It all depends on what one means by "distance". It's certainly true that max distance doesn't perfectly line up with tournament outcome. Ohn Scoggins is an easy example to illustrate this. Certainly, when it comes to playing my best in a tournament round, I'm going for throws that result in the highest likelihood of a better score.
But if (hypothetically) I throw 400 and you throw 300 and we are playing a hole that is 370, your best score is a 3 (absent a very unlikely throw in). I have the potential to get a reasonable putt for the 2. Even if I'm off the fairway, I can still very likely scramble for the 3. It takes quite a bit of accuracy difference to make up for the advantage that distance gives.
On the other hand, if there are no holes that play longer than 330, my distance advantage isn't worth much, or perhaps it doesn't look like a distance advantage. It really only manifests as an accuracy advantage, because I can throw more controlled shot, potentially with slower discs.
So distance means "distance that gives more birdie and eagle chances". It doesn't mean whoever wins the distance contest before the tournament should be favored in the tournament.
Well, You'd have to specify, "Max controlled distance"
Cause I understand the argument you're making and you're not wrong, but the people who generally make this argument to me don't understand navigating a course, they just think "big distance = win"
A consistent golfer is far more scary and you should be scared of them.
Lets use the 370 example.
And were going to use average players here.
We got Guy, Steve. Throws 300 and can land it on the dot every time.
And we got Todd. Todd is a hot shot and likes everyone to know he throws 400 feet.
What Todd doesn't' tell anyone that 400 feet is max pull and everything he's got.
So todd and steve are on a card, the hole is wide open.
Steve slayed the last hole like a surgeon and steps up and throws 350 feet parking circle 1 on the basket.
Todd, not to be out done, steps up and gives it a max rip landing circle 2 60 feet from the basket.
This is one of those dumb area's of the argument.
300 controlled, not 300 max.
But even for the whole sake of everything. Yes, if you can accurately throw 400 vs 300, uhh hell yeah, you're going to do better. Just average golfers don't throw 400 feet accurately. Above average golfers sort of throw 400 accurate. That's really where it boils down to. The more Pro level you are, the more consistent and accurate you are. Top players don't win cause they have big distance.
This is a funny thing I always get amused on. Eagle will do like really good for 1 tournament, and everyone is like "omg eagle is so good, he's going to win everything."
Eagle is good, and no he's not. The only way eagle will win everything is if all the courses are wide open distance courses. He's an absolutely astonishing player, but he's not consistent and accurate.
So, at the end of the day, if you control your shots and you can slay the course in your ability, you just rely on the "big arm" guy trying to park the holes and get the max D to make mistakes as you just casually do your thing and beat him.
I've watched the old 80's golfers do this here so many times with the younger guys and take their money. Though, it does help that the old guys bang chains from like 80 and in very consistently. hahaha
