Distance first, accuracy later.

[Good.Shepherd]

It makes a ton of sense for young players now, because the equipment today is so much more forgiving. They can learn in very different ways than any of us could even in the 1990's.

Actually, older players can still do this same thing, it just takes some time and a bit of humility. You can keep your driver and swing, and use it in game.

But begin training a harder swing with GI clubs. Pretend you're back at the training phase of your life and practice hitting harder, but with equipment that is much more forgiving. It may take years before you can build back to your Titleist irons, but if you can take that kind of "two steps back, three steps forward" kind of mentality we can do it. I'm in the process of doing this now, and my beloved Mizuno blades are sitting alone in storage... but so far, it's been one of the great "restarts" of my life and very satisfying.

 

[rollin]

But i would ask just what is a "good distance"??
I think if one wishes to be a pro that answer is much different vs one who plays for enjoyment only. Even if it means competitons and also wanting to be very good at golf it still can be different from talking about the distance required for being a tour pro. One requires much more distance vs the other I would think. So just what is good distance?.

Iam sure many good players perhaps even close to scratch players too (including many here) can not bomb the ball. The average tour distance is about 287 or close to that is it not? So what distance is beneficial to be good at golf at a fairly high amateur level? Perhaps the better question may be is at what distance does the distance factor become an issue?

Can one be real good at golf with 270 yard drives?? or 260? 240? 230? What is that distance which allows one amateur to score well even in competition and/or from the tips at the average golf course?

 

[Good.Shepherd]

But i would ask just what is a "good distance"??
I think if one wishes to be a pro that answer is much different vs one who plays for enjoyment only. Even if it means competitons and also wanting to be very good at golf it still can be different from talking about the distance required for being a tour pro. One requires much more distance vs the other I would think. So just what is good distance?.

Iam sure many good players perhaps even close to scratch players too (including many here) can not bomb the ball. The average tour distance is about 287 or close to that is it not? So what distance is beneficial to be good at golf at a fairly high amateur level? Perhaps the better question may be is at what distance does the distance factor become an issue?

Can one be real good at golf with 270 yard drives?? or 260? 240? 230? What is that distance which allows one amateur to score well even in competition and/or from the tips at the average golf course?

Good point. There's also the issue that distance is separating players right now, likely as much due to some new methods as well as equipment. But this may not be the way it is forever.

For example, look at three strong and ascendent players right now: Spieth, Noh, and Lydia Ko. All of them are not in the top driving distances in their field. Now Spieth can kill the ball, for sure, but his average is tied right now with Phil Mickelson (also not in the top distance drivers in the tour). Instead, these players play smart, run out to a sufficient lead, and then protect the hell out of it with strategic course play.

So yes, for now distance is creating advantage. But that's not to suggest that this will become--or stay--the sole currency of advantage.

 

[rollin]

Good point. There's also the issue that distance is separating players right now, likely as much due to some new methods as well as equipment. But this may not be the way it is forever.

For example, look at three strong and ascendent players right now: Spieth, Noh, and Lydia Ko. All of them are not in the top driving distances in their field. Now Spieth can kill the ball, for sure, but his average is tied right now with Phil Mickelson (also not in the top distance drivers in the tour). Instead, these players play smart, run out to a sufficient lead, and then protect the hell out of it with strategic course play.

So yes, for now distance is creating advantage. But that's not to suggest that this will become--or stay--the sole currency of advantage.

You know I often think how much of what you say in the bold is due to the way the powers to be made it become.
What I mean? Is this.
The whole misguided idea that courses/holes needed to be longer to combat driving distances of the pros is a logic that imo actually works against that very goal in itself.

Think for the moment if you will. A percentage are/or been hitting too long in their opinion so they then decide to lengthen holes to combat this and do something about it. But imo all this does is actually play in the favor of those longer hitters.

Simply by default it takes the shorter hitters further out then they already are, It makes it even harder for them to keep up and that in itself actually ends up working even more in favor of the longer hitters. In a way its actually adding to the same advantage that they are trying to tame in the first place. How is the shorter hitter going to compete on too many par4's at 450 to 500 yards? and also the super long par3's. where they are in much longer clubs off the tees?

What should be done is to simply make it more penalizing for longer hitters to hit that long. Just make it less rewarding and less beneficial. Things like further lengthening rough and squeezing down fairways in those longer landing areas. Or more bunkers or even water of some sort or perhaps even ending the fairway at a given distance or whatever you wish. How about more intense doglegs requiring significant layup tee shots. All these things would make for great precise and pinpoint accuracy and great management decisions and great competition. Sure there will have to be a fair share of long holes to also be fair to one with distance ability so that he too can benefit from his special talent at times. But the par5's and a couple longer par4's an a long par3 would be more than enough to allow for that. But now lets also allow for the others to shine too.

They are basing things on the longest of the long and its counter productive imo. I wonder how much better and more abundant the battles and competition would be if more players were brought into the mix. Players who are very good but may often be out of contention due to being somewhat shorter. Not shorter by our standards but simply shorter at the pro level. After all I do understand you should have to be able to hit some considerable distance to be a pro.

But Probably great players offering wonderful pinpoint accuracy type of golf and it all creates more abundant close competition. All would be great for the sport and just as exciting as watching bombs being hit. In fact it would probably hold greater value than that because you would still also see enough of that at times too. It is often said when is the next Arnold, or jack or, Tiger coming? Or when will the next big event in golf come along and create the huge buzz around the globe that gets the masses in a golf state of mind and grows the sport again? Well just may be this type of thing will create that by means of better and more abundant close battles between many more players within the given competitions instead of simply waiting for the next Tiger to come along and dominate.

Just my thoughts about it.

 

[c0ncept]

Distance is the one thing that has always kept me from really being able to compete (when healthy) Very hard to compete when no par 5 is reachable and a few par 4s are driver 3 wood.

 

[Good.Shepherd]

Wow, Rollin. Some great things to think about, and on the surface, I agree.

 

[JoeyJoeJo]

But i would ask just what is a "good distance"??
Can one be real good at golf with 270 yard drives?? or 260? 240? 230? What is that distance which allows one amateur to score well even in competition and/or from the tips at the average golf course?

Good question. I play with different players most weeks and see a variety of abilities. I've seen guys who can regularly go 280-300 and play of 18, and guys who go 170 and are in single digits so there are a lot variables at play. They can all score well on their day.

For me, currently, 200 is good, 230 exceptional. (Hit 261 in the wind once )
I played a round the other week where I hit 4 230 drives, if I could hit 230 regularly, I'd personally score a lot better. Playing a 9 iron in rather than 3w makes a massive difference to me (but I know guys who are stellar with a 3w and can knock it dead from 200 so again, very individual)

 

[Dave9600]

Have to say i agree with the philosophy. I hit my driver fairly long 280ish, not allways super straight, but even if im on the next fairway say, i've still got a fairly easy shot with an iron/wedge into a green.

Really dont see too much of a difference in scores if the drivers being naughty, its the short game where things matter.

 

[Fourputt]

Have to say i agree with the philosophy. I hit my driver fairly long 280ish, not allways super straight, but even if im on the next fairway say, i've still got a fairly easy shot with an iron/wedge into a green.

Really dont see too much of a difference in scores if the drivers being naughty, its the short game where things matter.

But, that only works when there is a next fairway to hit from. When the miss means woods, water, or weeds, then long and crooked means marking a lot of big numbers on your card. I've played with Mr. "Long and Wrong" too often, and I admit that I get really tired of always being expected to help him look for his ball. I'd rather wait a little on the group ahead of me than have to do a ball search for someone else's ball on every driving hole. That really messes up the flow of the game for me.

When I'm the one who is having directional challenges, I first: play a provisional. And second: if I don't find the ball quickly, I just go and play on with the provisional. The only time I'll search for more than a minute or two is when we have to wait for the hole to clear in front of us. Then I'll search until I can play my next shot. In a tournament I'll be more persistent too, but in a casual round I just don't worry that much about losing a ball here and there.

 

[ryebread]

No kid is going to play high-level college golf hitting the ball 230-240 yards these days. Every one of my instructor's younger competetive students crushes the ball, and they have to do that to keep up. They are also very good elsewhere on the course, but unless we are talking just learning to play for the hell of it - you need to be able to hit the ball far.

And that to me is the crux of this thread. We're talking about the way to teach the game, and that's the way I think it should be done.

I was talking with a high school golf coach not too long ago. He had 4 of his kids get college scholarships for golf this year and two to big D1 programs. He said that if you couldn't hit it 275, then a college wouldn't even take a look. It didn't matter how good the handicap, short game or course management was. If the distance wasn't there, the colleges weren't interested. Part of the reasoning is that they knew when they got onto the longer courses that a lot of colleges have or have recently built, if the kid didn't have the distance, then they couldn't play.

Rollin makes an excellent point about course design. The more "nice" and "new" courses I play, the more I see course design favoring the long player. It's like they're trying to keep pace of play up, so they make wide landing zones and open the fairways in certain spots. They pair it up though with extra length to add a challenge. For a long player, that's not challenging. For a shorter player, it is kryptonite.

If you want to challenge a longer player, design the course the way Rick describes. Punish the crooked shot. If it's not within the 40 yard wide space, it's a lost ball. Make the long and crooked player move towards irons off the tee. That will even things up. Sadly, I see this setup more in older courses that are shorter and are designed to "protect" the green.

Also, one just needs to look at the PGA and LPGA and the "leaps" forward in the game. Every player that really pushed the game forward in my life time (Nicklaus, Norman, Daly, Woods) was long. The pack eventually catches them because they get longer too. Bubba has won two green jackets, effectively due to length. Is he a great player? Yep, but he's great primarily because he's so long.

The LPGA is the same. I watched Michelle Wei hit a 309 yard drive on 18 when she won in Hawaii recently. The player trying to catch her hit about a 240 yard drive. Wei played a wedge into the green to about 8 feet. The other lady hit a hybrid and was about 40 feet away. It all snowballs after that difference in tee shot.

 

[rollin]

Yes , The powers to be are making thier own problem worse. If it contnues there eventually will no longer be any fun in seeing constant bombs being hit and less close competitive golf to begin with imo. Long drive compettions get darn boring to me after the first bunch. One simply becomes less appreciative of it. As i advocated before. Make the game more compitive by thinking the other way around and stop playing into the hands of the longest hitters by eliminating the shorter ones. Eventually its not going to be fun anymore to watch and the amount of competition that stays always in close contention will be less abundant. Less going on to chear and rout for and against and less interesting to capture ones curiosity and draw attention from the masses.

 

[Fourputt]

And that to me is the crux of this thread. We're talking about the way to teach the game, and that's the way I think it should be done.

I was talking with a high school golf coach not too long ago. He had 4 of his kids get college scholarships for golf this year and two to big D1 programs. He said that if you couldn't hit it 275, then a college wouldn't even take a look. It didn't matter how good the handicap, short game or course management was. If the distance wasn't there, the colleges weren't interested. Part of the reasoning is that they knew when they got onto the longer courses that a lot of colleges have or have recently built, if the kid didn't have the distance, then they couldn't play.

Rollin makes an excellent point about course design. The more "nice" and "new" courses I play, the more I see course design favoring the long player. It's like they're trying to keep pace of play up, so they make wide landing zones and open the fairways in certain spots. They pair it up though with extra length to add a challenge. For a long player, that's not challenging. For a shorter player, it is kryptonite.

If you want to challenge a longer player, design the course the way Rick describes. Punish the crooked shot. If it's not within the 40 yard wide space, it's a lost ball. Make the long and crooked player move towards irons off the tee. That will even things up. Sadly, I see this setup more in older courses that are shorter and are designed to "protect" the green.

Also, one just needs to look at the PGA and LPGA and the "leaps" forward in the game. Every player that really pushed the game forward in my life time (Nicklaus, Norman, Daly, Woods) was long. The pack eventually catches them because they get longer too. Bubba has won two green jackets, effectively due to length. Is he a great player? Yep, but he's great primarily because he's so long.

The LPGA is the same. I watched Michelle Wei hit a 309 yard drive on 18 when she won in Hawaii recently. The player trying to catch her hit about a 240 yard drive. Wei played a wedge into the green to about 8 feet. The other lady hit a hybrid and was about 40 feet away. It all snowballs after that difference in tee shot.

That's all well and good, but if you lack that certain whatever it is that creates exceptional length, then you are better off to focus on accuracy. I don't deny that length is of great benefit, but not all of us have (or had) that special something that makes us longer than the next guy. We may have the same teacher, with the same philosophy, same work ethic, but Bob is 20 yards longer than I am and no matter how hard I try, nothing I do changes that. If it was possible for everyone to do it equally then every pro would be hitting as far as Bubba Watson.

You use Michelle Wie as an example. She is tall and slender, and her height along with a good swing gives her a great advantage over a woman of average height. Some of that advantage seems to go away on the green though, as she obviously has struggled with the flatstick to the point that she has adopted one of the oddest putting stances on any tour.

As to course design, a propely designed course will play in a very similar fashion for players of varying lengths, as long as they play the tees which are appropriate for them. I play a course in Colorado called Grand Elk. It's a Craig Stadler design, and it's a lot of fun because the holes are well laid out with a generous landing area, as well as offering the temptation to stretch the drive a little farther, but to do so you also accept some risk. The holes play very similar whether you drive the ball 290 or 230, as long as you play the tees which are appropriate for your power.

 

[v.man]

Interesting article. But, I can tell you this. If you gave that advice to a beginner that is playing my home course, he'd better have a lot of golf balls. My mountain course requires accuracy over distance. I always get tickled when I see guests come in, look at the yardage on the scorecard and immediately go to the tips. If they are, say, a 12 handicap or higher, they're probably not going to break 90!

 

[rollin]

Interesting article. But, I can tell you this. If you gave that advice to a beginner that is playing my home course, he'd better have a lot of golf balls. My mountain course requires accuracy over distance. I always get tickled when I see guests come in, look at the yardage on the scorecard and immediately go to the tips. If they are, say, a 12 handicap or higher, they're probably not going to break 90!

This is part of what i been implying. That is also a great part of the game. The masters or who ever else never had to add 500 yards through the years in order for the golf to be exciting and challengng. In fact i think made it less exciting. All it did was benefit a select few. Distance can not and should not be the primary thing that makes a champion and those who can challenge to be in cotention.. I know one must also be great at other things in order to still win but when those who are also great at other things are not in conetention due to distance it deminishes the field and makes less of what could be more entertaining and challenging golf. Wouldnt it be so much more exciting to see them play "your" type of course where one can view all that comes with shoerter but more precise golf and strategies. And as said i think it would also add further exciting competitiion with more players contending together. I am sorry I know i keep repeating myself but it seems to always come back to this imo.

 

[Philadelphia]

Doesn't the statement "you can't teach distance" imply that working on distance first is an exercise in futility? It seems like some here (it's been a long thread) are implying the opposite.
I've been enjoying the discussion thus far.

 

[rollin]

Doesn't the statement "you can't teach distance" imply that working on distance first is an exercise in futility? It seems like some here (it's been a long thread) are implying the opposite.
I've been enjoying the discussion thus far.

I never really understood that statement except to say its what I like you have been told.
Why couldnt distance be tought? Of course we would all have our own max of club speed and power but If we looked at the long drive competitions dont those guys get taught and/or teach themselves to swing harrder and faster? Perhaps the term simply means to imply that we all have a max limit and once reached we cant go any further. But we can certainly be tought how to try to reach our individual max (whatever it may be) for that individual. Of course then we would also have to control it. But anyway it is possible the term is sort of misused or misunderstood. IDK but just a thought.

 

[Tadashi70]

I never really understood that statement except to say its what I like you have been told.
Why couldnt distance be tought? Of course we would all have our own max of club speed and power but If we looked at the long drive competitions dont those guys get taught and/or teach themselves to swing harrder and faster? Perhaps the term simply means to imply that we all have a max limit and once reached we cant go any further. But we can certainly be tought how to try to reach our individual max (whatever it may be) for that individual. Of course then we would also have to control it. But anyway it is possible the term is sort of misused or misunderstood. IDK but just a thought.

I'm the one who said distance can't be taught. When most amateur golfers pick up the game they lack the skills to hit far but that's all they chase. They build bad habits, they aren't in the best shape and are unable to grasp the concept needed for length.

You kids that start out are flexible and get after it. This is when they learn length. They don't have long term memory and generally swing hard every time. Dialing that power in and making it accurate is the easy part. This doesn't hold true for the weekend warrior.

I meet guys that say they hit 300 all the time but they are well short of me and I average 275-280. As a long time instructor of the golf swing I have ran across a select few amateur a that picked up game that have added length. It's almost always accuracy

 

[inthehole]

I think this premise only applies to aspiring serious golfers with alot of time and (professional) career goals. For the rest of us, hitting it straight first, then adding distance when you get your driver mechanics down makes so much more sense to me. I know how to add distance, I just don't chose to ... it's not worth the risk for someone who doesn't have unlimited practice time.

 

[Blazer]

It probably works for the kids, but I've injured myself when trying to swing too hard.

 

[inthehole]

This is something I've learned the hard way. Yeah, I was pretty straight, but the game is much harder if you're hitting driver, fw into the green as opposed to hitting driver, 7 iron. I'm now later in life trying to relearn after 10s of thousands of reps the "other" way.

No disrespect, but you're obviously playing the wrong tee's if you're consistently hitting driver & fw's into greens.

 

[JoeyJoeJo]

you're obviously playing the wrong tee's if you're consistently hitting driver & fw's into greens.

Not everywhere has multiple tees and when when playing in club events, I get no choice, there is no wrong tee.

 

[rollin]

I'm the one who said distance can't be taught. When most amateur golfers pick up the game they lack the skills to hit far but that's all they chase. They build bad habits, they aren't in the best shape and are unable to grasp the concept needed for length.

You kids that start out are flexible and get after it. This is when they learn length. They don't have long term memory and generally swing hard every time. Dialing that power in and making it accurate is the easy part. This doesn't hold true for the weekend warrior.

I meet guys that say they hit 300 all the time but they are well short of me and I average 275-280. As a long time instructor of the golf swing I have ran across a select few amateur a that picked up game that have added length. It's almost always accuracy

But "Tadashi" isn't that (the bold) still require a happy medium between control and distance? I can certainly understand the flexibility part helping them more easily add length which of course will naturally diminish some as they age but I would assume not anyone is able to dial in the accuracy part as it still would take balance, coordination, overall ability and understanding. I think I understand you but does it so easily apply to all of them?

I assume just like the entire game of golf in general that only some will be able to master both long and accurate while the majority still would struggle to do so. Perhaps its easier when younger due to the natural advantages and also perhaps even many now if taught that way as youngsters would been better off at both and able to do so but I would still assume being successful at both (and i don't mean pro success but just being good at golf) would still in the big picture only happen for a smaller percentage and the majority would still probably have to tame the speed and distance for some of the accuracy. Would you disagree with this?

 

[Good.Shepherd]

I think this premise only applies to aspiring serious golfers with alot of time and (professional) career goals. For the rest of us, hitting it straight first, then adding distance when you get your driver mechanics down makes so much more sense to me. I know how to add distance, I just don't chose to ... it's not worth the risk for someone who doesn't have unlimited practice time.

Yes, and I'll add to it. The biggest statistical proponent of "long, not straight" are the guys behind "Every Shot Counts". And they make a few (critical) assumptions that go with that distance argument. They also don't account for a few things (though in general their research is great and it's a great read):

1. They assume that a player who needs to be hitting longer, at the expense of accuracy, will only go out of bounds and take a penalty stroke at 7% of the time or less. That's essentially 1 time in 18 holes. For tour players, that's a great argument to make. But for others of us... that's not nearly as practical. Do it twice in a round and you've essentially wiped out your statistical gains of playing a stroke behind in distance, PLUS (for us mortals) our attitude and frame of mind is very different on the tees than if we're hitting straight.

2. The argument for distance is that, laying up shorter distances, a great player can pick up about 2.X strokes per 18 holes. In a 4 day tournament, this can total 8 strokes or so. Big, big deal. But if you're just calculating a handicap via single games and not accumulating for a tournament, that 2 stokes isn't always worth it, especially if taking penalties or bad lies can lead to blow up holes (as they can for higher handicappers).

Straight, for me, probably shaves off 10 strokes in some rounds.

3. Also, what it overlooks is that just because long has been playing a lot in the last 10 years (especially with new equipment), that doesn't mean long is the only way to gain advantage. Lydia Ko and Seung-Yul Noh are not in the top bracket of distance hitters on their tours. Neither is Jordan Speith (tied with Mickelson at like 100+ in average drive distance).

These players can play a version of "smart ball" that doesn't gain as many strokes, but it also doesn't give them away as often either. That's a big deal, and we're seeing it emerge as a formidable approach to the game.

4. How I apply this is that when I'm playing single rounds, straight is king for me. I'll increase my distance via setup, alignment, rhythm, and fluidity all I can but I'm not going to torture my swing or swing uncontrollable clubs to get it.

When I play a tournament, and in prep for it, I'll play bigger on holes where there is less of a chance to lose a ball or take a penalty and I'll play bigger on days when the conditions favor it. But once I think I have my few strokes of gain for it, I'll go into "smart ball" mode and protect my score and let the others find their blow up holes.

That's just me, though.

 

[Tadashi70]

I think this premise only applies to aspiring serious golfers with alot of time and (professional) career goals. For the rest of us, hitting it straight first, then adding distance when you get your driver mechanics down makes so much more sense to me. I know how to add distance, I just don't chose to ... it's not worth the risk for someone who doesn't have unlimited practice time.

The issue is that most golfers have no clue how to hit it straight. And even fewer know how to add distance that is useful.

 

[Tadashi70]

But "Tadashi" isn't that (the bold) still require a happy medium between control and distance? I can certainly understand the flexibility part helping them more easily add length which of course will naturally diminish some as they age but I would assume not anyone is able to dial in the accuracy part as it still would take balance, coordination, overall ability and understanding. I think I understand you but does it so easily apply to all of them?

I assume just like the entire game of golf in general that only some will be able to master both long and accurate while the majority still would struggle to do so. Perhaps its easier when younger due to the natural advantages and also perhaps even many now if taught that way as youngsters would been better off at both and able to do so but I would still assume being successful at both (and i don't mean pro success but just being good at golf) would still in the big picture only happen for a smaller percentage and the majority would still probably have to tame the speed and distance for some of the accuracy. Would you disagree with this?

It might be that I am tired or this cookie frap is freezing my brain but I have no idea what you just said.