Who would you rather be?

[RFKFREAK]

I play with a guy quite often that out drives me by 30yd on average, I've lost to him once, tied another time, and beaten him more times than I can count. All his clubs go further than mine, but he's never able to hit the green in 2 from behind the trees. I might have a 180yd approach on longer holes but I've hit those enough to where I can leave my 5i somewhere near or on the green. Typically I fall a bit short, chip onto the green and 2 putt for a bogey. He typically hits it about 290yd, always ends up on the right side of the woods, plays it back into the fairway, misses the green, then 2 putts for a double bogey.

Unless you're playing 500yd+ par 4s distance is irrelevant to me. Even a small hitter like me can reach a 450yd par 4 in 2, or at least be somewhere near the fringe.

If I put all the power I have into shots I can drive it that far too, but I'd also end up behind the trees like him. Just ask his checkbook which style is more favorable to winning.

And for each story of these there stories the other way where the guy that doesn't hit as long ends up losing to the guy that hits longer.

Anecdotal evidence is a beautiful thing, no?

[Subaroozz]

It is because Math.  Run a correlation between money and driving accuracy on tour and then run one between money and driving distance.  Distance has a higher correlation every time.

That's interesting, I did not know that.  (I know you may read that as sarcastic, but it's not.  I genuinely did not know that.)  But none of us are tour players, so it's difficult to accept this comparison.  Any given week, the difference between the guy that wins millions of dollars and the guy that wins zero is ten strokes over 72 holes.  That is still incredibly close, they both played very well.  I don't think it translates well to amateurs and hackers.  That margin of difference to a weekend player over the course of one round wouldn't even be noticeable.  Hitting longer will improve your score, and pros should serve as a model, but is distance what we should focus on?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

So there are certainly graduations to this question.  Much depends on the type and general difficulty of the course; how long is a long drive for a given player.  Also, what tees does the player typically use - is he playing tees that suit his game?

Okay, so here is your graduated question:  With your current swing, how many yards would be an acceptable loss off the tee to gain more accuracy?  For Padraig, it's 30.

For me, none.  But I don't miss many fairways by 30 yards either, so I don't need to go shorter.  If I did that I'd have to move to a shorter tee.  I'm 68 and losing distance every year, so I'm not going to give up anything if I don't need to.  That doesn't mean that I won't play a hybrid on Hole "X" in order to have a better chance of a fairway second shot because of possible trouble in my normal driver "spray" arc.

There are lots of right answers to the general topic - and often the right answer in one situation is very much the wrong answer in the next.  I play each hole and each shot as it comes, and never make any strategic decisions based on generalities.  I will play the longest shot consistent with the situation at hand for my game.

[Golfingdad]

That's interesting, I did not know that.  (I know you may read that as sarcastic, but it's not.  I genuinely did not know that.)  But none of us are tour players, so it's difficult to accept this comparison.  Any given week, the difference between the guy that wins millions of dollars and the guy that wins zero is ten strokes over 72 holes.  That is still incredibly close, they both played very well.  I don't think it translates well to amateurs and hackers.  That margin of difference to a weekend player over the course of one round wouldn't even be noticeable.  Hitting longer will improve your score, and pros should serve as a model, but is distance what we should focus on?

No, it's not.  And you bring up a good point.  (Too many people misunderstand this concept when these threads come up)

You should not be spending your practice time trying to figure out how to hit it farther, but you should be focusing your practice time on the full swing.  Drives and approach shots are more valuable to your score than pitches, chips and putts.  You should also always be attempting to safely advance the ball as far as you possibly can without risking too much danger.  No "laying up to your perfect yardage" and nonsense like that.

[oregongolfguy]

I am going to try to advance the ball as far as I can while lowering the chances of hitting into trouble.....Its as simple as that.

[newtogolf]

I still don't understand where you get the impression that I'm talking about a tight course,  Spraying the ball across a 100 yard arc is not anyone's definition of "tight".  My former home course is a parkland style, built in 1972, has generous fairways and is quite forgiving as far as being able to play the ball even when missing the fairway by a reasonable amount, but if you missed the fairway by 30 yards, you had a better than even chance to be in 3 foot deep native rough, or locked out behind well placed trees - no forest, but the trees are placed where they come into play on errant shots.  You don't hit through or under a Colorado blue spruce - you just have to play around it.

One of the last Men's club tournaments I played there I was paired up with a 10 handicap who bombed the ball - was typically 40+ yards longer than me.  He was off the fairway all day long, in native rough, behind trees, lord knows where (never OB, and only once in water that I recall).  I shot my average 85 and he shot 97.  Longer is definitely not always automatically better, even on a course which is quite forgiving.

Sounds like he had an off day or has a vanity cap because otherwise his 10 handicap would shoot lower than you most days.

He also had the option of clubbing down to a 3w and still out hitting you but with great likelihood he'd end up on the fairway.  If you're 180 yards out do you want to be hitting a 4i or longer or a 7I?  Who's going to have better odds of landing on the green?  That's what @Golfingdad ay, longer distance doesn't just apply to off the tee, it's also the ability to hit a shorter club on the next shot or reaching a green in 2 when you need 3 to do it.

[turtleback]

That's interesting, I did not know that.  (I know you may read that as sarcastic, but it's not.  I genuinely did not know that.)  But none of us are tour players, so it's difficult to accept this comparison.

Hence my recommendation that you look into @iacas 's book Lowest Score Wins, which provides the statistical background for regular folks.

[CarlSpackler]

That's interesting, I did not know that.  (I know you may read that as sarcastic, but it's not.  I genuinely did not know that.)  But none of us are tour players, so it's difficult to accept this comparison.  Any given week, the difference between the guy that wins millions of dollars and the guy that wins zero is ten strokes over 72 holes.  That is still incredibly close, they both played very well.  I don't think it translates well to amateurs and hackers.  That margin of difference to a weekend player over the course of one round wouldn't even be noticeable.  Hitting longer will improve your score, and pros should serve as a model, but is distance what we should focus on?

I've been around this game a long time and can tell you that the guys who are shooting the lower scores, close to par, hit the ball a long way. They also have an excellent short game too, but I don't every recall seeing a short hitter threaten par. That's just my experience.

Unfortunately, I'm not one of those guys.

[DrvFrShow]

Sounds like he had an off day or has a vanity cap because otherwise his 10 handicap would shoot lower than you most days.

He also had the option of clubbing down to a 3w and still out hitting you but with great likelihood he'd end up on the fairway.  If you're 180 yards out do you want to be hitting a 4i or longer or a 7I?  Who's going to have better odds of landing on the green?  That's what @Golfingdad was trying to say, longer distance doesn't just apply to off the tee, it's also the ability to hit a shorter club on the next shot or reaching a green in 2 when you need 3 to do it.

Well I'm in that situation. I'm typically 40 yds longer than the longest hitter in the ladies club off the tee and she's a 8 HC, except my tee shots go all over the place. Now that I've Game Golf, the proof was in front of my eyes. Take the driver to the driving range and practice with it there, not on the golf course. Play the 3W on the long holes. If that gets wonky, go to the 5 iron off the tee. The length still allows me to hit that 8 iron from 140 yds. I have the data from Game Golf. On my par 5s if I am not having a good day, I have the option of using a 5 iron off the tee, hitting a 6i for my second shot, and a LW or 56W up to the green for my third shot - two putt for par. This is using my GG stats. If I want to go for it in two, 3W + 4H or 5W + a prayer. But I think for now I need to play a bit more conservatively and even hitting that 3W go for getting that GIR instead of the uGIR.

The thing is that once I get the shot spray under control, the HC will drop.

[M2R]

...

is distance what we should focus on?

Yes unless you have glaring weaknesses in other areas you should spend 65% of your time on developing (and subsequently charting) consistent power in your full swing shots.

The driver should have first, second, and third priority in that process, actually I just made that part up but the drive is the very important... even it it is with a five iron .

Power is king and accuracy is queen... however the data also shows that consistent power is usually in close relationship to accuracy. Or if you prefer, among better golfers longer hitters also tend to be straighter hitters.

Or you know just go with what @turtleback said, that is probably a better idea all around.

[oregongolfguy]

I do agree with that also...Most of the very good players I have played with...looking at probably under 5 handicap...guys that can shoot close to par at times...they are usually longer then the average joe and more accurate then the average joe.  You want to go low.....then have a short iron or wedge in your hands from a good position on the majority of the holes you play.

Good players hit the ball quite a ways, and they are also pretty accurate.  Sure, they miss fairways.  And they even have a big miss every once in a while.  But most of the time they are not missing the fairway by much, and they are probably missing it in a spot that allows a decent chance of it not hurting them.

Of course this is all just general guidelines.  Each individual player has a different set of skills, ballflight etc, and each course is different.  I have played desert courses with no trees in site, rough that wasn't rough at all etc...rocks and weeds if you stray a long ways off course but basically a grip it and rip it course with only a couple of exceptions.  I have also played courses with tight fairways, rough that was so tall and thick you could loose a ball 2ft off the fairway....not room for driver on very many holes there....

Most courses fall in between.

[Strandly]

Here's a little tip. Swing the driver at 60% and you'll probably end up hitting it straighter and the ball will go 90% your maximum. If you can tag one 280, you'd probably get something like 255-260 and hardly see the trees or OB.

This is bordering on one of the most cliché`, bad "tips" I've come across in my short playing career.  Swinging hard is harmless, having a bad grip, stance, or some other thing is the problem.  And I say this because I used to buy into the above advice-- I wouldn't swing as hard as I could because I wanted to limit the damage of a potential slice.  In addition to not solving my actual problem I think it helped create even more problems because now I'm further away from the hole than I might have been which in turn lead to more desperate attempts to make up for it.

Anyway, I think I know what you're getting at but I think a better way of addressing it is to make a shorter swing.  If that's what you meant then my mistake, the swinging less hard thing is just something that really makes me cringe when I hear it now-a-days.

[Lihu]

Golfer that hits 270 and thirty yards off the fairway, or golfer that hits 220 and right down the middle?

Missing the green short, or missing way left or right?

(insert additional "accuracy vs. distance" scenario here)

How about you guys, how many errant tee shots are acceptable for you to justify the one or two great drives that actually land in the fairway? I don't have much fun when I'm looking for my tee shot six or seven out of every ten drives.

I could be either of these except the difference is not this dramatic as you wouldn't slice 270 and swing with less effort to get only 220. More than likely, you would just hit 270 straighter.

Missing the green short costs you strokes no matter what, missing left to right there is a chance you can hit them at least some of the time.

I hit errant tee shots all the time, but still manage to get evenly pars and bogeys with an occasional birdie chance. I have fun even looking for my tee shots especially when there is only 30 to 100 yards left to the green on a 300-370 yard hole.

[M2R]

...

Missing the green short costs you strokes no matter what, missing left to right there is a chance you can hit them at least some of the time.

...

I do not see how it costs a stroke no matter what. If the hole is playing to 3.7 strokes and you make 4 it does not matter what transpired during playing the hole, you did not lose a shot. If you made 5 then you did lose a shot somehow. You might lose shot value opportunities but that seems like playing the what if game, if I did not have that penalty that would have been a birdie, I should not have missed that two foot putt to saved par, etc.

I understand that GIR is a key stat but I do not see it as black and white, nGIR might be MUCH better than GIR in certain situations. Or missing the green short might be the best possible miss, for example I would prefer on the fringe just short if the hole cut close to that over a 35 foot putt from the back of the green.

[iacas]

I understand that GIR is a key stat but I do not see it as black and white, nGIR might be MUCH better than GIR in certain situations. Or missing the green short might be the best possible miss, for example I would prefer on the fringe just short if the hole cut close to that over a 35 foot putt from the back of the green.

In specific instances, yes. Would I rather be a foot into the fringe and 15 feet from the hole, or 60 feet from the hole across two tiers on the green? Obviously the former.

It goes to "missing it in the right places."

But on the whole, it tends to average out: GIR is better than nGIR. And when talking generally, and giving advice for general situations, we have to go with what generally works, especially when it's by not a small margin.

[Strandly]

Golfer that hits 270 and thirty yards off the fairway, or golfer that hits 220 and right down the middle?

300 and in the trees, or 250 in the fairway?

GIR on every par five, or ball OB every other par five trying to get on in two?

Missing the green short, or missing way left or right?

(insert additional "accuracy vs. distance" scenario here)

I think I'd rather be accurate and short. I'm 6'1'' so folks always expect me to be able to blast it, but I'm not good enough yet to control it. How about you guys, how many errant tee shots are acceptable for you to justify the one or two great drives that actually land in the fairway? I don't have much fun when I'm looking for my tee shot six or seven out of every ten drives.

If there are no trees blocking my next shot I'd probably take the distance every time.

[M2R]

In specific instances, yes. Would I rather be a foot into the fringe and 15 feet from the hole, or 60 feet from the hole across two tiers on the green? Obviously the former.

It goes to "missing it in the right places."

But on the whole, it tends to average out: GIR is better than nGIR. And when talking generally, and giving advice for general situations, we have to go with what generally works, especially when it's by not a small margin.

I THINK I understand this and if the statement had stopped at simply costs you strokes or followed with over time , or in the end , or in the long run , or ... I would have been 100% on board . But my brain exploded on the three words no matter what because it seemed there were very unique and specific instances where it would not be no matter what .

However I also realize that this is just one of my quirks so no issues on my part as I understand now that it was not meant the way I interpreted it, maybe, possibly, .

[nick1998bunker]

I'd rather be 275 and in the rough than 250 and in the fairway or 300 and in the woods...but the last 2 might be equal