Distance or dispersion, pick one!

So Mo Martin is far and away the most accurate driver off the tee...and has 53 players ahead of her on the Rolex Rankings almost all who are no where near her in accuracy off the tee. So what does that suggest about the relative importance of accuracy vs. distance off the tee?

None of the players who have been ranked #1 on either the PGA or LPGA tours over the last two decades were anywhere near the top of their tour in fairway accuracy. But many have been at or close to the top in driving distance.

Twelve LPGA players top 80% in fairway accuracy this year. Not one of them appear anywhere near the top of the Rolex Rankings.

I think this says a lot about the answer to this question. Now this doesn't mean you can spray the ball all over the place or repeatedly hit it 300 yards out and two fairways over. Most of the top PGA golfers put it in the fairway between 55-70% of the time. But they are also about 300 yards out and that far out it doesn't take much to be off the fairway. A lot of those misses are from just off the fairway. So they do have some accuracy.

This is even more the case on approach shots. If you look at distance vs. accuracy on approach shots, most all of us would choose accuracy. Those big bombers have to hit those shots too. If you look at approach shot stats: GIR, proximity to the hole, strokes gained, and related stats you'll see the top performers show up a lot toward the top of those lists.

So for the top performers it really isn't an either or, it's distance AND accuracy.

I watched the playoff hole in the first Fedex cup event, and DJ had a huge advantage over Spieth.

I hit the ball longer today than I have in a while, I put myself in trouble 3 times, but allowed myself to get on more greens in regulation and subsequently shot my personal best at a course that his beaten me up. I would gladly take an extra 20-30 yards off the tee in exchange for 1-2 more missed fairways per round.

For the course I play 99% of my rounds on, my 240 or so driver distance is not really an issue. The fairways for the most part are pretty tight and a ball more than 5 yards off the small fairways can be quite penal (lateral hazards, OB, lots of big trees, etc.). So give me tightened dispersion for $1000 Alex.

This. The answer would be very course specific. On my home course I would chose dispersion since there is premium on accuracy. But on the munis near me I would take distance all day long since you aren't really punished for missing the fairway.

I chose dispersion when I got fitted for my driver. My fitter also steered me that way. He basically just showed me the data, showed that it wasn't the longest of the clubs I hit, but it was far, far more accurate. I have zero regrets about my choice.
Or to put it another way. Strokes gained from the extra 5-8 yards is far lower when compared to strokes gained from hitting more fairways.

~Rock

If I had to choose between the two, I'm going with accuracy.

I don't know about you, but even average rough can turn my 180 yard shot into a layup of 100 yards or less. For senior golfers (that's me) or higher handicaps, I would think that dispersion would be the choice. It is for me.

In the fairway, but I think it depends how much distance I'm losing as well.

I would be in the fairway all freakin day over distance. Makes the day so much easier.........sure it makes it easier bombing a drive to reduce the 2nd shot from say a 7 iron to a 9......but if im left or right in the sh*t and have to punch out that's a shot I didn't get to shoot at the green rather that 7 iron I had a chance at the green.

jjfcpa said:

What would you rather be, long or in-the-fairway? I bet I know the answer.

Click to expand...

That depends - each hole and lie would have to be examined before arriving at an answer. A decent lie off the FW with a clear and shorter shot to the green could be better than a shot onto the FW which leaves you with a long approach shot to the green

I've added a good amount of distance over the past couple years but I'm nowhere near as accurate now. I wouldn't go back to real short and real straight if you paid me.

Accuracy all day, every day. FIR lead to GIR which lead to scoring chances. Doesn't matter how long you are off the tee if you don't have a shot at the green. The power will come in time.

There's a member at my club who's 70 years old and shoots better than his age. He only drives the ball 220-230, but rarely missed a fairway. His iron game is the same way, about a 7 or 6 iron from 150 out, but he's always on the green. He's not even that great of a putter, but when you're ALWAYS putting for birdie you're bound to make a few here and there. That's my goal for my golf game, high FIR and GIR. I carry my driver about 275-285 and I'd sacrifice 20-30 yards to hit another 25% of fairways in a heart beat. My accuracy isn't terrible by any means, but the game is always more fun from the short stuff.

Frank and I played Saturday and in a conversation that started about my recent ball switch it became apparent distance > dispersion every time. My driver average has been down this year, from a peak of 242 to where it was 238 going into the round and I was on the verge of going Highlander on ye olde driver. Sure enough, first drive I pull hook it left and short (180) leaving 217 to the green. I almost hung it up right there but this course had so many 400+ par 4s that I just did not feel like even blasting my 5i 200 off the tee would be enough to let me play bogey golf so I kept playing it.

The driver was off line all day. I hit 3 fairways on the day. It was also longer than it has been for quite some time to the tune of my average for the day was 268 yards. My putting was the worst it has been in some time. My approach game was a hair above average.

And I had the second lowest round I have had all summer. The only better score I have had this summer was the day my driver woke up on the 9th hole and I played the last ten in even par, something I had never done. As I have lost distance this year my handicap went from a 17.2 to an 18.3. I have broken ninety precisely twice. Neither day was when I was dropping long putts and hitting above average approach. Both came when my driver was 20-30 yards longer than average.

I think a typical example would be the 417 yard par 4. Water down the left, trees down the right but beyond the trees another fairway. I aimed inside the treeline, faded it a bit and ended up at 294 yards out. Now all I had to do was bring the ball in from the right from 147 out so with a nice little draw I whipped my 9i in there 143, a little short but well wide of the water.

If I played the 5i which did average 214 on the day, I am likely in the fairway, but I am looking at 200ish yards over water so I am playing that well right and hoping to stick an approach shot and find a way to one putt...something I was able to do just zero times on the day. Normally I get 3-4 but this day...nah.

Accuracy would have cost me strokes on a hole with multiple obstacles.

This is anecdotal evidence. Of course, I could have picked any of a dozen holes that played fairly similarly. But it is also my experience and backed up by the published research. Distance takes strokes off the game faster than accuracy off the tee for the vast majority of people. It is kind of like putt reading...which I did incredibly poorly, but at least I was missing on the high side on every smurfing hole....despite the research showing hackers under read, we continue to miss on the low side (I am an outlier. I tend to over read putts and roll past on the high side). We as a whole, on average, ignore the research and reality and continue to make the same mistakes. Sure, somewhere is the outlier who defies the math and benefits from accuracy more than distance...but they are statistically speaking unusual.