Stubbornness or lack of research?: "Drive for Show, Putt for Dough"

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Patch said:

Glad you found the article. The 12 or 13 years I spoke about was Molinari starting his long game stats back in 2003, which is in the article. 

I'm not going to belabor the point, but that's neither what you said nor what the article said.

You said: "The idea that the long game is more important than the short game has been around for 12 or 13 years now."

Also, Molinari's stats encompassed everything, but he couldn't make sense of it until 2011.

And… the long game is still important even for golfers who don't hit it very far. You could make the argument that it's almost more important to them: on days when their long game is off they have NO chance, because their short game already has to perform at better-than-typical levels just for them to compete on their "good" long game days.

[DrvFrShow]

Could make the argument? No, there is no argument. If one is playing bogey golf and hitting about 4 GIR per round, it puts a ton of pressure on the short game to get up and down. Most of the time we're not getting up and down. There's that two putt and the bogey. For those of us who aren't long hitters who aren't making good contact on a given day, we're dead no matter how well we're chipping and putting. I've seen the doubles start piling up on shorter distance hitters who are having off days with their long game when they normally shoot mid 80s when things are clicking.

[Vinsk]

18 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Could make the argument? No, there is no argument. If one is playing bogey golf and hitting about 4 GIR per round, it puts a ton of pressure on the short game to get up and down. Most of the time we're not getting up and down. There's that two putt and the bogey. For those of us who aren't long hitters who aren't making good contact on a given day, we're dead no matter how well we're chipping and putting. I've seen the doubles start piling up on shorter distance hitters who are having off days with their long game when they normally shoot mid 80s when things are clicking.

Yes. And I'd like to ask Gary that even though a high percentage of shots occur at 100yds in, what a golfer did to GET to 100yds and in is critical. Lying 2 or 3 at 100yds out on a par 4 isn't doing much for your score beneficially speaking. Assuming I've avoided penalties I'd much rather be hitting wedge from the rough than 7i from the fairway.

[Marty2019]

Okay, since I am new here, and apparently this conversation has been going on for some time, I am going to sit back and follow along, but I would appreciate it if someone would do me a favor and tell me, when the question is asked, what is most important, the short game or the long game, what is meant by "more important?"   More important in what way, and more important to whom?   How do you define whether something is more important?  Thanks in advance for responding.  

It seems to me that distance is an advantage.   Being able to chip and putt well is also an advantage.   What makes one more of an advantage than the other?   Is this like arguing over what is more important to a car- the engine or the wheels?   The steering wheel or the gas pedal?  

The hackers I play with (including myself) need a lot more work on their short game than their long game, that's for sure.  We can all reach the green, or thereabouts, in regulation, but we chip and putt like crap.  

 

 

[Vinsk]

28 minutes ago, Marty2019 said:

Okay, since I am new here, and apparently this conversation has been going on for some time, I am going to sit back and follow along, but I would appreciate it if someone would do me a favor and tell me, when the question is asked, what is most important, the short game or the long game, what is meant by "more important?"   More important in what way, and more important to whom?   How do you define whether something is more important?  Thanks in advance for responding.  

It seems to me that distance is an advantage.   Being able to chip and putt well is also an advantage.   What makes one more of an advantage than the other?   Is this like arguing over what is more important to a car- the engine or the wheels?   The steering wheel or the gas pedal?  

The hackers I play with (including myself) need a lot more work on their short game than their long game, that's for sure.  We can all reach the green, or thereabouts, in regulation, but we chip and putt like crap.  

 

 

First, welcome. Second, I seriously do not mean to peddle the book here but you really need to read "Lowest Score Wins (LSW). Everything you just asked is very clearly explained as well many other concepts you'll find very helpful. It's the best golf book I've ever read. 

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, Marty2019 said:

Okay, since I am new here, and apparently this conversation has been going on for some time, I am going to sit back and follow along, but I would appreciate it if someone would do me a favor and tell me, when the question is asked, what is most important, the short game or the long game, what is meant by "more important?"   More important in what way, and more important to whom?   How do you define whether something is more important?  Thanks in advance for responding.  

It seems to me that distance is an advantage.   Being able to chip and putt well is also an advantage.   What makes one more of an advantage than the other?   Is this like arguing over what is more important to a car- the engine or the wheels?   The steering wheel or the gas pedal?  

The hackers I play with (including myself) need a lot more work on their short game than their long game, that's for sure.  We can all reach the green, or thereabouts, in regulation, but we chip and putt like crap.  

Welcome @Marty2019.

Improving the short game and long game are both important. No one here will tell you not to practice the short game. What they will tell you is that the conventional philosophy of working more on the short game is wrong. They back this up with statistics in the book @Vinsk referenced - Lowest Score Wins.

Learning proper technique for a pitch, chip or flop, took me much less time to improve on than a full swing has. My putting is still terrible and I consider that a glaring weakness, but I don't lose as many strokes from missed putts as I do from OOB full swings.

Also, not everyone is the same. There are going to be those who get to a pretty good level with the full swing, only to lose strokes around the green. When that's the case, more time should be devoted to that weakness. But according to statistics (and personal experience), that is not typical. If you are reaching near or on the green on most holes, then perhaps you are an exception.

Yes, it would be nice to be able to pitch to within 3ft of the pin on every missed green. But, it would be nicer to hit that green more often, or not have to punch out from behind a tree (or take a penalty) after an errant tee shot, or leave yourself a long iron approach instead of a wedge because you didn't have confidence with a driver or wood on the previous shot.

Hopefully that explains what is meant by "more important".

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, Marty2019 said:

Okay, since I am new here, and apparently this conversation has been going on for some time, I am going to sit back and follow along, but I would appreciate it if someone would do me a favor and tell me, when the question is asked, what is most important, the short game or the long game, what is meant by "more important?"   More important in what way, and more important to whom?   How do you define whether something is more important?  Thanks in advance for responding.  

It seems to me that distance is an advantage.   What makes one more of an advantage than the other?   Is this like arguing over what is more important to a car- the engine or the wheels?   The steering wheel or the gas pedal?  Being able to chip and putt well is also an advantage.  

The hackers I play with (including myself) need a lot more work on their short game than their long game, that's for sure.  We can all reach the green, or thereabouts, in regulation, but we chip and putt like crap.  

 

 

Well, consider the difference in this way. Consider a Big Break style competition between two players: A- 5 HC and B- 18/20 HCP.

 

1. 10 shot attempts of 20 feet putt:

Player A will take appx. 18-19 shots (mostly 2 putt and maybe holing out couple of times, Player B will take 21-22 putts.

Player A wins by 3 shots over 10 tries.

 

2. 10 attempts of 40 feet chip:

A will get up and down 4/10, B will get up and down 0/10, and even flub twice. Even on the rest. Player A wins by 6 shots over 10 tries.

 

3. 10 attempts from 400 yards:

This is a DOUBLE whammy. Typical Player A is longer AND more accurate. Player A will get GIR/nGIR: 5-6/10. Player B 1/10. But he will also accumulate 'others' to the order of 7-8 shots additionally since he will hit many sub 200 yard drives, OBs, handcuffed behind trees etc, which will automatically cost him an additional attempts at nGIR/GIR.

Player A will win by 13-14 shots over 10 tries. That is being generous. I see this everyday.

Of course this is just an example and people can point out flaws in it here and there but it is typical and the point is that there not just a difference but it is or can be substantial. Everybody has exceptional days but above would be more typical. Long game is where you actually loose the lion's share of overall score difference.

The difference between scratch and pro is another comparison people love to make. The difference could be less between those two but it is still heavily weighted towards the long game. Of course as a few posters pointed out, LSW is a great read but there are also other threads on the topic on the site. I would encourage to read with an open unbiased mind. It is a fascinating study.

 

[iacas]

I have some time this morning, @Marty2019, so I'm going to answer this in more detail than I normally would given the vast number of times this has been covered on the ice sand in my book.

I'm also going to recommend once, here, that you do as others have suggested and pick up a copy of my book. Yes, I'll earn enough to buy my wife a fancy coffee from Starbucks (well, unless she really gets the really fancy drink), but it doesn't change the fact that I wrote the book to help golfers, and that I honestly feel you'll get ten things worth the price out of the book. And the others who recommended it don't get enough from the sale of any books to pay the ingredients in the coffee they make at home…

One last thing… the book covers much more than "is long game or short game more important." Much more. Read more or buy the book at http://lowestscorewins.com/.

3 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

The hackers I play with (including myself) need a lot more work on their short game than their long game, that's for sure.  We can all reach the green, or thereabouts, in regulation, but we chip and putt like crap.

I'm going to start off with something you said at the end of your post, @Marty2019. I'm going to ask you two pretty rhetorical questions.

Question 1
You're kidnapped by Tim Finchem (he's always looked like an evil mastermind…) and told that you will be playing a game for your life against a random PGA Tour player. You get to choose between the following games:

• You and he will hit 18 tee shots. The distance and accuracy of all will be graded, and you'll play a match play competition wherein each shot of your shots will be compared and a winner (or tie) for that shot awarded.
• You and he will hit 18 approach shots from 120 to 200 yards. The proximity to the hole will be measured, as will the number of times you hit the green or fail to get within 20 yards of the green. Again the distance to the hole, whether you hit the green or missed by 20+ yards, will be graded and each shot will result in a match play win, loss, or tie for each player.
• You and he will hit 18 putts ranging from 5 to 40 feet in distance. Straight up match play, with the locations and distances randomly pre-chosen for the match.

You and he both get to warm up for 15 minutes before the match. Which match do you choose knowing that, if you lose, your life comes to a gristly conclusion at the end of a 9-iron wielded by Tim Finchem (or, more likely, one of his henchmen, as he wouldn't want to mess up his hair)? (Make no mistake about it: you probably die regardless, but one of the options above at least gives you a chance of survival.)

Question 2
Having escaped the scenario in Question 1, and defeating Tim Finchem, the movie makes $900M in the box office so, naturally, the studio rushes out a sequel. This time, Carolyn Bivens, still smarting from her ousting as LPGA Commissioner, kidnaps you as revenge. She's been plotting her revenge for many, many years, and only after seeing the first movie did she come up with the idea of kidnapping some random 20 handicapper and putting him through a test of golf skill.

In addition to kidnapping you, Carolyn abducts the remaining members of your foursome (we'll assume they're all righties). She keeps them completely isolated from you and asks them to play three rounds of golf.

• In Round A, they'll hit every shot outside of 60 yards left-handed. Every other shot they'll hit righty, like normal.
• In Round B, they'll hit every short game shot (inside 60 yards, not a putt) left-handed. Every other shot they'll hit righty.
• In Round C, they'll putt left-handed, but hit every other shot lefty.

The three scores from Round A are added up as "A," and so on for B and C. Carolyn asks you to sort the total "A," "B," and "C" scores from highest to lowest. If you're right, she'll allow you to leave. Well, you'll have to take an English test, too, but that's just a Bivens thing… If you're wrong, well, see above about the business end of a 9-iron (though this one has a pink ladies graphite shaft and a crappy squishy easily-worn-out Winn grip…).

How do you rank the rounds? Do you survive to complete the trilogy?

3 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

Okay, since I am new here, and apparently this conversation has been going on for some time, I am going to sit back and follow along, but I would appreciate it if someone would do me a favor and tell me, when the question is asked, what is most important, the short game or the long game, what is meant by "more important?" More important in what way, and more important to whom?   How do you define whether something is more important? Thanks in advance for responding.

More important, defined quickly, is "has the largest impact on scoring." I'll ask you another question, but this time without the threat of death from any former or current commissioners. I'm going to give you two options:

• Option A: After you hit the ball the regulation number of times (1 on a par three, 2 on a par four, 3 on a par five) I'm going to put your ball on the green where it will give you the longest putt.
• Option B: After you hit the ball the regulation number of times, I'm going to put your ball within 20 yards of the green (but not on the green) in a random location. I won't go out of my way at all to bury the ball behind the lip of a bunker or anything - it will be random (somehow).

You play 100 rounds each way. Under which option do you score better, on average: the one where you hit all 18 GIR but have horrible putts, or the one where you have to scramble on every hole?

The answer is very, very clear (unless you're an outlier of some sort, but those are really rare, or they wouldn't be outliers): you'll score better with option A. You will average above 2.0 putts, but below 3.0 in A, but you'll average well above 2.0 and likely above 3.0 for B.

And this is true at every level of the game - PGA Tour pros are far less likely to three-putt than they are to fail to get up and down, even from long range. Just being on the green is an advantage over every other type of shot you can play.

The long game is "more important" because it has the ability to positively (or negatively) affect your score the most.

Heck, just approach shots affect your score more than all shots from 100 yards and in according to Mark Broadie (we [@david_wedzik and I] define "short game" differently than Broadie does).

That's how I'd define "more important."

See the above post where I mentioned how "saving" and "losing" strokes seem to be accounted for differently due to their relatively closeness to the end of the hole: a missed 20-footer costs less than a drive into some gnarly rough, but because it feels "makeable" and comes at the end of the hole, it feels like you lost a full stroke when you missed the putt.

3 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

It seems to me that distance is an advantage.

This is not about "distance." It's about the full swing.

Distance is an advantage, yes, but that's not what this topic is really discussing (or, at least, not what I'm discussing when I say "the long game"). I mean the full swing. The full swing is more important - it has a larger effect on your score - than the short game or putting (separately or combined).

3 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

Is this like arguing over what is more important to a car- the engine or the wheels? The steering wheel or the gas pedal?  

No.

Check out the book. Buy today, I'll ship tomorrow (today's Sunday, after all).

[vangator]

When comparing pros, where their "short" games are similar, 40 yards off the tee is huge.  There are tournaments where a Pavin or Toms (relative shorter hitters) win a major, but most of the time, the guys driving the ball long and accurate win these things,

I watched the interview on the Golf Channel.  I believe GP's context was with what he calls "members" or average joe or jane.

We can make "stats" look like anything we want.  A simple example.  On a 400 yard par 4, player A hits a 250 yard drive and scores a 5.  Player B hits a 200 yard drive and scores an 8.  Was the difference in score because of the 50 yards?

Should player B spend their time getting a few more yards off the tee or work on the part of their game where they spent 7 strokes.

PS. I posted before your long post above.  My head still hurts.  Not to be facetious, but I think I may be better from 20 yards out than the longest putt on a green.

Edited January 3, 2016 by vangator

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, vangator said:

We can make "stats" look like anything we want.  A simple example.  On a 400 yard par 4, player A hits a 250 yard drive and scores a 5.  Player B hits a 200 yard drive and scores an 8.  Was the difference in score because of the 50 yards?

No, you can't make the stats look like anything you want. Yes, over a small enough sample size, like your one example, you can. But not over a large enough sample. At that point, the truth is exposed.

We're well past the small sample sizes in golf, at all levels of play.

17 minutes ago, vangator said:

Should player B spend their time getting a few more yards off the tee or work on the part of their game where they spent 7 strokes.

Once again that's not what this is about. It's not just about hitting the ball farther. And you're misleading by saying "where they spent 7 strokes." You're completely downplaying that a short drive, or a crooked drive, or a missed green, is "where they spent strokes" too.

15 minutes ago, vangator said:

PS. I posted before your long post above.  My head still hurts.  Not to be facetious, but I think I may be better from 20 yards out than the longest putt on a green.

Then you have a glaring weakness (putting), or you play on ridiculously large greens or something. Either way, you'd be an outlier.

At every level of play, the golfer is more likely to average fewer putts than getting up and down, and that's even true with the stipulation that I assign the longest putt possible while randomly choosing a short game shot location. Sometimes people take multiple shots just to escape a bunker…

[turtleback]

I think that when someone has 9 major wins, 24 tour wins, and more than a hundred other worldwide wins, he is entitled to his misconceptions.  

And as a practical matter, while I have the utmost respect for the book, somehow I doubt that if he had read it in 1955 his career would have been more impressive.  It is a pretty hard sell to say that he didn't get as much or more out of his talent as anyone in golf history.

He probably doesn't understand the ball flight laws either.

But if I had to bet on a) someone who understands the ball flight laws perfectly, and b) someone who could play golf like Player did, I'm betting on the latter every time.  Knowledge is important.  But it gets trumped by skill.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

And as a practical matter, while I have the utmost respect for the book, somehow I doubt that if he had read it in 1955 his career would have been more impressive.  It is a pretty hard sell to say that he didn't get as much or more out of his talent as anyone in golf history.

I don't think anyone's saying that.

They're just saying he would have better understood why he was good, or why Jack was good. Or Arnie, or Lee. They hit a lot more greens, and often hit it closer than others. They used their short games less often than other players.

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

He probably doesn't understand the ball flight laws either.

Many pros didn't. Many still don't.

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

But if I had to bet on a) someone who understands the ball flight laws perfectly, and b) someone who could play golf like Player did, I'm betting on the latter every time.  Knowledge is important.  But it gets trumped by skill.

Nobody's saying anything differently.

Insert my second paragraph here again.

[saevel25]

The fact is that longevity on the PGA Tour is measured in ball striking and distance. The best players of every era had a distance advantage. Snead, Nicklaus, Norman, Tiger.

In the end the long game is substantially more important. If you hit greens you have chance for birdies and pretty much take bogey out of play. 

What would you take,

option A- Bogey 33%, Par 62%, Birdie 3%

option B- Bogey 5%, Par 90%, Birdie 5%

option A is missing the green, option B is hitting the green. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

What would you take,

option A- Bogey 33%, Par 62%, Birdie 3%

option B- Bogey 5%, Par 90%, Birdie 5%

option A is missing the green, option B is hitting the green. 

Is the missing 2% in Option A scoring -16 on the hole? Because if so, I'll take that.

0.33 * 5 + 0.62 + 4 * 0.03 * 3 + 0.02 * -12 = 3.98

[turtleback]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think anyone's saying that.

They're just saying he would have better understood why he was good, or why Jack was good. Or Arnie, or Lee. They hit a lot more greens, and often hit it closer than others. They used their short games less often than other players.

Many pros didn't. Many still don't.

Nobody's saying anything differently.

Insert my second paragraph here again.

I was just trying to counter a little attitude of superiority I sensed in the thread (not from you) because people knew things Player didn't know, and I wanted to redress the balance by pointing out that doing always beats knowing.

[mvmac]

4 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

It seems to me that distance is an advantage.   Being able to chip and putt well is also an advantage.  

The hackers I play with (including myself) need a lot more work on their short game than their long game, that's for sure.  We can all reach the green, or thereabouts, in regulation, but we chip and putt like crap.  

As @iacas is saying, "long game" isn't about distance, it's about full shots. Hackers aren't proficient from tee to green and that's where they're really costing themselves the most strokes. 

59 minutes ago, vangator said:

PS. I posted before your long post above.  My head still hurts.  

How would you answer the hypothetical questions? 

10 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I think that when someone has 9 major wins, 24 tour wins, and more than a hundred other worldwide wins, he is entitled to his misconceptions.  

Right and it's fine for him to say anything he wants as long as golfers understand what he's saying is a misconception.

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

I was just trying to counter a little attitude of superiority I sensed in the thread (not from you) because people knew things Player didn't know, and I wanted to redress the balance by pointing out that doing always beats knowing.

I doubt anyone on this site feels any sense of superiority over a legend such as Gary Player (I don't know a damned thing about how to play good golf). If my post came off that way it wasn't the intention.

I'll only say that even Nicklaus has stated some of what he believed decades ago, he no longer believes is correct. I'd guess that's uncommon among professional athletes.

[Ernest Jones]

All I know is that, if I had the choice of magically obtaining a pro level long game or a pro level short game, I'd take the long game and live with my short game (which is infinitely easier to improve anyway).  

I mean really, imagine being able to consistently hit driver at the pro level, or being able to use a 9 iron on a 150y approach instead of a 7 iron! HUGE advantage. That's where a lot of people miss the point, it's not just about the 280-300 yard drives, it's about using a shorter iron on EVERY shot. 

Look at it this way:

Player A needs a 7 iron to reach the green from 150y. 

Player B needs a hard PW or an easy 9 iron. 

They hit 10 shots each and whoever has the closest average wins, who are you betting on?