Longer or More Accurate?

[Pretzel]

In a heartbeat you should take the distance, then run to the course to go play all of your buddies for money with your previous handicap before it goes down.

I hit it long enough to rarely have longer than a 7-8 iron approach shot on most 7200 yard courses, and I still would take the distance over the accuracy. If I can switch from hitting those 7-8 irons as my longest approaches to a 8-9 iron, I know I'll score better. It also means I will carry the trouble spots with my tee shots that have been designed into most courses, since it would put me a decent ways above average in terms of driving distance. On par 3's I might no longer have to hit long irons (3, 4 and 5 iron tee shots are common on par 3's on those long courses) and could be hitting some mid-irons instead, allowing me to hit more GIR on the hardest (relative to par) holes on the course. I see no downside if we're being completely honest here. If I want to hit it with the same accuracy (in terms of yards offline) as I previously did off the tee, due to a tight fairway or some sort of condition like that, all I have to do is hit a 3-wood instead of a driver! Par 5's become more reachable, since my average distance for the second shot would go from 230-300 yards down to 200-270 yards, which would let me reach the green in two with something as short as a 6-iron in my hand. If the wind is at my back I could even have as little as an 8-iron in hand for the second shot. I see no downsides to hitting it further if we're being honest, and much more benefit than I could gain with a 10% accuracy increase. I gain more than 10% in accuracy by being closer to the hole (if we're talking yards offline from 180 yards versus 150 yards), so it doesn't make sense to choose the stat that provides less value.

If we look at the math, there is a way to determine what is more valuable between the distance and the accuracy, depending on how far you hit the ball already and how accurate you are to start with. Assuming that I have a driving distance of ~280 yards and an accuracy of about 4.5*, the 10% gains would be 28 yards and .45 degrees respectively (which I will round to 30 yards and .5 degrees for simplicity). If I gain .5* of accuracy on a 150 yard approach shot, I will end up hitting the ball only 10.46 yards offline compared to 11.76 yards offline. If, instead, I were to hit the ball 30 yards closer to start with I would end up hitting the ball only 9.42 yards offline. This means that the distance would make my approach shot a full yard more accurate than the accuracy would! This doesn't even factor in the reduced tilt on the spin axis of the golf ball due to hitting a lesser club, meaning I would be even more accurate with the distance than this shows because I would have less of a curve to my ballflight to account for (you can hit a wedge straighter than you can a short iron).

For my numbers, that 10% of accuracy is equivalent (not taking into account the effect of your spin axis on accuracy) to an approximate distance boost of 6%. This means distance is nearly two times as effective at allowing me to hit my approach shots closer to the hole than accuracy, which sounds rather contradictory but the math supports it (10.46 / sin(4.5) = 133.31   150-133.31 = 16.68   16.68 / 280 = 0.0596).

Mathematically speaking, the distance boost gives me more accuracy than a boost to accuracy alone!

The other thing to note is, the 10% distance boost is a bigger deal the longer you already hit the ball. I hit the ball fairly long, so I end up getting a larger boost from it than a shorter hitter. That doesn't mean that a shorter hitter wouldn't want the distance though, just that the additional percentage gain of distance would be a bit less valuable.

To recap, me gaining 10% distance would let me avoid the worst designed trouble (by flying over it on my tee shot in the first place), I can hit shorter clubs into the greens, and I can still retain the same accuracy (in terms of yards offline) as I had previously should I want it. Where do I sign up?

[Dave325]

7 hours ago, Pretzel said:

To recap, me gaining 10% distance would let me avoid the worst designed trouble (by flying over it on my tee shot in the first place), I can hit shorter clubs into the greens, and I can still retain the same accuracy (in terms of yards offline) as I had previously should I want it. Where do I sign up?

I agree, Pretzel. That works well when you need the distance to fly it over a hazard. But one hole comes to mind... The 16th hole of the course I play starts out with hitting over a ravine before you get to fairway that is bordered by lake on the left (the full length of the hole up to the green). There is a tree-lined woods on the right. This hole bites me every time it seems. Anything short of a straight or light draw will put you into a world of hurt. A long straight drive will take to the edge of the lake, leaving you a 9-iron onto the green. A longer drive will put you in the wraparound lake that stands between the edge of the fairway and the lake. I would like the accuracy card for that hole, please. But the longer wide open par fives, I would like more distance. However, a more conservative approach might be to take a hybrid to 150 yard marker and take n 8-iron across the lake. But then again, even this shot requires accuracy. All that said, it seems sometime distance is good, in others it is a high degree of accuracy.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, Dave325 said:

I agree, Pretzel. That works well when you need the distance to fly it over a hazard. But one hole comes to mind... The 16th hole of the course I play starts out with hitting over a ravine before you get to fairway that is bordered by lake on the left (the full length of the hole up to the green). There is a tree-lined woods on the right. This hole bites me every time it seems. Anything short of a straight or light draw will put you into a world of hurt. A long straight drive will take to the edge of the lake, leaving you a 9-iron onto the green. A longer drive will put you in the wraparound lake that stands between the edge of the fairway and the lake. I would like the accuracy card for that hole, please. But the longer wide open par fives, I would like more distance. However, a more conservative approach might be to take a hybrid to 150 yard marker and take n 8-iron across the lake. But then again, even this shot requires accuracy. All that said, it seems sometime distance is good, in others it is a high degree of accuracy.

As I mentioned before, you can just club down on that hole. Nothing is stopping you from hitting the ball an appropriate distance there. 

It's also important to point out that is one hole out of 18 holes. I wouldn't pick based on a single hole, especially because you become no less accurate on tee shots when you're govern your distance boost. You maintain the same accuracy, and your approach shots become even more accurate. 

[Tenerife]

I have to say that players who have the length to play a course have a great advantage. After suffering some Major health problems which have had residual effects I have lost a lot of distance

I still have a good short game and putt well,but my handicap continues to climb because I can't reach enough GIR. 

[JBailey]

I understand exactly what everyone is saying about the importance of length.  But I struggle with the fact that my own scores have improved every time I've made a change that sacrificed distance for accuracy.  So, while still keeping an open mind, I'm sticking with accuracy for the time being.

I would like to pose this though.  We have been talking about percentages.  10% of a 30 yd. wide fairway is only 3 yds.  I can see where that's not a big difference.  10% of my 220 yd. drives is 22 yds. and is a big difference.  Even when I'm driving the ball well, I'm often on the edges of the fairway and an extra 22 yds. would simply put me in the woods without a chance to get to the green in regulation.  Putting my drive 3 yds. closer to the center of the fairway, however, would give me a good chance of reaching the green in regulation.  It would even give me the benefit of keeping the ball in play, because of the angle, even if I did catch the ball on the screws and hit it longer than normal.

I'll admit, I've always played very tight courses.  Most of the courses I've played in Northern Michigan have been cut out of the woods.  If you get off the fairway much, it's very penalizing.  However, this year, as I take up golf again after a 20 yr. absence, the only course near me is a mom and pop course built on an old farm.  While there are still a lot of trees, most holes have one side of the fairway fairly open.  I can see where accuracy may not be quite as important.  If that's the case I may be switching sides on the accuracy vs. distance debate.

Later,

John

[Lihu]

41 minutes ago, JBailey said:

I understand exactly what everyone is saying about the importance of length.  But I struggle with the fact that my own scores have improved every time I've made a change that sacrificed distance for accuracy.  So, while still keeping an open mind, I'm sticking with accuracy for the time being.

That's because you are sacrificing a wild swing for a controlled and proper swing, and not because you are actually sacrificing distance for accuracy.

Now, if you were now given the choice to become 10% more accurate or 10% longer with this controlled and proper swing, which would you choose?

[Aflighter]

There is an easy way to find out which would be better.Start playing the next tees up and that should equate to your 10% longer and see if your score improves dramatically compared to placing your ball more on a straight line from where your original was on shots and compare.

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, Aflighter said:

There is an easy way to find out which would be better.Start playing the next tees up and that should equate to your 10% longer and see if your score improves dramatically compared to placing your ball more on a straight line from where your original was on shots and compare.

Your second shot still counts as part of the long game. GIR is King! Put another way, you only need to be good and chipping, pitching and sand shots because you missed the green.

[dsc123]

26 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

There is an easy way to find out which would be better.Start playing the next tees up and that should equate to your 10% longer and see if your score improves dramatically compared to placing your ball more on a straight line from where your original was on shots and compare.

We did this a couple years ago.  I can't find the thread, though.  Anyone remember what it was called?

[Big C]

According to Game Golf, my worst driver miss in the last year was an 85 yard pull hook left. Would a 10% improvement in angular accuracy have helped me there? Sure, but the difference between an 85 yard miss and a 77 yard miss really isn't all that significant in the grand scheme of things. As we get closer to the pin, my dispersion tightens significantly. At least half of my approaches end up within a 15 yard radius of the hole (45 feet), but even my worst misses are 80-100 feet away. And since that distance is a combination of both bad accuracy and bad distance control, it's probably fair to say that my angular accuracy rarely accounts for more than 20 yards of any single miss on the approach. 

Sooooo...... even on my worst shots, a 10% improvement in angular accuracy will get me a whopping 6 feet closer to the hole. On most shots, the improvement will be a 1-2 feet at most. Let's compare that to the prospect of picking up 25-30 yards on every drive?? And hitting shorter irons from the same distance in the fairway? It's a no brainer, right?

Now, I already hit the ball a fairly long way. And on my bad days, my accuracy can be a serious hindrance (I have a tendency to get very wild off the tee). So it seems, I would be the proto-typical candidate to sacrifice distance for accuracy for the sake of this question. But even for a long wild hitter, there really is no comparison. The value of the added distance greatly outweighs the (modest) added improvement in accuracy. 

What I am led to conclude is that there is NO golfer in the universe who would be correct to choose "accuracy" in the original question. Anyone who does is simply mis informed!

An interesting follow up question might be - "what % improvement in angular accuracy would it take to be as valuable to your game as a 10% increase in distance?" Obviously, this will vary for every player,  but for someone with my profile, I am guessing about 33%. The ability to turn my 30 yard misses into 20 yard misses off the tee would likely be meaningful enough to save me some OB/Penalty strokes, and and an approach that missed the flag by 10 feet left, as opposed to 15 feet would likely be significant enough to give me more realistic birdie opportunities. 

For the "average" player (240 off the tee, with average dispersion), I'm thinking the number could be as high as 50%. And for some of the seniors in my mens club (200 off the tee but straight as an arrow), it could be as much as 75%!

[GolfLug]

4 minutes ago, Big C said:

According to Game Golf, my worst driver miss in the last year was an 85 yard pull hook left. Would a 10% improvement in angular accuracy have helped me there? Sure, but the difference between an 85 yard miss and a 77 yard miss really isn't all that significant in the grand scheme of things. As we get closer to the pin, my dispersion tightens significantly. At least half of my approaches end up within a 15 yard radius of the hole (45 feet), but even my worst misses are 80-100 feet away. And since that distance is a combination of both bad accuracy and bad distance control, it's probably fair to say that my angular accuracy rarely accounts for more than 20 yards of any single miss. 

Sooooo...... even on my worst shots, a 10% improvement in angular accuracy will get me a whopping 6 feet closer to the hole. On most shots, the improvement will be a 1-2 feet at most. Let's compare that to the prospect of picking up 25-30 yards on every drive?? And hitting shorter irons from the same distance in the fairway? It's a no brainer, right?

Now, I already hit the ball a fairly long way. And on my bad days, my accuracy can be a serious hindrance (I have a tendency to get very wild off the tee). So it seems, I would be the proto-typical candidate to sacrifice distance for accuracy for the sake of this question. But even for a long wild hitter, there really is no comparison. The value of the added distance greatly outweighs the (modest) added improvement in accuracy. 

What I am led to conclude is that there is NO golfer in the universe who would be correct to choose "accuracy" in the original question. Anyone who does is simply mis informed!

An interesting follow up question might be - "what % improvement in angular accuracy would it take to be as valuable to your game as a 10% increase in distance?" Obviously, this will vary for every player,  but for someone with my profile, I am guessing about 33%. The ability to turn my 30 yard misses into 20 yard misses off the tee would likely be meaningful enough to save me some OB/Penalty strokes, and and an approach that missed the flag by 10 feet left, as opposed to 15 feet would likely be significant enough to give me more realistic birdie opportunities. 

For the "average" player (240 off the tee, with average dispersion), I'm thinking the number could be as high as 50%. And for some of the seniors in my mens club (200 off the tee but straight as an arrow), it could be as much as 75%!

Great post @Big C. Exactly what I was thinking. 10% accuracy is not enough or even close to offsetting 10% distance. People miss that distance is also accuracy in disguise. Many accuracy biased are thinking 10% improvement is FIR and GIRs all day. Hardly the case.   

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

We did this a couple years ago.  I can't find the thread, though.  Anyone remember what it was called?

Do you mean this one:

 

 

[dsc123]

9 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Do you mean this one:

 

 

Yes!  Thank you.

 

A number of people shed 10-15 strokes by playing the shorter tees. 

I remember trying this, but I guess I never posted.  Don't remember the results. 

[Big C]

52 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Great post @Big C. Exactly what I was thinking. 10% accuracy is not enough or even close to offsetting 10% distance. People miss that distance is also accuracy in disguise. Many accuracy biased are thinking 10% improvement is FIR and GIRs all day. Hardly the case.   

Thanks, @GolfLug. To be fair, my first reaction when I saw the question was to opt for the accuracy myself. But the more you think about how each of the each of the two choices would actually impact your scoring, the choice becomes pretty cut and dried.

[natureboy]

On 1/3/2016 at 10:11 AM, Dave325 said:

I agree, Pretzel. That works well when you need the distance to fly it over a hazard. But one hole comes to mind... The 16th hole of the course I play starts out with hitting over a ravine before you get to fairway that is bordered by lake on the left (the full length of the hole up to the green). There is a tree-lined woods on the right. This hole bites me every time it seems. Anything short of a straight or light draw will put you into a world of hurt. A long straight drive will take to the edge of the lake, leaving you a 9-iron onto the green. A longer drive will put you in the wraparound lake that stands between the edge of the fairway and the lake. I would like the accuracy card for that hole, please. But the longer wide open par fives, I would like more distance. However, a more conservative approach might be to take a hybrid to 150 yard marker and take n 8-iron across the lake. But then again, even this shot requires accuracy. All that said, it seems sometime distance is good, in others it is a high degree of accuracy.

Agree with @Pretzel 's response. Just would add the point that with 'magical' distance a strategic layup on this hole puts a higher lofted club in your had for the 2nd shot from the same 'safe' landing zone.

Edited January 8, 2016 by natureboy

[ZappyAd]

17 hours ago, Big C said:

An interesting follow up question might be - "what % improvement in angular accuracy would it take to be as valuable to your game as a 10% increase in distance?"

...

For the "average" player (240 off the tee, with average dispersion), I'm thinking the number could be as high as 50%. And for some of the seniors in my mens club (200 off the tee but straight as an arrow), it could be as much as 75%!

I wonder if it is possible for this to be calculated/derived from shots gained data?  Like if 10 yards more off the tee gains you 0.5 of a stroke, then there must be an improvement in accuracy that gains you roughly the same amount.  At least then you are comparing equivalent things, and there would be a point where getting more accurate would gain you more strokes than Y yards distance.  Then the question (in relation to real life) might be in order to gain 0.5 of a stroke, is it easier to learn how to hit the ball 10 yards further or get X% more accurate.

For all that 'longer is better' from the data point of view in relation to my game I think the cost of each improvement is important, as well as the boundaries of my personal 'performance envelope' i.e. what level can I actually attain with my physical and mental talents if everything is performing at 100% and how much time/effort/practice/steps backwards will it take to achieve it?  I would like to drive the ball 10 yards further but maybe I'm already close to my limit and so I only have a few yards left to gain, whereas I might have the capacity to get a lot more accurate.  In that case even if the numbers tell me that distance is better I would surely be gaining more strokes if I tried to improve my accuracy, simply because they are available to gain where the distance strokes are not.  

It seems to me that not all strokes gained are created equal in terms of what it takes to attain them.

 

Edited January 8, 2016 by ZappyAd

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, ZappyAd said:

I wonder if it is possible for this to be calculated/derived from shots gained data?  Like if 10 yards more off the tee gains you 0.5 of a stroke, then there must be an improvement in accuracy that gains you roughly the same amount.  At least then you are comparing equivalent things, and there would be a point where getting more accurate would gain you more strokes than Y yards distance.  Then the question (in relation to real life) might be in order to gain 0.5 of a stroke, is it easier to learn how to hit the ball 10 yards further or get X% more accurate.

I believe it's from LSW, but 20 yards of distance equals 1 degree of accuracy for a PGA Tour player. I am not sure if accuracy and strokes gained are a linear relationship. As the handicap goes up the amount you can gain from 1 degree of accuracy does not increase as much as the strokes saved by increasing distance by 20 yards.

 

[Wally Fairway]

I would tell the Genie I want 2 wishes:

- 10% more distance off the tee

- 10% more accurate on my approaches, then I would make 25% more putts

 

But if I only had one it would be distance, I hit the fairway with regularity so I would want to have a more lofted club in my hands for my approach