"The statistics clearly show that distance is more important than accuracy when it comes to making b

[RRFireblade]

[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435235916' post='11831690']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1435235408' post='11831650']
[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435230949' post='11831390']
[quote name='ezpz' timestamp='1435217938' post='11831138']
[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435214494' post='11831060']
Depends how you define "super wild," but speaking from experience when you carry the ball 275 your margin for error is just so much less than when you carry it 235. Not only is the effective landing area smaller (same angle of dispersion results in more yards offline), but due to the club speed block fades turn into monster slices, mild push hooks turn into crazy duck hooks, etc...
[/quote]

But the 275 guy atleast has the option to club down, also hitting it longer mostly comes from better contact so the guy hitting it longer might also be straighter. There's plenty of guys hitting it 230'ish and all over the place just because of terrible contact.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but just because you can hit it 300 doesn't guarantee you are going to be on or near the fairway. Probably easier to show than tell...imagine where a couple of these might have ended up, even with a wide fairway...
[attachment=2822554:Driver2.png]
[/quote]

Sure, if at 200, your already 'almost' missing the fairway then sure. But if at 200, you're in the middle, 250 is still well inside the fairway as well...300 likely too even.

They other 'caveate' that was mentioned is answered such that that one should always be hitting into the to large part of the fairway. If your drives are taking you into smaller and smaller landing areas, then you are hitting the wrong club off the tee or you should be moving back.
[/quote]
Oh no certainly. If you can hit the ball straight the more length the better. Pick the club that keeps you out of trouble and knock it to your spot.

My point in posting the picture was just to illustrate that contrary to ezpz's premise, not all of people with length are indeed all that straight, and that the length itself in effect makes it worse. Notice that at the point they cross the 200 mark none of those drives are more than about 25 yards off the center line. At the course I play most of the more generous fairways at the wides are about 40 yards, which means you'd rarely miss a fairway hitting it 200, and when you did you would be within about 5 yards. But at 275-300 yards, those same drives are now 35-50 yards off the center line, which is probably in trees, a hazard, or OB. Or maybe lucky and in the next fairway.
[/quote]

Here's the thing that that get's lost, perspective and point of aim. If I'm looking at 200, there's a target and a margin for error based on that relationship. If one's target is beyond that, the perspective and corresponding margin for that is not the same anymore.

This is essentially the concept behind aim big, miss big / Aim small, miss small.

The other thing is that it seems many people think long hitters are always swinging out of their shoes so that they must be more erratic. People who swing like that ARE more erratic but it has nothing to do with how far they hit the ball. My 80% swing is as consistent and reliable as any other swing I make whether it is a driver or a wedge in my hands at the time. The only difference is how far the ball goes. .

[GMR]

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1435236850' post='11831784']
Here's the thing that that get's lost, perspective and point of aim. If I'm looking at 200, there's a target and a margin for error based on that relationship. If one's target is beyond that, the perspective and corresponding margin for that is not the same anymore.

This is essentially the concept behind aim big, miss big / Aim small, miss small.

The other thing is that it seems many people think long hitters are always swinging out of their shoes so that they must be more erratic. People who swing like that ARE more erratic but it has nothing to do with how far they hit the ball. My 80% swing is as consistent and reliable as any other swing I make whether it is a driver or a wedge in my hands at the time. The only difference is how far the ball goes. .


[/quote]
Yep. And that is why you are a plus handicap and some of us struggle to break 80. BTW in no way was I trying to brag (passive or otherwise) about the state of my golf game--almost the opposite. The question of length vs accuracy takes on much less importance when you have both. For those of us who actually have to choose (take driver and risk the big miss, or take 5 iron to 200 and up your chances of staying in play), the debate takes on a little bit more importance

[RRFireblade]

[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435237353' post='11831828']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1435236850' post='11831784']
Here's the thing that that get's lost, perspective and point of aim. If I'm looking at 200, there's a target and a margin for error based on that relationship. If one's target is beyond that, the perspective and corresponding margin for that is not the same anymore.

This is essentially the concept behind aim big, miss big / Aim small, miss small.

The other thing is that it seems many people think long hitters are always swinging out of their shoes so that they must be more erratic. People who swing like that ARE more erratic but it has nothing to do with how far they hit the ball. My 80% swing is as consistent and reliable as any other swing I make whether it is a driver or a wedge in my hands at the time. The only difference is how far the ball goes. .


[/quote]
Yep. And that is why you are a plus handicap and some of us struggle to break 80. BTW in no way was I trying to brag (passive or otherwise) about the state of my golf game--almost the opposite. The question of length vs accuracy takes on much less importance when you have both. For those of us who actually have to choose (take driver and risk the big miss, or take 5 iron to 200 and up your chances of staying in play), the debate takes on a little bit more importance
[/quote]

True, this is why I said earlier if driver is taking you to smaller landing areas and bigger risk, then you are hitting the wrong club off the tee. Or anywhere for that matter.

Course management and smart play are not handicap exclusive...although it often seems that way.

[GMR]

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1435238125' post='11831886']
[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435237353' post='11831828']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1435236850' post='11831784']
Here's the thing that that get's lost, perspective and point of aim. If I'm looking at 200, there's a target and a margin for error based on that relationship. If one's target is beyond that, the perspective and corresponding margin for that is not the same anymore.

This is essentially the concept behind aim big, miss big / Aim small, miss small.

The other thing is that it seems many people think long hitters are always swinging out of their shoes so that they must be more erratic. People who swing like that ARE more erratic but it has nothing to do with how far they hit the ball. My 80% swing is as consistent and reliable as any other swing I make whether it is a driver or a wedge in my hands at the time. The only difference is how far the ball goes. .


[/quote]
Yep. And that is why you are a plus handicap and some of us struggle to break 80. BTW in no way was I trying to brag (passive or otherwise) about the state of my golf game--almost the opposite. The question of length vs accuracy takes on much less importance when you have both. For those of us who actually have to choose (take driver and risk the big miss, or take 5 iron to 200 and up your chances of staying in play), the debate takes on a little bit more importance
[/quote]

True, this is why I said earlier if driver is taking you to smaller landing areas and bigger risk, then you are hitting the wrong club off the tee. Or anywhere for that matter.

Course management and smart play are not handicap exclusive...although it often seems that way.


[/quote]
All these things are true, which is why I hit about 2-3 drivers per round. Off the tees I generally play, I don't need it. When I do pull the long club, it's a calculated risk that generally goes something like this: "I'm on a 540-yard par 5 with a large unprotected green and a wide fairway with little trouble. Hitting the driver well will almost certainly give me a good look at the green and a chance for birdie or easy par. If I miss, the hole is short and I should still be able to get one back out into the fairway and have a mid-iron in for a GIR."

I will then, about 25% of the time, proceed to either push-fade or hook my driver into some spot that shouldn't even be in play, and have to scramble for my 6. Or will smoke a drive right down the middle and give myself a wide open look with a hybrid or long iron, which I will manage to push into the trees 20 yards offline.

In my particular case, I think solid course management is generally the only reason I consistently break 90, not the reason I don't break 80 more often. Back to the topic at hand.

[Hathstauwk]

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1435236850' post='11831784']
[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435235916' post='11831690']
Oh no certainly. If you can hit the ball straight the more length the better. Pick the club that keeps you out of trouble and knock it to your spot.

My point in posting the picture was just to illustrate that contrary to ezpz's premise, not all of people with length are indeed all that straight, and that the length itself in effect makes it worse. Notice that at the point they cross the 200 mark none of those drives are more than about 25 yards off the center line. At the course I play most of the more generous fairways at the wides are about 40 yards, which means you'd rarely miss a fairway hitting it 200, and when you did you would be within about 5 yards. But at 275-300 yards, those same drives are now 35-50 yards off the center line, which is probably in trees, a hazard, or OB. Or maybe lucky and in the next fairway.
[/quote]

Here's the thing that that get's lost, perspective and point of aim. If I'm looking at 200, there's a target and a margin for error based on that relationship. If one's target is beyond that, the perspective and corresponding margin for that is not the same anymore.

This is essentially the concept behind aim big, miss big / Aim small, miss small.

The other thing is that it seems many people think long hitters are always swinging out of their shoes so that they must be more erratic. People who swing like that ARE more erratic but it has nothing to do with how far they hit the ball. My 80% swing is as consistent and reliable as any other swing I make whether it is a driver or a wedge in my hands at the time. The only difference is how far the ball goes. .


[/quote]

I am one of those for whom the driver is an Achilles heel. For me, I have yet to learn how to do an 80% swing with a driver (playing for 34 years - I am a very slow learner) and while I am not necessarily 'swinging out of my shoes', I have many errors with my driver that are very, very costly. Just like my dancing skills(?), I seem to have a problem coordinating the upper and lower body. This is mainly with my driver as my irons are pretty good.

It is not a question of being in the 1st cut of rough versus the fairway and yes, sometimes I do hit the fairway and on a good strike, that will be 300-310 but more often than not, a fairway will mean around 280-290. When I go in the rough, if I am accurate enough that it is just the 1st cut, I am not concerned at all and will take that all day. If I am in the woods, where I need to chip out or get lucky with a line and a gap in the trees, then ok, I can minimize the damage and likely/hopefully get away with bogey, provided my short game/putting is doing ok. If, on the other hand, I am in the tall grass (my home course has that everywhere), you are lucky to find your ball for one (hence a provisional and hope that hits the fairway) and if you do find it, try hacking out in one (not always feasible, either). If it is a densely forested course or with OB lining the holes, then the cost of a wild drive is huge.

Hence, in the case of my game, personally, while I still hit driver most holes (course is 6800 yards), I either have to miss so badly that I am in the next fairway over (when there is one next to my hole) or hope I can hack out in the case of the times I do not hit fairway. Yes, sometimes I hit the light rough and sometimes fairway but three big misses per round could cost anywhere up to 6 strokes. That will kill most tournament chances. Of course, I could play shorter tees but the fact is that I hit a decent length ball and a short course means 3w or hybrid off the tee all day and then a short iron in and sorry, but that is less enjoyable for me, even if I could score better. My course, it is driver then anything from hybrid to wedge for 2nd shot so much better test throughout the bag.

That said.....hitting driver is still fun.

[thug the bunny]

[quote name='Papa Johick' timestamp='1435188760' post='11829000']
I know Id rather be longer.... Im about 240 ish in the fairway and woods/rough........ I know that even 20 yards would help me tremendously and it would still be in the fairway and the woods/rough......
[/quote]

Well then, wind up and hit it harder!

The thought that comes to my mind is, with all these good arguments for hitting it farther regardless of lateral placement, why don't we all just smash it as hard as we can? I will answer just for myself - because as I said earlier, when I do this my ball actually goes shorter AND wider.

[RBImGuy]

[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1435241526' post='11832222']
because as I said earlier, when I do this my ball actually goes shorter AND wider.
[/quote]

common issues when you go outside the modern swing integrity.

[copperjeff]

[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435237353' post='11831828']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1435236850' post='11831784']
Here's the thing that that get's lost, perspective and point of aim. If I'm looking at 200, there's a target and a margin for error based on that relationship. If one's target is beyond that, the perspective and corresponding margin for that is not the same anymore.

This is essentially the concept behind aim big, miss big / Aim small, miss small.

The other thing is that it seems many people think long hitters are always swinging out of their shoes so that they must be more erratic. People who swing like that ARE more erratic but it has nothing to do with how far they hit the ball. My 80% swing is as consistent and reliable as any other swing I make whether it is a driver or a wedge in my hands at the time. The only difference is how far the ball goes. .


[/quote]
Yep. And that is why you are a plus handicap and some of us struggle to break 80. BTW in no way was I trying to brag (passive or otherwise) about the state of my golf game--almost the opposite. The question of length vs accuracy takes on much less importance when you have both. For those of us who actually have to choose (take driver and risk the big miss, or take 5 iron to 200 and up your chances of staying in play), the debate takes on a little bit more importance
[/quote]

If you take 5 iron off the tee for 200 yards then why not use 7 iron for 180? Because to a point longer is better!!!! /thread

[larrybud]

[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1435184382' post='11828600']
I'd still rather be 300 yards in the woods than 240 yards in the woods...
[/quote]

Yeah, but it's a longer walk back to the tee for your third shot...

[crater_divots]

The rarity of 300 yard bombers (in real life... on the forum they are quite common) means that extra skepticism applies to their game.


I've seen it many, many times. A mediocre golfer that happens to be very long and athletic, and generates a lot of clubhead speed, and naturally hits the ball 300 yards-ish. He isn't a "golfer" in the sense that he focuses on being the best golfer possible, he just enjoys the occasional casual round.


Because of his length, everyone feels a need to comment "yeah, he can hit it far, but he's not that accurate and his short game isn't great." -good points, but most casual players aren't good short game players, aren't accurate, and aren't great putters. If this kid only hit 240 he STILL wouldn't have those qualities, as he hasn't developed his game.





Truth be told, there is nothing negative about hitting the ball far. As others have said, it's better to be long and inaccurate than short and inaccurate. It's better to NOT be inaccurate, but being short isn't a guarentee of accuracy. If you can hit it very far, you can work on accuracy. If you can't hit it long, good luck working on that... Distance can be built upon, short has big time limits.

[cardoustie]

It highly depends on the course

Golf Club of Houston vs Harbor Town for example

At my club, which was designed 25 years ago .. all but one re-done hole ... give an advantage to longer hitters. Why? Because most of the fairway bunkers are in the 245 carry range .. which was a big poke with persimmon. I can still carry it 265 so driver is actually a better play to the wider part of the course .. and if you carry the bunkers you generally also have a better angle into the green

Also for me personally I am not so hot with my 5 and 6 irons. I love 7-LW into greens. Which is ironic because as a college player 20 odd years ago I was great with my 2, 3 and 4 irons ... likely because I hit them a lot

[sonofagunn]

I can swing for the fences, hit 30% of the fairways, and get a few out to 280 yards and finish the round with 4-5 penalty strokes. Or I can swing in control, hit 70% of the fairways, and get a few out to 270 yards with 0-1 penalty strokes.

So, in my case, the more accurate swing is far more valuable than the distance swing. I still wish I could hit it 300 with the accurate swing. Obviously that would be best!

[MadGolfer76]

Apart from a few folks here, whenever I think of the WRX community dealing with statistics, this vid comes to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU

[Atrayn]

My answer depends on the data and there isn't enough to really comment.
I would agree if the data was regarding tour pro's/ amateurs up to 4 HC

If the data set was "the average golfer" (shoots 100) I'm not necessarily inclined to agree because I think that hitting longer into the junk would lead to higher scores than someone that hit it shorter with tighter dispersion.

[Tony11]

It still all comes down to course management. Many of us are playing muni courses that have hazards 240yds out with short, forgiving rough. In that case; bomb away. You are carrying all of the trouble and the rough is just as good as the fairway.

It gets trickier when you are playing professional courses. PGA generally shoots for a fairway width of 25-30 yds in landing areas. That is narrow. Add thick rough and firm greens and you would much rather have a 280yd in the fairway vs 300 in the rough. Just my opinion. But I'm worthless out of thick tournament rough.

[alfriday]

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Shot-Counts-Revolutionary-Performance/dp/1592407501

For anyone who is interested in pursuing the issue in depth, instead of swimming in the shallow end of the WRX pool, read the book.

[shortstop20]

When I'm hitting it 280, I'm hitting it that far because I'm swinging it better and because of that, I'm more accurate, not less.

When I'm hitting it 240 is when I'm playing military golf and getting to know every tree.

[oregongolfguy]

I want to hit the ball as far as I can while giving myself a good next shot....simple as that. Each hole and situation is different but that's the rule that I play by.

[Hathstauwk]

[quote name='oregongolfguy' timestamp='1435252647' post='11833560']
I want to hit the ball as far as I can while giving myself a good next shot....simple as that. Each hole and situation is different but that's the rule that I play by.
[/quote]

Ummm......that is my idea on every hole I play, aside from the odd course management brain freeze. I never approach a tee shot thinking I want to give myself a difficult second shot. The difference come between idea and execution.

[oregongolfguy]

yeah..exactly. Its very simple....yet its hard at the same time. All things considered I would take the ability to hit the further....if I took a thousand different scenario's I would probably find more where hitting further is going to be a advantage...but each course plays differently so its pretty hard to look at generalities. Most of the muni courses I play being able to carry the ball 20-30yds further off the tee box would lower my scores. On a lot of holes it would take a lot of trouble out of play, and holes where it wouldn't I could hit a lesser club and probably be more accurate...

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='alfriday' timestamp='1435251704' post='11833464']
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Every-Shot-Counts-Revolutionary-Performance/dp/1592407501"]http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1592407501[/url]

For anyone who is interested in pursuing the issue in depth, instead of swimming in the shallow end of the WRX pool, read the book.
[/quote]

Or you can read my book and save yourself $15 (+ shipping)




It never ceases to amaze me how golfers (myself included) get so far off from common sense when it comes to the basics of scoring in the game. Generally, the longer the shot, the higher the score is going to be. That's why you want to get yourself close to the hole.

I remember when I first got into college I saw a friend of mine lay-up on a par-5 instead of beating a 3-wood up there and he made birdie because he hit his wedge shot close. And I was dumb enough to start becoming infatuated with having full wedge swings to the hole instead of getting the ball closer to the hole and leaving myself with a shorter approach. Common sense had me playing the odds correctly, but anecdotal evidence got me out of using common sense.

My research conducted with players from mini-tour level to 30 handicap shows that this applies for ALL golfers. In fact, it creates a larger discrepancy the higher the handicap because a 25 handicap doesn't needs all of the distance they can get. For a Tour player, expected scores don't start to drop until there is about a 20-25 yard difference in the distance of the shot. But for 15 handicaps, expected scores drop considerably at roughly a 12 yard difference. So if a 15 handicap figures out a way to hit it 20 yards further and their accuracy and consistency are roughly the same...it creates a sizeable advantage for them.

And in reality, if they figure out a way to gain legitimately 20 yards, they are probably doing it thru better mechanics which also means more accuracy and consistency.






RH

[jbhawx]

I'm not sure about this. To me a birdie is achieved by getting GIR and making 1 putt, that is a birdie every time. I would imagine that the distance may help more off the tee on par 4s or higher, but your shot that lands you on the green in regulation should be highly accurate in order to 1 putt for a birdie.

Or maybe if you just drive the green every time on par 4s and just take a 2 putt you'll be good...

[wmblake2000]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1435257453' post='11834108']


It never ceases to amaze me how golfers (myself included) get so far off from common sense when it comes to the basics of scoring in the game. Generally, the longer the shot, the higher the score is going to be. That's why you want to get yourself close to the hole.

I remember when I first got into college I saw a friend of mine lay-up on a par-5 instead of beating a 3-wood up there and he made birdie because he hit his wedge shot close. And I was dumb enough to start becoming infatuated with having full wedge swings to the hole instead of getting the ball closer to the hole and leaving myself with a shorter approach. Common sense had me playing the odds correctly, but anecdotal evidence got me out of using common sense.

My research conducted with players from mini-tour level to 30 handicap shows that this applies for ALL golfers. In fact, it creates a larger discrepancy the higher the handicap because a 25 handicap doesn't needs all of the distance they can get. For a Tour player, expected scores don't start to drop until there is about a 20-25 yard difference in the distance of the shot. But for 15 handicaps, expected scores drop considerably at roughly a 12 yard difference. So if a 15 handicap figures out a way to hit it 20 yards further and their accuracy and consistency are roughly the same...it creates a sizeable advantage for them.

And in reality, if they figure out a way to gain legitimately 20 yards, they are probably doing it thru better mechanics which also means more accuracy and consistency


RH
[/quote]

This is exactly my experience.

[copperjeff]

[quote name='jbhawx' timestamp='1435257560' post='11834126']
I'm not sure about this. To me a birdie is achieved by getting GIR and making 1 putt, that is a birdie every time. I would imagine that the distance may help more off the tee on par 4s or higher, but your shot that lands you on the green in regulation should be highly accurate in order to 1 putt for a birdie.

Or maybe if you just drive the green every time on par 4s and just take a 2 putt you'll be good...
[/quote]

Your thought process is almost there! ... To make birdies, you need to stick approach shots pretty close, are you more likely to hit it close with a 7 iron or a PW?? The pitching wedge of course. Even PW from the rough is going to get you closer to the hole far more times than a 7 iron from the fairway.

[seajohn]

[quote name='jbhawx' timestamp='1435257560' post='11834126']
I'm not sure about this. To me a birdie is achieved by getting GIR and making 1 putt, that is a birdie every time. I would imagine that the distance may help more off the tee on par 4s or higher, but your shot that lands you on the green in regulation should be highly accurate in order to 1 putt for a birdie.

Or maybe if you just drive the green every time on par 4s and just take a 2 putt you'll be good...
[/quote]

Long hitters can make a ton of birdies by hitting a par 5 in 2 and 2 putting.

[GMR]

[quote name='RichieHunt' timestamp='1435257453' post='11834108']
It never ceases to amaze me how golfers (myself included) get so far off from common sense when it comes to the basics of scoring in the game. Generally, the longer the shot, the higher the score is going to be. That's why you want to get yourself close to the hole.

I remember when I first got into college I saw a friend of mine lay-up on a par-5 instead of beating a 3-wood up there and he made birdie because he hit his wedge shot close. And I was dumb enough to start becoming infatuated with having full wedge swings to the hole instead of getting the ball closer to the hole and leaving myself with a shorter approach. Common sense had me playing the odds correctly, but anecdotal evidence got me out of using common sense.

My research conducted with players from mini-tour level to 30 handicap shows that this applies for ALL golfers. In fact, it creates a larger discrepancy the higher the handicap because a 25 handicap doesn't needs all of the distance they can get. For a Tour player, expected scores don't start to drop until there is about a 20-25 yard difference in the distance of the shot. But for 15 handicaps, expected scores drop considerably at roughly a 12 yard difference. So if a 15 handicap figures out a way to hit it 20 yards further and their accuracy and consistency are roughly the same...it creates a sizeable advantage for them.

And in reality, if they figure out a way to gain legitimately 20 yards, they are probably doing it thru better mechanics which also means more accuracy and consistency


RH
[/quote]

RH, I have to respectfully disagree. This is definitely not my experience. Why? Because hitting a 3w from the ground results in a horrible result for me (i.e. slice or hook 30 yards offline into trouble or a topped shot that rolls 30 yards) with far too much frequency--likely more than half the time. I am a high single digit handicap at present, but if I took the advice of hitting the longest club I could that in theory shouldn't reach the trouble as you seem to be advocating, I honestly think I would rarely break 90. Would I love to have a half-wedge into a 600-yard par 5 instead of a 7-iron? Of course I would. But it's just too easy to bring 7s and 8s into play when you're taking on shots that you can't execute with consistency. And I would venture to say that I am not the only one who can't execute a straight well-struck 3w shot off the turf more than 60% of the time (especially since you explicitly said this "applies for ALL golfers").

The problem with the stats you mention is that you are working backwards from the hole instead of forwards from the tee. Does being closer to the pin make it more likely that you will be closer to the pin on your next shot? Absolutely. No argument there. However, does hitting the longest reasonable club possible for the shot make it more likely that you will in fact be closer to the pin for the next shot? In my experience, absolutely not.

[jbhawx]

Since statistics is about numbers I decided to break down a typical course into numbers. I broke it down assuming that you birdie every hole. Using typical theory of golf you would reach the green in regulation and 1 putt every hole. This would give you a total score of 18 under or total score of 54 (typical course is a par 72). All shots that are to land on the green I think we can all agree must be accurate. So here is the numbers

Typical golf course by USGA standards: Par 72 consisting of 4 Par 3s, 10 Par 4s, and 4 Par 5s

Your first shot breakdown
14 Shots for distance (Par 4, and 5)
4 Shots for accuracy (Par 3s)

Your second shot breakdown
10 Shots for accuracy (Par 4s)
4 Shots for distance (Par 5s)

Your third shot breakdown
4 Shots for accuracy (Par 5s)

Total shot count

18 shots for distance
18 shots for accuracy

Now to tip the scales. Lets say you reach the green in 2 on all par 5s and 2 putt.

Your first shot breakdown
14 Shots for distance (Par 4, and 5)
4 Shots for accuracy (Par 3s)

Your second shot breakdown
14 Shots for accuracy (Par 4 and Par 5)

Total shot count

14 shots for distance
18 shots for accuracy

Statistically speaking accuracy is more important. In order to reach the green you must have an accurate shot that lands you on the green close enough to 1 putt. How soon you get to that accurate shots is what tips the scales for distance.

[RichieHunt]

[quote name='GMR' timestamp='1435301606' post='11837392']
RH, I have to respectfully disagree. This is definitely not my experience. Why? Because hitting a 3w from the ground results in a horrible result for me (i.e. slice or hook 30 yards offline into trouble or a topped shot that rolls 30 yards) with far too much frequency--likely more than half the time. I am a high single digit handicap at present, but if I took the advice of hitting the longest club I could that in theory shouldn't reach the trouble as you seem to be advocating, I honestly think I would rarely break 90. Would I love to have a half-wedge into a 600-yard par 5 instead of a 7-iron? Of course I would. But it's just too easy to bring 7s and 8s into play when you're taking on shots that you can't execute with consistency. And I would venture to say that I am not the only one who can't execute a straight well-struck 3w shot off the turf more than 60% of the time (especially since you explicitly said this "applies for ALL golfers").

The problem with the stats you mention is that you are working backwards from the hole instead of forwards from the tee. Does being closer to the pin make it more likely that you will be closer to the pin on your next shot? Absolutely. No argument there. However, does hitting the longest reasonable club possible for the shot make it more likely that you will in fact be closer to the pin for the next shot? In my experience, absolutely not.
[/quote]

Good golf strategy based on numbers is still fluid in nature.

Golfers should try to play for the result that comes from when they take an 'average' pass at the ball. If you're playing for your worst swing, you're playing too conservatively and will miss out...especially when you make a good pass at the ball. Conversely, if you're playing for your 'best swing', the odds are you will not likely make that swing. And you can be penalized for taking a pretty good pass at the ball because your strategy was way too aggressive.

But again, it is fluid in nature.

For instance, let's say I hit a driver right down the middle of the fairway on a par-5. The numbers, in a vacuum, would tell me to bang the 3-wood up as far as I could. But, what if I have a funky lie in the fairway? Or what if I have no confidence in my 3-wood?

The answer is simple...you play for the results of your 'average pass' you're going to take with that club.

In this case, the 'average swing' would not produce good or predictable results, so I need to find a club where the likely results from my average swing will put me in best position.

In your case, it's the same type of thinking. If you have no confidence in your 3-wood, I wouldn't recommend hitting it.

THAT BEING SAID, you should realize that in the grand scheme of things your inability to hit your 3-wood is costing you strokes over the long haul and you need to figure out way to start to hit that 3-wood more competently.







RH

[notsohard]

Everybody knows this at WRX, we all hit the driver 300+.