Long game is more important than short game

[Ignatius Reilly]

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.

I'm not sure I understand that analogy .

If a pro dominates the normal guy in hitting and chipping, but is less dominant on the green... then the pro ought to be spending his time where there's the least difference between him and a regular guy (as if single cap is regular...).

So that would be the green.

Anyway, Nick's original question was where should a PRO focus his practice time - so it doesn't really matter how they compare to regular guys in different areas of the game. I assume their goal is to beat other pros!

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I find it funny that some say that its the opposite for amateurs, like they can't let go of the fallacy that it's all about short game.

what if the short game was even LESS important to the average player?

I think a mediocre chip and a 2 putt for bogey is just fine where a tee shot behind a tree or a fat approach shot would most likely give you no chance to make that bogey.

Remember, the average PGA tour player gets up and down HALF the time. If 50% is elite, then what is considered good for an AM? 30%? 25%?

AND... a great putt can make up for a weak chip. The more I think about it the more obvious it appears that chips and bunker shots hit close is not all that important if you've focused on the long game and putting.

[The McCleery Crow]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

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.”

He also states in the article “When I compare the top players on the PGA Tour, I find that the long game contributes about two-thirds to their success while the short game and putting contributes about one-third,”

I'm not sure I understand that analogy .

If a pro dominates the normal guy in hitting and chipping, but is less dominant on the green... then the pro ought to be spending his time where there's the least difference between him and a regular guy (as if single cap is regular...).

So that would be the green.

Anyway, Nick's original question was where should a PRO focus his practice time - so it doesn't really matter how they compare to regular guys in different areas of the game. I assume their goal is to beat other pros!

See Above. (The end of thread comment was just melodrama)

The guys that are on top of the money list tend to be the best long game players on tour referring both to the Golf Channel and GolfWRX article. The guy with lowest avg putts per round is probably contending for the title that week. Even if his long game isn't as good against the field.

But the numbers in these articles above seem to suggest that the best long game players put themselves in a position to win more often and therefore when their putting gets hot they're at or near the top of the leaderboard. Tiger Woods is the obvious example.

[tigerphan]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

"an average Joe named Homer Kelley played golf for the first time and scored 116-a respectable score for a beginner, but frustrating for a science-minded perfectionist like Kelley. He did not play again for six months; then when he did, he carded a seventy-seven"

Better ball striking better results.

Another thing about short game, when your long game is good and you can miss in the right areas. The chips are easier making for a larger percentage of up and downs.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I find it funny that some say that its the opposite for amateurs, like they can't let go of the fallacy that it's all about short game.

what if the short game was even LESS important to the average player?

Well unfortunately we don't have shotlink to tell us

Keep in mind the data used is for strokes gained on the field .. where a lot of the field is substantially under par as a stroke average, and all of the field has a PGA caliber short game. So you're not even measuring shots lost to par - you're measuring strokes lost to *birdie* (or gained on par) - I'm not sure this data directly translates to anyone but top tier amateur players.

Secondly - remember that the long game stats are tied to the short game stats. Hitting a 200yard shot to 5ft is only valuable to a tour player because they're going to convert the putt > 80% of the time. If their short games weren't so good, the return on a well executed long game shot would be lower. Hitting it to 20ft and 2 putting isn't any better than hitting it to 4ft and 2 putting.


Lastly - when applying it to amateurs, what's the goal? Is it how best to get a 15hcap to a 14hcap? How to get an 8cap to break par? How to win your B flight club championship?

Strokes lost to par is not the same as strokes gained on the field. If you want to win your B flight club championship, it's *very* possible that the best way to do that against *your field* is to get your inside 10ft putting conversions from 10% to 15%, depending on how many of those you/the field have in a round.


The data is certainly compelling for tour players, and it's a great conversation starter to talk about what amateurs should be working on, but I would say the data is mostly meaningless for your average joe.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

AND... a great putt can make up for a weak chip. The more I think about it the more obvious it appears that chips and bunker shots hit close is not all that important if you've focused on the long game and putting.

Say whaaaattt? In the grand scheme of golf, there are no great putts, only make percentages. You might be right on bunker shots - it's strictly dependant on how many bunker shots a round you take, and the number of strokes you average from the trap.. (which, like chipping below, is mostly the math on your putt make % and your avg bunker leave distance).

However, The better your long game is, the more easy/straightforward short chip opportunities you have.. getting those up and down is key. The *only way* to get those up and down more often than not, is to hit them to a distance where you *make the putt more often than not*.

For the sake of the argument, let's say a great amateur putter is as good as the median tour putter for a given range.

Let's see how said amazing amateur putters scrambling %'s will look based on median on tour level putting averages for 2013 and proximity to hole:

chip leave to 15-20ft range: 17%
chip leave to 10-15ft range: 29%
chip leave to 5-10ft range: 54%
chip leave to 3-5ft range: 86%
chip leave to 3ft: 99%

Now back to reality where joe golfer isn't the median putter in each category on tour..


Pelz says amateurs are more like 85% on the 3fters, and more like 23% at 10ft and 13% from 15-20ft..

If you want to make more putts, hit your wedges closer.


** Also since we're talking scrambling..the numbers above were for total putting..rest assured the 1 putt %'s are lower.

[TourIQ]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

If you want to make more putts, hit your wedges closer.

A guy came to Harvey Penick and wanted to improve his short game, so Harvey took him on a playing lesson.
After the round, Harvey informed the elite golfer his problem was not with his short game, he needed to hit his approach shots closer to the pin

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

^^^^ Both of Exile's posts are very good.

The more I think about it though, I come back to something I (and others) said earlier - the way to get better is to improve your weakest area without regressing in the areas you're already good at.

I don't think a good ballstriker - pro or average joe - with a mediocre short game should focus on becoming an even better ballstriker. He should be working on his short game.

And vice versa.

The pros are really almost playing a different game than we do. So for them, lost and OB balls are pretty rare. They just don't have many strokes lost to those. But I still see a number of 3 putts - I'm pretty sure I see a lot more of those than provisionals hit and played.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

The more I think about it though, I come back to something I (and others) said earlier - the way to get better is to improve your weakest area without regressing in the areas you're already good at.

I don't think a good ballstriker - pro or average joe - with a mediocre short game should focus on becoming an even better ballstriker. He should be working on his short game.

And vice versa.

Mostly agree Since this conversation (atleast started as) being data driven - I'd just add the following datapoints:

a) we don't have infinite practice time
b) amateurs do have physical/mental/etc limitations or a 'ceiling' on certain parts of their game
b) the pareto principle (80/20) rule applies

aka...Sometimes it's better to devote your time to what you *can* improve than what you *should* improve.

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Putting is not included in short game.

One can say that they need to hit their wedges closer and another can say improve your putting. Why not improve what you do most in a round of golf... 32 putts per round plus 32+ shots outside 100 yards. this encompasses the majority of your score. Nicklaus said he didn't need to be a good chipper because he was a good putter.

If you want to make more putts, be a better putter. Regardless if the shot from 10' is for birdie or a par save, you still have to make that putt.

That 200 yard shot to 5' for a pro is great but might be 3+ strokes gained for an Amateur, so would that shot be much more important for an AM?

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Sometimes it's better to devote your time to what you *can* improve than what you *should* improve.

Why can't you improve what you should improve?

[bilinguru]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Personally, I don't think you can exclude putting from the short game. If you do, then you are saying that Fred Funk is one of the greatest players out there as he hits the fairway off the tee more than anyone else. Adam Scott is one of the best drivers on the PGA tour, but it wasn't until he started holing putts again that his game really took off. Tiger and Phil spray tee shots all over the place, but it is their ability to scramble that makes them so strong.
And, by long game you say you mean every shot over 100 yards. To me 'long game' means shots using more than a 7 iron, which pros hit pretty long. Sounds like a lot of people are talking about the 'mid' game being the most important. For the pros, I tend to agree that more shots are gained by stiffing approaches from 150-200 yds than in any other part of their games.
Of course, the game is far more enjoyable when you aren't taking OB penalty strokes, playing from behind a tree, or just playing from out of the rough, but for us amateurs it is putting that makes all the difference.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Putting is not included in short game.

One can say that they need to hit their wedges closer and another can say improve your putting. Why not improve what you do most in a round of golf... 32 putts per round plus 32+ shots outside 100 yards. this encompasses the majority of your score. Nicklaus said he didn't need to be a good chipper because he was a good putter.

One can say whatever they want. The data is the data.

The data is saying is that even a *tour level putter* will miss 70-90% of their putts from 10ft. So you can practice your putting all you want and become tour level, if you keep leaving yourself 10 footers, you will miss them. If you can hit the same shot to inside 5ft, you have an even money chance of making it even if you're a poor putter.

So, given a limited amount of practice time, where to you get your best returns? Working on your 10ft putts or working on hitting your chips to 5'?

If you want to make more putts, be a better putter. Regardless if the shot from 10' is for birdie or a par save, you still have to make that putt.

You wont 90% of the time even if you're an above average putter. Stop leaving yourself 10' for par.

That 200 yard shot to 5' for a pro is great but might be 3+ strokes gained for an Amateur, so would that shot be much more important for an AM?

It would absolutely be more important for the AM. However we still haven't defined who the am is. Elite level amateur? absolutely they should be working to improve this.

18 handicap who hits 4 GIRs a round and has 1 hour every 2 weeks to practice, and wants to get to a 15 handicap? Odds are they will have a greater ROI on their time working on improving a mechanically/physically simpler stroke (putting, chipping, short wedges, etc)..

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Why can't you improve what you should improve?

Limited resources.. where resources are some combination of:
a) time (limited time to practice)
b) money (limited access to quality instruction)
c) physical limitations (injuries, poor flexibility, etc)
d) ingrained swing habits (which may take a lot of *time* to undo)
e) poor practice habits (rake and whack rake and whack)


It's not that you can't improve an area of your game, it's that in some areas of your game it's unlikely you'll be able to improve *enough*. So developing a improvement plan is not just identifying where you're weak, it's identifying where you're weak but that you can quickly become strong.

Depending on your goals, moving from weak to less weak in a given area wont translate to any performance improvement.

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Personally, I don't think you can exclude putting from the short game. If you do, then you are saying that Fred Funk is one of the greatest players out there as he hits the fairway off the tee more than anyone else. Adam Scott is one of the best drivers on the PGA tour, but it wasn't until he started holing putts again that his game really took off. Tiger and Phil spray tee shots all over the place, but it is their ability to scramble that makes them so strong.
And, by long game you say you mean every shot over 100 yards. To me 'long game' means shots using more than a 7 iron, which pros hit pretty long. Sounds like a lot of people are talking about the 'mid' game being the most important. For the pros, I tend to agree that more shots are gained by stiffing approaches from 150-200 yds than in any other part of their games.
Of course, the game is far more enjoyable when you aren't taking OB penalty strokes, playing from behind a tree, or just playing from out of the rough, but for us amateurs it is putting that makes all the difference.

Well, we can all redefine the terms short game/long game/putting any way we want but the fact is if for the purposes of the discussion if we all don't follow one defined measure then they whole discussion is pointless. So we can go with 3 defined points or a free for all as to what means what.

And if any part of the game needs it's own seperate factor it's putting. It is completely unlike any other part of the game. So it should be it's own category and not part of the "short game".

As for Adam Scott "taking off" once he started putting better, has he really?
Strokes Gained Putting

2013 rank 102 +.001
2012 rand 148 -.204
2011 rank 143 -.172
2010 rank 186 -.746
2009 rank 180 -.888
2008 rank 178 -.436
2007 rank .127 +.127
2006 rank 149 -.194
2005 102 rank +.021
2004 rank 1st +.909
So for all this time, he really hasn't gained/lost that much on the field, so it would seem the answer for his improvement in the game lies elsewhere. And it would seem to be in ball striking:
Year Rank
2013 7
2012 30
2011 13
2010 23
2009 130
2008 110
2007 60
2006 10
2005 64
2004 93
Ball Stiking = Rank in total driving + rank in GIR