The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.

[Deleted member 23270]

And that is correct.

Well you need to make up your mind because you are contradicting yourself.

 

[Backache]

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.

What data shows the scope for accuracy improvement is small?
In post #864 I pointed out that the percentage difference between a pga pro and a typical amateur is larger for accuracy than for distance.
I actually know far more people who have improved their accuracy and their golf far more than I know who have improved their distance.

I am not suggesting at all that improving distance is not a sensible thing to do . I would suggest it would be sensible to try for both but I have seen no data supporting your assertion and I would ask where it is.

 

[D-S]

Perhaps the better question is which component of the game is the easier/faster/most achievable to improve that gives the most benefit for the handicap golfer.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Well you need to make up your mind because you are contradicting yourself.

Driver to 3 wood has very little difference in dispersion for most players.

Dispersion generally decreases after that as loft increases. More so for better players in the specific example being discussed.

 

[Backache]

Perhaps the better question is which component of the game is the easier/faster/most achievable to improve that gives the most benefit for the handicap golfer.

I don't think there is an answer, handicap golfers are so diverse.
If I was to guess the quickest fix for many is putting/ short game but that is also the one where you quickly come to a point where significant improvements are more difficult.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

What data shows the scope for accuracy improvement is small?
In post #864 I pointed out that the percentage difference between a pga pro and a typical amateur is larger for accuracy than for distance.
I actually know far more people who have improved their accuracy and their golf far more than I know who have improved their distance.

I am not suggesting at all that improving distance is not a sensible thing to do . I would suggest it would be sensible to try for both but I have seen no data supporting your assertion and I would ask where it is.

You’re not comparing apples and apples in that post.
I don’t have the will to work out what it is, but a ball travelling 225y at an offline angle of 6.4 degrees, will not end up 90% further offline than one travelling 295y at 3.4 drgrees

 

[Backache]

You’re not comparing apples and apples in that post.
I don’t have the will to work out what it is, but a ball travelling 225y at an offline angle of 6.4 degrees, will not end up 90% further offline than one travelling 295y at 3.4 drgrees

I'm comparing two metrics as a percentage because cannot directly compare degrees and yardage.

 

[Deleted member 15717]

You’re not comparing apples and apples in that post.
I don’t have the will to work out what it is, but a ball travelling 225y at an offline angle of 6.4 degrees, will not end up 90% further offline than one travelling 295y at 3.4 drgrees

This may/may not help

Launch Direction

Launch Direction is the initial direction the ball starts relative to the target line A positive launch direction indicates a ball that starts right of the target and a negative launch direction in…

blog.trackmangolf.com

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I don't think there is an answer, handicap golfers are so diverse.
If I was to guess the quickest fix for many is putting/ short game but that is also the one where you quickly come to a point where significant improvements are more difficult.

I think the issue is that everyone has a natural swing tempo. It is very difficult to increase that and often leads to wild thrashes with no directional control. I would suggest improving the areas of your game that you can control and short game is a lot easier than trying to gain 20-30 yards whilst still keeping it on the short stuff.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I'm comparing two metrics as a percentage because cannot directly compare degrees and yardage.

But that is ridiculous. I’m f course you can compare them fairly if you work out the number of yards offline that the ball finishes.
Looking at that link above a 300y drive offline at 3 degrees will finish 15.7y off line.
A 200y drive at 4 degrees offline would finish 14y offline. And one at 200y 2 degrees offline is 7y so let’s add together those numbers and we get 21y as it’s going 10% further let’s call it 23y
So you have the pro guy missing centre cut by 15.7y and the amateur by 23.
At best that equates to a miss between fairway and 1st cut. Strokes gained from first cut to fairway is negligible, but from 70 back it’s huge

 

[Backache]

I think the issue is that everyone has a natural swing tempo. It is very difficult to increase that and often leads to wild thrashes with no directional control. I would suggest improving the areas of your game that you can control and short game is a lot easier than trying to gain 20-30 yards whilst still keeping it on the short stuff.

Whilst I disagree with some of the more extravagant claims for distance versus direction I do think there is reasonable evidence that you can increase swing speed whilst maintaining and sometimes improving directional control, through things like speed training and gym work and it is worthwhile for many.
Whether it is actually easier than improving swing quality with a decent instructor I am a bit more sceptical but don't claim to know . I just haven't seen any decent evidence that points either way.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Whilst I disagree with some of the more extravagant claims for distance versus direction I do think there is reasonable evidence that you can increase swing speed whilst maintaining and sometimes improving directional control, through things like speed training and gym work and it is worthwhile for many.
Whether it is actually easier than improving swing quality with a decent instructor I am a bit more sceptical but don't claim to know . I just haven't seen any decent evidence that points either way.

I don't think I have ever seen a 'club golfer' go to the gym to improve their clubhead speed. Elite AMs yes, club golfers no. So I think it is pretty much irrelevant in this discussion as we are all club golfers.

 

[Backache]

But that is ridiculous. I’m f course you can compare them fairly if you work out the number of yards offline that the ball finishes.
Looking at that link above a 300y drive offline at 3 degrees will finish 15.7y off line.
A 200y drive at 4 degrees offline would finish 14y offline. And one at 200y 2 degrees offline is 7y so let’s add together those numbers and we get 21y as it’s going 10% further let’s call it 23y
So you have the pro guy missing centre cut by 15.7y and the amateur by 23.
At best that equates to a miss between fairway and 1st cut. Strokes gained from first cut to fairway is negligible, but from 70 back it’s huge

Thats fair, though that is the mean error and a lot more are probably going into the deep rough around that mean there is also the loss of directional accuracy on approach shots which is as important.

 

[Backache]

I don't think I have ever seen a 'club golfer' go to the gym to improve their clubhead speed. Elite AMs yes, club golfers no. So I think it is pretty much irrelevant in this discussion as we are all club golfers.

I do know one or two but to be honest it's probably true that too few who claim to want to improve put in the practice of swings that a pro asks for as well.

 

[Whereditgo]

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.

I actually think this has been a good thread, differing views and opinions certainly, but without descending into pettiness that often happens on other threads.

 

[Crow]

I actually think this has been a good thread, differing views and opinions certainly, but without descending into pettiness that often happens on other threads.

But over 930 posts?

I guess I've just been around the forum for too long.

 

[sjw]

They have a commercial interest in not revealing the quality of their data. I have a ShotScope X5. It’s a fun gadget but every round has errors in and I have no desire to hand edit all its mistakes out. Their database is full of people like me and by extrapolation the “good” data has been edited by hand to be correct.

I’m not disputing 57% as reasonable number to use for a hypothetical example but you’ve applied bias in your conclusion.

The most popular golf statistician on Twitter works for Arccos and uses their data, which is surely exactly the same. We can't trust any data, seemingly.

 

[Voyager EMH]

How to make big improvements over a period of time...
... hit it further, hit it better.

How to make the best score on the day or your best score of the year...
... hole them putts, matey!!!

"I'm never gonna hit it like Jack and Arnie, but I can putt" (15 years later, 7 birdies in last 10 holes to win 1978 Masters)

"You're in a good position after 2 rounds Colin. What do you think you will have to do to capture that first major?"
"Tee to green, I don't think I can be any better, I just need to hole more putts"

 

[Backache]

The most popular golf statistician on Twitter works for Arccos and uses their data, which is surely exactly the same. We can't trust any data, seemingly.

I must say I have found a similar problem to Jimaroid with shotscope. We have a long par 3 at 220 yds both on the measured course and according to the watch but when I was hitting the middle of the green it was recording distances of around 170yds. I stopped using it after that as I realised there were other unnoticed but significant errors.
I still like it as a GPS but I am slightly sceptical of the data coming out.
No idea what Arccos is like.

 

[Jimaroid]

But that is ridiculous. I’m f course you can compare them fairly if you work out the number of yards offline that the ball finishes.
Looking at that link above a 300y drive offline at 3 degrees will finish 15.7y off line.
A 200y drive at 4 degrees offline would finish 14y offline. And one at 200y 2 degrees offline is 7y so let’s add together those numbers and we get 21y as it’s going 10% further let’s call it 23y
So you have the pro guy missing centre cut by 15.7y and the amateur by 23.
At best that equates to a miss between fairway and 1st cut. Strokes gained from first cut to fairway is negligible, but from 70 back it’s huge

I’m trying to wrap my head around this, it’s just a convoluted way of generalising dispersion as a Polar coordinate?

It’s interesting how different coordinate systems can introduce different observational errors. Without a common origin, Polar coordinates are impossible to compare except in magnitude of distance. So if you had a large database of polar coordinates lacking a common origin it would look like distance is a more imoprtant variable.

Interesting indeed.