Longer or More Accurate?

[Lihu]

9 hours ago, Baog said:

I voted for accuracy with the thought that greater accuracy would be a benefit on 100% of shots. 10% more distance is not a benefit on an 8' putt. 

Does it make a difference to the analysis that 10% greater accuracy would also help around the green? Maybe the distance advantage is so overwhelming that it's still the clearly correct choice.

 

8 hours ago, mvmac said:

For most distance is the correct choice. 

You can't gain distance with your putting or chipping/pitching, so obviously the poll is asking about full swing/full shots, not about around the green.

 

For most, but apparently not all. . .I was next to a beginner who hit really far on the few shots he made good contact. The rest duffed, went directly sideways left and right and I think one even went backwards. I only noticed after hearing a few shouts of terror behind us. . .I think he could probably use accuracy over distance.

[mvmac]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

The rest duffed, went directly sideways left and right and I think one even went backwards.

Well then even the 10% improvement in accuracy wouldn't help all that much 

[Lihu]

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Well then even the 10% improvement in accuracy wouldn't help all that much 

The hope is that the backwards shots might at least face sideways. 

[esayers]

hands down distance for me . my average drive with driver is 200-230 so at 10% more id be 220-250 ...that's a difference of 2-3 clubs up for me on approach and when I miss on a drive 10 % accuracy wont help  me much ...no if only I could find this genie ???

[Big_in_Belgium]

I'll take the distance, thank you very much.

Not only do you drive it further, all your other clubs get the same advantage, right? I'd rather have a wedge for my approach instead of an 8 or 7-iron...

[natureboy]

On 11/13/2015, 1:57:19, RFKFREAK said:

Hmm, I average way over 190 and have I'd say an average of 5 penalty strokes per round.  I'm leaving a lot out there, then.

It's average tee shot distance (all clubs on non-par 3s) not your average distance with driver. A 'good drive' with driver might be closer to 215 yards at that baseline. Recovery shots count and are important (more frequent on a 'typical course' than OB / Lost) in for that baseline number per round / percentage too.

Plus it's important to remember that the 'typical' handicap population used to establish the baseline may not well reflect an 'improving player'. I expect that below the very upper ranges the typical player is more likely someone who's been playing for a while and is fairly well established with their game. You are relatively new.

Edited November 18, 2015 by natureboy

[RFKFREAK]

On 11/18/2015, 4:59:59, natureboy said:

It's average tee shot distance (all clubs on non-par 3s) not your average distance with driver. A 'good drive' with driver might be closer to 215 yards at that baseline. Recovery shots count and are important (more frequent on a 'typical course' than OB / Lost) in for that baseline number per round / percentage too.

Plus it's important to remember that the 'typical' handicap population used to establish the baseline may not well reflect an 'improving player'. I expect that below the very upper ranges the typical player is more likely someone who's been playing for a while and is fairly well established with their game. You are relatively new.

Hmm.  I just think it means I have a tremendous upside if I ever learn how to develop a good swing, haha. 

[RH31]

I know I'm going to hit better approach shots from closer so I went with the distance.

Question is, what is the best and easiest way to gain 10% and still not lose the marginal accuracy I have?

[pganapathy]

I have a question for all the guys who voted distance.  Let's assume you are inaccurate and therefore wind up in the rough, but say 20 to 30 yards closer.  Would you rather hit a 7 iron from the fairway or a 9 from the rough.  For me the fairway is better than a shorter club from the rough.  Just my 2 cents

[iacas]

2 hours ago, pganapathy said:

I have a question for all the guys who voted distance.  Let's assume you are inaccurate and therefore wind up in the rough, but say 20 to 30 yards closer.  Would you rather hit a 7 iron from the fairway or a 9 from the rough.  For me the fairway is better than a shorter club from the rough.  Just my 2 cents

Let's imagine you're 25 yards closer because you drive the ball 250 yards. Let's also imagine your 7-iron goes 150, just to keep it simple.

So 250+150 = a 400-yard hole.

Now you drive it 275. That leaves you 125 yards in. While previously that may have been your 9I (150 7I, 137.5 8I, 125 9I, 112.5 PW?), now you're hitting just a PW: 112.5 + 11.25 =~ 125.

So it's really three clubs difference.

---

Then, you'd have to look at a few things:

• How accurate you are with a PW from the rough versus how accurate you are with a 7I from the fairway.
• You'd then have to weigh THAT against the increased chances of finding yourself in the rough.

The second thing seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. Let's imagine you hit 65% of your fairways now, and if we give you 25 yards, you'll hit 45%. That means that 6.3 times per round you're hitting a PW from the fairway instead of a 7I, and only 2.8 times are you hitting from the rough when before you'd be hitting from the fairway.

So even if the stats told you that you were more accurate with a 7I from 150 in the fairway than a PW from 125 in the rough (which, by the way, is highly unlikely unless you have some awfully terrible rough), but it'd have to be SUCH a disadvantage that you actually LOST over twice as many strokes on the rough holes as you gained on the 45% of the holes you hit the fairway.

And that's just unlikely.

---

Never mind that the question magically gifted you 10% distance gains while keeping the same accuracy, so you're probably not going to lose 20% of your fairways hit.

[pganapathy]

@iacas, very valid point.  It might even be three clubs, but every time you wind up in the rough you have no guarantee of the lie.  You might have to punch out sideways because of a tree, in thick grass have to advance it 50 yards, or you might get a lie that gives you a flier.  Of course, you might also get a close to perfect lie that lets you attack the green.

Yes, I am more accurate with a PW than a 7i, but the advantage of hitting it more accurately is also that you hit a fairway and will get more roll-out than hitting a rough and losing that.  Good theoretical question that also shows you how people think about their own games and how they strategise their way around a course

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

@iacas, very valid point.  It might even be three clubs, but every time you wind up in the rough you have no guarantee of the lie.  You might have to punch out sideways because of a tree, in thick grass have to advance it 50 yards, or you might get a lie that gives you a flier.  Of course, you might also get a close to perfect lie that lets you attack the green.

Yes, I am more accurate with a PW than a 7i, but the advantage of hitting it more accurately is also that you hit a fairway and will get more roll-out than hitting a rough and losing that.  Good theoretical question that also shows you how people think about their own games and how they strategise their way around a course

You're still missing the point.

You're almost acting as if the added distance guarantees you'll be in the rough while the added accuracy guarantees you'll find the fairway.

That doesn't happen.

And players, by and large (generally speaking) are almost always better off taking the distance over the accuracy. Easily.

Here's a chart which shows this pretty nicely:

You'll note that for everyone worse than a PGA Tour player, the added distance is more important than the added accuracy. He (Mark Broadie) chose to just add distance or accuracy to driving here, and did it by degrees and yards and not percentages, but the math will still hold up. Especially given this:

That shows the average amateur doesn't miss by 10° very much at all (around 7-8° or so), so a 1° improvement in driving accuracy is actually more than a 10% improvement than I offered in the poll.

Here's a good thread.

And remember… we're talking generalities, here. Perhaps for your game, the 1° matters more, either because of your game, the types of courses you play, etc.

[JBailey]

3 hours ago, pganapathy said:

I have a question for all the guys who voted distance.  Let's assume you are inaccurate and therefore wind up in the rough, but say 20 to 30 yards closer.  Would you rather hit a 7 iron from the fairway or a 9 from the rough.  For me the fairway is better than a shorter club from the rough.  Just my 2 cents

 

I chose accuracy over distance.  I think two reasons are confidence and trouble.

Almost all my bad rounds are produced by getting in trouble.  Rarely does a drive in the fairway produce anything worse than a bogey.  However, many times and errant shot produces worse than a bogey.  Many holes are reward a risky shot executed well, but also designed to punish a risky shot gone bad.  Not many holes are designed to punish a lay-up.  The longer you hit the ball, the more likely there will be trouble for an errant shot.

I don't think confidence building can be kept out of the equation.  The more I put the ball in the fairway with my drive, the more confidence I build.  The more confidence I have, the less tension I have.  If I hit the ball in the rough with my drive, I'm immediately worrying about what kind of lie I have.  Rarely do I get a good lie in the rough -- not good for confidence on my approach shot.

I'll stick with accuracy!

Later,

John

[RH31]

7 hours ago, pganapathy said:

I have a question for all the guys who voted distance.  Let's assume you are inaccurate and therefore wind up in the rough, but say 20 to 30 yards closer.  Would you rather hit a 7 iron from the fairway or a 9 from the rough.  For me the fairway is better than a shorter club from the rough.  Just my 2 cents

9 iron from the rough. Every so often I'll get a buried, hack it out, lie in the rough, but most of the time I can play it. Sometimes you get that sitting up jumper and you can take even less club. All lies in the fairway aren't always great either. I've had sandy divots, empty divots, ultrathin no grassers etc.,

[Keep It Simple]

Everyone wants more distance including me but I have the distance to play comfortably from the tips and I give some up for accuracy already.  ie. I hit the driver with a negative angle of attack.  So I'll take some more accuracy and see if I can make more aces.

 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Keep It Simple

[natureboy]

6 hours ago, pganapathy said:

every time you wind up in the rough you have no guarantee of the lie.  You might have to punch out sideways because of a tree, in thick grass have to advance it 50 yards, or you might get a lie that gives you a flier.  Of course, you might also get a close to perfect lie that lets you attack the green.

This is a fair caveat. The statistics are built from the incremental gains of added distance helping your likely score from both fairway and rough and outweighing the occasional bad lie. A wide landing zone with added distance will put you in the junk somewhat more often than you are currently. How bad this will affect the tradeoff does depend somewhat on the particulars of the course. If it's really tight and ugly just off the fairway in your new landing zone and you have a wide dispersion, then accuracy probably counts a bit more than for a 'typical' course / hole.

But if you had magic distance, with the same accuracy per the OP, you could strategically club down for that course or hole and let loose elsewhere for the scoring gains.

[3Mulligans]

Seems most answers are focused on the drive. For me, the answer must consider my second shot. It's usually stellar. I'd rather be more accurate in general to setup my second shot but based on the math here I'll take distance. More bang for my genie buck. 

[Smidd4]

I'm taking distance all day and it's not even close.