Power or Accuracy?

« **Reply #25 on:** September 27, 2004, 04:27:52 PM »

Brent -

How are birdies distributed on the Tour among par 3's, 4's and 5's?

How does the Tour distribution differ from the distribution for, say, Tiger, V.J., Phil, Ernie and DLIII? Is there a material difference?

I am asking only because it sounds llike you have access to the numbers. If so, I'm also curious as to how you get them.

Thanks, Bob

« **Reply #26 on:** September 27, 2004, 04:39:24 PM »

I looked at http://www.pgatour.com/stats/r to get those numbers for individual players. Unfortunately, those pages do not summarize the tour totals at the bottom of the chart as I would have hoped. So I don't know a quick and easy way to answer your question. I can't cut-and-paste single columns either or I'd just put the whole thing in a spreadsheet and let it do the totals...

« **Reply #27 on:** September 27, 2004, 04:40:57 PM »

Brent- These intangibles are indeed much more interesting. They are afterall all in the mind.

As you've illustrated, the greatest ball striker isn't a great thing if they can only strike it the best under specific circumstance.

I suspects VJ's ability to separate the emotional, is his biggest strength.

« **Reply #28 on:** September 27, 2004, 04:51:03 PM »

The difference between #1 in DD and #100 is 17 yards. This is about 5%. So the difference is a club or a club and a half. Realizing that DD is measured on what 2 holes? How many holes a round are they actually forcing driver? I would guess the par 5s and maybe 1/2 the par 4s, making nine holes. Then the real difference is pretty small. The only players hitting anything but short irons are few and far between.

Understanding that this is the unpopular opinion, I still believe that the guys winning the tournaments are the ones who are saving the 1-2 strokes per round getting up and down. The difference in scoring average between #1 and 100 is is a little over 2 strokes per round.

They all hit a a mile and as stated earlier they are all more accurate than we are. Is the 17 yard difference in DD really what separates the men from the boys? I don't buy it!

« **Reply #29 on:** September 27, 2004, 04:59:15 PM »

Brent,

You are an interesting fellow....I'm kinda curious how a guy that plays over 100 rounds per year, is obviously smart, is realitively young and has a passion for the game remains such a pitiful stick. What is it you work on...Power or Accuracy..and why. Don't you think the same answers that separate the top amatuers from the pros may be the same thing that separates you from the single digits.

« **Reply #30 on:** September 27, 2004, 05:00:24 PM »

Here's a few numbers, hastily cut-and-pasted and not doublechecked. No warranty expressed or implied. Your mileage may vary. All incentives to dealer. If your spreadsheet lasts more than four hours contact your doctor.

So far during 2004 there have been 244,242 holes played on the PGA Tour. Of those 54,846 (22.5%) are Par 3's 143,906 (58.9%) are Par 4's and 45,490 (18.6%) are Par 5's. There have been 46,895 birdies recorded, about one every five holes. I'm not sure whether eagles are counted as birdies for this purpose but I suspect they are. Of those birdies 7,038 (15.0%) are on Par 3's 22,401 (47.8%) are on Par 4's and 17,456 (37.2%) are on Par 5's. Looking at it the other way, 13% of Par 3 holes were birdied 16% of Par 4 holes were birdied and a cool 38% of Par 5 holes were birdied.

So to answer the question at hand, the Tour on average makes 38% of its birdies on Par 5's. Tiger makes 41%, Vijay makes 38%, Ernie makes 40% and Phil makes 39% of their birdies on Par 5's. Nothing really interesting here folks, move along.

Note bene: I simply computed number of birdies for the Tour divided by number of holes for the Tour of each type. These are not averages of per-player averages but grand averages.

« **Reply #31 on:** September 27, 2004, 05:06:56 PM »

Quote from: John B. Kavanaugh on September 27, 2004, 04:59:15 PM

You are an interesting fellow....I'm kinda curious how a guy that plays over 100 rounds per year, is obviously smart, is realitively young and has a passion for the game remains such a pitiful stick. What is it you work on...Power or Accuracy..and why. Don't you think the same answers that separate the top amatuers from the pros may be the same thing that separates you from the single digits.

Bill McBride's pro would call it LOFT. I'm 44 years old, took up the game at age 33 and have no athletic ability and very little hand-eye coordination. However, the reason I struggle to break 90 a few times a year is because I can not escape my fundamental urge to make my body perform a sequential set of actions in order to take the club back and deliver it to the ball. True on full swings, true chipping and pitching, not true for putting for reasons known only to a higher power. I try too hard and I try hard in all the wrong ways. If you could hear what's going on in my mind every time I step up to a golf shot you would be dismayed.

But you're right I do have quite a passion for the game. Given that I first stepped foot on a golf course ten years ago with the intention of finding some reasonably entertaining way to walk a few miles once a week it's actually a wonder how much I enjoy it no matter what the score.

Either that or I'm the world's most patient sandbagger and one day real soon I'm going to shoot a 67 in a $2 Nassau and laugh my ass off at the poor sucker who has to pay up...

« **Reply #32 on:** September 27, 2004, 05:43:47 PM »

Brent -

Thanks for digging out the numbers. Good thread.

Bob

« **Reply #33 on:** September 27, 2004, 06:22:38 PM »

Quote from: W.H. Cosgrove on September 27, 2004, 04:51:03 PM

The difference between #1 in DD and #100 is 17 yards. This is about 5%. So the difference is a club or a club and a half. Realizing that DD is measured on what 2 holes?"

Yep, two holes. They are holes where are the field would be expected to hit driver, and the holes typically face in opposite directions to average out any wind effects.

Quote

They all hit a a mile and as stated earlier they are all more accurate than we are. Is the 17 yard difference in DD really what separates the men from the boys? I don't buy it!

Jeff's initial comments related specifically to this week's event, played at one of the longest courses on tour. At Nemacolin, it may make a discernable difference. But at Harbour Town, TPC/River Highlands, and Colonial, DD is much less likely to matter (if at all).

Jason

ps. Obviously GIR and putting are crucial, but I'm less convinced that sand saves are as important. The average tour player finds no more than 7 greenside bunkers over four rounds.

« **Reply #34 on:** September 28, 2004, 05:23:49 AM »

"If you went down into the men's amateur rankings and did driving distance stats, you'd probably find more like a 40 yard desparity between the damn fine college players who kill it and top-flight mid-ams amateurs who are just as good but don't kill it.

Dave:

I probably would've thought the same thing until recently. When you spend three days out there officiating things like state amateurs and state opens sometimes there's not all that much to do and tracking driving distance and driving distance disparities throughout fields is one interesting thing to do.

In the last few years I sure have been surprised how far these good amateurs hit the ball but even more surprised at the lack of disparity in their driving distance compared to the old days.

It's no 40 yards---more like 15 or so. Any field has a few real bombers but even they aren't all that different from the rest of the players---after the cut, for instance.

A good example of a real long hitter is this young man who won the Pa Amateur at Fox Chapel--Blaine Peffley. Just looking at him you can tell he's got to be long and in the Pa state am he looked like the longest to me--flying every drive he hit over 300. It was easy to gauge because the course was really wet.

By comparison I tracked Michele Wie for two rounds while officiating in a Men's USGA Publinx qualifier in the middle of Pa in really wet conditions and she flies her drives right around 255-265.

Another interesting driving comparison was playing with Nick Faldo at Merion East about 2 summers ago in really wet conditions. Faldo is like a machine but he flew almost every single drive 260-265!

« **Reply #35 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:35:26 AM »

TEPaul,
I agree with you that the differences in driving distances among the younger players are not large. My theory about this is that the quality of instruction on the full swing now is so high that all of the young players playing at a high level are maxed out on distance at something close to the same point.

However, when you watch really good junior golf (and I watch a LOT!) the thing that impresses you about the better players is NOT the distance they hit the ball, though they hit it a long way. It is the way they manage the course, the way they recover, and their short games. It has always been thus in golf, and I suspect it always will be.

« **Reply #36 on:** September 28, 2004, 08:53:45 AM »

A.G. -

I think there are two different ideas being conflated here.

One issue is whether accuracy and the short game are important to "better players." Clearly the answer is - yes.

The other issue (and the more interesting one imho) is how some Tour players separate themselves from the pack of other Tour players. All are great players. All have very good short games. What is it that separates the regular winners from the others?

The answer to the second question is that the regualr winners on Tour are the guys that have the most wedges into greens. (This is an empirical finding, not just my speculation. See Pelz discussion above.) And to have lots of wedges into greens you've got to be very long off the tee.

Again, the irony is that if you take Pelz's findings seriously, you should practice your driving.

One question is about how you improve the mean scores of a group of golfers. The other question is about how you improve the scores of the very best players at the margin.

Bob

« **Reply #37 on:** September 28, 2004, 09:21:57 AM »

Bob has the two issues spelled out correctly IMO. One problem with that interpretation is that for any given player "working on...driving" might not be able to yield a significant increase in distance. However, except for the very elite long hitters I don't think you'll find any Tour pros who aren't working to find an extra ten yards off the tee if at all possible. Once a players gets far enough into the tail of the skill distribution to earn and keep a Tour card it must be a truly vexing problem finding any improvements that will improve their game still further.

But as both Crockett and Crosby indicate (can we call them C&C?) for the vast majority of amateur golfers focusing on hitting that tee ball longer is not good if it's to the exclusion of developing the very best chipping, pitching and wedge game they are capable of. In fact, my theory is that relatively few amateurs have consistent enough wedge play to fully take advantage of the holes where they do drive it within 120 yards of the green. And you've still got to make the darned putts. As it is was and ever shall be, Amen.

« **Reply #38 on:** September 28, 2004, 09:47:29 AM »

Brent -

Agreed.

Let me change my conclusion slightly:

Everyone will benefit from work on their short games. But if you aspire to be a world class player, the lesson from Dave Pelz is to work on your driving.

Bob

« **Reply #39 on:** September 28, 2004, 01:02:30 PM »

Someone referred earlier to the little "Longest Drivers vs. Most Accurate Drivers" list that they show on TV sometimes. Here's the weekly version of that comparison from the PGA Tour website:

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

For last week's 84 Lumber tournament the five longest finished much, much higher than the five who hit the most fairways. I don't think that's a very informative way to compare if you want to understand the underlying nature of the Tour game but it's fun.

« **Reply #40 on:** September 29, 2004, 04:44:46 PM »

GREAT TOPIC!

I live in the Pacific northwest where there is really very little roll. Most of the top amateurs(25 and older) in the Northwest are all guys who hit it extremely straight.These guys rarely miss a fairway, which is good because the rough is often wet and long. I think if you take the tour players out of the equation, most good amateurs(college kids excluded) in the Northwest are long enough and straight. I foucus less on distance than ever before and more on hitting fairways. I am a 3 handicap, I only recently improved due to hitting more fairways. With that said, most northwest course are tree lined and a premium is put on fairways...My advice to the 30-50 something golfer who strives to get better each year is to ignore how far Vijay hits the ball and focus on fairways and improved shortgame!

« **Reply #41 on:** September 30, 2004, 02:49:27 AM »

Distance is really only significant on tee shots and ironically the high-tech drivers and balls enable players like Corey Pavin to compete again. As mentioned you just have to be long enough for the course you're playing and most of the courses that host Tour events aren't set up at 7500 yards.

In addition, architects are narrowing the fairways at 280-300 yards which takes the driver out of the hands of long hitters allowing shorter hitters to compete. The only holes the architect has total control on are the par-threes, thus long par-threes (ie. 230 yards) are becoming more prevalent than ever.

To win it helps some to be long, but if you're not putting well you're not going to win. Ask the Ryder Cup Players.

« **Reply #42 on:** September 30, 2004, 11:10:25 AM »

Quote from: DaveSchmidt on September 30, 2004, 10:52:44 AM

Personally, to me, accurate is everything unless you're playing a course that plays 7400 or so. All I have is my own game as a guideline, but if I hit 10 or more fairways, I have a hard time not shooting a good score.

There is a whole 'nother perspective from which to look at this issue if we're not making comparisons among Tour players. For a player of any given distance ability, there is some maximum length of course below which it's all about accuracy. If that length is 7,400 yards then we're probably talking about a player who can hit a 3-wood 250+ and a long iron 225+, right? If you can play a tight, difficult 420-yard Par 4 by just hitting 4-iron, 4-iron then courses of that length can be played in the 70's by just keeping it in the short grass and never going for maximum distance.

I hit the ball about 195 with a 3-wood and 150 with a 5-iron. So for most courses up to about 6,100 yards it makes sense for me to play safe on every hole. My home course plays closer to 6,400 yards so I need to hit the driver once in a while and either hit fairway wood approaches or lay up quite often. Obviously, I don't play 7,400 yard courses at all.

So the age-old question for weekend golfers is whether to play a set of tees that will make your best score available by teeing off with irons and such or to move back a set and take the chance of hitting a dozen driver tee shots and a handful of 3-wood approaches. A lot of people find the latter to be more satisfying.

« **Reply #43 on:** September 30, 2004, 11:12:38 AM »

Mark Brown,

Quote from: Mark Brown on September 30, 2004, 02:49:27 AM

Distance is really only significant on tee shots

That's not true.
A golfer hitting a 2,3 or 4 iron from 180 versus a golfer hitting a 5,6, or 7 iron from 180 will produce inferior results.

Likewise out of the rough. An 8 iron will produce better results then a 4 iron.[/color]

and ironically the high-tech drivers and balls enable players like Corey Pavin to compete again. As mentioned you just have to be long enough for the course you're playing and most of the courses that host Tour events aren't set up at 7500 yards.

In addition, architects are narrowing the fairways at 280-300 yards which takes the driver out of the hands of long hitters allowing shorter hitters to compete.

That's not true.

Play Friar's Head, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills and show me where the architects narrowed the fairways at 280-300 yards.[/color]

The only holes the architect has total control on are the par-threes, thus long par-threes (ie. 230 yards) are becoming more prevalent than ever.

To win it helps some to be long, but if you're not putting well you're not going to win. Ask the Ryder Cup Players.
You can putt as well as you want, but, you can't make birdie from out of bounds or in the water. Golf is not a one dimensional game. It requires power and finesse.
But, distance is a very important factor, especially now, when the equipment produces "straighter" results.

A study done several years ago tested the value of distance added. They placed balls in the fairway at set distances, and balls in the rough 20-30-40 yards further up the fairway, and, the results from the balls hit from the rough, further up the fairway were better then those of the balls hit from the fairway, but at a greater distance.[/color]

« **Reply #44 on:** September 30, 2004, 11:16:03 AM »

In a similar discussion on another forum once I received the following advice. To get down to a single-digit handicap, just find a club that you can hit about 220 and straight enough to hit the fairway almost every time. Then figure out a shot that lets you advance the ball 180 yards or so from the fairway even when you're not swinging well. Then it's all about short game.

By the same token, all I have to do is pick a stock that I can buy at $30 today that will go up to $45 next month. Then I could make a million bucks and retire to work on my golf game.

« **Reply #45 on:** September 30, 2004, 11:23:29 AM »

Quote

A study done several years ago tested the value of distance added. They placed balls in the fairway at set distances, and balls in the rough 20-30-40 yards further up the fairway, and, the results from the balls hit from the rough, further up the fairway were better then those of the balls hit from the fairway, but at a greater distance.

I talked to a club pro who played in the PGA Championship a few years back and was in the group ahead of Tiger for the first two rounds. He said it was obvious that Tiger hitting balls out of serious tall rough 120 yards from the green with a sand wedge had a huge advantage over some of the club pros hitting fairway woods from 200+ yards.

« **Reply #46 on:** September 30, 2004, 12:07:24 PM »

Brent you state the obvious. The thread is comparing players of like ability. A club pro who spends most of his time folding sweaters and giving lessons is not going to be able to competes with the elite tour player on length, accuracy or scoring.

But given a tour player who hits fairways and putts well, I think he can give a certain amount of length and compete. The amount of length can be debated but I will guarentee that it wouldn't be the 80 yards you use in your example. I would suggest it is the 20 yards difference between #3 and #100 on the PGA tour. We'll leave Kuehne and Hend out of this as they are freaks of nature,topping #3 Daly by over 7 yards.

"Drive for show; putt for dough"
Cliches are cliches because they are true!

« **Reply #47 on:** September 30, 2004, 12:23:33 PM »

Quote from: W.H. Cosgrove on September 30, 2004, 12:07:24 PM

Brent you state the obvious. The thread is comparing players of like ability. A club pro who spends most of his time folding sweaters and giving lessons is not going to be able to competes with the elite tour player on length, accuracy or scoring.

True enough. My comment was ranging far from the issue at hand. Certainly not apples to apples.

Quote

But given a tour player who hits fairways and putts well, I think he can give a certain amount of length and compete. The amount of length can be debated but I will guarentee that it wouldn't be the 80 yards you use in your example. I would suggest it is the 20 yards difference between #3 and #100 on the PGA tour. We'll leave Kuehne and Hend out of this as they are freaks of nature,topping #3 Daly by over 7 yards.

The rankings you mention almost certainly underestimate distance differences among Tour players. As I've mentioned in a couple of contexts, for a course that plays to a given length distance only matters up to a certain point. Beyond that point, more distance only helps once the player has assured a certain level of accuracy. Since the players all play approximately the same courses over a season it follows that #100 was on choosing to hit longer clubs on the measured holes than #3. A short hitter values distance more than a long hitter and therefore has an incentive to hit longer clubs.

I would expect the traditionally promulgated "driving distance" numbers to be bunched together by the tendency of players to find a way to hit the "long enough" shot on those holes. The differences reflected in the rankings will be an average of how often and by how much the shorter hitters are unable to achieve the "long enough" distance. Plus an element of risk taking in that the numbers for someone like Daly or Kuehne may reflect unusual willingness to bomb it beyond what most players would consider "long enough".

That's why any serious discussion of this issue has to be based on shot-by-shot records of many rounds, including the club used. There are no numbers widely published that allow valid direct inferences about the relative distance abilities of Tour players. The numbers are all contaminated by club selection biases. All IMnotsoHO.

News:

BCrosby

Brent Hutto

A_Clay_Man

W.H. Cosgrove

JakaB

Brent Hutto

Brent Hutto

BCrosby

Jason McNamara

TEPaul

A.G._Crockett

BCrosby

Brent Hutto

BCrosby

Brent Hutto

Brian Mariotti

Mark Brown

Brent Hutto

Patrick_Mucci

Brent Hutto

Brent Hutto

W.H. Cosgrove

Brent Hutto