/**/

Collapse

Announcement

No announcement yet.
Collapse

Long game is more important than short game

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Long game is more important than short game

    Originally posted by dlam View Post
    ?...All tour players must have an elite short game to make it to the show....
    Compared to US? Agree

    Compared to the Tour? Disagree

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Long game is more important than short game

      I think the long game has a greater effect and is where I would rather be the best rather than be the best at the short game. Here is why (bear with me):

      - The average pro takes about 70 shots per round.
      - 29 of those are putts leaving 41 shots.
      - 13 of those have no chance of reaching the green (18 tee shots minus 4 par 3’s and a 1 reachable par 4) leaving 28 shots.
      - 2 more shots are lay-ups on par 5’s (average pro “go’s for it” on 50% of par 5’s) leaving 26 shots.
      - I now have 18 “approach shots” to get to the green. Maybe 17 depending where I lay-up my 2 par 5’s. (Presumably if I am really good from more than 100 yards I would not choose to leave myself with 75 yard approach shots, but maybe)
      - That leaves me with 8 or 9 “other shots”. Presumably, short game shots and not penalty strokes. Maybe 1 or 2 of those are “putts” from the fringe that count as short game shots, not putts.

      I have to take those 18 approach shots shots every game. Without fail. I would rather be really good at those 18 shots that I have to hit every single time out than 8 or 9 shots that I may or may not hit. If I am having a really good day and hit my 18 approach shots really well (say 17 greens instead of 12/13), then my short game shots are almost non-existent. If I am to survive as a pro, I have to go low with some consistency. The average pro scramble 55% or so. So I am going to get “up and down” 5 times or so from my “short shots”. But I can’t go low scrambling for par all the time. The only way to go low is to hit my approach shots on the green and close to the pin. That’s how I make birdie’s and eagles. And since I need to make 6-10 birdies to go low, I need a good long game.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Long game is more important than short game

        Nice analysis there.


        The tour winners typically have under 5 shots per round under 100 yards, excluding putts.

        They will have more tee shots than short shots (inside 100).

        They will have more approach shots outside 100 than inside 100.

        I heard a comment that Hogan had an average short game. Maybe our resident hogan expert has some insight...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Long game is more important than short game

          Personally, i'm a mid to high handicapper and i notice that my lowest rounds happen when my long game ball striking is hot. I could imagine how much lower i would shoot if i could stop leaving chips and pitches short. lol

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Long game is more important than short game

            Originally posted by NickStarchuk View Post

            This part is my opinion - I think amateurs would benefit even more from a long game than a short game. If we remove OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact, the score will come down MUCH faster than working on short game.
            Another reason being that the amateur is probably shorter off the tee and finds himself in the danger zone >175yds more often, especially when trying to move back a tee. The more greens he/she can hit from that distance the better chance to score.

            I'm sure some people would argue that hitting greens from >175 is a low percentage and therefore one must practice shots inside 100 yds to make up for their deficiencies at the long game.

            But if you can hit long irons as accurately as short irons or wedges, you're taking a lot of stress off your short game.

            As a high capper myself, I agree with you Nick about eliminating OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact is the fastest way to lower scores. The number of times I've hit a "perfect" tee shot only to top or fat an approach shot into a green side water hazard is infinite. Ever play the Marshes in Ottawa? Most punishing course I've ever played.
            Last edited by The McCleery Crow; Oct 17, 2013, 08:30 AM. Reason: grammar
            It's not the wand. It's the wizard.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Long game is more important than short game

              Originally posted by NickStarchuk View Post
              Unfortunately I think most have been biased by the common cliche of the short game that it will take something more than a genius at MIT with numbers from 10,000,000 over 8 years to convince.

              Remember, this is at the tour level, and it does not include putting.

              A great long game and good short game will beat a good long game and great short game all day.

              This part is my opinion - I think amateurs would benefit even more from a long game than a short game. If we remove OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact, the score will come down MUCH faster than working on short game.

              If you haven't read Rich Hunt (richie3jack) Golf Synopsis, I recommend it Highly.
              Www.3jack.blogspot.com
              Agreed. My good scores come from a really good day with the short game that results in 29 to 31 putts. However it can only get me to a certain level. I played in a scramble event on Monday paired with two guys who compared to me are very long. We shot 4 under with no handicaps on a day when all the pins were set in extremely difficult positions. One putts were hard to make so we ended up with 29 putts with 2 chip ins. Our score was 10 shots better than my best round because of the length off the tee. On the other hand we did use my drives 6 out of 12 times because I was in the fairway. So if I could hit it longer off the tee and keep the rest of my game I could shave off a bunch of strokes. However as I get older that becomes more and more difficult. I guess that the simple solution is to play it forward.
              Aim at nothing and you will hit it every time.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Long game is more important than short game

                After reading every comment and the article on the wrx, I went back and thought about all my low rounds. My short game in most rounds was mediocre at best.

                Of all the good rounds I've had, and countless others I've seen. Not a single time I have participated and thought after the round "his short game was really good today". Its all ball striking.

                If you can hit the green 9/10 times from 175-225 yards alone, hello pga tour.
                Living the dream

                Fitness fanatic, always willing to help other golf nuts with their fitness.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Long game is more important than short game

                  Originally posted by NickStarchuk View Post
                  If we remove OB shots, hazards, and shots with terrible contact, the score will come down MUCH faster than working on short game.
                  Agreed, in my game poor shots cost 10 shots a round while, at best, a superior short game would save 4.

                  If you haven't read Rich Hunt (richie3jack) Golf Synopsis, I recommend it Highly.
                  Www.3jack.blogspot.com
                  Richie is my main source.

                  FWIW, for amateurs he doesn't consider the danger zone to be most important....he considers off the tee to be most important.

                  That said, if I remember correctly, he feels the danger zone for amateurs is 150-200 and encourages amateurs to get better at this zone.
                  I like big putts and I cannot lie
                  You other putters can't deny
                  That when a putt goes in with an itty bitty pace
                  You're gonna fist pump in their face - Sir Putts-A-Lot

                  It's how well you golf fast!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Long game is more important than short game

                    Originally posted by Gridiron View Post
                    I think the long game has a greater effect and is where I would rather be the best rather than be the best at the short game. Here is why (bear with me):

                    - The average pro takes about 70 shots per round.
                    - 29 of those are putts leaving 41 shots.
                    - 13 of those have no chance of reaching the green (18 tee shots minus 4 par 3’s and a 1 reachable par 4) leaving 28 shots.
                    - 2 more shots are lay-ups on par 5’s (average pro “go’s for it” on 50% of par 5’s) leaving 26 shots.
                    - I now have 18 “approach shots” to get to the green. Maybe 17 depending where I lay-up my 2 par 5’s. (Presumably if I am really good from more than 100 yards I would not choose to leave myself with 75 yard approach shots, but maybe)
                    - That leaves me with 8 or 9 “other shots”. Presumably, short game shots and not penalty strokes. Maybe 1 or 2 of those are “putts” from the fringe that count as short game shots, not putts.

                    I have to take those 18 approach shots shots every game. Without fail. I would rather be really good at those 18 shots that I have to hit every single time out than 8 or 9 shots that I may or may not hit. If I am having a really good day and hit my 18 approach shots really well (say 17 greens instead of 12/13), then my short game shots are almost non-existent. If I am to survive as a pro, I have to go low with some consistency. The average pro scramble 55% or so. So I am going to get “up and down” 5 times or so from my “short shots”. But I can’t go low scrambling for par all the time. The only way to go low is to hit my approach shots on the green and close to the pin. That’s how I make birdie’s and eagles. And since I need to make 6-10 birdies to go low, I need a good long game.
                    I think your analysis is excellent.

                    Some additional thoughts: there seems to be a great variety of opinion about what the definition of short game is. Nick posted a chart that defines the long game as anything over 100 yds, and then the discussion seemed to turn towards 175-250 yds being the critical area to practice for pros.

                    Personally, i consider the short game to be anything from around 120 yds and in. But lets take the 175-250 criterion for long game, and take a pro who averages, say 300yds off the tee-- how often is he going to have a shot from 175-250 yds? Maybe 8 times a round max, depending on the course (certainly not anywhere near the 18 in your analysis above.)? And how often do pros hit the green, on average, from 175-250 yds? Im not sure-- I could look it up but I prefer to guess. Being an accountant, I'll use a conservative estimate-- 38%? So a pro hits the green from that range roughly 3 times out of 8 every round.

                    So lets get to whether that pro should spend the bulk of his time practicing from that range. Lets say he is looking to improve by 10% (this is an extremely immense improvement, beyond any scope of what is normally attained in any category. For instance, a 10% improvement in putting would see the worst putter on tour immediately become the best). Nevertheless, lets assume that practicing from 175-250 garners a 10% improvement in greens hit. This means he goes from 3 greens hit a round to 3.3 (every third round he will hit 1 additional green).

                    Now if the average GIR is 11, the average pro has 7 missed greens a round. Practicing his Long game doesn't even improve his GIR by a full shot a round-- he still has 6 up and downs to make (yes there are some assumptions here, such as not all missed greens are the result of missed approached shots, nevertheless...) If we factor in the other 10 shots that were not long game shots and assume that they were short game shots, this pro now has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17 short game shots on which he can conceivably improve. A 10% improvement in these would contribute 1.7 shots improvement, or roughly 2 full shots every 3 rounds!

                    There are obviously a great many uncertainties and necessary assumptions involved in analyses such as mine, and clearly a pro who averages, say, 278 off the tee will have much different parameters. But no matter what way I look at it, I can't see even an extraordinary improvement of 10% in the 175-250 range reaping tremendous benefits compared to other areas. But I suppose it all depends on individual pro in question. Is Dustin Johnson, who might hit 10 wedges a round going to practice as much with his 4 and 5 iron as he does his wedge? Seems a little silly, wouldn't it?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Long game is more important than short game

                      Correlation is not causation. Ability to hit the green from 175-225 yards is correlated with good performance on the tour. It may simply be the best predictor of good ball striking.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Long game is more important than short game

                        Greg Chalmers was #1 in 2013 for strokes gained putting. Ended up 124th on money list, second last to keep card.

                        Here are some of his stats :
                        GIR from 200+ :166th
                        GIR from 175-200 : 97th
                        Approaches from 200-225 yards : 177th
                        Approaches from 225-250 yards: 152sd

                        Scrambling is 59.33% is ranked 63rd on tour

                        Greens in Regulation Percentage 61.64% for 167th

                        Ranked total #1 putter on tour.

                        ---------------

                        Just proves ball striking is more important
                        Living the dream

                        Fitness fanatic, always willing to help other golf nuts with their fitness.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Long game is more important than short game

                          The reality is the guys on tour are so good in the short game that it is hard to distance yourself from the pack by getting better.

                          From the "Danger Zone" there is a ton of room to distance yourself. Back at his peak, Tiger was gaining almost 2 shots a round on Par 5's and long Par 4's.

                          Amazingly, Jim Furyk carries a very good (Top 10) "Danger Zone" rating as does Graham Deleat.
                          I like big putts and I cannot lie
                          You other putters can't deny
                          That when a putt goes in with an itty bitty pace
                          You're gonna fist pump in their face - Sir Putts-A-Lot

                          It's how well you golf fast!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Long game is more important than short game

                            Originally posted by tigerphan View Post
                            Greg Chalmers was #1 in 2013 for strokes gained putting. Ended up 124th on money list, second last to keep card.

                            Here are some of his stats :
                            GIR from 200+ :166th
                            GIR from 175-200 : 97th
                            Approaches from 200-225 yards : 177th
                            Approaches from 225-250 yards: 152sd

                            Scrambling is 59.33% is ranked 63rd on tour

                            Greens in Regulation Percentage 61.64% for 167th

                            Ranked total #1 putter on tour.

                            ---------------

                            Just proves ball striking is more important
                            Here then is the problem when stats are invoked to try to explain results that have far too many variables to be accounted for by simple analysis. Referencing Nick's chart: Tiger is #1 in long game and #1 in putting, and ranked #1 overall. Which of long game and putting is "more important" to being ranked #1 overall?

                            As the saying goes, you can dissect a cat, but all you get in the end is an unworking cat. In this case, Greg Chalmers has poor long game stats and supreme putting stats. But what does that tell us? If the long game matters "more" than putting, could he have finished way down the list in putting and still finished as high on the money list? Seems unlikely. So, in other words, putting mattered a great deal to Greg Chalmers.

                            Referencing Nick's chart, Luke Donald has inferior long game stats and good putting stats, and makes the top 10 list. Vijay has supreme Long game stats and terrible putting stats and makes the top 10 list. Multiple ways to skin a cat, no?

                            I think the concept here is "It all depends." Should you practice your long game more if you're a pro? It all depends. If you're Greg Chalmers, probably (although there's no telling if doing so will serve to be a detriment to his putting).If you're Vijay Singh, already second in that stats category but 915th in putting, probably not.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Long game is more important than short game

                              Luke Donald was 65 in long game, far from inferior. Look closer at his stats in other areas too.

                              There is a lot of mention in PRACTICING the short game. What if that's an OLD school way of making the long game ultimately better? It's cliche and I challenge you to sit back and do the math and ask your self which Super Pill do you want... Wedging around the green or hitting long irons & tee shots where you look?

                              If you want to prioritize your training based on what's important, these are the areas.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Long game is more important than short game

                                I've always maintained that hitting more GIR will have a more dramatic effect on everyone's score than any other area. That plays into being better off the tee and from the fairway - long game. I'll take a better long game all day long. Hoping to improve for next season...this year was a bit of a bust for me. First year of no progress in a long time.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Latest TGN Reviews


                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard


                                Collapse

                                Today's Birthdays


                                Working...
                                X