Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Lihu]

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).

I think some of us are thinking that the opposite is true. "Distance always beats accuracy, provided you are accurate enough."

[rkim291968]

My last home course - long, some hazard areas which can be easily avoided, very few OB areas, less number of & smaller bunkers, very forgiving on shot misses.  I rarely got anything over double bogey.

My current home course - shorter, mostly OB areas with some hazards which cannot be avoided, every hole is surrounded with bunkers, bunkers can be deep/long/large, very penalizing on shot misses.   On Sunday, my round started with par-par-par-8-par-8-par, +8 on 7 holes and all of the damage coming from just two holes.

Right now, I'd rather have more accuracy and then worry about distance.

[Somerset Simon]

I think some of us are thinking that the opposite is true. "Distance always beats accuracy, provided you are accurate enough."

That is true if you are currently below the optimal distance for your level of accuracy.

But I still think almost all amateurs hit the ball beyond their optimal distance, and my example of Gary Wolstenholme is a good illustration of this. He was significantly shorter than the average scratch golfer (50 yards shorter than some), yet he was still able to beat all those longer hitters.

How is this possible?

The only explanation I can think of is that all those longer hitters were actually hitting it beyond their optimal distance.

If this is true, then it means that the optimal distance is a lot shorter than most people believe.

[Lihu]

My last home course - long, some hazard areas which can be easily avoided, very few OB areas, less number of & smaller bunkers, very forgiving on shot misses.  I rarely got anything over double bogey.

My current home course - shorter, mostly OB areas with some hazards which cannot be avoided, every hole is surrounded with bunkers, bunkers can be deep/long/large, very penalizing on shot misses.   On Sunday, my round started with par-par-par-8-par-8-par, +8 on 7 holes and all of the damage coming from just two holes.

Right now, I'd rather have more accuracy and then worry about distance.

This is the type of course where you might use a driving iron and hybrid off most tees, and use the most forgiving irons they make with a high penetrating high spin flight.

It doesn't really change the distance requirement. You still need to be able to hit those clubs long enough to carry the hazards and put yourself in position where your next shot can carry the next hazard.

Sounds pretty hard, and distance would help because having it gives you more choices for club selection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

I think some of us are thinking that the opposite is true. "Distance always beats accuracy, provided you are accurate enough."

That is true if you are currently below the optimal distance for your level of accuracy.

But I still think almost all amateurs hit the ball beyond their optimal distance, and my example of Gary Wolstenholme is a good illustration of this. He was significantly shorter than the average scratch golfer (50 yards shorter than some), yet he was still able to beat all those longer hitters.

How is this possible?

The only explanation I can think of is that all those longer hitters were actually hitting it beyond their optimal distance.

If this is true, then it means that the optimal distance is a lot shorter than most people believe.

How do you define the "optimal distance"?

[iacas]

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

Accuracy doesn't work like that. Fairway hit percentages are a lousy way to measure "accuracy." I was simply providing an example contrary to your own.

There are a lot of stats out there about the importance of distance (and accuracy). GIR is the single most important stat in golf (outside of the score you shoot! :D), and we can sit here and concoct examples like this:

Guy #1: "What good is 310 yards if you're in the trees 80% of the time."

Guy #2: "Oh yeah, what good is being in the fairway 90% of the time if you have a 5W to half of the par fours?"

You get the point (I hope). The fact is most golfers are pretty much in the middle. They'll benefit from BOTH an increase in accuracy AND distance.

Stats and research and studies simply show that, in general, they'll benefit more from a comparatively smaller percentage increase in distance…

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%.

We can just make stuff up all day. It's pointless. It's literally a waste of time. "If a missed fairway equals a bogey"? That's a weird constraint.

But hey, let's go with it… the 60% guy makes two bogeys more than the other guy just from his fairways hit being 15% less. But he's 20 yards closer (and presumably is one club longer with his other clubs too) every other time. Good chance he can make up two strokes. Reaching a couple of par fives might do it, for example.

So even your concocted example isn't a clear-cut case of "yep, definitely take accuracy."

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

That's not really true.

I prefer to measure accuracy by degrees from the center-line.

A guy who hits it 300 yards and is 21 yards from the center-line is equally as accurate as a guy who hits it 250 and finds his ball 17.5 yards from the centerline. The angular measure is the same.

But again, the guy who hits it 300 might be able to hit a 5W 250… and odds are he's more accurate with that club. So now the longer hitter has an advantage: on wider or more open holes he can hit it 300 and hit a 6I to a par five now and then. On accurate holes, he can hit a 3I or 5W or something and be MORE accurate than the 250 guy who is, with the driver, just as accurate as the bomber.

I agree that for every player there's a point at which striving for more distance results in too many mis-hits and a loss of accuracy. But that's not really what's being discussed. If you took it to be, then, cool - we agree. :)

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

Here's something I'd like you to mull over for a bit… distance IS a form of accuracy.

Imagine you have a 450-yard par four. Your goal is a tiny hole in the ground 450 yards that-a-way. If A player hits the ball 300 yards and misses the fairway, he might have 170 yards in. Another player hits the ball 250 yards but straight at the hole, leaving himself 200 yards to the cup.

If the balls were plotted on a graph (A and B), which is more accurate?

And… how do you know "when you hit it far enough"? Who determines that point?

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.

That seems awfully vague.

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).

Really? Just like that?

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.102.2013.html

So only 7 PGA Tour players knew what they were doing in 2013?

---

I'm encouraging you to think a little bit here…

There are a LOT of myths in golf.

No, I'm not saying distance is always more important, but more often than not, it is.

[No Mulligans]

This discussion seems a bit academic for the majority of golfers, especially the high handicappers.

If someone improves their swing mechanics, their 5 simple keys, aren't they going to be both longer and more accurate?  At least for the vast majority of golfers.

For example, I'm trying to get rid of my outside-in swing path and my resulting slice.  When I make a better swing that is inside-out it is both more accurate and longer.

[Somerset Simon]

Accuracy doesn't work like that. Fairway hit percentages are a lousy way to measure "accuracy." I was simply providing an example contrary to your own.

There are a lot of stats out there about the importance of distance (and accuracy). GIR is the single most important stat in golf (outside of the score you shoot! :D), and we can sit here and concoct examples like this:

Guy #1: "What good is 310 yards if you're in the trees 80% of the time."

Guy #2: "Oh yeah, what good is being in the fairway 90% of the time if you have a 5W to half of the par fours?"

You get the point (I hope). The fact is most golfers are pretty much in the middle. They'll benefit from BOTH an increase in accuracy AND distance.

Stats and research and studies simply show that, in general, they'll benefit more from a comparatively smaller percentage increase in distance…

We can just make stuff up all day. It's pointless. It's literally a waste of time. "If a missed fairway equals a bogey"? That's a weird constraint.

But hey, let's go with it… the 60% guy makes two bogeys more than the other guy just from his fairways hit being 15% less. But he's 20 yards closer (and presumably is one club longer with his other clubs too) every other time. Good chance he can make up two strokes. Reaching a couple of par fives might do it, for example.

So even your concocted example isn't a clear-cut case of "yep, definitely take accuracy."

That's not really true.

I prefer to measure accuracy by degrees from the center-line.

A guy who hits it 300 yards and is 21 yards from the center-line is equally as accurate as a guy who hits it 250 and finds his ball 17.5 yards from the centerline. The angular measure is the same.

But again, the guy who hits it 300 might be able to hit a 5W 250… and odds are he's more accurate with that club. So now the longer hitter has an advantage: on wider or more open holes he can hit it 300 and hit a 6I to a par five now and then. On accurate holes, he can hit a 3I or 5W or something and be MORE accurate than the 250 guy who is, with the driver, just as accurate as the bomber.

I agree that for every player there's a point at which striving for more distance results in too many mis-hits and a loss of accuracy. But that's not really what's being discussed. If you took it to be, then, cool - we agree. :)

Here's something I'd like you to mull over for a bit… distance IS a form of accuracy.

Imagine you have a 450-yard par four. Your goal is a tiny hole in the ground 450 yards that-a-way. If A player hits the ball 300 yards and misses the fairway, he might have 170 yards in. Another player hits the ball 250 yards but straight at the hole, leaving himself 200 yards to the cup.

If the balls were plotted on a graph (A and B), which is more accurate?

And… how do you know "when you hit it far enough"? Who determines that point?

That seems awfully vague.

Really? Just like that?

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.102.2013.html

So only 7 PGA Tour players knew what they were doing in 2013?

I'm encouraging you to think a little bit here…

There are a LOT of myths in golf.

No, I'm not saying distance is always more important, but more often than not, it is.

How about Phil Mickelson at Muirfield in 2013.

I'm pretty sure he didn't even carry a driver.

He understood very well that there is an optimal distance and it would have been counter-productive to attempt to go beyond the optimal.

Some courses like Augusta where there is hardly any rough, the optimal distance is much longer and players like Bubba Watson have an advantage.

Not saying distance isn't important.

Just saying there is such a thing as an optimal distance, and I think it is much shorter than most people believe, as illustrated by Gary Wolstenholme's outstandingly successful amateur career.

Simon

[iacas]

How about Phil Mickelson at Muirfield in 2013.

I'm pretty sure he didn't even carry a driver.

And he won at Augusta with two. You can't make these kinds of decisions based on one or two data points.

Plus, the thread has the word "amateurs" in the title. Doesn't necessarily make a bunch of sense to talk about Phil Mickelson.

Just saying there is such a thing as an optimal distance, and I think it is much shorter than most people believe, as illustrated by Gary Wolstenholme's outstandingly successful amateur career.

You've yet to define that.

And I'm pretty sure we could find a bunch of people who had better amateur careers than Gary Wolstenholme. Like… Tiger Woods. Jack Nicklaus. Not short hitters…

---

I'm a bit disappointed. I put ten or twenty minutes into that post up above, and you respond with Phil Mickelson comments and don't answer my questions. :P

[Phil McGleno]

This version of Simon Says is broken.

[Somerset Simon]

And he won at Augusta with two. You can't make these kinds of decisions based on one or two data points.

Plus, the thread has the word "amateurs" in the title. Doesn't necessarily make a bunch of sense to talk about Phil Mickelson.

You've yet to define that.

And I'm pretty sure we could find a bunch of people who had better amateur careers than Gary Wolstenholme. Like… Tiger Woods. Jack Nicklaus. Not short hitters…

I'm a bit disappointed. I put ten or twenty minutes into that post up above, and you respond with Phil Mickelson comments and don't answer my questions. :P

OK, bearing in mind I have a 1st class master's degree in mathematics, and therefore know quite a bit about definitions, here goes...

The optimal distance for a given golfer on a given hole is the target distance that would give the lowest average score if he/she played the hole 100 times.

That's what I think most people would agree we mean by optimal distance. It depends on two variables: the individual golfer and the individual hole.

On some holes, the optimal strategy is just to hit the ball as far as possible, but I think that most people would end up OOB or in the trees on most holes if they had a magic club that could hit the ball 400 yards, so there is definitely an optimal distance, and it isn't just a simple case of the further the better :-)

[Golfingdad]

OK, bearing in mind I have a 1st class master's degree in mathematics, and therefore know quite a bit about definitions, here goes...

The optimal distance for a given golfer on a given hole is the target distance that would give the lowest average score if he/she played the hole 100 times.

That's what I think most people would agree we mean by optimal distance. It depends on two variables: the individual golfer and the individual hole.

On some holes, the optimal strategy is just to hit the ball as far as possible, but I think that most people would end up OOB or in the trees on most holes if they had a magic club that could hit the ball 400 yards, so there is definitely an optimal distance, and it isn't just a simple case of the further the better :-)

What if somebody were to define optimal distance a tiny bit more precisely by saying something like:

The optimal driving distance off the tee is the furthest you can hit it (i.e. the closest you can get to the hole for your next shot) without putting yourself into danger.

Would you agree with that definition?

[Somerset Simon]

What if somebody were to define optimal distance a tiny bit more precisely by saying something like:

The optimal driving distance off the tee is the furthest you can hit it (i.e. the closest you can get to the hole for your next shot) without putting yourself into danger.

Would you agree with that definition?

No.

I'm not being disrespectful as there is always more than one way to define anything, but the aim of golf is to get the lowest score possible.

Therefore, the optimal distance must be defined in terms of lowest score.

Hitting it as far as possible without putting yourself into danger might be a good way of getting a low score, but it isn't a good definition of optimal.

[Ernest Jones]

No.

I'm not being disrespectful as there is always more than one way to define anything, but the aim of golf is to get the lowest score possible.

Therefore, the optimal distance must be defined in terms of lowest score.

Hitting it as far as possible without putting yourself into danger might be a good way of getting a low score, but it isn't a good definition of optimal.

I'll take the lower score and you can have the optimal distance.

[iacas]

OK, bearing in mind I have a 1st class master's degree in mathematics, and therefore know quite a bit about definitions, here goes...

I have a few degrees myself. And my wife has her masters in math too. Pretty irrelevant, all of it…

The optimal distance for a given golfer on a given hole is the target distance that would give the lowest average score if he/she played the hole 100 times.

That's what I think most people would agree we mean by optimal distance. It depends on two variables: the individual golfer and the individual hole.

On some holes, the optimal strategy is just to hit the ball as far as possible, but I think that most people would end up OOB or in the trees on most holes if they had a magic club that could hit the ball 400 yards, so there is definitely an optimal distance, and it isn't just a simple case of the further the better :-)

You know what the single biggest predictor for how far away a ball is likely to finish from the hole? How far away from the hole it was before it was hit. Shots from farther away average farther away from the hole. Your average distance to the hole from 130 is going to be closer than hitting from 150, and that will be closer than hitting from 170.

Distance is important. Accuracy is too, but… you're not really saying anything with this "optimal distance" stuff. You can't really know it. Seriously, what are you going to do: play a hole 300 times, playing first with a hybrid, then a 3W, then a driver?

I've written a book that covers all of this, and includes something we called the "distance gradient," and emphasizes how you can build your own "Decision Maps" to shoot YOUR lowest score. If you're a scientifically minded guy… you should check both it AND Mark Broadie's book (Every Shot Counts - more stats, less gameplanning strategies, drills, etc.) out. Here's one of the stats from his book which you can find earlier in the thread. I pointed out back then that 20 yards is something like a 7.5% improvement while 1° is often closer to a 30% improvement. At every level of the game, the 20 yards (keeping the same accuracy) is at least as important or more important than an extra degree of accuracy, despite (again) the extra degree being 2-4x as large an improvement.

Check out the book at http://lowestscorewins.com/. As a 5 handicap, I'm fairly confident you'll find a bunch of helpful stuff in there.

[AllSetGolfsport]

For an amateur, it is necessary to note your Driving accuracy during range practise.Assuming you have a 5degree average deviation from target. If you picture that on a plan drawing,you will notice the longer you hit the ball, the deviation increases. Are your shots producing fade, hook or straight. What danger lies ahead within your driver range. If within that range a bunker or water is involved one must address the direction more towards safety side to avoid the hazard, or use a club with lesser distance. If more hazard is nearer maybe a driver will clear all problem. Golf is a thinking game too.

I noticed many amateurs teeing at a Par 3 hole across a pond with bunkers front of approach and sides. Distance 190 yards.

They use their normal clubs to suit the distance. I suppose it is okay when you have consistency. But it would be wise to choose a 200yard shot to clear all hazard especially water where there is a penalty. Most times you may not hit 100percent but selecting overclub provide yourself the insurance. You will also not force the swing. I believe managing shots where to land and knowing your own golf game is important.

It is never a hard and fast rule to drive long at all holes - just because it is a Par4 or Par5.

Often a good player is one that avoids penalty and good at short games.

A long hitter playing a 4 iron to arrive 200yard is better than a short hitter using a driver, as he had better control on a shorter club.

A long hitter without proper management can get into more danger if their shots go wild.

[No Mulligans]

For an amateur, it is necessary to note your Driving accuracy during range practise.Assuming you have a 5degree average deviation from target. If you picture that on a plan drawing,you will notice the longer you hit the ball, the deviation increases.

For me, it's the opposite.  With the driver, my longer and longest shots are the most accurate. My longest shots are pretty close to the target.  If I slice it, not only does it slice it also goes a shorter distance.  After all, it wasn't as good of a swing.

[Jakester23]

For an amateur, it is necessary to note your Driving accuracy during range practise.Assuming you have a 5degree average deviation from target. If you picture that on a plan drawing,you will notice the longer you hit the ball, the deviation increases. Are your shots producing fade, hook or straight. What danger lies ahead within your driver range. If within that range a bunker or water is involved one must address the direction more towards safety side to avoid the hazard, or use a club with lesser distance. If more hazard is nearer maybe a driver will clear all problem. Golf is a thinking game too.

I noticed many amateurs teeing at a Par 3 hole across a pond with bunkers front of approach and sides. Distance 190 yards.

They use their normal clubs to suit the distance. I suppose it is okay when you have consistency. But it would be wise to choose a 200yard shot to clear all hazard especially water where there is a penalty. Most times you may not hit 100percent but selecting overclub provide yourself the insurance. You will also not force the swing. I believe managing shots where to land and knowing your own golf game is important.

It is never a hard and fast rule to drive long at all holes - just because it is a Par4 or Par5.

Often a good player is one that avoids penalty and good at short games.

A long hitter playing a 4 iron to arrive 200yard is better than a short hitter using a driver, as he had better control on a shorter club.

A long hitter without proper management can get into more danger if their shots go wild.

Im not disagreeing with any of this but from my experience the longer hitters don't usually have their shots go as wild as most shorter hitters.  Meaning all of the long hitters I know and have played with are good (single digit or lower teens handicap) golfers.   The shorter one are usually the guys who only play a once and a while and is still toping, fatting thinning, ect....  We might all have are own definition of longer hitters but to me someone who can constantly hit their driver over 250 is a longer hitter not for the PGA but for the average golfer.   I only play with 4 or 5 guys who can hit the ball 250 constantly.  Three of us are low teen cappers, one is probably closer to 20 but he used to be close to a single digit, and one is  around a 4 but got down under 1.  I also  played with Cipher this fall and he's a low single digit and Id bet he averages 250-270.

[JonMA1]

This discussion seems a bit academic for the majority of golfers, especially the high handicappers.

If someone improves their swing mechanics, their 5 simple keys, aren't they going to be both longer and more accurate?  At least for the vast majority of golfers.

For example, I'm trying to get rid of my outside-in swing path and my resulting slice.  When I make a better swing that is inside-out it is both more accurate and longer.

I agree. My longest drives always seem to land in the fairway (or maybe I just have a selective memory).

Practice:

As someone who has neither distance or accuracy, I want to develop the mechanics that will get me the distances for each club that I think are appropriate for my age/physical capabilities. But as mentioned above, I think the accuracy will come with a fundamentally correct full swing.

Playing:

At some level I agree with "optimal distance" with regard to what a specific hole demands. I have a par 5 on my home course that has a ridiculously wide fairway. I can swing as hard as I can with less fear of hitting it O.O.B. on either side. But on some of the par 4's, I have to be really careful. I'll still use the driver because, even with a controlled swing, it will leave me with a shorter 2nd shot than if I used my fairway woods.