or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Relative Importance of the Long Game, Short Game, etc. (Mark Broadie, Strokes Gained, etc.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Relative Importance of the Long Game, Short Game, etc. (Mark Broadie, Strokes Gained, etc.) - Page 11

post #181 of 516

It's a cart before the horse thing. You have to get there first. Blow your tee shot and you aren't hitting an approach you're trying to recover and then find a way to get it on the green. Nobody is discounting the short game. The point is a good tee shot sets up an opportunity. If you make the best of it you eliminate the need to get up and down. Nobody would rather chip/pitch than putt.

post #182 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

It is an illogical leap to suggest that any of this data say anything at all about the lowest score that any individual, or that individuals on average, can shoot. Or aboout the relative importance of the long game to such scores.   The data presented so far in no way supports any such conclusion.

 

I disagree, and I'm not even sure you're really understanding what the data is telling you. You're welcome to continue to do more research, as much of it is not entirely public yet. Many of the articles published are just about the "sizzle" stuff - that's why they include Tiger Woods and PGA Tour players. An article about how important the long game is for improving at golf isn't full of much "sizzle."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

Again, this is clearly talking about what are the differences between golfers.  Not what it is most important for any individual to improve.

 

The problem with your thinking on this is the very real fact that if you improve against other golfers, you'll improve overall. If you're an 18 handicapper, and you want to be better than the other 18 handicappers, you need to get better than them. When you're comparing Tiger and Rory, they're like the +5s and they've improved over the +4s. How? With their long games. They just don't have "true" handicap indeces to make it obvious. The same applies to a 14 as it does to Tiger versus Sean O'Hair.

 

In other words, of course it compares golfers to one another. It would make no sense to compare golfers to anything else.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

And again, what Broadie himself says of his data:

 

I've addressed that point several times. I've also addressed it in giving it 35% of the practice time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

1.  Distance is a big part of the measured differences between golfers in the data, but may not be something everyone can improve a great deal in.

 

Distance is an advantage, no doubt, but improvement in "the long game" amounts to more than simply "hitting the ball farther." I'm done addressing this misconception, and I'm done allowing anyone to continue to post this misperception.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

The "long game" is "more important" here mainly because tee shots are being lumped in with approach shots over 100 yards, and on any hole longer than 300-380 yards (depending on the golfer), there will likely be at least two such shots.   If you are putting the tee shot together with the approach shot, yes those two things combined are going to account for more than half the hole.

 

I'll boil it down for you: the potential to lose or gain shots is more significant with the long game than with the short game at every level of the game.

post #183 of 516
post #184 of 516
I'm surprised how much push back there is on this concept. A lot of this push back seems to come from posters who haven't read what Iacas wrote to back up this concept and from posters who missed the whole caveat about "glaring weaknesses".

Will great scrambling ability improve your scores? Of course it will but not enough to consistently beat the guy who rarely ever needs to scramble because he hits a high % of GIR.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

The other thing I think some people aren't getting but, from what I understand from all this, the 65-25-15 ratio should result in all three areas improving at a roughly the same rate due to the differences in inherent difficulty with these three areas. It seems like some posters are interpreting the ratio as a suggestion that pitch/chips are less important than full swings and putts are even less important. I don't think that's what Iacas is saying, he just saying that putting is soooo god damn easy compared to hitting a driver that it would ludicrous to invest more time in practicing your putting than you do with your driver.
post #185 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

I'm surprised how much push back there is on this concept. A lot of this push back seems to come from posters who haven't read what Iacas wrote to back up this concept and from posters who missed the whole caveat about "glaring weaknesses".

 

To be fair, this was an old thread that was bumped recently and is now taking on more of the discussion than the 65/25/10 thread. But I don't understand the push-back either. This kind of stuff is what it is. It's important to understand what "is" is, but we're doing that. You're right - nobody's discounting the short game.

post #186 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Perfectly stated.
Lol.
post #187 of 516

Right seems simple enough. The fact that scrambling follows a mistake should be all the convincing people need. If you're at that point you've already lost a stroke. Though I think some people are confusing short game with full swing approach shots. But people are thick. It may take Phil M. posting that he'd rather putt than pitch to convince them.

post #188 of 516
410-yard par four.

Guy hits driver into right rough where he has a so-so lie. 265.-Has 155 to the flag.

Hits a 7-iron.-Grass wraps around club and he's short-left in the bunker.

Splashes out to ten feet above the hole.

Putt lips out.-Taps in for bog.

What shots cost him strokes?
post #189 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

To be fair, this was an old thread that was bumped recently and is now taking on more of the discussion than the 65/25/10 thread. But I don't understand the push-back either. This kind of stuff is what it is. It's important to understand what "is" is, but we're doing that. You're right - nobody's discounting the short game.

Fair enough. I actually thought this was the 65-25-15 thread, that may explain some of the misconception people are operating on.

So, every 7 post or so you should insert your OP from the 65-25-15 thread.

b2_tongue.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post

Right seems simple enough. The fact that scrambling follows a mistake should be all the convincing people need. If you're at that point you've already lost a stroke. Though I think some people are confusing short game with full swing approach shots. But people are thick. It may take Phil M. posting that he'd rather putt than pitch to convince them.

Maybe, but then again Phil M. would probably not be my first choice when seeking strategy tips.
a2_wink.gif
post #190 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

410-yard par four.

Guy hits driver into right rough where he has a so-so lie. 265.-Has 155 to the flag.

Hits a 7-iron.-Grass wraps around club and he's short-left in the bunker.

Splashes out to ten feet above the hole.

Putt lips out.-Taps in for bog.

What shots cost him strokes?

Perfect description. However the problem in this thread is people are not seeing the lost strokes . The misconception is if they get up and down for par (oops meant bogey) they've somehow saved strokes.


Edited by Dave2512 - 11/2/13 at 2:02pm
post #191 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

Maybe, but then again Phil M. would probably not be my first choice when seeking strategy tips.

 

The guy's won over 40 times and has five majors. He might not be my first choice either but I think he's in the top five, possibly the top two.

post #192 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

The guy's won over 40 times and has five majors. He might not be my first choice either but I think he's in the top five, possibly the top two.
It was tongue in cheek. Obviously the man's game (including strategy) is world class. Just poking a little phun because at times it appears his strategy is, "lookit how hard I can hit this here 3 wood."
post #193 of 516

I played with a guy today and our rounds illustrated this thread to a tee. I have been mishitting my driver lately so today I went with 3 wood off the tee. I missed 2 fairways all day. mean while he hitt a few in the junk, sprayed a few others and hit some good ones. He also did no worse than a 2 putt on any green while I had 2 3 putts and missed a couple of 6 footers. At the end he tallied up our scores I shot 77 he shot 84 and he looked at me and said no way you beat me by 7 shots. I said to him look you putted well but they were for par or worse while my 3 putts and 2 short misses were for birdie. to me thats proof in the pudding. 

post #194 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

The guy's won over 40 times and has five majors. He might not be my first choice either but I think he's in the top five, possibly the top two.
It was tongue in cheek. Obviously the man's game (including strategy) is world class. Just poking a little phun because at times it appears his strategy is, "lookit how hard I can hit this here 3 wood."

 

I think you have him confused with Roy McEvoy.  ;-)

post #195 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

The fact remains that if he's never taking penalty strokes and is constantly on or near the green in regulation, he's got a great "long game," particularly for his ability level.

 

Yes like you said, long game doesn't mean you have to hit the driver 280+ yards.  I grew up playing with plenty of single digit handicappers that didn't hit it more than 230 off the tee.  They rarely took penalty strokes and either got close or on the green in regulation.  So they had good "long games".   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

 

Good swing mechanics on a pitch aren't that different from a full swing.  To some degree, working on one is helping the other.  I think that really dialing in consistent distance and accuracy everywhere from 20 yards to 150 yards, from pitches, to wedges, to short irons, seems critical to me, no matter what you call it. 

 

The mechanics are much different.  A good pitching motion is not something you want to emulate in the full swing.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

I'm surprised how much push back there is on this concept. A lot of this push back seems to come from posters who haven't read what Iacas wrote to back up this concept and from posters who missed the whole caveat about "glaring weaknesses".

Will great scrambling ability improve your scores? Of course it will but not enough to consistently beat the guy who rarely ever needs to scramble because he hits a high % of GIR.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

I'm surprised as well with the push back, especially from players that don't normally hit a lot of greens.  Don't mean that to sound rude, I would think a bogey golfer would see the huge potential with this kind of thinking.

 

Since others are talking about personal experience on this thread, when I started playing golf I was a 100+ shooter.  I could have practiced my short game all day long and not come close to breaking 90.  Not when all my chip/pitch shots were my 3rd, 4th or 5th shots on the hole.  

 

My long game is better now than when I was a 25 handicap, a 15 handicap, a 5 handicap.  Did my short game improve as well? Of course but not to the extent of my long game.    

post #196 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

It was tongue in cheek. Obviously the man's game (including strategy) is world class. Just poking a little phun because at times it appears his strategy is, "lookit how hard I can hit this here 3 wood."

Sometimes I feel like his strategy comes from the fact that he is such a strong iron player.

Maybe a typical Phil strategy is like "I think I can get that 6" gap between those two branches and land 10 feet from the hole for a birdie, and only he could consider it.
post #197 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

410-yard par four.

Guy hits driver into right rough where he has a so-so lie. 265.-Has 155 to the flag.

Hits a 7-iron.-Grass wraps around club and he's short-left in the bunker.

Splashes out to ten feet above the hole.

Putt lips out.-Taps in for bog.

What shots cost him strokes?

Well.....obviously if his short game was better he would have holed the bunker shot for a birdie. He should definitely practice sand shots more.
post #198 of 516

Its all about percentages. 

 

If your short game is 50%, your wasting a shot every other time you miss the green, based on par. 

Lets say you three putt 10% of the time. Basically every time you miss the green you have 40% greater chance of making bogey, dropping a shot. 

 

That is why long game is better, its percentages. Basically you would need a short game above the percentage of your three putts to make your short game more important than your long game. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Relative Importance of the Long Game, Short Game, etc. (Mark Broadie, Strokes Gained, etc.)