The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.

[Deleted member 23270]

It is interesting to note that many people at my club reached their lowest ever handicap after the age of 60, a lot of them from 7 or 8’ish down to 4 or 5. None of them were suddenly longer, in fact most had lost length, but most of them had a bit more time, maybe used for a touch more practice but more often for an extra game a week.

I am one of these people. Played off 4 or 5 for years when working then got down to 1 when I retired. No more distance, just sharpened up my overall game.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

It is interesting to note that many people at my club reached their lowest ever handicap after the age of 60, a lot of them from 7 or 8’ish down to 4 or 5. None of them were suddenly longer, in fact most had lost length, but most of them had a bit more time, maybe used for a touch more practice but more often for an extra game a week.

While I have no doubt at all that having time to practice will improve one’s game, I would counter that, with the same practice time AND another 20 off the tee, they would be lower still.
Nobody is claiming that you have to have increased distance to lower your handicap. Just that there is a direct correlation between distance and handicap. Improvements in any part of one’s game will help to lower one’s handicap

 

[Backache]

No, not at all!

Why if player b is two strokes better off than player a on course B than course A is player is player b relatively not two strokes worse off than player a when they swap courses.

 

[Imurg]

Nobody is claiming that you have to have increased distance to lower your handicap.

I think you'll find Backsticks is......

 

[Deleted member 29109]

You have said yourself that club golfers are no more accurate with a 3 wood than a driver.

And that is correct.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Why if player b is two strokes better off than player a on course B than course A is player is player b relatively not two strokes worse off than player a when they swap courses.

No. That assumes everything is liner, which it isnt!
Why would there be a direct correlation between players on different courses??? Because Tiger can win at Augusta doesn’t me he can’t, or Tim Watson can’t win at Hoylake.
Sorry I’m. It seeing your point here at all I’m afraid

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I think you'll find Backsticks is......

I’m not reading the whole thread back so if that’s what is actually being said then I don’t agree with that.
Distance will help with lowering scores, but obviously if after every chip you hit, you hit another chip, you’d be able to lower your handicap by getting better at chipping

 

[Backache]

No. That assumes everything is liner, which it isnt!
Why would there be a direct correlation between players on different courses??? Because Tiger can win at Augusta doesn’t me he can’t, or Tim Watson can’t win at Hoylake.
Sorry I’m. It seeing your point here at all I’m afraid

Golf does not have to be linear however if you score better on course a than course b then you do score worse on course b than course a.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Golf does not have to be linear however if you score better on course a than course b then you do score worse on course b than course a.

Yes if you average 80 on course 1 and 82 on course 2, you score better on course 1.

However, because I score better on course 1 doesn’t mean you will score better on course 2

 

[Backache]

Yes if you average 80 on course 1 and 82 on course 2, you score better on course 1.

However, because I score better on course 1 doesn’t mean you will score better on course 2

I didn't say it did mean that.

To show why the straighter one has to be better on some courses. Lets say there was a two shot difference on the tight course. They are mates and they go and join the course. The shorter player is now behind and he resolves to improve he is a bit older and cannot improve his length so he improves his accuracy a little and manages to get back those shots with the other chap resting on this laurels. They are now the same on the tight course , they go back and play their original course. Which player now has the advantage?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Playing a match on Monday, I was good off the tee, and my opponent put my win largely down to that and that tee to green I didn’t make mistakes. However I holed a few putts and he left a few just short. If he’d holed them the fact of my good driving and tee-to-green would have been less of a factor as he’d have won at least two or three holes that he didn’t. Make of that what you will.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I didn't say it did mean that.

To show why the straighter one has to be better on some courses. Lets say there was a two shot difference on the tight course. They are mates and they go and join the course. The shorter player is now behind and he resolves to improve he is a bit older and cannot improve his length so he improves his accuracy a little and manages to get back those shots with the other chap resting on this laurels. They are now the same on the tight course , they go back and play their original course. Which player now has the advantage?

You’re talking about a single person a side match. It’s way too small a dataset to be relevant, and I don’t see how the straight guy who is already off 3.5 manages to gain 2 shots just by being straighter still, he would have to have an incredibly accurate drive now and miss probably 1 or max 2 fairways per round staying at 220 to make up 2 shots, nobody has that level of accuracy over the long term.
It’s like saying he gets really good with his irons and hits a hole in one every par3, it’s not happening.
If we want to go to the edge of conceivable to prove your point, the accurate guy could hit no further than say 150, never be in any trouble and hole everything inside 150 from the green. He would undoubtedly be the best player in the world, so for the sake of you winning this argument/discussion, yes you are spot on there is a circumstance where a short hitter could wipe the floor with even the longest hitter

 

[Backsticks]

I think you'll find Backsticks is......

I think you'll find I am not.

I am saying it is the biggest factor by far on the level of golf you will play. See earlier graph of driving distance v HI. It correlates very closely, and is linear. Of course other aspects of 5ge game matter. But maybe in a spread of 5 or 6 shots. Out of 40 shots that covers most golf levels.

 

[Backache]

You’re talking about a single person a side match. It’s way too small a dataset to be relevant, and I don’t see how the straight guy who is already off 3.5 manages to gain 2 shots just by being straighter still, he would have to have an incredibly accurate drive now and miss probably 1 or max 2 fairways per round staying at 220 to make up 2 shots, nobody has that level of accuracy over the long term.
It’s like saying he gets really good with his irons and hits a hole in one every par3, it’s not happening.
If we want to go to the edge of conceivable to prove your point, the accurate guy could hit no further than say 150, never be in any trouble and hole everything inside 150 from the green. He would undoubtedly be the best player in the world, so for the sake of you winning this argument/discussion, yes you are spot on there is a circumstance where a short hitter could wipe the floor with even the longest hitter

I am not assuming anything of the sort I am saying he has improved by getting straighter, straightness can be throughout the bag just as length can.. He could easily lose a ball one less time every two rounds on a tight course and have slightly better proximity to the hole, with his approaches. I dont disagree that there is a correlation between length and handicap but there are a huge number of outliers in every direction. Because length is easy to measure but directional accuracy is not does not mean that there is not a large correlation between directional accuracy and handicap/ability. Observation suggests there very obviously is. I am just suggesting he has improved his directional accuracy.

 

[RichA]

I am not assuming anything of the sort I am saying he has improved by getting straighter, straightness can be throughout the bag just as length can.. He could easily lose a ball one less time every two rounds on a tight course and have slightly better proximity to the hole, with his approaches. I dont disagree that there is a correlation between length and handicap but there are a huge number of outliers in every direction. Because length is easy to measure but directional accuracy is not does not mean that there is not a large correlation between directional accuracy and handicap/ability. Observation suggests there very obviously is. I am just suggesting he has improved his directional accuracy.

Maybe the shorter hitter is a better putter.

 

[Backache]

Maybe the shorter hitter is a better putter.

In the original scenario I laid out that they had indistinguishable short games and the long games were where the difference lies. One being shorter but straighter the other being longer but less accurate.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I am not assuming anything of the sort I am saying he has improved by getting straighter, straightness can be throughout the bag just as length can.. He could easily lose a ball one less time every two rounds on a tight course and have slightly better proximity to the hole, with his approaches. I dont disagree that there is a correlation between length and handicap but there are a huge number of outliers in every direction. Because length is easy to measure but directional accuracy is not does not mean that there is not a large correlation between directional accuracy and handicap/ability. Observation suggests there very obviously is. I am just suggesting he has improved his directional accuracy.

Nobody playing to a 3.5 handicap is losing more than one ball every 2 rounds though.
And to start to dial in that kind of accuracy you’re looking at tour level ball striking.
As I said before, if you’re determined to get me to say you’re right, you’re right, the old guy could improve his ball striking and accuracy to that of the top 0.01% of ball strikers on the planet and in doing so would wipe the floor with the longer guy.

 

[Backsticks]

I think a false conclusion is made from the undeniable fact that of course improving straightness would improve ones golf, thus improving straightness is a valid strategy to do so.

But what all the data shows is that the scope for accuracy improvement is small and you will not transform your game by improving accuracy. It is a much smaller factor in setting the window of golf level that you will play in than distance.

Accuracy improvement feels more in reach though. We feel we will not carry a 300 yard drive, but hitting a few more fairways with our 220yd drive is achievable. But this is illusory. We will make little improvment to our game level through dispersion.
Distance is king.

 

[Backache]

Nobody playing to a 3.5 handicap is losing more than one ball every 2 rounds though.
And to start to dial in that kind of accuracy you’re looking at tour level ball striking.
As I said before, if you’re determined to get me to say you’re right, you’re right, the old guy could improve his ball striking and accuracy to that of the top 0.01% of ball strikers on the planet and in doing so would wipe the floor with the longer guy.

I'm not trying to get you to say anything I am just pointing out that it is logically consistent to suggest that if there are two golfers with broadly similar skill sets but one being a bit longer and wilder and the other being a bit shorter and straighter then if one course suits one better the other suits the other one better., and illogical to suggest the contrary.

 

[Crow]

Everyone is right, close the thread.

I keep drifting back here to read the strong opinions being posted, even though I know it's a waste of my time I can't help myself, so can we please close the thread.

We're approaching 1,000 posts now, everyone knows where they stand in the argument, I haven't seen anybody change their mind and don't expect them to.

On second thoughts this is like so many other threads on the forum so maybe best to keep it running.