and move it back towards the tee box by 20 yards maintaining the line the ball traveled on. You will be "more accurate" since your tee shot won't have traveled as far offline, but every approach shot you take will be from 20 yards further back. Would you like to wager any money on this match either?

My point here is that I, and just about every golfer, would take the 20 extra yards. Yes, 20 yards is a fairly large exaggeration, but statistics show that the median PGA tour player (sorry for using tour players as a comparison here, but I don't have data available for the average golfer) are more than 5% more likely to hit a GIR from 125-150 yards than from 150-175 (72.73% versus 67.57%). This is for the best players on the planet, who make a living off of hitting GIR from all ranges. The average golfer will find the 125-150 yard shot much more easy compared to the 150-175 yard shot than the tour pro will, just because amateurs tend to hit their mid to long irons (which a 150-175 yard shot will entail hitting for the same average amateur) worse than they hit their short irons, just because golf isn't easy. Pros hit them both about the same, but the greater distance the ball has to travel just leaves a smaller margin for error.

I'm not advocating that you bomb away with abandon on every course you see. You must carefully weigh the advantage of being closer to the pin versus the penalty of being less accurate (just by virtue of hitting it further, a single degree's error will cause a larger deviation from center) and make the decision that makes your next shot the easiest while also minimizing the risk of hazards or other obstacles that you could hit into.

TLDR:

Just use common sense. If the hole is wide open, bombs away! If the hole has a narrow choke point bordered by hazards, try to either hit it past (if you're capable) or hit short of the choke point to where it's wider. On tight, tree-lined courses don't be swinging for distance only, but retain enough accuracy that you don't get yourself into trouble.

[Aflighter]

For those having a hard time understanding the concept, picture this:

You and I will play a round together (with strokes for handicap purposes to make it fair, of course) with a slight twist. Every time that I hit a tee shot on a par four or a par five, you will pick my ball up and carry it 20 yards further upon the line that it was traveling in the air (so essentially 20 yards longer with the same number of degrees offline). Would you bet money in such a scenario, where I am given 20 free yards (with the same accuracy) on every tee shot? Keep in mind that all I need to do to avoid allowing you to drop my ball into a hazard on a tight hole is hit a shorter club (that still gets those same 20 free yards) that I can play more accurately.

Alternately, we can play this round in a different manner. Instead of adding 20 yards to every one of my tee shots, we will do something different. This time, every time you hit a tee shot on a par four or five, I will take your ball and move it back towards the tee box by 20 yards maintaining the line the ball traveled on. You will be "more accurate" since your tee shot won't have traveled as far offline, but every approach shot you take will be from 20 yards further back. Would you like to wager any money on this match either?

My point here is that I, and just about every golfer, would take the 20 extra yards. Yes, 20 yards is a fairly large exaggeration, but statistics show that the median PGA tour player (sorry for using tour players as a comparison here, but I don't have data available for the average golfer) are more than 5% more likely to hit a GIR from 125-150 yards than from 150-175 (72.73% versus 67.57%). This is for the best players on the planet, who make a living off of hitting GIR from all ranges. The average golfer will find the 125-150 yard shot much more easy compared to the 150-175 yard shot than the tour pro will, just because amateurs tend to hit their mid to long irons (which a 150-175 yard shot will entail hitting for the same average amateur) worse than they hit their short irons, just because golf isn't easy. Pros hit them both about the same, but the greater distance the ball has to travel just leaves a smaller margin for error.

I'm not advocating that you bomb away with abandon on every course you see. You must carefully weigh the advantage of being closer to the pin versus the penalty of being less accurate (just by virtue of hitting it further, a single degree's error will cause a larger deviation from center) and make the decision that makes your next shot the easiest while also minimizing the risk of hazards or other obstacles that you could hit into.

TLDR:

Just use common sense. If the hole is wide open, bombs away! If the hole has a narrow choke point bordered by hazards, try to either hit it past (if you're capable) or hit short of the choke point to where it's wider. On tight, tree-lined courses don't be swinging for distance only, but retain enough accuracy that you don't get yourself into trouble.

I still havent been able to get a round in to do this exact experiment to see how much  difference it would be from my shorter tee ball but i am going to hopefully soon.In theory it seems likes it should lower your score but from what ive said from beginning is you still have to hit the shot and for most players that are not decently low handicapped that extra distance wont help compared to a better player.The better players absolutely will benefit but for high handicappers that are not consistent i dont think it helps as much because they can probably hit a 6 iron just as good as a 8 iron.

[natureboy]

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?

For getting to the pro level or achieving a consistent low handicap, I think that's a true statement...unless you you still hit further than the average golfer and are deadly accurate (Paul Runyan)...or have an otherworldly short game (Mike Weir - whose distance and ~ degrees offline averages are still better than scratch on PGA setups). Your own avg drive and HCP seems to prove the point.

If handicaps are in play (which roughly account for distance / accuracy gaps) for an amateur competition then the person who hits more fairways and greens in or under regulation for the round is probably going to win. The person who hits OB a lot and incurs lots of stroke and distance penalties is probably going to lose, unless the other guy is way shorter.

[iacas]

The better players absolutely will benefit but for high handicappers that are not consistent i dont think it helps as much because they can probably hit a 6 iron just as good as a 8 iron.

Nope. They hit an 8-iron better than their 6.

[Aflighter]

For getting to the pro level or achieving a consistent low handicap, I think that's a true statement...unless you you still hit further than the average golfer and are deadly accurate (Paul Runyan)...or have an otherworldly short game (Mike Weir - whose distance and ~ degrees offline averages are still better than scratch on PGA setups). Your own avg drive and HCP seems to prove the point.

If handicaps are in play (which roughly account for distance / accuracy gaps) for an amateur competition then the person who hits more fairways and greens in or under regulation for the round is probably going to win. The person who hits OB a lot and incurs lots of stroke and distance penalties is probably going to lose, unless the other guy is way shorter.

I can only go off of what ive seen in the many tournaments ive played in and for most part the guys who hit it a good long way had trouble keeping ball in play and that definately helped me as a shorter straight hitter stay with them or beat them.There is times where you have a long hitter who can control his shots fairly well and then your in trouble unless your short game bails you out.

[Aflighter]

Nope. They hit an 8-iron better than their 6.

Sorry i disagree cause thats not always the case with high handicappers.Better more experienced golfers would for sure but im talking about high handicappers that are not consistent and its not a given on any of there clubs.

[iacas]

Sorry i disagree cause thats not always the case with high handicappers.Better more experienced golfers would for sure but im talking about high handicappers that are not consistent and its not a given on any of there clubs.

Nobody said always, but far more often than not, you're simply wrong. Longer, lower lofted clubs increase errors and are hit from farther away.

[mvmac]

Sorry i disagree cause thats not always the case with high handicappers.Better more experienced golfers would for sure but im talking about high handicappers that are not consistent and its not a given on any of there clubs.

Huh?

So if a high handicapper had 140 yards to the hole, you think they would be better off if they walked it back 20 yards?

[DrvFrShow]

@Aflighter I'm a high handicapper, and I'll take a 30 - 60 yd lob shot any day of the year over a full 7 iron. I'll even play it off a tight lie. Why? Because I practiced with the club. I'm learning how to work the club. I encourage high handicappers to learn it. It's fun. I'm even learning how to hit a flop shot. That's a crazy shot. But by spring I'll have it in the arsenal.

I had a discussion with a pro today at the driving range. He agreed that with my handicap my biggest payoff is getting my tee shot as far out as I can on the fairway or in the first cut. That makes the second shot a wedge to 8 iron for 10 holes on the course. I should get more GIRs and thus more pars. I can lag putt pretty well.