Originally Posted by GangGreen
I went back and re-read the original article, this is what stands out most to me.
"Another factor Broadie has measured is the impact of what he calls “awful shots” on a round. We all know what he means by awful shots — a poorly struck 5-iron that sends the ball all of 20 yards, tee shots in ponds or skulled chip shots. But Broadie’s data reveal that a golfer with an average score of 105 has nearly four times as many awful shots (8.1 a round) as someone shooting 80 (2.1). And Broadie said there were more awful shots linked to the long game than the short game with the attendant scoring inflation, so to speak."
Sadly, I'm reminded of this fact every time I go out! Also, as its been said before by many, if my long game is ON, then the "relative" importance of my short game is not nearly as critical. Maybe I'm over simplifying things but, for me, the short game is meant to get me out of trouble "when" my long game is OFF...so the best short game is to have a good long game in the first place.
It reminds me of the Nike VRS commercial about leaving yourself a "much, much shorter short game." I was going to embed it but I don't know that the commercial made it onto YouTube.
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r
I did see that post and thought the concept was spot on. It is the only post I've seen that tries to help a player identify their glaring weakness. To me, you can't just give a blanket statement that one is more important than the other (short game vs long game).
Please read the other thread, and several other posts. You do realize, too, that "to me" carries very little weight given who you are. Have you done comprehensive studies on this topic? Have you devised and tested strategies and tests?
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r
Supporting the concept by asking which shot you would rather have a PGA Tour guy hit for you is asinine.
No it's not. There's a much, much larger gap between their "long game" abilities and yours than exists between their "short game" abilities and yours. They shoot better scores than you. A bigger portion of that gap is the long game.
It's very simple, straightforward logic.
Now, if you want to continue to discuss this "glaring weakness" stuff, even though it's been answered several times, or where to devote practice time, please do so in the 65/25/10 thread. This thread is not that one.
Originally Posted by Fourputt
And short game would include such things as punching or pitching out of trouble, not just play around the green.
No it doesn't. Sorry, but that's just how it's defined. That's like saying if you top a ball off the tee and it goes 20 yards it's a poor "short game" shot. We don't just get to make up different definitions. I don't necessarily agree with "everything inside of 100 yards is a short game shot" either (you can use full swing mechanics on a 70-yard shot), but it's pretty telling that even at 100 yards Broadie will tell you it's only 32% of the importance.
I wanted to bring up the example posted before by @Phil McGleno. The example was a scratch player playing a par four and making a bogey. If it wasn't that exactly, that's my example here.
From the tee, he's going to average a 4. Yes, I know that a scratch golfer could theoretically shoot 90 in 10 of his last 20 rounds, but we're saying on this particular hole, he averages 4. It's got a big green and a wide fairway.
So on the tee, he's averaging 4.0.
After his tee shot, from the so-so lie or whatever it was called, he's averaging 3.4 to finish the hole (doesn't count his tee shot - that's already happened). That means his tee shot cost him 0.4 shots. He hits his 7-iron or 8-iron or whatever into the greenside bunker. From there, he's averaging 2.9 shots, let's say (many are surprised at how bad even good golfers are from bunkers). So his second shot cost him 0.5 shots, because hew as sitting at 3.4, and now he's at 2.9 and he played a full shot to get there. He's down 0.9 strokes.
Now, his very good bunker shot (hitting it to ten feet is pretty good) means he'll take an average of 1.7 putts to get it in the hole. 50/50 is right around eight feet, and 50/50 is 1.5 strokes. So 1.7 strokes. He went from 2.9 to 1.7 while using only one shot - his bunker shot SAVED him 0.2 strokes. Now he misses the putt for par, but since his average is only 1.7, missing the putt only costs him 0.3 strokes.
Long game: 0.9 strokes.
Short game: 0.1 strokes.
Here's the problem for many of you: you look at that and say "if he had a better short game he'd have made par." You don't realize what you're asking, though. To make par he'd quite literally have to average under 2.5 from the bunker. The best players in the world barely average 50% sand saves (#90 out of 180 in 2013 was 50.57%). That right there is an average of 2.5, and they play on better greens with more consistent bunkers.
The problem - where the guy lost shots - was putting it in the bunker to begin with. What got him there? His long game - both off the tee and his 8-iron. Yet a lot of you look at that and see his failed sand save and simply blame his short game.