3W vs Driver off the tee

[jbrunk]

https://www.amazon.c...e/dp/1592407501

 

You'd lose almost every time. The study has been done. Being able to hit an iron that is shorter with more loft more than makes up for the lie.

 

And it was 20 yards we were discussing, not 15. Two clubs. 8 iron vs. PW. 6 vs. 8.

 

We don't have to argue about it. Its a very good book if you haven't read it. The number one factor in how close you hit your irons is how close to the hole you start because it is so much easier to hit a shorter club with higher loft.

don't think so....its a busted theory.....and a business guy can say whatever he wants....playing from the rough is not the same or better than the middle of the fairway....as a golfer, how can you even seriously say this? no argument, it just doesn't make sense.

 

Look at Spieths sudden death hole....from rough to sand trap.....if he was in the middle of the fairway on his tee shot, you think it would have taken a miracle shot to win? he was just as well off from his tee shot? lol

 

Spieth's sudden death win is a perfect example of strokes gained. I'm kinda going from memory, but just put in the numbers into the ol' calculator. (Spoiler alert: tsecor, you're kinda on the right track)

 

I think 18 was playing about 455y, PGA scoring avg of 4.15. Jordan got a member's bounce off a tree and actually landed in the fairway about 225 out (-0.21), after Berger yanked his tee shot into the left rough but with 265 carry, so let's say 180 ytg (-0.16). So there's 45y difference from fairway to rough, and the strokes gained difference is only 0.05? (not 0.3 btw) Almost no difference, why? On average, these guys are really good.

 

Berger hits his approach to the green but with a lengthy putt, let's say it was 45 feet (I have no idea) but that shot would be worth 0.22 SG. That beats the pants off Jordan dumping it into the bunker with 15 ytg (-0.11). That's where the strokes gained difference really lies, in the approach shots.

 

So Berger's putting from 45 feet, that's 2.09 PGA scoring average to 2.46 for Spieth in the bunker from 15 yards. That's a 50/50 chance of getting up & down, where Berger's almost guaranteed a two-putt. On average. We know the rest.

 

Human beings play the game, statistics just help tell the story.

 

Absolutely. Strokes gained is descriptive of a population. While helpful, it is not the end-all-be-all for predicting individual outcomes.

 

That being said it beats the pants off of total putts, fairways hit, GIR, etc. for stats.

 

Agreed! I've learned a lot by keeping my own SG stats this year. For me, 1W & 3W are about the same in strokes gained per attempt. But my 3W actually has a slightly higher penalty rate than driver. Maybe that's simply because I pull it in higher risk situations.

[Stuart_G]

Aren't there USGA/R&A limits on driver's CORs, but not fairway woods? So couldn't a fairway wood have a hotter face than a driver, greatly minimizing the distance gap between a driver and a fairway wood. Isn't that part of the reason Koepka and Thomas could hit the 676 yard 18-hole at Erin Hills in two with 3W off the tee?

 

No. COR (or 'spring face') limits apply equally to all clubs - except putters.

[tsecor]

I think they all have the same accuracy, because they all had the same path and face at impact. The fact that on that particular course the fairway ends in a given place is irrelevant. If cutting your driver down changes the red line it actually makes you more accurate. If cutting your driver down moves you from 3 to 2, its not making you more accurate. You are just missing shorter on the same line and being fooled.

the only thing you are actually saying is drivers go longer than 3 woods.....we knew that in 1700. nothing you are saying is in any way related to the topic.

 

the original discussion was surrounding the issue with driver accuracy and how a 3 wood is more accurate because its more controllable and if fitting a shorter driver shaft should be part of the fitting process. Your picture should show # 4 hitting a hook or a slice or push / pull into the rough at 300 yards vs # 1 hitting it straight at 280 yards in the middle. paint up that and lets talk.

 

I've typed this at least twice. What I am saying is that for the majority of golfers cutting the shaft doesn't actually make them more accurate, it just makes them shorter on the same line. I said twice (three times?) that (1) it absolutely should be part of the fitting process and (2) you should only do it if it actually makes you more accurate i.e. moves the red line as oppossed to just fools you because you now can't hit it far enough to get into trouble on some holes.

 

There is no golfer alive who will go from a consistent slice/push into the rough to consistently straight in the middle by cutting a half or inch or so off their driver. That is a fantasy. your just losing yardage. Its an optical illusion. If that golfer does exist, he should absolutely cut his driver down tomorrow. But he doesn't. There is no magic line at 44.5" versus 45" where you get 20% more accurate. That is insanity. You could sell me on 3-5%, but nowhere near that. Now, there are plenty of golfers who cut down their driver, don't *Actually measure* anything, and are fooled into thinking they are more accurate. That happens quite a bit.

 

But yes, to answer your post, if you could go from "slicing/pushing into the rough at 300 to hitting it straight up the middle" by cutting down your driver, you should. If you can win the lottery, you should do that too.

your base theory is wrong and it has NOTHING to do with the original post. There are 100's of golfers her in WRX that have already told you the 3 wood is more accurate for them, thus your "red line" painting was wrong from the start. All you showed was a driver goes further than a 3 wood. Oh yea "if its on the same line" Really? im shocked.....of course they use the 3 wood because the line drastically changes thus giving them accuracy not seen in the driver. Straighten those lines out to show the balls in the fairway and of course everyones hitting driver, but that's not the argument here.

 

Hit the ball in the rough all day and i highly doubt you are still a 2 HDCP player.

[JunkerJorge]

I think they all have the same accuracy, because they all had the same path and face at impact. The fact that on that particular course the fairway ends in a given place is irrelevant. If cutting your driver down changes the red line it actually makes you more accurate. If cutting your driver down moves you from 3 to 2, its not making you more accurate. You are just missing shorter on the same line and being fooled.

the only thing you are actually saying is drivers go longer than 3 woods.....we knew that in 1700. nothing you are saying is in any way related to the topic.

 

the original discussion was surrounding the issue with driver accuracy and how a 3 wood is more accurate because its more controllable and if fitting a shorter driver shaft should be part of the fitting process. Your picture should show # 4 hitting a hook or a slice or push / pull into the rough at 300 yards vs # 1 hitting it straight at 280 yards in the middle. paint up that and lets talk.

 

I've typed this at least twice. What I am saying is that for the majority of golfers cutting the shaft doesn't actually make them more accurate, it just makes them shorter on the same line. I said twice (three times?) that (1) it absolutely should be part of the fitting process and (2) you should only do it if it actually makes you more accurate i.e. moves the red line as oppossed to just fools you because you now can't hit it far enough to get into trouble on some holes.

 

There is no golfer alive who will go from a consistent slice/push into the rough to consistently straight in the middle by cutting a half or inch or so off their driver. That is a fantasy. your just losing yardage. Its an optical illusion. If that golfer does exist, he should absolutely cut his driver down tomorrow. But he doesn't. There is no magic line at 44.5" versus 45" where you get 20% more accurate. That is insanity. You could sell me on 3-5%, but nowhere near that. Now, there are plenty of golfers who cut down their driver, don't *Actually measure* anything, and are fooled into thinking they are more accurate. That happens quite a bit.

 

But yes, to answer your post, if you could go from "slicing/pushing into the rough at 300 to hitting it straight up the middle" by cutting down your driver, you should. If you can win the lottery, you should do that too.

your base theory is wrong and it has NOTHING to do with the original post. There are 100's of golfers her in WRX that have already told you the 3 wood is more accurate for them, thus your "red line" painting was wrong from the start. All you showed was a driver goes further than a 3 wood. Oh yea "if its on the same line" Really? im shocked.....of course they use the 3 wood because the line drastically changes thus giving them accuracy not seen in the driver. Straighten those lines out to show the balls in the fairway and of course everyones hitting driver, but that's not the argument here.

 

Hit the ball in the rough all day and i highly doubt you are still a 2 HDCP player.

 

I think what PSG is trying to say with the picture is that hitting a shorter club CAN give you the illusion that it is straighter. If you are x degrees offline the miss will be magnified the further out you go. Since it's hard for us to really perceive degrees offline when we hit a shot we may actually be just as crooked with a hybrid as a driver. I disagree though in that:

 

1. A shorter club with more loft "should" actually go straighter even in terms of degrees offline. And

 

2. A shorter club will give you more "functional accuracy" even if it is the same amount of degrees offline. What I mean by this is that bad misses aren't as severely punished.

 

At the end of the day I could care less what degree angle my ball is on, I only care where it ends up and if I can score from there. That being said, I think it is helpful to understand what PSG has drawn there. Wait ... did he say ms paint?!?

[Mfelix]

I think you're right but it's also a personal feel thing. I use a cut down driver when I start spraying it, helps me get back in the fairway but cuts distance a bit. Worth the trade.

[pinestreetgolf]

your base theory is wrong and it has NOTHING to do with the original post. There are 100's of golfers her in WRX that have already told you the 3 wood is more accurate for them, thus your "red line" painting was wrong from the start. All you showed was a driver goes further than a 3 wood. Oh yea "if its on the same line" Really? im shocked.....of course they use the 3 wood because the line drastically changes thus giving them accuracy not seen in the driver. Straighten those lines out to show the balls in the fairway and of course everyones hitting driver, but that's not the argument here.

 

Hit the ball in the rough all day and i highly doubt you are still a 2 HDCP player.

 

I don't think those golfers who are telling us their 3 woods are more accurate are actually measuring anything. I think its shorter and they are fooling themselves because they are eyeballing it.

 

I don't even think its an argument. I responded to the OP by saying that cutting down your driver is fine as long as it is CHANGING the ratio. This is the part you are missing. Its not just about the direction of the red line. Its not just about the length of the red line. Its about the relationship between the two.

 

You have a 45 inch driver and, on average, You hit it 300 yards and miss 50 yards to the right. You were aimed up the middle. This is a 15-20% miss*.

 

You cut down your driver down to 44 inches.

 

Scenario One: You now hit it 280 yards, but you are missing it 28 yards right. This is a 10% miss. You should keep your driver cut down. You actually are more accurate with it.

 

Scenario Two: You now hit it 280 yards, but you are missing it 42 yards right. This is a 15% miss. You should not keep your driver cut down. You are just missing on the same line and you've made yourself shorter for no reason. It is not more accurate enough to justify even close to 20 yards of distance loss.

 

You have changed your miss by cutting your driver down in scenario two by 8 actual yards but you are identically accurate, you've just shortened your distance (moved from 3 to 2). This is silly. What matters is the percent deviation from your target line before and after you cut the driver down. A lot of people fool themselves into thinking shorter is more accurate, but its about *the relationship between the two* not the absolute number of yards you move toward the target line with the cut-down driver. In other words, you have to improve your accuracy by more than you lose in distance or your just moving backwards on the red line not becoming more accurate.

 

Number one actually *is* more accurate cut down. Number two is an optical illusion. If you happen to play a hole where the fairway runs out at 42 yards you'll be in it, but *you are giving up a 4 yard fairway window* (8 total, 4 either side) for an inch of your driver and 20 yards!

 

All y'all are talking as if fairway is a synonym for accurate. Its not.

 

I'm in the rough a lot *Because* I'm a 2 handicap player. Go to an elite am event. We bomb the ball and as such we're off the fairway constantly. This idea that a good golfer pokes it up the fairway and hits six irons all day is a fantasy. I avoid hazards at all costs. However, with no hazard there, I bomb the heck out of it every tee shot. As should everyone else.

 

*The math is rough and done in my head. I an do it precisely if anyone cares. Its about right.

 

EDIT:

Some people have brought up strokes gained, but this isn't even really strokes gained. Its just trigonometry. There is no standard golf construct called "the fairway". You can't use it to make decisions. Unless your local has fairways that are the exact same width, using "the fairway" as a barometer makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I played a very tough local course Palmer design called the Bridges a few weeks ago (Ms./La. locals will know it). I didn't hit many fairways, because it is super tight. I then played the Grand Bear up the road and hit almost every single one (its wide open). Did I get super accurate overnight during this golf trip because of how many more fairways I hit at the Bear? Of course not. It was the course. "Fairway" is a terrible metric for accuracy. Percent deviation, however, is a good one.

[tsecor]

your base theory is wrong and it has NOTHING to do with the original post. There are 100's of golfers her in WRX that have already told you the 3 wood is more accurate for them, thus your "red line" painting was wrong from the start. All you showed was a driver goes further than a 3 wood. Oh yea "if its on the same line" Really? im shocked.....of course they use the 3 wood because the line drastically changes thus giving them accuracy not seen in the driver. Straighten those lines out to show the balls in the fairway and of course everyones hitting driver, but that's not the argument here.

 

Hit the ball in the rough all day and i highly doubt you are still a 2 HDCP player.

 

I don't think those golfers who are telling us their 3 woods are more accurate are actually measuring anything. I think its shorter and they are fooling themselves because they are eyeballing it.

 

I don't even think its an argument. I responded to the OP by saying that cutting down your driver is fine as long as it is CHANGING the ratio. This is the part you are missing. Its not just about the direction of the red line. Its not just about the length of the red line. Its about the relationship between the two.

 

you have changed the argument to fit your theory and that's not what the discussion is. regardless of how much you write, we all know a 3 wood does not fly as far on average....if you think the golfers who actually are hitting the 3 wood are fooling themselves, well, nobody can help you with that. That's an opinion of you which is fine, but that's not the discussion here.

[RecidivistGOLFER]

I usually get killed for pointing out these little details (because for some reason golfers are convinced based on nothing that being in the fairway matters) but it is much, much better to be 260 in the rough than 240 in the fairway. Twenty extra yards off the tee (about 10% in this scenario) is worth almost three tenths of a stroke per hole.

 

So to answer your question: no. It depends on the player of course, but distance and speed are king in this game. Period.

 

Depends on the rough. It gets juicy and thick here in the summer. At least 3" - 4". Unless you are really strong, even controlling a wedge out of the mess is more difficult than a 7 or 8 from the fairway.

 

There are obviously exceptions to this. But given a general golf course, it is almost three times better to be in the rough twenty yards forward (assuming its around 15% - a 240/50 yard drive). Now, you will very likely hit prettier shots from the fairway and have more disasters from the rough but on average, in terms of approach proximity, almost nothing is more important than how far from the hole your ball starts before your iron hits it.

 

My thoughts are that if you can routinely square up a 43" 3 wood, but not a 45" driver, then that driver is too long for you

 

I'm 6'1 and chopped mine down to 44" and my accuracy has skyrocketed. Ricky is at 43.5" in his driver now (but he's a little guy)

 

The OEMs are never going to push this as stock because it doesn't allow them to make the same distance claims, but I have noticed a lot more talk about this on golf broadcasts as well as this forum

 

You are falling into the same trap virtually everyone falls into. Driver "accuracy" doesn't matter. Approach shot accuracy does. You can get your driver as accurate as you want but if your approach shot accuracy doesn't go up (or goes down) it doesn't matter. The shot that actually matters for accuracy is the shot that is made into the green complex, not the shot that is made off the tee. There is obviously a point of diminishing returns here - you don't want to hook/slice off the golf course. But with the driver you want to be as long as you possibly can. You don't get extra points for hitting gorgeous drives straight up the middle 230 and hitting 6 iron when you could hit one a little left to 250 and hit 8 iron.

 

Its a subtle difference, but its an important one. You have to be careful you arn't solving a problem that doesn't exist. Getting your driver "more accurate" and then not measuring the effect of that increased accuracy on your iron accuracy accomplishes nothing. If your driver accuracy helps your iron accuracy, that is wonderful, but usually (*usually*) a player, especially a mid-cap, will shoot a much lower score with a longer, wilder driver and shorter irons in their hands for approach shots, even if they are out of worse lies or around obstacles.

 

You don't get to take off a half-stroke off for a straight drive. You could dramatically increase your accuracy by hitting pitching wedge off the tee. That is obviously a silly example, but it makes about as much sense as stepping back distance for accuracy. Its the same thing as switching to pitching wedge just on a smaller scale.

 

Think about it. If you are shorter, you are more accurate. You're just hitting it shorter on the same line. Going from 260 in the rough to 240 in the fairway usually just means the mid-capper hit it less hard and, if you picked it up and moved it forward 20 yards on the same line, it isn't in the fairway anymore. This is fake accuracy. You can always get more accurate by slowing down because the ball travels less far on the same line. Your not getting more accurate, your just getting shorter (your clubface is still X* open/shut at impact).

 

Cutting a few inches off your driver is a great idea IF it makes you longer (i.e. Jimmy Walker). Otherwise, just wallop it.

 

If you tell me you are more accurate with the driver the question back is "So what? How much more accurate did that make your irons?" If you can't answer that question, the "more accurate" driver didn't do much except hit it shorter.

 

Accuracy is accuracy, period. A driver dropped into thick rough, woods, or a bunker is no better or worse than an approach shot mis-hit, or a makeable putt that doesn't go in. They ALL cost you strokes. Golf is a game of accuracy. At the tour level, they're ALL extremely accurate so it becomes a game of distance. But for the other 99.999% of golfers, being able to put the ball where you want it is king. It's great if you have a driver you can hit long AND sharp. But if you have to pick, sharp is better almost every time.

[Ri_Redneck]

I usually get killed for pointing out these little details (because for some reason golfers are convinced based on nothing that being in the fairway matters) but it is much, much better to be 260 in the rough than 240 in the fairway. Twenty extra yards off the tee (about 10% in this scenario) is worth almost three tenths of a stroke per hole.

 

So to answer your question: no. It depends on the player of course, but distance and speed are king in this game. Period.

not sure I agree playing from the rough is the better option....but to get back on point, given the large # of players who use a 3 wood off the tee for control, do you guys think fitting should change and this type of amateur play be incorporated into the fittings? I never see a fitter take out shafts that are 2" shorter than the last shaft that was tested....

 

I also don't agree with Pinestreetgolf, but to each his own. As to your comment about different shaft lengths during fitting, I agree 110%! All of my Drivers are 44.5", 3ws are 43" and 20* FWs are 42". only 2 have stock shafts (JPX 850 Driver w/ Motore Speeder 6.3 TS X and King LTD 4-5 w/ Rogue Black 80 S) because the vast majority were too light for my preference. If the fitter doesn't look into different lengths and shaft weights as wall as the usual specifications, then they are not doing a thorough job.

 

BT

[Stuart_G]

I don't think those golfers who are telling us their 3 woods are more accurate are actually measuring anything. I think its shorter and they are fooling themselves because they are eyeballing it.

 

Were you fooling yourself when you said this?

 

I actually play 2 drivers - a long 8* with a beast of a shaft and a 43" 13* that has a R shaft. Personally, I think tee shots are so important it's worth it to have both clubs in the bag rather than try to build one club that's both (like a 44" 10.5 or whatever). I can hit it 295-300 and crooked or 260 and not crooked.

 

Doesn't' sound like it to me, but why would you think you're in the minority on how to properly judge accuracy?

 

 

"Fairway" is a terrible metric for accuracy. Percent deviation, however, is a good one.

 

Angular deviation is a better way when we are talking about the accuracy of a club. And that's how most golfers think in terms of accuracy of the club - because that's what we see from the tee when we make the swing and watch the results. How close was the line of the ball flight to the intended line? Or How close was the line the ball comes down on to the intended line for that ? Or a combination of both of those. I have no idea why you are presuming that it's anything else for 'most' who say the 3wd is more accurate then the driver?

 

Fairways hit counts is a more advanced stat that encompasses both accuracy of the club AND the decisions made before the swing - what club to use, what starting line to use, what shot shape, what will the wind do to the flight, how will the ball react after it hits the ground, etc.. so it's about much more then just the accuracy of the equipment but also the judgment of the person using it.

[Need2golfalot]

The average golfer doesn't hit 3 wood far enough or well enough to help his score vs driver.

 

Of course WRX golfers can nearly drive the green with precicion with their 3 wood. So it is a good choice for some. ??

[Ri_Redneck]

 

 

Nobody is advocating blasting the ball where you can't find it. We were discussing fairway at 240 vs. rough at 260. Somehow now we're behind trees and not finding our ball. Obviously I'm not advocating that you hit the ball into a penalty area or an area where you have to chip backwards.

 

A whole lot of people work on driver accuracy in a vacuum. I'm saying its player-dependent. If I can work the ball, my "accuracy" is completely different than a 20 cap. The key to driver accuracy is to measure it *in terms of the accuracy of the resulting iron shot*. Driver accuracy, taken on its own, doesn't matter very much*.

 

Measured over several rounds, it is very possible - probably even likely - that a driver that is a little less accurate but longer will result in iron shots that have a tighter proximity to the hole.

 

*This does not mean it doesn't matter if you blast it into a lake, or a house, or the woods. But giving up accuracy for distance makes sense in a whole whole lot of cases.

id love to play against someone from the middle of the fairway all day long as they hit out of the rough 15 yards closer to the green. 2 players of = skill, ill take the guy who is in the fairway all day vs the other guy.

 

https://www.amazon.c...e/dp/1592407501

 

You'd lose almost every time. The study has been done. Being able to hit an iron that is shorter with more loft more than makes up for the lie.

 

And it was 20 yards we were discussing, not 15. Two clubs. 8 iron vs. PW. 6 vs. 8.

 

We don't have to argue about it. Its a very good book if you haven't read it. The number one factor in how close you hit your irons is how close to the hole you start because it is so much easier to hit a shorter club with higher loft.

 

I have the book and have read it....... I still say that the stats will vary considerably based on the course. The tee shot sets up the approach shot, therefore, the approach is ALWAYS dependent on the tee shot. Not 2 weeks ago, I had an approach shot (from the fairway!) obstructed by a tree because my drive ended up 10' right of where I wanted it. Forced me to play a low running shot with a bunker very near the line of play. Now, it was totally my fault for not playing farther left, but for most ams, 10' is far from their range of accuracy. There are tons of variables on the course that come into play that will trump a 20yd difference in approach. I'll agree that 20 yds can make a big difference in SOME situations, but not nearly as much as Mr. Broadie's calculations show.

 

And since we're discussing the "Longer is always better" thing, In my 45 yrs of playing this game, I have seen COUNTLESS touch (read not Full Shots) bungled by amateur golfers. They do not work on touch shots nearly enough to be proficient at them. Instructing an amateur to hit driver on a short par 4 that will most likely end up leaving them a touch shot into the green is doing them a terrible disservice.

 

As always, I will agree to disagree with PSG (and any others) on this matter.

 

BT

[bubbagumpshrimp]

I didn't mind my driver (though I hit it inconsistently) until I got fairway woods. Now that I've got five fairway woods (far more forgiving), I almost never reach for my driver. I'd rather hit a 3w 210 or so then hit a driver who knows where, but a few yards farther.

 

I recently birdied a par 5 by teeing off with a 3 wood (second shot was also with the 3 wood). I suppose the argument against this would be that if I'd hit a decent drive off the tee, my third shot would have been with an iron or wedge, instead of a 5 wood...but it got the job done.

[tsecor]

The average golfer doesn't hit 3 wood far enough or well enough to help his score vs driver.

gotta disagree with you on that one.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Scott Fawcett does a great job addressing this issue. You'll need to invest a few minutes watching his video.

 

http://playinglesson.com/introductory-video/

[JunkerJorge]

Scott Fawcett does a great job addressing this issue. You'll need to invest a few minutes watching his video.

 

http://playinglesson...oductory-video/

 

That video is fantastic. An interesting question would be, if a plus handicap makes decisions based on a 65 yard distribution how should a mid capper or a high capper make decisions?

 

I didn't know you could use google maps like that. Very cool. Out of curiosity I measured a tight 9 hole course I play a lot nearby. Only 2 holes had 65 yard wide fairways at a driver landing spot (using the parallel fairways. Most have OB on both sides about 40-45 yards apart. Looks like I should not be playing driver there very much. And I am no plus handicap.

 

Thanks for that link. Very cool.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Scott Fawcett does a great job addressing this issue. You'll need to invest a few minutes watching his video.

 

http://playinglesson...oductory-video/

 

That video is fantastic. An interesting question would be, if a plus handicap makes decisions based on a 65 yard distribution how should a mid capper or a high capper make decisions?

 

I didn't know you could use google maps like that. Very cool. Out of curiosity I measured a tight 9 hole course I play a lot nearby. Only 2 holes had 65 yard wide fairways at a driver landing spot (using the parallel fairways. Most have OB on both sides about 40-45 yards apart. Looks like I should not be playing driver there very much. And I am no plus handicap.

 

Thanks for that link. Very cool.

 

Fawcett is using 65 yard distribution at 300 yards based on PGA tour averages. (I think Broadie uses the same.)

 

Ideally, one would find their own distribution and distance and use that.

 

Also, based on what you noted about smaller landing areas, it would be interesting to apply Fawcett's decision tree that he demonstrates in the video.

[JunkerJorge]

Scott Fawcett does a great job addressing this issue. You'll need to invest a few minutes watching his video.

 

http://playinglesson...oductory-video/

 

That video is fantastic. An interesting question would be, if a plus handicap makes decisions based on a 65 yard distribution how should a mid capper or a high capper make decisions?

 

I didn't know you could use google maps like that. Very cool. Out of curiosity I measured a tight 9 hole course I play a lot nearby. Only 2 holes had 65 yard wide fairways at a driver landing spot (using the parallel fairways. Most have OB on both sides about 40-45 yards apart. Looks like I should not be playing driver there very much. And I am no plus handicap.

 

Thanks for that link. Very cool.

 

Fawcett is using 65 yard distribution at 300 yards based on PGA tour averages. (I think Broadie uses the same.)

 

Ideally, one would find their own distribution and distance and use that.

 

My distribution is measured in Zipcodes.

[LoopySwing13]

I pick any tee shot club based on what the hole gives me. Where is the pin? Where is the miss? What is the best spot for angle into the green? What is the hole giving me and not giving me? Where is the wind blowing?

 

I don't think you can have a set standard, although that makes it simpler for some. I don't have issues rotating from driver to 3 wood, 5 wood, or driving iron off the tee. So maybe that is why I approach it the way I do. Not a long hitter (265/270 carry driver) but I know the distance and miss with each of them. From there, try to let the course lay it out for me and just pick the shot that best tackles the hole.

[pinestreetgolf]

I didn't totally understand your posts above this one, Stuart, but I respect your opinion so if I missed something please let me know. I use to use two drivers, one of which was much more accurate than the other. However, I placed them into categories in my brain - my "accurate" driver and my "long" driver. There is a very high chance that my accurate driver was less accurate than my memory suggests and that my long driver was shorter than my memory suggests. No argument form me that I am not exempt from polarized memory.

 

"Fairway" is a terrible metric for accuracy. Percent deviation, however, is a good one.

Angular deviation is a better way when we are talking about the accuracy of a club. And that's how most golfers think in terms of accuracy of the club - because that's what we see from the tee when we make the swing and watch the results. How close was the line of the ball flight to the intended line? Or How close was the line the ball comes down on to the intended line for that ? Or a combination of both of those. I have no idea why you are presuming that it's anything else for 'most' who say the 3wd is more accurate then the driver?

 

Fairways hit counts is a more advanced stat that encompasses both accuracy of the club AND the decisions made before the swing - what club to use, what starting line to use, what shot shape, what will the wind do to the flight, how will the ball react after it hits the ground, etc.. so it's about much more then just the accuracy of the equipment but also the judgment of the person using it.

 

I brought it up because a bunch of posters said that all that mattered was the fairway. I think we are talking about the same thing when we say "angular deviation" and "percent deviation", but if we are not then please correct me. I am talking about the amount, in percent, the ball deviates from the target line compared to the distance it travels i.e. "factoring out" distance from the accuracy equation because longer players will always be less accurate without averaging it out.

 

Again, you've helped me more than anyone on the site, so I hesitate to disagree. That said, it seems to me fairway hit counts also includes a third element - the course you happen to be playing. That is why I don't think "hitting the fairway" is a very good measure of accuracy. Its a lot easier on some courses than others. I don't understand it when you say that "fairways hit" is a stat combining accuracy with chosen start line. It seems to me the course has a huge say in it, no?

[chippa13]

If you're playing the somewhat standard New England tree lined course, actual deviation is going to be more important than percent deviation.

 

"Yeah, I'm trapped behind that tree but my deviation was only 12%."

[dlam]

Sharp doglegs that end at 300 yards

There a large water hazard that starts at 300 yards that I can't carry

Main reasons I might use a FW

 

Usually I'm more confident with driver than FW off the tee

[pinestreetgolf]

If you're playing the somewhat standard New England tree lined course, actual deviation is going to be more important than percent deviation.

 

"Yeah, I'm trapped behind that tree but my deviation was only 12%."

 

There is obviously a line at which this is not true, or else you'd hit sand wedge off every tee. It has the smallest actual deviation.

 

On a serious note, the quibble isn't with what you actually hit. Do whatever you want. I'm simply saying hitting the ball 300 and 10 yards offline is much more accurate than hitting it 100 and 5 yards offline, regardless of the features of the course you happen to be playing.

[3woodvt]

Tee it forward.

[VFL16PharmD]

People are playing driver lengths that are fit for distance not accuracy. And most people dont use enough loft.

 

Makes sense that they use a 3 wood, that flies shorter, so theur miss is going to be slightly less serve

 

Alot ams would benefit from using 12* drivers and 43.5 inches long

 

My thinking exactly. I set my ego aside and got a 12* driver with a shortened shaft - it's helped me a TON.

[dog flog]

Scott Fawcett does a great job addressing this issue. You'll need to invest a few minutes watching his video.

 

http://playinglesson...oductory-video/

Great vid, that. I love a great educational video, especially one about golf. It's like school, except I'm way more interested. Maybe I shouldn't have said that, in case anyone's hiring. Ha ha.

[tsecor]

If you're playing the somewhat standard New England tree lined course, actual deviation is going to be more important than percent deviation.

 

"Yeah, I'm trapped behind that tree but my deviation was only 12%."

 

There is obviously a line at which this is not true, or else you'd hit sand wedge off every tee. It has the smallest actual deviation.

 

On a serious note, the quibble isn't with what you actually hit. Do whatever you want. I'm simply saying hitting the ball 300 and 10 yards offline is much more accurate than hitting it 100 and 5 yards offline, regardless of the features of the course you happen to be playing.

is this serious? how is that even comparable lol

[pinestreetgolf]

If you're playing the somewhat standard New England tree lined course, actual deviation is going to be more important than percent deviation.

 

"Yeah, I'm trapped behind that tree but my deviation was only 12%."

 

There is obviously a line at which this is not true, or else you'd hit sand wedge off every tee. It has the smallest actual deviation.

 

On a serious note, the quibble isn't with what you actually hit. Do whatever you want. I'm simply saying hitting the ball 300 and 10 yards offline is much more accurate than hitting it 100 and 5 yards offline, regardless of the features of the course you happen to be playing.

is this serious? how is that even comparable lol

 

It's comparable by percent deviation, as has been discussed throughout this thread. You can't discuss distance and accuracy independently. The longer you hit the more inaccurate you get if accuracy is measured by how many fairways you hit. Since golfers miss in degrees, what actually matters is accuracy adjusted for distance. In the example above the pitching wedge is a significantly less accurate shot even though it looks more accurate.

[bubbagumpshrimp]

People are playing driver lengths that are fit for distance not accuracy. And most people dont use enough loft.

 

Makes sense that they use a 3 wood, that flies shorter, so theur miss is going to be slightly less serve

 

Alot ams would benefit from using 12* drivers and 43.5 inches long

 

My thinking exactly. I set my ego aside and got a 12* driver with a shortened shaft - it's helped me a TON.

 

I've been toying with the idea of having my driver shaft cut down to match the length of my 3 wood. And on the 12*...I couldn't agree more. My driver has an adjustable head. Dialing it up to 12* (vs. 10*) makes a BIG difference, in terms of dispersion. The downside is that I ended up with some towering drives.

 

Distance wise...I don't think it ended up any farther than my 3w (which is why I ended up just going with that).

[golfmonke]

I have used a Ping Rapture 14 degree off the tee. Impossible to hit off the deck, but it worked pretty well off the tee. I still find that i'm more accurate with the driver. I'm guessing it's the double the club head size