The Distance vs Accuracy Battle

[Jman]

I'll just agree that I don't believe it has to be an either/or thing.

Different types of players are going consider 'accuracy' in different terms to start with. I also think that increased 'accuracy' is a term used to justify a decision that is often instead based on aesthetic preferences. That's not me calling anybody out either, but we see it all the time.

Amen to this. I can say that because THIS is exactly what I have done time and time again myself. Its used often as a justification instead of just coming out and saying its because of aesthetics.

 

[romeyrome87]

Well Dan I would say I would rather be 250 yards in the fairway than 300 in the rough. Yeah you maybe close but you have a crappy lie. Say I took this to heart and had my 46 inch driver cut down a inch and quarter. Accuracy is better to me than distance any day.

Glad I read through responses because I was just about to post the exact se thing. I rather be 250-280 in the fairway than 300+ in the ruff a bunker or out of bounds. Accuracy is the key to reducing strokes. Distance just gets you there closer and sometimes distance puts you into places on the course you dont wanna be.

 

[golf4life]

My attempt was more on a case by case basis, but I've got no arguments that the two don't go hand in hand. That's why I made note of it being just in my personal experiences with some of the 'distance by design' irons that have been released over the course of the last couple seasons. I'm looking forward to continuing on that path. Maybe it's something as simple as a lack of repetition and practice with them, but I've found notable gaps in accuracy in my PERSONAL experiences.

Out of absolute curiosity, what are your thoughts on the lengths of shafts being as long as they are in some clubs? On average, do you think accuracy suffers when someone picks up an OTR driver that's 46.5 inches vs their previous driver that maybe played closer to 45 inches?



I'd absolutely love for you to expand on this. The trend this year with the TaylorMade TP irons seems to have tour pros playing the CBs and MCs over the MBs giving your opinion all kinds of merit. Is there a gap between those irons and something in the distance category like the SpeedBlade? Are there guys on tour playing the SpeedBlade?

Hey Dan,

I'm curious have you ever had proper fitted shafts put into the GI irons you've tried over the years? The stock shafts in the Speedblades and 2.0s are almost certainly not a good fit for you. Badly fitting shafts cause me more issues than almost anything personally.

 

[SmoothC83]

I've played a ton of iron sets, and although I have had moments of thoughts about a more "demanding" iron giving me more accuracy, the more time I have spent looking at it the more I realize my thought there has been wrong. I am in fact longer and more accurate with a more forgiving iron set. More forgiving does not mean less accurate, it just doesn't, there may be some exceptions to the rule out there but for the masses it really doesn't.

See I get what you guys are saying. I just can't understand then, why far more pros wouldn't be putting these in play. I know for damn sure If I was playing for that kind of money I would be playing the "easiest the play" club out there if there were no performance differences to be seen. Plenty of pros still hit their fair share of terrible shots so why are they still shying away from these clubs?

 

[Canadan]

Hey Dan,

I'm curious have you ever had proper fitted shafts put into the GI irons you've tried over the years? The stock shafts in the Speedblades and 2.0s are almost certainly not a good fit for you. Badly fitting shafts cause me more issues than almost anything personally.

I was not fit for a number of them (burner 2.0, speedblade), no. I did get fit and played some R9, R11, and TT irons with proper shafts through the course of the last few years and struggled with them.

I'll be the first to admit that the 'surprises' that I saw out of the 2.0s have been reduced enormously in the new tech, no doubt about that in mind. I just thought this would be a fun conversation to see what people were willing to give up to get longer -- Maybe it's too polar of a question as it's more of a personal one.

 

[golf4life]

I don't really buy the lack of accuracy thing in GI or SGI irons myself. Probably the most accurate irons I've ever played are the Cleveland Altitudes and they are SGI in size and looks all the way. The physics of a GI or SGI style perimeter weighted club would actually promote more accuracy on off center shots. The biggest reason less than perfect ball strikers don't play blades or other player type irons is that on less than perfect contact your accuracy suffers immensely (for me, a ball an inch towards the toe with a muscle back equals 30 or more yards of distance loss. the same toe ball with the altitude might equal 5 yards of distance loss, if any at all).

You can certainly work the ball more extremely with a blade style club, so if you are an exceptional ball striker with a repeatable swing, you can certainly play those clubs with excellent accuracy. But personally, I'm looking for straight ball flight 99% of the time, and the added distance I can get with an altitude or speed blade is just gravy.

 

[kc720]

personally i would gladly give up 10 or 20 yards on every club if it meant that i would be 10 or 20 percent more accurate. simply grab more club...

 

[Golferbest]

Im one of those crowd that doesnt think gi or sgi are all that much inaccurate. Throigh lessons, practice and having a repeatable swing ive noticed that im not having to give up one for the other. Granted professions usuall play mb or cb in their scoring irons but I believe thed do just as well if their entire set were gi. Distance comes from a propper swing and know when to active the right muscles and being able to stay balanced.

 

[Hawk]

See I get what you guys are saying. I just can't understand then, why far more pros wouldn't be putting these in play. I know for damn sure If I was playing for that kind of money I would be playing the "easiest the play" club out there if there were no performance differences to be seen. Plenty of pros still hit their fair share of terrible shots so why are they still shying away from these clubs?

Professionals are increasingly adding equipment that make the game easier for them. Hybrids and cavity back irons are very common. There are players using full sets of GI irons, including the winner of the Charles Schwab cup from last year's Champions Tour. They still have the same issues that we do related to feel and aesthetics on some levels, but they also can get away with a different level of forgiveness than a normal player.

I think people look at a players cavity in a pro's bag and see it from a different perspective than they do. We see 'harder to hit' and they see 'a little help on my teeny tiny misses". They are also coming from a completely different place in terms of distance control and accuracy. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of golfers are probably just lucky to hit the green, whether they believe it or not. If you look at distance from the hole averages on the PGA Tour and compare them with the ideals that people on the internet have about their abilities or expectations you'll see that plain as day.

 

[ATLGolfer]

I've played a ton of iron sets, and although I have had moments of thoughts about a more "demanding" iron giving me more accuracy, the more time I have spent looking at it the more I realize my thought there has been wrong. I am in fact longer and more accurate with a more forgiving iron set. More forgiving does not mean less accurate, it just doesn't, there may be some exceptions to the rule out there but for the masses it really doesn't.

This is what I am starting to learn as well. There are GI irons out there that allow you to get more distance (both on well-struck shots and misses) and allow you to have accuracy. For me, the difference has been getting used to a straighter ball flight.


Dan also presented the question of driving distance over accuracy. I would take 10 (maybe even more) yards off my tee shot to hit a lot more fairways. In fact, I try to do that when I play. I rarely swing "all out" on a tee shot for that exact reason.

 

[SmoothC83]

I don't really buy the lack of accuracy thing in GI or SGI irons myself. Probably the most accurate irons I've ever played are the Cleveland Altitudes and they are SGI in size and looks all the way. The physics of a GI or SGI style perimeter weighted club would actually promote more accuracy on off center shots. The biggest reason less than perfect ball strikers don't play blades or other player type irons is that on less than perfect contact your accuracy suffers immensely (for me, a ball an inch towards the toe with a muscle back equals 30 or more yards of distance loss. the same toe ball with the altitude might equal 5 yards of distance loss, if any at all).

You can certainly work the ball more extremely with a blade style club, so if you are an exceptional ball striker with a repeatable swing, you can certainly play those clubs with excellent accuracy. But personally, I'm looking for straight ball flight 99% of the time, and the added distance I can get with an altitude or speed blade is just gravy.

See and this is where I think the big contrast in definition of accuracy between pros and amateurs comes into play . Anything more forgiving is always touted as being able to hit the ball straighter. Well as numerous teaching professionals have stated over the years, pros rarely if ever try to hit the ball straight, they are always trying to work the ball in one direction or another. Another aspect touted by GI and SGI irons is how easily they get the ball up in the air. So my point really is that if these clubs are designed specifically to hit higher and straighter shots, then I would think there must be some level of difficulty when it comes to trying to counteract that technology.

 

[fupresti]

See and this is where I think the big contrast in definition of accuracy between pros and amateurs comes into play . Anything more forgiving is always touted as being able to hit the ball straighter. Well as numerous teaching professionals have stated over the years, pros rarely if ever try to hit the ball straight, they are always trying to work the ball in one direction or another. Another aspect touted by GI and SGI irons is how easily they get the ball up in the air. So my point really is that if these clubs are designed specifically to hit higher and straighter shots, then I would think there must be some level of difficulty when it comes to trying to counteract that technology.

I could shape a G25 iron with the same consistency as an S55 iron. I can hit a cut with a G25 driver with ease when my swing is on and that thing is designed to just go straight. I think we all tend to believe that blades are needed for control, but in my experience its the swing, not the club.

 

[ArmyGolf]

At the end of the day for me to buy a club it needs to display both distance and accuracy. When I say accuracy I'm talking about distance control mainly because a shut face is a shut face whether you are playing an Altitude or a MB, right? Maybe accuracy is just the wrong word to use here.

In think there is a "right set" for every golfer out there that gives him a good blend of both attributes and will also satisfy his eye. I think the old stigma that your handicap should dictate what clubs and shafts you play needs to be done away with bit the guys selling clubs in store still cling to that philosophy.

 

[Jman]

IMO, comparing anything we do or play to what and why the pro's play is off kilter. They do this for a living and my game is not in any facet comparable to what theirs is nor is my why I play it to their why they play it.

 

[Canadan]

This is what I am starting to learn as well. There are GI irons out there that allow you to get more distance (both on well-struck shots and misses) and allow you to have accuracy. For me, the difference has been getting used to a straighter ball flight.

Dan also presented the question of driving distance over accuracy. I would take 10 (maybe even more) yards off my tee shot to hit a lot more fairways. In fact, I try to do that when I play. I rarely swing "all out" on a tee shot for that exact reason.

For what it's worth, my original post wasn't geared to be a 'player vs GI' iron question. it was a question regarding distance based irons -- But I understand that topics like that frustrate a lot of people and that certainly wasn't my intent. Just trying to learn.

The driver piece intrigues me like crazy. I've been having an internal struggle because I know a reduction in spin this year will benefit me with the big stick, but it'll cost me accuracy moving from the 445 head to the 430 head. Oddly enough, this still relates to the original topic, just not as it is structured (and I know most of my numbers end up backwards to the average so I suppose it's fitting hahaha).

 

[ChristopherKee]

Different types of players are going consider 'accuracy' in different terms to start with. I also think that increased 'accuracy' is a term used to justify a decision that is often instead based on aesthetic preferences. That's not me calling anybody out either, but we see it all the time.

Amen to this. I can say that because THIS is exactly what I have done time and time again myself. Its used often as a justification instead of just coming out and saying its because of aesthetics.

To me accuracy is distance control. If I have to give up a touch of toe forgiveness for aesthetics I'm willing to do that. =). I statistically play worse with ugly clubs!

The Titleist 714 AP2 may go in the bag some day as it's aesthetically attractive, is accurate, and has forgiveness. I just can't afford them atm.

 

[SmoothC83]

I could shape a G25 iron with the same consistency as an S55 iron. I can hit a cut with a G25 driver with ease when my swing is on and that thing is designed to just go straight. I think we all tend to believe that blades are needed for control, but in my experience its the swing, not the club.

I myself know from personal experience that ball can be worked with any club, so I definitely agree with you there. Yet to say they offer the same accuracy and consistency when shaping shots would be discounting their claims of forgiveness.

 

[T0AD]

Is a percentage of fairways or greens worth the extra 10 yards with an iron and 20 with a driver to you?

Nope. And I've talked to you in PM about forgiving drivers and shafts that would work better here or there. I'm a pretty decent scrambler because of wayward shots....lately ALL my pondering has been based around forgiveness. I wish it was a spec that OEMs would start putting out with their lofts/lies/etc. Show me some numbers that back up how forgiving your face is on toe hits, low hits, near-shanks, and I'd be more apt to plunk down 229 for a fairway wood.

 

[golf4life]

See and this is where I think the big contrast in definition of accuracy between pros and amateurs comes into play . Anything more forgiving is always touted as being able to hit the ball straighter. Well as numerous teaching professionals have stated over the years, pros rarely if ever try to hit the ball straight, they are always trying to work the ball in one direction or another. Another aspect touted by GI and SGI irons is how easily they get the ball up in the air. So my point really is that if these clubs are designed specifically to hit higher and straighter shots, then I would think there must be some level of difficulty when it comes to trying to counteract that technology.

As Fupresti said, you can work the ball left or right with any club, but certain clubs characteristics definitely exaggerate that movement. I read somewhere the biggest factor for working the ball laterally is the length of the iron head.

If you're a professional golfer, you're hitting the center of the club. I believe the pros moving to GI and hybrids are doing so more for the increased distance and height they can hit those clubs, allowing them to land softly on greens from 200+ yards away. They would not be switching to these clubs if they could not hit them accurately. Heck, Y.E. Yang had a 5 hyrbid in the bag for the Masters if I'm remembering correctly. The added forgiveness on the 1 in a 100 they mis-hit would merely be a bonus.

For me, I need the forgiveness, and I certainly don't need a club that exaggerates my draw into an ugly duck hook. With my altitudes I'm perfectly OK with a 10 yard draw versus being able to hit 30 yard hooks at will like Bubba Watson.

 

[jlukes]

I think we need to separate accuracy into two things "precision" and "forgiveness"

Certain clubs can be more precise, but only if you have a swing that allows you to be precise. A club forgiveness will let you get away with not have a grooved swing with sacrificing a little bit of precision on certain shots.

I think the line between precision and forgiveness and precision is getting closer and closer, and that is why you are seeing more professionals move away from muscle backs and such.

 

[rollin]

I dont have the consistant skill as many of you and I also learn more about clubs from most of you than i ever knew. I cant speak alot of whether or not more forgiving clubs are shorter. But part of this topic question has to do with ne prederring being longer vs more accurate. Truth is I dont think it matters from 155yrds whether you use to hit a 7i with an old set of clubs but now hit an 8i with a new set or even a 9i. How much of that really means anything? They are just numbers. That new 8i from what i understand just has characteristics via a combo of loft and center of gravity that generate the similar ball flight of his old 7i. The new club in itself may be more forgiving and that would certainly be preferred but its not like you sacrifuced distance for forgiveness with chosing one of those irons because the distance is still 155. Just a different number.

Its really quite meaningless when it comes to the irons. In a sense one can argue all they have done is simply moved the numbers back which in turn has lead to many doing away with the longest iron/s but now have more of the nead to fill in the larger front gap with a extra wedge, or two. So what has it really accomplished other than to help boost some ego for some folks who do struggle with distance and also further satisfy the ego of those who already are long enough. So I dont care at all if i had to use a 8i for 155 vs a 9i. In the end its just another iron and is why we carry many of them.

But with the driver and/or the long fw's. Then i do think we (well at least me) would want the distance because that is what the club is all about imo. It is a different scenario than the approach from 155yrds as noted ablove. Now its about getting to the 155 in the first place. . 270 in rough vs 240 in fairway off the tee? On a 360 yrd P4 i'll take the shorter but more accurate shot. Thats why I will often tee off with a shorter club to begin with. But on longer P4 or a reachable P5 I would want that extra distance because that would be my primary goal in using the long club to begin with. I now have the need to be at the 270. If I am in the rough than so be it. Point is with the longest clubs I do want the distance and thats why i pulled out the club in the first place.

 

[bellairemi]

As JB said, they are not mutually exclusive although I would add "with a good fitting". Also, you also have to consider the big miss which I see a lot when I am doing fittings (especially driver). I'll give you an example from my most recent fitting with a good senior golfer. We were testing a driver with a stock 46" shaft which had good launch and spin numbers and gave him about 10 yards of distance on a reasonable strike over his current 44.5" driver (Titleist 910 D2). However, he would have a big miss right with the 46" on average every 10 swings or so that would usually be OB - not so with the 44.5". That is some math you really have to work through to decide what direction you prefer.

I've been thinking about this one a little bit lately.. With all the distance based irons over the last couple years, each time I attempted to play them i found great numbers in distance but really struggled with the accuracy of the club. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a bit different in results with many clubs - finding a distance iron with what I would assume to be a larger sweet spot to be a bit less predictable in line and total yards in each experience vs the less forgiving player style iron I've played for years (personal experience, not a statement of fact)... but it got me thinking a lot about what I'd be willing to sacrifice for distance.

I also think about this push for longer clubs despite fittings not necessarily agreeing with it. Drivers going 46+ inches, irons that are 1/2 inch over standard or more... Each of these adjustments to a distance based iron seems to be stepping away from the accuracy factor and more to the big number factor.

Is a percentage of fairways or greens worth the extra 10 yards with an iron and 20 with a driver to you?

 

[greggdrews]

I'm not going to lie, I'm a golfer who will try many new clubs to get a little more distance. I'm a short hitter but my accuracy isn't horrible and doesn't usually put me OB or in a real bad spot. So when I do try a new club as soon as I see my accuracy drop below and acceptable level that club is gone. This doesn't stop me from continuing to try and find that perfect combo for me.

 

[KnightLightPro]

I would take Accuracy in a heartbeat. Hands down. GIR and FIR to me are more important than hitting for distance.

 

[IceyShanks]

Is a percentage of fairways or greens worth the extra 10 yards with an iron and 20 with a driver to you?

Another excellent question Dan.

I'd take fairways and greens all day if all I'm giving up is 10-20 yards. That's an easy distance to make up for if I'm not scrambling around a green all the time.