rb72

When challenged (by billchoa) to provide examples of insults, I did so with a post of numerous examples of insults by philmcgleno and iacas. That post has since been deleted (surprise, surprise). I could do the same here and provide multiple quotes where iacas has used the word "stupid" in reference to ideas and opinions suggested by me and others but what's the point. It will just get deleted. BTW, I do understand the tables and charts (a gain in 10% distance will lower your score more than a gain of 10% accuracy in degrees off center of target line) but I feel that they are only indicating a statistical anomaly that has no practical application in the real world and proves nothing and does not conclude that "distance is more important than accuracy".

Hey Joe this forum is fun, isn't it. (congratulations, you've driven another off the forum)

Well then your on the wrong forum. Critique (of everything) is what these guys live for. Wait till they start telling you how stupid you are for not clinging to every word they say as gospel.

I agree with this. So let's go with this. It qualifies the statement that "distance is more important than accuracy", which is what I've been advocating all along.

I thought we established that we're not talking about this case. Improving both makes it impossible to answer the question "which is more important?" The question implies that there is a loss of accuracy associated with a gain in distance. My position has always been that the key factor in answering that is the ratio of yards gained to accuracy lost. The evidence presented (by Iacas) to show that distance is, in fact, more important ignores this key factor by assuming a constant ratio of 20 yards gained to 1 degree lost. My contention is that there is no meaningful data drawn if that assumption is made. If there were data showing that a typical golfer would lose 1-2 degrees of accuracy for every twenty yards gained then the tables provided would be meaningful and the statement would be true (on average). But I've seen no such data, just an assumption.

Quote: Originally Posted by turtleback It still wouldn't meet your criticism because it would still be an "on average" figure. And it would also suggest a level of precision which is simply not justified by the nature of the data and the analysis. A general comment: there seems to be a real lack of understanding in this thread about the difference between descriptive statistics (describing what IS) and prescriptive statistics (implying what you should DO). I'm not sure what you mean by either statement. I have no problem with on average figures and I didn't mean for that particular ratio to be anything real world just an example of a statement that has meaning. Even if you say "for the slight majority of golfers distance is more important than accuracy" it has vastly more meaning than "in golf distance is more important than accuracy. This graph was presented earlier. Somewhere the creator of the graph says that the golfers above the baseline need to work on accuracy and those below it need to work on distance. This actually makes my point that a blanket statement that "distance is more important than accuracy" can not be made without qualifiers. This illustrates that there is at least a significant numer of golfer for which accuracy is more important than distance. All of the other mathematical evidence presented seems to assume that a 20 yard increase in distance equates to a 2 or 1 degree loss in accuracy and given those figures, a simulation results in lower scores for more distance. If there were surveys done to show that those ratios are somewhat accurate in a real world situation then the data is certainly valid but I've seen no such surveys presented here and those ratios appear to be completely arbitrary. Picture (Click to hide)

Okay, like I said it's about understanding.

I'm sorry it's really not about being right it's about understanding. What those tables say is, IF your gain of 20 yards creates a 1 deg. loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will lower your score. I would not dispute that, but that is not the same as saying distance is more important than accuracy in terms of lowering you score because IF the same 20 yards results in a 3 degree loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will not help you score.

Let me sum up MY position. "The statement that "distance is slightly more important than accuracy in lowering scores" has no meaning because it fails to quantify either value. Quantifying one value and not the other also has no meaning. The statement that "a distance gained to accuracy lost ratio of 1:1.2 or better will help in lowering scores" has meaning.

Yes but it does show that the accuracy extremes are greater for the 100 player than the 80 player which is exactly why I think the methods used, where you hold the accuracy lost value constant throughout the different skill levels is invalid.

Here you go:

I multi quoted it but it didn't show up here. It's back around page 15 or 16 where it holds as a constant 2 degrees of accuracy lost for 20 yards gained over multiple skill ranges to show strokes gained/lost. If you did in fact change it to .5 (10 degrees/ 20 yards) it would strongly indicate that the loss in accuracy vs. the distance gained would result in higher scores. But I don't think you have to go as far as .5. .2 would certainly do it. And in the following table that he posted about 5 or 6 pages later he's actually using .05 degrees as an arbitrarily chosen (see; hypothetical/made up) number to make a similar point Category Driving Distance 20 Yards % Driving Accuracy 1° % 100 Golfer 195 10% 7° 14% 90 Golfer 225 9% 6.5° 15% 80 Golfer 245 8% 6° 17% PGA Tour 295 7% 3.5° 29% Listen, I only meant that that was surprising to me. I did not mean to dispute it. I believe it. I was not using this statement of surprise to put forth any argument in support of my position on the topic at hand, hence my next statement about getting back on topic. My argument is not even the same as Somerset Simon's. I'm not insistent that accuracy is more important I am stating that the question cannot be answered with statistics. You've stated that these are generalities and have nothing to do with individual experiences but I contend the answer to this question can ONLY be answered on an individual basis and that fact is highlighted by the tables that you have provided because they consistently hold the value for accuracy lost per distance gained as a constant through all levels. That seems like an obvious manipulation. Also, correct me if I'm wrong (please try to do so without insulting me) but in the graph above, for the 100 golfer and the 90 golfer the area of the oval above the baseline is greater than the area below. Does that not indicate that more of those golfers need to focus on accuracy rather than distance? And the 80 golfer's oval is closer to 50/50 in area above and below which tells me that the better you are the more you should focus on distance. No? I agree, I think that many if not most of the supporters of the "distance is more important" position, seem to be defensive, hostile and insulting and I can't imagine why. You can say "no abuse here" all you want but that's how you're coming across. Like we're talking about whether we should raise your taxes. Relax. I don't see the increase in accuracy gained by moving the ball back 15 yards.

Wow, I really find that stat hard to believe. From those distances most tour pros have pitching wedge or less in their hands and it seems to me that with a pitching wedge to the green the pros ALWAYS put it on the green and are usually upset when it's not within 10 feet. But then again this takes into account the 125-150 yard shots that are not from the fairway, like shots from fairway bunkers or deep rough or hardpan on the other side of a cart path...so I guess their inaccuracy hurt them more than their longer distance helped them. To get back on topic, the question of whether distance or accuracy is more important simply doesn't make sense without more information, most of which has to do with questions of ..HOW MUCH and HOW MUCH.How much accuracy lost is worth the additional yard of distance gained. In the table that Iacas posted as evidence to prove that distance is more important that accuracy it is using the value of .1 for degrees of accuracy lost per yard gained. What if it's .2 or .5 or..., it's an arbitrary number. I gave my own personal example, not to scientifically prove any trend but to illustrate that it is possible for an average bogie golfer to find some mechanism (not important what it is) that will lower your scores through an increase of accuracy at the expense of some distance. And, I would go as far to say that it is not only possible, but likely given the fact that I am a pretty typical bogie golfer with most of the more common flaws of the bogie golfer.

You have to go back and read the correction i made right after this post. Also my accuracy % is not based on degrees but on the % of tee shots in play.

And here's the problem with the figures in your table. The 2 degrees IS the constant. For a good golfer, that's significant because he's probably no more than 5 degrees off on most of his shots, for the HH who averages 15 degrees offline it's a drop in the bucket. it's the difference between going OOB at the 150 mark and going OOB at the 160 mark. It's still OOB. So of course the extra twenty yards is going to help him because while his bad shots are still bad shots, his good shots are 20 yards longer, putting a shorter club in his hand for the approach. The part of the story it doesn't tell is that what he really NEEDS is a 10 degree improvement in accuracy which would be way more important than 20 more yards.