Distance versus Accuracy Stats

[BC MIST]

We have discussed here before the merits of accuracy versus distance, in determining score. Some feel accuracy is paramount; some feel distance, even if the ball ends up in the rough, will beat accuracy.

I doubt if this stat is available, but I would like to know the probability of a Tour pro making a birdie on a par 4, hitting the fairway, and the probability of making a birdie from the SECOND cut of rough, regardless of the distance hit. I say second cut of rough as, IMO, the first cut is closer to the fairway in difficulty than it is to the second cut. One could also calculate the probability of bogey's from the same positions

These numbers may give a better indication of which of the two factors has a greater influence on scoring. It is one stat that I am going to include in my golf this coming year, particulary in tournaments.

[AAA]

There is a bit in here you may be intersted in

http://www.usga.org/news/2006/february/es.html

["Richard"]

Why not just look at the player rankings... they are all long hitters and not very accurate... sure they might be better putters but even if they averaged what the field averages in putting they would still be the top players. You also have to remember, you can't compare yourself to guys playing on 7200yrd courses. Of course length is more important on those courses. Even if you played the back tees at the canadian

Canadian Golf & Country Club West Course
HOLE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Out	Slope	Rating
Yellow	522	358	177	379	414	364	157	467	112	2950	122	68.8

HOLE	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	In	Out	Total
Yellow	550	322	320	374	401	392	171	504	389	3423	2950	6373

Even if you could drive 250 (i'm at about 250 right now and been working out, I'm hoping to add about 30 yards to my drive this off season with lessons and working out) and were accuarte I think you would be in great shape. I guess it all depends on the course and how long it is. If you can hit the ball 310 average they would help alot on a longer course. Sure being longer has its benifits if you are accurate but giving up accuracy to gain length doesn't make much sense to me on any course under 6500yards

[themob]

As someone who has managed to get his swing speed up in the 110s over the last 2 years, i can saw that distance only means i can play from the back tees with ease. I carry 270 or 280, and hit a lower drive that usually ends up about 290 or 300 with no wind and an average roll.

My scores have not gotten much better, but my short game and putting has. I've figured out that i hit 80% of my approach shots with a 8 iron(which i hit in the 155yd range) or less.

I think that has its problems, along with benefits. I used to hit an 8 iron about 135, so i could more easily take a full swing with a given club to get the right distance. Now i have big gaps between the irons and wedges in the low end and the added strength has cause as many problems down in the short end, where scoring matters.

I still have about a 10 handicap. I hit the ball 20% longer. I putt better, and chip better. In short - short golf courses don't help length. The fact that i tee off more often with a 3 iron or maybe 3 wood now just means i hit 75% of fairways, only because there are few landing areas in the 280yd range on most courses. There are usually bunkers or water or just really narrow fairways.

[jvincent]

I doubt if this stat is available, but I would like to know the probability of a Tour pro making a birdie on a par 4, hitting the fairway, and the probability of making a birdie from the SECOND cut of rough, regardless of the distance hit.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have this stat now. They've been using shotlink for a couple of full seasons now.

I think if you subscribe to the PGATour online service you get access to the shotlink data .

[ironmaster15213]

I think that I read somewhere that the average distance to the pin on approach shots is around 40 foot. If they're on the fairway the distance drops to around 25 feet. If they're in the deep rough I think the average distance to the pin jumps up to around 65 feet. Your chances are a lot better of dropping a 25 foot putt compared to a 65 foot putt. So I would have to say "keep it on the fairway if you want to score on the P.G.A."

[themob]

Slightly misleading. From 60 yards do you see the same spread with fairway vs rough?

From 200 yards, it is probably realistic. 4 and 5 irons aren't fun in the rough, but a sand or lob wedge isnt a big deal.

[LobWedge]

We have discussed here before the merits of accuracy versus distance, indetermining score. Some feel accuracy is paramount; some feel distance, even if the ball ends up in the rough, will beat accuracy.

I doubt if this stat is available, but I would like to know the probability of a Tour pro making a birdie on a par 4, hitting the fairway, and the probability of making a birdie from the SECOND cut of rough, regardless of the distance hit. I say second cut of rough as, IMO, the first cut is closer to the fairway in difficulty than it is to the second cut. One could also calculate the probability of bogey's from the same positions

These numbers may give a better indication of which of the two factors has a greater influence on scoring. It is one stat that I am going to include in my golf this coming year, particulary in tournaments.

Here's a great article by Geoff Shackleford that addresses the issue. Some interesting stats for sure. I guess the old saying that "the woods are full of long hitters" doesn't apply so much anymore...

http://www.golfobserver.com/features...way_width.html

[el tigre]

Here's a great article by Geoff Shackleford that addresses the issue. Some interesting stats for sure. I guess the old saying that "the woods are full of long hitters" doesn't apply so much anymore...

http://www.golfobserver.com/features...way_width.html

Interesting article. It seemed to me that what made last year's Canadian Open at Shaughnessy really tough was the fact that the second cut of rough was very thick and really long. Instead of concentrating of equipment and course design, maybe the PGA should pay more attention to course conditions.

[BC MIST]

Here's a great article by Geoff Shackleford that addresses the issue. Some interesting stats for sure. I guess the old saying that "the woods are full of long hitters" doesn't apply so much anymore...

http://www.golfobserver.com/features...way_width.html

Great article and exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

The author, Shackelford, indicates that on average, only 13% more birdies are made from the fairway than from the rough. He suggests that this is relatively unimportant. But, perhaps he should consider that if #12 at Riviera is a TYPICAL PAR 4, and indicative of how many fairways are hit or missed, that making 13% more birdies, is important.

Let's say a pro plays 25 tournaments, 4 rounds per tournament and 10 PAR 4's per round. That's 1000 holes. If he makes 13% more birdies, or 130, that would reduce his scoring average by 1.3 strokes per round.

Now, what is even more interestring is that if the pro misses the fairway, he has a 38% chance of making a bogey compared to only 17%, if he hits the fairway, a differential of 21%. So in 1000 holes played, he will make 210 fewer bogeys, further reducing his scoring average by 2.1 strokes per round. Combining the two, the scoring average would be reduced by 3.4 strokes per round and this would mean millions of dollars.

Of course, this is best case scenario, where one average pro hits all 10 fairways and another does not, however, it does stress that from where I sit, that accuracy is very important.

I agree that the bombers on Tour have an advantage, only because they have superior short games. Tiger and Phil are magicians with the wedges and Tiger is great with the putter. Without these short game skills the two would be back in the pack because of their relative lack of accuracy. Their short games make up for their accuracy weaknesses.

I still say that if Tiger had Chad Campbell's swing resulting in Fred Funk's accuracy, and his own short game, that he would win EVERY tournament.

[Ginker]

I was reading an article some where and Vijay was saying he tries to hit it as far as he can every hole.. Just get it down there as close to the green as possible...

[leftylucas]

Yes, I know for a fact that VJ hits driver whenever he can. He is one that has amazing results even when he does not hit the fairway. Not a great example to follow for the average golfer.

I know for me, cutting down the driver has lost me about 10yds but my fairways hit has gone way up, dispersion way down. I do not think that it is coincidence that this past year I broke 80 for the first time ever. I followed that up with 2 more sub 80 rounds and several 37 score for 9 holes. I think accuracy off the tee is extremely important for anyone to score well, PGA & professional players excepted.

[Ginker]

I agree with lucas.. for the average player hitting the fairway has to be far more benifical than an extra 10-20 yards in the rough....

[Started2k3]

These numbers may give a better indication of which of the two factors has a greater influence on scoring. It is one stat that I am going to include in my golf this coming year, particulary in tournaments.

Why not play two balls on par 4s and 5s a round (on slow days). (Par3s don't need to be included because you'll get a hole in one anyway or at least a GIR)

If your drive lands in on the fairway, then throw a ball into the rough at about the same distance. Conversely, land rough then throw fairway. Then play out each ball separately (might want to alternate which ball gets struck first, to minimize the bias on the other ball). Track the scores separtely - fairway score and a rough score.

The next thing is to take into account is added roll from a fairway land. So you could adjust where you throw the second ball - maybe 20yds between the fairway ball and the rough ball (or you could keep track of a hole and determine what your difference is).

The benefit of you doing this is that you are an extremely consistent ball striker (1 hdcp).

I would be very interested in the results of this test.

["Richard"]

BCMIST I know you said that this is a best case scenario but your numbers are very misleading because it’s actually no where close to 3.4 strokes a round. Once you factor in that the best fairways hit player is also a lot shorter and is using a lot more club to try to hit the green you realize that yeah he may have hit the fairway on his drive, but he is much farther back and chances of him sticking one in close for a bird are much less than the guy in the grass 50 past him. The guy in the fairway might not even hit the green (but that’s being unrealistic on my part since I’m sure the most accurate drivers are also the top in GIR put probably putting from a lot farther out).


I know you said best case scenario but realistically one pro isn't going to hit all 10 fairways and the other pro isn't going to miss all 10... For all that to happen and to only have a 13% advantage over your FOC to birdie is not much since the likeliness of that happening is very low considering the % of accuracy between to the top and lowest player is only about 40% (not 100%)

It’s pretty logical to assume that a player who is very long off the tee but not very accurate will collect more birdies per fairway hit than a guy who doesn’t hit it as far as him. Its also logical to say a player who is very short off the tee will also score more boogies out of the grass than a long hitter in the grass since he is so much farther back and might not possess the power to hit it to the green from that lie and that distance where a longer hitter might. What does this mean? WHEN a long hitter hits the fairway he is more likely to birdie, WHEN a short hitter hits it into the grass he is more likely to boogie.
I personally would rather be long than accurate. If I’m long I can recover from a poor tee shot and still make par and if I’m really lucky maybe even birdie. If I’m short off the tee then I’m at best hoping for par on a long par 4 if I find the grass on my tee shot. Out of the fairway, the longer player has a huge advantage since he is probably a wedge away. Obviously its all weighted since a more accurate player stays in the fairway more and a longer player stays in the grass more but the simplest way to do this would be to look at the top players in the world and see where they are in terms of distance and %. I’m sure without even looking I can tell you the longest driver isn’t winning neither is the most accurate player. I guess that means you need a good combination of the two. Distance being a little more important than accuracy… if the distance gained is significant enough to offset what you give up in accuracy.

As you can see, I am at home sick from work today and have nothing better to do.

[BC MIST]

BCMIST I know you said that this is a best case scenario but your numbers are very misleading because it’s actually no where close to 3.4 strokes a round.

I agree with you that the golfer who hits in long AND in the fairway will score lower than any other combination. How well a golfer will do when he hits it long and in the rough will depend solely on the length of the rough. If it is 2" maybe 3" long, distance will win, overall. If it is 4" to 6", then it is too penal and the accurate player will win.

However, using the stats from that particular hole at Riviera as the basis for my point, it is indisputable that the facts are: 1. hit the fairway, make make birdies, 2. hit the rough, make more bogies. Notice that the stats represent the results from ALL players, not just the short or long hitters. If that hole was in fact typical of all those par 4's on Tour, then accuracy is more important than distance. The numbers do NOT lie.

Young JB Holmes won the PGA tournament last weekend. His driving distance was unbelieveable, but, is that why he won? If you check his putting stats, you will find the reason, and it was not his 325 yard drives. It was 1. his putting and, 2, his driving accuracy.

There are a couple of forum members with whom I frequently play, who outdrive me by 30 to 70 yards. But at the end of the day, my scoring average is 1.6 and 4.5 shots per round lower. Why? Accuracy. Short game. Putting. But, this is on a 6300 to 6400 yard course. If we played a 7000 yard course, I would not stand a chance, or if the rough was 6" long, I would have to give them shots. Our age difference / 5.

[sensfan63]

Young JB Holmes won the PGA tournament last weekend. His driving distance was unbelieveable, but, is that why he won? If you check his putting stats, you will find the reason, and it was not his 325 yard drives. It was 1. his putting and, 2, his driving accuracy.

There are a couple of forum members with whom I frequently play, who outdrive me by 30 to 70 yards. But at the end of the day, my scoring average is 1.6 and 4.5 shots per round lower. Why? Accuracy. Short game. Putting. But, this is on a 6300 to 6400 yard course. If we played a 7000 yard course, I would not stand a chance, or if the rough was 6" long, I would have to give them shots. Our age difference / 5.

Huh? Holmes hit 55% of the fairways at the FBR Open, which tied for 62nd.

[BC MIST]

Huh? Holmes hit 55% of the fairways at the FBR Open, which tied for 62nd.

Oops!!! Amend post #16 to read: 1. Putting.

I just watched the back 9 on Sunday where he was neck and neck with Palmer. He obviously got the big lead when he hit the farways and the others could not keep it in the state.

Regardless, my point still is that no-one wins or scores well by their distance off the tee or even their ball striking in general, IF THEY DON"T PUTT EXCEPTIONALLY WELL. One can lose a tournament by poor ball striking, but one does not win it good play. Putting is the key.

I wonder with the huge number of local golfers hitting the indoor ranges, the sims, and taking lessons in the off season, how many take putting lessons, or work much on it, the most important aspect of the game?

[sharkhark]

This is a great question. I think for avg golfer vs pro it is completely different. A pro is more likely to bomb it into rough and get it up and down.
Someone avg like me, may be better off back a bit from fairway, vs trying to get out of rough.

I have also found last yr, that leaving a full shot is crititcal. I keep forgetting, and when good drive is hit, I smile until I realize I have a 60 yard finesse shot, rather than 100+ with full club.

[sharkshooter]

...However, using the stats from that particular hole at Riviera as the basis for my point, it is indisputable that the facts are: 1. hit the fairway, make make birdies, 2. hit the rough, make more bogies. Notice that the stats represent the results from ALL players, not just the short or long hitters. If that hole was in fact typical of all those par 4's on Tour, then accuracy is more important than distance. The numbers do NOT lie.

Numbers do not lie. However, sometimes it is difficult to determine what they say.

Your example may only be saying that the players playing the best golf that week were in the fairway, while the players playing the worst that week were in the rough.

I would like to see stats of the same player playing the same hole, in the same conditions many times. Perhaps then we could see whether he/she consistently did better from, say, 175 in the fairway or 125 in the rough, or whatever their average was. Then I would be convinced. (Doesn't take much does it? )

[ironmaster15213]

I sat down and crunched some numbers on how 2 scratch golfers would fair against one another if one was shorter (250 yards in fairway) and one longer off the tee but in the rough (300). If the hole was 420 yards long (to allow for full shots into the green from both players), then the 250 yard player would average twice as long of a putt for birdie than the 300 yard bomber. But remember everything else is the same as far as their accuracy. I figured out that the break even point is around 27 yards to be equal in putting distance if one was in the rough and one in the fairway. If you would have two different players with 15 stroke difference in their handicap I would guess that the 15 handicap golfer would have to average 320 yards off of the tee in the rough to compete with a scratch golfer hitting 250 in the fairway. I don't think B.C. would care to let one of his 15 hdcp. buddies drop their ball in the rough 70 yards ahead of him, but that's about what it would take for them to play about even. Makes you kind of respectful of those scratch golfers doesn't it, best not to talk too much smack to them on the number one tee box!

[BC MIST]

I sat down and crunched some numbers on how 2 scratch golfers would fair against one another if one was shorter (250 yards in fairway) and one longer off the tee but in the rough (300). If the hole was 420 yards long (to allow for full shots into the green from both players), then the 250 yard player would average twice as long of a putt for birdie than the 300 yard bomber. But remember everything else is the same as far as their accuracy. I figured out that the break even point is around 27 yards to be equal in putting distance if one was in the rough and one in the fairway.

I read somewhere that the break even point was quite close to the number you mentioned above, however, the "study" was pre 460 cc drivers/Titleist ProV1x's.

Your comparison between the 250 yard and 300 yard drivers is interesting. While not a significant sample, I played 9 holes hitting my normal 250 yard, powder puff drive and approach shot from that point. I then walked 50 yards ahead of my drive, dropped another ball and hit to the green again. This was to simulate what it would be like to play the game where one of my regular playing partners and forum member who outdrives me by 50+ yards. We both have near zero handicaps. For that 9, I, the 250 yard driver, won. Go figure. Unless the approach shots are roughly 10' from the hole or closer, two putting would be the norm. Where the long hitter perhaps has a significant advantage is that he would always be on or close to the par fives in two, whereas I would normally be hitting a wedge.

This spring I may try this "experiment" again, except the 50 yard ahead shot will be from the rough, instead of the fairway.

[ironmaster15213]

First of all 250 yard drives are not powder puff !!! You don't start loseing stokes to par untill you hit less than 235 yard drives. It is interesting that you had a higher score when you dropped the ball 50 yards ahead of your normal drives, could it be that you had to play those pesty 3 quarter shots due to you being so much closer to the green and your touch was off. Also I was just computing for par 4's and equal putting ability. There is definitely an advantage to hitting it longer on par fives, I think my average score on par fives is 4.54.