Is the Distance vs Accuracy Debate Dead?

Introduction

Is it better to be long and wild or short and straight? This is a question that every golfer has been confronted with at some point and now in the age of strokes gained, we have a way to answer this question with data, not guesswork.

Traditional stats like fairways hit have long been used to assess accuracy, but they miss the nuances of actual shot quality. For example, the fairways hit metric does not distinguish between big and small misses, shots that land in the rough a few yards off the fairway that are associated with a fractional loss in strokes and those that finish in the trees or more severe penalty areas. In addition, the difference in fairways hit between a player’s best and worst rounds is surprisingly small, less than one fairway on average.

As well as being a poor measure of driving performance, hitting the fairway is often overrated. In his analysis of over 600 million Arccos shots, Lou Stagner (2023) found that for amateur golfers in particular, the difference in performance between the rough and fairway is less that 0.10 strokes, particularly from under 150 yards. For many amateurs, being in the rough is not much worse than the fairway, but recovery shots, penalties and OB add 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 strokes respectively to your scores. So instead of tracking fairways hit, try recording the percentage of tee shots that finish in”in-play” and leave a realistic opportunity to hit the green in regulation.

To properly evaluate performance off the tee, and move beyond the simple distance vs. accuracy debate, we need to rely on strokes gained and a lesser-known but powerful metric: degrees offline which together, provide a far more complete picture of tee shot effectiveness.

Strokes Gained & Degrees Offline

Strokes Gained has been covered extensively and compares a golfer's performance on a given shot to an average or benchmark. Meanwhile, degrees offline tells us how far a shot deviated from its intended line. Degrees offline is a much better indicator of performance of the tee.  For example, the correlation between fairways hit and strokes gained driving, a measure of a golfer’s performance on par 4 and par 5 tee shots is 12% compared to 44% between degrees offline and stroked gained driving (Broadie, 2014). Crucially for coaches and custom fit specialists, degrees offline is independent of shot distance, making it ideal for comparing accuracy and evaluating coaching and equipment interventions.

Distance vs. Accuracy: What the Numbers Say

Broadie (2014) makes an important point: driving distance is more important than driving accuracy and in "Every Shot Counts" he compares the value of gaining 20 yards in driving distance versus improving directional accuracy by 1° for a range of players.

For all players, increasing distance by 20 yards is more beneficial than improving accuracy by 1° and we can use these benchmarks to make more informed decisions about the trade-off between distance and accuracy. For example, if a 90-golfer can learn to hit the ball 20 yards further, they will still improve their strokes gained driving performance even if their accuracy suffers, but only up to a point, and degrees offline allows us to establish the tipping point at which performance might deteriorate. For context, a typical 90-golfer will have an average accuracy of roughly 6.5° offline, compared to 3.4° for tour professionals, when measured using degrees offline. 

The importance of driving distance is particularly relevant when players consider hitting an iron off the tee “for safety.” While using an iron may reduce directional errors by a degree or two, it often comes at the cost of 40–60 yards in total distance. According to Broadie's table, unless the resulting improvement in accuracy is dramatic, this trade-off is almost always a net loss in strokes gained. The conservative strategy of laying back with an iron may feel safer, but in most cases, it gives up more than it saves.

Lou Stagner’s 2023 analysis of Arccos data further reinforces this idea. He looked at players who gained or lost at least 10 yards in driving distance between consecutive seasons (with a minimum of 25 rounds played per year). Among those who gained at least 10 yards:

• 81% saw an improvement in scoring

• 65% improved by 1+ strokes per round

• 44% improved by 2+ strokes per round

Meanwhile, those who lost 10 yards saw their scoring decline at similar rates. This real-world evidence backs up Broadie’s model: gaining distance, without incurring wild misses, is one of the fastest paths to lowering scores.

The important takeaway here is that distance is more important that accuracy off the tee and small distance gains are very achievable for most players. An increase of just 1.5-2mph in clubhead speed, which, assuming a centred strike will result in a corresponding increase in ball speed is all that is required to gain an additional 10 yards. We know from launch monitor data that a 1mph increase in ball speed equates to approximately 2.5 yards in additional carry distance and we can find these small but meaningful gains in many ways. For example through speed training protocols from companies such as Superspeed and The Stack, or specific strength training activities. We can also find gains through equipment changes such as switching to a longer or lighter shaft to match a player’s swing tendencies or adjusting the loft and face angle to optimize launch conditions.

What This Means for Coaching and Fitting

1. Fit for Strokes Gained, Not Just Fairways or Feel

Custom fitting should focus on maximising strokes gained, not just subjective impressions of control or binary stats like fairways hit. By combining degrees offline with strokes gained, coaches and custom fitters can evaluate whether equipment changes actually improve performance.

Tip: Track dispersion changes and use strokes gained estimates to validate equipment decisions, especially when comparing club types or shaft profiles.

2. Understand the Real Cost of Clubbing Down

Hitting an iron or hybrid off the tee might improve accuracy slightly, but the loss of distance typically results in a net loss in strokes gained. This trade-off is rarely justified unless dictated by hole design or extreme hazards.

Tip: Use strokes gained benchmarks to show players how much they give up by clubbing down. Encourage them to find driver setups that maintain control at full distance.

3. Coach Directional Control First, Then Distance

For players with large degrees offline measurements, swing path, face angle, and centred strike may matter more than speed. Degrees offline can highlight where control improvements will have the greatest impact and squaring the face-path relationship will naturally increase ball speed and distance.

Tip: Build lesson plans around dispersion patterns and strike tendencies. Track degrees offline alongside distance gains to evaluate coaching effectiveness.

4. Build Practice Around Measurable Patterns

On-course improvement depends on building skill under pressure. Integrating dispersion-based targets into practice helps bridge the gap between the range and the course.

Practice Game: “The 3° Challenge”. Score 1 point for each shot that finishes within ±3° of your target line. Set goals over 10-shot or 20-shot sessions and track progress weekly.

Final Thoughts: Measuring What Matters

The conversation shouldn’t be “distance vs. accuracy”, it should be how each contributes to strokes gained. Broadie’s data shows that while distance is generally more valuable, accuracy has an important role to play, especially when measured precisely in degrees.

Degrees offline offers a better way to understand directional control, while strokes gained provides a performance-based outcome to evaluate change. Together, they offer powerful tools to guide coaching interventions and equipment changes.

Want to bring strokes gained analysis and precision accuracy tracking into your coaching or fitting sessions? I support golf professionals and fitters in building data-informed strategies that improve performance on the course, not just the launch monitor.

Email for further information @ philipdye09@gmail.com

References

Broadie, M. (2014). Every Shot Counts: Using the Revolutionary Strokes Gained Approach to Improve Your Golf Performance and Strategy. Gotham Books.

Foresight Sports. (n.d.). Launch Monitor Data Explained. Retrieved from https://www.foresightsports.com

PGA Tour. (2023). ShotLink and Strokes Gained Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.pgatour.com/stats.html

Stagner, L. (2023). Why fairways are overrated for amateur golfers. Lou Stagner Golf Newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.loustagnergolf.com

Stagner, L. (2023). How much does distance help? Lou Stagner Golf Newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.loustagnergolf.com

TrackMan. (n.d.). Understanding Dispersion and Club Performance Metrics. Retrieved from https://www.trackman.com