2016 Distance Data from Game Golf (and "How Far do Ams Hit the Ball?")

[Denny Bang Bang]

I was actually a little surprised at the data, initially, being GG measures total distance vs. carry.

[sjduffers]

At 57, with an index around 10, I average about 210-215. With real good drives in the 240-250 range and poor ones around 180-195 (or into a strong wind uphill!). So right about where this mean data says I should be. I think.

[natureboy]

On 1/5/2017 at 2:56 PM, Hazsa said:

Seems pretty bang on to me. 26 years old with a HC of 12, I invariably find my ball anywhere between 215 and 240 yards down the hole.

Before I got my GPS Watch I'd tell people 250 was my average.  

Yeah, my initial estimate was longer than I thought too and was going off more my average 'good hit' on the range. I didn't realize how much the mishits and lack of bounce/roll in rough take off till I measured a bunch on course. I carried plenty 250+ and hit some up around 280 total on a soft course - average was significantly less.

But my iron estimates from the range were pretty good relative to the course. Of course you don't play to your actual average iron shot (including bad mishits) but your typical 'expected' distance. I'll probably be hitting more irons off the tee till I get my new swing sorted out with the longer clubs.

I would now think I'd want to know three numbers for my driver the average 'good hit', the median, and the average minimum. Or maybe something like the 1 sigma spread around the mode, or just the shot zone spread / heat map to actually or mentally map around course landing zone obstacles.

Edited January 8, 2017 by natureboy

[The Recreational Golfer]

According to this article by Golf Digest, not that far.

[Hacker James]

did not bother to read the article, but can equate it to old real estate idiom/axiom:
 

"Buyers is Liars".

Edited January 13, 2017 by Hacker James

[DaveP043]

This was discussed about a week ago here:

 

[Blackjack Don]

Josh Beckett hit a drive 338 yards on the Golf Channel the other day. Just sayin'.

Are we going to talk about this here, or there? Data like this always interests me.

[GolfLug]

I like the chart. Of all skills, distance is the hardest to improve..

The way I read it and use it is to tells myself that with my current distance the HCP upside is at least 5 shots!   

[Kalnoky]

4 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I like the chart. Of all skills, distance is the hardest to improve..

 

My first instructor liked to say, "contact, direction, and then distance" (learned in that order). 

[Blackjack Don]

So does this data (all data) prove that there is a direct correlation between distance and handicap? Or age and handicap? 

Can a fifty year-old golfer who can't carry 200 yards hope to shoot in the seventies?

[Dave2512]

Not sure that knowing this would change much for the average golfer, IME people make golf decisions based on best not average. Ask a male golfer how far they drive it and the answer is going to be closer to best of season drive than reality. That's why you see golfers that can't break 90 on back tees.

[RandallT]

23 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

So does this data (all data) prove that there is a direct correlation between distance and handicap? Or age and handicap? 

Can a fifty year-old golfer who can't carry 200 yards hope to shoot in the seventies?

We're golfers- hope is in our blood. The median player may not be a 70s shooter, but I'm sure there could be an outlier or two.

Regarding "proof," I think it's up to each to determine if we buy it. I'd say there's a correlation with the median values of those combinations (distance/age/handicap)- with data to disprove the rule, on occasion. While I love sifting through data looking for correlations myself, I'd never want to eliminate the possibility of there being cases that lie outside of the picture being told by some set of numbers.

[DaveP043]

25 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

So does this data (all data) prove that there is a direct correlation between distance and handicap? Or age and handicap? 

Can a fifty year-old golfer who can't carry 200 yards hope to shoot in the seventies?

The answers are Yes and Yes, I suspect.  This doesn't mean you can't get longer as you get older, especially if you learn to improve your swing mechanics.  It doesn't mean you can't shoot lower scores than your driver distance might statistically correspond to.

And yes again, as long as you're playing the correct tees.  These are statistics, not universal rules.  There are lots and lots of ways of shooting a specific score.  However, having less distance off the tee means a much smaller margin of error for the rest of the game, if you're going to shoot in the 70s.  

[Blackjack Don]

12 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Not sure that knowing this would change much for the average golfer, IME people make golf decisions based on best not average. Ask a male golfer how far they drive it and the answer is going to be closer to best of season drive than reality. That's why you see golfers that can't break 90 on back tees.

To be honest, Dave, I'm not thinking about the "average Joe" out there. I'm think more of us in here. We are willing to spend the time and effort to improve, but how much is realistic? We are willing to move up, while the average golfer who never practices, like the little guy hitting 150 from the back tee last week, isn't going to worry about it. We do.

So, am I, +60 and barely carrying 210 with my driver and 150 with a seven iron, ever get to +10? Seeing that data, I wonder.

As I get older, I think I need a greater margin of error. I'm comfortable with statistics. They tell me things I might not want to hear, but I don't blame the data. If the best I can do is 85, then that's life. 84 would be a good score and 87 not a disaster. I can live with it. Just nice to know what the upside is. 220 and plus+ 10 are the best I can do, so be it. That's my goal. That's par for me. That's what the data suggests.

[RandallT]

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The answers are Yes and Yes, I suspect.  This doesn't mean you can't get longer as you get older, especially if you learn to improve your swing mechanics.  It doesn't mean you can't shoot lower scores than your driver distance might statistically correspond to.

And yes again, as long as you're playing the correct tees.  These are statistics, not universal rules.  There are lots and lots of ways of shooting a specific score.  However, having less distance off the tee means a much smaller margin of error for the rest of the game, if you're going to shoot in the 70s.  

Yah, I think we mostly were saying the same things. 

Occasionally, we get some folks here saying that all these over-analytic numbers and stats are mostly a waste of time. The right approach is just to get out there and score, dammit!

I always fall back to: the goal of looking at numbers isn't to prove 100% one thing or another, it's mainly to see what you're up against regarding the big picture. What is the 30,000ft view, and where might some reasonable goals for improvement be? (the perennial long game vs. short game debate is perfect example- the numbers generally say one thing, but the other "thing" certainly is nowhere near impossible)

1 minute ago, Blackjack Don said:

I'm comfortable with statistics.

Yah, I know as a poker player, none of what we're saying is new to you. You are quite familiar with what the odds of something are vs. the potential outcomes. I think being aware of the overall correlations is one thing, but if you work hard at a rounded game, you'll likely be better off than any median player represented in these numbers.

[Blackjack Don]

Exactly, Randall. Without this data, I'd be thinking that I can be a single digit. That might be possible, but the data says it's highly unrealistic. I don't try to hit my pair after the flop when I know it's 22:1 and the pot is laying me 5:1. Being frustrated because I can't break 80, ever, makes me pretty okay. The numbers don't lie. Liars who use numbers are liars, or in some cases, self-delusional.

I'm okay with the numbers. Reality is often disappointing.

[Jeremie Boop]

37 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Not sure that knowing this would change much for the average golfer, IME people make golf decisions based on best not average. Ask a male golfer how far they drive it and the answer is going to be closer to best of season drive than reality. That's why you see golfers that can't break 90 on back tees.

That's a fair statement. People tend to remember the better shots more than the poor ones, but at the same time when you are playing you have to take into account your potential in cases where you are waiting to tee off. While playing I don't go by average or max distance, I go by what GG says is my "typical" which excludes the outliers on both sides, short and long. GG says my typical drive total distance is 275 which has served me pretty well since I started using the system. I also have taken time to measure my carry when I can, and typically that ends up being between 240-260 depending on what part of the year it is. So I factor that in also. Years ago, before I started actually using gps apps and GG to gather information I used to think that I was hitting the ball 20 yards further on average. Now that I know better I make better decisions on the course and score better. I think that has been one of the reasons I have dropped my index over 10 points since I took getting better seriously. Knowing your game and ability is key to scoring better and knowing what you need to improve.

[Dave2512]

7 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

To be honest, Dave, I'm not thinking about the "average Joe" out there. I'm think more of us in here. We are willing to spend the time and effort to improve, but how much is realistic? We are willing to move up, while the average golfer who never practices, like the little guy hitting 150 from the back tee last week, isn't going to worry about it. We do.

So, am I, +60 and barely carrying 210 with my driver and 150 with a seven iron, ever get to +10? Seeing that data, I wonder.

As I get older, I think I need a greater margin of error. I'm comfortable with statistics. They tell me things I might not want to hear, but I don't blame the data. If the best I can do is 85, then that's life. 84 would be a good score and 87 not a disaster. I can live with it. Just nice to know what the upside is. 220 and plus+ 10 are the best I can do, so be it. That's my goal. That's par for me. That's what the data suggests.

I averaged 230 ish (total) in 2016 so it can be done. I play from 6400-6700 yards sometimes longer depending on my group. A typical round for me is a worst drive of 200 and best of 280 or so with everything in between. I break 80 often, didn't play much in 2016 but my average score was 80.9. You don't have to be a bomber to score well if you are playing the right tees relative to your skill. But it requires some consistency to your inconsistency, your worst shots have to leave you in a spot that gives you a chance. At my home course I only hit driver on ten holes. The holes I don't are the holes I par most often, short par 4's. I know where I am most likely going to make a bogey or worse and I don't try to push it, I play smart.