Who would you rather be?

[dkolo]

What are you doing Saturday?

Well, I'm slammed until about 2 or so Saturday. Not sure what Sunday looks like.

[Moppy]

Since I'm much closer to the '300 and in the trees' and the '270 and thirty yards off the fairway' player than I am the short & accurate hitter I'll stick with those.  Hitting fairways and greens all day seems like it'd be boring anyway, so give me the shorter shot that has to go over, under, or around trees.

That's why I like watching the PGA more than the LPGA. Watching Tiger and Phil get out of trouble is a lot more interesting than watching Inbee Park dissect a course  with a scalpel.

[RFKFREAK]

Well, I'm slammed until about 2 or so Saturday. Not sure what Sunday looks like.

So, golf at 2:30?

[dkolo]

So, golf at 2:30?

I'm not against it. Ask me tomorrow? Lots of balls up in the air right now, but I'd love to.

[RFKFREAK]

I'm not against it. Ask me tomorrow? Lots of balls up in the air right now, but I'd love to.

Ok

[RFKFREAK]

I think this is the confusion... Here's a diagram from LSW, except I modified it to be my own shot spread instead of a professional golfer's. I would hit a 3W on this hole. Not a driver. It would simply be dumb to hit my driver unless I needed to make a birdie to win the tournament, and my 3W shot would not leave me in a position with as good of a chance of a GIR as my driver. As you can see from the distance it would not, but I have a better chance at a par on the hole with the 3W and a better chance at a bogey or worse with my driver.

Without knowing distances and without knowing if this is to scale or not, it's hard to agree with you but, from the diagram, I'd say that since 80% of the shot zone with driver isn't in any trouble spot, I'm hitting driver.

[dkolo]

Without knowing distances and without knowing if this is to scale or not, it's hard to agree with you but, from the diagram, I'd say that since 80% of the shot zone with driver isn't in any trouble spot, I'm hitting driver.

Yeah, but your 3W and my putter go about the same distance, which somehow insults both of us, haha.

[RFKFREAK]

Yeah, but your 3W and my putter go about the same distance, which somehow insults both of us, haha.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, I'm still basking in beating you in our long drive competition. 0:-)

[M2R]

Distance is important for amateurs but you should focus on improving mechanics, hitting the ball more solid, distance and accuracy will benefit as a result.

I believe this is very true.

Long is great.  Accuracy is great.  Course management is great.  However, for those of us for whom long is no longer an option, we had best focus on the other two.

The way I see it, at my age, I'm as long right now as I'm ever going to be.  I'm a good course manager.  My accuracy could use a shot in the arm with a wonder drug.

I have been thinking about this in relation to my own situation and wonder why you feel this way. Especially since you mention accuracy and length together this time what @mvmac posted sounds perfect for you.

If you accept the statement above by @mvmac then:

1. Mechanics striking the ball are maxed out and can not be improved.
2. Can not get adequate instruction or help.
3. Unable to make the changes needed.
4. The effort and/or cost is prohibitive.
5. Uninterested.
6. Special circumstances/other.

If I lose 5 yards from aging related issues but gain 4 yards from better ball striking then I count that as a big win even though technically your statement would still stand: I am as long now as I will ever be. Regardless, if there is a chance I can get those 4 yards I want them. Does not mean I will get them but I still want them.

Making real and meaningful changes is hard and the older a person gets perhaps even more so. Maybe so difficult as to be virtually impossible, I hope that is not true.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Long is great.  Accuracy is great.  Course management is great.  However, for those of us for whom long is no longer an option, we had best focus on the other two.

The way I see it, at my age, I'm as long right now as I'm ever going to be.  I'm a good course manager.  My accuracy could use a shot in the arm with a wonder drug.

I have been thinking about this in relation to my own situation and wonder why you feel this way. Especially since you mention accuracy and length together this time what @mvmac posted sounds perfect for you.

If you accept the statement above by @mvmac then:

Mechanics striking the ball are maxed out and can not be improved.

Can not get adequate instruction or help.

Unable to make the changes needed.

The effort and/or cost is prohibitive.

Uninterested.

Special circumstances/other.

If I lose 5 yards from aging related issues but gain 4 yards from better ball striking then I count that as a big win even though technically your statement would still stand: I am as long now as I will ever be. Regardless, if there is a chance I can get those 4 yards I want them. Does not mean I will get them but I still want them.

Making real and meaningful changes is hard and the older a person gets perhaps even more so. Maybe so difficult as to be virtually impossible, I hope that is not true.

My driver is perhaps the best club in my bag if I don't count the putter - I simply know from experience that it isn't going to get any longer.  Having played for 40 years, I know my game, I know my swing, and I know my potential.  I'm not good about practicing, and where I now live, the opportunities are far fewer for practice ranges - the nearest one is 20 miles away.  I'm not playing as much as I once was, so that comes into the formula too.

All told, I have discovered a part of my swing that I had gotten lazy with, and repairing that seems to have put me back in a better place this year.  I don't know if I will be more accurate with my irons because of it, but I can hope that once I am more comfortable with the change that it will result in a little more accuracy too.  Time will tell.

[jsgolfer]

I'll take the distance over the accuracy almost anytime.

[M2R]

My driver is perhaps the best club in my bag if I don't count the putter - I simply know from experience that it isn't going to get any longer.  Having played for 40 years, I know my game, I know my swing, and I know my potential.  I'm not good about practising, and where I now live, the opportunities are far fewer for practice ranges - the nearest one is 20 miles away.  I'm not playing as much as I once was, so that comes into the formula too.

All told, I have discovered a part of my swing that I had gotten lazy with, and repairing that seems to have put me back in a better place this year.  I don't know if I will be more accurate with my irons because of it, but I can hope that once I am more comfortable with the change that it will result in a little more accuracy too.  Time will tell.

Very interesting, thanks for the candour.

[JKolya]

I do not really understand those going after the premise of the question or saying it's not realistic. Obviously reality is not so black and white, one or the other, but the question for the discussion is. For me, generally speaking, I will take the 270/300 30 off/trees over 220/fairway as we know the stats on distance and scoring. That said, in reality it completely depends on the course. My home course for example, on the 14 par 4's and 5's - if we turn that into 28 (double 14 for left and right of each fairway)- you could only play 12 of the 28 shots that are 30 yards off. The rest are either in the water, OB on private property or lost, or too deep into the woods to find and play. Out of the twelve you can play, eight will allow a shot at the green, though from extremely thick grass, while the other four you are pitching back to the fairway and not really advancing the ball so the distance did not really help. So, on my home course if it's black and white I would have to go with 220 and fairway.

[Mac62]

I do not really understand those going after the premise of the question or saying it's not realistic. Obviously reality is not so black and white, one or the other, but the question for the discussion is. For me, generally speaking, I will take the 270/300 30 off/trees over 220/fairway as we know the stats on distance and scoring. That said, in reality it completely depends on the course. My home course for example, on the 14 par 4's and 5's - if we turn that into 28 (double 14 for left and right of each fairway)- you could only play 12 of the 28 shots that are 30 yards off. The rest are either in the water, OB on private property or lost, or too deep into the woods to find and play. Out of the twelve you can play, eight will allow a shot at the green, though from extremely thick grass, while the other four you are pitching back to the fairway and not really advancing the ball so the distance did not really help. So, on my home course if it's black and white I would have to go with 220 and fairway.

Well said and I agree.  I understand the LSW stats on distance and scoring also, but on my home course there aren't many places where you can miss the fairway laterally by 30 yards and have a good next shot.  You're going to be in the water, or in a sandy desert waste area (and quite possibly buried/lost in native vegetation).  The rough is cut very thin and doesn't hold shots, so even on the holes where there's 30 yards of rough to flirt with, there's still a good chance that your ball will run through it and into the aforementioned desert areas.  The desert areas are very penal and are usually going to cost you either: 1) one to two strokes to get back in position to reasonably advance the ball; 2) an unplayable lie penalty and an additional one to two strokes to get back in position to reasonably advance the ball; or 3) Stroke and distance for a lost ball.  There are some spots where you can pull off a "hero shot" and advance the ball well, but the more likely result is that you'll end up playing all the way down the hole in the sand until you get tired of wasting strokes and decide to take your medicine and pitch out (don't ask how I know this, lol!).  Any way you look at it, in most cases a 30-yard lateral miss is going to be much more costly than a shorter drive in the fairway.

I play other courses where the extra distance would be a great advantage and I'd gladly take it, but if given the alternatives in the OP for my home course, I'd take 220 in the fairway every time.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKolya

I do not really understand those going after the premise of the question or saying it's not realistic. Obviously reality is not so black and white, one or the other, but the question for the discussion is. For me, generally speaking, I will take the 270/300 30 off/trees over 220/fairway as we know the stats on distance and scoring. That said, in reality it completely depends on the course. My home course for example, on the 14 par 4's and 5's - if we turn that into 28 (double 14 for left and right of each fairway)- you could only play 12 of the 28 shots that are 30 yards off. The rest are either in the water, OB on private property or lost, or too deep into the woods to find and play. Out of the twelve you can play, eight will allow a shot at the green, though from extremely thick grass, while the other four you are pitching back to the fairway and not really advancing the ball so the distance did not really help. So, on my home course if it's black and white I would have to go with 220 and fairway.

Well said and I agree.  I understand the LSW stats on distance and scoring also, but on my home course there aren't many places where you can miss the fairway laterally by 30 yards and have a good next shot.  You're going to be in the water, or in a sandy desert waste area (and quite possibly buried/lost in native vegetation).  The rough is cut very thin and doesn't hold shots, so even on the holes where there's 30 yards of rough to flirt with, there's still a good chance that your ball will run through it and into the aforementioned desert areas.  The desert areas are very penal and are usually going to cost you either: 1) one to two strokes to get back in position to reasonably advance the ball; 2) an unplayable lie penalty and an additional one to two strokes to get back in position to reasonably advance the ball; or 3) Stroke and distance for a lost ball.  There are some spots where you can pull off a "hero shot" and advance the ball well, but the more likely result is that you'll end up playing all the way down the hole in the sand until you get tired of wasting strokes and decide to take your medicine and pitch out (don't ask how I know this, lol!).  Any way you look at it, in most cases a 30-yard lateral miss is going to be much more costly than a shorter drive in the fairway.

I play other courses where the extra distance would be a great advantage and I'd gladly take it, but if given the alternatives in the OP for my home course, I'd take 220 in the fairway every time.

The point that was made in a few previous posts is that all your clubs will be longer if your driver is longer. If a longer hitting player played on your home course, they would most likely tee off with irons and hybrids to get the same 220-240 yard tee shot on the fairway.

[Subaroozz]

I just finished a round.  18th hole, dogleg par 5.  5 iron off the tee, two 7 irons to the green, two putt for par.  Makes sense to me

[BuckeyeNut]

Who do I want to be?

I'd like to be Ricky Fowler..........at the instant his GF jumps his bones for a little "Victory" sex.......LOL

[Mac62]

The point that was made in a few previous posts is that all your clubs will be longer if your driver is longer. If a longer hitting player played on your home course, they would most likely tee off with irons and hybrids to get the same 220-240 yard tee shot on the fairway.

Understood.  I also understand iacas' contention that a longer hitter will also usually be a more accurate hitter, so it's not an either/or proposition.  I was responding solely in terms of how it was phrased in post #1 of the thread.  If we put a longer AND straighter (or equally straight) hitter into the mix, who WOULDN'T want to be him???