Are These Numbers Right?

[gpo]

OK then. Distance is important for sandpiper. He is at that level.

[LyleG]

Originally Posted by gpo

OK then. Distance is important for sandpiper. He is at that level.

Distance is important at any level. The closer you can get to the green the better your chance of putting the ball near the hole. To say distance is unimportant is not being realistic. I do believe in some trade off as to not give up too much accuracy, but other than that you should take advantage of every tool you can get. With current fitting techniques and equipment being as good as it is there is no excuse for someone to be playing a driver and ball that is anything but optimal.

[gpo]

You say distance is important at any level, but what is more important distance or accuracy off the tee. 200 in the fairway 80-90% of the time to me is better than 250 in the fairway 40-50% of the time. Distance is only part of the game of golf. Yes there are tons of new to newer tools out there that can get you the best set up for your driver. I will ask you this though someone is new to newish to the game and shoots say low 100s and high 90s do you think he is going to have the same swing particulars when he improves to an 80s shooter? I doubt it. 100s shooters are erratic and are just learning. They are doing fine if they can just make solid contact.

I would say many people should wait until they are more consistent to refine their equipment. Many players can't spring for a new driver every year as their swing stats change.

What people forget is that half the game is the short game. The great thing about it is most places don't charge you to practice at it. You can spend 4 hours on the putting green for 0$. The only cost there is time.

I think we have let golf companies fool us into believing that we need to have the next greatest thing every year. When that is just not always true.

Before you jump all over this post, remember every player is in a different stage in their golf progress. 10-20 yards is not important to everyone. Hitting more greens may be the hole in someone's game. Short putts or long putts may be the hole in one's game. Given limited resources in $$$ and time players should decide best how to utilized those resources.

[David Hillman]

Originally Posted by LyleG

Distance is important at any level. The closer you can get to the green the better your chance of putting the ball near the hole. To say distance is unimportant is not being realistic. I do believe in some trade off as to not give up too much accuracy, but other than that you should take advantage of every tool you can get. With current fitting techniques and equipment being as good as it is there is no excuse for someone to be playing a driver and ball that is anything but optimal.

I don't think he was saying distance is unimportant, but the last, say, 20 yards of a drive that many people spent a lot of money and time chasing, doesn't effect a score very much.

If you can't hit the green from 150, odds are not great that you will do so from 130. Hitting greens is the whole key. Take two golfers, who have equal putting games. One hits 280y and in every fairway, but only half the greens. The other one drives 250y, but is on every green in regulation. Who wins? They will both hit 36 shots tee-to-green, assuming a normal course layout. The best scrambler on Tour only manages it 68% of the time ( Corey Pavin ), so let's say big-hitter matches that. That's 3-4 bogeys (or worse) per round that our short-hitter didn't make, because he was on the green. Maybe the longer guy makes a shot back on par 5 of just the right length, but there's almost no way he can win.

And if you can already hit the green from 130, doing it from 150 or even 170 is going to take a lot less practice than learning to hit your driver 30 yards farther and straight. That's my theory, anyway.

[King Par]

Originally Posted by gpo

What people forget is that half the game is the short game. The great thing about it is most places don't charge you to practice at it. You can spend 4 hours on the putting green for 0$. The only cost there is time.

That just doesn't sit well with me. If I'm going to use a putting green at a golf course for half an hour or so, at the very least I'll buy a sleeve of balls. I'm using their services so I should pay to use them, shouldn't I? Even if it is just a sleeve of balls.

[gpo]

Originally Posted by King Par

That just doesn't sit well with me. If I'm going to use a putting green at a golf course for half an hour or so, at the very least I'll buy a sleeve of balls. I'm using their services so I should pay to use them, shouldn't I? Even if it is just a sleeve of balls.

Well, there are many times that I play a round and don't have the time to use their facilities. Also unless you are screwing around you aren't doing much harm to it and they do have to have one.

Maybe you buy a coke or a beer afterwards. Or like my home course they have a first rate restaurant and you have a meal there from time to time. Also by being there more often maybe one of the pros gets to know you better and you go to him next time you need some clubs.

Also maybe one of the times you go out to practice you see the course empty and decide to play a round instead.

There are a lot of ways we do give back to our home courses and there is a balance for us to use their facilities.

[David Hillman]

2008 PGA Tour Skill Stats Exhibit A - Corey Pavin
* Last on Tour in driving distance
* 1st in scrambling
* 1st in sand saves
* 18th in scoring average

2007 PGA Tour Skill Stats Exhibit B - Eldrick Woods
* 45th in driving
* 48th in putting
* 67th in sand saves
* 1st in GIR

The shorter shots matter more.

[LyleG]

Originally Posted by David Hillman

2007 PGA Tour Skill Stats Exhibit A - Corey Pavin
* Last on Tour in driving distance
* 1st in scrambling
* 1st in sand saves
* 18th in scoring average

2007 PGA Tour Skill Stats Exhibit B - Eldrick Woods
* 45th in driving
* 48th in putting
* 67th in sand saves
* 1st in GIR

The shorter shots matter more.

Comparing the tour and the general golfing populous is like comparing go cart racing and nascar.

Thanks to television most new courses are set up long and most hacks need optimal distance to have a shot at getting to a lot of greens. Giving up 50 yards when you dont have to is silly. I am not saying you want a driver you cant control, but to not get fit for whats optimal (distance and accuracy) is just plain dumb.

[SiberianDVM]

Originally Posted by ualtim

Take the WBL approach, try'em all.

Classic!

Thankfully, the manufacturers keep coming out with new shafts and heads, otherwise warbirlover would be on his 2nd or 3rd go-round with some of them.

[LyleG]

Originally Posted by SiberianDVM

Classic!

Thankfully, the manufacturers keep coming out with new shafts and heads, otherwise warbirlover would be on his 2nd or 3rd go-round with some of them.

Oh crap, not another month of "take the Rapture challenge"

[gpo]

LyleG,

You want to hear the ironic thing in this whole discussion. I am one of those guys that could really use an extra 20-25 yards and I have never been fit for a club. I am a low 80s high 70s shooter. One of my bigger avenues to reduce strokes would be to reach par 5s in two or at least get close. I am about a 250-260 hitter than can get to 270-275 when I hit it on the screws. On my home course over the years really only one par 5 is reachable. Hence I don't make a ton of birdies on par 5s.

Also last Nov at Bay Hill it opened my eyes to playing a longer course and the trouble it can cause. I have fixed a few issues. Dropped the wood 5 wood and got a couple of hybrids. I also picked up a 3 wood that while was new is probably 2 to 3 years old in model years. Still it is much better than the 10 year old one I had. I have a 983E Titleist that has a speeder S flex. I seem to hit it well, but don't know if it is the perfect club for me. My problem is I don't have the $$$'s to get a new model. Maybe next year.

[David Hillman]

Originally Posted by LyleG

Comparing the tour and the general golfing populous is like comparing go cart racing and nascar.

Thanks to television most new courses are set up long and most hacks need optimal distance to have a shot at getting to a lot of greens. Giving up 50 yards when you dont have to is silly. I am not saying you want a driver you cant control, but to not get fit for whats optimal (distance and accuracy) is just plain dumb.

Interesting analogy, to me, since I'm an amateur racecar driver and instructor, too. Clearly there are significant differences between professionals and amateurs in any sport. When Tony Stewart pulls in the pits, six guys jump out to work on the car; when I pull in, *I* jump out to work on it. But the fundamentals are the same; that's why they are called fundamentals. Michael Schumacher has to live within his traction budget, and so do I. He just doesn't have to pay for it, when he screws up

Most new courses may be set up long, but how many amateurs routinely play these long courses? A relatively long course is 6800 yards for us, which equates to 180y 3s, 400y 4s, and 515y 5s. You don't need to hit 280 to play any of those. A similar affliction is common among amateur racers; they spend too much of their budget chasing the last 5hp in their motor, instead of working on their skills. You have to get to a very high level of motorsports before a couple horsepower decides anything but bragging rights.

Obviously it can't hurt to have fitted equipment; I'm saying that too many people focus too much on distance off the tee, which is relatively unimportant to scoring average. I most-often play with my brothers-in-law, and father-in-law. All three knock it at least 30 and up to 70 yards past me off the tee. The only one who can give me a game is my father-in-law, because of their approaches and short games. They're always working on hitting it hard, and trying to control it, but they'd drop 10 shots if they doubled their GIR.

[gwlee7]

You don't have to break the bank to get an optimized driver unless you have to play one the big brand names. There are many extremely high quality, yet relatively inexpensive driver head components out there. Examples would be, but certainly not limited to, Geek, Wishon, Infiniti, KZG, or SMT. I have a Wishon 949MC driver that didn't cost all that much to have built for me including the fitting. It is frankly the best driver I have ever used and I have had Cleveland, Callaway, and two Titleists over the past few years.

I would even be willing to bet that gpo could take his 983E to a good fitter that has a launch monitor and get a better shaft and possibly fit for a ball and pick up a good 10 to 15 yards witout even changing his swing. It is amazing what a good fitter can do for golfers these days.

[King Par]

Isn't getting fit part of accuracy not just distance? Getting fit for the right shaft flex and lie, will improve center hits, not only increasing distance but accuracy? Or am I way off?

[Wi-Golfer]

Originally Posted by gpo

That being said if you want to shoot close to par then you have to take advantage of the par 5s. That is what the pros do. You have to be able to reach them or get real close in two. That gives you better birdie opportunities. That is where distance comes into play. That is where you have to drive it 270-300.

I don't agree with this. Even if the hole is a 550 yarder & you get a drive of only 230 yds, that leaves 320 yds. Use a 3w for another 200 yds & you are only 120 yds out. Put it anywhere near the flag & you still have a decent shot at birdie without being a big hitter. Granted going real long has it's advantages at times, but it's not required.