Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[newtogolf]

Yes, but you would still be hurt by the lack of distance.

Somebody who hits 300 yard drives and consistently shoots par from the tips of a 7k course is likely going to have a +2-ish handicap.

Somebody who hits it 210 and shoots par from tees that are 5200 yards long is going to have a handicap somewhere in the realm of -5.

I don't dispute anything you're saying.  I was just excluding age from the general rule since it's not likely a good golfer who's lost distance due to age is ever going to be able to regain the distance he lost.  In their case they either accept scoring higher or play from shorter tees but their handicap will go up no matter what.

[Lihu]

No need to apologize, this is just an interesting and healthy discussion from my perspective.

Yes I would definitely expect a correlation between your HI and your distance..

But the causation?  I would think that is due to all the work you've put in, time you've spent, instruction you've received and technique improvements (and others things I wouldn't know of like strength increase? improved flexibility?).  I would suggest all that is what caused your lower HI.

And, that also led to better distance (and probably better accuracy and a better short game).

I do think the distance correlation to HI is important information, it does help one focus on what to practice.  Swing technique, or the 5sk, which will inevitable lead to better distance and other things.  But distance is not one of the 5SK's.

I will say that when I started up on this site, I was hitting 200-400 balls per day. This was a successful weight loss scheme (30 pounds shed), but not so good at improving my game. During the last year, I have spend a good deal doing the drills assigned to me, then the last 3-4 months, I probably spent less than 5% of my time on a driving range or practicing. So, I don't really hit that many balls.

What I am doing is less work than I did before, and more focused on my priorities (mirror work or camera work, drills) for about 10-15 minutes a day. I play golf for about 2-3 hours a day. Not that much actual practice so much as walking.

[No Mulligans]

I will say that when I started up on this site, I was hitting 200-400 balls per day. This was a successful weight loss scheme (30 pounds shed), but not so good at improving my game.

[iacas]

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.

Chipping and putting does not matter that much.

Please look into this.

LSW has a story about a pro playing golf with an 80s or 90s golfer. The one team has the am hit every shot that isn't a full swing, and vice versa for the other team. The one where the pro hits the full swing shots team still shoots about par… the other team doesn't get close.

Someone else can post the specifics. I'm heading out to a soccer game.

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.

I'm not sure what your point is there… Nobody is saying that the longer hitters probably aren't younger, more experienced, with lower scores, etc.

The last sentence, I have a little thought experiment for you below. Except it's not really an experiment because the answer is pretty obvious.

What Broadie's data show is that distance matters a bit more - the line is flatter so you get lower potential score with smaller distance gains vs. improving accuracy. Wildness or a big miss matters a lot in this because you lose both accuracy and distance (not to mention strokes) if you are well offline. Another poster on the forum explained it well. For a particular player's dispersion pattern (degrees offline), placing him closer to the hole (while still having a shot) reduces the average distance the next shot will end up from the hole, which will lead to lower average scores.

Yup.

Yes I would definitely expect a correlation between your HI and your distance..

But the causation?  I would think that is due to all the work you've put in, time you've spent, instruction you've received and technique improvements (and others things I wouldn't know of like strength increase? improved flexibility?).  I would suggest all that is what caused your lower HI.

Though "Experiment":

If I picked every tee shot you hit - same player, no added abilities or practice or lessons - and threw it 25 yards farther than it went on every tee shot… you'd shoot about three strokes lower than you average now. And that's just throwing your ball 14 times a round, not adding distance to EVERY club in your bag.

Three strokes just like that. You're entirely the same golfer.

But distance is not one of the 5SK's.

No, but each of the Keys plays a role in giving the golfer all the distance they can. We can't make "distance" a Key because the Keys need to be "achievable" and "hitting the ball as far as your physique and muscles and talent allow" is an awfully long name for a Key.

Key #1 is about the torso turn, for example, which has a BIG role in hitting the ball farther. We regularly allow golfers to hit the ball farther by improving their swing via the 5SK.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Yes, but you would still be hurt by the lack of distance.

Somebody who hits 300 yard drives and consistently shoots par from the tips of a 7k course is likely going to have a +2-ish handicap.

Somebody who hits it 210 and shoots par from tees that are 5200 yards long is going to have a handicap somewhere in the realm of -5.

I don't dispute anything you're saying.  I was just excluding age from the general rule since it's not likely a good golfer who's lost distance due to age is ever going to be able to regain the distance he lost.  In their case they either accept scoring higher or play from shorter tees but their handicap will go up no matter what.

I thought so too but not according to a late 60's former +2 handicapper I recently play with.   He told me that he gained distance as he aged.  How?  He told me that equipment (club, ball) help add distance and he is hitting further now than ever.  But I think once one reaches 70, even the new equipment can't help.  I will find out in 17 years or so.

BTW, IMO, the OP's usage of word "that" in "that important"  and "amateur" makes the question way to subjective to offer any reasonable answer.   It's like boiling fish in the ocean.

[newtogolf]

I thought so too but not according to a late 60's former +2 handicapper I recently play with.   He told me that he gained distance as he aged.  How?  He told me that equipment (club, ball) help add distance and he is hitting further now than ever.  But I think once one reaches 70, even the new equipment can't help.  I will find out in 17 years or so.

BTW, IMO, the OP's usage of word "that" in "that important"  and "amateur" makes the question way to subjective to offer any reasonable answer.   It's like boiling fish in the ocean.

I hope that's true as it means I still have a shot at driving the ball 300 yards without needing hurricane winds at my back on a rock hard fairway that slopes downhill.

[Yukari]

Isn't this why Tiger was winning so many tournaments during early part of his career? He had so much advantage with his length that he over powered most of the courses even though he wasn't the most accurate player. Having a wedge instead of a 5 iron for approach shots does more for scoring than accuracy. Of course if the course is too tight, than accuracy may trump distance.

[Golfingdad]

I don't dispute anything you're saying.  I was just excluding age from the general rule since it's not likely a good golfer who's lost distance due to age is ever going to be able to regain the distance he lost.  In their case they either accept scoring higher or play from shorter tees but their handicap will go up no matter what.

Yeah I'm with you.  I probably have a little window where I can increase my distance a fraction (because right now, I know I still hit down a bit on the ball) but I'm not far from my max, nor am I far from reaching that point where age starts to take my game backwards.

I thought so too but not according to a late 60's former +2 handicapper I recently play with.   He told me that he gained distance as he aged.  How?  He told me that equipment (club, ball) help add distance and he is hitting further now than ever.  But I think once one reaches 70, even the new equipment can't help.  I will find out in 17 years or so.

I hope that continues, but I'm afraid that the big leap in tech that occurred from the late 80's until recently is not happening again.  With the limits on equipment and the knowledge they all have, I feel like we've probably reached the limit.

I hope I'm wrong.

[rkim291968]

Isn't this why Tiger was winning so many tournaments during early part of his career? He had so much advantage with his length that he over powered most of the courses even though he wasn't the most accurate player.

Having a wedge instead of a 5 iron for approach shots does more for scoring than accuracy.

Of course if the course is too tight, than accuracy may trump distance.

I thought it was his putting ...

[JonMA1]

I took my driver out for most of the tee shots but some of my worst shots were with my driver (and the only shots where I lost the ball) - now I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't just be using a 5 wood or even my 3 or 4 hybrid off the tee, leave the driver at home, and work on my short game and putting.   It just seems to me the short game is the area I could make big improvements to my score with a lot less effort, despite all I have read about the importance of distance.

Doesn't your inability to hit the driver well make you want to work at it?

This is what I love about the game. One of the reasons I'm not very good may be because I'm too pig-headed to give up when something doesn't come easy. The driver, because of the length and resulting club head speed, is easier to hit a bad shot with and the bad shot usually ends with a worse result. If, for example, you slice with a driver, it's a worse slice than with other clubs. But once you get to the point where you've reduced or eliminated that slice, you now have a club that'll outhit every other club in the bag. That doesn't mean you use it to try and squeeze in a tight shot (wrong tool for the job), but for at least a few holes per round, the extra distance you get with it will be worth the work it took to improve.

I know people who will leave their 3 wood at home because they just can't hit off the fairway with it. The risk/reward is not worth it. So instead of trying to get better at it, they'd rather use a 4 iron and take a few less yards. I've even read posts where they'll suggest that to newer players (as if they think because they can't hit that shot, no one can). To me, learning how to use all these tools is part of learning the game.

So whether it's a driver, a fairway wood off the deck, a mid iron out of the rough or learning how to hit a flop shot with a 60* wedge, my goal is to improve with every club in my bag and most types of shots (even if that still isn't very good).

Otherwise, I may as well just take a 6 iron to the course (or whatever my favorite club would be) and play every shot as safe I can at the skill level I'm currently at.

[Lihu]

Doesn't your inability to hit the driver well make you want to work at it?

This is what I love about the game. One of the reasons I'm not very good may be because I'm too pig-headed to give up when something doesn't come easy. The driver, because of the length and resulting club head speed, is easier to hit a bad shot with and the bad shot usually ends with a worse result. If, for example, you slice with a driver, it's a worse slice than with other clubs. But once you get to the point where you've reduced or eliminated that slice, you now have a club that'll outhit every other club in the bag. That doesn't mean you use it to try and squeeze in a tight shot (wrong tool for the job), but for at least a few holes per round, the extra distance you get with it will be worth the work it took to improve.

I know people who will leave their 3 wood at home because they just can't hit off the fairway with it. The risk/reward is not worth it. So instead of trying to get better at it, they'd rather use a 4 iron and take a few less yards. I've even read posts where they'll suggest that to newer players (as if they think because they can't hit that shot, no one can). To me, learning how to use all these tools is part of learning the game.

So whether it's a driver, a fairway wood off the deck, a mid iron out of the rough or learning how to hit a flop shot with a 60* wedge, my goal is to improve with every club in my bag and most types of shots (even if that still isn't very good).

Otherwise, I may as well just take a 6 iron to the course (or whatever my favorite club would be) and play every shot as safe I can at the skill level I'm currently at.

Many more of us love this aspect of the game. There is always room for improvement. Unfortunately, always. . .

[FireDragon76]

I know people who will leave their 3 wood at home because they just can't hit off the fairway with it. The risk/reward is not worth it. So instead of trying to get better at it, they'd rather use a 4 iron and take a few less yards. I've even read posts where they'll suggest that to newer players (as if they think because they can't hit that shot, no one can). To me, learning how to use all these tools is part of learning the game.

I've heard this advice too...  I have a lot of trouble hitting a three wood off the fairway, so the last time I played golf I just left it out of my bag.

I guess I'm a weanie but my preference would be to use a low profile fairway wood with a stronger loft and lower center of gravity, or a hybrid.  Golf is hard of course but why make it harder just to be traditional?

When I go to the driving range I actually sometimes prefer to practice with the old steel or persimmon woods that they have on hand.  I get a lot of feedback when I'm hitting it badly.  But I wouldn't want to be forced to play with them.

[natureboy]

I've heard this advice too...  I have a lot of trouble hitting a three wood off the fairway, so the last time I played golf I just left it out of my bag.

I guess I'm a weanie but my preference would be to use a low profile fairway wood with a stronger loft and lower center of gravity, or a hybrid.  Golf is hard of course but why make it harder just to be traditional?

When I go to the driving range I actually sometimes prefer to practice with the old steel or persimmon woods that they have on hand.  I get a lot of feedback when I'm hitting it badly.  But I wouldn't want to be forced to play with them.

Not necessarily bad advice. 3 wood off the deck is harder to hit well than other clubs, especially from uneven lies and if a particular player's dispersion could put the ball well out of play.

Do it (I did) if you can play better (lower) with slightly shorter clubs (hybrid esp.) until you have improved your directional accuracy and loose shots through the set. Then add it back in when improved contact and accuracy (and confidence) from practice will make the added distance an asset rather than a break even proposition or an outright liability.

The essence of the arguments on this thread is that both help and better overall ballstriking (distance and accuracy) will lower average score the most in the long run.

[JonMA1]

My point wasn't to be traditional. It was that since there's a club available that will allow me to hit further than any other, I'm going to try and learn how to use it - even if its difficult. As far as the fairway clubs, an easy swing off the fairway will give me considerably more distance than a well struck 5 iron or even a 4 hybrid. That doesn't mean I'd use my 5 wood if I had a downhill lie in the rough, 200 yards from a well protected green. But if I need to get it close on the second shot of a par 5 and I have plenty of fairway to work with, I'm not afraid to pull that club out. Then there's the subject of gaps between clubs. That's usually substantial between a driver and a hybrid.

And I'll add that I would not be so willing to agree with the boys on the opinion that distance is so important if it weren't for the rare occasions where I've put together decent rounds.  During these rounds, knowing that I had some potentially good scores, I could have played it safe but I didn't. That doesn't mean I took crazy chances. It just means I played the right club at the right time and took a full swing when the shot called for one.

As far as distance vs accuracy, I think if we develop a sound swing with good mechanics, both can be achievable (within our ability). Of course, I'm last person on this site who should be giving advice so... take what I say with a grain of salt.

[nob007]

I now use a 3 wood from the tee if I can get on the green in three I am happy a two put and great. The better I become the more distance I hope to grain. I think we get to hung up on using a driver. When I am ready ill use it and see if I get more distance, buts just one small part of the whole.

[Somerset Simon]

Accuracy always beats distance, provided you hit it far enough.

I am a fairly short hitter (probably in the bottom third of scratch amateurs), but it didn't stop me becoming national junior champion in 1991 (Malcolm Reid Salver).

I played against hundreds of the best amateurs in the world in the late 80's and early 90's.

The best amateur I ever played against was Gary Wolstenholme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Wolstenholme)

He played for Gloucester and I played for the neighboring county of Somerset, so we played against each other many times.

He won the British Amateur Championship twice and many other top amateur titles.

But he was also a very short hitter compared to most scratch amateurs.

He consistently beat longer hitters because he never gave away any easy shots.

He was always on the fairway and always on the green in regulation.

He didn't make that many birdies, but he hardly made any bogeys.

He was probably too short to compete at the highest levels against the like of Tiger Woods, but, at amateur level, you really don't need to be a long hitter to be successful.

Simon

PS Also, as another person mentioned, it's way more fun playing from 170 in the fairway than 150 in the rough :-)

[iacas]

Accuracy always beats distance, provided you hit it far enough.

I am a fairly short hitter

For you, that may even be true. For most people, you're facing an uphill battle on that one.

PS Also, as another person mentioned, it's way more fun playing from 170 in the fairway than 150 in the rough :-)

Player A: Drives it 270 and hits 65% of his fairways.

Player B: Drives it 250 and hits 69% of his fairways.

If they're otherwise identical, I'm taking Player A every time.

It's not like adding distance means you're going to miss ALL the fairways, nor does it mean that short hitters HIT all the fairways. See the above bit about Bubba hitting it past David Toms by 40 yards (14 times per round, plus his distance advantage on every other club in the bag ), yet missing only two more fairways per round.

These examples and exceptions and hypotheticals really don't serve anyone. We have the stats, the knowledge, etc. Once you limit it to one specific kind of course, or one specific kind of player, or one specific anything, you're talking about just that: one of millions.

[Somerset Simon]

For you, that may even be true. For most people, you're facing an uphill battle on that one.

Player A: Drives it 270 and hits 65% of his fairways.

Player B: Drives it 250 and hits 69% of his fairways.

If they're otherwise identical, I'm taking Player A every time.

It's not like adding distance means you're going to miss ALL the fairways, nor does it mean that short hitters HIT all the fairways. See the above bit about Bubba hitting it past David Toms by 40 yards (14 times per round, plus his distance advantage on every other club in the bag), yet missing only two more fairways per round.

These examples and exceptions and hypotheticals really don't serve anyone. We have the stats, the knowledge, etc. Once you limit it to one specific kind of course, or one specific kind of player, or one specific anything, you're talking about just that: one of millions.

With those distances and fairway percentages, I would also go for Player A every time.

However, aerodynamics are highly non linear, and you don't get 10% extra distance for only a 10% loss of accuracy.

Therefore, if they are equally accurate, it would probably be more like 270 and 60% vs. 250 and 75%.

If the rough is short, then the longer hitter may still win, but if a missed fairway equals a bogey, then my money would be on 250 + 75%.

Basically, for any given accuracy, there is an optimal distance, and going beyond that is counter-productive.

That's why I said accuracy always beats distance, provided you hit it far enough.

i.e. If your distance is already at or beyond the optimal distance for your level of accuracy, then it is actually counter-productive trying to hit it further.

Based on my experience, I would say if your fairway percentage is below about 70%, then you are probably already hitting it beyond the optimal distance for your level of accuracy (unless the rough is very light and there is no significant penalty for missing a fairway, of course).