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 28

post #487 of 514

I read the article this morning and found it has some interesting data.

Although,the article indicates data "established standards at various levels—for 70 shooters, 80 shooters, 90 shooters, etc.—using his database of more than 100,000 shots hit during 1,200 actual rounds on 10 different courses" the article does not describe any further details.

 

We as amateur golfers rarely can be considered for these type of statistics due to the enormous population of social golfers.

The measuring stick has always been the elite professionals, but with the popularity of the game, there are now many highly skilled golfers all over the planet who will never play a PGA or Tour event due to numerous reasons.

 

We all try to improve our game, but measuring statical data of Tour players versus mere mortals, seems irrelevant.

 

Club Rat

post #488 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Club Rat View Post
 

I read the article this morning and found it has some interesting data.

Although,the article indicates data "established standards at various levels—for 70 shooters, 80 shooters, 90 shooters, etc.—using his database of more than 100,000 shots hit during 1,200 actual rounds on 10 different courses" the article does not describe any further details.

We all try to improve our game, but measuring statical data of Tour players versus mere mortals, seems irrelevant.

 

Of course the article doesn't describe more details. That's what his book is for.

 

Your last sentence doesn't make much sense - that's what's being done right now. And Pelz, and others, have been putting out stats about the average player for a long time now. You can look back 20 years and find stats about what separates an 18 handicapper from a 9, etc.

post #489 of 514

The Golf industry has changed dramatically over 20 years.

The number of people who try to play have increased.

Golf is now a social participation by many who either have the desire for improvement or

really don't care that much, they just enjoy the aspect of golf.

 

In retrospect to comparing Pros to average golfers, Pros have a God given talent which they have developed with guidance and supervision over time.

 

Granted, there are many who work very hard to improve their ability with teaching professionals.

They practice mechanics and test various manufactures products to become better.

 

Stats have no means of comparing the ability of a single individual to the rest of the world over any given time frame.

 

Individuals stats are only a reference of that persons abilities over a given time, not to be compared with the mass of golfers and especially the bench marks of a pro.

 

Club Rat

post #490 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Club Rat View Post

 

The Golf industry has changed dramatically over 20 years.

The number of people who try to play have increased.

 

I don't think you're right about that one. Golf's been in a steady decline for awhile now.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Club Rat View Post
 

Stats have no means of comparing the ability of a single individual to the rest of the world over any given time frame.

 

Or that one.

 

Let's stick to the topic, though. If you don't feel that you can use the many stats out there, then I guess you have a limited capacity to discuss things in this thread.

post #491 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by CG031 View Post

Short game is much more important...I mean, obviously you can't be hitting the ball O.B., but if your in the rough, saving up and down's when you miss greens is VITAL to shooting low.

I know a lot of people who had a great long game, and were terrible inside of 50 yards, and they never really shot any great rounds...

I played with two club pro's yesterday and they both have good short games as they were both chipping in and were rock solid putting within 5 feet of the hole. One shot 70 and the other shot 83. Granted we were playing in at least a 3 club wind the bottom line is that one of them hit 14 greens and the other hit 4. I just don't feel like short game is as important until you get to a certain point with your long game. If you are hitting 11-14 greens per round then your short game can keep bad rounds around even par and your good rounds under par. Short game is what it is and that is damage control  for when you miss the green and you still aren't going to get up and down much more than about 40% of the time if you are lucky. Long game takes a tremendous amount of pressure off of the short game as the goal is to not use it unless you have to. If you hit every green in regulation even the worst putter is still going to two putt most of the time but if you miss every green I assure you your score will be much worse.

post #492 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

The article also states that 28% of Tour pros advantage came from the tee (largely distance), and 40% from approach shots. That's almost 70% from full swing mechanics.

 

So I guess someone was right about saying you should practice your full swing mechanics 65% of the time ;-) 

post #493 of 514

In comparing the average 80-golfer (a golfer who shoots 80) versus the average 100-golfer, Mark Broadie has found that 3 of the 20 shots that separate those golfers are putts. That's 15%, and that means that 85% of the differences in their scores are from shots taken from off the green.

 

This 15% difference can be found by comparing any two groups between 75- and 125-golfers.

 

(I'm reading his book right now and may contribute quick summaries of passages like this over the next few days.)

post #494 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

In comparing the average 80-golfer (a golfer who shoots 80) versus the average 100-golfer, Mark Broadie has found that 3 of the 20 shots that separate those golfers are putts. That's 15%, and that means that 85% of the differences in their scores are from shots taken from off the green.

This 15% difference can be found by comparing any two groups between 75- and 125-golfers.

(I'm reading his book right now and may contribute quick summaries of passages like this over the next few days.)

This sound obvious, at least to me. My long time friend takes two strokes on average more than I do now to get close to the green (less than 20 yards to the pin), and he scores 2 strokes per hole worse than me. We both 3 putt at times, but getting close in the GIR number of strokes helps even if you did not make GIR.

I think one more factor comes into play other than the relative importance of long game to short game, and that's getting used to hitting your targets on the course. This takes confidence, which differs from person to person. I know that even though I have the ability to hit targets at the driving range, there is a certain amount of "getting used to" hitting them on the course.

Does Broadie mention anything about how some people can gain that confidence so easily, and others need to hit "10,000 balls"?

This forum is filled with 15 handicappers who got there in 3 months to a year, what do they have at many others don't? I play to that handicap, but not all the time. I feel that I need to play about another 100 rounds to solidify to that handicap whereas some people take 5 to 10 rounds?
post #495 of 514
Hi guys

I believe I was one of the posters who disagreed with the long game being more important. However after reading the data and experiencing first hand how my long game fell apart at Celtic Manor I have to say that long game allows you to use the short game.

No good being a wizard around the greens without being able to position yourself first around the green.

Example I hit into the wind on a 575 yard par 5. Hit into the rough and hit into the water. Wind against me took 5 shots to reach the green before ending up with an 8. Conditions were bad very waterlogged and muddy underfoot but the principle applies.

I know deep down that I could play to my 16 handicap comfortably for many years. However if I am to go up a level clearly I need to hit further and more accurately. There are par 4's out of reach and clearly I don't hit the ball well enough in changing conditions to cope. My swing needs work.

What's clear from the data though is that you need balance through your game. Golf all starts with sound fundamentals and that will include all golf swings short and long. I think if most of us were really honest we know that short game technique can be learned more readily than a full swing with a driver.

That's a generality which holds true. So I am really seeing the sense of the 65/25/10 ratio for practice. It does make sense in theory.
post #496 of 514

This is what Dave Pelz says

 

post #497 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedrop View Post
 

This is what Dave Pelz says

 

All of the newest data would say that Dave Pelz is wrong. Furthermore, he teaches the short game and putting, so he's bound to say that kind of stuff.

post #498 of 514

This makes a good case for the short game and really downplays the driver

 

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/seve-ballesteros-golfer.htm

 

 

Quote:

With his driver, he would hit only eight fairways through the four rounds. One was not expected to win any championship with such wildness off the tee, but especially not at Royal Lytham, notorious for its narrow, oddly angled fairways and severe rough.

But Ballesteros's counter was an extraordinary talent for recovery around the greens; he was a brilliant pitcher, chipper, sand bunker player, and putter from in close.

post #499 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedrop View Post
 

This makes a good case for the short game and really downplays the driver

 

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/seve-ballesteros-golfer.htm

 

No it doesn't. It's one example, and makes no real mention of how often he hit the green in regulation. Driving accuracy is not a terribly valid statistic. Bubba Watson gained the most strokes from his driving of anyone on the PGA Tour last year, and he didn't do it with his driving accuracy.

 

Given your resolute stubbornness in the pitching thread, despite ample evidence using your own cited videos, you're on a short leash in this thread - this thread has ample evidence to suggest otherwise, and your posts here reek of "I'm gonna prove them wrong!"

post #500 of 514
@freedrop would you please read these threads before disagreeing with them. People are going to start to think you are a moron. Now, to be clear, I don't think you're a moron but my conviction is starting to show some cracks.
post #501 of 514

Ernest...the thread is about long vs short game importance,I posted two links that suggest the short game is...where is the problem?

post #502 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

No it doesn't. It's one example, and makes no real mention of how often he hit the green in regulation. Driving accuracy is not a terribly valid statistic. Bubba Watson gained the most strokes from his driving of anyone on the PGA Tour last year, and he didn't do it with his driving accuracy.

 

Given your resolute stubbornness in the pitching thread, despite ample evidence using your own cited videos, you're on a short leash in this thread - this thread has ample evidence to suggest otherwise, and your posts here reek of "I'm gonna prove them wrong!"

iacas...my posts are supported by links to big to name players and their techniques,I'm not picking this stuff out of thin air,You seem to be intent on proving them wrong.

post #503 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedrop View Post

Ernest...the thread is about long vs short game importance,I posted two links that suggest the short game is...where is the problem?

The problem is that you either don't read or completely ignore all the evidence suggesting otherwise in this thread an others. You seem to just want attention by arguing something different just because you can, however irrational it may be.
post #504 of 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedrop View Post
 

Ernest...the thread is about long vs short game importance,I posted two links that suggest the short game is...where is the problem?


Do you actually play golf (and do any thinking for yourself) or do you just believe everything you hear (while ignoring what you see) in U-Tube videos?

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.)