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 13

post #217 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

 

 

Why does everyone seem to think that the only bad tee shot is out of bounds?  Don't your courses have trees?  Hazards?  Bunkers?

 

I agree that it's impossible to recover from an OB shot any time, not just off the tee.  I can't remember the last time I hit a tee shot out of bounds, because if I have a choice.

I don't think that at all. In fact most of the strokes I add during a typical round are from being in some sort of trouble to the opposite side of the OB holes. OB or not if I was more accurate I would be down the middle instead of in trouble. I'm even pretty good at getting out of trouble but that's still not good enough to keep pace with the guy that's not in trouble at all.

 

I remember very well the last time I was OB and it was today. Ha ha! On a hole that has OB on both the left and the right. There is a choice, and that's to hit the ball down the middle. Unfortunately that's not my strong suit...But I wish it was.

post #218 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

I think that I've made the point that this is what works for MY game.  You can preach all you want, but it's not going to change my mind.

 

Rick, look. You can stay resolute, but you're wrong. It's that simple. That one day you broke par or shot 73 or whatever it was, your long game was largely responsible. You didn't suddenly hole every putt you looked at and chip in three times. You hit the ball tee to green better. Guaranteed.

 

YOUR game follows the same rules as everyone else's. If you hit your tee shot into the right rough and are slightly blocked out by a tree, it's not your failed up-and-down from 40 yards that cost you a par on the hole, it was your tee shot.

 

If your mind's made up, and you don't want to change it, then my request is very simple: stop participating in threads like this where people are open to understanding new things. Your post comes off as very "grumpy old man."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

24 years ago my game went from bogey golf to a 10 handicap virtually overnight, and the difference was that the short game suddenly made sense to me.  My long game never changed, but suddenly I was able to turn what had been double and triple bogies into pars and bogies, solely due to a summers worth of dedication to my short game.

 

If you had the long game of, say, an 8 handicapper and were hitting 9 GIR a round but were still a low 90s golfer, then your short game was absolutely atrocious. In other words, you had a glaring deficiency in your short game. Your ballstriking was already better. That makes you rare, yes, but it doesn't change what's being discussed.

post #219 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

For all approach shots from between 100 and 150 yards from the green, measure how far away the shot ends from the hole.  Divide the remaining distance by the starting distance.   Take your median for this ratio (after playing 18 holes), and compare to the following:
 

5.6% PGA professional

8.7% Low handicap, average score 79

12.0% Mid handicap, average score 90

17.3% High handicap, average score 104

 

Match your percentage to the closest group and:

 

Quote:

 

If your 18-hole scores are higher then the group's average score, work on your short game.

If your 18-hole scores are lower than the group's average, your long game needs more work.

 

 

Was this point ever addressed? I looked, and didn't see it. 

 

I don't need persuaded that MY long game needs work. But this purports to be a test for whether it needs work. Is the test valid?

post #220 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Why does everyone seem to think that the only bad tee shot is out of bounds?  Don't your courses have trees?  Hazards?  Bunkers? 

 

I agree that it's impossible to recover from an OB shot any time, not just off the tee.  I can't remember the last time I hit a tee shot out of bounds, because if I have a choice, I play to the other side of the hole.  If I have a choice between OB and lateral water hazard, I favor the hazard.  If I don't have a choice then I play the club or shot least likely to put me OB.  I avoid courses with OB encroaching close to the fairway everywhere (I.e. courses which thread through housing developments) because I simply don't like them.  I feel like golf is a game which is meant to be played, and when the course is set up so penal that you can't miss a shot without having to replay the shot, then I simply don't play there.  I play the game to have fun, and losing stroke and distance for every poor swing isn't fun.

 

 

I think that I've made the point that this is what works for MY game.  You can preach all you want, but it's not going to change my mind.  

 

24 years ago my game went from bogey golf to a 10 handicap virtually overnight, and the difference was that the short game suddenly made sense to me.  My long game never changed, but suddenly I was able to turn what had been double and triple bogies into pars and bogies, solely due to a summers worth of dedication to my short game.  I improved from an 18 to a 16 in the revision before the club championship.  I took that 16 into the club championship and shot the first 2 rounds in the mid 80's, then played both rounds the second week end in the 70's, with a 73 in the third which was my first ever round under 84, and it is still my personal best. Absolutely nothing changed my my long game during that period, or really anytime since then.  I wavered around 10 -12 (with a brief dip to 9.6) for 20 years.  

 

Maybe I'm not typical, but to say it can't happen is simply not accepting all of the possibilities.

This is the whole point!!  How hard could the short game possibly be - and how much time should you be devoting to practicing it now, if you had time and energy to actually practice - if you can knock 14 strokes off your game "overnight?"  Sounds to me like you had a "glaring weakness" in your short game back then, and a little bit of practice (one summers worth) and you got it all figured out.

 

So, lets say you moved back to Colorado, and then decided to devote some time to practice in addition to actually playing.  Once you knock the rust off and get back to the 10 cap, do you honestly think it would be wise for you to devote an excessive amount of time practicing the short game?

 

And, no, OB is obviously not the only result of a bad long game shot, but it is the worst.  A really bad long game shot is costing you 2 full strokes.  A really bad short game shot costs, what, one?  I'd argue that it's closer to 1/2 because even good players aren't getting up-and-down nearly every time, even after good chips/pitches.

post #221 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

This is the whole point!!  How hard could the short game possibly be - and how much time should you be devoting to practicing it now, if you had time and energy to actually practice - if you can knock 14 strokes off your game "overnight?"  Sounds to me like you had a "glaring weakness" in your short game back then, and a little bit of practice (one summers worth) and you got it all figured out.

 

So, lets say you moved back to Colorado, and then decided to devote some time to practice in addition to actually playing.  Once you knock the rust off and get back to the 10 cap, do you honestly think it would be wise for you to devote an excessive amount of time practicing the short game?

 

I used short game practice, not range, to warm up before almost every round, and especially before competitions.  About a half hour to an hour per week while I was still working.  After I retired, not as much, but that's because I was playing 3 or 4 times a week, so it was getting a good workout that way.

post #222 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Maybe I'm not typical, but to say it can't happen is simply not accepting all of the possibilities.

 

With what you said, you are definitely not typical.  To go from shooting in the mid 80's to shooting 73, your long game must have been better that day.

post #223 of 514
My long game is getting longer, but it let me down today. Working on aim and center hits (just not the bottom edge of my driver.

Had a perfect high drive over a tree on a par 3 with a 6i pin high, but off target and bounced even more so.

Thinned my driver, still longer than my old drives, but rolled that far.
post #224 of 514
This whole debate seems awfully nebulous to me... Eric pointed out that anyone that didn't agree that long game is more important than short game shouldn't be involved in this thread (which I thought was a bit of an odd response given the title of the thread asks for people's opinion on this...). So, I apologize, Eric, if I shouldn't be posting this...

I've read the term "glaring weakness" many times in support of this theory. The funny thing is, no one has actually given a definition of glaring weakness. So, it's left up to the individual golfer to decide what their glaring weakness is.

To me, if all parts of your game are equal (whatever that means...), sure, put more time in the long game. It'll pay off bigger rewards later (although it'll take longer). But, what if I average three 3 putts every round? Is that a "glaring weakness"? I'll bet that answer may be different for a 20, 10, or scratch golfer, right? What if I only get up and down 20% of the time when I have a chip from just 10 feet off the green? Glaring weakness? Depends on handicap? What if I can get out of a green side bunker 80% of the time (the other 20% I'm still in the bunker)?

I'm sure the answers to those examples depend on how many shots it took me to get to those positions. How many shots is it? I want to know so I can determine my glaring weakness by fact rather than my own personal opinion.

Can anyone give some guidelines of what a glaring weakness means, or are we just left to develop our own definitions?
post #225 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

Can anyone give some guidelines of what a glaring weakness means, or are we just left to develop our own definitions?

 

If you three-putt on a regular basis, never make an up and down, can't get your ball out of the bunker, those are glaring weaknesses. There is no standard "glaring weakness" definition. You can't define it because everyone's definition isn't the same.  Hitting less than 50% of your GIR's can be a glaring weakness.  Hitting it fat and thin every other hole is a glaring weakness.

 

From the practice ratio thread, one of Erik's posts:

 

Quote:
If you're so bad a putter that you three-putt from 30 feet or so more than 33% of the time, then you have - again - a glaring deficiency, and 70/20/10 (or the thread namesake 65/25/10) doesn't apply.  
 
The average golfer wastes more strokes in the long game. Most golfers ARE better at the short game relatively than they are at the long game.
post #226 of 514

Well short game is far more important. but you got to have a decent long game.

a good short game will give more confidence off the tee also. because if you mis a drive and got to lay up.

a good short game can still save par.

that is how i like to think.  that's why allot of practice time goes to short game

post #227 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

This whole debate seems awfully nebulous to me... Eric pointed out that anyone that didn't agree that long game is more important than short game shouldn't be involved in this thread (which I thought was a bit of an odd response given the title of the thread asks for people's opinion on this...). So, I apologize, Eric, if I shouldn't be posting this...

I've read the term "glaring weakness" many times in support of this theory. The funny thing is, no one has actually given a definition of glaring weakness. So, it's left up to the individual golfer to decide what their glaring weakness is.

To me, if all parts of your game are equal (whatever that means...), sure, put more time in the long game. It'll pay off bigger rewards later (although it'll take longer). But, what if I average three 3 putts every round? Is that a "glaring weakness"? I'll bet that answer may be different for a 20, 10, or scratch golfer, right? What if I only get up and down 20% of the time when I have a chip from just 10 feet off the green? Glaring weakness? Depends on handicap? What if I can get out of a green side bunker 80% of the time (the other 20% I'm still in the bunker)?

I'm sure the answers to those examples depend on how many shots it took me to get to those positions. How many shots is it? I want to know so I can determine my glaring weakness by fact rather than my own personal opinion.

Can anyone give some guidelines of what a glaring weakness means, or are we just left to develop our own definitions?
See the test I quoted above at post 219? Doesn't that partly address your question? Granted, it won't tell you where your shortgame weaknesses are - but it's a stab at testing how well matched your long game and short game are to your scoring ability.
post #228 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomvk77 View Post

Well short game is far more important. but you got to have a decent long game.
a good short game will give more confidence off the tee also. because if you mis a drive and got to lay up.
a good short game can still save par.
that is how i like to think.  that's why allot of practice time goes to short game

Once again, its not an opinion. The long game is more important.
post #229 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomvk77 View Post
 

Well short game is far more important. but you got to have a decent long game.

a good short game will give more confidence off the tee also. because if you mis a drive and got to lay up.

a good short game can still save par.

that is how i like to think.  that's why allot of practice time goes to short game

If you drive in the middle and knock your approach shot close You won't have to worry about saving par and or bogey as often. Golf central had stats yesterday of this exact topic. they had 3 players one was Justin rose  anyways the stats showed that all 3 were in the top 10 in driving but they were ranked worse than 100 in strokes saved yet the were all ranked high in money earned.

post #230 of 514

Only thing is there is like nobody who can hit 14 fairways in a round. Long game is more and more a way to get the ball as close to the green as possible.

and still if you want to knock it close you need a good short game. I saw Keegan on sunday saving par on 18 just with good short game and think most off all by making the right decision to lay up his 3rd shot. So maybe course management is even more important.

But to say long game is more important no f***** way. What you say about Rose, he pretty much ended high in the money field by winning the US Open.

if you get a major you will end up high in the money ranks anyway. 

post #231 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomvk77 View Post
 

Only thing is there is like nobody who can hit 14 fairways in a round. Long game is more and more a way to get the ball as close to the green as possible.

and still if you want to knock it close you need a good short game. I saw Keegan on sunday saving par on 18 just with good short game and think most off all by making the right decision to lay up his 3rd shot. So maybe course management is even more important.

But to say long game is more important no f***** way. What you say about Rose, he pretty much ended high in the money field by winning the US Open.

if you get a major you will end up high in the money ranks anyway.

Yup management helps. Yup the pros can and do save par a lot but the also eat up par 5's with there long game. And here are some stats from Justin Rose' 2013 season. Total driving--4th, Greens in reg--9th, Strokes gained putting--133, total putting-- 99th, Fed ex cup--7th, scoring ave.--3rd.  Your index is a 7.3 so you are a good golfer. If you really think about the best rounds you have played I am willing to bet they were days when you were driving the ball and hitting your approach shots better than you usually do.

post #232 of 514

Maybe some are caught up in definitions - the topic is "more important."

 

That does not mean you don't have a short game.

 

Look at guys on the PGA Tour - Rory, DJ, Woodland, et al, developed a better short game after they had a long game. They finished high because of their long game, and to win more consistently, they needed to bring up the level of their short game.

 

A few years ago, I would have thought short game is more important. But no, if you wind up in the lake, deep in the woods, deep rough, or short, either off the tee or with an approach, you won't have a chance to recover even with a good short game.

 

If you don't have confidence off the tee, or with a fairway, or a hybrid, nothing else can really save a score. Yeah, you might make a few putts or chip a few close to the hole, but it's not that fun chipping in for bogey, or having to hole a bunker shot or a 30 footer to save par.

post #233 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

This whole debate seems awfully nebulous to me... I'll bet that answer may be different for a 20, 10, or scratch golfer, right? … Can anyone give some guidelines of what a glaring weakness means, or are we just left to develop our own definitions?

 

I answered your question in the other thread already. Your second sentence above gets at the reason why there can be no one definition. How? The very use of the word "glaring" could be taken as an "obvious" weakness. If you lack a glaring or obvious weakness, 65/25/10 applies.

 

This thread, btw, is not about practice ratios.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomvk77 View Post
 

Only thing is there is like nobody who can hit 14 fairways in a round. Long game is more and more a way to get the ball as close to the green as possible.

and still if you want to knock it close you need a good short game.

 

You're arguing for the long game without knowing it. From which position are you more likely to save par (or even make birdie) with the short game you have from your second shot: from five yards short of the green in the fairway, or from 50 yards back in the fairway?

 

The long game gets you "as close to the hole as possible" the quickest. If you can routinely get "closer" to the hole with your long game, your short game doesn't even have to be as good.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomvk77 View Post
 

But to say long game is more important no f***** way.

 

Uhm…?

post #234 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

The long game gets you "as close to the hole as possible" the quickest. If you can routinely get "closer" to the hole with your long game, your short game doesn't even have to be as good.

 

 

 

Amen to that!! :)  I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

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.)