or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Swing Thoughts › 65/20/15 Practice Ratios: Where to Devote Your Practice Time
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

65/20/15 Practice Ratios: Where to Devote Your Practice Time - Page 26

post #451 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

I don't follow Boo Weekley at all.  What's his glaring weakness?

English.

Interestingly enough, today my boss told me indirectly that that's one of my weaknesses. :-\

 

:offtopic: 

post #452 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

Interestingly enough, today my boss told me indirectly that that's one of my weaknesses. :-\

 

:offtopic:

All kidding aside (and in fact, I could listen to him talk all day - I love his accent) his glaring weakness is putting.

 

I guess he's long been considered one of the better ball strikers on tour, but its putting that's kept him from winning more often.  In fact, a couple of weeks ago when they asked him why he had more success last year, he said simply that he'd been practicing a lot on his putting.

post #453 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

Interestingly enough, today my boss told me indirectly that that's one of my weaknesses. :-\

 

:offtopic:

All kidding aside (and in fact, I could listen to him talk all day - I love his accent) his glaring weakness is putting.

 

I guess he's long been considered one of the better ball strikers on tour, but its putting that's kept him from winning more often.  In fact, a couple of weeks ago when they asked him why he had more success last year, he said simply that he'd been practicing a lot on his putting.

Ahh.

 

It's my understanding that it's pretty much the opposite of a Zach Johnson - not really a long hitter but strong in his wedge game and his putting.

post #454 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

Interestingly enough, today my boss told me indirectly that that's one of my weaknesses. :-\

 

:offtopic:

All kidding aside (and in fact, I could listen to him talk all day - I love his accent) his glaring weakness is putting.

 

I guess he's long been considered one of the better ball strikers on tour, but its putting that's kept him from winning more often.  In fact, a couple of weeks ago when they asked him why he had more success last year, he said simply that he'd been practicing a lot on his putting.

Ahh.

 

It's my understanding that it's pretty much the opposite of a Zach Johnson - not really a long hitter but strong in his wedge game and his putting.


He's still a long hitter (280 yard drives), just not as long as the longest hitters in the PGA. The stats are http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html. The variation from the longest hitter to the shortest is about 57 yards, but in the middle 100 players there is only about 20 yards difference.

 

Plus he hits the ball very straight, and on the fairway 74% of the time and a GIR of 76%. His long game is pretty phenomenal, and his short game is really good.

post #455 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

Ahh.

 

It's my understanding that it's pretty much the opposite of a Zach Johnson - not really a long hitter but strong in his wedge game and his putting.

Not long, but straight.  He is on the fairway a lot off the tee.

post #456 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 


He's still a long hitter (280 yard drives), just not as long as the longest hitters in the PGA. The stats are http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html. The variation from the longest hitter to the shortest is about 57 yards, but in the middle 100 players there is only about 20 yards difference.

 

Plus he hits the ball very straight, and on the fairway 74% of the time and a GIR of 76%. His long game is pretty phenomenal, and his short game is really good.

 

And that is why I wouldn't call a short drives a "glaring weakness."  They would be a limitation.  After all, you can't necessarily improve your driving length by practicing more.

 

A glaring weakness would be hitting 25% of fairways (or whatever number would represent proportionally bad fairways hit vs the other parts of his game in relation to the field).  Range time and practice can improve that.

post #457 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

I don't follow Boo Weekley at all.  What's his glaring weakness?

 

Twinkies

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

All kidding aside (and in fact, I could listen to him talk all day - I love his accent) his glaring weakness is putting.

 

I guess he's long been considered one of the better ball strikers on tour, but its putting that's kept him from winning more often.  In fact, a couple of weeks ago when they asked him why he had more success last year, he said simply that he'd been practicing a lot on his putting.

 

Yes it's putting especially the short ones, tends to pull it right off the bat.

post #458 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

Interestingly enough, today my boss told me indirectly that that's one of my weaknesses. :-\

 

:offtopic:

All kidding aside (and in fact, I could listen to him talk all day - I love his accent) his glaring weakness is putting.

 

I guess he's long been considered one of the better ball strikers on tour, but its putting that's kept him from winning more often.  In fact, a couple of weeks ago when they asked him why he had more success last year, he said simply that he'd been practicing a lot on his putting.

Ahh.

 

It's my understanding that it's pretty much the opposite of a Zach Johnson - not really a long hitter but strong in his wedge game and his putting.


He's still a long hitter (280 yard drives), just not as long as the longest hitters in the PGA. The stats are http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html. The variation from the longest hitter to the shortest is about 57 yards, but in the middle 100 players there is only about 20 yards difference.

 

Plus he hits the ball very straight, and on the fairway 74% of the time and a GIR of 76%. His long game is pretty phenomenal, and his short game is really good.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFKFREAK View Post
 

Ahh.

 

It's my understanding that it's pretty much the opposite of a Zach Johnson - not really a long hitter but strong in his wedge game and his putting.

Not long, but straight.  He is on the fairway a lot off the tee.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 


He's still a long hitter (280 yard drives), just not as long as the longest hitters in the PGA. The stats are http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html. The variation from the longest hitter to the shortest is about 57 yards, but in the middle 100 players there is only about 20 yards difference.

 

Plus he hits the ball very straight, and on the fairway 74% of the time and a GIR of 76%. His long game is pretty phenomenal, and his short game is really good.

 

And that is why I wouldn't call a short drives a "glaring weakness."  They would be a limitation.  After all, you can't necessarily improve your driving length by practicing more.

 

A glaring weakness would be hitting 25% of fairways (or whatever number would represent proportionally bad fairways hit vs the other parts of his game in relation to the field).  Range time and practice can improve that.

 

 

Thank you for the correction, folks.

 

What I was trying to say was that it was my understanding that off the tee, if just measuring distance, he's in a lower percentile than the percentile he's in when it comes to putting (not sure if the keep a stat wedge play like that).  

post #459 of 491
Thread Starter 

This mirrors everything I've been saying: if you have two weeks to a tournament, develop a consistent pattern with your full swing, but spend most of your time on the short game. To improve overall, over time, spend a lot more time on your long game.

 

post #460 of 491

Good find!

post #461 of 491
Thread Starter 

Comparing the 80-golfer vs. 90-golfer, the 80-golfer makes up strokes in this fashion:

- Driving 2.5

- Approach 4.0

- Short game 2.1

- Putting 1.4

 

Hmmm… 65% for the full swing. Odd. :)

 

100 to 90 gives 2.6, 4.0, 2.0, and 1.4.

110 to 100 gives 3.4, 3.7, 1.7, and 1.2.

 

Overall the numbers work out to 28%, 39% (67% full swing), 19%, 14% (33% inside 100 yards, including putting).

 

P.S. "Short Game" is everything inside 100 yards to Broadie. My definition is slightly different.

post #462 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Comparing the 80-golfer vs. 90-golfer, the 80-golfer makes up strokes in this fashion:
- Driving 2.5
- Approach 4.0
- Short game 2.1
- Putting 1.4

Hmmm… 65% for the full swing. Odd. :)

100 to 90 gives 2.6, 4.0, 2.0, and 1.4.
110 to 100 gives 3.4, 3.7, 1.7, and 1.2.

Overall the numbers work out to 28%, 39% (67% full swing), 19%, 14% (33% inside 100 yards, including putting).

P.S. "Short Game" is everything inside 100 yards to Broadie. My definition is slightly different.

Good stuff!!! No disputing the information.

I did find it interesting, though, that within the long game, the approach was more heavily weighted vs. driver, although (if I'm reading your post correctly) the relative importance of approach vs. driver narrows the higher your handicap. Put another way, I would suppose for a high handicapper like myself my 65% long game practice should be more like 30% driver, 35% irons...no?
post #463 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GangGreen View Post

I did find it interesting, though, that within the long game, the approach was more heavily weighted vs. driver, although (if I'm reading your post correctly) the relative importance of approach vs. driver narrows the higher your handicap. Put another way, I would suppose for a high handicapper like myself my 65% long game practice should be more like 30% driver, 35% irons...no?

 

Yes, the relative amounts of contribution to strokes becomes more equal as you go up in handicaps.

 

No, I wouldn't necessarily say that you have to split your practice time directly along these lines. What you work on with your iron swing may very well carry over directly to your driver swing. Some players are better drivers than they are iron players (or vice versa). These stats are just averages - individual players can have relative strengths and weaknesses that vary, particularly within a category ("full swing").

post #464 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Yes, the relative amounts of contribution to strokes becomes more equal as you go up in handicaps.

No, I wouldn't necessarily say that you have to split your practice time directly along these lines. What you work on with your iron swing may very well carry over directly to your driver swing. Some players are better drivers than they are iron players (or vice versa). These stats are just averages - individual players can have relative strengths and weaknesses that vary, particularly within a category ("full swing").

Thanks, that's helpful to know!
post #465 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by GangGreen View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Yes, the relative amounts of contribution to strokes becomes more equal as you go up in handicaps.

No, I wouldn't necessarily say that you have to split your practice time directly along these lines. What you work on with your iron swing may very well carry over directly to your driver swing. Some players are better drivers than they are iron players (or vice versa). These stats are just averages - individual players can have relative strengths and weaknesses that vary, particularly within a category ("full swing").

Thanks, that's helpful to know!

 

It's also what I have found, in going from a hopeless 28-ish to where I am right now. If I develop my swing so that I can hit my driver or irons well, they carry over to each other.

 

What I did not fully understand is how you should interpret the data Erik was giving us.

 

Comparing the 80-golfer vs. 90-golfer, the 80-golfer makes up strokes in this fashion:
- Driving 2.5
- Approach 4.0
- Short game 2.1
- Putting 1.4

 

Does this mean that to lose about 10 strokes from my current game, I would need to improve FIR by 2.5 drives, GIR by 4, and improve up and down by 2.1 and putting by 1.4 per round?

 

If so, this is a very significant amount of improvement.

post #466 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

What I did not fully understand is how you should interpret the data Erik was giving us.

 

Comparing the 80-golfer vs. 90-golfer, the 80-golfer makes up strokes in this fashion:
- Driving 2.5
- Approach 4.0
- Short game 2.1
- Putting 1.4

 

Does this mean that to lose about 10 strokes from my current game, I would need to improve FIR by 2.5 drives, GIR by 4, and improve up and down by 2.1 and putting by 1.4 per round?

 

If so, this is a very significant amount of improvement.

 

No. Those are strokes gained or lost, not "GIR" or something like that.

post #467 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

What I did not fully understand is how you should interpret the data Erik was giving us.

 

Comparing the 80-golfer vs. 90-golfer, the 80-golfer makes up strokes in this fashion:
- Driving 2.5
- Approach 4.0
- Short game 2.1
- Putting 1.4

 

Does this mean that to lose about 10 strokes from my current game, I would need to improve FIR by 2.5 drives, GIR by 4, and improve up and down by 2.1 and putting by 1.4 per round?

 

If so, this is a very significant amount of improvement.

 

No. Those are strokes gained or lost, not "GIR" or something like that.

 

So, as long as the strokes gained in the "Approach" category put you in a position for either a GIR or an up and down by 4 strokes gained per round it will move you from a 90 player to an 80 player?

post #468 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

So, as long as the strokes gained in the "Approach" category put you in a position for either a GIR or an up and down by 4 strokes gained per round it will move you from a 90 player to an 80 player?

 

a) remember, it's just an average of 80-golfers and 90-golfers and where they lose/gain shots relative to the other group

b) yes… but you have to do the other things too, or else you'll only gain 4 shots.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Swing Thoughts
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Swing Thoughts › 65/20/15 Practice Ratios: Where to Devote Your Practice Time