The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.

[hairball_89]

I played on Sunday. Putted like a demon. Couldn't get off the tee to save my life - tops, hooks, shanks, the lot. Somehow managed 31 points.

If I'd have been able to stick driver 260 yards in a straight line I'd be dangerously close to being good. So yes, in this absolutely not theoretical and circumstantial evidence, driving is much more important.

Or I'm rubbish at golf...

 

[Bdill93]

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 onesView attachment 47770

Pro golf and Handicap golf are 2 different things though aren't they.

Is there a pro who hits it 220 off the tee but is just mustard around the greens? Highly doubt it.

To become a serious pro you need to excel in all areas of the game bar none...

 

[Orikoru]

Pro golf and Handicap golf are 2 different things though aren't they.

Is there a pro who hits it 220 off the tee but is just mustard around the greens? Highly doubt it.

To become a serious pro you need to excel in all areas of the game bar none...

Precisely. On the grand scale from hacker to world number 1, every man in the pros list is in the top 1 percentile of distance I'd imagine, so using them to make a point is moot.

 

[Backsticks]

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 onesView attachment 47770

Yes. The sample group of the OWGR is not representative of the overall golfing population. That he can drive it so far puts him into PGAT events and in the top level of world golfers, unlike the rest of us who hit it shorter. You may be missing the point I have made earlier, that distance is the strongest determinant of golfing level. That is not to say it is a long drive contest.
The Pereira statistic conforms to the correlation - long hitter, world class golfer better than 99.9999% of the rest.

 

[Backsticks]

Precisely. On the grand scale from hacker to world number 1, every man in the pros list is in the top 1 percentile of distance I'd imagine, so using them to make a point is moot.

It supports the statistics : Pereira is very long, he is very good, we know his name as an elite of world golf skill.

 

[r0wly86]

Pro golf and Handicap golf are 2 different things though aren't they.

Is there a pro who hits it 220 off the tee but is just mustard around the greens? Highly doubt it.

To become a serious pro you need to excel in all areas of the game bar none...

but what are we talking about here

drastic difference i.e. totally rubbish off the tee but can hole anything and McIlroy off the tee but 4 putt every hole.

Are we talking smaller difference i.e. 250 v 270 yards off the tee and 27 v 32 putts per game, or 200 yards and 300 yards.

or are we talking 290 in the first cut, or 300 in the trees and 270 in the middle of the fairway

There are far too many variables to give a clear cut answer. Using very broad stroke we can say that greater distance generally means better scores, but we do not know the real breakdown of those statistics i.e. the age of the handicap bands, the dispersion in missed fairways.

Likewise we can't take putting strokes per game as much of an indictor when we just look at numbers. Someone could take 18 putts per game and we think they are amazing, but just the same person could be missing every green, duffing chips but finally gets a chip close and holes the putt. Versus someone who has 36 putts but hits every GIR and is confidently two putting from 30-40 feet.

Personally I have always been a big hitter, but for a long time hovered in the high teens low twenties because I could quite easily be 3 off the tee 3 or 4 times a round. I could drive the ball 300 yards but I could also slice it over two fairways. My handicap dropped when I started to control the ball more, so for me distance wasn't a factor but accuracy, but that is because I already had distance.

It is not as clear cut as the people are trying to make out with the statistics. Ask yourself would you rathe rbe 10 yards further with your tee but miss the fairway twice as much? now same question but make it 50 yards. Would you sacrifice 10 yards off your drive to never 3 putt again, how about 30 yards?

I have seen scratch players not hit is past 250 and I have seen 20+ handicapper hit it over 300, it's anecdotal but it shows that distance is not the be all and end all of the conversation.

I think for most handicapped players, keeping the ball in play, and I don't mean on the fairway I mean in play and with a shot in is more important than pure distance

 

[Bdill93]

but what are we talking about here

drastic difference i.e. totally rubbish off the tee but can hole anything and McIlroy off the tee but 4 putt every hole.

Are we talking smaller difference i.e. 250 v 270 yards off the tee and 27 v 32 putts per game, or 200 yards and 300 yards.

or are we talking 290 in the first cut, or 300 in the trees and 270 in the middle of the fairway

There are far too many variables to give a clear cut answer. Using very broad stroke we can say that greater distance generally means better scores, but we do not know the real breakdown of those statistics i.e. the age of the handicap bands, the dispersion in missed fairways.

Likewise we can't take putting strokes per game as much of an indictor when we just look at numbers. Someone could take 18 putts per game and we think they are amazing, but just the same person could be missing every green, duffing chips but finally gets a chip close and holes the putt. Versus someone who has 36 putts but hits every GIR and is confidently two putting from 30-40 feet.

Personally I have always been a big hitter, but for a long time hovered in the high teens low twenties because I could quite easily be 3 off the tee 3 or 4 times a round. I could drive the ball 300 yards but I could also slice it over two fairways. My handicap dropped when I started to control the ball more, so for me distance wasn't a factor but accuracy, but that is because I already had distance.

It is not as clear cut as the people are trying to make out with the statistics. Ask yourself would you rathe rbe 10 yards further with your tee but miss the fairway twice as much? now same question but make it 50 yards. Would you sacrifice 10 yards off your drive to never 3 putt again, how about 30 yards?

I have seen scratch players not hit is past 250 and I have seen 20+ handicapper hit it over 300, it's anecdotal but it shows that distance is not the be all and end all of the conversation.

I think for most handicapped players, keeping the ball in play, and I don't mean on the fairway I mean in play and with a shot in is more important than pure distance

That just about sums it up though.

Longer is better, long and wild will cost you some days but your scoring potential is better than someone who simply cannot hit it 240+

We are handicap golfers, we all have good days and bad, but if you want to make scratch you stand a much better chance in doing so if you hit the ball 280 with driver than 220. We do not hit 18 FIR not even close.

That does not mean to say scratch is unachievable - but you probably putt and chip like a tour pro. Because if playing a 500 yard par 5, Your drive goes 220 leaving 280. 3 wood 200 from there leaving 80. 2 shots to get up and down from there is filthy good play.

Swap that around and driver, 3w gets you greenside in 2 with 3 to play - better birdie opportunity and some eagles.

Fin.

 

[Orikoru]

Personally I have always been a big hitter, but for a long time hovered in the high teens low twenties because I could quite easily be 3 off the tee 3 or 4 times a round. I could drive the ball 300 yards but I could also slice it over two fairways. My handicap dropped when I started to control the ball more, so for me distance wasn't a factor but accuracy, but that is because I already had distance.

It is not as clear cut as the people are trying to make out with the statistics. Ask yourself would you rathe rbe 10 yards further with your tee but miss the fairway twice as much? now same question but make it 50 yards. Would you sacrifice 10 yards off your drive to never 3 putt again, how about 30 yards?

I have seen scratch players not hit is past 250 and I have seen 20+ handicapper hit it over 300, it's anecdotal but it shows that distance is not the be all and end all of the conversation.

I think for most handicapped players, keeping the ball in play, and I don't mean on the fairway I mean in play and with a shot in is more important than pure distance

Being able to hit it 300 yards is still an advantage even if you choose not to hit it 300 yards anymore. Your 90% shot is still longer than mine and others' maximum distance. For you and I to hit the same tee shot, I'll be hitting driver and you might be hitting 5 wood or a long iron, thus your accuracy is potentially increased at the same distance. It's an advantage whichever way you look at it. For the '50 yards further means 50 yards in the trees' brigade, they're missing the bigger picture that a long hitter can reign it in, hit with more accuracy and still with decent length - and then be hitting an 8 iron into the green instead of a 7 or 6 iron that someone else would have to hit from the same spot. So even if you never use your full length it's still an advantage simply possessing that potential.

 

[Neilds]

Yes. The sample group of the OWGR is not representative of the overall golfing population. That he can drive it so far puts him into PGAT events and in the top level of world golfers, unlike the rest of us who hit it shorter. You may be missing the point I have made earlier, that distance is the strongest determinant of golfing level. That is not to say it is a long drive contest.
The Pereira statistic conforms to the correlation - long hitter, world class golfer better than 99.9999% of the rest.

The point I was trying to make is based on your assumption that, because you are using stats, your point of view is correct. I have just produced some stats that prove that overall distance doesn't equate to being the best or even better than the majority in the sample pool. As I said, people can use any stats to prove almost anything

 

[r0wly86]

Being able to hit it 300 yards is still an advantage even if you choose not to hit it 300 yards anymore. Your 90% shot is still longer than mine and others' maximum distance. For you and I to hit the same tee shot, I'll be hitting driver and you might be hitting 5 wood or a long iron, thus your accuracy is potentially increased at the same distance. It's an advantage whichever way you look at it. For the '50 yards further means 50 yards in the trees' brigade, they're missing the bigger picture that a long hitter can reign it in, hit with more accuracy and still with decent length - and then be hitting an 8 iron into the green instead of a 7 or 6 iron that someone else would have to hit from the same spot. So even if you never use your full length it's still an advantage simply possessing that potential.

I'm not reigning it in, I just worked hard on swing path and club face control. I'm still hitting it the same distance but with better accuracy

I am in no way denying that being long isn't an advantage. It is an advantage I have used my entire golfing life. But being accurate is also an advantage, being a short game maestro is an advantage.

As a junior I was hitting like I described, my mate played off 3 never getting it past 250, but was metronomic in hitting fairways and greens in regulation, that was his advantage over me.

Perhaps as a big hitter my ceiling is higher than someone who is shorter but accurate. But as I am not a tour pro and cannot put in 25 hours a week honing by game it is a moot point. My handicap is 8 with the distance I hit it because generally my approach shots and chipping is poor, I don't make the most of my advantage off the tee.

So for me to improve most it would be into the green and chipping not distance, whereas other 8 handicappers need extra distance to make their second shot shorter.

Everyone is different with different strengths and weaknesses

 

[Backsticks]

The point I was trying to make is based on your assumption that, because you are using stats, your point of view is correct. I have just produced some stats that prove that overall distance doesn't equate to being the best or even better than the majority in the sample pool. As I said, people can use any stats to prove almost anything

Its not my point of view. It is a beyond dispute concencus of those best informed on the topic.

And, you have used facts to draw an incorrect conclusion that does not in anyway disprove the conclusion from extensive data analysis that longer hitters are better golfers, and that distance is THE prime determinant of golfing ability.

People can use stats, incorrectly, to fake a proof of almost anything. Using stats correctly though, provides clear analysis from which good conclusions can be drawn. Maybe our schools need to improve their stadards to education in statistics.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Call me crazy, but I’ll go off the likes of;
Scott Fawcett - who has studies countless thousands of shots via shot link
Mark Brodie - Who wrote every shot counts and helped bring strokes gained to the world
Lou Stagner - Who now works for Arccos and has access to many millions of shots from players of all levels, genders, ages etc around the world
Rather than some well intended people here who are throwing about anecdotal evidence from their Saturday 4ball.
I know who has the edge in likelihood of being correct!

 

[Springveldt]

I'm not reigning it in, I just worked hard on swing path and club face control. I'm still hitting it the same distance but with better accuracy

I am in no way denying that being long isn't an advantage. It is an advantage I have used my entire golfing life. But being accurate is also an advantage, being a short game maestro is an advantage.

As a junior I was hitting like I described, my mate played off 3 never getting it past 250, but was metronomic in hitting fairways and greens in regulation, that was his advantage over me.

Perhaps as a big hitter my ceiling is higher than someone who is shorter but accurate. But as I am not a tour pro and cannot put in 25 hours a week honing by game it is a moot point. My handicap is 8 with the distance I hit it because generally my approach shots and chipping is poor, I don't make the most of my advantage off the tee.

So for me to improve most it would be into the green and chipping not distance, whereas other 8 handicappers need extra distance to make their second shot shorter.

Everyone is different with different strengths and weaknesses

That's true to an extent but 99% of amateur golfers would benefit by hitting it further. If you truly average between 280-300 then you are in the top 1% of all golfers so obviously getting longer doesn't apply to that 1% if other parts of their game are poor. According to Shot Scope I averaged 242 yards off the tee last season during the summer (June, July and August) with a "performance" average of 270. So an average hit by you was still past what I could expect from a good hit and that's a massive advantage. Not only off the tee but on approach shots as well as you are like 2 clubs longer than me.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

That's true to an extent but 99% of amateur golfers would benefit by hitting it further. If you truly average between 280-300 then you are in the top 1% of all golfers so obviously getting longer doesn't apply to that 1% if other parts of their game are poor. According to Shot Scope I averaged 242 yards off the tee last season during the summer (June, July and August) with a "performance" average of 270. So an average hit by you was still past what I could expect from a good hit and that's a massive advantage. Not only off the tee but on approach shots as well as you are like 2 clubs longer than me.

And this is what a lot of people miss, don’t understand or choose to ignore.
On a 400y par 4, he is left with 120 on average, you have 140 on a good hit or 160+ on average.
Now for you 120 may be a PW, but for him probably an approach wedge.
While you’re hitting anything from maybe a 8i to 6i. That is conceivably a 5 club difference.
Add on top of that average dispersion with an AW versus 6i and… well it becomes quite clear what impact distance had, it’s not just a number off the tee.

 

[Imurg]

That's true to an extent but 99% of amateur golfers would benefit by hitting it further. If you truly average between 280-300 then you are in the top 1% of all golfers so obviously getting longer doesn't apply to that 1% if other parts of their game are poor. According to Shot Scope I averaged 242 yards off the tee last season during the summer (June, July and August) with a "performance" average of 270. So an average hit by you was still past what I could expect from a good hit and that's a massive advantage. Not only off the tee but on approach shots as well as you are like 2 clubs longer than me.

Whats the difference between average 242 yards and Performance average 270..?

And don't say 28 yards

 

[CountLippe]

Whats the difference between average 242 yards and Performance average 270..?

And don't say 28 yards

As I understand, it removes outliers, ie duffs, from the average.

 

[bobmac]

Indeed. It is the personal experience that leaves one open to the dodgy, and incorrect conclusions.

You mean knowing for a fact that my handicap came down to 2 by hitting it straighter?
If you got your handicap down by increasing your distance, I'm sure we'd all love to hear your story

 

[Backsticks]

You mean knowing for a fact that my handicap came down to 2 by hitting it straighter?
If you got your handicap down by increasing your distance, I'm sure we'd all love to hear your story

Exactly. Such low sample examples such as you and me can be very misleading in the forming of an overall perspective and understanding. Its the type of old school golf teaching by anecdote or personal story that meant golf instruction was a soup of half baked ideas, guesses, superstition, and non scientific approach. That has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, and properly researched ideas are overtaking the old myths.

 

[bobmac]

Exactly. Such low sample examples such as you and me can be very misleading in the forming of an overall perspective and understanding. Its the type of old school golf teaching by anecdote or personal story that meant golf instruction was a soup of half baked ideas, guesses, superstition, and non scientific approach. That has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, and properly researched ideas are overtaking the old myths.

So when did you do your PGA training as you claim to know so much about it?

 

[Backache]

To repeat a point. Statistics is generally about populations rather than individuals.
Using regression analysis Broadie has clearly demonstrated that driving is a greater determinant of average score than putting and driving distance is an important correlate to driving ability. Which does not mean that a long really wild driver will be better than a shorter straighter one.
He also demonstrated that approach shots are a greater determinant of golf scoring than driving.