Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[iacas]

3 hours ago, bones75 said:

This also suggests that if you're debating teeing off with the goals of a 135 yard approach or a 190 yard approach, you only gain a 6% increase in making a bird.  While the risk of getting another 55 yards off the tee might very well be a >6% chance of making bogey.  For many of us 55 yards is the difference between a long iron/short wood and a driver.

That's for PGA Tour players. Your odds of making a birdie from 190 are not 13%.

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, bones75 said:

This also suggests that if you're debating teeing off with the goals of a 135 yard approach or a 190 yard approach, you only gain a 6% increase in making a bird.  While the risk of getting another 55 yards off the tee might very well be a >6% chance of making bogey.  For many of us 55 yards is the difference between a long iron/short wood and a driver.

The point of the post was to just illustrate that the closer you get to the hole the better chance you have of making a lower score.

[bones75]

 

2 hours ago, mvmac said:

The point of the post was to just illustrate that the closer you get to the hole the better chance you have of making a lower score.

Yea, i get that.  Just saying the counterpoint from the same data suggests that if there's marginal improvement of scoring (whether par>birdie or bogey>par for us amateurs) from a gain of X yards, that you shouldn't go for distance in that case.

Pretty much repeating what's already been said 100x on this thread.. haha.  Just funny I thought that the chart shown illustrates both points quite well.

Edited December 7, 2015 by bones75

[pganapathy]

Distance matters.  I would always prefer hitting a full 9 iron into a green than a full 7 iron.

That being said, distance must be paired with accuracy.  Being long and extremely wild off the tee only really works if you have the short game skills of Seve or Phil.

The proviso is distance also depends on the course you play.  My home course is fairly short and if I drive 250 or 300 does not make a huge difference except on a few holes.  I say this because the shorter holes mean I am hitting half or quarter a PW into the green.  I would rather hit a full PW than attempt to control distance.  I find it easier to make a mess of a half shot than a full shot, mostly because I tend to get too cute with it.

[RandallT]

32 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

I would rather hit a full PW than attempt to control distance.  I find it easier to make a mess of a half shot than a full shot, mostly because I tend to get too cute with it.

You might browse around and challenge this thought. There's a wealth of info here on the forum that suggests we are typically better off hitting partial PWs than full shots. Fix the cuteness and you'll be fine.

[saevel25]

44 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

I would rather hit a full PW than attempt to control distance.  I find it easier to make a mess of a half shot than a full shot, mostly because I tend to get too cute with it.

I agree with @RandallT on this one.

When I go to my game golf page. If I look at the 25-50 range, I get this image.

When I look at my 100-125 range I get this image.


Notice how much tighter the dispersion is horizontally. I kinda suck with regards to distance control, but that is more easily obtained than trying to improve your horizontal accuracy on a full shot. 
 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, pganapathy said:

That being said, distance must be paired with accuracy.  Being long and extremely wild off the tee…

Longer hitters tend to be more accurate hitters, too. They're just better golfers overall.

2 hours ago, pganapathy said:

I say this because the shorter holes mean I am hitting half or quarter a PW into the green.  I would rather hit a full PW than attempt to control distance.  I find it easier to make a mess of a half shot than a full shot, mostly because I tend to get too cute with it.

You really should just buy LSW. Call it a Christmas present to yourself. Or a holiday present. Or a golf present.

[billchao]

8 hours ago, bones75 said:

Yea, i get that.  Just saying the counterpoint from the same data suggests that if there's marginal improvement of scoring (whether par>birdie or bogey>par for us amateurs) from a gain of X yards, that you shouldn't go for distance in that case.

You're not taking into account the reverse side of the coin. What's the likelihood of an amateur making par vs bogey or worse from an approach of 130 vs 190?

If a person is such a poor driver of the ball that they need to consider laying up to 190 from the tee, they're probably not going to make par from there either.

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I agree with @RandallT on this one.

When I go to my game golf page. If I look at the 25-50 range, I get this image.

When I look at my 100-125 range I get this image.


Notice how much tighter the dispersion is horizontally. I kinda suck with regards to distance control, but that is more easily obtained than trying to improve your horizontal accuracy on a full shot. 
 

Come on Matt, we all know 100 is still a half wedge for you 

[mvmac]

3 hours ago, pganapathy said:

I would rather hit a full PW than attempt to control distance.  I find it easier to make a mess of a half shot than a full shot, mostly because I tend to get too cute with it.

Closer you are to the hole  the better chance you have of making a lower score. As others said, check out some other threads or read the last few pages of this one. Highly recommend you get Lowest Score Wins.

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, pganapathy said:

Distance matters.  I would always prefer hitting a full 9 iron into a green than a full 7 iron.

That being said, distance must be paired with accuracy.  Being long and extremely wild off the tee only really works if you have the short game skills of Seve or Phil.

The proviso is distance also depends on the course you play.  My home course is fairly short and if I drive 250 or 300 does not make a huge difference except on a few holes.  I say this because the shorter holes mean I am hitting half or quarter a PW into the green.  I would rather hit a full PW than attempt to control distance.  I find it easier to make a mess of a half shot than a full shot, mostly because I tend to get too cute with it.

I would go with longer distances no matter what.

If you are playing a shorter course you would be simply teeing off with shorter clubs. Driving 300 versus 250 implies that 3W is 270 versus 230 and hybrid is 250 versus 220.

I often tee of with 3W or even Hybrid on shorter 275 to 360 yard par 4 holes. Typically, 380 and longer are more open holes, and driver can come out comfortably.

The PW comment was already addressed by others, but I agree with others that I would rather hit into 50-80 yards versus 100-125 yards.

[vangator]

Man, this thread has a life of it's own!

Distance is king if you can somewhat control it.  When I play a shorter hole, if the trouble isn't too bad, I hit the big dog.  I only back off to a 3 wood when a driver would be too dangerous.  A smoothe 3W is 235, and a smoothe driver is only 20-30 yards more usually, but that could equate to a couple of clubs difference.  A hammered driver is a lot more.

The muni I play has lots of trees, but they aren't dense, so a shot in the trees can be played, but usually with some sort of creative shot.  I'd rather not do that, so I don't pull a driver out all the time.  The high grass (waist high) has herds of rattlesnakes, so that also factors in.  I don't even look for those.

[DrvFrShow]

23 hours ago, iacas said:

That's for PGA Tour players. Your odds of making a birdie from 190 are not 13%.

My odds of hitting the green from 190 yds are about 20:1.  Therefore my odds of making birdie on anything other than a par 5 hole from 190 is < 1%. I would have to chip it in from about 25 yds. off either side of the hole.

The solution is to get better off the tee so I'm not hitting a hybrid or 4 iron for the second shot toward a par 4. 

The fact of the matter is that my best holes were always set up by a solid tee shot, or one that put me in a position where I was hitting an 8 iron or shorter for my approach shot. 

@pganapathy If you're unsure about partial wedge shots practice them. When you're at the range, use part of your bucket and practice hitting them to targets. Don't get cute with them. Just go through your shot routine and hit them with follow through. Deceleration instead of follow through is typically the cause of death on these shots. I use full wedge shots mostly for PW and GW, but for my SW through my 64 wedge, I'll do full (90 yds) through chips with my SW, 60 yd & 50 yd lobs with my LW; and 50, 40, 25 yd lobs with my 64.

[pganapathy]

@DrvFrShow, @Lihu, @mvmac, @billchao, @iacas, @saevel25, @RandallT, I agree with all of you that being closer to the green should result in lower scores, but for some strange reason, I can hit the PW a lot better than the SW or LW.  Maybe it is trying to be too cute, deceleration, lack of confidence, I don't know.  Yes, with practice I would rather be closer than hitting a full PW in, but that is the current status of my game.  I tend to find distance control suffers from 30-80 yards, but get inside that and I am pretty accurate, which is why my handicap is around a 12 or so.  Once I fix that I reckon I should be a high single digit handicapper.

I also agree that distance does matter and agree that provided you are reasonably accurate, you should always try for the greater distance

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, pganapathy said:

@DrvFrShow, @Lihu, @mvmac, @billchao, @iacas, @saevel25, @RandallT, I agree with all of you that being closer to the green should result in lower scores, but for some strange reason, I can hit the PW a lot better than the SW or LW.  Maybe it is trying to be too cute, deceleration, lack of confidence, I don't know.  Yes, with practice I would rather be closer than hitting a full PW in, but that is the current status of my game.  I tend to find distance control suffers from 30-80 yards, but get inside that and I am pretty accurate, which is why my handicap is around a 12 or so.  Once I fix that I reckon I should be a high single digit handicapper.

I also agree that distance does matter and agree that provided you are reasonably accurate, you should always try for the greater distance

The only thing I was getting at is that the left right dispersion is usually much better the closer you are, and the front back should be better. In your case, it's strange that a 125 yard approach would be more accurate than a 50 yard approach.

Try using a pendulum type swing (bump and run) with your PW. Guessing you can roll the green even if you can't actually hit it? LW is a difficult club to hit without blading and allows for nice soft landings, but it's a more advanced club to use.

[billchao]

6 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

@DrvFrShow, @Lihu, @mvmac, @billchao, @iacas, @saevel25, @RandallT, I agree with all of you that being closer to the green should result in lower scores, but for some strange reason, I can hit the PW a lot better than the SW or LW.  Maybe it is trying to be too cute, deceleration, lack of confidence, I don't know.  Yes, with practice I would rather be closer than hitting a full PW in, but that is the current status of my game.  I tend to find distance control suffers from 30-80 yards, but get inside that and I am pretty accurate, which is why my handicap is around a 12 or so.  Once I fix that I reckon I should be a high single digit handicapper.

I also agree that distance does matter and agree that provided you are reasonably accurate, you should always try for the greater distance

I don't know your game but I have a feeling you are being affected by confirmation bias or your expectations are off or something. It doesn't take much to "feel" a partial wedge to a certain distance and as a 12, you should be able to get it really quickly.

@saevel25 shared some of his Game Golf data and I'll share mine. He's a much better golfer than I am and even my data shows the same relationship:

 

[collapse]

It's difficult to gain feel when the big muscles are saying one thing and the little ones another.I suggest getting the little muscles (ie wrists) out of the equation.

[Marty2019]

I would rather hit my tee shot 220 yards in the middle of the fairway and have a nice clear 5-iron to the green than hit it 250 yards and have a 7 iron off pine straw under a tree branch and over a greenside bunker.    Plus, there's the pace of play issue.   I play with guys that hit it way longer than I do, but they spend an inordinate amount of time looking for their ball.   We had to let a group of women through one time, and they hit it 120 in the fairway, laid up 120, 120 to the green, and sunk the putt for par and off to the next hole.  They were flying along.   Sure, I envy guys who can hit it 330 yards, but since I am 62 years old, I am happy hitting it 220 in the fairway, shooting 82 and staying out of the way of the other groups out there.   Who cares if you can hit the ball 300 yards when half the time it lands on I-295? 

 

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, collapse said:

It's difficult to gain feel when the big muscles are saying one thing and the little ones another.I suggest getting the little muscles (ie wrists) out of the equation.

It's very difficult to get to an 11 or 12 if someone is casting like you suggest. . .