Ricky Bobby (Driver) vs. Shivas (Irons) - Who Wins in a Year?

[iacas]

Imagine you have two players, identical as they can be without this being a parallel universes type situation, and both are… let's go with 9 handicaps. They're both 30 years old, no physical limitations, etc. One, we'll call him Ricky Bobby, is comparatively a great driver of the golf ball. The other, let's call him Shivas, is relatively a great iron player. Let's say their short game and putting are identical, so their "Create a Player" stats would look something like this:

 

Driver (Ricky):

OTT - 80/100

App - 50/100

ATG - 65/100

Putt - 65/100

 

Irons (Shivas):

OTT - 50/100

App - 80/100

ATG - 65/100

Putt - 65/100

 

This kind of assumes that maybe 65/100 is a 9 handicap level Create a Player.

 

—————————

 

Now, here's the question: If both players put in an equal amount of work with an equally qualified instructor, in a year, which player will be shooting better scores, and why? You also get to assume they only work on the full swing, and their short game and putting remain a constant 65/100 (or they both go up to 70/100, or whatever, but it isn't a differentiator between them).

 

To put it another way, Ricky Bobby and Shivas play 10 matches over a variety of courses at the end of the year: who wins the total match? Why?

 

I have an answer, but I'm going to hold off on sharing what I think for a little while.

[MonteScheinblum]

The guy who has the best grip.

[Trippels]

OTT has a heavy distance bias, whereas iron play I would assume is more reliant on good repeatable mechanics. So I think it would be easier for the good iron player to make a few technique adjustments and do some speed training to gain distance and thereby improve his OTT numbers, than it would be for Ricky Bobby to improve his iron game. 

Although this is off course all unverifiable speculation, but if you gave me the option right now of become a great driver or a great iron player, then I'm going with irons. The driving I can figure out from there. 

[bladehunter]

I’m choosing shivas everytime.  
 

editing because I misread.  
 

id submit Phil mickelson as the poster child for this . You can get it done with a balky driver. There is no bandaid  for can’t hit an iron.  And it seems odd that the poor iron player has a good shortgame.  Usually that’s not true.  It’s both or neither. 

Edited September 14, 2024 by bladehunter

[GoGoErky]

OTT advantage is with Ricky Bobby. In ok iron game isn’t going to hurt him.

Edit: due to not reading the question properly.

 

Choosing Ricky Bobby since the driver swing is already pretty good, focus in the lessons can be on the full swing with irons. That should also carry over to the driver. 

Edited September 14, 2024 by GoGoErky

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

OTT advantage is with Ricky Bobby. In ok iron game isn’t going to hurt him.

 

I'm not sure you read the question. They shoot the same scores now, so Shivas isn't "hurt" or is hurt just as much as Ricky by their areas of weakness.

 

The question is who wins after a year of lessons.

 

It's similar to asking: are you closer to being a better player if you're a good driver or a good irons player? It's all opinion, but I think one of them tends to lead to better play with a slightly easier path forward.

[ChaosTheory]

You can play around a bad driver more easily than bad irons.

But after a year of lessons, I think the driver can be more easily fixed.  It’s the most forgiving full swing club in the bag.  In a year a coach and student should find a swing and shot pattern that can be relied upon.  Not to mention a mental approach.

 

Irons are harder to learn.

 

Of course this is coming from a 9 index who has always been better with driver than irons. 🙃

[Hawkeye77]

Hmmmm.  They are both 9s - normally I'd go with short game and putting as the "decider" in the same handicap range but not in this case.  With 9 handicap I'm saying the poorer driver runs the biggest risk of "others" in the score, and which may be masked with ESC (maybe not that significant) but even if just doubles or occasional triple, an OB or trees over the course of a 10 round match I think will tell the tale, so although my instinct is normally the better iron player it seems off the tee is the area to look at IMO for the reason stated.  

 

And the equal amount of work and why not factor in improvement?  Because the odds are they won't put in the work and will be on here saying "my instructor says do this" but I don't think so and I've been to YouTube and don't want to show my swing but what do you all think?  😀

 

I'd admit I think the poorer driver has the better chance to improve and eliminate the differential between them, and with that the good iron player is the favorite but I still doubt either's ability to make that much difference in the season and those wild drives are still lurking.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2024 by Hawkeye77

[Albatross Dreamer]

Assuming the guy isn’t consistently hitting balls OB then easily the better iron player. Especially since short game and putting are average.

 

This situation is actually pretty close to me this season (except short game and putting is prob better so not identical)

 

I’ll caveat this by saying the longer the course the more I’d imagine it tips to the better driver if there’s a huge distance disparity

[Nels55]

13 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

The guy who has the best grip.

I was thinking the guy with the best posture.  I stand corrected!

[MonteScheinblum]

16 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I was thinking the guy with the best posture.  I stand corrected!

You might be right

[golferdude54]

I think it depends on their path and AoA. Someone like Rory with a more rightward path and upwards AoA when hitting driver will be more likely to lead in strokes gained off the tee.

 

But that same rightward path even with AoA adjusted for irons isn't going to lead in hitting greens and strokes gained approach shots, something Rory hasn't done.

 

Tiger in 2006 hit the most greens and had the most strokes gained in approach shots ever and his path with the irons was pretty neutral and he still finished 3rd in strokes gained off the tee.

[iacas]

On 9/14/2024 at 9:34 AM, ChaosTheory said:

You can play around a bad driver more easily than bad irons.

But after a year of lessons, I think the driver can be more easily fixed.  It’s the most forgiving full swing club in the bag.  In a year a coach and student should find a swing and shot pattern that can be relied upon.  Not to mention a mental approach.

 

Irons are harder to learn.

 

This is the way I lean as well. And I lean pretty well that way, but it's not 90/10 or anything.

 

Of my "good drivers, comparatively poor iron players" I see a lot of golfers who can use the forgiveness of a driver (ball is teed up, clubface is large) to get away with a lot of stuff. They pull their arms too far around them. They tip back/don't get their weight (or pressure) forward. They hit it more over the face. Some play big pulls or fades, some play big draws or pushes.

 

Improving a lot of the things you can get away with using a driver but can't get away with using irons often takes a long time. They're tougher things to work on, generally.

 

If you have a swing that produces pretty clean irons (relatively), then I think it's often easier to sort out the driver in shorter order. It's less of a tall task. It's often "easier" (understanding that any change is still relatively difficult) to change those things.

 

Caveat: the super over-the-top, low-pull-fader of the golf ball can sometimes be seen as a "good iron player," but I wouldn't rate him as such. This is particularly true if they play short courses and have a lot of very short irons or wedges in, so they can get away with their steep, over-the-top, low pulls and they won't appear to fade too much. Doesn't mean they're a good iron player, just that they play a course that lets him hit their low pulled wedges and still score.

 

On 9/14/2024 at 9:57 AM, Hawkeye77 said:

And the equal amount of work and why not factor in improvement?  Because the odds are they won't put in the work and will be on here saying "my instructor says do this" but I don't think so and I've been to YouTube and don't want to show my swing but what do you all think?  😀

 

It's not an equal amount of improvement despite the equal work because they're likely not going to be working on the same kinds of things.

 

On 9/14/2024 at 10:50 AM, Albatross Dreamer said:

Assuming the guy isn’t consistently hitting balls OB then easily the better iron player. Especially since short game and putting are average.

 

I don't know that you read the question fully. They aren't playing each other right now. They're playing each other in a year. If they played right now, they'd split the matches 50/50, maybe. They're both 9s right now.

[getitdaily]

After that lesson time and practice...driver guy will be better. 

 

Harder to get driver right. Driver guy will improve iron play and will likely still be rock solid with driver...maybe even better.

[virtuoso]

I’ll put it this way. If I’m fitting a guy and he’s struggling, I’m counting the minutes to get through the iron fitting, so we can move on to the driver……because if he’s struggling with that, I can give him a mini lesson and have him hitting it quite a bit better no time.

Edited September 15, 2024 by virtuoso

[CasualLie]

I must be missing something.  If they both go into this with same short game level/stats, then it really doesn't matter if RB is the worse iron game player because RB is going to get up/down the same amount of times, is going to have the same putts per round.

 

If RB loses X number of strokes to OB/penalty drops, well I guess Shivas loses X as well because after all, they are still both 9 indexes.

 

If at the end of the year of lessons, if short game is again equal, then how would one gain an advantage over the other?  

 

But I'll bite, Shivas will be win most matches simply because a year of lessons can only make Driver better, but irons which are already a strength will get even better.  Over time proximity to the hole will be better on the green, more putts made.  The idea the short game will remain the same is a fallacy.

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

The idea the short game will remain the same is a fallacy.

 

It's mostly beside the point, but that's not how that works…

 

You can be just as good of a short game player as someone else, or just as good of a putter, but if you're putting from or chipping (pitching, etc.) from closer spots, or easier spots… you're going to beat the other person despite having an equal skill set (or "create a player" ranking for that skill). The point of locking the short game and putting was to isolate it to the driving vs. approach shot play.

[Ty_Webb]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Of my "good drivers, comparatively poor iron players" I see a lot of golfers who can use the forgiveness of a driver (ball is teed up, clubface is large) to get away with a lot of stuff. They pull their arms too far around them. They tip back/don't get their weight (or pressure) forward. They hit it more over the face. Some play big pulls or fades, some play big draws or pushes.

Caveat: the super over-the-top, low-pull-fader of the golf ball can sometimes be seen as a "good iron player," but I wouldn't rate him as such.

Why do you caveat the not really a good iron player but might look like they are and not the not really a good driver but might look like they are that you are describing here? If someone actually sucks but gets away with it with driver then they suck. If someone actually sucks with their irons but gets away with it then they suck. I feel like the question was if you’re a good driver but weak iron player vs if you’re a good iron player but weak driver. Isn’t that a different question?

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Why do you caveat the not really a good iron player but might look like they are and not the not really a good driver but might look like they are that you are describing here?

I think I said why: they’re not a good iron player, they just play a course where they hit a lot of wedges. It is in the part you cut off:

 

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Doesn't mean they're a good iron player, just that they play a course that lets him hit their low pulled wedges and still score.

[GolfTurkey]

I like the iron player because he probably has better low point control which seems to be a fairly hard skill to acquire for those that don't have it.

[golferdude54]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

It's mostly beside the point, but that's not how that works…

 

You can be just as good of a short game player as someone else, or just as good of a putter, but if you're putting from or chipping (pitching, etc.) from closer spots, or easier spots… you're going to beat the other person despite having an equal skill set (or "create a player" ranking for that skill). The point of locking the short game and putting was to isolate it to the driving vs. approach shot play.

 

There has been instances of approach shot strokes gained leaders having a higher scrambling % than short game strokes gained leaders because they're chipping and pitching from easier spots.

[Ty_Webb]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

I think I said why: they’re not a good iron player, they just play a course where they hit a lot of wedges. It is in the part you cut off:

 

 

I got that. My point was rather that you're describing Ricky Bobby as actually a poor driver of the ball, but someone who gets away with it, but excluded the version of Shivas who is a poor iron player, but gets away with it. If Shivas is actually a good iron player and a poor driver and Ricky Bobby is actually a poor driver and a poor iron player, then no kidding Shivas is going to get better faster. But what about the guy who swings it pretty shallow, gets a little in to out and hits the center of the face with driver and is let's say 3* up and hits a soft draw, but is also slightly up on his irons, coming from the inside and catches the ground before the ball a lot. In other words, an actually good driver who is poor with their irons. That seems more like an apples to apples comparison.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I got that. My point was rather that you're describing Ricky Bobby as actually a poor driver of the ball, but someone who gets away with it, but excluded the version of Shivas who is a poor iron player, but gets away with it.

 

Again, because people might picture that person (the player who seems to be a good iron player but who just gets away with having wedges frequently) and think that's what I'm talking about. It's not, and I'd not rank that player as a "good iron player."

 

Ricky is a good driver (relatively), and Shivas is an actually good irons/approach shot player.

 

I've given my reasons for why I think Shivas would win more often after a year. I think it's easier to become a "good" (relatively) driver of the golf ball with some bad mechanics that will hold you back more so when you seek to improve your iron play.

 

This is all opinion, though, so no right/wrong here. Just thoughts.

 

Edited September 16, 2024 by iacas

[ferrispgm]

Shivas all day.....Good iron play is the result of a good basis for the swing.  Heck, just from my own experience; the more I work on irons and the fewer drivers I hit in practice, the better I drive the ball on the course.  Aside from that, I'd take someone who is competent off the tee and a good iron player over someone who hits 90% of the fairways and is poor on approach and leaving themselves tougher up and downs.  Also, proper driver fitting can help a lot too.

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, ferrispgm said:

Also, proper driver fitting can help a lot too.

 

That's something I thought of too but didn't mention: a poorly fit driver can wreak havoc, while it's much tougher in my experience to have a set of irons that's just a horrible fit for someone.

[Ross_Albatross]

I'll play devil's advocate and go with Ricky - I get that Shivas currently has a better understanding, better overall swing mecanics : low point control for one, for him to be a relatively good irons player and thus seems like the guy it would be easier to work with and get him to be a better driver at the end of the year (which is surely true)... but, from a pure Strokes gained aspect, we all know the differenciator is approach play at all levels, and thus working with Ricky on his irons play all year (while Shivas looks exclusively at becoming better off the tee, for simplicity) would yield for a bigger jump in SG from Ricky -> more potential to improve index for Ricky -> better chance of winning 10 matches at the end of the year

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, PracticeSwinger said:

while Shivas looks exclusively at becoming better off the tee, for simplicity

That’s a faulty assumption. I said only that they work on their full swings, and both driving and approach shots are full swings.

[Ross_Albatross]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

That’s a faulty assumption. I said only that they work on their full swings, and both driving and approach shots are full swings.

Fair enough and that might/probably tilt the scale Shivas's way. But still, It would be interesting to see, with proper instruction which one would have 'an easier' path at getting better in a year's span not just from a swing mechanics perspective but from a SG stand point - i.e. how does that translate, in a vacuum, to better scores

[ferrispgm]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

That's something I thought of too but didn't mention: a poorly fit driver can wreak havoc, while it's much tougher in my experience to have a set of irons that's just a horrible fit for someone.

exactly.  I get fit for a new driver every 2-3 years and each time my fitting is very different from the prior one.  I had a couple iron fittings and both times whatever irons i picked off the rack based purely on looks and the shaft I had were near perfect matches and performance difference on the new set was minimal.  I don't see much difference in irons going like for like such as forced CB to another forged.  The exception would be maybe going from traditional forged to like a hollow body or blade to player's distance iron. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I'm going to echo @Trippels here and go into a stats discussion, but I'm going to use it to come to the opposite conclusion. 

 

SG:OTT is a blended distance/accuracy stat. SG:Approach is an almost purely accuracy stat. 

 

The only way that I can see you having these sorts of differences is that you've got a long-but-wild guy and a short-but-accurate guy. 

 

I.e. you've got the equivalent of a 9-handicap Cameron Champ (Ricky Bobby) vs a 9-handicap Tom Hoge (Shivas). 

 

I personally think the 9-handicap Shivas has a better swing overall, and is probably much closer to their ceiling of swing mechanics if they're that good with the irons, and got to their 9 handicap by being deadly with longer irons. Whereas the 9-handicap Ricky Bobby is getting to his 9 by hitting it long and having short irons in, even though he doesn't hit them well. 

 

I'd think the 9-handicap Ricky Bobby has more low-hanging fruit to improve their mechanics. Whereas the 9-handicap Shivas already has solid mechanics and now has to figure out a way to gain speed, something that player may or may not be easily able to do physically, and may or may not be easily able to do without screwing up their swing.