Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, I’m saying that the tour pro’s must not accidentally curve their irons much at all, since lower lofted irons *can* curve much more than higher lofted ones, and Pelz research shows that it doesn’t matter what loft of of club they are hitting (9 iron or 6 iron) the only significant factor in their accuracy is how far they are from the target. For example. All tour pros measured have an accuracy between 5% and 9% for every club. (Lee Trevino was the 5%). Most good pro’s are from 7-7.5% accuracy with every club. So if Pro A is htting a 5 iron from 200 yards to the green and Pro B is hitting a 3 iron from 200 yards they will both end up an average of 15 yards (45 feet) from the hole. Now the longer driver will be closer to the green and thus with the same iron accuracy get the ball closer to the hole so that is the major advantage of length. Pelz described his search for understanding the golf game and vast puzzlement in a very entertaining manner in his Pelz Short Game Bible. The upshot is that after measuring hundreds of tour pros over several years he discovered that driving distance had *no* statistical correlation with wins or money earnings, and neither did iron accuracy since almost all the pro’s were 7-8%. And that putting accuracy did have a slight correlation to it, but not very large. What it came down to was how close they could get the ball to the hole from within 100 yards of the green, and that was what seperated the people at the top of the money list from the people in the middle at the bottom. Pelz then goes on to explain his method for developing repeatable and predictable wedge shots (which is also very interesting though a bit more technical) and the standard chipping methods.
Thanks for the clarification, Gary. We are in complete agreement on this. The difference in our thinking was that your Pelz reference was dealing with a study of professionals, while I was thinking more in terms of "us"…regular/better players. I know my iron accuracy is nowhere near 7.5% 
In my experience, playing in amateur tournaments for many years, distance off the tee is important because it decreases the distance to the pin. The benefit of this shorter approach and more lofted iron at the amateur level is a) better club to ball contact, b) directional and distance control increase and c) increased ability to spin the ball. I believe this disance advantage is _much_ more significant at the amateur level that at the professional level–thinking of the Pelz study now. In a nutshell, I’m going to make a lot more birdies with wedges than with 4 irons, not to mention the advantage of being able to reach par 5s in two. I’m thinking that it is probably true that distance becomes more important as handicap increases, at least up to the point where hitting the ball becomes more important than distance. Bruce http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm http://go.to/bruce_newman
Response:
Shorter is almost always better. I’ve hole’d more shots from 100 yards, than from 200 yards. -Jay
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – once in awhile i’ll hear something like "that drive’s so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green." i think there’s an implication that because he has a shorter iron, he’ll be "more accurate". longer drivers are long with all their clubs (generally). do you guys think that the increase in accuracy is due to the club itself (higher loft, shorter stick), or simply the fact that he has a shorter distance to the hole as a result of his drive? pelz’s PEI and analysis from "the search for the perfect swing" both suggest that the accuracy of an approach is related to the total distance (within 8% of that distance for a pro) rather than to a particular club. so how much of an advantage does tiger really have hitting 9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance? or is this "advantage" merely a reflection of better quality ballstriking (if there is even any)? although constant PEIs through a set seem to apply to pros/low handicaps, i wonder how applicable they are to us mere mortals. curious to hear your thoughts, paul
Response:
You might be right but I think you have to analyze the money list in chunks – first 20, second 20, etc. There is so much money up for grabs that a couple of good finishes are all you need to hit the top 100. With a couple of wet days where you can throw darts at the pin and you could make an entire season. Does anybody know if the player stats at www.pgatour.com are available in a flat file?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I thought that over the last couple/few years the money list was chocked full of long drivers and suspeciously absent of the best putters.. — dsc
Response:
I thought that over the last couple/few years the money list was chocked full of long drivers and suspeciously absent of the best putters..
I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion of whether it is better to hit less club into greens, but I can say that long is good…as long it is also relatively straight. A guy like Fred Funk can play, as he has demonstrated many times. But day in and day out, he is no match for someone with exactly the same ability and 40 yards more distance off the tee. Maybe I don’t understand your comment. Bruce http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm http://go.to/bruce_newman
Response:
I thought that over the last couple/few years the money list was chocked full of long drivers and suspeciously absent of the best putters.. — dsc
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, I’m saying that the tour pro’s must not accidentally curve their irons much at all, since lower lofted irons *can* curve much more than higher lofted ones, and Pelz research shows that it doesn’t matter what loft of of club they are hitting (9 iron or 6 iron) the only significant factor in their accuracy is how far they are from the target. For example. All tour pros measured have an accuracy between 5% and 9% for every club. (Lee Trevino was the 5%). Most good pro’s are from 7-7.5% accuracy with every club. So if Pro A is htting a 5 iron from 200 yards to the green and Pro B is hitting a 3 iron from 200 yards they will both end up an average of 15 yards (45 feet) from the hole. Now the longer driver will be closer to the green and thus with the same iron accuracy get the ball closer to the hole so that is the major advantage of length. Pelz described his search for understanding the golf game and vast puzzlement in a very entertaining manner in his Pelz Short Game Bible. The upshot is that after measuring hundreds of tour pros over several years he discovered that driving distance had *no* statistical correlation with wins or money earnings, and neither did iron accuracy since almost all the pro’s were 7-8%. And that putting accuracy did have a slight correlation to it, but not very large. What it came down to was how close they could get the ball to the hole from within 100 yards of the green, and that was what seperated the people at the top of the money list from the people in the middle at the bottom. Pelz then goes on to explain his method for developing repeatable and predictable wedge shots (which is also very interesting though a bit more technical) and the standard chipping methods. Thanks for the clarification, Gary. We are in complete agreement on this. The difference in our thinking was that your Pelz reference was dealing with a study of professionals, while I was thinking more in terms of "us"…regular/better players. I know my iron accuracy is nowhere near 7.5% In my experience, playing in amateur tournaments for many years, distance off the tee is important because it decreases the distance to the pin. The benefit of this shorter approach and more lofted iron at the amateur level is a) better club to ball contact, b) directional and distance control increase and c) increased ability to spin the ball. I believe this disance advantage is _much_ more significant at the amateur level that at the professional level–thinking of the Pelz study now. In a nutshell, I’m going to make a lot more birdies with wedges than with 4 irons, not to mention the advantage of being able to reach par 5s in two. I’m thinking that it is probably true that distance becomes more important as handicap increases, at least up to the point where hitting the ball becomes more important than distance. Bruce http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm http://go.to/bruce_newman
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IMO, the answer is "both", based only on my own experience. No studies done! 
If I could hit the ball "so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green", I would score better because I was hitting from closer to the hole than other players. In this respect, the shorter distance would allow me to be more accurate. On the other hand, if I were to hit a "9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance", I think I would still be more accurate because I would be getting better contact with a more lofted club and, because of its loft, I would expect less curvature in flight. Bruce Your feeling is contrary to what Pelz’s research indicates for the pros. Perhaps involuntary curvature on iron shots isn’t that big of a problem with tour pro’s, as opposed to hitting it directly off-line. I would think the advantage to hitting a 9 iron would be the ability to stop the ball on the green faster due to the greater height of the shot. I haven’t read anything by Pelz, but I am really surprised by this. Are you saying that a 9 iron will curve more than, say, a 2 iron? I know I can hook a 2 iron 40 yards or more, but I would be lucky to hook my 9 iron more than 10. My experience is that the more vertical the clubface, the more sidespin can be imparted. I agree with you about stopping the ball. Bruce
No, I’m saying that the tour pro’s must not accidentally curve their irons much at all, since lower lofted irons *can* curve much more than higher lofted ones, and Pelz research shows that it doesn’t matter what loft of of club they are hitting (9 iron or 6 iron) the only significant factor in their accuracy is how far they are from the target. For example. All tour pros measured have an accuracy between 5% and 9% for every club. (Lee Trevino was the 5%). Most good pro’s are from 7-7.5% accuracy with every club. So if Pro A is htting a 5 iron from 200 yards to the green and Pro B is hitting a 3 iron from 200 yards they will both end up an average of 15 yards (45 feet) from the hole. Now the longer driver will be closer to the green and thus with the same iron accuracy get the ball closer to the hole so that is the major advantage of length. Pelz described his search for understanding the golf game and vast puzzlement in a very entertaining manner in his Pelz Short Game Bible. The upshot is that after measuring hundreds of tour pros over several years he discovered that driving distance had *no* statistical correlation with wins or money earnings, and neither did iron accuracy since almost all the pro’s were 7-8%. And that putting accuracy did have a slight correlation to it, but not very large. What it came down to was how close they could get the ball to the hole from within 100 yards of the green, and that was what seperated the people at the top of the money list from the people in the middle at the bottom. Pelz then goes on to explain his method for developing repeatable and predictable wedge shots (which is also very interesting though a bit more technical) and the standard chipping methods. gary hayenga
Response:
I am about two clubs longer than my partner. Though we have about the same accuracy for the same distance other than I am hitting two clubs less. I am about 5 strokes better. The difference comes from the distance from the green on our drives. I am usually twenty or thirty yards closer. Now that effects accuracy. Sean RSG Role Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/mclaughlins.htm
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IMO, the answer is "both", based only on my own experience. No studies done! If I could hit the ball "so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green", I would score better because I was hitting from closer to the hole than other players. In this respect, the shorter distance would allow me to be more accurate. On the other hand, if I were to hit a "9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance", I think I would still be more accurate because I would be getting better contact with a more lofted club and, because of its loft, I would expect less curvature in flight. Bruce Your feeling is contrary to what Pelz’s research indicates for the pros. Perhaps involuntary curvature on iron shots isn’t that big of a problem with tour pro’s, as opposed to hitting it directly off-line. I would think the advantage to hitting a 9 iron would be the ability to stop the ball on the green faster due to the greater height of the shot.
I haven’t read anything by Pelz, but I am really surprised by this. Are you saying that a 9 iron will curve more than, say, a 2 iron? I know I can hook a 2 iron 40 yards or more, but I would be lucky to hook my 9 iron more than 10. My experience is that the more vertical the clubface, the more sidespin can be imparted. I agree with you about stopping the ball. Bruce http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm http://go.to/bruce_newman
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – once in awhile i’ll hear something like "that drive’s so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green." i think there’s an implication that because he has a shorter iron, he’ll be "more accurate". longer drivers are long with all their clubs (generally). do you guys think that the increase in accuracy is due to the club itself (higher loft, shorter stick), or simply the fact that he has a shorter distance to the hole as a result of his drive? pelz’s PEI and analysis from "the search for the perfect swing" both suggest that the accuracy of an approach is related to the total distance (within 8% of that distance for a pro) rather than to a particular club. so how much of an advantage does tiger really have hitting 9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance? or is this "advantage" merely a reflection of better quality ballstriking (if there is even any)? although constant PEIs through a set seem to apply to pros/low handicaps, i wonder how applicable they are to us mere mortals. curious to hear your thoughts, IMO, the answer is "both", based only on my own experience. No studies done! If I could hit the ball "so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green", I would score better because I was hitting from closer to the hole than other players. In this respect, the shorter distance would allow me to be more accurate. On the other hand, if I were to hit a "9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance", I think I would still be more accurate because I would be getting better contact with a more lofted club and, because of its loft, I would expect less curvature in flight. Bruce
Your feeling is contrary to what Pelz’s research indicates for the pros. Perhaps involuntary curvature on iron shots isn’t that big of a problem with tour pro’s, as opposed to hitting it directly off-line. I would think the advantage to hitting a 9 iron would be the ability to stop the ball on the green faster due to the greater height of the shot. gary hayenga
Response:
deemed themselves worthy to grace rec.sport.golf with his/her presence, and uttered…..: <snip curious to hear your thoughts, paul
From my experience, a bit of both plus x…. Same yardage, different club: Something like, the less loft on the club, the higher the potential for sidespin to be imparted on the ball, thus the greater the chance to miss left and right. Different yardage, different club: Math covers this one nicely with the SIN rule. If you mis-hit a shot by 5 degress over 100yds, it strays 8yds. The same mis-hit from 120yds strays 10.5yds. (That extra 2.5yds can mean the rough instead of the apron, or a bunker instead of the rough). And that’s assuming you hit it without sidespin. Add on to this comfort/confidence issues with clubs….. — Mad’Doug Trentham Camp GC, New Zealand RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/stokesd.htm
Response:
One thing I would also consider is the mental aspect. You just feel more confident with a 9 iron in your hand rather than a 7 iron. That feeling of confidence translates into a better swing and a better shot. That is why for me personally I hit a 9 iron better than a sand wedge, I have more confidence in the shot. Drew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – once in awhile i’ll hear something like "that drive’s so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green." i think there’s an implication that because he has a shorter iron, he’ll be "more accurate". longer drivers are long with all their clubs (generally). do you guys think that the increase in accuracy is due to the club itself (higher loft, shorter stick), or simply the fact that he has a shorter distance to the hole as a result of his drive? pelz’s PEI and analysis from "the search for the perfect swing" both suggest that the accuracy of an approach is related to the total distance (within 8% of that distance for a pro) rather than to a particular club. so how much of an advantage does tiger really have hitting 9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance? or is this "advantage" merely a reflection of better quality ballstriking (if there is even any)? although constant PEIs through a set seem to apply to pros/low handicaps, i wonder how applicable they are to us mere mortals. curious to hear your thoughts, paul
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – once in awhile i’ll hear something like "that drive’s so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green." i think there’s an implication that because he has a shorter iron, he’ll be "more accurate". longer drivers are long with all their clubs (generally). do you guys think that the increase in accuracy is due to the club itself (higher loft, shorter stick), or simply the fact that he has a shorter distance to the hole as a result of his drive? pelz’s PEI and analysis from "the search for the perfect swing" both suggest that the accuracy of an approach is related to the total distance (within 8% of that distance for a pro) rather than to a particular club. so how much of an advantage does tiger really have hitting 9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance? or is this "advantage" merely a reflection of better quality ballstriking (if there is even any)? although constant PEIs through a set seem to apply to pros/low handicaps, i wonder how applicable they are to us mere mortals. curious to hear your thoughts,
IMO, the answer is "both", based only on my own experience. No studies done! If I could hit the ball "so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green", I would score better because I was hitting from closer to the hole than other players. In this respect, the shorter distance would allow me to be more accurate. On the other hand, if I were to hit a "9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance", I think I would still be more accurate because I would be getting better contact with a more lofted club and, because of its loft, I would expect less curvature in flight. Bruce http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/newmanb.htm http://go.to/bruce_newman
Response:
once in awhile i’ll hear something like "that drive’s so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green." i think there’s an implication that because he has a shorter iron, he’ll be "more accurate".
Well, I think that’s an interesting issue. Let’s say ProJoe hits a 7 iron 155, and ProJim hits a 9 iron 155. The 7 iron is longer and has less loft, so the tendency will be to hit it less accurately. On the other hand, hitting the 9 to go as far as the 7 also implies less accuracy for the 9. But for this level of skill, the increased distance probably goes hand in hand with increased technique, which will also improve accuracy. Tiger’s hard 9 is probably more accurate than Mark Brooks’ 7. With amateurs, it’s a little different. I think controlling a harder swing is a little harder for amateurs, so more can go wrong. The hard swing is not founded as much on excellent technique, and there will be a tendency to come over the top, etc. On the other hand, the longer clubs have less loft, and less loft gets amateurs into trouble with regard to hooking and slicing (or maybe unintentional fades or draws). If Amateur Joe muscles the 7 iron 165, and Amateur Jim smooths a 5 irons 165, the 5 iron is more likely to curve out of control than the 7 because of length and loft, but less likely to be poorly hit because of poor technique and swinging too hard. I really don’t know, but I’d take the shorter club and longer distance I think.
Response:
pelz’s PEI and analysis from "the search for the perfect swing" both suggest that the accuracy of an approach is related to the total distance (within 8% of that distance for a pro) rather than to a particular club. so how much of an advantage does tiger really have hitting 9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance? or is this "advantage" merely a reflection of better quality ballstriking (if there is even any)? although constant PEIs through a set seem to apply to pros/low handicaps, i wonder how applicable they are to us mere mortals.
In general, I would believe Cochran/Stobbs or Pelz since they seem to have gathered a lot of data using a fairly rigorous protocol. I’ve asked my golf teacher this sort of question about his golf game in particular and he believes that he is more accurate even on a percentage basis with wedges than with longer clubs. Watching him play, I’d say he starts feeling really confident of getting it close any time he has an 8-iron or shorter in his hand. I’d feel confident too if I saw a few of my wedge shots from 100 yards hit a foot from the hole and stick there. But I think that is idiosyncratic for certain players who have a great wedge game — usually because they really overemphasize practice with the wedges at the expense of the longer clubs. According to Pelz, though, even if the percentage accuracy (error in distance and direction expressed as a proportion of shot length) is the same for a 4-iron and a 9-iron having a 9-iron approach is relatively more helpful. To hit a 9-iron within 10 feet of the hole is a 3% error shot but to hit a 4-iron to 10 feet is less than a 2% error shot. So having the approach that only needs to get within 3% of the hole to have a good chance at birdie is a good thing even if you’re no more "accurate" with the 9-iron than the 4-iron. Brent Hutto
Response:
pelz’s PEI and analysis from "the search for the perfect swing" both suggest that the accuracy of an approach is related to the total distance (within 8% of that distance for a pro) rather than to a particular club. so how much of an advantage does tiger really have hitting 9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance? or is this "advantage" merely a reflection of better quality ballstriking (if there is even any)?
Remember, he’s playing faster greens than what we’re used to. All things being equal, it is nice to have your approach shot stop short than have it roll.
Response:
once in awhile i’ll hear something like "that drive’s so long he only has a wedge/short iron to the green." i think there’s an implication that because he has a shorter iron, he’ll be "more accurate". longer drivers are long with all their clubs (generally). do you guys think that the increase in accuracy is due to the club itself (higher loft, shorter stick), or simply the fact that he has a shorter distance to the hole as a result of his drive? pelz’s PEI and analysis from "the search for the perfect swing" both suggest that the accuracy of an approach is related to the total distance (within 8% of that distance for a pro) rather than to a particular club. so how much of an advantage does tiger really have hitting 9 iron when others are hitting 7 or 6 from the same distance? or is this "advantage" merely a reflection of better quality ballstriking (if there is even any)? although constant PEIs through a set seem to apply to pros/low handicaps, i wonder how applicable they are to us mere mortals. curious to hear your thoughts, paul