Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[GHIN0011458]

With those examples you are talking about the extreme right-hand tail of the bell curve of golf abilities.  What is true at the extreme end of the data is not necessarily true for more typical data points.

Also, what you are citing as your measure of accuracy is flawed.  David Toms can miss by 2* and still be in the fairway because the ball didn't reach the rough on that side,   While Rory might only miss the ball by 1.9* but end up in the rough because his ball went far enough to reach it.  A significant part of measuring accuracy is lost if we only go by fairways hit percentage.

This happens to me all the time.  I might be playing with someone and they will boom a really nice looking drive but it rolls out a little too much and it ends up in the rough.  Then I step up and hit my drive and it is on a less accurate line than the other guy's shot, yet I end up in the fairway because my ball was far shorter.  I may have gotten the hit fairway, but his drive was still both longer and more accurate than mine.

How I measure accuracy would be executing my shot to my target. Hitting the fairway is the target. That is accuracy. So if you are longer off the tee and you miss the target 10/10 but I am shorter off the tee and I hit the target 10/10 who is more accurate? The one who hits it the furthest or the one who hits the target? I get that golf is easier when you have a wedge in your hand vs a long iron. I get it and I know that is easier. I don't need a book to realize this. But Longer means more accurate is only relative to an individual because everyone has limitations on how far they can hit it but we can all learn how to hit the ball on the center of the face, which in turn creates more distance and better accuracy. Everyone here is so concerned with distance but I see Jamie Sadlowski shooting 90 in a Nationwide Tour event

I have read Every Shot Counts. I think he spends too much time on numbers and not enough time of strategy or defining simple and practical "rules of thumb" amateur golfers can use.

As far as I can tell, most distance advocates miss the nuances of the distance vs accuracy argument. It's distance WITH A STRATEGY that trumps accuracy. Without the strategy, just focusing on distance will make things worse.

The example he uses is a long fairway with trees down the right side and and expanse of rough on the left side. He says the target off the tee for most golfers should be the left edge of the fairway. For higher handicap players the target should actually be several yards into the rough. That strategy, combined with focusing on distance off the tee is the combo that works.

Simply focusing on distance off the tee trying to hit it right down the middle of the fairway in that situation is a losing strategy compared to focusing on accuracy.

I'm afraid the "distance trumps accuracy" mantra starting to go around will become the new "drive for show, putt for dough." A catch-phrase that people will start blindly following.

To me strategy is the #1 thing that is important at an amateur level. You want to be a good amateur, have a good strategy. Miss on the side of the hole that is going to give you a shot into the green. Hit the ball below the hole, play the percentage shot, etc. Obviously everything I say on this site is wrong because everyone wants to bash it but to me, that is how you score on a golf course. You do not score by hitting the ball as far as possible and putting yourself with the least amount of club. You score from playing smart and knowing your strengths and building a strategy on your strengths. Golf is a game of misses, the one who misses the best wins or something along those lines. Golf isn't a game of grip it and rip it and in turn you will be more accurate. But hey what do I know, everything I say on this site is wrong- I am just going off of my experience playing against the top amateurs in my area.

[RandallT]

To me strategy is the #1 thing that is important at an amateur level. You want to be a good amateur, have a good strategy. Miss on the side of the hole that is going to give you a shot into the green. Hit the ball below the hole, play the percentage shot, etc. Obviously everything I say on this site is wrong because everyone wants to bash it but to me, that is how you score on a golf course. You do not score by hitting the ball as far as possible and putting yourself with the least amount of club. You score from playing smart and knowing your strengths and building a strategy on your strengths. Golf is a game of misses, the one who misses the best wins or something along those lines. Golf isn't a game of grip it and rip it and in turn you will be more accurate. But hey what do I know, everything I say on this site is wrong- I am just going off of my experience playing against the top amateurs in my area.

Again, as I just wrote in a comment above to someone else, I think you've just described the "Shot Zones" concept in the book, "Lowest Score Wins."  If it's different, it's only subtly different.

[GHIN0011458]

Again, as I just wrote in a comment above to someone else, I think you've just described the "Shot Zones" concept in the book, "Lowest Score Wins."  If it's different, it's only subtly different.

I guess I will have to read this book next year after I see that everyone on this site has dropped 3 strokes off their handicap from it.

[Morocco Mako]

I wasn't arguing that strategy was unimportant, I thought I was arguing that it was important.

The larger point I was trying to make was: just as people used to follow the "drive for show, putt for dough" slogan without thinking it through, guys have started to implement the "distance trumps accuracy" slogan without thinking it through. They're just stepping up the ball and going for the long shot in every situation, because "distance trumps accuracy."

It would be like taking the old saying "starve a cold and feed a fever" to it's extreme and not feeding someone for a week, because you were "starving the cold."

[GHIN0011458]

I wasn't arguing that strategy was unimportant, I thought I was arguing that it was important.

The larger point I was trying to make was: just as people used to follow the "drive for show, putt for dough" slogan without thinking it through, guys have started to implement the "distance trumps accuracy" slogan without thinking it through. They're just stepping up the ball and going for the long shot in every situation, because "distance trumps accuracy."

It would be like taking the old saying "starve a cold and feed a fever" to it's extreme and not feeding someone for a week, because you were "starving the cold."

No I agreed with you sorry if that wasn't communicated properly. I was happy that you made that argument.

[Morocco Mako]

I guess I will have to read this book next year after I see that everyone on this site has dropped 3 strokes off their handicap from it.

I'm a voracious reader even by voracious reader standards, but I won't read it until it comes out in electronic format.

I, literally, just got rid of 6 book cabinets of physical books (well over 20 moving boxes worth of books). I doubt I will every buy a physical book again (unless it's a used book I can get at a steep discount). Harder to read (at least for me); more expensive than electronic books; and they take up too much room that I no longer have.

[iacas]

A bunch of OT stuff (including ALL talk about the book - I'm not trying to pitch that) so I'm making ample use of spoilers. I suggest any OT comments that warrant a response be handled by PM.

Please remember one thing: this is a discussion. We all get to speak. Anyone can disagree with anyone else, and so long as it remains outside the realm of behaving poorly, it's all good. It has thus far, so good job so far.

I've read at least two books on Golfmetrics.  It's a fascinating subject, but some of the conclusions from it seem premature- the data is really complicated.  If anything, when I look at the data it made me appreciate more how important it is to practice short putting (and it explains why I've always found short puts in golf simulators so strangely frustrating:  missing from 20 feet makes sense, but why does it seem so easy to miss from only 5 feet?).

Of all of the putts, short putts rank the highest in importance. Amateur golfers miss too many.

But putting - even 3-15 or 3-10 foot putts - ranks far below other skills, namely driving and approach shots.

You can think of those two skills like this:

Driving - Hitting the ball far with accuracy.

Approach - Hitting the ball accurately with distance.

The full swing matters quite a bit more than the short game and/or putting.

Have you read this thread yet? . I don't think you'll find that thread to be "really complicated."

Others have suggested I actually read Lowest Score Wins, and I consider myself an open-minded person and I'd be willing to do that but the price for the book is steep. I don't spend a lot of money on golf, let alone golf reading. Spending time at the driving range a few times a week is my biggest golf expenditure.

It's $29.95. A bunch of people have called it the best golf book written… and only two of the ones I've counted are members here (the suck-ups! ). Top 100 teachers have bought it and loved it. Several golf instructors we know have introduced entire programs based on the book and are making it required reading. We've sold batches of 50 to 100 at a time to head pros who are giving it out to their members as Christmas gifts.

This thread isn't about the book (this one is: , and so is this product listing: ), so I'm hiding this in a spoiler. I could talk all day about the positive feedback we've gotten. This thread isn't about that, and the last thing I care to do is to beat people over the head with the book.

So the last thing I'll say about it is that nobody writes a book to get rich. At this point, counting the time spent, I'm probably nearing a buck an hour. I wrote the book for the same reason I write so much here, for free - I want to help people get better and enjoy the game of golf. I charge for the book because my wife makes me.

In my own case I feel putting more emphasis on the short game is helping my driving, but when I first started out I ignored pitching and chipping altogether.  For one thing, short game practice is cheap- you can pitch and chip balls for hours on a pitching green and most golfers just seem to ignore that area altogether.  A lot of people take those stick-and-ball coordination skills for granted, but that is something you learn practicing those short shots ( that's particularly important if, like me, you have minimal athletics background- the only hand eye coordination I got as a kid was video games and a little bit of tossing a ball back and forth with a mitt- I was horrible at stick and ball games, badmitton was about my limit).   And I feel like the sensitivity I pick up trying to chip balls close to the hole might be translating to greater sensitivity to a moving clubhead on the driving range when you start feeling the club as an extension of your body rather than some foreign object you merely hold on to.   And lastly, its easier on your body because things are moving less, so that can translate into longer practice.

This isn't really the topic here, but ever so briefly: chipping can help you with the full swing, particularly if your hand-eye coordination is poor, but there's a lot more that needs work in your full swing than hand-eye coordination… Plus, consider this: hand-eye coordination is made a HELL of a lot more difficult when your head is moving all around . (Key #1, man, and the only thing several people have tried to talk to you about in your My Swing thread).

I have read Every Shot Counts. I think he spends too much time on numbers and not enough time of strategy or defining simple and practical "rules of thumb" amateur golfers can use.

I agree. I think you'll like the Shot Zone/Decision Map concept in LSW.

I'm afraid the "distance trumps accuracy" mantra starting to go around will become the new "drive for show, putt for dough." A catch-phrase that people will start blindly following.

Simple answer: nobody here is saying that. Nor is anyone saying "distance trumps strategy."

Distance and accuracy are both important, but within the extremes, distance generally has a larger impact on shooting lower scores. The "within extremes" part covers the guy who hits it 290 but hits half his drives OB, and the guy who hits every fairway and can hit the green from 200 with his 4W 70% of the time, but only pokes it out there 225. They're extreme, or another way, exceptions. The "generally" covers the chart I listed above with a trend line showing that when measured the way it's measured in the chart, two things become generally true: longer hitters tend to be more accurate, longer hitters shoot lower scores. Generally, again, as even I have now pointed out that the chart leaves plenty of room for the longer, more accurate 100s golfer and the shorter, less accurate 80s golfer. Those are the exceptions, once again, however.

How I measure accuracy would be executing my shot to my target. Hitting the fairway is the target. That is accuracy. So if you are longer off the tee and you miss the target 10/10 but I am shorter off the tee and I hit the target 10/10 who is more accurate?

Surely you would agree that's an incredibly shallow, simplified way of looking at the problem of playing golf and shooting lower scores.

If hitting 14/14 fairways leaves you an average of 160 yards from the green, and hitting 0/14 fairways leaves you an average of 130 yards from the green from light rough, you can already see how it's not as simple as "this is accuracy." Never mind the fact that sometimes a golfer's target is in the rough, and that even between Bubba Watson and David Toms, one guy doesn't hit 14 more fairways than the other… he hits two more, while giving up ~40 yards to do it, and you can start to see how the idea of "accuracy" as measured by hitting fairways breaks down.

I'll make up a hypothetical, which I hate doing, but which seems to be how you see things.

One  golfer, we'll call him Bubba, hits it 300 yards and misses the center of the fairway by an average of 21 yards.

Another golfer, we'll call him David, hits it 200 yards and misses the center of the fairway by only 14 yards on average.

Both golfers are equally as accurate, if we measure by degrees, but Bubba hits fewer fairways than David.

Bubba, though, has 300 yards on tap. It's what he does. Odds are, though, that he can out-David David by, for example, hitting a 5-iron instead of a driver. Let's imagine Bubba's five-iron goes 200 yards and misses the target by an average of eight yards.

Now who is the more "accurate" golfer?

Let's imagine that David is granted one wish by a genie, and he wishes to drive the ball 300 yards with the same accuracy as he has now. The genie, a literal son of a gun, grants him this wish… but every other club David hits the same distance as before.

Both golfers average 160 yards to the green on par fours with their identical driving distance and accuracy. From 160 Bubba hits a pitching wedge, which he hits on the green 90% of the time to an average proximity of 24 feet. David has to hit a 7-iron, which he hits on the green 80% of the time to an average proximity of 27'.

Again, now who is the more "accurate" golfer?

Distance has its advantages. Nobody here is arguing that it is the ONLY thing to worry about. But, again, inside of the extremes, distance matters a little bit more than accuracy.

I get that golf is easier when you have a wedge in your hand vs a long iron. I get it and I know that is easier. I don't need a book to realize this. But Longer means more accurate is only relative to an individual because everyone has limitations on how far they can hit it but we can all learn how to hit the ball on the center of the face, which in turn creates more distance and better accuracy.

Nobody is saying that.

You seem to be confusing one of three things (or a combination) in saying that.

1. I have said that better golfers tend to not only hit the ball farther, but more accurately (as measured in degrees). That tends to be true. There are obviously exceptions, but the trend line shows this to be true: longer hitters tend to be more accurate. Hitting a golf ball is a skill, and you rarely improve at one part of that skill while not improving at the other part(s).
2. Golfers will, in general, hit more greens (another way to measure accuracy) from closer to the green, even if they're in the rough 10 or 20% more often. How do you get closer to the green? You hit it farther off the tee. This is another way distance can lead to an increase in "accuracy."
3. Golfers will also, in general, be more accurate with a higher lofted club. If you can hit your PW 160 yards with a comfortable swing, while another golfer needs a 7-iron from there, odds are the guy hitting PW will be "more accurate" than the guy hitting 7I.

Nobody is saying that if you hit it longer you're also going to be magically more accurate.

Everyone here is so concerned with distance but I see Jamie Sadlowski shooting 90 in a Nationwide Tour event.

Long driving is a different sport. Not a lot of 8-irons or pitch shots hit in a long drive contest.

But I see that too. Here's what else I see, from people who aren't spending 51 weeks a year competing in a related but different sport: David Toms mustering two top-ten finishes in 2014, while Bubba Watson - a player who is decidedly worse around and on the greens and is "far less accurate" by fairway hit % - winning twice, including a major. A major in which David Toms wasn't even invited…

And I'm only using those two because they were brought up before (by you perhaps). I'm still not a fan of exceptions. That's why, generally speaking, longer hitters have the advantage - at every level of the game. Accuracy matters, duh, but generally a bit less than distance.

Given a large enough sample size, the trend exists across the spectrum of golfers. Just remember I'm not just talking about driving distance (though I would wager that the same correlation would hold, just that it would be a bit weaker).

Miss on the side of the hole that is going to give you a shot into the green.

… even if it means going into the rough a little sometimes.

Hit the ball below the hole, play the percentage shot

It out that's far less important than getting the ball close to the hole, particularly on short game shots. If you'd rather have an eight-footer up the hill than a six-footer downhill or across the hill, I have data to show that's not the "percentage play."

Obviously everything I say on this site is wrong because everyone wants to bash it but to me, that is how you score on a golf course.

Please drop the "I'm a victim" act. Nobody is saying to "bash it" and nobody's bashing you, either. Plus, if you can hit your 4-iron 240, of course you see things a bit differently because you already have a good amount of distance. It can reach a point of diminishing returns, of course, and that point can vary from player to player, course to course, even shot to s

I'm also comfortable saying that I've spent more time looking at "how you can score on a golf course" than you have, and the co-author of the book spent more time playing at a significantly higher level than you have, too. He knows a bit about scoring on the golf course too…

You do not score by hitting the ball as far as possible and putting yourself with the least amount of club. You score from playing smart and knowing your strengths and building a strategy on your strengths. Golf is a game of misses, the one who misses the best wins or something along those lines. Golf isn't a game of grip it and rip it and in turn you will be more accurate. But hey what do I know, everything I say on this site is wrong- I am just going off of my experience playing against the top amateurs in my area.

Nobody is saying either of those things.

But hey what do I know, everything I say on this site is wrong- I am just going off of my experience playing against the top amateurs in my area.

Quick question: do you feel that you have nothing to learn from others? Why?

I ask because you seem to believe that you know as much as anyone else.

I guess I will have to read this book next year after I see that everyone on this site has dropped 3 strokes off their handicap from it.

Several people have done just that. College programs are using the concepts. Amateurs are shooting their best scores. We've had players win club championships after reading the book, high school golfers win their state championship, etc. Not bad for a book that came out in June.

You care about golf. Clearly. Are you willing to bet $29 that you're completely right about everything? Because that's kind of what you're doing. You're saying that there is literally nothing in the book you won't learn, because at your level, you can win $29 back in one morning and double it in the afternoon. Are you willing to bet that we don't have a single nugget worth learning?

Fine by me if you think that way. I think you're wrong, though, and I have the advantage of knowing what's in the book.

The larger point I was trying to make was: just as people used to follow the "drive for show, putt for dough" slogan without thinking it through, guys have started to implement the "distance trumps accuracy" slogan without thinking it through. They're just stepping up the ball and going for the long shot in every situation, because "distance trumps accuracy."

Again, nobody's really doing that, or arguing for that in this thread.

I'm a voracious reader even by voracious reader standards, but I won't read it until it comes out in electronic format.

You may be waiting awhile. The publisher may or may not push out a digital version any time soon. Speaking bluntly, that seems like an awfully silly thing to hold to on principle. Physical books still have their place - they don't need charging, you can read them in sunlight, it's easier to grab them and look up the folded page you made or to highlight things and go back to them, or scribble in the margins, or loan to a friend. I have a Kindle and an iPad… I read lots of books on my Kindle, in particular. But… I buy books, too, because some books are better in their physical form.

And lest you think I'm arguing for it because I'm getting rich off the book, well, let's just say I can't go to Starbucks on the profits of a single book sale. I honestly feel as though you're missing out. If you don't want a physical book that you have to store somewhere… buy it, read it, take some notes, and give it to a friend for Christmas.

[Lihu]

I guess I will have to read this book next year after I see that everyone on this site has dropped 3 strokes off their handicap from it.

15.6 to 13.7 in a few months, and I'm still working on stuff in the first third of the book.

I anticipate a few more strokes by the time I get through the strategy concepts and short game.

[Golfingdad]

I guess I will have to read this book next year after I see that everyone on this site has dropped 3 strokes off their handicap from it.

I believe that the book came out in June?

It's not exactly 3 strokes (but it's close) ... Also, consider that some of the concepts in the book, I got a head start on by reading it on here or going to clinics with the authors.  If I'm allowed to count that in my total, then I'm waaaaaaay beyond 3 dropped strokes (closer to 5).

[Jeremie Boop]

15.6 to 13.7 in a few months, and I'm still working on stuff in the first third of the book.

I anticipate a few more strokes by the time I get through the strategy concepts and short game.

No no, you don't understand. EVERYONE has to drop 3 strokes because of the book. I don't understand why, but I guess that's the only way the book could possibly have something of use to him. I am not sure why there is such a misunderstanding here. Distance doesn't mean "how far you hit the driver" it's how far you can hit every club. The lower the club you have in your hands for any particular shot the more accurate you are likely to be. Thus, distance will improve your game. You get distance from improving your swing, improving your swing will generally improve your accuracy also. It's a rather simple logic.

[Lihu]

I believe that the book came out in June?

It's not exactly 3 strokes (but it's close) ...   Also, consider that some of the concepts in the book, I got a head start on by reading it on here or going to clinics with the authors.  If I'm allowed to count that in my total, then I'm waaaaaaay beyond 3 dropped strokes (closer to 5).

No no, you don't understand. EVERYONE has to drop 3 strokes because of the book. I don't understand why, but I guess that's the only way the book could possibly have something of use to him. I am not sure why there is such a misunderstanding here. Distance doesn't mean "how far you hit the driver" it's how far you can hit every club. The lower the club you have in your hands for any particular shot the more accurate you are likely to be. Thus, distance will improve your game. You get distance from improving your swing, improving your swing will generally improve your accuracy also. It's a rather simple logic.

Actually , I dropped 14 strokes with the concepts written into the first 2 or 3 chapters of the book. Basically, I was probably closer to a 28 handicap when I first joined this site, I really had no idea what it was.

So, I can average out 4 other players who see no change due to the book and still make about 3 strokes per golfer.

[coachjimsc]

Question for the OP. Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

What would your score difference be playing from the tees at 5000 yds vs the tees from 6000 yds?

Would you score better on a 250 yd Par 4 than a 400 yd Par 4?

Why are slope rating and course ratings higher from the longer distance?

Seems pretty simple to me. You score better on the shorter holes because your approach shots are not as far. You have the same short game skills at both distances. It will take you more shots before you get to the short game skills however.

[14ledo81]

Question for the OP. Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

What would your score difference be playing from the tees at 5000 yds vs the tees from 6000 yds?

Would you score better on a 250 yd Par 4 than a 400 yd Par 4?

Why are slope rating and course ratings higher from the longer distance?

Seems pretty simple to me. You score better on the shorter holes because your approach shots are not as far. You have the same short game skills at both distances. It will take you more shots before you get to the short game skills however.

Good post.  Very clear and (IMO) unarguable points.

[No Mulligans]

Just considering the question:  "Is distance important for amateurs?"

Taking this in a different direction.  As one ages and/or has certain health challenges that create physical challenges it is natural that one would lose distance.  So I'd rephrase the question:

Is golf enjoyable when you don't have the ability to be a long hitter?

Certainly it is still enjoyable.  Maybe you shy away from the long courses or play the forward tees.  Perhaps you adjust your expectation on what kind of HI you can achieve.

Also, I'd bet that frustration has a lot to do with some quitting the game.  If you are a short but straight consistent hitter then I'd think you'd have very little frustration playing golf.

[chasm]

Just considering the question:  "Is distance important for amateurs?" Taking this in a different direction.  As one ages and/or has certain health challenges that create physical challenges it is natural that one would lose distance.  So I'd rephrase the question: Is golf enjoyable when you don't have the ability to be a long hitter? Certainly it is still enjoyable.  Maybe you shy away from the long courses or play the forward tees.  Perhaps you adjust your expectation on what kind of HI you can achieve. Also, I'd bet that frustration has a lot to do with some quitting the game.  If you are a short but straight consistent hitter then I'd think you'd have very little frustration playing golf.

Up to a point. I'm no spring chicken myself, but so far not so decrepit that I can't get the ball down the track. But I play with some older guys, and one of them very much fits the description you give. I hit my 7-iron as far as he hits his driver, but he's never out of the fairway, chips and putts pretty well, and generally gets round in close to bogey figures. So far, so good. Has he "very little frustration"? Certainly not. I never play with him without him bemoaning the fact that he can't hit the ball like he used to. If I say "good shot" he invariably says "but it didn't go very far, did it?" However, he's still out there...

[Aflighter]

It really depends on what your trying to accomplish and how well you strike the ball.Hitting the ball 270 plus compared to 220 or so doesn't mean jack if your ball striking isn't decent.If your trying to shoot par or under then distance is important but not if you cant chip or putt.An amateur that would be happy with a 76-82 score doesn't have to hit the ball more than 220 off the tee in fact it will keep big numbers off scorecard unless he just hits irons bad or cant putt.Some of the courses we play in our tournaments you will take 150 from green in fairway anyday compared to 120 in that rough.Your not hitting out of some of that rough no matter how close you are.It all comes down to how well you hit ball simply.

[MrFlipper]

Up to a point. I'm no spring chicken myself, but so far not so decrepit that I can't get the ball down the track. But I play with some older guys, and one of them very much fits the description you give. I hit my 7-iron as far as he hits his driver, but he's never out of the fairway, chips and putts pretty well, and generally gets round in close to bogey figures.

So far, so good. Has he "very little frustration"? Certainly not. I never play with him without him bemoaning the fact that he can't hit the ball like he used to. If I say "good shot" he invariably says "but it didn't go very far, did it?"

However, he's still out there...

Sounds familiar.

Used to play with a bunch of older guys, rarely did you see a golfer break 90 once they were over eighty.

One older guy I was really close to quit about 80 years old, had some vertigo issues but the biggest problem was he knew what shots to hit but couldn't anymore. A decent drive was 150. It was no fun for him shooting 95 all the time when he'd always been a 8-12 handicapper. Can't blame him.

[No Mulligans]

See the chart above. Longer hitters are more accurate. Hitting a golf ball is a skill. As you get "better" at it, you tend to not only hit the ball farther, but more accurately as well. Hitting a golf ball is a skill. As you get "better" at it, you tend to not only hit the ball more accurately, but farther as well. See what I did there? :)

And they score lower.

My hypothesis:

If you took the population of players and made two subgroups; 1) those that drive 210 or less and, 2) those that drive 250 or more.

Subgroup 1 compared to group 2 on average; hasn't played as many lifetime rounds, hasn't taken as much instruction, hasn't practiced as much, hasn't practiced as effectively, doesn't play as frequently, isn't as athletic, isn't as tall, doesn't have as good of a short game, doesn't have as good of course strategy skills.

If all that is true, and I think it is, then of course someone who drives further scores lower.  And, it isn't only because they drive further.