Distance or accuracy???

[mberube]

It seems like the long bombers are making the money this weekend!!!

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/driving

[Andru]

It seems like the long bombers are making the money this weekend!!!

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/driving

Post the same stats after the US Open

[davevandyk]

The common belief is that accuracy trumps distance. Like the above post says, at the US open, accuracy will win. But at your local club, the rough is maybe 2 inches high. I have always believed that accuracy is more important, but am starting to change sides. The farther i have started to hit the ball, the more i noticed that even if i am in the rough, i am hitting a shot from 30 yards closer than if i hit a 3wood. So i feel that i can be more accurate with a 7 iron from the rough than a 4 iron from the fairway. That being said, if there is water or bunkers, i go for accuracy. But if its a choice between 200 out from the fairway or 170 out from the rough, i choose rough.

[Golfpeasant]

The common belief is that accuracy trumps distance. Like the above post says, at the US open, accuracy will win. But at your local club, the rough is maybe 2 inches high. I have always believed that accuracy is more important, but am starting to change sides. The farther i have started to hit the ball, the more i noticed that even if i am in the rough, i am hitting a shot from 30 yards closer than if i hit a 3wood. So i feel that i can be more accurate with a 7 iron from the rough than a 4 iron from the fairway. That being said, if there is water or bunkers, i go for accuracy. But if its a choice between 200 out from the fairway or 170 out from the rough, i choose rough.

Local courses, except maybe something like Stonebridge. If you're in the rough (its really fescue), you're done...

I hate the fact that they "Tiger Proofed" courses...I would rather see them narrow the fairways and lengthen the rough. The courses used to be about risk reward.

[broken27]

These guys play for money, so isolating one tournament (the US Open) doesn't really validate anything other than the fact that making the courses harder by deepening the rough and stuff makes it harder for everyone. Personally I'd rather win a bunch of non-majors and make millions than win one major and never be heard from again like Rich Beem.

Dan

[beatnik58]

Did you hear the sound that Ignite 460 made when Tiger bombed 16? Marketing execs at Nike are lickin' their chops!

[EDSGOLF]

I too believe(d) accuracy was more important, but this past weekend they ripped it and took chances, I'd rather see that then safe shots. These guys are so good at scrambling that I think it is worth the risk for them and maybe they are realizing that now (VJ, Phil, Tiger). We need to see more holes like #16 on tour events.

[mberube]

Post the same stats after the US Open

OK then lets keep score in every tournament from now until the US Open by posting Distance VS Accuracy stats after every tournament.

I am willing to bet that Distance wins 70% or more tournaments.

Only then we will be able to put this debate to rest.

[NoBack]

OK then lets keep score in every tournament from now until the US Open by posting Distance VS Accuracy stats after every tournament.

I am willing to bet that Distance wins 70% or more tournaments.

Only then we will be able to put this debate to rest.

Let's do it for the arguments sake. But I would say that you're right on the ball.

But now take this one step further and say for the average player, I would imagine the numbers would be much different. For our games, IMO the average player will want his/her second shot to be coming from the fairway.

[davevandyk]

I would have to say that its really a toss up for the average player. I just think a 20 handicap will have just as good a chance to hit the green from 160 yards from the rough then he would 190-200 from the fairway if he throttled back with the 3 wood. I remember when i was just starting to play, i always wanted to hit it as far as possible cause the difference in confidence of a 7 iron to a 4 iron was massive

[dbleber]

I would have to say that its really a toss up for the average player. I just think a 20 handicap will have just as good a chance to hit the green from 160 yards from the rough then he would 190-200 from the fairway if he throttled back with the 3 wood. I remember when i was just starting to play, i always wanted to hit it as far as possible cause the difference in confidence of a 7 iron to a 4 iron was massive

I totally agree with you. Most high handicappers and amateurs have troubles with the long irons and even with hitting fairway woods from the grass. Most people would like to be at the 150- range and be in the rough then 200+ and in the fairway. Like you mentioned before most of the rough on local courses is not overly hard for most people to get out of and most of the time you get a decent lie. I personnaly would rather be long and in the rough then shot in the fairway, but not long and in the woods or hazard obviously.
Denny

[Golfpeasant]

OK then lets keep score in every tournament from now until the US Open by posting Distance VS Accuracy stats after every tournament.

I am willing to bet that Distance wins 70% or more tournaments.

Only then we will be able to put this debate to rest.

This doesn't mean anything. They lengthened the courses ridiculously...who does that favour? The long bombers of course. So your stats are already pre-destined to favour the long bombers....

I look at the rough at Doral, Phil hit almost no fairways on round 3, and did really well. Even watching today, the rough meant nothing....

[BC MIST]

If Ben Hogan saw the way the game has evolved in the last 5 years or so, he would turn over in his grave.

Gone is the skill of ball control and finesse where placing the ball in a certain location on the fairway or green, as he perfected, sets up an opportunity for a lower score.

It seems that "anybody" today can hit the ball 300 yards, but how many can hit a choked down, low fade around the tree on the corner of the dogleg to the middle of the fairway?

[davevandyk]

well i agree with this idea, but remember that this is still true to an extent. Just because Phil and Tiger hit to the green from the rough doesn't mean they aren't hitting knock down, cut wedges and such. I watched coverage today and didn't see either of them hitting too many normal, full shots. They were always choking down, cutting, drawing the ball. I think that is what separates Phil and Tiger from Hank Kuehne and Scott Hend who are the biggest hitters in the game today.

There is a reason that its the stars winning the tourneys these days, not the longest hitter!!!!

[mberube]

As I mentioned in other posts, you do need an all rounded game to succeed on the PGA today BUT the top 10 in the World rankings are long hitters. I am talking long Vs short not long Vs mid-long hitters.

I am sorry but Hogan would be proud to see Tiger and Phil work the ball like they did this weekend despite today’s technology eliminating this aspect of the game.

Accuracy = 0
Distance = 1

[Golfpeasant]

As I mentioned in other posts, you do need an all rounded game to succeed on the PGA today BUT the top 10 in the World rankings are long hitters. I am talking long Vs short not long Vs mid-long hitters.

I am sorry but Hogan would be proud to see Tiger and Phil work the ball like they did this weekend despite today’s technology eliminating this aspect of the game.

Accuracy = 0
Distance = 1

Im not disagreeing with you. Todays golf is a long distance contest (assuming short game skills are up there for both, like Phil and Tiger). I'm just saying that's not the way golf was meant to be.

[Timothy.Reeve]

I agree that for the guys duking it out at Doral, distance is crucial. However, for me, I owuld rather hit a 225 yard drive in the middle of the fairway than 275 into the rough. Of course, that is assuming that I have the choice! And I would rather see a shorter hitter moving around the course well than relying on power to achieve what they want.

Having watched some of the Doral play though, I suspect that most of the players are able to switch between power and accuracy as it meets their needs. And those who can best meet both requirements are the ones on top.
Cheers,
Tim

[mberube]

I would like to know if all of you that say that accuracy is better the distance, do you guys play from the back tee’s or the white tee’s?

I ask this question cause I have the chance to play some tournaments at my private club. Most player’s play from the white tee’s but when tournament day comes every player must play from the back tee’s. Hautes plaines is a relatively short but tight course. The short but accurate player should be dominant but it’s not the case. I am aware that we are mixing high and low calibre players together but it is inevitable that the majority of the longer hitters finnish on top.

[Golfpeasant]

I guess it depends what kind of long hitters were talking about...as Azinger put it, Doral is a long bombers dream cause the rough wasn't a big issue.

I think Eagle Creek is a good example. If you're long, you can take a few short cuts, but its risky if you mess up. I'd like to see a long bomber who isn't hellishly accurate (from this forum) go heads up with an accurate shorter player on Eagle Creek.

[redgun22]

I would argue the following:

1) For today's PGA pros, distance easily trumps accuracy
2) For scratch and even single digit handicap amateurs, distance trumps accuracy since, as many have said, 170 from the rough is an easier shot than 210 from the fairway.
3) For higher handicap players, ACCURACY often trumps distance since a ball out of bounds is way worse than being 210 out from the fairway.

Most of the comparisons in this thread to date have compared a shorter shot from the rough to a longer shot from the fairway... but for many higher handicap players, being a bomber means being OB or in the trees relatively often. In the 10+ handicap arena, I've seen many steady-eddie golfers dominate a match against a bomber just because they always keep it in play and win lots of holes with pars or bogies against a bomber who has wasted a shot or two OB or in the trees.

Now the obvious corollory to this is that if you are a higher handicap bomber, you can take a five iron off the tee on tighter holes, hopefully keep it in play, and be no further from the hole than the shorter, more accurate player is with their driver or 3-wood... but often their ego prevents this possibility

BTW - I'm a 10+ handicap "bomber-type"... who has spent my fair share of time OB or in the woods... and tries to be smarter off the tee when the landing area is tighter.

[GarthM]

For most amateurs accuracy over distance is probably the better way to keep your scores consistent. Most cannot get out of trouble effectively enough to justify the "long ball is better" mentality.

Beyond that, it really depends on the course. Take for example Eagle Creek versus Predator. You cannot spray it around EC without posting some large numbers, while at Predator you have got much more room for error.

Personally I would rather be consistently in the fairway than 30 yards past my fellow competitors but behind a tree.

Cheers.

[BC MIST]

Leaving opinion out of the answer as to whether distance or accuracy is more important on the PGA Tour, I made a few calculations using the PGA Tou rstats from the year 2004.

I ranked the top 18 money winners based on money won on a per tournament basis. I then ranked these players on driving distance, driving accuracy, greens in regulation and Putts per green in regulation. Then, using Spearmans Rank Order Correlation Coefficient, I related money per tournament to each of the other 4.

If the correlation is perfect that is, the farther you drive the ball, the more money you win, then the number resulting will be 1. If the opposite occurs, then the number will be -1.

Results:

Money to driving distance .744
Money to driving accuracy -.374
Money to Greens in regulation .594
Money to Putts per green in regulation .382

Lastly, I related driving distance to greens in regulation and the answer was .614.

There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics.

[davevandyk]

so just to comment on these stats, the farther they drove, the more greens they hit. The farther they drove, the more money they made. I know my stats, and the first and last stats are pretty strong correlations. Mostly anything above .5 is a strong correlation

[broken27]

Leaving opinion out of the answer as to whether distance or accuracy is more important on the PGA Tour, I made a few calculations using the PGA Tou rstats from the year 2004.

I ranked the top 18 money winners based on money won on a per tournament basis. I then ranked these players on driving distance, driving accuracy, greens in regulation and Putts per green in regulation. Then, using Spearmans Rank Order Correlation Coefficient, I related money per tournament to each of the other 4.

If the correlation is perfect that is, the farther you drive the ball, the more money you win, then the number resulting will be 1. If the opposite occurs, then the number will be -1.

Results:

Money to driving distance .744
Money to driving accuracy -.374
Money to Greens in regulation .594
Money to Putts per green in regulation .382

Lastly, I related driving distance to greens in regulation and the answer was .614.

There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics.

Either I've completely misunderstood the stats here, or could it be that distance is actually showing to be more beneficial than fairways????

I think the flawed part of this debate is that there are long hitters who nail the fairway, and long hitters who spray. There's also good scramblers and bad scramblers with varying levels of distance off the tee.... so on and so on....

I don't think anyone will argue that being able to hit a 475 yard drive and hit the green every time for a one-putt is a bad thing....

Dan

[GarthM]

The numbers assume that all courses are of equal difficulty when you miss a fairway versus hit one. What would be interesting is to take BC Mist's numbers, but only use $$ where all 18 players were in all events, i.e. a level playing field.

I have a hunch that accuracy will get a boost in that case.

Just a thought.

[mberube]

Results:

Money to driving distance .744
Money to driving accuracy -.374
Money to Greens in regulation .594
Money to Putts per green in regulation .382

Lastly, I related driving distance to greens in regulation and the answer was .614.

There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics.

Your stats need to be redone. Your are comparing distance and accuracy on the same players. My initial question is distance Vs accuracy meaning one stat Vs the other. Don’t compare the 18 top players! All your stats say is if your long and accurate, you win more money.

Compare the top 20 tour driving distance Vs the top 20 driving accuracy in 2004.

The new stats would answer the ultimate question.

[Andru]

Your stats need to be redone. Your are comparing distance and accuracy on the same players. My initial question is distance Vs accuracy meaning one stat Vs the other. Don’t compare the 18 top players! All your stats say is if your long and accurate, you win more money.

Compare the top 20 tour driving distance Vs the top 20 driving accuracy in 2004.

The new stats would answer the ultimate question.

If you were trying to pass this off as science, it would fail. You're fogetting there's more to golf than Driving Distance or Accuracy. Going back to the first point I made regarding this topic. I said it depends on the conditions. I agree with you at doral and probably 80% of the PGA tour events distance is everything. At the World Match Play. where this conversation started, accuracy was more important.

I'm not making any assumptions about distance vs accuracy It's all relative anyway. When a pro says accuracy they're talking about fairway vs. rough. When I high handicapper says it, it's in-play vs. out of play. All the stats tell us is the a pga pro is more likely to win more money at most of the PGA tour events. Providing his other stats are avg to above avg.

[mberube]

If you were trying to pass this off as science, it would fail. You're fogetting there's more to golf than Driving Distance or Accuracy. Going back to the first point I made regarding this topic. I said it depends on the conditions. I agree with you at doral and probably 80% of the PGA tour events distance is everything. At the World Match Play. where this conversation started, accuracy was more important.

I'm not making any assumptions about distance vs accuracy It's all relative anyway. When a pro says accuracy they're talking about fairway vs. rough. When I high handicapper says it, it's in-play vs. out of play. All the stats tell us is the a pga pro is more likely to win more money at most of the PGA tour events. Providing his other stats are avg to above avg.

Here are my stats plain and simple.

The top 20 2004 PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy Percentage made 15,119,303$

The top 20 2004 PGA TOUR Driving Distance made 37,198,772$

Even if I take VJ out of the equation, 26,293,606$ is still 11 million more.

I would like to note that no player is in both stats.

Distance rules!

[Golfpeasant]

There are no statistics that any of you are going to come up with that will prove the argument.

[davevandyk]

This is my last post in this question, because i have just agreed to disagree with those that feel accuracy is more important. If i was given the choice, i would rather be in the fairway from 170 then in the rough from 140, but the fact of the matter is, that on the PGA tour, distance trumps accuracy. Even taking a look at US Open's which was brought up before. The last few winners are Goosen, Furyk, Woods, Goosen, Woods. Other than Furyk, Goosen and Tiger are both near the top in driving distance. Distance wins on the PGA, as a 1 handicap i wish it wasn't so, but it is.