Who would you rather be?

[newtogolf]

I'll take distance any day.  I played in a club scramble this weekend and one of the players hit the ball at least 280 yards every drive.  On holes where I'd be hitting a 3w to reach the green or laying up, I was hitting an 8i or shorter.  It's a different game when you have distance, even if you have to hit from the rough every once in a while.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFKFREAK

Maybe his point is that you're being way too generous with your usage of "tight" when applying it to a fairway where 30 yards off it has deep woods, out of bounds, 3 foot tall native grass, or a water hazard.

What does 30 yards off the fairway have to do with anything?  The tight course I'm talking about is the one HE described, and I'm simply saying that 300 yard guy can leave all of the long clubs, and thus, the 30 yard wide shots, in the bag.  Pull out 5 irons all day long and hit the same part of the fairway that 220 guy is hitting.  then have 5 less clubs into the green as well.

Unless he thinks that guy is also spraying his 5 iron 30 yards off the fairway???

And if you play that way then you are agreeing that it's better to be 220 in the fairway than 270 and 30 yards off the fairway.  All you are doing is using a different club to get there.  Thank you for making my point for me.

And by the way, nobody here has disputed that length is great, as long as you have some degree of control over it.  I used to have it.  However, for some of us, adding any significant length is not an option.  I've been steadily losing distance for about a decade now, and that isn't going to magically reverse itself.  Wait until you get into your 60's and see then what your choices are.

[BuckeyeNut]

I can't answer the question, because I'd rather hit the ball a modest 260-280.............and be straight!!   Just sayin'!!   A good short game is a must too...of course!

[JP golf]

Swing for the fence and hit a homerun once in a while....  I know I'll strike out occasionally - or a lot!

[mailman]

The whole premis of the question is wrong simply due to the large number of variables that comes with our beautiful game. Golf isn't as black and white as the question makes it out to be and takes no consideration of something as basic as players handicap and skill level. Mailman

[boogielicious]

The whole premis of the question is wrong simply due to the large number of variables that comes with our beautiful game.

Golf isn't as black and white as the question makes it out to be and takes no consideration of something as basic as players handicap and skill level.

Mailman

Agree.  The OP gave us an either or scenario that represents extremes.  We could make it even more extreme and say that we would rather hit an 8 iron off the tee to stay in the fairway then hit the ball 330 and be off the fairway.

Given that, last weeks final, McIlroy vs. Woodland was a great example of long being better.  Both of them struggled on some holes to stay in the fairway. But neither were afraid to use the driver.  On one hole, when Rory pushed it right. Woodland did not hesitate to use his driver.  And this was match play.

They know from all their stats that it is easier to score lower being closer to the hole for their approach shot.

[Subaroozz]

The whole premis of the question is wrong simply due to the large number of variables that comes with our beautiful game.

Golf isn't as black and white as the question makes it out to be and takes no consideration of something as basic as players handicap and skill level.

Mailman

I wasn't trying to present it as black and white.  Trying to start a conversation about would you rather be accurate guy, or long guy?  And would you give up a bit of your current distance to be more accurate?

I've liked the thread so far, I am surprised that many of us would rather have more distance even if it's in the rough every once in a while.

[JaNiclas]

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.

The question is why would you see the problem so black and white?

In my opinion it comes down to the quality of the swing. When you have a poor swing and hit it far but off the planet, would you immediately improve your game only by hitting it with less power?

Well maybe to a certain extend but you are still going to miss the fairway but then you are shorter and off the fairway!

So that still was not the solution for me

I was always hitting the ball quite far and even in my first season (I only started the game about 3 years ago) I had the length to hit GIR on every hole of our course because I had the length to get there even with a poor swing. But that was only when everything came together and I was lucky enough, for the rest of the time I was hitting it off the planet.

A lot of my playing partners were admiring my length, but I hated it being off the course on every second hole.

On the other hand, again it brought me into the position to at least sometimes score well, when things were coming together.

And I guess at that point the game of golf had me and the "addiction" started :D haha

So I last year I decided to really get into it, work on my swing and focus on good movements.

In order do get the new movements right and to make the swing more fluent and to ingrain the new mechanics I was swinging slower ok, but on the other hand ball contact and the quality of the strike was improving which then was not way shorter.

So in the end I am swinging more controlled with better rhythm in order to make the new movements right but on the other hand my length is still there since the quality of ball contact improved.

I would say its about the quality of the swing and your personal talent if you are able to hit  fairways

Long + off the world does not always become shorter and accurate just because one is hitting it less hard.

Why not try to get it long and accurate by improving the swing mechanics.

I guess to take some power out is certainly easier then the other way round.

But I guess ultimately your question can't be answered by picking one or the other, at least not until one decides to work on that swing.

[RFKFREAK]

I wasn't trying to present it as black and white.  Trying to start a conversation about would you rather be accurate guy, or long guy?  And would you give up a bit of your current distance to be more accurate?

I've liked the thread so far, I am surprised that many of us would rather have more distance even if it's in the rough every once in a while.

That's because the statistics tell us distance off the tee is one of the biggest SV.

[CarlSpackler]

I wasn't trying to present it as black and white.  Trying to start a conversation about would you rather be accurate guy, or long guy?  And would you give up a bit of your current distance to be more accurate?

I've liked the thread so far, I am surprised that many of us would rather have more distance even if it's in the rough every once in a while.

Rough doesn't bother me much. Heck, our fairways are almost as long as the rough.

[danL]

Accuracy. Just look at what happened to Tiger. LOL

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mailman

The whole premis of the question is wrong simply due to the large number of variables that comes with our beautiful game.

Golf isn't as black and white as the question makes it out to be and takes no consideration of something as basic as players handicap and skill level.

Mailman

I wasn't trying to present it as black and white.  Trying to start a conversation about would you rather be accurate guy, or long guy?  And would you give up a bit of your current distance to be more accurate?

I've liked the thread so far, I am surprised that many of us would rather have more distance even if it's in the rough every once in a while.

The thing is, the way you stated in your OP, it was black and white.  You really gave only two options if one was to answer your question literally - fairway or disaster.  If the choice was short in the fairway or long in the rough, there would be no question - most of the time rough that's maintained and mowed reasonably isn't that scary.  Long and forest, water, OB, etc., creates a lot of question.  Rough that's left to nature and becomes virtually unplayable is very different from just "rough".  I guarantee you that I'll score better playing a long second (or 3 shots) to a par 4 than I will if I have to take one or more penalty strokes or have to hack out of trouble every other hole.

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?

I'll gladly take short (220-230) and straight if I'm playing the tees that allow it (and I will be because that's my typical drive - just not always fairway).  I can play a 6200-6400 yard course comfortably when driving 230 yards (with the occasional shot stretching out to near 250).  There may be a couple of holes that make me reach, but there is nothing wrong with being pushed as long as it isn't every hole.  If it gets much longer than that, I don't really enjoy it much - it becomes work instead of fun.

[Golfingdad]

And if you play that way then you are agreeing that it's better to be 220 in the fairway than 270 and 30 yards off the fairway.  All you are doing is using a different club to get there.  Thank you for making my point for me.

You're very welcome.

However, I'm not sure why you're being smug about it.  Because, remember, using a different club to get there is not "all I'm doing." ....

OK, then when you're playing the tight course, would you rather have to murder your driver 220 on every hole, or poke your 4 or 5 iron out there on every hole?

Then remember, after you do that - let's say, for a 400 yard straightaway par 4 - now you're left with 180 yards.  220 guy is hitting, I imagine, a 3 or 4 hybrid into the green?  Whereas 300 OB guy is hitting an 8 iron.

So, even if that tight course is the only course you are ever going to play, and the option of bombing it into the rough on a wide open parkland course never comes up, I'm still hitting 3, 4 or 5 clubs less into each green if I'm the 300 guy playing smart on your course than if I'm the 220 guy. If you honestly believe that is better, then again, you're welcome for helping make your point, but I'm not sure why that is your point.

[disco111]

Personally, distance.....................I'm use to playing Star Trek Golf................go where no man has gone before..

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And if you play that way then you are agreeing that it's better to be 220 in the fairway than 270 and 30 yards off the fairway.  All you are doing is using a different club to get there.  Thank you for making my point for me.

You're very welcome.

However, I'm not sure why you're being smug about it.  Because, remember, using a different club to get there is not "all I'm doing." ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

OK, then when you're playing the tight course, would you rather have to murder your driver 220 on every hole, or poke your 4 or 5 iron out there on every hole?

Then remember, after you do that - let's say, for a 400 yard straightaway par 4 - now you're left with 180 yards.  220 guy is hitting, I imagine, a 3 or 4 hybrid into the green?  Whereas 300 OB guy is hitting an 8 iron.

So, even if that tight course is the only course you are ever going to play, and the option of bombing it into the rough on a wide open parkland course never comes up, I'm still hitting 3, 4 or 5 clubs less into each green if I'm the 300 guy playing smart on your course than if I'm the 220 guy. If you honestly believe that is better, then again, you're welcome for helping make your point, but I'm not sure why that is your point.

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.

[Subaroozz]

In my opinion it comes down to the quality of the swing. When you have a poor swing and hit it far but off the planet, would you immediately improve your game only by hitting it with less power?

Well maybe to a certain extend but you are still going to miss the fairway but then you are shorter and off the fairway!

So that still was not the solution for me

I don't really mean swinging with less power.  A bad swing is a bad swing and you can spray it no matter how far it goes.  I'm talking about changing your mechanics to a swing that emphasizes control and may sacrifice some elements of power.

This is a ridiculous example, but it will illustrate what I am getting at.  This clip from Sports Science has Padraig Harrington using the Happy Gilmore swing.  They say he gained 30 yards, but at the expense of some accuracy.  He commented that he wouldn't do it in a tournament because of the inconsistency and risk of being less accurate.  The fundamentals were the same, but his swing was much faster doing the HG swing.

If every tour player could add distance swinging this way, then why don't they do it?  In essence, they, and we, are all making some concessions in our swing to balance distance and accuracy.  Why is it acceptable to give up distance by not Happy Gilmoreing, but not acceptable to give up distance by making 3/4 swings, or modifying your grip, ball placement, or body position?

The HG swing is risky because there are so many variables.  Yes it can be mastered, but likely not for the average golfer.  Why not eliminate all of the other variables in the swing that are difficult to master as well, and only introduce them to your swing when you get better.

I'm not a S+T guy... but isn't that one of the basics of the S+T swing (that some claim causes a loss of distance)?  Positioning your weight forward at address to eliminate the variable of precision timing of shifting weight during the swing.  Eliminate as many variables in the swing as you can until you are more skilled.

On the swing threads, there are like five principles that we coach each other on.  But other than that, I think people are caught up on looking like a tour player, and not using a more functional swing that suits their current level of ability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wguFY0DDoAU

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.

[turtleback]

And if you play that way then you are agreeing that it's better to be 220 in the fairway than 270 and 30 yards off the fairway.  All you are doing is using a different club to get there.  Thank you for making my point for me.

Yeah, no.  The difference is that the guy hitting driver 220 has no other options when he comes to a wide open 550 par 5.  The guy who "just used a different club" to get to the same spot with a 5-iron has many many options on that par 5's tee.

I wasn't trying to present it as black and white.  Trying to start a conversation about would you rather be accurate guy, or long guy?  And would you give up a bit of your current distance to be more accurate?

I've liked the thread so far, I am surprised that many of us would rather have more distance even if it's in the rough every once in a while.

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.

@iacas and company have extended the analysis to regular folks in their book Lowest Score Wins.  It applies science to golf.  And we should all be reminded of the statement of John Ruskin:

"The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions."

Accuracy. Just look at what happened to Tiger. LOL

I don't have a clue what your point is, can you expand?  But when he was utterly dominant he was not a particularly accurate driver.

[danL]

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.