distance debate

[bobfoster]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

It isn't blindly from just a graph as if someone that knows nothing about golf is using it, and it alone to make some assumption.  We are all golfers here, and some of us pay attention to what tour players can physically do versus what they actually employ on the course.  We also may be long players ourselves and take from experience what we do or don't do on the course and why.  We may play with longer lower handicap players and pick their brains.  In my case, I have a borderline obsessive interest in this subject.

 

The point of saying all that is, we obviously are making educated interpretations of that graph that when you take everything I just said above into account, feels very much like complete and non arguable common sense.  

To drill down a bit on why that stat might tell part of the story, but not the whole story, the PGAT's definition of driving distance is this: "The average number of yards per measured drive. These drives are measured on two holes per round. Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind. Drives are measured to the point at which they come to rest regardless of whether they are in the fairway or not."

 

My business partner (for instance) isn't a very good golfer - bombs it off the tee, but with a wicked slice. Laughs and says he hit 300 yard drives - 100 out, and 200 to the right (that's obviously a bit of an overstatement, but you get the point). So his total distance on that hypothetical drive - according to the PGAT definition of distance - would not be the 100, nor would it be 300 - it would be about 224 yards (simple trig). So those Tour distance stats can mask a lot. The fact that Kuehne's distance is 2003 was about one yard different from BD's in 2021 doesn't remotely mean Kuehne was as long as BD. 

 

In my opinion, I can see both sides of this, and would differentiate between "intention based" and "math based" limitations on max functional distance. Intentional is what you are talking about, and makes perfect sense to me. I do it all the time. On a long par 5 with a wide fairway and little trouble, I'll bomb away. Short par 4 w/ a narrow fairway, will take something off the driver, or even hit an FW if I'm wanting a particular distance on the second shot. We all do this. Pros and decent amateurs alike.

 

There are also, however, "math based" variables. If I hit a 250 yard drive where my draw turns into a slight hook, I may still wind up in the fairway, or the first cut. If BD hits a 350 yard drive offline by the exact same amount, it could well end up in the next fairway and in a lot of trouble - the longer the drive, the greater the effects of dispersion. So this is much different than a golfer intentionally pulling back for strategic reasons. And when you look at just the raw stats we're talking about here, there is no way to discern, from them alone, which factor is more in play. 

 

IMO, I'd be curious about a couple alternate ways to determine optimal distance. First - and I think a couple stats companies do this - instead of measuring drive distance from the tee to where the ball came to rest, measure like this: On a par 4, don't measure from tee-to-ball, take the final resting place of the ball, measure how far the second shot is from the pin, then subtract that from the total distance of the hole. Seems like that would give more complete (or at least additional) information.

 

Second, for those 20 or so years of PGA Tour distance winners and their average drives, I'd like to throw a second line side by side on the graph ... the average drives of whomever had the best strokes-gained-driving stats. Strikes me that this might be fascinating. 

 

Random thoughts.

 

 

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

To drill down a bit on why that stat might tell part of the story, but not the whole story, the PGAT's definition of driving distance is this: "The average number of yards per measured drive. These drives are measured on two holes per round. Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind. Drives are measured to the point at which they come to rest regardless of whether they are in the fairway or not."

 

My business partner (for instance) isn't a very good golfer - bombs it off the tee, but with a wicked slice. Laughs and says he hit 300 yard drives - 100 out, and 200 to the right (that's obviously a bit of an overstatement, but you get the point). So his total distance on that hypothetical drive - according to the PGAT definition of distance - would not be the 100, nor would it be 300 - it would be about 224 yards (simple trig). So those Tour distance stats can mask a lot. The fact that Kuehne's distance is 2003 was about one yard different from BD's in 2021 doesn't remotely mean Kuehne was as long as BD. 

 

In my opinion, I can see both sides of this, and would differentiate between "intention based" and "math based" limitations on max functional distance. Intentional is what you are talking about, and makes perfect sense to me. I do it all the time. On a long par 5 with a wide fairway and little trouble, I'll bomb away. Short par 4 w/ a narrow fairway, will take something off the driver, or even hit an FW if I'm wanting a particular distance on the second shot. We all do this. Pros and decent amateurs alike.

 

There are also, however, "math based" variables. If I hit a 250 yard drive where my draw turns into a slight hook, I may still wind up in the fairway, or the first cut. If BD hits a 350 yard drive offline by the exact same amount, it could well end up in the next fairway and in a lot of trouble - the longer the drive, the greater the effects of dispersion. So this is much different than a golfer intentionally pulling back for strategic reasons. And when you look at just the raw stats we're talking about here, there is no way to discern, from them alone, which factor is more in play. 

 

IMO, I'd be curious about a couple alternate ways to determine optimal distance. First - and I think a couple stats companies do this - instead of measuring drive distance from the tee to where the ball came to rest, measure like this: On a par 4, don't measure from tee-to-ball, take the final resting place of the ball, measure how far the second shot is from the pin, then subtract that from the total distance of the hole. Seems like that would give more complete (or at least additional) information.

 

Second, for those 20 or so years of PGA Tour distance winners and their average drives, I'd like to throw a second line side by side on the graph ... the average drives of whomever had the best strokes-gained-driving stats. Strikes me that this might be fascinating. 

 

Random thoughts.

 

 

 

I like that.  I am kind of a data nerd so I would appreciate a stat like that as it would indeed give a clearer picture.  Maybe they could call it "effective distance" or something.

[milesgiles]

7 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

so play with 6. no one is stopping you. 

 

I do, especially when carrying. 

[milesgiles]

7 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

How do you know this to be true?

 

because feelings 

[ChipStrokes]

8 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I do, especially when carrying. 

it’s actually a lot of fun to play with 5-6 clubs. 

[milesgiles]

7 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Common sense is common sense, some have it some don't.  Helps if you seek information outside of your reaffirming bubble.  

 

Let me put it this way, you can trust that this particular version of common sense is the correct version. If I thought you weren't so disingenuous of a person, I would make a big post gathering as much of this common sense as possible to show you why it is common sense.  Unfortunately, that would be a big waste of time though.  If anyone else that isn't disingenuous is curious about that though, and would like to see why it is common sense that distance has diminishing returns, please let me know.  I would be happy to take the time to share with such a person. 

 

disengenous?

 

its not me that has:

 

ignored sg data

ignored that half of the games greatest players, prior to the 90s, were not known for being exceptional off the tee

ignored that almost all of the lengthening of courses came about during the distance explosion

selectively used driving distance data 

not even bothered to read the distance insights report

 

etc

 

etc

 

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

It isn't blindly from just a graph as if someone that knows nothing about golf is using it, and it alone to make some assumption.  We are all golfers here, and some of us pay attention to what tour players can physically do versus what they actually employ on the course.  We also may be long players ourselves and take from experience what we do or don't do on the course and why.  We may play with longer lower handicap players and pick their brains.  In my case, I have a borderline obsessive interest in this subject.

 

The point of saying all that is, we obviously are making educated interpretations of that graph that when you take everything I just said above into account, feels very much like complete and non arguable common sense.  

 

Edit: Just some additional material to kinda get my point across better.  Kyle Berkshire does a lot of golf vlogs in his efforts to get better at the sport.  He is an incredibly good golfer, I think he is a plus cap.  If you don't already, watch some of his videos.  Depending on the course, he hits a LOT of long irons off the tee.  He does it on purpose, because driver isn't the best play.  Kyle is extremely, extremely good.  He can swing at Bryson full speed swings and be as accurate if not more accurate.  He knows how to get maximum carry if he wants, and he can hit them low with more spin.  He can fade it, he can draw it.  He is an amazing driver of the ball yet he is taking out irons for off the tee all the time.  This is just some of what provides the interpretation of that graph the way I have interpreted it.   You have to remember though, at any time, any of these long guys could say screw it, and hit a nuked driver off every par 4 and 5 and inflate that maximum over the course of a year substantially.  I am saying that nobody does that or will do that because it just doesn't pay.  Look again at Bryson.  He is purposefully trying to use happy gilmore like tactics.  It isn't working as well as he had hoped so far but it is fun to see him try.  It is unlikely he will push it any further than he has.  He is capable of over 200mph ball speed with a stock driver but he rarely is at that. 

 

 

 

 

kyle is nowhere in the same universe as Bryson for total driving. 

[bobfoster]

7 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

it’s actually a lot of fun to play with 5-6 clubs. 

Out of curiosity, which clubs? Or does it depend on the course? In truth, during many rounds most of us won't use all the clubs in the bag - in fact, often probably only half. What 14 clubs does is provide for the widest possible number of scenarios on the widest variety of courses, but on any particular course only a subset of the 14 will really be used. 6 clubs on a short, narrow course with well protected greens, a putter and even two wedges might be going in, with an 8i, 5i, and 5W. On a long, wide course a putter and single wedge, 9i, 6i, hybrid and driver. 

 

Fun to think about though. Have done it a few times. Forces you to expand how you think about course management, and makes you practice all sorts of 1/2 and 3/4 swings. Causes you to get more precise.

 

Though the ultimate in precision and thinking through a course came from this anecdote I heard about Ben Hogan. During some tournament, whoever he was playing noticed he didn't have a 7i in his bag. Asked him why. Hogan reportedly responded that there were simply no 7i shots on the course. 😆

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, bobfoster said:

Out of curiosity, which clubs? Or does it depend on the course? In truth, during many rounds most of us won't use all the clubs in the bag - in fact, often probably only half. What 14 clubs does is provide for the widest possible number of scenarios on the widest variety of courses, but on any particular course only a subset of the 14 will really be used. 6 clubs on a short, narrow course with well protected greens, a putter and even two wedges might be going in, with an 8i, 5i, and 5W. On a long, wide course a putter and single wedge, 9i, 6i, hybrid and driver. 

 

Fun to think about though. Have done it a few times. Forces you to expand how you think about course management, and makes you practice all sorts of 1/2 and 3/4 swings. Causes you to get more precise.

 

Though the ultimate in precision and thinking through a course came from this anecdote I heard about Ben Hogan. During some tournament, whoever he was playing noticed he didn't have a 7i in his bag. Asked him why. Hogan reportedly responded that there were simply no 7i shots on the course. 😆

when i do it, i usually leave driver home and start with one of my fairways woods. i need to get more comfortable with a 4w off the tee as it is, and this forces me to do it 

 

then i do something like 5i/8i/PW/56/putter

 

i’ve also played a few 4 club rounds where i go 4w/7i/52/putter

[ThinkingPlus]

21 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

disengenous?

 

its not me that has:

 

ignored sg data

ignored that half of the games greatest players, prior to the 90s, were not known for being exceptional off the tee

ignored that almost all of the lengthening of courses came about during the distance explosion

selectively used driving distance data 

not even bothered to read the distance insights report

 

etc

 

etc

 

I don't think anyone credible in this thread disputes that SG: Approach Shots is most important followed by SG: Off the Tee and then SG: Putting.  I think it has always been that way, but no data exists to prove that assertion prior to the adoption of Shot Link by the tour.

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I don't think anyone credible in this thread disputes that SG: Approach Shots is most important followed by SG: Off the Tee and then SG: Putting.  I think it has always been that way, but no data exists to prove that assertion prior to the adoption of Shot Link by the tour.

 

clevited is still going on that there is a useable limit to how far you should drive, and we know that is rubbish.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

clevited is still going on that there is a useable limit to how far you should drive, and we know that is rubbish.

That may or may not be true.  I am not sure it is provable or not with existing data.  It is also course dependent.  It might be true for courses the PGA Tour frequents and not be true for courses you play.  It depends on too many factors to necessarily generalize.  However, given that max driving stats on tour have somewhat leveled off the last 5 - 10 years is compelling that something is going on.

[ChipStrokes]

13 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

and we know that is rubbish.

he’s not the only one who believes that. 

 

and how to we “know” it’s rubbish?

[clevited]

42 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

clevited is still going on that there is a useable limit to how far you should drive, and we know that is rubbish.

 

Clearly you aren't understanding me then if you are claiming to not be disenguous.  History however shows the opposite to be true.  

 

Edit: I absolutely consider shots gained btw, you just aren't understanding what I am trying to say.  Please go back and read my previous posts.  If you still don't understand, I will attempt again to explain.

Edited April 19, 2022 by clevited

[buckeyefl]

On 4/18/2022 at 3:47 AM, milesgiles said:

 

answered endlessly itt by me and others 

So I've been gone for almost three years. Enlighten everyone with the consensus on where the "tradition" line is drawn and when the concensus was reached.

 

Don't strain yourself though because even though I haven't been around I know that you can't do either. 

 

Now back to those steel shafts...what's wrong with hickory and why the hypocrisy? Maybe you should do a WITB just to show everyone what a traditionalist you are. Don't forget to list the ball you play and it had better be hand stitched and full of feathers.

[milesgiles]

8 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

he’s not the only one who believes that. 

 

and how to we “know” it’s rubbish?

 

Sg says it’s rubbish, what data set do you have to the contrary?

 

in b4 ‘common sense’ 🤦‍♂️

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, buckeyefl said:

So I've been gone for almost three years. Enlighten everyone with the consensus on where the "tradition" line is drawn and when the concensus was reached.

 

Don't strain yourself though because even though I haven't been around I know that you can't do either. 

 

Now back to those steel shafts...what's wrong with hickory and why the hypocrisy? Maybe you should do a WITB just to show everyone what a traditionalist you are. Don't forget to list the ball you play and it had better be hand stitched and full of feathers.

 

Read the thread 

 

 

what difference does it make to you? If I say 1990, someone else says 1974, someone else 1948.. whats the difference? The equipment didnt change radically in that time. 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by milesgiles

[ChipStrokes]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Sg says it’s rubbish, what data set do you have to the contrary?

 

in b4 ‘common sense’ 🤦‍♂️

if it’s rubbish, then why aren’t these guys averaging closer to what they’re actually able to do with a driver?

[clevited]

41 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

if it’s rubbish, then why aren’t these guys averaging closer to what they’re actually able to do with a driver?

 

I don't understand how a person can fail to see that shots gained doesn't mean its smart to always smash driver as far as you can on every hole possible.  It isn't always the smart play, no matter how good you are.  Wind, hazards that if you go too long come into play, hazards that come into play should you hook it a tiny bit too much and the wind gusts.  Some people just don't seem to understand or appreciate the almost 9 seconds of air time that a full bomb from some of these guys has, nor the amount of precision needed to keep it in play to the point where it helps your score and doesn't hurt it.  You don't go up to the tee like a blind robot and nuke every drive,you are going to hit a shorter fade sometimes for position, or a low running hook around a coner like JT because the hole doesn't let you nuke one over the corner.  You are going to hold back at times subconsciously or consciously.  Its all common sense to me.

 

Edit: made it easier to read.

Edited April 20, 2022 by clevited

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

I don't understand how a person can fail to see that shots gained doesn't mean its smart to always smash driver as far as you can on every hole possible.  It isn't always the smart play, no matter how good you are.  Wind, hazards that if you go too long come into play, hazards that come into play should you hook it a tiny bit too much and the wind gusts.  Some people just don't seem to understand or appreciate the almost 9 seconds of air time that a full bomb from some of these guys has, nor the amount of precision needed to keep it in play to the point where it helps your score and doesn't hurt it.  You don't go up to the tee like a blind robot and nuke every drive,you are going to hit a shorter fade sometimes for position, or a low running hook around a coner like JT because the hole doesn't let you nuke one over the corner.  You are going to hold back at times subconsciously or consciously.  Its all common sense to me.

 

Edit: made it easier to read.

 

 

I have watched A LOT of top level golf in person. A dozen or more majors, tens of tour events, a lot of which was spent on the practise ground.

 

They dont hit it that last few percent of effort because, even woth current equipment, they lose accuracy disproportionally. For example, if their face/club paths are within a variance of 0.5% up to 95% of max speed, that could go up to 0.7% if they attempt to swing at 100% (not actual numbers, just an example)

 

If that variance was still close to 0.5% at 100% effort, then all other things being equal that is how hard they would swing. If you dont believe that, then you havent played much golf to a decent level and you sure as heck havent watched much in person.

 

It is categorically nothing to do with course setup or strategy.. SG has proved this beyond all reasonable doubt

[clevited]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

I have watched A LOT of top level golf in person. A dozen or more majors, tens of tour events, a lot of which was spent on the practise ground.

 

They dont hit it that last few percent of effort because, even woth current equipment, they lose accuracy disproportionally. For example, if their face/club paths are within a variance of 0.5% up to 95% of max speed, that could go up to 0.7% if they attempt to swing at 100% (not actual numbers, just an example)

 

If that variance was still close to 0.5% at 100% effort, then all other things being equal that is how hard they would swing. If you dont believe that, then you havent played much golf to a decent level and you sure as heck havent watched much in person.

 

It is categorically nothing to do with course setup or strategy.. SG has proved this beyond all reasonable doubt

 

You do know that the same, hypothetical acceptable variance may not be acceptable at 200 mph as it is at 180 right?  There is more to this than you are thinking and it is 100% common sense.  With that said, you are also basically repeating what I have been saying.  They don't swing full nukes because they can't safely.  Their variance plays into that and is considered along with the hole itself, where its hazards are etc.  If Bryson for instance has a hole that doglegs slightly left and is narrow and his miss tends to be a block fade or something, he may consider hitting it less hard to make sure his miss doesn't end up in the pond on the other side of the hole.  If he swings full and is off just a bit at 200 mph and it fades and carries long, well that didn't help him like a 20 yard shorter shot in the right rough just before the trouble would.  I recall an interview with Bubba Watson saying that he varies his driver swing speed a LOT.  It depends on the situation I am sure.  

 

This isn't cut and dry like you seem to think, like shots gained makes the decision for you and therefore what I am saying is a bunch of bull.  There are countless tour pros that bombed them on the Korn Ferry/Web.com tours and after one year or so on tour, significantly slowed down.  Why is that do you think?  I think it is because the courses are harder, and nuking the ball doesn't pay off as much given their dispersion, the hole itself and all things considered.  

[milesgiles]

28 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

You do know that the same, hypothetical acceptable variance may not be acceptable at 200 mph as it is at 180 right?  There is more to this than you are thinking and it is 100% common sense.  With that said, you are also basically repeating what I have been saying.  They don't swing full nukes because they can't safely.  Their variance plays into that and is considered along with the hole itself, where its hazards are etc.  If Bryson for instance has a hole that doglegs slightly left and is narrow and his miss tends to be a block fade or something, he may consider hitting it less hard to make sure his miss doesn't end up in the pond on the other side of the hole.  If he swings full and is off just a bit at 200 mph and it fades and carries long, well that didn't help him like a 20 yard shorter shot in the right rough just before the trouble would.  I recall an interview with Bubba Watson saying that he varies his driver swing speed a LOT.  It depends on the situation I am sure.  

 

This isn't cut and dry like you seem to think, like shots gained makes the decision for you and therefore what I am saying is a bunch of bull.  There are countless tour pros that bombed them on the Korn Ferry/Web.com tours and after one year or so on tour, significantly slowed down.  Why is that do you think?  I think it is because the courses are harder, and nuking the ball doesn't pay off as much given their dispersion, the hole itself and all things considered.  

 

I am not at all saying what you are

 

only peak Bryson has really been able to swing flat out (maybe early Tiger) and be acceptably straight. 

 

I can easily say driver technology advancing further so that they can swing closer to flat out. Thats what has happened the last twenty years especially.

 

this is not a good thing for top level golf. its one dimensional. golf needs to test skill as well as speed.

 

I re emphasise, Id leave the duffers alone. 

[oikos1]

29 minutes ago, clevited said:

With that said, you are also basically repeating what I have been saying.  They don't swing full nukes because they can't safely.  Their variance plays into that and is considered along with the hole itself, where its hazards are etc.

 

Well said Clevited.  The assumption that pros wail away on every drive is misguided at best.  Even decent ams have the ability to throttle back and hit fairway finders with their drivers when needed.  Max distance isn't always the play.

 

This is yet another example of the roll it back crowd caught in their own circle of misgivings.

[ChipStrokes]

4 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

only peak Bryson has really been able to swing flat out (maybe early Tiger) and be acceptably straight.

please explain Cam Champ being 30 yards shorter on the pga tour than he was on the korn ferry tour 

Edited April 20, 2022 by ChipStrokes

[milesgiles]

14 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

 

Well said Clevited.  The assumption that pros wail away on every drive is misguided at best.  Even decent ams have the ability to throttle back and hit fairway finders with their drivers when needed.  Max distance isn't always the play.

 

This is yet another example of the roll it back crowd caught in their own circle of misgivings.

 

they swing far harder than they ever could with a persimmon

[milesgiles]

12 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

please explain Cam Champ being 30 yards shorter on the pga tour than he was on the korn ferry tour 

Please explain how you 'know' that he chooses to lay back 30 yards even though his driving variance would be (in your opinion) the same?

[oikos1]

3 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I am not at all saying what you are

 

only peak Bryson has really been able to swing flat out (maybe early Tiger) and be acceptably straight. 

 

I can easily say driver technology advancing further so that they can swing closer to flat out. Thats what has happened the last twenty years especially.

 

this is not a good thing for top level golf. its one dimensional. golf needs to test skill as well as speed.

 

I re emphasise, Id leave the duffers alone. 

LOL!

 

Maybe you should ask Max Homa, Sam Burns, Sungjae Im, Lucas Hebert, Jason Kokrak, Talor Gooch, Cam Smith, Hudson Swafford, Tom Hoge and Scottie Scheffler how "one dimensional" their games are.

 

And to note, currently the Top 100 drivers on the PGA Tour are within 23 yards or less average distance from top to bottom.  What do you think is happening in between those drives that makes the game one dimensional?

[ChipStrokes]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

Please explain how you 'know' that he chooses to lay back 30 yards even though his driving variance would be (in your opinion) the same?

answer my question, then ill handle yours

[clevited]

14 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I am not at all saying what you are

 

only peak Bryson has really been able to swing flat out (maybe early Tiger) and be acceptably straight. 

 

I can easily say driver technology advancing further so that they can swing closer to flat out. Thats what has happened the last twenty years especially.

 

this is not a good thing for top level golf. its one dimensional. golf needs to test skill as well as speed.

 

I re emphasise, Id leave the duffers alone. 

 

On a wide open course, more of those guys can swing flat out and be acceptably straight.  What I am saying, and you are disagreeing with seemingly just because you seem to want to, is that because of course mix on the tour, guys are not swinging flat out.  Even Bryson varies significantly and they aren't all miss hits.  He hits fades and draws as needed and consciously or unconsciously throttles his speed some.  Deoends on the course.  Heck, I have even seen him hit less than driver a few times in the compilation videos I have watched on par 4s.  

 

The course mix effectively limits distance.  Unless you can steer the ball in the air, and make it bounce the direction you want every time, you aren't going to air it out as if you are at a long drive competition very often.  I mean you can, nobody is stopping you but it isn't always the smart play or the highest percentage play.  

 

I am not a pro obviously but I do have days where I feel like I can nuke the ball every time and trust it will go where I want it to.  I still hild back because of the hole itself.  One hole in particular, if I go long, good chance it bounces into a pond on either side of the hole.  I therfore hit the proper play, which is a low fade that ends up stopping a few yards before the water.

 

Common sense.

[milesgiles]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

On a wide open course, more of those guys can swing flat out and be acceptably straight.  What I am saying, and you are disagreeing with seemingly just because you seem to want to, is that because of course mix on the tour, guys are not swinging flat out.  Even Bryson varies significantly and they aren't all miss hits.  He hits fades and draws as needed and consciously or unconsciously throttles his speed some.  Deoends on the course.  Heck, I have even seen him hit less than driver a few times in the compilation videos I have watched on par 4s.  

 

The course mix effectively limits distance.  Unless you can steer the ball in the air, and make it bounce the direction you want every time, you aren't going to air it out as if you are at a long drive competition very often.  I mean you can, nobody is stopping you but it isn't always the smart play or the highest percentage play.  

 

I am not a pro obviously but I do have days where I feel like I can nuke the ball every time and trust it will go where I want it to.  I still hild back because of the hole itself.  One hole in particular, if I go long, good chance it bounces into a pond on either side of the hole.  I therfore hit the proper play, which is a low fade that ends up stopping a few yards before the water.

 

Common sense.

 

all covered by sg. read it.