Longer, it`s better, but not at all cost

[p1n9183]

SG: Stroke Gained
Stats recorded in official tournaments away from my home course.

Swing 1: Accurate Week fade, 250 yards. 
Swing 2: Wild Strong draw, 270 yards. 

Avg SG Driving Swing 1 (4 rounds): -0,7 
Avg SG Driving Swing 2 (8 rounds): -2,6 

Changed from swing 1 to 2 after the first 4 rounds because I think i was loosing strokes against the long scratch hitters, and the results where good at my home course because it`s really open with no trees and low rough. But on narrower competition courses the result was not as good. 
Averaged 20 more yards each drive but averaged almost 2 stroke lost on each round.

So i think that longer it`s better, but without countrol it`s worthless.

Do you agree/disagree?

 

 

[shanksalot]

 Yes I agree, but then I am a short knocker. I have always tried to control my tee shots even when I was longer. Even if you have a wide open course because when you play at other courses you may get in deep trouble with a wild swing. To me the best way to play the game, for those of us amateurs, is keeping the ball in the short grass off the tee. YMHO

[Hategolf]

Longer than what? longer than 270 with driver for a recreational golfer..I say, it might not be better. IMO those type of drives can be very hard to hit straight...longer than 230yrds...yes, all day long.  250 with a driver in the fairway I think is perfect. 270+ not on line is a problem...it is a balancing act.

The longer I get, the more unforgiving my misses are. A pulled 3 wood of the deck that could have left me in the rough a year ago, is now a for sure OB if the hole is tight. I certainly do not want to worry about making a slow swing to keep it on the fairway though..that causes more problems for me. But I do choose 3 wood over driver of the tee many times to close the gap for error. I think that is a fair compromise. 

[dennyjones]

Buy a copy of @iacas book, "Lowest Score Wins".   He references shot zones, risk and rewards.  The book is very enlightening. 

[Kalnoky]

4 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Buy a copy of @iacas book, "Lowest Score Wins".   He references shot zones, risk and rewards.  The book is very enlightening. 

Yes, my understanding was the closer you can safely get to the green, the better. So, a pitching wedge from the first cut is statistically better than a 7-iron from the fairway, all other things being equal. As I get better I'm finding this to be true in my own game.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

So i think that longer it`s better, but without countrol it`s worthless.

Do you agree/disagree?

Agree.

[mdl]

26 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

Yes, my understanding was the closer you can safely get to the green, the better. So, a pitching wedge from the first cut is statistically better than a 7-iron from the fairway, all other things being equal. As I get better I'm finding this to be true in my own game.

This is the right framing.  PW distance from first cut is way better than 7i from fairway.  But obviously PW distance from jail is much worse than 7i from the fairway.  It's all about assessing the course and your own capabilities.

Of course, it's somewhat more complicated when talking about your own swing options, as it's pretty hard to keep two different swings with the same club totally tuned up.  Even the pros tend not to do that too much.

But your point remains.  If your longer swing widens your shot cone a ton, it's not surprising that scoring will get worse even though you're hitting the ball farther.  I think that, in general, the discussion in LSW centers around club selection with already honed swing that optimizes your distance vs accuracy.  Like, to help thinking about tee club on a short par 4 without a ton of trouble at driver distance.  Is it better to hit driver and usually be in fairway or rough with an open look and a short approach, or hybrid almost always in the fairway but with a medium approach?

[p1n9183]

Here is the key word:

2 hours ago, Kalnoky said:

Yes, my understanding was the closer you can safely get to the green, the better.

"Safely"

As you hit it longer or wilder, your shot zone is wider so you put in play more trees so more balls that you have to pitch out again into the fairway or hit a low percent shot to the green.

Played 7 rounds in really narrow fairways sorrounded by trees.
3 with fade, 4 balls to the trees. avg: 1,33.
4 with draw,15 balls to the trees. avg: 3,75.

For me safely includes this too besides hitting it into a penalty hazard. 

So i think that in open courses distance is king, but on narrow ones it is accuracy. 
 

[shanksalot]

2 hours ago, Kalnoky said:

Yes, my understanding was the closer you can safely get to the green, the better. So, a pitching wedge from the first cut is statistically better than a 7-iron from the fairway, all other things being equal. As I get better I'm finding this to be true in my own game.

Well if you hit a fairway wood instead of the driver it won't be 30-50 yards difference. Plus if you can hit a driver that well by only being in the first cut go with the driver. I thought the point of this discussion was being wild off the tee with a driver?

[Kalnoky]

33 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

I thought the point of this discussion was being wild off the tee with a driver?

Well I can't imagine that's ever good. At least nowhere around here in the Mid-Valley. 

[lastings]

2 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

 

So i think that in open courses distance is king, but on narrow ones it is accuracy. 
 

Well, this is basically the crux of it.  Where does the longer shot get you and what are the potential hazards?  if you're talking about an extra 20-25 yds, and the potential hazard is some light rough, take out that big guy all day long.   But, if you're playing a tight hole and a mishit puts you in the wood, or OB, or water, avoid that at all costs.   Penalty strokes are score killers.   if the potential hazard is something in between, like a flat fairway bunker or something, I think that is a risk/reward play you have to weigh on a case-by-case basis.   

either all that stuff I said, Or, learn how to knock that big bomber right down the gut every time..   

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by lastings

[Hardspoon]

7 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

SG: Stroke Gained
Stats recorded in official tournaments away from my home course.

Swing 1: Accurate Week fade, 250 yards. 
Swing 2: Wild Strong draw, 270 yards. 

Avg SG Driving Swing 1 (4 rounds): -0,7 
Avg SG Driving Swing 2 (8 rounds): -2,6 

Changed from swing 1 to 2 after the first 4 rounds because I think i was loosing strokes against the long scratch hitters, and the results where good at my home course because it`s really open with no trees and low rough. But on narrower competition courses the result was not as good. 
Averaged 20 more yards each drive but averaged almost 2 stroke lost on each round.

So i think that longer it`s better, but without countrol it`s worthless.

Do you agree/disagree?

Most people don't have two swings to choose from, that they can apply at will.

You also don't define "accurate" or "wild", so your specific example is not incredibly instructive in terms of whether "longer is better".

But, for you, it's easy: take the swing that gains you more strokes, once you're confident the sample size is large enough that it's not just random chance.

[WUTiger]

6 hours ago, Kalnoky said:

Yes, my understanding was the closer you can safely get to the green, the better.

LSW shows hot to figure Shot Zones for different clubs - the area where average shots with the club will land, with outliers removed. Golfers then consider the relative safety of different zones, depending on the strategy and decision maps for each hole. The example given is a hole with an OB left and water to the right of the landing area. The shot zone with the greatest relative safety would be the one for the hybrid, which is short of the water.

Before LSW was published, TST had numerous threads about shot selection. Let's say you're facing one of the old style cliff holes - you can lay up with a hybrid to a flat spot in the fairway 130 yds. out, or you can hit a driver down into the swale, and risk a 70-yd. blind half wedge off a hanging lie. I would prefer the 8-iron shot off a flat lie.

[p1n9183]

This weekend i faced a really tough hole, i should make a thread like that and ask for strategy to play it.

Make a bogey and a double so my strategy of hitting from the tee with an iron didn`t work.

[JonMA1]

8 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

So i think that longer it`s better, but without countrol it`s worthless.

Do you agree/disagree?

I know we have completely different games @p1n9183 and my opinion probably isn't relevant, but I really like this topic.

I think the thing that's always bothered me about the distance vs accuracy argument is that I probably have a higher ceiling for improvement of accuracy than I do distance. I know there are guys my age or older who can really generate some power, but I don't think I'll ever be one of them. The more time spent trying to squeeze additional yardage from my driver, the longer it will take to reach my potential for accuracy.

For my crappy game, I need to work on hitting 220 yard drives that stay in play leaving me a reasonable chance to hit the green. I don't worry too about fairway accuracy, but punching out from behind trees, or hitting from crappy lies are surpassed only by penalty strokes on my list of reasons I don't swing as hard as I can with the driver.

So yes, I agree. Control is at leas as important as distance.

[Lihu]

11 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

I know we have completely different games @p1n9183 and my opinion probably isn't relevant, but I really like this topic.

I think the thing that's always bothered me about the distance vs accuracy argument is that I probably have a higher ceiling for improvement of accuracy than I do distance. I know there are guys my age or older who can really generate some power, but I don't think I'll ever be one of them. The more time spent trying to squeeze additional yardage from my driver, the longer it will take to reach my potential for accuracy.

For my crappy game, I need to work on hitting 220 yard drives that stay in play leaving me a reasonable chance to hit the green. I don't worry too about fairway accuracy, but punching out from behind trees, or hitting from crappy lies are surpassed only by penalty strokes on my list of reasons I don't swing as hard as I can with the driver.

So yes, I agree. Control is at leas as important as distance.

It doesn't really matter what level of play you have, the basic premise of using a controlled swing still holds. Your opinion is as good as anyone's.

[Jack Watson]

I have a hard time with a notion that strategy should be applied mathematically.

For me a lot of my decisions are based on how I am feeling or playing at that moment.  If I am playing well I use driver even on narrow holes because I know there's a good chance of getting a agood look at aashorter approach.

If am am not though I tend to be more conservative.  For me a large amount of my decision making depends on my own confidence.  If something's not feeling right or I am not confident I will choose in general to club down and keep the ball in play rather than take a more aggressive approach.

Sometimes you are just feeling it and can take more aggressive lines.  Sometimes you are better bailing a bit.

Thats just my take.

[iacas]

14 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

This weekend i faced a really tough hole, i should make a thread like that and ask for strategy to play it.

Make a bogey and a double so my strategy of hitting from the tee with an iron didn`t work.

It could also have been your execution.

24 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I have a hard time with a notion that strategy should be applied mathematically.

For me a lot of my decisions are based on how I am feeling or playing at that moment.  If I am playing well I use driver even on narrow holes because I know there's a good chance of getting a agood look at aashorter approach.

That's still using math.