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 17

post #289 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkuehn1952 View Post
 

In 2013 the best average proximity to the hole on approach shots was 31 feet, 3 inches (Jim Furyk).  To be sure, he had a lot of shots within 15 feet or less but not nearly as often as I might have guessed.

 

I think GIR for the average or above average amateur golfer is an excellent predictor of scoring.  L.J. Riccio, PhD (a frequent contributor to Golf Digest) did a statistical analysis of amateur goflers and found GIR to have a strong relationship to scoring.  Perhaps once one gets into the realm of + handicaps the data is not as valid.  Also, there are going to be amateur outliers who rarely hit a green and score wonderfully and others that hit lots of greens and don't seem to get the job done.  On average, however, GIR is usually tied to scoring pretty closely.

 

Yes - I like Riccio's stuff. But I think even he acknowledges that it breaks down at the upper end where players tend to bunch around 11-13 GIRs. At that level I think you you get all sorts of interference - depending on course conditions and player strategy - that can mask relatively small differences in ball striking.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

If you want more accuracy to the pin and better scores, here are two tips. Before taking a swing to a green look at where the pin is. There are A) Ok pins, B) difficult pins and C) sucker pins- decide which one you are shooting at and avoid shooting at B and C, next what ever club you think you should be using, swallow your pride and use a stronger club, maybe choking down a half inch and swing at 80%-the swing should feel  fluid and not forced. The ball will go straighter, better contact,a little further and land softer. The biggest difference from a 20 handicap and a low single digit handicapper on approach shots is low handicappers hit the ball beyond the hole, the high handicappers do not use enough club and often leave the shot short. why is this so bad? think about it.... 1) traps and water are typically in the front or front R and L- rarely in back. 2) greens typically slope back to front as does the fringe &  fairway in the front of the green typically is sloped towards the golfer both which prevents the ball from releasing forward for a steep decent angle for higher handicappers.  3) ask yourself, especially if you are familiar with the course " where do I want to miss?" and "where do I want to putt from" before hitting your shot.

 

Trust me you'll hit better quality shots AND closer to the hole for more likely 2 putts

 

Cheers. All good stuff to take into account. I do remember getting a bit of a shock the first time I saw the course map at my club, to see the depth of the greens and therefore the number of different clubs that you could hit into them.

post #290 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

The reason I say it is a bad stat is, what happens if your aiming to hit a cut to a pin placement on the right, but you pull draw it a bit and end up 60' away from the pin on the left edge of the green. It is a GIR, but was it a good ball strike, not really. So yes GIRs is a decent metric to determine overall score, but it isn't a metric for ball striking.

Um yes it is a metric for ball striking. this thread isn't just about the tour player it's valid for every golfer. If anyone increases GIR odds are they will score better. and they way to increase that is a better long game.

post #291 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robster 7 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

And a jolly old trope that is!

 

Still not sure what you're saying though with regards to my post. I'm not saying that the stats prove anything. Quite the reverse, that they're wide open to interpretation and hidden context.

 



I'm saying I agree with you....sorry for any confusion!

Cool. I saw numbers in your avatar AND your screen name. Plus you're in the intellectual hothouse of the UK. So I was worried that you'd seen me say something dumb!:beer:

post #292 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

Cool. I saw numbers in your avatar AND your screen name. Plus you're in the intellectual hothouse of the UK. So I was worried that you'd seen me say something dumb! c2_beer.gif

 



I can't move for astrophysicists and philosophers in my office!
post #293 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Its because GIR is a horrible stat when talking about ball striking. Ball striking is about proximity to the hole. The reason that pros score better is because they put the ball with in 15' and are very good at making putts inside of 15'.

 

I play some courses that are resort-style, with greens that are 35 yds x 35 yds, and I also play some older courses that have much smaller greens on average, perhaps 20 yds x 20 yds.  Obviously, if I played either one of those types of courses exclusively, then my GIR numbers could change quite a bit without my ballstriking changing at all.

 

So, in that regard, GIR can be labeled as, perhaps, a "misleading" stat (if you're trying to compare directly to other people).  But it's certainly not horrible.  You're only using it as a metric to determine your own strengths and weaknesses, so in that regard, it's all only relative anyway.

 

If I take my stats from last year and look at my GIR, and my stats from this year and look at my GIR, chances are extremely high that if my GIR went up, then my scores went down, and if my GIR went down, then my scores probably went up.

post #294 of 516

I play on a regular basis at a Nicklaus Championship course which has target greens.

As most golfers know, his design typically requires highly skilled shot-making play in order to be within the same zip code of the flag, in order to have a decent chance of making a putt.

 

Most players who play this style course on a daily basis, will seldom have decent "GIR" stats.

On the other hand, most players putts per round are generally lower due to missing these green by the slightest margins.

 

If we all were fortunate to play different courses every weekend such as the PGA Tour, then stats would certainly pertain to an average golfers abilities and bear weight on areas of their game.

 

I'm not a big stat person, other than observing my cycle of score history which is an indicator of when I play well or when I have struggled.

It also reflects seasonal conditions, wet springs, hot summers, and lots of windy days.

 

On my home course, it is essential to keep the tee shots on the playground / fairways, and then be challenged with long iron play to a tough target.

Nicklaus gives you a wonderful challenge on many of his courses.

 

It would be interesting to see what Tour Players Stats would be if they only played at one course, like many of the average golfers!

 

Club Rat

post #295 of 516

The course, your handicap or how far you hit it have no  bearing on this conversation. Let  me put it this way the closer you can get to the pin in the least amount of shots the better you will score. For example. On a par 4 do you have a better chance of making par or better hitting your third shot from 50 yards short of the green or a foot from the cup?

post #296 of 516
Thanks for the feedback on my post - I never looked at long game as a key to reducing my handicap. Must get the blinders off and hone the woods.
post #297 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

 

An awful lot of the impressive short game stats that you see on tour come from hitting simple chips from the fringe.

 

Yeah that would be an indication of a solid long game.  

post #298 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

Yeah that would be an indication of a solid long game.  

 

Yes, Phil, Tiger, and other speak fairly often about missing it in the right spots, particularly at more difficult tournaments/courses.

post #299 of 516
Long 40% and rest is short. You need to be long and on fairway to make the short shots easier then.
post #300 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaneraiMan View Post

Long 40% and rest is short. You need to be long and on fairway to make the short shots easier then.

 

?

 

Please read the thread. I know it's long, but…

post #301 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Club Rat View Post
 

Quote:


A 15 handicapper like me will spray their drive more than occasionally probably miss the green in regulation, chip up and hope to one putt for par. So short game is important to me - I need to get the ball on the green (with practice get it somewhat close to pin). I say short game is most important to me. A single digit player makes more 3 and 4 footers, hits more greens in regulation because of longer drives that land in fairway.

 

 

Quote:

???????  Short game is more important  ????

 

I suggest finding a Par 3 course and play it until you can shoot below you handicap.

This will sharpen your short iron / wedge play and putting skills.

 

Once you have confidence in this aspect of your game, you should then see if you can maintain a lower handicap?

 

You will still have difficulties due to lack of improvements in your long game !!!!!!!!!

 

The game requires a player to preform every single aspect, tee shot, approach, play around the green and putting skills. 

 

And, it don't come easy...........

 

Club Rat

 

 

 

 

I've been reminiscing about my "summer of improvement" from 24 years ago, and I've reached some different conclusions from what I posted earlier in this thread.  I did then what Rat suggests now, only with some slightly different thoughts on it.  One of the things I did then was play a lot of practice golf on our facility's par 3 course.  I was working swing shift, and had lots of free time in the mornings to get out and play that course when there was nobody else on it.  It is a nice par 3 course for such practice because it has holes ranging from 80 to 195 yards, with bunkers and hazards too.  

 

I had originally only given credit to those practice sessions for improving my short game, but I realize now that it was a lot more than that.  Without consciously noticing it, I was simultaneously working on my approach shots, my full shots with long, mid and short irons.  As a result, while I tended to only see the short game improvement, that was in part due to my misses on the ling game being less severe (and because I was wearing blinders).  I was very likely putting less pressure on the short game because of that.  And improvement with mid and long irons should inevitably lead to better driving simply because my full swing was better.  However, unlike what Rat suggested, I never shot below my handicap there because I never actually kept score.

 

So without even focusing on it, my whole game was improving at the same time.  The moment of epiphany came quite abruptly, but actually the work was done over a 3 month period.  It took this thread, and debating it from the wrong side to make me see what had really happened with my game way back then.

post #302 of 516

I mentioned it in the "what did you shoot today" thread, but it's worth noting here too.

 

Shot a 77 yesterday.  15 pars, 2 doubles, and a bogey.  Hit 11 greens (with 3 of the misses close enough to putt), but a very pedestrian short game......missed 5 birdie putts under 10-12 feet.....and those 2 doubles?  They weren't the result of bad "short game" shots.....

 

The sooner you get the ball on the green......even if you don't make a putt, the better you'll score.

post #303 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Fourputt" View Post

I've been reminiscing about my "summer of improvement" from 24 years ago, and I've reached some different conclusions from what I posted earlier in this thread.  I did then what Rat suggests now, only with some slightly different thoughts on it.  One of the things I did then was play a lot of practice golf on our facility's par 3 course.  I was working swing shift, and had lots of free time in the mornings to get out and play that course when there was nobody else on it.  It is a nice par 3 course for such practice because it has holes ranging from 80 to 195 yards, with bunkers and hazards too.  

I had originally only given credit to those practice sessions for improving my short game, but I realize now that it was a lot more than that.  Without consciously noticing it, I was simultaneously working on my approach shots, my full shots with long, mid and short irons.  As a result, while I tended to only see the short game improvement, that was in part due to my misses on the ling game being less severe (and because I was wearing blinders).  I was very likely putting less pressure on the short game because of that.  And improvement with mid and long irons should inevitably lead to better driving simply because my full swing was better.  However, unlike what Rat suggested, I never shot below my handicap there because I never actually kept score.

So without even focusing on it, my whole game was improving at the same time.  The moment of epiphany came quite abruptly, but actually the work was done over a 3 month period.  It took this thread, and debating it from the wrong side to make me see what had really happened with my game way back then.


It's so nice to see a poster willing to grow and alter their view instead of clinging to their age old dogma despite all evidence to the contrary. This is what puts you in my group of favourite posters. You're smart enough to keep learning.

I'm coming down to the Bahamas to play golf with you.
c2_beer.gif 

post #304 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Fourputt" View Post

I've been reminiscing about my "summer of improvement" from 24 years ago, and I've reached some different conclusions from what I posted earlier in this thread.  I did then what Rat suggests now, only with some slightly different thoughts on it.  One of the things I did then was play a lot of practice golf on our facility's par 3 course.  I was working swing shift, and had lots of free time in the mornings to get out and play that course when there was nobody else on it.  It is a nice par 3 course for such practice because it has holes ranging from 80 to 195 yards, with bunkers and hazards too.  

I had originally only given credit to those practice sessions for improving my short game, but I realize now that it was a lot more than that.  Without consciously noticing it, I was simultaneously working on my approach shots, my full shots with long, mid and short irons.  As a result, while I tended to only see the short game improvement, that was in part due to my misses on the ling game being less severe (and because I was wearing blinders).  I was very likely putting less pressure on the short game because of that.  And improvement with mid and long irons should inevitably lead to better driving simply because my full swing was better.  However, unlike what Rat suggested, I never shot below my handicap there because I never actually kept score.

So without even focusing on it, my whole game was improving at the same time.  The moment of epiphany came quite abruptly, but actually the work was done over a 3 month period.  It took this thread, and debating it from the wrong side to make me see what had really happened with my game way back then.



I'm coming down to the Bahamas to play golf with you.
c2_beer.gif 

 

Hate to disillusion you, but if you want to play golf with me, it will have to be in Colorado.  I don't play here, no course on this island.  To play where there is one would be about $1000 for one round, adding up transportation, lodging, and golf fees.  My clubs are in my sister's garage in Colorado.

 

Now back on topic.

post #305 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Hate to disillusion you, but if you want to play golf with me, it will have to be in Colorado.  I don't play here, no course on this island.  To play where there is one would be about $1000 for one round, adding up transportation, lodging, and golf fees.  My clubs are in my sister's garage in Colorado.

 

Now back on topic.

 

 

not so fast - hit a dozen or so balls out into the water

SCUBA out and find them

scuba some more

beach time

pool time

go to clubs and meet ladies

have some drinks

 

repeat as necessary - that sounds like pretty good 'golf' to me - I could even skip the gratuitous first step (not very reef friendly) and it's still pretty good "golf" to me.

 

I'm not sure that's such a bad deal.

 

oh - on topic.......yeah - better long game = good.....I think there is a LOT of bang for the buck there for most anyone.  I'd rather putt than scramble.  I'd rather have a long putt than an unpredictable lie.  I'd rather be in the fairway than off.  I'd rather be hitting 50 yards closer (from almost any place). etc etc etc.

 

When my long game (drives and approaches) are "on", I also have better GIR, better putting stats, better everything.

seriously - hitting the green (or if one hits the green a lot - then hitting even closer to the hole when hitting the green) makes EVERYTHING better.

post #306 of 516

I think one of the things that those advocating short game are missing is how much of your short game is a result of long-game shortcomings. I do not know, but this is something I would like to see data on. I think it is safe to say that any pitching/chipping on a Par 3 is a failure in long game (obviously there are outlier examples such as aiming outside of the green or at a bunker to intentionally avoid a hazard on the opposite time, but the majority time most are aiming to hit GIR). So any argument that short games saves strokes on Par 3s is out.

 

I guess I am just pointing out that any missed GIR is a long game shortcoming, and therefore any pitching/chipping is a result of this miss, and successful chips/pitches to save par (or whatever) are not statistically viable.  To quantitatively prove that short game is more important you would need data independent of long game (which is impossible unless its a Par 3 less than 100 yards) so you take the next best option - a ball in the ideal place in the fairway. A field test to measure the individual then would be take 100 balls (or whatever number), divide them between <100 and 100-200 (to keep it even) at equal increments and then see how many strokes from each distance it takes to hole out. I do not think we actually have to do this to imagine that that the shots from 100-200  would result in more difficult scoring (longer putts, chipping and then putting, etc) which then means that there is more room for improving scoring with these longer shots. Further, I've limited the long shots to 100-200, so you can imagine if we increase the distance more. One last thing, to really see the difference b/t short and long game we would have to say that any shot that misses the green is out (or some arbitrary score like 10). 

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.)