The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.

[RichA]

If you offered me 37 more yards for 5% less fairways hit I would absolutely bite your hand off. Even for 15% less fairways tbh.

And as soon as you make the PGA tour those stats may become relevant to you.

 

[RichA]

I am not giving my opinion. I dont need one. The question has been conclusively answered by others, backed up by solid research and data, and they have freely shared this insight with the rest of golf. No opinion is needed. A bit like we no longer need to debate or give our own opinion/guess, on where we would fall to if we sailed the Atlantic west and fell off the end of the world.

Does the research identify golfers whose distance has increased with no other improvements in their game? Otherwise distance is getting all the credit as cause when it might just be a result of all round improvement.

 

[Whereditgo]

Does the research identify golfers whose distance has increased with no other improvements in their game? Otherwise distance is getting all the credit as cause when it might just be a result of all round improvement.

What it shows is that the single biggest limiting factor for handicap potential is distance.

 

[D-S]

What it shows is that the single biggest limiting factor for handicap potential is distance.

I’m not disagreeing with this, as I have heard all the stats are the stats etc. arguments, but I know a ton of golfers who have oodles of distance but inconsistency, course management and a shocking short game really limits their handicap decrease potential.

 

[Backache]

I am not sure that distance has been measured against other factors or against accuracy.
But in terms of strokes gained it is clear that approach shots to the green have a bigger determinant on scores/ handicap than driving.

As pointed out earlier in terms of driving distance, the young 20 handicapper has the same driving distance as the older scratch golfer.
Distance certainly is important but I've never seen any multivariant analysis that separates it from accuracy in importance.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

A 20 handicap having the same driving distance as a scratch golfer isn’t exactly a large data set from which to draw conclusions!
Yes strikes gained shows shots into the green is a big determining factor in score, however, if you have more distance you’ll be hitting less club into greens, add to that the greater distance will show through from driver down to irons also, it’s conceivable that if you get 20 more yards off the tee you may be hitting 2 or 3 clubs less into the green, your greens in regulation will rise as will your proximity to the hole. Distance is a determining factor in approach play

 

[D-S]

A 20 handicap having the same driving distance as a scratch golfer isn’t exactly a large data set from which to draw conclusions!

I don’t think it is referring to one single golfer but to the average driving distance of all 20 hcp 18 year olds and all 70 year old scratch golfers so, if that is indeed the case, then it may well be a very large data set.

 

[Whereditgo]

The Mark Brodie and Scott Fawcett analysis absolutely does take account of accuracy.

There will always be outliers, the analysis is a bell curve graph, but for the vast majority of golfers it holds true. That scratch golfer would have the potential to be a + handicapper if they were 20 to 30 yards closer to the green off every tee, whereas the 20 capper who already has oodles of distance clearly needs to improve in other areas (assuming he is not just blasting it OOB or into the deep cabbage off every tee box).

I said it earlier in the thread, if you 3 and 4 putt every green then clearly better pace control on the green would benefit that single player most, similarly if every chip is followed by another chip, then learning a technique to get it on the green in one would be of more benefit.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

The key insight, which we have had just over the last decade, is that this classical way of looking at it oversimplifies and is incorrect.
'Longer but in the rough is no good' was the standard line.
The reality is that longer might be in the rough more, but only slightly more. But in the main, longer is simply longer, and so better scoring. What was just finger in the wind guessing, and generally coming down on the side 'Id rather be shorter but in the fairway', can now be calculated for the real answer. And it is that the benefit of length outweighs the increased waywardness. By a comfortable margin.

Have you ever played a heathland course with this heather? Good luck hitting recovery shots out of it.......if you find it in the first place.

 

[Backache]

Yes strikes gained shows shots into the green is a big determining factor in score, however, if you have more distance you’ll be hitting less club into greens, add to that the greater distance will show through from driver down to irons also, it’s conceivable that if you get 20 more yards off the tee you may be hitting 2 or 3 clubs less into the green, your greens in regulation will rise as will your proximity to the hole. Distance is a determining factor in approach play

The Strokes gained analysis specifically separates the affect of the starting point of the drive for the approach play.
The remaining distance is not relevant to the analysis.

 

[Backache]

The Mark Brodie and Scott Fawcett analysis absolutely does take account of accuracy.

There will always be outliers, the analysis is a bell curve graph, but for the vast majority of golfers it holds true. That scratch golfer would have the potential to be a + handicapper if they were 20 to 30 yards closer to the green off every tee, whereas the 20 capper who already has oodles of distance clearly needs to improve in other areas (assuming he is not just blasting it OOB or into the deep cabbage off every tee box).

I said it earlier in the thread, if you 3 and 4 putt every green then clearly better pace control on the green would benefit that single player most, similarly if every chip is followed by another chip, then learning a technique to get it on the green in one would be of more benefit.

What I said was that the analysis does not that I am aware of separately account for accuracy and distance and compare them . If you have such an analysis I would be interested in seeing it.
Saying the scratch player would be lower if he is longer is no different to saying he would be lower if he were straighter.

 

[Whereditgo]

Unless I am misunderstanding you (entirely possible as I am dipping in and out of here) isn't that exactly what Brodie and Fawcett do? The strokes lost for given misses (therefore accuracy) are also addressed.

The scratch golfer would have the potential to be lower if he was longer, accepting that there are physical constraints in this particular golfer owing to age.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Compare tour pros
DJ, Rory, Mickleson
V’s
Brian Gay, Denny McCarthy (sp?) etc

Generally the better long game, poorer putter has been more successful in terms of wins and money earned than the exceptional putters with iffy short games.

Obviously there are exceptions such as Cam Smith, but in the main hitting greens and hitting it close is better for your score than struggling off the tee and to hit greens.

 

[D-S]

Compare tour pros
DJ, Rory, Mickleson
V’s
Brian Gay, Denny McCarthy (sp?) etc

Generally the better long game, poorer putter has been more successful in terms of wins and money earned than the exceptional putters with iffy short games.

Obviously there are exceptions such as Cam Smith, but in the main hitting greens and hitting it close is better for your score than struggling off the tee and to hit greens.

Are tour pro stats and examples really of use when using it as a basis for improving 15 handicappers who don’t practice much and just play once a week?

 

[Deleted member 25575]

The Strokes gained analysis specifically separates the affect of the starting point of the drive for the approach play.
The remaining distance is not relevant to the analysis.

Sorry, what I was trying to convey, all be it poorly, is that with greater distance you will have less club in to the green, therefore the larger impact of approach has less negative impact on your scoring

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Are tour pro stats and examples really of use when using it as a basis for improving 15 handicappers who don’t practice much and just play once a week?

The same data is born out via Arccos for the handicap game too

 

[Deleted member 23270]

These conclusions on distance are facts. Not opinions.

Where can I buy tickets for your shows?

 

[Deleted member 23270]

People can argue all they like but one thing that must be taken into consideration is the type of course. American resort course = smash it as far as you like. Tight treelined course/thick rough/water etc = keep it in play.

Distance is an advantage but only if used properly.

 

[Backache]

Sorry, what I was trying to convey, all be it poorly, is that with greater distance you will have less club in to the green, therefore the larger impact of approach has less negative impact on your scoring

Yes but my point is that at just about every level approach play is relatively more important than driving. Of 10 strokes difference in average players driving will account for approximately 2.5 of them and approach play 4.

 

[Backsticks]

People can argue all they like but one thing that must be taken into consideration is the type of course. American resort course = smash it as far as you like. Tight treelined course/thick rough/water etc = keep it in play.

Distance is an advantage but only if used properly.

No, it is independent of the type of course. Longer still wins, partly because the accuracy loss with longer still does not outweigh the gain, and partly because the longer the player, the better the accuracy when layup or avoiding hazards is paramount. Even if 220 yards out is the strategically best place to put the tee shot and the long man isnt pumping it 300, the long player hitting his 5 iron will be more accurate than the shorter player who has to hit a driver to get there.