Long game is more important than short game

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

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.

Where do you see that tour level putters miss 70%-90% from 10'?

Here is inside 10': http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.484.html#2013

Leader is 90%; #125 is 86% - these are their conversion rates, not miss rates

Here is from 10': http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.348.html#2013

Leader is 58%; #125 is 36%


Those 5 examples as to why you can't practice what you need to are excuses. I understand not being able to afford it (b) or find time to practice (a), however if you do practice, why not practice what is important, so long as its a priority for your game? (d) is 'poor' swing. Thank you for proving my point that one must improve their striking to get better. If the player CHOOSES not to work on this, so be it, but it doesn't mean its the right thing to do. As far as being physically unable, I can definitely understand that one but it doesn't remove the priority for good ball striking. If that player is limited to how far they can hit it, fine, but if they are making poor contact, its proving my point once again.


I love the debate and I definitely appreciate your thought process here Exile.

If a player improves a certain area of their game, their game will improve. If you become a better bunker player and only hit 2 bunkers per round, this may save 1 or 2 shots in that round, but if a player is a poor driver of the ball he can save more shots by better drives than he ever will with better chips.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Where do you see that tour level putters miss 70%-90% from 10'?

Here is inside 10': http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.484.html#2013

Leader is 90%; #125 is 86% - these are their conversion rates, not miss rates

Here is from 10': http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.348.html#2013

Leader is 58%; #125 is 36%

I cheated on my data a little bit Inside 10ft isn't helpful cause it's includes the 3footers which are all > 95%.. The number was I trying to extrapolate was 'one putts from 10ft' but the tour data isn't helpful. The total 10ft putting stat includes comebackers or ones left short where they got to see some of the read. I decided best case scenario is they 1putt from 10ft 30% (a little under 36% for total made putts from 10ft) and worst 10%.

Those 5 examples as to why you can't practice what you need to are excuses. I understand not being able to afford it (b) or find time to practice (a), however if you do practice, why not practice what is important, so long as its a priority for your game? (d) is 'poor' swing. Thank you for proving my point that one must improve their striking to get better. If the player CHOOSES not to work on this, so be it, but it doesn't mean its the right thing to do. As far as being physically unable, I can definitely understand that one but it doesn't remove the priority for good ball striking. If that player is limited to how far they can hit it, fine, but if they are making poor contact, its proving my point once again.

Again we aren't defining a golfer or defining an improvement goal, or where their short game is, so it's tough to confirm a priority. I'm still a firm believer that the reason the long game is the way to improve on tour is because of the quality of the short games and the lack of variance (everyone has a great short game, and everyone makes makeable putts).


If your short game is where it needs to be for your 'field', and you're trying to gain 2 strokes on the field, I 100% agree that it's much more logical to improve your long game.

However, if you are a) not a good short game player for your 'field' or b) not a good putter for your 'field', both of these disproportionally hurt any improvement in your long game.

Say you're talking about a 15hcap from 175 yards..

ie: If your scrambling is 10% when you miss the green by 5 yards and 8% when you miss the green by 20 yards.. what do you gain by hitting your 175 yard approach shot 15 yards better? How much work and effort & practice does it take to improve your long iron accuracy by 15 yards? (IMHO: a lot!)..

How much effort and practice does it take to hit your 15 yard chips 5ft closer (IMHO: not nearly as much!)

Which use of your time will get you to a 13hcap faster?

I love the debate and I definitely appreciate your thought process here Exile.

As do I! The data is compelling for tour players and it's great to be able to discuss how to improve ams outside the normal 'short game short game short game' box with some numbers associated with it..

I just don't think that data is *necessarily* dictating long game is more important for ams - it's saying it's more important if your "field" has a very small short game/putting variance (and/or if you're in the upper half of your fields short game/putting).

If a player improves a certain area of their game, their game will improve. If you become a better bunker player and only hit 2 bunkers per round, this may save 1 or 2 shots in that round, but if a player is a poor driver of the ball he can save more shots by better drives than he ever will with better chips.

Agree - which is why the tour data is meaningless to joe amateur

They're all exceptionally talented golfers and almost all areas of their games are similar to eachother than dissimilar (in the grand scheme of golf) - trying to figure out how to improve 0.3 shots per round playing a field of exceptionally talented players is different than trying to shave 3 shots of a double digit handicap.


What's important is accurately identifying where *you* are dropping strokes, and how *you* can make them up.

[TourIQ]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Nick you forgot to add "need to know how to practice".
If a golfer does not know the HOW then what's the point.
This is where you come in.

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Say you're talking about a 15hcap from 175 yards..

ie: If your scrambling is 10% when you miss the green by 5 yards and 8% when you miss the green by 20 yards.. what do you gain by hitting your 175 yard approach shot 15 yards better? How much work and effort & practice does it take to improve your long iron accuracy by 15 yards? (IMHO: a lot!)..

How much effort and practice does it take to hit your 15 yard chips 5ft closer (IMHO: not nearly as much!)

That same 175 swing is used 35-40 times per round so by extrapolating that throughout the course, I think its used a higher percentage of the time.

If it takes 'a lot' to improve your iron accuracy at 15 yards maybe you have the wrong concept.. or coach

[goudok]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

This thread is very interesting, however one might say golf course is a golf course and doesnt matter what course you play long game is long game, but that is not entirely true. Courses that PROS play and courses that we play are completely different. Most courses we play don't penalize us that much from hitting out of the rough due to A) lie in the rough being not that much worse and B) greens being way more receptive. How many amateurs do you play with on a regular basis that will hit a driver off any tee regardless of the shape of the hole and width of the fairway. With pros this is completely different, you will see them hitting 3/5 woods, hybrids and even irons on holes that are over 400 yards just to find the fairway, because they know hitting 170 -190 from the fairway is alot easier than hitting 170-190 out of the rough that they play, and making the ball actually sit and not release off the green.
If we consider all pros having above average short game which is a legitimate assesment, then hitting shots from 170-200 becomes very important.
Just like others have said you need to practice what will make YOU better not what you like to practice, more ofthen than not we (amaterus) practice what we are good at because it is fun being dialed in on the range. For me to get to that next level i need to practice short game not long, but that is just me.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

That same 175 swing is used 35-40 times per round so by extrapolating that throughout the course, I think its used a higher percentage of the time.

If it takes 'a lot' to improve your iron accuracy at 15 yards maybe you have the wrong concept.. or coach

Maybe.. But if it's really that easy to to tighten up 15 yards on a 175 yard shot..and my average now is 20 yds..then just a little time and 'not a lot' of effort with the right coach will have me average 5yds from the pin from 175, right?? Sign me up.. Hopefully we can tighten it up even more from 100 yds and every approach will be in the bottom of the cup.

PS Tiger woods leads tour from 150-175 and is at 6.6yds.. where he makes around 14%.. and 3 putts .. 0% of the time. An amateur is much much much more likely to 3pt from this distance than 1putt.. So even if you match tiger's iron accuracy, the more important factor on your score from 150-175yds with best on tour accuracy is 3pt avoidance.

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

PS Tiger woods leads tour from 150-175 and is at 6.6yds.. where he makes around 14%.. and 3 putts .. 0% of the time. An amateur is much much much more likely to 3pt from this distance than 1putt.. So even if you match tiger's iron accuracy, the more important factor on your score from 150-175yds with best on tour accuracy is 3pt avoidance.

I don't understand your point. That's not short game, that's putting. And Nick has said all along that putting is important. His arguement is that the long game is more important than the short game. Since in this example there is no short game, I guess it supports his arguement. Pracitce the long game and putting as these contribute the most to a lower score.

[low fade]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Interesting comment from Phil Mickelson yesterday that he feels "Completely lost right now" as apparently he isn't hitting the ball well at all.

He shot 1 under yesterday.

I guess it illustrates the point that this is a complicated topic, that there is no such thing as "more important part of the game" that a great short game won't necessarily help players shoot great scores, but it will certainly keep you in the game.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I don't understand your point. That's not short game, that's putting. And Nick has said all along that putting is important. His arguement is that the long game is more important than the short game. Since in this example there is no short game, I guess it supports his arguement. Pracitce the long game and putting as these contribute the most to a lower score.

Yes I got sidetracked by the promise of being better than tiger from 175 without much practice in the world where I have tour level ball striking and tour level putting , and a tour level short game, long game is where to work, the data support this.

Back to reality .. I'm not going to hit my 175yd shots to 20ft.. Im probably going to have a short game shot more frequently than 2putt par optty.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Interesting comment from Phil Mickelson yesterday that he feels "Completely lost right now" as apparently he isn't hitting the ball well at all.

He shot 1 under yesterday.

I guess it illustrates the point that this is a complicated topic, that there is no such thing as "more important part of the game" that a great short game won't necessarily help players shoot great scores, but it will certainly keep you in the game.

There you go..if you mishit a shot outside 100yds..you have a wedge in your hand and an optty to make par..if you mishit a shot inside 100yds, you have dropped atleast 1 shot to par.


Where mishit from > 100 means leaving yourself a short game shot
And where mishit from < 100 means leaving yourself a putt that's less than a 50% make, or worse a 3putt optty or another short game optty

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Interesting comment from Phil Mickelson yesterday that he feels "Completely lost right now" as apparently he isn't hitting the ball well at all.

He shot 1 under yesterday.

I guess it illustrates the point that this is a complicated topic, that there is no such thing as "more important part of the game" that a great short game won't necessarily help players shoot great scores, but it will certainly keep you in the game.

Maybe, but since Phil hit 83.3% of his greens in reg yesterday (15 greens) I would say it was his long game from 100 yards and out that helped him the most. Since he only missed 3 greens his short game wasn't much of a factor.

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

For those saying the research doesn't apply to the amateur game, the author of the book on this disagrees:

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

"Here’s where Broadie’s research could change the entire spectrum of how the game is played, not just at its uppermost levels. Not only does his analysis favor long game over short game for touring professionals, the results remain consistent for amateurs, as well.

He knows this because for the past decade, Broadie has mapped every single shot in every group in which he’s played. He’ll laser each yardage, take note of each club and write down each result. (And no, it remarkably doesn’t take him any longer to play than anyone else.) These findings will be released in the book, but they mirror those of game’s best.

In other words, work on your long game."

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

There you go..if you mishit a shot outside 100yds..you have a wedge in your hand and an optty to make par..if you mishit a shot inside 100yds, you have dropped atleast 1 shot to par.


Where mishit from > 100 means leaving yourself a short game shot
And where mishit from < 100 means leaving yourself a putt that's less than a 50% make, or worse a 3putt optty or another short game optty

Phil didn't hit 15 GIR by mishitting shots from outside of 100 yards and getting up and down for par. He did it by hitting the shots from outside of 100 yards on the green.

His short game didn't seem to be able to save him from his 2 double bogeys on the 2 of 3 holes he missed the GIR.

[The Troll]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Richie3jack, who produces the great Danger Zone data, has stated that he thinks for amateurs that driving is the greatest area for score improvement.

He also defines the "Danger Zone" for amateurs as being 150 - 200 yards.

I have done some considerable reflection on the games of at least 100 members from my last course plus the recent rounds I have played with other people.

In my case, fixing my driving is, as R3j says, job 1.

But I disagree with him that it is the priority for most amateurs.

At my previous course, there really isn't a wide variance in putting talent. If I take away the best and worst putter I know, I consider the field to be pretty even. My bet would be, as a group, the putting average would be around 32.

As for short game, they is certainly a wider variance in talent meaning room for improvement. That said, I still don't see any of these guys going from a 10 to scratch by getting better at their short game.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that where 8-18 handicappers suck the most is 150 - 200 yards. As a group I would almost use the word useless. Luckily it is an area I'm very good at but when I think of all the people I play with this is the weak link.

So it begs the question, better the short game or fix the biggest reason you need your short game.

This year, I worked with a very good short game instructor in the US. Since then I can think of 3 rounds where my short game was stunning....in each case, my long game was horrid so all a stunning short game did was keep my score in my normal area.

Truth is, all a better short game has done for me is limit the top end damage rather than get me lower. My last three rounds have been three of my best ever and they were all great driving rounds.

My conclusion for amateurs is that danger zone and driving are most important. Truth is, for most, a better short game will lead to easier two putts rather than fewer two putts.

Exile....if you are at Berkeley Hall I hope you take advantage of Andrew Rice's teaching. His ideas impress me quite a bit.

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Just to clarify..It's probable that I'm totally wrong..and the data for amateurs is close or the same..

The problem is we have no data on amateurs, and i think it's a big leap to look at how the literally best 180 players in the world have to gain strokes on eachother and use that a blueprint for people trying to break 70, 80, 90, 100, etc..


Pelz has lots of amateur data, but at this point it's mostly short game data as he does most of his research on people at his schools..not sure how big his sample is for amateurs overall..

For elite amateurs is suspect shotbyshot has some good data..but for how 10, 20 and 30 caps compare..not sure we'll ever know.