Long game is more important than short game

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

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.

Do you play with a lot of 15 handicaps who hit 15GIRs when they aren't hitting the ball well?

[exile]

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."

Will be really exciting of Broadie actually publishes his version of the shotlink data - atleast it's something.. Hopefully he's played a few hundred thousand rounds of golf with a very wide range of handicaps

[exile]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

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

Yep I had the chance to work with him a little bit last year - Planning a lot this year.. He and Joseph Mayo have done some fantastic work on ballflight.

[Mellowg]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I havent completely read every single post in this thread so I wont comment on other peoples posts and sorry if I'm repeating anything.

I am also not a professional nor do I know "proper technique" so this is all IN MY OPINION.

But based on my own game. I've noticed my short game is more important if I factor consistency to be the same and not factoring out of bounds which trumps both as it adds unnecessary strokes without gains in distance or ball placement.

Obviously having an odd day on either long or short affects my game dramatically but a bad short game day adds way more strokes than a bad long game day.

For me as long as my long game is playable I can usually get it around or on the green for birdie or add a stroke or very rarely adding 2 strokes tops. If I cant chip im adding strokes either by sending it flying in which case I have to chip again at a similar or further distance or sending the ball a few feet forward and or no where. Also if I'm having a bad day putting I will add an unnecessary 1-2 strokes

Long game is more forgiving as it is a better balance of power and control. You can screw one up but the other factors can still make it a decent shot/gain in yardage. Long game is also more of a focus on distance than ball placement IMO. Placement is obviously still important especially when hazards come in play but not as much when you compare it to short game which is important on every hole. The only time long game is a noticable factor for me are long par 4s where to get on or around the green for a decent chance at birdie or par requires maximum yardages with my clubs or if there is a hazard such as a river just at the bottom of my driving distance range in which case I have to get it over.
Otherwise, on a regular hole that fits my distance range for my clubs, even if im short 20 yards because of a less than perfect hit I can compensate with my next shot and chances are I can recover or atleast get it close enough for a decent chip and putt.

Short game is way more finesse and control than power and if you cant play short game well it is not forgiving at all. Most of the time it requires the ball to be placed in a certain radius that is a lot smaller or tighter than for long game shots. You cannot scramble to fix bad short game shots as every short game shot should be relatively accurate and youre already playing close to par so each stroke counts. Even with a good long game and you set yourself up for eagle birdie, if you cant finish it you can still end up with a bogey or worse.

The last aspect I can think of that makes short game more important is the mental aspect of golf. Not hitting 200+ everytime wont make me overthink and as long as I dont hit it OB then I know I can still play it without major effect on stroke count but if I have a few bad chips or putts it can throw off my game completely because I've added strokes that I feel I could have easily put close to the pin or should have set me up for an easy putt. I think I've become accustomed to the fact I can recover and still get par on less that perfect long hits where as if I miss a chip or an easy putt it will really throw me off mentally.

I still find short game more important and as many people have said you need both and should improve both however if I have an acceptable long and short game I would focus more on my short to build consistency and to keep a consistent low score vs trying to get to 61 while shooting 80s in between.

The last argument I can think of for short game are those old korean ladies I always see playing at rolling hills. They never hit it 200+ yards but they are always holding their own because every shot counts. They always hit their drives straight and their fairways straight without crazy distance but the most important thing is they dont take 2-3 putts or 2-3 chips which helps them put up decent numbers. Even with 180ish drives they still can make green or around green for birdie/par.

[low fade]

Re: Long game is more important than short 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.

Ok, I don't understand this thread now. It went from long game being 175-250 yards, now long game is anything over 100 yards.

I would also take Phil Mickelson's word when he says that he isn't swinging the club well over the folks on here who would argue with him. He didnt shoot 1 under because he was stellar from 175-250 yesterday.

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Ok, I don't understand this thread now. It went from long game being 175-250 yards, now long game is anything over 100 yards.

I would also take Phil Mickelson's word when he says that he isn't swinging the club well over the folks on here who would argue with him. He didnt shoot 1 under because he was stellar from 175-250 yesterday.

Check posts 7 & 9 from this posts as to what long/short are in regards to OP

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Do you play with a lot of 15 handicaps who hit 15GIRs when they aren't hitting the ball well?

No but you seem to like changing your point when your original thought comes up wrong. Your post was about Phil who I don't think is a 15 handicap

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Taking phil's score from yesterday plus his words on his own feel of his game and we came to the conclusion that his short game was good? its all relevant to what PHIL's idea on bad is and when you take 80%+ GIR, I think I can rest my case. Even when you hit it "bad" and hit 15 greens, you can still score. He made 2 double bogeys that were not a result of short game shots.

Instead of saying that his short game kept him IN IT, maybe his long game took him OUT OF IT.

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I imagine for Nick this thread is somewhat like a Trackman/Flightscope thread from 10 years ago (does the face control initial direction or does the path?).

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

I imagine for Nick this thread is somewhat like a Trackman/Flightscope thread from 10 years ago (does the face control initial direction or does the path?).

The old school theories meet new school science. some aren't ready for the real world truth!

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Taking phil's score from yesterday plus his words on his own feel of his game and we came to the conclusion that his short game was good? its all relevant to what PHIL's idea on bad is and when you take 80%+ GIR, I think I can rest my case. Even when you hit it "bad" and hit 15 greens, you can still score. He made 2 double bogeys that were not a result of short game shots.

Instead of saying that his short game kept him IN IT, maybe his long game took him OUT OF IT.

So... if his long game took him out of it and he hit 15 GIR... um... what.....?

I see the definitions of short and long game have been somewhat elastic in the thread, but if you hit 15 GIR, do you really need to work on your long game.

Do you?

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

So... if his long game took it out of it and he hit 15 GIR... um... what.....?

I see the definitions of short and long game have been somewhat elastic in the thread, but if you hit 15 GIR, do you really need to work on your long game.

Do you?

If the long game was the reason for your 2 double bogies and losing 4 shots or more to the leader......yes

[NickStarchuk]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

So... if his long game took it out of it and he hit 15 GIR... um... what.....?

I see the definitions of short and long game have been somewhat elastic in the thread, but if you hit 15 GIR, do you really need to work on your long game.

Do you?

In General, NO his long game based on the GIR stat is just fine.

When you look closer, his long game also accounted for his 2 double bogeys.

Should he go work on his short game or the causes for the doubles?

At the very least, some people are thinking twice about what they 'know' about golf. That was the intent of this thread.

[low fade]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Taking phil's score from yesterday plus his words on his own feel of his game and we came to the conclusion that his short game was good? its all relevant to what PHIL's idea on bad is and when you take 80%+ GIR, I think I can rest my case. Even when you hit it "bad" and hit 15 greens, you can still score. He made 2 double bogeys that were not a result of short game shots.

Instead of saying that his short game kept him IN IT, maybe his long game took him OUT OF IT.

Very self righteous attitude, I must say.

My point is you and others keep changing the definition of long game to fit your needs. To me a pitching wedge is not "long game", and certainly not 175-250 yards, which was the criterion I referred to. Phil had 8 approach shots from within 140 yds yesterday, one would expect him to hit a high percentage of greens from that distance.

[Gridiron]

Re: Long game is more important than short game

Very self righteous attitude, I must say.

My point is you and others keep changing the definition of long game to fit your needs. To me a pitching wedge is not "long game", and certainly not 175-250 yards, which was the criterion I referred to. Phil had 8 approach shots from within 140 yds yesterday, one would expect him to hit a high percentage of greens from that distance.

I don't know but when the OP defines long/short as it relates to the data that started his thread and someone else comes along and essentially says "no, I am going to define it as "X" for your thread, that person is the one who seems self righteous to me.