The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.

[Jimaroid]

Yet again unverifiable data from ShotScope (which is full of inaccuracies and who have a commercial interest) is being used as definitive fact.

A table sampling random noise would be similarly aligned around 50%

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Do you have any data to back up your assertions ?
The table above are averages at each handicap level. Different golfers will have different percentages hit within each handicap. I have already stated that the shorter older chap is more accurate and hits more fairways.

Which is why I said he hits one or two more fairways. Let’s assume 14 chances to hit a fairway, average by handicap is ~50% or 7. So the straight guy hits let’s say 8 (57%)and the long guy hits let’s say 6 (42%).
Those 6 shots where both hit the fairway each account for something like 0.3 shots gain for the longer guy, so a total of 1.8 shots.
The 6 where both miss the fairway, again let’s just assume they lose the same amount of balls and again 0.3 shots gain each so another 1.8 shots.
Now the 2 that miss the fairway for the long guy but the short guy hits, let’s assume 1 lost ball -2 shots and one chip out to as he is already further up the fairway he will not lose a full shot overall but let’s say 0.8. So a total of -2.8 shots on those 2 holes, but a gain of 3.6 points on the other 12, leaves long guy 0.8 shots ahead. He also has an advantage of the par3’s as he hits a shorter club so his proximity is better with the same short game, let’s say 0.1 per par 3, I make him 1.2 shots per round better off overall

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Yet again unverifiable data from ShotScope (which is full of inaccuracies and who have a commercial interest) is being used as definitive fact.

A table sampling random noise would be similarly aligned around 50%

Yes I’m sure Shotscope have a vested interest in pointing out people miss 50% of fairways. I’m not sure what their vested interest in that particular number is over say 60% or 30% or 80%….. but you’re doubtless right.
PGA average is 59%, unless the PGA are lying with a vested interest somewhere in their stats too.
A quick google search brings up articles from golf shake (57% at HCI 1-5, dropping to 30% for 21-28) they are probably lying too. Golf
Monthly reporting scratch players hit 51% and well I’m not digging any more. They all report similar numbers between 50 and 60% for the handicap level we were talking about (3.5) so my 57% looks to be a fairly fair suggestion.

 

[Orikoru]

I see no data
However
Lets take the not unusual situation of two golfers in a club both pretty decent off the same handicap of 3.5 one is a bit older than the other and a bit straighter with his game but not as long they hit the ball around 220 and 250 yds on their drives, both have pretty decent and very similar short games strokes gained being indistinguishable on putting and shots inside 50 yds. They play and have derived their handicaps on the same tree lined parkland course with reasonably generous but not excessively generous fairways. One of them hits it into the trees a bit more often so his advantage in length is negated a little by his lack of straightness.

They go away to play a couple of other course one is wide open with rough that is barely distinguishable from the fairway and another is a tight heathland course where off fairway shots are frequently lost.Do either player have an advantage in playing each other on the different courses?

They're the same handicap so neither has any advantage, the distance of one chap must be cancelled out by the other skills of the other player. It's like asking what weighs more, a tonne of bricks or a tonne of feathers.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

If they played both courses 1000 times, the longer guy would score better as an average. On any single round either could play better on the day, but over time the longer guy wins

But they both have the same handicap so scoring would be pretty much the same.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

If the HCI is the same on a single course, that doesn’t mean they will play the same on a different course.

 

[Backache]

If the HCI is the same on a single course, that doesn’t mean they will play the same on a different course.

I agree I think People with different playing characteristics do have differences in the course that suit s them. In this particular case you have decided that a shorter straighter hitter is more suited to an intermediate course than a tight one or an open one compared with a longer slightly wilder hitter.(I disagree with this bit by the way)

 

[Jimaroid]

Yes I’m sure Shotscope have a vested interest in pointing out people miss 50% of fairways. I’m not sure what their vested interest in that particular number is over say 60% or 30% or 80%….. but you’re doubtless right.
PGA average is 59%, unless the PGA are lying with a vested interest somewhere in their stats too.
A quick google search brings up articles from golf shake (57% at HCI 1-5, dropping to 30% for 21-28) they are probably lying too. Golf
Monthly reporting scratch players hit 51% and well I’m not digging any more. They all report similar numbers between 50 and 60% for the handicap level we were talking about (3.5) so my 57% looks to be a fairly fair suggestion.

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.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I agree I think People with different playing characteristics do have differences in the course that suit s them. In this particular case you have decided that a shorter straighter hitter is more suited to an intermediate course than a tight one or an open one compared with a longer slightly wilder hitter.(I disagree with this bit by the way)

Yes and that’s the good thing about debate, we’ll never be able to recreate this situation so we will never truly know

 

[Backache]

Yes and that’s the good thing about debate, we’ll never be able to recreate this situation so we will never truly know

Well I glad you agree that there are some courses that are more suited to shorter straighter hitters than longer slightly wilder hitters even if we disagree about the course.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Well I glad you agree that there are some courses that are more suited to shorter straighter hitters than longer slightly wilder hitters even if we disagree about the course.

Surely the longer hitter has the advantage of clubbing down? Or are we assuming longer hitter are wild with every club?

 

[Deleted member 25575]

This is always the issue you can’t ever recreate this.
What I do believe is there is a link between handicap and length.
I can’t for sure say there is no course in the world that would favour I short hitter, as BIM says longer hitter can club down and thus not be as wild, but having never seen all the courses in the world I can’t definitely say there isn’t one, much as nobody else can definitely say there is one!
But as I say, my belief is that handicap and length are linked when you look at a wide enough dataset, yes there are always outliers.

 

[Imurg]

I thought clubbing down didn't hugely improve accuracy....

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Well I glad you agree that there are some courses that are more suited to shorter straighter hitters than longer slightly wilder hitters even if we disagree about the course.

And I didn’t agree that, we both agreed per the parameters set out that both were 3.5 HCI on the intermediate course, that doesn’t mean it’s more suited to the shorter hitter, just there appears to be no difference from what you set out

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I thought clubbing down didn't hugely improve accuracy....

It doesn’t hugely improve accuracy. But there isn’t a huge difference between the 2 golfers in question, so pulling his accuracy up from 42% so say 50% or missing 1 extra fairway than 2, while not losing distance against the other guy, will mean things are a lot closer, it also gives the longer guy options, he can choose to either hit a slightly more accurate 3w or still smash driver and deal with where it lands. The shorter guy doesn’t have the option of being longer

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I thought clubbing down didn't hugely improve accuracy....

Depends how far down you go and the ability of a player. Driver to 3 wood, absolutely not.

We’re talking about better in this example so you would hope they are more accurate.

Once we get into double figures, not so much.

 

[Backache]

And I didn’t agree that, we both agreed per the parameters set out that both were 3.5 HCI on the intermediate course, that doesn’t mean it’s more suited to the shorter hitter, just there appears to be no difference from what you set out

I'm sorry it's quite simply a matter of logic that if course A is better than course B for an equivalent long hitter than a short hitter then course B is better than course A for a short hitter than an equivalent long hitter.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I'm sorry it's quite simply a matter of logic that if course A is better than course B for an equivalent long hitter than a short hitter then course B is better than course A for a short hitter than an equivalent long hitter.

No, not at all!

 

[D-S]

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.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Surely the longer hitter has the advantage of clubbing down? Or are we assuming longer hitter are wild with every club?

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