Long game is more important than short game

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

For touring pros the data makes a lot of sense.. Over the long haul, even the worst short game on tour is pretty exceptional. It's very difficult to gain ground on the field using the flatstick in a world where the worst guy on tour makes 97% from 3ft and the average player makes 50% of his 8 footers.

A great tour wedge player player might chip a straightforward one to 6 inches, but a bad tour player will chip it to 3 feet.. both tap in the putts and will probably gain 0 strokes on the field for the chip and 0 strokes on the field for the putt.

Inside 10ft - best on tour 89%
Inside 10ft - worst on tour 83%

Outside 10ft - best on tour 19%
Outside 10ft - worst on tour 10%


Given those numbers - easiest way to gain strokes on the field, hit more shots inside 10ft.

[Divot Tool]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

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.

I agree with that statement. . .as it is only logical that as we remove bad shots our scores will naturally come down.

However, the data you present while very insightful is only relative to professional golf and would not apply to amateurs. Pros because of their skill level/practice regimen aren't hitting it OB, chunking, duffing, toe hooking it as often as amateurs. . .so that data doesn't reflect the playing amateur public/weekend slasher hacker. Dave Pelz has done various studies on this.

Here are some numbers for the 2013 season per pgatour.com that may help illustrate how accurate these guys truly are.

Leaders in average approaches from 250-275 yds (from fairway)

Rank

1 Martin Kaymer 48' 2" in 10 attempts
2 Ryan Palmer 51' 3" in 23 attempts
3 Erik Compton 52' 9" in 18 attempts

^^^^^
How many amateurs are truly driving the ball 250+ let alone averaging these numbers from the short stuff?

Leaders in average approaches from 200-225 yds (from fairway)

1 Charl Schwartzel 32' 6" in 84 attempts
2 Kyle Stanley 33' 2" in 92 attempts
3 Tiger Woods 33' 4" in 89 attempts

Leaders in average approaches from 175-200 yds (from fairway)

1 Ryan Palmer 26' 4" in 174 attempts
2 Rory McIlroy 27' 3" in 89 attempts
3 Justin Rose 27' 9" in 115 attempts
4 Tiger Woods 28' 3" in 108 attempts

Leaders in average approaches from 175-150 yards (from fairway)

1 Tiger Woods 22' 0" in 131 attempts
2 Phil Mickelson 23' 5" in 146 attempts
3 Vijay Singh 23' 6" in 138 attempts

So given that professional golfers who play for a livelihood are hitting 6,7 8-irons from 175-200 yards and averaging a little under 10 yards, what chance does the average amateur have of replicating that with a long iron or hybrid?

Clearly, amateurs are not going to be flushing 4-irons/hybrids stiff from that range, so their dispersion with those clubs is going to be greater. They are going to be missing the green by 20+ yds. Knowing that, I think amateurs should be working on their pitching, chipping technique with their wedges and not beating balls from 200+ yards with their long irons. . .that in my mind is just asinine.

With regards to driving the ball. I believe it was Hogan who said that the tee shot is the most important shot in golf as it allows you to dictate how aggressive you want to be. Miss the fairway and statistically you will have a tougher time hitting the green. Others in this thread have echoed that and I agree whole-heartedly.

I'll expand on this another time. . .Great thread, Nick.

[SlaytheDragon]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Great topic Nick. It certainly has a lot of us questioning the cliches we have heard over and over. I have thought about my own playing experiences and broken down what aspects of my game were key to my lowest scoring rounds.
There is no questioning the fact that the three times I shot 61 I was firing on all cylinders. I drove it long and accurately, My irons were very accurate and I made a lot of putts.
In 2001, I competed on the Developmental Players tour run by Jack Slocum (Heaths dad) and competed against Bubba Watson, Boo Weekley,Drew Nelson, Jimmie Johnson etc etc. After the first 4 events I led the tour in eagles, GIR and was top 10 in driving distance. That being said, I had not cashed a cheque! The top 10 were paid each event and I was on the outside looking in. I kept a journal and recorded my stats. The two aspects of my game that were not competitive were putting and getting up and down. The first leg of the tour was in south Florida and I struggled terribly with the grainy bermuda greens. I also felt very uncomfortable with the lies around the greens. The ball would sit down in the grass and I hit a lot of knuckleball chip shots that left long par saving putts. I may have only missed 4 or 5 greens a round but they led to bogeys most of the time. This made for volatile looking score cards. I think at the highest level, Ball striking is a premium.
For the average player this applies as well. I think the key question one must ask is, how many penalty strokes do I incur per round. If you are missing fairways and greens, but are proficient enough to advance the ball from tee to green without incurring numerous lost ball penalties, the short game can make a significant scoring difference.
The player who struggles to keep his or her ball in play will suffer the worst, regardless of their short game. Especially considering slow play etiquette where maximums are scored.
Straying from the numbers for a moment, I will say that when my putting was dialed in, it certainly made the rest of the game easier. It took pressure off my long game and I played far more confidently and aggressively. Making 8 - 15 footers eased my chipping fears. No longer fearing missed greens in regulation, I swung the club much better and I hit more greens. Hitting more greens and making more putts provided a scoring cushion that also freed up my Driver.

[Cowboy]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I think the key question one must ask is, how many penalty strokes do I incur per round. If you are missing fairways and greens, but are proficient enough to advance the ball from tee to green without incurring numerous lost ball penalties, the short game can make a significant scoring difference.
The player who struggles to keep his or her ball in play will suffer the worst, regardless of their short game.

My long game is thankfully at the point that a bad driving day doesn't leave me OB all day long. That said, a bad driver day can still quickly ruin a round for me. I definitely agree with the above statement.

[TourIQ]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I've never gone low without long game. I've prevented blow up rounds with short game in absence of long game.
Short game keeps you in it, long game allows for possibility of going low.

I agree with P25, well stated forgedblade

[Playthru]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I've never gone low without long game. I've prevented blow up rounds with short game in absence of long game.

Short game keeps you in it, long game allows for possibility of going low.

Nice summary. Could not agree more.

Whenever I read some expert making disparaging remarks about amateurs spending time hitting balls on the range I cringe. The experts are usually recommending that they spend more time around the greens where a lot of strokes are made. What the experts miss, and I am speaking from personal experience here, is that

1. You enjoy your game a lot more if you can keep the ball in play - regardless of your final score. Scrambling might get you a decent score but it is a lot more stressful.
2. If you really want to go low you have to have a long game, as so well stated by Forgedblade.

[Anthony]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I think I have been saying this over and over in various posts for a long time (and often flamed). If you don't hit it well off the tee, all you're left with is scrambling. Find the fairway, hit a decent second (or third) and you are on or by the green. Having birdie putts or an up and down for par is a lot more fun then searching for your tee shot, grounding it or going ob.....

No I'm not happy with three putts and lousy chips either, but knowing I had a chance at posting a good score on a hole is what I want from my golf game.

I especially liked this from the wrx article......

Currently, the leader in Birdie Zone play is Steve Stricker, who has hit his Birdie Zone shots an average of 15.74 feet to the cup. The average Tour player from the Birdie Zone has hit his shots 20.35 feet to the cup.
The general misconception for golfers, including actual PGA Tour golfers, is that once a good Tour player gets a wedge in their hands they will hit it close and have a tap in putt. But as the data shows, that is far from the reality. The best player from 75-125 yards is averaging almost 16 feet left to the cup on shots from this range. The average Tour player is leaving it over 20 feet to the cup.
Furthermore, the Tour average putts made percentage from 15-20 feet is only 18.3 percent. From 20-25 feet the average make percentage on Tour is 11.7 percent. Therefore, Tour players are not having a lot of tap-ins when they get a full swing wedge in their hand, but also their odds of getting up-and-in with a full swing wedge in their hands are slim at best.


So basically from 75-125 yards pros are not making birdie after birdie. Conversely they aren't making bogeys either. Thus hit the ball in the fairway and you are in great shape. A perfect example is Steve Stricker (and this year, Graham DeLaet).


BTW never have had a good game or a great deal of fun when my driver disappears.....

[longenstrater]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Interesting how an old adage becomes fact for no reason other than because it is stated so many times.
Perhaps it was based on the learning curve for one over the other. Is it easier over the same period of time to control shorter more controlled swings than to try and overcome the flaws of a full swing with all the mental baggage most of us carry with it

[Deryck Griffith]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

There is not question Ball Striking is King.

To Nick's point as it pertains to the every day golfer who has been trained to believe short game is most important, what is the use of a great short game when the short game, for the every day golfer, is strained to save bogey's, and doubles. Blasting a ball off of the tee into the trees, to then hack out, hit a bad iron shot, isn't how I want to play. I would much rather have a strength in ball striking.

Also, keep in mind, your short game will improve WITH GOOD BALL STRIKING. I don't know about everyone else but getting up and down from around the green is much easier when you are just barely missing the green vs. a poor ball striker who misses the green by a large margin. The pros impress us with their short games but we have to remember, they aren't missing greens by much....so getting up and down for them isn't really "that difficult." Take a every day golfer who is a bad ball striker and misses greens terribly (by large margin) and a pro would have a hard time over 18 holes to get up and down consistently from those areas.

I would propose that more than 60% of the average golfers time during practice should be on long game and the remaining 40% of time divided between putting and short game (with the least amount of time in that 40% on putting).

[Golftime]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Great topic Nick. It certainly has a lot of us questioning the cliches we have heard over and over. I have thought about my own playing experiences and broken down what aspects of my game were key to my lowest scoring rounds.
There is no questioning the fact that the three times I shot 61 I was firing on all cylinders. I drove it long and accurately, My irons were very accurate and I made a lot of putts.
In 2001, I competed on the Developmental Players tour run by Jack Slocum (Heaths dad) and competed against Bubba Watson, Boo Weekley,Drew Nelson, Jimmie Johnson etc etc. After the first 4 events I led the tour in eagles, GIR and was top 10 in driving distance. That being said, I had not cashed a cheque! The top 10 were paid each event and I was on the outside looking in. I kept a journal and recorded my stats. The two aspects of my game that were not competitive were putting and getting up and down. The first leg of the tour was in south Florida and I struggled terribly with the grainy bermuda greens. I also felt very uncomfortable with the lies around the greens. The ball would sit down in the grass and I hit a lot of knuckleball chip shots that left long par saving putts. I may have only missed 4 or 5 greens a round but they led to bogeys most of the time. This made for volatile looking score cards. I think at the highest level, Ball striking is a premium.
For the average player this applies as well. I think the key question one must ask is, how many penalty strokes do I incur per round. If you are missing fairways and greens, but are proficient enough to advance the ball from tee to green without incurring numerous lost ball penalties, the short game can make a significant scoring difference.
The player who struggles to keep his or her ball in play will suffer the worst, regardless of their short game. Especially considering slow play etiquette where maximums are scored.
Straying from the numbers for a moment, I will say that when my putting was dialed in, it certainly made the rest of the game easier. It took pressure off my long game and I played far more confidently and aggressively. Making 8 - 15 footers eased my chipping fears. No longer fearing missed greens in regulation, I swung the club much better and I hit more greens. Hitting more greens and making more putts provided a scoring cushion that also freed up my Driver.

I am confused. You described how your long game was great as shown by driving distance and GIRs and your short game killed you but you still believe that the long game is most important. In this case it seems like your ball striking put you in a position to succeed but the short game is where you lost strokes to the field. Do you have similar analysis with greens that you were more comfortable with?
My conclusion is that no matter what level a player is at they need a minimum level of competency with all parts of the game. It starts with avoiding penalties such as OB but a chip followed by a three putt adds up to the same score as three off the tee.

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/jason-sobel/molinari-leading-charge-for-statistical-analysis-long-trumps-short-game/

[The McCleery Crow]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/jaso...ps-short-game/

“You and I are having a match,” the man with nine career professional victories says to a single-digit handicapper. “Would you rather have a match on the putting green, chipping or who hits it longer and straighter? You’d take the putting green every time. At least you’d have a chance. You’d have no chance in the other areas. When you think about it, it makes sense.”

END OF THREAD.

[Thimble]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Long game is becoming more important on the PGA tour because courses have gotten longer since the 90s. You could call it "the Tiger factor". On a 480 yard par 4, it's the long game that's gonna get you an easy par. And it's not just accuracy - you need distance as well. It's too bad we don't have "shots gained" from the earlier eras. I think we'd see more significance on short game on shots gained.

[The Troll]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Long game is becoming more important on the PGA tour because courses have gotten longer since the 90s. You could call it "the Tiger factor". On a 480 yard par 4, it's the long game that's gonna get you an easy par. And it's not just accuracy - you need distance as well. It's too bad we don't have "shots gained" from the earlier eras. I think we'd see more significance on short game on shots gained.

Andrew Rice drew the same conclusion that Nicklaus's dominance was largely due to his dominance in "danger zone".

[Golftime]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

“You and I are having a match,” the man with nine career professional victories says to a single-digit handicapper. “Would you rather have a match on the putting green, chipping or who hits it longer and straighter? You’d take the putting green every time. At least you’d have a chance. You’d have no chance in the other areas. When you think about it, it makes sense.”

END OF THREAD.

Just a little further down in the article you will find this quote. “Lower scores come from improving weaknesses while maintaining – or even improving – strengths,” he continues. “Strokes-gained analysis makes it much easier to identify those strengths and weaknesses.”