Average driving distance by handicap

[larrybud]

4 hours ago, North Butte said:

What real-world, practical use would a chart like this have? I honestly can't think of any use other than fodder for rambling discussions (not that there's anything wrong with rambling, pointless golf discussions). 

 

Probably the fact that the vast majority of players overestimate their average driving distance.

 

[North Butte]

26 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

Probably the fact that the vast majority of players overestimate their average driving distance.

 

How does that chart inform that? 

 

Those are averages. Ignoring the silly tenth-of-a-yard false precision (that alone makes it clear this is not to be taken seriously BTW) what proportion of "10-15 handicap" golfers do you think average between 210-230 yards? Maybe a quarter or a third of them? 

 

So if someone has a 12.7 handicap index and thinks they average 240 yards what about that chart would tell them they're wrong? Plenty of 12.7 handicaps average 240, a good many average 270 and quite a few of them average 200 yards or less. 

 

It's clickbait junk numbers but hey, seems to work fine for its intended purpose. 

 

BTW, I'm right in the middle of that 10-15hcp bracket and my most recent stats say I average 194 yards or average 210 if you count only the good drives in the fairway. Do you think I underestimate my driving distance since those numbers are less than "220.4"?  Not hardly.

Edited July 27, 2023 by North Butte

[Chunkitgood]

People score well using their irons.  Using an iron properly is the basic skill for playing golf.

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

How does that chart inform that? 

 

Those are averages. Ignoring the silly tenth-of-a-yard false precision (that alone makes it clear this is not to be taken seriously BTW) what proportion of "10-15 handicap" golfers do you think average between 210-230 yards? Maybe a quarter or a third of them? 

 

So if someone has a 12.7 handicap index and thinks they average 240 yards what about that chart would tell them they're wrong? Plenty of 12.7 handicaps average 240, a good many average 270 and quite a few of them average 200 yards or less. 

 

It's clickbait junk numbers but hey, seems to work fine for its intended purpose. 

 

BTW, I'm right in the middle of that 10-15hcp bracket and my most recent stats say I average 194 yards or average 210 if you count only the good drives in the fairway. Do you think I underestimate my driving distance since those numbers are less than "220.4"?  Not hardly.

It happens all the time. Amateurs say I drive it X yards and then when you play with them on the course it’s not even close, or they are shocked when they see their numbers on a launch monitor. 
 

A lot of amateurs base their what distance they hit their clubs using the one time they caught the ball clean and hit the perfect shot, or they base their average only on the shots they don’t top, duff, slice or pull way off line

[SNIPERBBB]

15 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

It happens all the time. Amateurs say I drive it X yards and then when you play with them on the course it’s not even close, or they are shocked when they see their numbers on a launch monitor. 
 

A lot of amateurs base their what distance they hit their clubs using the one time they caught the ball clean and hit the perfect shot, or they base their average only on the shots they don’t top, duff, slice or pull way off line

A lot of em base their distances of incorrect scorecard distances . Severe years ago I was playing in a money game and drove a particular par 4. Teammate couldn't stop pointing at the 359 yard number. 

 

Actual distance was 320 as the tees were 20yds forwards of the normal placement. 

[North Butte]

15 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

It happens all the time. Amateurs say I drive it X yards and then when you play with them on the course it’s not even close, or they are shocked when they see their numbers on a launch monitor. 
 

A lot of amateurs base their what distance they hit their clubs using the one time they caught the ball clean and hit the perfect shot, or they base their average only on the shots they don’t top, duff, slice or pull way off line

Sure, that's true.

 

What does that chart say about it? Are you imagining somebody is going to look at it and say, "I could have sworn I drive it 280 but the chart says I only drive it 220.4"? Or some old guy who knows he can't hit one 200 yards without a 30mph tailwind saying, "Wow, guess I'm a lot longer than I thought"? 

 

The average 10-15hcp driving distance is an average of 80-year-old 10-15hcp's who drive it 180 and 25-year-old 10-15hcp's who drive it 280 and everything in between. It contains zero information useful to any specific golfer. 

[SNIPERBBB]

1 minute ago, North Butte said:

Sure, that's true.

 

What does that chart say about it? Are you imagining somebody is going to look at it and say, "I could have sworn I drive it 280 but the chart says I only drive it 220.4"? Or some old guy who knows he can't hit one 200 yards without a 30mph tailwind saying, "Wow, guess I'm a lot longer than I thought"? 

 

The average 10-15hcp driving distance is an average of 80-year-old 10-15hcp's who drive it 180 and 25-year-old 10-15hcp's who drive it 280 and everything in between. It contains zero information useful to any specific golfer. 

You're trying to make the chart more than what it is. It's a good measuring stick for comparison. Makes the long guys feel good because they blow those numbers away and makes the short knockers feel good because they aren't as short as they thought they were. 

[GoGoErky]

3 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Sure, that's true.

 

What does that chart say about it? Are you imagining somebody is going to look at it and say, "I could have sworn I drive it 280 but the chart says I only drive it 220.4"? Or some old guy who knows he can't hit one 200 yards without a 30mph tailwind saying, "Wow, guess I'm a lot longer than I thought"? 

 

The average 10-15hcp driving distance is an average of 80-year-old 10-15hcp's who drive it 180 and 25-year-old 10-15hcp's who drive it 280 and everything in between. It contains zero information useful to any specific golfer. 

I don’t think the chart is going to tell the person who is using arccos anything other than letting them see where they stand in comparison to others, good or bad.

 

anyone who has arccos knows what their distances from using the tool

[North Butte]

6 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

I don’t think the chart is going to tell the person who is using arccos anything other than letting them see where they stand in comparison to others, good or bad.

 

anyone who has arccos knows what their distances from using the tool

So the chart tells people with Arccos nothing useful. And it tells the rest of us nothing useful. It is just a handful of out-of-context numbers with lines drawn between them. 
 

Yet somehow Arccos thinks that will impress people enough to reflect well on their product. It’s depressing how innumerate or just plain dumb they seem to think their target market is. 

[DLiver]

There are a lot of older dudes who can really play that have moved up a set of tees (or two) due to advancing age. Those guys are in these stats.

 

Not every scratch player plays from 7,000 yards. In fact, many of them don't.

[SNIPERBBB]

21 minutes ago, North Butte said:

So the chart tells people with Arccos nothing useful. And it tells the rest of us nothing useful. It is just a handful of out-of-context numbers with lines drawn between them. 
 

Yet somehow Arccos thinks that will impress people enough to reflect well on their product. It’s depressing how innumerate or just plain dumb they seem to think their target market is. 

You're making way too much out of this. It's just a report. 

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, DLiver said:

There are a lot of older dudes who can really play that have moved up a set of tees (or two) due to advancing age. Those guys are in these stats.

 

Not every scratch player plays from 7,000 yards. In fact, many of them don't.

And vice versa. 

 

Playing a lot of solo rounds, I get to spend time behind various threesomes and foursomes of all ages and abilities. I won't say there are tons of them (or make the obvious joke and say "the woods are full of them") but there are a certain number of 20-something and 30-something year olds out there who can hit what seem like prodigiously long shots to me but a scratch player would need to give them 10 shots a side. 

 

Really, there's a lot of very different games going on at a typical golf course everyday. Long hitting bad players, short hitting good players, everything in between and every possible combination you can think of. And not all of them are Arccos subscribers, of course!

[GoGoErky]

40 minutes ago, North Butte said:

So the chart tells people with Arccos nothing useful. And it tells the rest of us nothing useful. It is just a handful of out-of-context numbers with lines drawn between them. 
 

Yet somehow Arccos thinks that will impress people enough to reflect well on their product. It’s depressing how innumerate or just plain dumb they seem to think their target market is. 

It’ gives a comparison. It doesn’t tell anyone anything other than what averages are for different handicaps and each person can do with it what they say. 
 

you are making this out to be something bigger than what it is. If you don’t like arccos or their data it’s ok, I don’t think the people at arccos are going to be mad about it. 

[SNIPERBBB]

Just for fun I did some math as people are talking about rolling a drive and killing their average... If you hit driver 14 times and 13 times you hit it 250 even then roll one 50 yards your average is 235.7 yards. 

[larrybud]

11 hours ago, North Butte said:

How does that chart inform that? 

 

Those are averages. Ignoring the silly tenth-of-a-yard false precision (that alone makes it clear this is not to be taken seriously BTW) what proportion of "10-15 handicap" golfers do you think average between 210-230 yards? Maybe a quarter or a third of them? 

 

So if someone has a 12.7 handicap index and thinks they average 240 yards what about that chart would tell them they're wrong? Plenty of 12.7 handicaps average 240, a good many average 270 and quite a few of them average 200 yards or less. 

 

I play with a TON of 10-15 handicappers who average between 210-230. Do you think it's more?

 

This is just data, man. Why are your panties in a bunch about it? Because you're on the low end of the scale for your handicap range? Hell, get in line!

[larrybud]

8 hours ago, North Butte said:

So the chart tells people with Arccos nothing useful. And it tells the rest of us nothing useful. It is just a handful of out-of-context numbers with lines drawn between them. 
 

Yet somehow Arccos thinks that will impress people enough to reflect well on their product. It’s depressing how innumerate or just plain dumb they seem to think their target market is. 

Then what is ANY metric good for? After all, it's just a comparison. Why use strokes gained, or GIR %, or hell, why even keep score!?

[North Butte]

26 minutes ago, larrybud said:

I play with a TON of 10-15 handicappers who average between 210-230. Do you think it's more?

 

This is just data, man. Why are your panties in a bunch about it? Because you're on the low end of the scale for your handicap range? Hell, get in line!

If I try to imagine the distribution of driving distances for 10-15 handicappers, I'd guess the proportion of averages that fall between 210-230 is less than half, probably more like a quarter or a third. But I don't know. Which is why I would be interested in seeing that sort of information published off Arccos or ShotScope's database. 

 

I despise every instance I encounter of dumbed-down numbers being taken as information rather than marketing drivel. I particularly despise this piece of fluff because an outfit like Arccos is sitting on terabytes of data and has data scientists who could toss off a useful presentation concerning driving distance without working up a sweat. But they'd rather put their name on a junk infographic like this. 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by North Butte

[mshills]

This could be reasonably interesting but it is incomplete. Slapping a graph up with the illusion of precision, without any context, and without any analytics is not useful. It’s just a GIF at that point. 
 

Of course many amateurs overestimate how far they hit it, but that is hardly deep insight generated by the little chart. 

[argee1977]

It's just a stat, a useless stat for individuals, you drive it as far as you do, forget averages, handicap is what matters, that's a truer indicator of your performance from whatever set of tees you use. My home course is 6700 (yellows, UK) and i only use driver 10 or 11 times in a round, due to ditches, doglegs, etc on course making driver a bit redundant on several par 4s, i am a regular hitter going by that newer chart, i play with guys who can hit 300+, they hit driver less than me, i've played with plus handicappers who only unleash driver on par 5s, as they know the yardage they want to hit, same with older scratch golfers who just know the distances they want with their approach shots, as stated earlier, there's just way too many variables to get worked up about a stat that fits some, and misses most.

 

My driver distance is down this summer as well, not because i'm slower, or hitting it worse, it's just in the UK we're having nothing but rain and wind, on a dry and calm summer the ball rolls out another 30-40 yards, we're not getting that just now, so the course is playing long, flip side of course is that my rounds aren't getting worse, as the ball holds the green more, so higher chance of a green in regulation.

[DShepley]

On 7/26/2023 at 10:10 PM, tatertot said:

That's not how handicaps work ... You don't get a low handicap playing short/easy courses ... Unless you go stupid low regularly.

I don't think this is entirely true.  Course ratings aren't perfect and according to strokes gained, the average number of shots to hole out decreases the closer you get to the hole.  Playing a short course is essentially the same as driving it further and we rely on the course rating to account for the change in difficulty because the course is short.  In my opinion, course and slope rating hasn't caught up to what we know from strokes gained data across the entire handicap range and we could probably use strokes gained data to build a better course rating system.  If they have done that already, then courses need to be rated again.

[SNIPERBBB]

4 hours ago, DShepley said:

I don't think this is entirely true.  Course ratings aren't perfect and according to strokes gained, the average number of shots to hole out decreases the closer you get to the hole.  Playing a short course is essentially the same as driving it further and we rely on the course rating to account for the change in difficulty because the course is short.  In my opinion, course and slope rating hasn't caught up to what we know from strokes gained data across the entire handicap range and we could probably use strokes gained data to build a better course rating system.  If they have done that already, then courses need to be rated again.

Its absolutely true.

You cant drop your cap moving up a tee box or two unless you're a short knocker and the length of the longer boxes puts you into forced carries that you cant get around. My home course plays a 5900 from the mens tees, 6600 from the tips. Its a 4 stroke course rating difference between the two boxes. For moderate distance gaps between boxes, you're better off moving back if you want to reduce cap or move up to increase it.

 

If you implement the strokes gained stuff, youd probably make course ratings go down even further, making it even harder to drop your cap playing easier courses.

[PracticeSwinger]

4 hours ago, DShepley said:

In my opinion, course and slope rating hasn't caught up to what we know from strokes gained data across the entire handicap range and we could probably use strokes gained data to build a better course rating system.  If they have done that already, then courses need to be rated again.

I like this idea as a concept - using SG and the expected number of strokes to hole out from distances/lie to establish the course rating and slope - but how do you go get those figures without using the actual system variables (scratch player, bogey player) to know how many strokes it takes to complete the hole on average for different level of players?

[SNIPERBBB]

6 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

I like this idea as a concept - using SG and the expected number of strokes to hole out from distances/lie to establish the course rating and slope - but how do you go get those figures without using the actual system variables (scratch player, bogey player) to know how many strokes it takes to complete the hole on average for different level of players?

That's pretty much what the system is now. It's based on what a fictionalized golfer should be able to do. If we have a par 4/5 thats 450 yards or less  a scratch golfer should be make 4 or better on it most of the time.

[PracticeSwinger]

1 minute ago, SNIPERBBB said:

That's pretty much what the system is now. It's based on what a fictionalized golfer should be able to do. If we have a par 4/5 thats 450 yards or less  a scratch golfer should be make 4 or better on it most of the time.

You're basing that evaluation on the actual system scratch golfer; which is established (and documented).

 

I'm trying to see how we could use solely SG data (number of shots expected to hole out from different distances/lie combo) to figure out what is 'SG scratch', without any reference to the actual system

[SNIPERBBB]

   

1 hour ago, Varry_Hardon said:

You're basing that evaluation on the actual system scratch golfer; which is established (and documented).

 

I'm trying to see how we could use solely SG data (number of shots expected to hole out from different distances/lie combo) to figure out what is 'SG scratch', without any reference to the actual system

Not sure how you can do that without normalizing a scratch golfer or arbitrarily making one .

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 7/28/2023 at 3:14 AM, North Butte said:

If I try to imagine the distribution of driving distances for 10-15 handicappers, I'd guess the proportion of averages that fall between 210-230 is less than half, probably more like a quarter or a third. But I don't know. Which is why I would be interested in seeing that sort of information published off Arccos or ShotScope's database. 

 

I despise every instance I encounter of dumbed-down numbers being taken as information rather than marketing drivel. I particularly despise this piece of fluff because an outfit like Arccos is sitting on terabytes of data and has data scientists who could toss off a useful presentation concerning driving distance without working up a sweat. But they'd rather put their name on a junk infographic like this. 

 

 

You're entirely correct. "Average" is a completely useless stat when comparing driving distance to handicap, because golfers have a TON of different ways to have good or bad handicaps. It's one of those things where knowing the average tells you absolutely nothing about an individual. 

 

I'm currently a 21.6 cap, right in the middle of the 40-49 age group from the chart on the last page, and so I'm supposed to be hitting my driver 205. That's about how far I hit my 4h. My average good drive would probably be about 235-245. So I'm a 21.6 because I play golf about 2x a month and rarely practice, so I miss a lot of greens, have blow up holes, and too many chances to stop the bleeding with a bogey and making double. Not because I'm a short knocker. 

 

I regularly play with an older guy who is probably about a 23 cap. He's got a MUCH more consistent game than I do. Much better short game than I do. But while I'm middle-aged and 6'5", he's in his 60s and probably 5'4". He's LUCKY to get 200 yards out of driver--his average good drive is probably 185. But I'm usually only giving him 2-3 strokes per round because he's got a lot more trouble making pars on longer par 3 or par 4 holes than I do, but he also makes triple or worse less often and isn't spraying balls OB or into hazards because him hitting the ball 5* right of target is a lot less offline at 185 yards than me hitting the ball 5* right of target at 240. 

[Dewdman42]

Its a useless stat for a few reasons.

 

for one thing, duffs, thin shots, toe hits, sky balls, etc.. these should not be included in the stat.  It serves no purpose to an individual golfer whatsoever other than comparing yourself to pros or whatever.  Here's a newsflash, we don't compare to them.  

 

it is very much more interesting and useful to know the distance range of your reasonably well struck driver shots.  My reasonably well struck shots range from 250-275, maybe a little longer sometimes and maybe a little shorter occasionally.  My clearly bad hits can be worse...and while that would lower my average to compare myself to others perhaps, it would serve me no useful purpose.  I need to know what my drive is likely to do so that i can plan my tee shots accordingly around dog legs, hazards, ideal approach location, etc..  Those bad hits should not be factored into the average.  Its useless.  What I am thinking about as I stand on the tee box is that a good drive is likely to go 250-275 and with some wind or slope might go further, so what do I need to think about to stay out of trouble.  I'm quite sure my actual average including all mis hits would be more along the 240 range like everyone else my age mid handicapper.  But 240 is a useless number for me to think about on the tee box.

 

Additionally, trying to compare to handicaps is also useless since there are many low handicappers who are old, play from shorter tees and play like geniuses.  And there are also high handicappers that can smack the hell out of their drives, with many going OB or other bad lies that cause their score to be worse.  The stat on its own is useless and it's useless to draw a conclusion about handicap.  

 

it might be useful to talk about average distance by age in some ways.  

 

Also, unless we are talking about playing from the tips always, then the number is meaningless because people can play different drives from different tees and still score low.  If the requirement for the stat is played from the tips, well then handicaps might line up with the distance stat.  But that isn't the world we live in now...people play from different distances...and nothing wrong with that...and if they want to hit 240 yard drives all day long, power to 'em.  But it makes this particular correlation between handicap and driver distance meaningless.

 

 

[DShepley]

9 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

That's pretty much what the system is now. It's based on what a fictionalized golfer should be able to do. If we have a par 4/5 thats 450 yards or less  a scratch golfer should be make 4 or better on it most of the time.

In Canada they send a group of volunteers out to determine the course rating and very infrequently. They use a 'fictionalized' scratch golfer for the course rating and a 'fictionalized' bogey golfer for the slope rating. I can tell you, from experience that the course rating system is flawed. Mid to low handicap players from longer courses tend to 'eat the lunch' of the mid to low guys when they play events at the shorter courses.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, DShepley said:

In Canada they send a group of volunteers out to determine the course rating and very infrequently. They use a 'fictionalized' scratch golfer for the course rating and a 'fictionalized' bogey golfer for the slope rating. I can tell you, from experience that the course rating system is flawed. Mid to low handicap players from longer courses tend to 'eat the lunch' of the mid to low guys when they play events at the shorter courses.

 

AFAIK, Canada uses the same system as we do here in the U.S. (as does the rest of the world now, or will soon), where I've been a course rater for over 15 years and captain for a decade.

 

The course rating system isn't 100% absolutely perfect (because no system that boils EVERY golf course down into two numbers could be), but I suspect you'd be hard pressed to back up with actual data and specifics your "flawed" characterization.

 

(There's a lot more that goes into it than the "fictionalized" characters you're talking about. There are a lot of measurements and data collection that goes into a course rating.) It's OT here, but if there's another topic… I'll answer questions there when I have the time.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by iacas
clarifying

[PracticeSwinger]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

 

AFAIK, Canada uses the same system as we do here in the U.S. (as does the rest of the world now, or will soon), where I've been a course rater for over 15 years and captain for a decade.

 

The course rating system isn't 100% absolutely perfect (because no system that boils EVERY golf course down into two numbers could be), but I suspect you'd be hard pressed to back up with actual data and specifics your "flawed" characterization.

 

(There's a lot more that goes into it than the "fictionalized" characters you're talking about. There are a lot of measurements and data collection that goes into a course rating.) It's OT here, but if there's another topic… I'll answer questions there when I have the time.

 

Agreed. I know of all of the obstacles evaluation process for each hole and the math behind the scratch distance values and it’s why, ever time someone argues that we should base rating and slope on purely numerical data from the course, all hell brakes loose because you can’t figure out who’s a scratch player (purely on those numbers) without having a predetermined set of variables as to how a scratch player would score on that course/tees (chicken and egg)