All Things Being Equal…..

[MonroeBob1955]

As an older rather short hitter, I’ve always laughed at the comment, “All things being equal, longer drives will result in lower scores.” Statically, over a broad range of data, I believe the statement to be true. Applied to a specific individual and this crazy game we play, I was never sure it cold be realistically measured. There’s too many variables. My belief has been that, being older and always having a slow swing speed, I’m never going to hit the ball further. Therefore; the statement is meaningless. At least to me. Well, maybe, just maybe, I may be in a situation where I can test that statement. See for myself if it is potentially true. Have I found a unicorn that will give me the opportunity to prove or disprove the statement? Maybe.

My average driver swing speed has averaged low to mid 80s for the last ten years or so. Average driver distance (Garmin watch/app) is right at 200 yards. My 2023 ending GHIN was 10.5. Average FIR is 76%. I play an average of 150-200 rounds a year recreationally and 10-15 tournament rounds.

I’ve added a new driver that is giving me a considerable increase in distance. After two months of getting used to it and tweaking its settings, I may have it optimized. And I’m really surprised at its optimized settings. They’re like opposite of what you read typical of a slow swing golfer. I’m seeing currently a 16 yard increase in total distance. And its barely April.

So I’m going to take 2024 and see what happens to my game. If I continue to see this increase in driver distance throughout the year, will my GHIN go down? Personally, I believe the other variables of this crazy game will result in a negligible difference. That said I’d be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

 

[Muchmore]

That's awesome you found a driver that you've maximized like that. I have a hard time believing your scores wont improve with a club less in to almost every single hole you play.

That statement though, more often than not, is talking about taking less than driver. Like for those who take a fairway on certain holes even if driver wouldn't put them in a hazard. The argument is that farther is almost always better if there's not an actual reason to club down. At least that's how I've always taken it.

But still, you finding a driver that goes farther without having to test the other part of it will be a pretty fascinating year I'd imagine!

 

[MGoBlue]

So what was the driver (head, shaft, flex, etc.) and at what settings?

 

[MonroeBob1955]

So what was the driver (head, shaft, flex, etc.) and at what settings?

QI10 standard, 10.5. Speeder NX50 regular flex. Settings -2* loft to 8.5, 4* open, 2* upright, -400 rpm.

 

[DaBuckBoys]

Outstanding!!!

 

[MGoBlue]

QI10 standard, 10.5. Speeder NX50 regular flex. Settings -2* loft to 8.5, 4* open, 2* upright, -400 rpm.

Interesting! Looking forward to further updates.

 

[MonroeBob1955]

That's awesome you found a driver that you've maximized like that. I have a hard time believing your scores wont improve with a club less in to almost every single hole you play.

That statement though, more often than not, is talking about taking less than driver. Like for those who take a fairway on certain holes even if driver wouldn't put them in a hazard. The argument is that farther is almost always better if there's not an actual reason to club down. At least that's how I've always taken it.

But still, you finding a driver that goes farther without having to test the other part of it will be a pretty fascinating year I'd imagine!

My driver has always been quite accurate, so clubbing down is rarely if ever an issue. Only do it one one hole at my home course, due to a shot shape need. But I totally understand your point. And even for those who do consider clubbing down, haven’t seen them provide data that supports either choice. Like over one hole 50 rounds, climbed down 25 and average score .2 higher/lower or something like that.

 

[MonroeBob1955]

Interesting! Looking forward to further updates.

So far the carry distance is slightly longer, but the -2 loft made a pretty fair decent angle change. Hence, more rollout. My old Rogue was virtually drop and stop even though I had it turn down a degree.

 

[Raiderboost]

You won't probably notice a huge difference but I wouldn't be surprised if you improve by a stoke or two per round. That's at least 1 club maybe a 2 club change. Hitting a PW instead of an 8 or 9 instead of 7 will result in a closer proximity to the hole. So again all things being equal and the rest of you game staying the same you will for sure see an improvement.

 

[Muchmore]

My driver has always been quite accurate, so clubbing down is rarely if ever an issue. Only do it one one hole at my home course, due to a shot shape need. But I totally understand your point. And even for those who do consider clubbing down, haven’t seen them provide data that supports either choice. Like over one hole 50 rounds, climbed down 25 and average score .2 higher/lower or something like that.

Shot Scope has a lot of that data that they've shared with the forum before that scores are almost always lower the farther the ball goes for players. But yeah, I don't have any direct links or anything to specific players sharing their own data showing that. But I don't doubt the information they've regularly provided. Either way, you getting more distance out of a driver is awesome and I hope it helps drop those scores!!

 

[JonMA1]

My opinion is that those broad statements cannot be applied to individuals when we take into account age, ability, potential, desired level of golf, available or limited time to put into the work… Not all of us have scratch golf as a goal.

Distance is a considerable advantage for the average player assuming their accuracy is not a huge weakness. But considering we all have limited practice time, how can anyone possibly know what ratio a random golfer should apply towards improving club head speed vs working on accuracy or some other part of the game? There are too many possibilities for why we shoot the scores we shoot.

Fitness is beneficial aside from golf. Stretching and some level of strength training is something most of us should probably consider - simply to avoid injury as we age. But to suggest most golfers who want to improve should forgo short game practice and instead spend that time in the gym is an example of taking a good thing to an absurd level. (Yes, I’ve read this opinion given online.)

As for general statements regarding swing speeds and which shaft or head setting one should use, I feel the same way. There is probably far too much bad advice regurgitated by unqualified golfers who know just enough to be dangerous.

 

[TxAggie2018]

As guys on "the other" golf forum like to say, distance is accuracy. If you gain 16 yards on your drive, you get to take 1 or 2 less clubs in on your approach shot.

Compound that 1-club effect over 14 par 4s and 5s per round, for 150 rounds, and I think it's very likely your cap will drop.

 

[dAS0]

If the distance comparison is done with the same golfer, I can see being 10, 20, 30 yards longer resulting in lower scores. I can't see it resulting in a huge improvement, but a stroke or two drop in HC when hitting 1 or 2 irons shorter on average is a significant.

Awesome that your new driver is 16 yards further! That is some optimization, for sure!

 

[MonroeBob1955]

My opinion is that those broad statements cannot be applied to individuals when we take into account age, ability, potential, desired level of golf, available or limited time to put into the work… Not all of us have scratch golf as a goal.

Distance is a considerable advantage for the average player assuming their accuracy is not a huge weakness. But considering we all have limited practice time, how can anyone possibly know what ratio a random golfer should apply towards improving club head speed vs working on accuracy or some other part of the game? There are too many possibilities for why we shoot the scores we shoot.

Fitness is beneficial aside from golf. Stretching and some level of strength training is something most of us should probably consider - simply to avoid injury as we age. But to suggest most golfers who want to improve should forgo short game practice and instead spend that time in the gym is an example of taking a good thing to an absurd level. (Yes, I’ve read this opinion given online.)

As for general statements regarding swing speeds and which shaft or head setting one should use, I feel the same way. There is probably far too much bad advice regurgitated by unqualified golfers who know just enough to be dangerous.

Jon, I understand and agree totally with everything you mention. But, the idea or question is can a person prove or disapprove the statement driving distance results in lower score if everything else is the same. My interpretation of all things equal. Not in a reason to improve but if I drive the ball say 20 yards longer result in me shooting a lower score if I don’t change anything else I’m doing. No additional practice, no working out, no eating healthy, no additional coaching, no mental health expert. Well maybe mental health expert after I finish trying this.

 

[darthweasel]

Jon, I understand and agree totally with everything you mention. But, the idea or question is can a person prove or disapprove the statement driving distance results in lower score if everything else is the same. My interpretation of all things equal. Not in a reason to improve but if I drive the ball say 20 yards longer result in me shooting a lower score if I don’t change anything else I’m doing. No additional practice, no working out, no eating healthy, no additional coaching, no mental health expert. Well maybe mental health expert after I finish trying this.

so lets say you are playing the world's most boring golf course. The fairway is infinitely wide and infinitely long. Slice it 200 yards right? Only problem is you added distance to the hole. Meanwhile, there are no hazards of any sort. It is just the tee box, fairway, and green.

What would your score be from 600 yards? 550? 500? 450? and so forth down to...oh the shortest par three I played was something like 89 yards up at Aspen Lakes.

We know a 3' putt is almost indistinguishable from 100% for a pro. Meanwhile by 8' the strokes gained tells us it is close to 1.52 strokes to get down for pros.
From this we can infer the goal is to see how long it would take to get within 3'.

Now consider your dispersion with the highest lofted club in your bag and work your way back to the driver. With just a bit of geometry you can figure out how many yards the widest part of your dispersion adds to the hole.

Now, how often are you landing in 1-putt range with the highest lofted club?
next Highest? and so on til you reach the furthest club it will take to reach the green.

What is the single biggest predictor of score going to be? In this thought experiment, simply how quick you can get to a 3' putt.

200 yard drive on 400 yard hole leaves 200 in. Most people who average a 200 yard drive aren't getting home in 2 so whatever the next longest club in bag. Including dispersion, what would say...a 3w leave? Lets be generous and say it goes 190 and straight on average dispersion. Now there is a 10 yard chip, then 2 putts so in a perfect world, the average is 5 strokes.

Where does the drive have to get to average 4.9 strokes? Literally that would be improvement. By the time say...240 yard drive, leaving 160. Maybe an 8 or 7 iron, what is the dispersion there? Now more shots are hitting the green...maybe the average drops to 4.5 strokes per round...I say maybe because dispersion, missed greens, 3-putts, etc can happen even on the boring course hypothesized...

But this thought experiment might help with seeing how distance drops score for an individual.

 

[JonMA1]

Jon, I understand and agree totally with everything you mention. But, the idea or question is can a person prove or disapprove the statement driving distance results in lower score if everything else is the same. My interpretation of all things equal. Not in a reason to improve but if I drive the ball say 20 yards longer result in me shooting a lower score if I don’t change anything else I’m doing. No additional practice, no working out, no eating healthy, no additional coaching, no mental health expert. Well maybe mental health expert after I finish trying this.

I would say almost always, yes. The exception being someone (like me) who has most drives go offline on courses that area heavily wooded, longer offline is not better.
My personal stats go against the collective stats that suggest less club approach shots from the rough are better than those farther back in the fairway. So the only way the driver distance helps me is if those longer drives stay in the fairway.

 

[Jason89er]

My take on this as someone who has chased distance for some time now….What some fail to realize when someone says distance is KING or closer is better is this: It does not by any means only apply to one club ie the Driver. It applies to 13 of your 14 clubs. Putter being the exception.

I think for the most part everyone agrees that as loft increases and the shaft shortens accuracy also increases. It’s easier to hit a small target with say 50 degrees of loft and a 35.5 inches shaft than a Driver with 45 inches and 10 degrees of loft. So if this theory applies then the more loft and shorter club length you can use and still maintain the same distances then the more accurate you will get. ie someone using a 30 degree 37 inch club that can hit a ball 200 yards will have superior accuracy over someone who needs say a 21 degree 38.5 inch club to reach the same distance.

Now once a person reaches professional level skills things change of course because distance can reach a point of diminishing return if accuracy begins to drop off. But for us humans the above theory holds true for the most part.

Lower hcp players hit all their clubs farther. Not just the Driver. The additional length provides advantages throughout the bag because, in general, it allows for greater accuracy. Equaling shots closer to the hole from tee to green as a whole. And that is how more GIRs are found and scores drop.

Am I wrong?

 

[MonroeBob1955]

I would say almost always, yes. The exception being someone (like me) who has most drives go offline on courses that area heavily wooded, longer offline is not better.
My personal stats go against the collective stats that suggest less club approach shots from the rough are better than those farther back in the fairway. So the only way the driver distance helps me is if those longer drives stay in the fairway.

You and me are the very same In that respect. Generally my short 200 yd drive would be in the fairway, and a much better chance of me hitting the green than 220 yard drive in the woods, deep rough, or creek. But there are those that say 220 in the crap is better than 200 in the fairway. For pros, that might be true. But I don’t think anyone here is a pro. And to be honest I have not heard from a single person who said they themselves lowered their handicap 1/10th of a point driving the ball further, everything else being equal. Is the logic there? Yes. But logic isn’t proof.

 

[MonroeBob1955]

My take on this as someone who has chased distance for some time now….What some fail to realize when someone says distance is KING or closer is better is this: It does not by any means only apply to one club ie the Driver. It applies to 13 of your 14 clubs. Putter being the exception.

I think for the most part everyone agrees that as loft increases and the shaft shortens accuracy also increases. It’s easier to hit a small target with say 50 degrees of loft and a 35.5 inches shaft than a Driver with 45 inches and 10 degrees of loft. So if this theory applies then the more loft and shorter club length you can use and still maintain the same distances then the more accurate you will get. ie someone using a 30 degree 37 inch club that can hit a ball 200 yards will have superior accuracy over someone who needs say a 21 degree 38.5 inch club to reach the same distance.

Now once a person reaches professional level skills things change of course because distance can reach a point of diminishing return if accuracy begins to drop off. But for us humans the above theory holds true for the most part.

Lower hcp players hit all their clubs farther. Not just the Driver. The additional length provides advantages throughout the bag because, in general, it allows for greater accuracy. Equaling shots closer to the hole from tee to green as a whole. And that is how more GIRs are found and scores drop.

Am I wrong?

Jason, you are not wrong and although it took me a bit to get through and understand your example, you are completely correct. I guess I should explain my preface.

A year or two or three ago, I was following with enjoyment a drive for show putt for dough thread. Mentioned more than once I believe someone said basically all things being equal, driving the ball further WILL result in lower scores. To myself I said baloney. Because all things aren’t equal. You can’t compare your drives at 230 versus mine at 200. The rest of our game is very different. So no all things equal. A friend of mine hits it past me on every hole yet we score the same or I beat him. Again all things not equal.

The only way I can even come close to proving or disproving that statement is with the situation I've just been presented thanks to this new driver. Logically, my handicap should be lower after a year where the only real change to my game is an additional 15-20 yards with a driver. but, will it?

sorry for the lengthy reply.

 

[Jason89er]

You and me are the very same In that respect. Generally my short 200 yd drive would be in the fairway, and a much better chance of me hitting the green than 220 yard drive in the woods, deep rough, or creek. But there are those that say 220 in the crap is better than 200 in the fairway. For pros, that might be true. But I don’t think anyone here is a pro. And to be honest I have not heard from a single person who said they themselves lowered their handicap 1/10th of a point driving the ball further, everything else being equal. Is the logic there? Yes. But logic isn’t proof.

Ok I get this…but if a person can hit a 17 degree hybrid the same distance as someone else can a Driver, the person hitting the hybrid will in most cases have a tighter area of dispersion. That means they get the advantage of both. If they are smart enough to understand the strategy of when to use that extra distance and when not to use it. Additional loft and a shorter shaft inherently increase accuracy. Do they not?

 

[MonroeBob1955]

Ok I get this…but if a person can hit a 17 degree hybrid the same distance as someone else can a Driver, the person hitting the hybrid will in most cases have a tighter area of dispersion. That means they get the advantage of both. If they are smart enough to understand the strategy of when to use that extra distance and when not to use it. Additional loft and a shorter shaft inherently increase accuracy. Do they not?

You’d think. Yet I play with a guy who does hit his 17* hybrid further than my old driver. And you never know where that hybrid is going. Exceptions to every rule I guess.

 

[Jason89er]

Jason, you are not wrong and although it took me a bit to get through and understand your example, you are completely correct. I guess I should explain my preface.

A year or two or three ago, I was following with enjoyment a drive for show putt for dough thread. Mentioned more than once I believe someone said basically all things being equal, driving the ball further WILL result in lower scores. To myself I said baloney. Because all things aren’t equal. You can’t compare your drives at 230 versus mine at 200. The rest of our game is very different. So no all things equal. A friend of mine hits it past me on every hole yet we score the same or I beat him. Again all things not equal.

The only way I can even come close to proving or disproving that statement is with the situation I've just been presented thanks to this new driver. Logically, my handicap should be lower after a year where the only real change to my game is an additional 15-20 yards with a driver. but, will it?

sorry for the lengthy reply.

No apology needed. I find this discussion/debate absolutely fascinating!

Given your parameters and yours only I would be inclined to agree with you. Except…if all things are equal, do you tend to hit more GIRs from 180 or 150? Do both of you? If ALL things are equal the answer should be yes. Same putting ability/shame short game ability? Then yes. If your GIR% is higher as you get closer to the hole then any equally skilled players in all other areas, their score will drop. Simply because their approach shot will be closer to the hole.

Understand these are overall and on average ideas. There are always exceptions. And that’s the beauty of this game. If it works for you then great. But on average the longer player will score better. Because they are better skilled to complete the objective. Get it in the hole in less shots.

Then again maybe your friends short game and putting are terrible. If that’s the case here then all things ARE not equal. And no amount of distance will help if you 3-4 putt every green or can’t get out of a bunker.

 

[TxAggie2018]

You and me are the very same In that respect. Generally my short 200 yd drive would be in the fairway, and a much better chance of me hitting the green than 220 yard drive in the woods, deep rough, or creek. But there are those that say 220 in the crap is better than 200 in the fairway. For pros, that might be true. But I don’t think anyone here is a pro. And to be honest I have not heard from a single person who said they themselves lowered their handicap 1/10th of a point driving the ball further, everything else being equal. Is the logic there? Yes. But logic isn’t proof.

The trick is that if you can hit a 220 yard drive into the woods, you can also dial it back and hit a 200 yard fairway finder with a 5w. The guy who's maxed out with a 200 yard drive doesn't have that option. Distance can be converted into accuracy.

 

[Jason89er]

You’d think. Yet I play with a guy who does hit his 17* hybrid further than my old driver. And you never know where that hybrid is going. Exceptions to every rule I guess.

Uncontrolled distance is not really distance is it? If he’s hitting it longer but taking penalty strokes then that negates the advantage. Completely. But that’s not really what we are discussing I would think. Accuracy is another subject. But I bet if he could hit an 8 iron as far as your Driver he wouldn’t spray it all over would he? No he wouldn’t. Because of the skill level it takes to even do that to begin with.

 

[Jason89er]

The trick is that if you can hit a 220 yard drive into the woods, you can also dial it back and hit a 200 yard fairway finder with a 5w. The guy who's maxed out with a 200 yard drive doesn't have that option. Distance can be converted into accuracy.

THIS!!