We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Distance first, accuracy later.

I have only met a few golfers in my life that could hit a driver consistently straight and long(let's say 250 yard average carry) who didn't learn the game as a teenager. Almost all the guys I know that played to single digit as a teenager are still quite long in their 50's or 60's. It's no wonder when I see the high school team practicing at the range. These skinny kids all have full shoulder turns and very fluid swings and the 130 pounders are hitting it about 230 yards on the fly.

Funny how naturally distance is when you take up the game as a kid. My 8 year old daughter has only played about 30 times and already can carry her little 3 wood 100 yds plus on a good hit. My theory is when you start young you don't have the brute strength to muscle the club around so you learn to use the large leg and torso muscles together with flexibility to hit the ball long. It's super tough to learn that as an adult. I have to work much harder now at age 49 to maintain my overall flexibility than I did even 5 years ago. So far, no distance lost but I know father time will get me!
 
Last edited:
Tadashi70 said:
It might be that I am tired or this cookie frap is freezing my brain but I have no idea what you just said.
Click to expand...

You (If I understand you correctly) are basically implying logic that distance should be and is more easily obtained while one is young from the beginning. And then the accuracy can be "easily" learned so that one can then put that obtained distance to good use. Your logic also implies that too many have not developed themselves in this order of fashion and is why they don't now hit as far as they otherwise could have if they would have hit far first while younger.

If I have that right, then what I was trying to say is this.
Firstly I would agree that young and flexible is the time to swing hard n fast first.
I also would agree that if many would have done it this way, they would now be hitting further than they currently do.

The only thing I question is that it still doesn't mean that just anyone would be successful with both distance and the accuracy because they learned to hit far first. They would perhaps be hitting further but even one who swings fast and hard from a young beginning (even though an advantage) doesn't mean he can still learn the accuracy part so "easily" without sacrificing some distance. I would believe that many (in fact most) would still have to sacrifice some of the speed (or distance) in order to stay accurate. Golf is just too hard for most people to be that good at period.

Hope that makes better sense. You may not agree but I hope I got it out the way I meant to.
 
This is a good topic. Being fairly young mid-20's I'm not a great driver of the ball, in fact I hardly hit driver and prefer my 3w, hybrid, or 4i off the tee. I do admit that being younger and more flexible is the time to get after it in regards to distance.

Due to my flexibility when playing with others, mostly older folks, I usually outdrive them or put my ball next to theirs with my prefered method off the tee. However when I do hit driver it is erratic and embarising at times and for that reason I would gladly take accuracy any day.
 
I agree if you are teaching your kid to teach them to make a wide swing and hit the ball as hard as they can it will pay off in the long run.

I'm trying to get the accuracy part down to where I want it to be.

But being long has its advantage as I can take a 4i off the tee on most par 4's and get to the green in two or par 5's in three. This was proven the Sunday I was in HHI where I played the best first 7 holes of my life with only a 4i off the tee, things went Bad when I got the big sticks out.

A friend just took up the game and he has decent accuracy but as much as he has tried he can't add yardage to his long game or irons and he is in good shape for work just doesn't have the power for in his golf swing.
 
I think the phrase "you can't teach distance" spawns off the "you can't teach height" philosophy in basketball. In basketball, you'll take a flier on the 7 footer because they'll always have inherent advantages that make the game easier. You might be able to refine their basketball game, and if so they'll be a great player. Even if you don't, they'll still be effective. No matter how great that 5 foot 8 kid is, he's always going to have a clear ceiling (pardon the pun).

Extending that metaphor to golf, the same thing applies to distance. If you're long, you'll always be minimally okay and can learn to straighten it out. A shorter player has to make almost no mistakes, and then still has that ceiling.

The thread isn't about whether distance without accuracy or accuracy without distance matters. It's about whether you chase distance first when learning the game, and I think anyone picking the game up should do that.

I'm convinced that the golf swing gets locked in amazingly quickly. The body will figure out the best way to do a task. Once it has "learned" what it feels is best though, it is really hard to change it. Children are the exception because their bodies are constantly changing, but once they have reached their full height, I think they lock in quickly as well.
 
ryebread said:
I think the phrase "you can't teach distance" spawns off the "you can't teach height" philosophy in basketball. In basketball, you'll take a flier on the 7 footer because they'll always have inherent advantages that make the game easier. You might be able to refine their basketball game, and if so they'll be a great player. Even if you don't, they'll still be effective. No matter how great that 5 foot 8 kid is, he's always going to have a clear ceiling (pardon the pun).

Extending that metaphor to golf, the same thing applies to distance. If you're long, you'll always be minimally okay and can learn to straighten it out. A shorter player has to make almost no mistakes, and then still has that ceiling.

The thread isn't about whether distance without accuracy or accuracy without distance matters. It's about whether you chase distance first when learning the game, and I think anyone picking the game up should do that.

I'm convinced that the golf swing gets locked in amazingly quickly. The body will figure out the best way to do a task. Once it has "learned" what it feels is best though, it is really hard to change it. Children are the exception because their bodies are constantly changing, but once they have reached their full height, I think they lock in quickly as well.
Click to expand...

I need to respond to this by objecting. But in a super friendly way.

If you're already optimized in your swing, then yes, I agree. But if your rhythm, hip motion (not arms), and etc are inefficient, then you still have a load of distance to add and you can do it if you work on the efficiency of the meaningful portions of your swing.

To summarize, I don't think you can add geometry to your swing, at least very easily, after a certain age. We just have certain blocks that evolution gives us. But you can you make it more efficient at any age, and there is plenty of distance in there for many people (though not all, of course).
 
I would prefer accuracy is more important than distance, especially for the 2nd or 3rd shots.
 
If you have distance shots 2&3 can be much easier.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
This is easy. Of course, Sir Nick is correct. You have to do a LOT of things right to hit the ball far. Center face contact, squaring up the clubface, ascending AoA, good inside-out swing path, good lag, proper weight transfer, and more. Guess what? If you are missing any one of these, you aren't close to maximizing your distance potential. Also, when adding any of these elements, your accuracy is likely to suffer short-term. So yes, Sir Nick's advice makes a ton of sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top