Importance of Strike on Distance

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Don Golfo said:

I’m sure it can be improved by training, but most people can’t swing a club at 110 or 120 mph whatever type of training they take on?  A good analogy is sprinting. Very few people can run 100m in sub 11 seconds? No matter how dedicated their training, the average person simply couldn’t get there. That’s down to physiology and is determined primarily by the proportion of fast twitch fibres the individual possesses. Swinging a golf club is a comparable anaerobic activity. By contrast most able bodied people could learn to swing a golf club in a way that optimises launch conditions. 

If golfers learn a proper kinematic sequence they will see good gains in speed. They are losing a lot of their speed through inefficiencies.

After that, the golfer can learn to swing faster.

I could see someone who swings at 100 mph get up to 110 mph.

Sub 11 second 100m isn't equivalent to someone swinging at 110 mph. You are talking about just over 1 second slower than Usain Bolts world record pace. The long drive champions swing at over 140 mph! Lets say that 11 second 100m sprint would be equivalent to swinging at or slightly above 130 mph. You are still not beating Usain Bolt, and you are still not beating the long drive champs.

 

[HJJ003]

29 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Sub 11 second 100m isn't equivalent to someone swinging at 110 mph. You are talking about just over 1 second slower than Usain Bolts world record pace. The long drive champions swing at over 140 mph! Lets say that 11 second 100m sprint would be equivalent to swinging at or slightly above 130 mph. You are still not beating Usain Bolt, and you are still not beating the long drive champs.

More like 10.5 or so (to be equivalent to 130). Maybe closer to 10 seconds. North of 130 will compete (or at least qualify for) at many long drive competition with the champions/contenders being over 140 like you have stated. 11 seconds is probably closer to 120 as it couldn't even compete at the D1 collegiate level (at least not seriously). Sorry for being picky about a half second or so, but in the T&F world it matters quite a bit....and Im a trackhead. 

The gist your point remains though. Someone running 11 seconds isnt beating Bolt and someone with a swing speed near 120 ain't competing in any legitimate long drive competitions.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, Don Golfo said:

I’m sure it can be improved by training, but most people can’t swing a club at 110 or 120 mph whatever type of training they take on?  A good analogy is sprinting. Very few people can run 100m in sub 11 seconds? No matter how dedicated their training, the average person simply couldn’t get there. That’s down to physiology and is determined primarily by the proportion of fast twitch fibres the individual possesses. Swinging a golf club is a comparable anaerobic activity. By contrast most able bodied people could learn to swing a golf club in a way that optimises launch conditions. 

The same thing can be applied to strike too.

Just because strike can be taught doesn't mean most of the general population has the ability to learn how to strike it as well as the PGA tour pros do, no matter what type of training they take on.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Don Golfo said:

I’m sure it can be improved by training, but most people can’t swing a club at 110 or 120 mph whatever type of training they take on?  A good analogy is sprinting. Very few people can run 100m in sub 11 seconds? No matter how dedicated their training, the average person simply couldn’t get there. That’s down to physiology and is determined primarily by the proportion of fast twitch fibres the individual possesses. Swinging a golf club is a comparable anaerobic activity. By contrast most able bodied people could learn to swing a golf club in a way that optimises launch conditions. 

Most people can’t be taught to hit a 1/4” spot every time on the club either.

Both are hard, golf is hard. There’s no easy simple answer.

[NM Golf]

Both speed and the ability to strike the ball more solidly can both be taught and improved upon. To what degree each can be improved depends on the individual player. 

Personally, (small sample size of one) I may only strike the ball completely solid a handful of times in an 18 hole round, and that's if I am lucky. My distance doesn't depend on hitting the ball in the center of the face. I often joke with my friends that when I hit one in the center it goes too far because my normal yardages are gauged off mishits. Now I do have a driver club head speed of around 120mph. But I tell you this, I wouldn't trade 1 mph to hit the ball any more solidly. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by NM Golf

[gbogey]

I can only speak from personal experience but over the 5 year period from when I started playing to the point where I basically became the golfer I am now, I gained about 25 yards on a 7i.  I attribute about 10 yards to new fitted equipment, 10 yards to better technique, and 5 yards to improved flexibility through exercising (which I started to avoid back issues, not to increase distance).  Never done any speed training and I refuse at this point to even try "tips" to gain distance - those mess up by swing far more than help. So put me in the camp that it is easier to improve the quality of the strike than to increase swing speed.

I also point to the LPGA - the average player is probably 6 inches shorted and 60 pounds lighter than me but we have about the same distances (I'm probably slightly longer).  Except off the tee where they beat me.  That's clearly efficiency, not swing speed.

 

[klineka]

2 minutes ago, gbogey said:

I can only speak from personal experience but over the 5 year period from when I started playing to the point where I basically became the golfer I am now, I gained about 25 yards on a 7i.  I attribute about 10 yards to new fitted equipment, 10 yards to better technique, and 5 yards to improved flexibility through exercising (which I started to avoid back issues, not to increase distance).  Never done any speed training and I refuse at this point to even try "tips" to gain distance - those mess up by swing far more than help. So put me in the camp that it is easier to improve the quality of the strike than to increase swing speed.

Just because you haven't done any speed training doesnt mean your swing speed hasnt increased. It's highly unlikely you increased your 7 iron by 25 yds with the same exact clubhead speed. If so, you had to have been hitting the ball really really bad previously. 

All 3 of the things that you mentioned that contributed to your distance increase likely also contributed to faster swing speed without you training for it

You likely increased your speed and strike at the same time and just didnt realize it.

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, gbogey said:

That's clearly efficiency, not swing speed.

It could be both.

Plus, what @klineka said… your swing speed may have increased with better technique. Or maybe longer clubs that you got during your club fitting. Etc.

[gbogey]

My new clubs, the ones I use now, were .25 inches shorter than my original set.  I'm not disagreeing that my swing speed has likely increased, just arguing that my whatever speed I've gained is through technique and fitness (and fitness is loose here - I am more flexible, not sure I'm more fit😊), not speed specific training.  And I would argue that most casual amateur golfers would get more benefit from technique and fitness than things like swinging a weighted club daily.

[Don Golfo]

On 12/12/2018 at 3:40 PM, klineka said:

The same thing can be applied to strike too.

Just because strike can be taught doesn't mean most of the general population has the ability to learn how to strike it as well as the PGA tour pros do, no matter what type of training they take on.

I don’t think I’m really talking about improving strike to a comparable quality of a tour player. I’m suggesting that some general improvement in how people launch the ball will make a big difference. The LPGA reference I made is really to illustrate the distance potential of better striking and optimal launch conditions. 

[Don Golfo]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:28 PM, saevel25 said:

I could see someone who swings at 100 mph get up to 110 mph.

Probably, but how many people have a swing speed above 100 mph? Younger low handicap golfers might well be in the 100-120 mph range, but in reality they make up a small proportion of golfers (Probably less than 10% of golfers?).  The majority are probably in the 85-95 mph range. It’s a big ask to get them into the 100-110 mph range, whereas they could all probably learn to deliver the club better quite quickly?

[Vinsk]

36 minutes ago, Don Golfo said:

they could all probably learn to deliver the club better quite quickly?

That’s a big ask.

[ncates00]

34 minutes ago, Don Golfo said:

Probably, but how many people have a swing speed above 100 mph? Younger low handicap golfers might well be in the 100-120 mph range, but in reality they make up a small proportion of golfers (Probably less than 10% of golfers?).  The majority are probably in the 85-95 mph range. It’s a big ask to get them into the 100-110 mph range, whereas they could all probably learn to deliver the club better quite quickly?

Strike is important, yes.  It depends on what level you want to play at.  I'd take a guy who swings really fast over a guy who strikes it solid every time.  The fast swinger can be taught strike.  I think speed is largely God-given or at least learned at a young age child level.  IIRC, studies have shown that kids who played stick and ball sports as a kid, even if not golf, develop the fast twitch muscles and hand/eye coordination much better than those who did not.  And besides, the guy who swings fast is doing so much already correctly in his swing, he's probably not far off from strike anyway.  Maybe face to path issues perhaps.  Look at some Dennis Pugh's tweets about the importance of distance.  Even at the pro level game, pretty soon all the short hitters will be eliminated.  I said it before he arrived on tour when I saw him at Chambers Bay, because of Tiger guys like Cameron Champ who are athletes and the kids who have parents fortunate enough to afford launch monitors, will take over the tour.  You're going to have golf overcome by super athletes.  You won't see size 38" waistlines on tour for much longer. 

 

If we go with your "majority of golfer" the same applies- you need reasonable speed in order to play well.  It's that simple.  That or move up to a different tee box.  I'm making a big assumption and it's not completely true, but again, with speed comes some level of skill at swinging a club and with that, you can kinda see strike in there as well.  

[Don Golfo]

17 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Look at some Dennis Pugh's tweets about the importance of distance.  Even at the pro level game, pretty soon all the short hitters will be eliminated.

That’s really in the tour pro context where courses above 7,200 yards are the norm.  The average Par 4 length for club golfers is around 380 yards and most golfers will be comfortably hitting an approach to the green with a short or mid iron. 

That said, I’m not questioning the importance of distance. More the best strategy for optimising distance.  It’s no surprise that driving distance and handicap are closely correlated. Long hitters are always going to have a major advantage over shorter hitters of equivalent skill. 

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Don Golfo said:

Probably, but how many people have a swing speed above 100 mph?

https://blog.trackmangolf.com/performance-of-the-average-male-amateur/

So, about 22% of people. Still, I think most people have the capability to see a significant gain in distance.

1 hour ago, Don Golfo said:

The majority are probably in the 85-95 mph range. It’s a big ask to get them into the 100-110 mph range, whereas they could all probably learn to deliver the club better quite quickly?

I am not asking for a 20 mph difference. If every golfer spent some time to work on their swing speed, I could see the average swing speed increase to 100 mph. That means the guy who swings at 80 mph would bump up near the high 80's. Some people will see smaller gains, and some will see larger gains. 6.6 mph increase on average is not unrealistic.

44 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

studies have shown that kids who played stick and ball sports as a kid, even if not golf, develop the fast twitch muscles and hand/eye coordination much better than those who did not.

Thanks dad for having me play baseball ;) Also, swinging fricken hard when I started playing golf.

45 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

And besides, the guy who swings fast is doing so much already correctly in his swing, he's probably not far off from strike anyway.

Especially if you consider that the longest drivers on the PGA Tour are some of the most accurate as well. The correct way to measure accuracy is by degrees offline. These players are hitting the ball farther, with the same degrees offline, as the shorter hitters on tour.

It's a big misconception that distance = inaccuracy.

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Don Golfo said:

Probably, but how many people have a swing speed above 100 mph?

That's not what he's saying and you know that… if you're swinging 82, you can probably get to 90 with a little work. That alone is 20 yards off the tee and a club or a club and a half throughout the bag.

2 hours ago, Don Golfo said:

It’s a big ask to get them into the 100-110 mph range, whereas they could all probably learn to deliver the club better quite quickly?

You seem to be misunderstanding that BOTH are actually somewhat big asks. Could someone deliver the club 10% better? Sure. But then that's the equivalent of asking them to also swing only 1 MPH faster. Both are reasonably possible.

But swinging 10 MPH faster, while possible, will be just about as difficult as learning to "deliver the club" 70% better (to make up a number).

The best answer is to do both.

I mostly teach "strike" to people, because I also know that improved technique leads to some gains in swing speed "for free," and because that's what customers want. But I also recommend SuperSpeed to a lot of my players, too, because distance is important.

1 hour ago, Don Golfo said:

That’s really in the tour pro context where courses above 7,200 yards are the norm.

No, Don, distance is important at every level, and in fact distance is more important to the average golfer.

 

1 hour ago, Don Golfo said:

That’s really in the tour pro context where courses above 7,200 yards are the norm.  The average Par 4 length for club golfers is around 380 yards and most golfers will be comfortably hitting an approach to the green with a short or mid iron.

And yet… there's a big difference in the expected score if they're hitting from 130 instead of 160.

380 - with a tee shot that goes 220 versus one that goes 250? Almost three clubs. For that golfer it might be a 5-iron to an 8-iron.

@Don Golfo, you should also pick up a copy of Lowest Score Wins. I think it'll benefit you greatly. 🙂

[Don Golfo]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Still, I think most people have the capability to see a significant gain in distance.

I agree

2 hours ago, iacas said:

And yet… there's a big difference in the expected score if they're hitting from 130 instead of 160.

 380 - with a tee shot that goes 220 versus one that goes 250? Almost three clubs. For that golfer it might be a 5-iron to an 8-iron.

Can’t disagree with any of that

[NM Golf]

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

 I'd take a guy who swings really fast over a guy who strikes it solid every time.   

The most important thing to add to this is, NO ONE strikes it solid every time. The guys on TOUR don't come close to hitting it solid every time and they are the best ball strikers on the planet.