TigerTime
Active member
Wait.. I don't remember playing with you?
I'd just outdrive you then thin my 6 iron over the back. Be a pointless exercise
The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.
I'd just outdrive you then thin my 6 iron over the back. Be a pointless exercise
r0wly86
Head Pro
as a hypothetical would people want to average 300 yards off the tee but have a 10% chance of being 30 yards off target or hit the ball 280 yards off the tee and hit every single fairway?
the stats used earlier about distances and fairways hit, doesn't differentiate between rolling into the first cut and having a boomerang slice into the trees. Of course everyone would take extra distance over accuracy every time if you always had a shot in, but what if the chances were lost ball?
I am a reasonably big hitter and will average 280-300 during the Spring and Summer, but also have the ability to have enormous hooks and slices, if you offered me an average of 270-290 but everything goes straight I would bite your hand off. I guess everyone will have a ratio where they make their call as what they would want
the stats used earlier about distances and fairways hit, doesn't differentiate between rolling into the first cut and having a boomerang slice into the trees. Of course everyone would take extra distance over accuracy every time if you always had a shot in, but what if the chances were lost ball?
I am a reasonably big hitter and will average 280-300 during the Spring and Summer, but also have the ability to have enormous hooks and slices, if you offered me an average of 270-290 but everything goes straight I would bite your hand off. I guess everyone will have a ratio where they make their call as what they would want
bobmac
Major Champion
I don't agree.
Longer isn't always better as it often comes wider dispersion.
I know people don't agree with that but I don't care, my opinion is based on personal experience, not some dodgy statistics
TigerTime
Active member
There is nothing dodgy about the stats.
Indeed. It is the personal experience that leaves one open to the dodgy, and incorrect conclusions.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Reasonably? 
. I’m assuming you are at worse low SF.
It generally doesnt.
And even when it does, the benefits of extra distance outweigh the wider dispersion.
Crow
Crow Person
You're all wrong!
Or are you all right?
One thing is for sure though, a
Or are you all right?
One thing is for sure though, a
r0wly86
Head Pro
well there is, as per my comment above.
fairways hit is a misleading term for accuracy. As it counts being off the fairway by 1 inch the same as fifty yards. The pros and the scratch golfers may not hit as many fairways as the 28 handicap, but they are also not going to be as far off course as the 28 handicap on those missed fairways. That is misleading IMHO
If a 28 handicap worked hard on swing speed and strength and dramatically increased distance, but not their swing path and club face control, then the chances are their dispersion is going to be massive, as soon as you bring lost balls and 3 off the tee into the equation I doubt that the longer distance is going to outweigh the lack of accuracy.
As Imurg said all the way back at the beginning, it really depends on the hole or course. If you are playing a course that is super tight, and anything more than 10 yards left or right is a lost ball then 280 yard drive with a 40 yard dispersion pattern could well be disastrous, where as a 240 yard drive with a 5 yard dispersion pattern will yield better results on average.
But on the other hand, if the course is reasonably open and you will pretty much always find your drive then the longer the better absolutely
Jason.H
Well-known member
Buy a speed stick 3 sessions a week and 3 20 min putting sessions. That’s where I’m going 
D
Deleted member 25575
Guest
I played on Monday and shot a 12 over 82. Looking at the stats on my round I hit what I would class as 11 acceptable or better tee shots, meaning I wasn’t dead or topped off the tee, but wasn’t always on the green on a par 3 or fairways on 4/5. On those 11 holes my score was +1.
On the other 7 holes, my tee shot was below acceptable, be that a top or pull into trees, pretty much something that didn’t give me a chance at a GIR on a 4/5 or was in trouble on a 3. For those holes I was +11. I didn’t 3 putt all day
It’s fairly evident in this example that my tee shots (and critically my decision making after a bad shot) was my problem on Monday.
Yesterday I played 10 holes and was +1 for those 10 holes, none of my tee shots were below acceptable and once more didn’t 3 putt all day.
I have this year been working on distance by way of swing speed increase.
To try and bring this now long winded post round to the point at hand, some of that swing speed increase means I have tee shots and days like I did on Monday, it’s costly and painful. However, hand in heart, I still had those days before swing speed training, they were still costly and painful, what I believe swing speed training has done for me, is enable the +1 through the other 11 holes on Monday and the +1 through 10 yesterday.
The bad shots are still there and likely always will be, but my scoring average is coming down, on the bad days, like Monday, my score of +12 wasn’t great as an 8.3 HCI getting 9 shots on the course, but it was held together from being a complete abbhoration by a very solid few holes interspersed with the bad holes.
And yesterday, those bad holes were not there and I scored well.
In my opinion you can reach a certain level with putting and the gains for those who aren’t at that level are probably easier to get than in the longer game, but for most handicap golfers I honestly believe there are more gains from the long game, it’s just harder. It’s not about just swinging it faster, you need some control while doing so, but the longer you are the lower your handicap should be.
If you offered me, or I believe most handicap golfers the chance to win £1million if they took on any PGA pro over 18 holes at a single discipline, they would choose putting, the gap in skill set between them and us is lowest at that point
On the other 7 holes, my tee shot was below acceptable, be that a top or pull into trees, pretty much something that didn’t give me a chance at a GIR on a 4/5 or was in trouble on a 3. For those holes I was +11. I didn’t 3 putt all day
It’s fairly evident in this example that my tee shots (and critically my decision making after a bad shot) was my problem on Monday.
Yesterday I played 10 holes and was +1 for those 10 holes, none of my tee shots were below acceptable and once more didn’t 3 putt all day.
I have this year been working on distance by way of swing speed increase.
To try and bring this now long winded post round to the point at hand, some of that swing speed increase means I have tee shots and days like I did on Monday, it’s costly and painful. However, hand in heart, I still had those days before swing speed training, they were still costly and painful, what I believe swing speed training has done for me, is enable the +1 through the other 11 holes on Monday and the +1 through 10 yesterday.
The bad shots are still there and likely always will be, but my scoring average is coming down, on the bad days, like Monday, my score of +12 wasn’t great as an 8.3 HCI getting 9 shots on the course, but it was held together from being a complete abbhoration by a very solid few holes interspersed with the bad holes.
And yesterday, those bad holes were not there and I scored well.
In my opinion you can reach a certain level with putting and the gains for those who aren’t at that level are probably easier to get than in the longer game, but for most handicap golfers I honestly believe there are more gains from the long game, it’s just harder. It’s not about just swinging it faster, you need some control while doing so, but the longer you are the lower your handicap should be.
If you offered me, or I believe most handicap golfers the chance to win £1million if they took on any PGA pro over 18 holes at a single discipline, they would choose putting, the gap in skill set between them and us is lowest at that point
Both hypotheticals are not realistic, and thus misleading somewhat.
Nobody hits a 240 drive with 5 yd dispersion, so this comparison cannot realistically be made. Nevertheless, distance still always wins. A 280 yard capable driver still benefits on all long shots, regardless of the course. Even if he only needs to hit it 240 due to hole design. He will be playing a lower club from the tee, and, a lower club for his second, reducing his distance to flag. So longer is still better even if not fully exploited.
For the 28hcapper point, if he has dramatically improved distance, he WILL have increase path and face control. His dispersion will improve, not disimprove.
I explicitly said there can be exceptions, so not strictly always. And small groups may not be statistically representative of all golfers. But in general, with that caveat, yes. Longer hitters will be the lower handicappers. This should be news to nobody.
CountLippe
Active member
It can be 'a chicken and the egg' this argument.
Lower handicappers are generally the biggest hitters because they have the better golf swings.
Its a bit like the stat that the team which scores the most goals always wins the league (something like 39 out of the last 40), yet they score the most goals because they're the best team.
The team with the best defensive record often doesn't win the league, similar to how the best putters often don't have the lowest handicaps.
Lower handicappers are generally the biggest hitters because they have the better golf swings.
Its a bit like the stat that the team which scores the most goals always wins the league (something like 39 out of the last 40), yet they score the most goals because they're the best team.
The team with the best defensive record often doesn't win the league, similar to how the best putters often don't have the lowest handicaps.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Actually a very good analogy.
r0wly86
Head Pro
That is actually a very good point
The stats are saying hitting it longer and not being in the fairway means better scores, but ignore the fact that in those statistics it is better players playing from off the fairway.
I would wager that a 5 handicapper could cope with a ball nestled down in the semi rough 100 yards out better than a 25 handicapper.
Higher handicapper who have a worse ball strike may score better by being further back and on the fairway where they will get a good lie. Whereas people with good ball strike would prefer a worse like and being closer because they can cope with that.
There is a reason for the saying "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Longer hitters gain over shorter hitters even when in the rough (semi rough now, not thick grass up to your knees).
The further you can hit it, ie. the faster your club speed, the better you can hit it from the rough. Its another way that longer hitters win. Its about club speed through the rough rather than strike.
Yes, two clear positive correlations : score more goals, win the league, hit it further, win more golf.
So teams try to score more goals - thats why the biggest money is paid for goal scorers and they are the biggest stars. Of coarse you need a good goal keeper not not concede them at the other end. But teams dont fight over goal keepers or break transfer records for them. You are a more successful team if your goal scoring is better, so that is prioritised the football world over. It is the ultimate determining factor.
Idem golf. Distance is the ultimate determining factor, and defines the level of golf you can play. But some are still stuck in a wooly thinking like : you must start with a solid goalkeeper, goals dont matter if you concede more, so we must buy the best keeper first, then the best left back we can get, etc.
That the sayer doesnt understand statistics and that the statistics dont agree with their preconceived view ?
Last edited:
Neilds
Assistant Pro
Can you explain why the statistics below (from the CBS website and for 2022/23) show that Mithun Perara is currently ranked 2nd in driving distance but is only 1203 in the OWGR ? He has played 37 events so is only just below most of the top 10 (and 5 more than Cameron Smith at no 8.) Statistics can be used to prove anything if you get the right ones
