Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Understanding distance variance

Published

on

Sometimes it can be a blow to the ego to go to a new course where the ball seems to go nowhere and you just can’t bring yourself to hit 5-iron, for example, when you could normally hit 7-iron.

But if you want to score well, it’s something that can be important to understand and accept…that is, that distances can vary quite dramatically from course to course.

To illustrate this, let’s take a look at the average driving distances for the field in the following PGA Tour and European Tour events from 2012.

2013 Average PGA & European PGA Tour Driving Distances by Event

Event Distance
DP World Tour Championship 248.5
Volvo Golf Championships 252.1
Hyundai Tournament of Champions 270.4
Reale Seguros Open de Espana 270.4
RBC Heritage 277.8
The Irish Open 277.8
Omega Dubai Desert Classic 280.3
Ballantine’s Championship 281.3
Transitions Championship 281.5
Maybank Malaysian Open 281.6
Frys.com Open 281.8
UBS Hong Kong Open 282.3
Aberdeen Asset Management Open 282.9
Nordea Masters 283.2
Africa Open 283.4
BMW International Open 283.9
Omega European Masters 284.0
Barclays Singapore Open 284.5
Johnnie Walker Championship 284.9
Lyoness Open 285.0
Alstom Open de France 285.4
Valero Texas Open 285.9
KLM Open 286.1
Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship 286.8
ISPS Honda Wales Open 287.3
BMW Masters 287.9
BMW Championship 288.5
Commercialbank Qatar Masters 288.5
Volvo China Open 288.6
Zurich Classic of New Orleans 289.9
BMW Italian Open 290.3
Joburg Open 291.3
Open de Andalucia 291.4
Deutsche Bank Championship 292.6
Portugal Masters 293.3
Crown Plaza Invitational at Colonial 294.2
Avantha Masters 295.5
John Deere Classic 295.7
Saint-Omer Open 295.9
Tour Championship 297.4
Sony Open in Hawaii 297.5
AT&T National 297.9
Sicilian Open 298.3
Wyndham Championship 299.1
HP Byron Nelson Championship 300.4
Justin Timberlak Shriners Hospital for Children Open 305.7
Reno-Tahoe Open 311.6
SA Open Championship 313.6
Madeira Islands Open 322.6


Average:  288.5 yards/drive

Click here for more discussion in the “Instruction & Academy” forum. 

As you can see, despite more or less the same players playing each week, there’s a 74.1-yard variance between the tournaments with the shortest and longest average driving distance for the field.  That’s a huge difference!

It’s feasible that there were extenuating circumstances taking place during the events on the extreme ends causing such a broad gap.  There may have been severe weather, for example, or perhaps a certain course required the use of more woods, hybrids, or irons off the tee. But in general, to account for things like this, the driving distance averages for Tour events are generally taken on two holes where the wind blows in opposite directions and also where the players are likely to use driver.

Even still, let’s take out a few of the extremes on the short and long ends. When we do this, note that the bulk of the average driving distances range between 280 and 300 yards.  That’s still a 20-yard difference from event to event and course to course.  It’s not as much as 74.1-yards but it’s still worth noting.

I remember this was also the case when I used to compete in long drive. My longest drive in competition was a 421-yard drive in Warner Springs, Calif., to win a qualifier for the RE/MAX World Long Drive Championships. Granted, it set the grid record but it was still on firm ground at an elevation of about 3,130 feet.  Conversely, the 381-yard ball I hit to win the Pinnacle Distance Challenge was actually a much better drive, despite being 40 yards shorter. However, the ground was a little softer and the elevation was much less — around 466 feet.

In general, Tour players and their caddies understand and are good at accepting that distances change based on conditions.  In fact, determining these distance variances are actually one thing that many of them are doing during practice rounds…and it’s also partially why they can subsequently go tear up the course in the tournament with a few as one practice round under their belts.

Different guys do it differently, but in the 30-or-so week-long professional tournaments I’ve played, one of the things I’ll do during my practice round is jot down in my course guide or on a scorecard how far my clubs are going on full swings. By the end of the round, I’ll approximate the percent difference from my normal distances and then make a new distance card that I keep with me for reference during the tournament.

For example, let’s say these are my average carry distances (pros are more concerned with carry than total distance) for my clubs on flat ground under normal conditions:

Club Carry
Driver 270
3-Wood 243
16* Hybrid 225
20* Hybrid 212
4-Iron 203
5-Iron 194
6-Iron 183
7-Iron 172
8-Iron 160
9-Iron 148
PW 136

 

Then, over the course of my practice round, I find out that on average I’m about 3 percent longer with each club at this new course I’m playing.  So I get out my calculator, add 3 percent, and then make a small card like this to carry with me for reference during the rest of the tournament:  Personally, I like having a little card like this because it saves me both time in determining what shot I want to hit and also mental energy during the tournament rounds.

Club Carry
Driver 278
3-Wood 250
16* Hybrid 232
20* Hybrid 218
4-Iron 209
5-Iron 200
6-Iron 188
7-Iron 177
8-Iron 165
9-Iron 152
PW 140

 

Note that on the updated card it’s only about a 4-yard variation for the PW, but that could mean the difference between having a 3-footer for birdie or a 15-footer.  With the driver, the 8-yards of extra carry might give me the confidence to fly over a fairway bunker I normally wouldn’t otherwise try to carry.

You may not want to get in to this level of detail with your own game (or have the ball-striking skill to worry about it – hehe), but I guess the point I’m getting at is to keep in mind that depending on the course you play and the conditions involved, distances can and will vary.

Understanding and accepting this can help you make better club selections in general, which of course can also lead to lower scores.

Click here for more discussion in the “Instruction & Academy” forum. 

Your Reaction?
  • 13
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Jaacob Bowden is a Professional Golfer, PGA of America Class A Member, Top 100 Most Popular Teacher, Swing Speed Trainer, the original founder of Swing Man Golf, the co-creator of "Sterling Irons" single length irons, and has caddied on the PGA TOUR and PGA TOUR CHAMPIONS. Formerly an average-length hitting 14-handicap computer engineer, Jaacob quit his job, took his savings and moved from Kansas to California to pursue a golf career at age 27. He has since won the Pinnacle Distance Challenge with a televised 381-yard drive, won multiple qualifiers for the World Long Drive Championships including a 421-yard grid record drive, made cuts in numerous tournaments around the world with rounds in the 60s and 70s, and finished fifth at the Speed Golf World Championships at Bandon Dunes. Jaacob also holds the championship record for golf score with a 72 in 55 minutes and 42 seconds using only 6 clubs. The Swing Man Golf website has more than 8,000 members and focuses primarily on swing speed training. Typically, Jaacob’s website members and amateur and tour player clients will pick up 12-16 mph of driver swing speed in the first 30 days of basic speed training. You can learn more about Jaacob, Swing Man Golf, and Sterling Irons here: Websites – JaacobBowden.com & SwingManGolf.com & SterlingIrons.com; Twitter - @JaacobBowden & @SwingManGolf & @SterlingIrons; Facebook – Facebook.com/JaacobBowdenGolf & Facebook.com/SwingManGolf & <Facebook.com/SterlingIronsGolf; Instagram - Instagram.com/JaacobBowden YouTube – YouTube.com/SwingManGolf – More than 2.8 million video views

Continue Reading
11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. Jaacob Bowden

    Jan 7, 2013 at 10:34 am

    Ruddy – Haha, yeah, especially on new courses it helps to pay attention right away. :-p

    Hmmm, if I remember correctly, Advanced Golf Solutions also tested the balls by accuracy. So you could pick something out based on any number of variables…distance, accuracy, price, etc.

    I think the ProV1x was the most accurate…or at least in the top 3. But that was a few years ago. Ball models change as time passes.

    They must’ve gone out of business because I’m not finding their website…which is too bad because it was really cool software. They tested the top 50 or so new balls on the market each year for several years.

  2. Ruddy

    Jan 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    Jacob, thanks for answering. I too noticed a big difference in distance between balls. 10 yards less with Titleist Velocity vs. ProV1x. Better scores with the expensive ball, also. I never seem to recognize the distance variation each round until around Hole#18!

  3. Jaacob Bowden

    Jan 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Ruddy – Yeah, using the same model ball can definitely help consistency. I remember one time I did some new ball testing using some independent testing software (I believe made by Advanced Golf Solutions) and there was literally a 50 yard difference between the longest ball and shortest ball for me (that variance will be more or less depending on swing speed and other factors).

    I just do it as a rough percentage because during a single practice round I may not get enough flat shots (no elevation changes) without wind to get an average for each club.

    In situations where I don’t get in a practice round, I just try to pay really close attention on the first few holes and adjust up or down accordingly as quickly as I can.

  4. Ruddy

    Jan 3, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Interesting article. Averages are greatly affected by extremes, so good move to eliminate extremely long and short distances. The mode is the distance most often achieved. The median is the distance exactly in the middle. Rather than a percentage change, why not just use actual distance achieved for each club in the practice round? If I can’t play a practice round, how can I make a distance adjustment using some other method? I suppose using the same ball brand helps consistency. Thanks.

  5. Jaacob Bowden

    Dec 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Al, Mark, Steve…thanks!

    Good suggestion, Steve. Those things definitely do have an effect on distance. I know I’ve seen studies that have covered this but I don’t recall specifics or where I saw them off the top of my head. I’ll put it on my list of article ideas for the future!

    Happy New Year!

  6. Steve

    Dec 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Jaacob, nice article. I wish you would have spent some time discussing temperature and it’s effect on distance. Don’t golf balls fly further in the heat vs. cold air? What about in high humidity/fog, vs. dry air? Thanks!

  7. Mark Bishop

    Dec 21, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    Very interesting Jaacob and well put together. All the very best for the Hols mate. Mark in Oz!

  8. Al Dilz

    Dec 21, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Very informative, Jaacob. I have never seen distance variables covered with such precision and detail. Thank you!

  9. Jaacob Bowden

    Dec 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Thanks gents!

  10. DJ Watts

    Dec 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Jaacob, I love your attention to numbers and stats, it’s right up my alley!

    Congrats on a solid first piece, and I’m looking forward to applying the playing and strategy knowledge that you relay.

  11. Brian Cass

    Dec 20, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Great article, a subject that is hardly covered

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Courses

Coming Up: A Big Golf Adventure

Published

on

My name is Jacob Sjöman, and I’m a 35-year-old golf photographer who also enjoys the game we all love. I will be sharing some experiences here on a big golf trip that we are doing. With me I’ve got my friend Johan. I will introduce him properly later, but he is quite a funny character. According to Johan, he is the best golf photo assistant in the world, and we will see about that since this is probably his biggest test yet doing this trip. Previously on our trips, Johan almost got us killed in Dubai with a lack of driving skills. He also missed a recent evening photo shoot in Bulgaria while having a few beers to many… and that’s not all.

Anyway, the last couple of days I’ve been packing my bags over and over. I came home from the Canary Islands this Sunday and I’ve been constantly checking and rechecking that we’ve got all the required equipment, batteries, and that the cameras are 100 percent functional and good to go for this golf trip. I’m still not sure, but in a couple of minutes I will be sitting in a taxi to the airport and there will be no turning back.

Where are we going then? We are going to visit some of the very best golf courses in New Zealand and Australia. There will be breathtaking golf on cliffsides, jaw-dropping scenic courses, and some hidden gems. And probably a big amount of lost balls with a lot of material produced in the end.

I couldn’t be more excited for a golf journey like this one. Flying around the globe to these special golf courses I’ve only dreamed about visiting before gives me a big kick and I feel almost feel like a Indiana Jones. The only thing we’ve got in common, though, is that we don’t like snakes. Australia seems to be one of the worst destinations to visit in that purpose, but all the upsides are massive in this.

First, we will take off from a cold Stockholm (it’s raining heavily outside at the moment) and then we will do our first stop at Doha in Quatar. Then after two more hours, we are finally heading off to Auckland on the north island of New Zealand, a mega-flight of 16 hours. I believe that could very well be one of the longest flights available for a ordinary airplane. I need to check that.

Flights for me usually mean work, editing photos from different golf courses I’ve visited, writing some texts, editing some films, and planning for the future. Last time, though, I finally managed to sleep a little, which is a welcome progress for a guy that was deadly scared of flying until 2008.

Now, I am perfectly fine with flying. A few rocky flights over the Atlantic Sea to Detroit helped me a lot, and my motto is now, “If those flights got me down on the ground safely, it takes a lot of failures to bring down a plane.”

Anyway, I hope you will join me on this golf trip. Stay tuned!

Your Reaction?
  • 6
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

Be Curious, Not Critical, of Tour Player Swings

Published

on

After a foul ball by a tour player, the talking heads on TV are often quick to analyze the “problem” with that swing. Fair enough, I suppose. Even the best players are human and our game has more failure than success. But I’d like to offer a different take on swings of the best players in the world.

First, let’s remember how good these guys and gals really are. If you met up with the lowest ranked player on any professional tour at a public course one day, I’ll bet that golfer would be the best golfer most of you have ever played with. You’d be telling your buddies in the 19th hole about him or her for a very long time. These players have reached a level of ball striking most people only dream about. That’s why I’m more curious than critical when it comes to a tour player’s swing. I’m not thinking about what he/she needs to do better; I’m thinking, “How do they do it so well?” In other words, I want to know how they put their successful move together. What part goes with the other parts? How did their pattern evolve? What are the compatible components of their swing?

Let’s use Jim Furyk as an example. Furyk has what we might call an “unconventional” move. It’s also a swing that has won nearly $70 million and shot 58 one day. But I’ll offer him as an example because his swing illustrates the point I’m making. From a double-overlapping grip, Furyk picks the golf club up to what might be the most vertical position one would ever see from a professional. Then in transition, he flattens the club and drops it well behind him. Now the club is so flat and inside, he has to open his body as quickly as he can to keep the club from getting “stuck.” Let’s call it an “up-and-under loop.”

Let’s take Matt Kuchar as a counter example. Kuchar’s signature hands-in, flat and very deep takeaway is pretty much the total opposite of Furyk. But he comes over that takeaway and gets the club back into a great position into impact. We’ll call that an “in-and-over” loop.

Both are two of the best and most consistent golfers in the world. Is one right and the other wrong? Of course not. They do have one thing in common, however, and it’s that they both balanced their golf swing equation.

What would happen if Kuchar did what Furyk does coming down? Well, he wouldn’t be on TV on the weekend. If he did, he’d be hitting drop kicks several inches behind. That doesn’t win The Players Championship. The point is that the Furyk downswing is incompatible with the Kuchar backswing, and vice versa, but I’m guessing they both know that.

How can this help you? My own personal belief and the basis of my teaching is this: your backswing is an option, but your downswing is a requirement. I had one student today dropping the arms and club well inside and another coming over the top, and they both felt better impact at the end of the lesson. I showed them how to balance their equation.

My job is solving swing puzzles, a new one very hour, and I’m glad it is. It would be mind-numbing boredom if I asked every golfer to do the same thing. It’s the teaching professional’s job to solve your puzzle, and I assure you that with the right guidance you can make your golf swing parts match. Are there universal truths, things that every golfer MUST do?  Yes, they are the following:

  1. Square the club face
  2. Come into the ball at a good angle
  3. Swing in the intended direction
  4. Hit the ball in the center of the face (method be damned!)

But here’s the funny part: Let Kuchar or Furyk get off base and watch every swing critic in the world blame some part of the quirkiness of their move that has led to their greatness. When players at their level get off their game, it’s generally due to poor timing or that they lost the sync/rhythm that connected their individual parts. The same holds true for all of us. We have to find the matching parts and the timing to connect them. You might not need new parts.

After all, weren’t those same parts doing the job when you shot your career low round?

Your Reaction?
  • 94
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW1
  • LOL1
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK7

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

The numbers behind “full scholarships” in NCAA men’s college golf

Published

on

If you are in the world of junior golf, you’ve probably heard about a young man you know who’s getting that coveted full ride to college, maybe even to a Power-5 school. With all the talk in junior golf about full scholarships, and a lot of rumors about how many are available, we decided to poll coaches and gather some real data about “full scholarships.”

So, what did we find out? In total, we got responses to a voluntary online survey from 61 men’s D1 coaches, 19 men’s D2 coaches and 3 NAIA coaches (83 total). On average, the coaches in the survey had 11.8 years of coaching experience. Of the coaches that responded, 58 of the 83 coaches reported having zero players on full ride. Another 15 coaches surveyed reported having one player on full ride. This means that 69 percent of the coaches surveyed reported zero players on full scholarship and 18 percent reported one player on full scholarship, while another four coaches reported that 20 percent of their team was on full ride and six coaches reported between 2-3 players on full ride.

We then asked coaches, “what percent of golfers in Division 1 do you think have full scholarships based on your best guess?” Here’s what the responses looked like: 25 coaches said 5 percent and 36 coaches said 10 percent. This means that 73 percent of respondents suggested that, in their opinion, in men’s Division 1, Division 2 and NAIA, there are less than 10 percent of players on full ride.

Next, we asked coaches, “what was a fair scholarship percentage to offer a player likely to play in your top 5?” The average of the 83 responses was 62.5 percent scholarship with 38 coaches (46 percent) suggesting they would give 30-50 percent and 43 coaches (52 percent) suggesting 50-75 percent. Only two coaches mentioned full scholarship.

The last question we asked coaches, was “what would you need to do to earn a full scholarship?”

  • Top-100 in NJGS/Top-250 in WAGR – 41 coaches (49 percent)
  • 250-700 in WAGR – 19 coaches (23 percent)
  • Most interesting, 17 coaches (20 percent) noted that they either did not give full rides or did not have the funding to give full rides.

The findings demonstrate that full rides among players at the men’s Division 1, Division 2 and NAIA levels are rare, likely making up less than 10 percent of total players. It also suggests that if you are a junior player looking for a full ride, you need to be exceptional; among the very best in your class.

Please note that the survey has limitations because it does not differentiate between athletic and academic money. The fact is several institutions have a distinct advantage of being able to “stack” academic and athletic aid to create the best financial packages. My intuition suggests that the coaches who responded suggesting they have several players on “full rides” are likely at places where they are easily able to package money. For example, a private institution like Mercer might give a student $12,000 for a certain GPA and SAT. This might amount to approximately 25 percent, but under the NCAA rules it does not count toward the coach’s 4.5 scholarships. Now for 75 percent athletic, the coach can give a player a full ride.

Maybe the most interesting finding of the data collection is the idea that many programs are not funded enough to offer full rides. The NCAA allows fully funded men’s Division 1 programs to have 4.5 scholarships, while Division 2 programs are allowed 3.6. My best guess suggests that a little more than 60 percent of men’s Division 1 programs have this full allotment of scholarship. In Division 2, my guess is that this number is a lot closer to 30 percent.

Your Reaction?
  • 99
  • LEGIT19
  • WOW12
  • LOL2
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB2
  • SHANK20

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending