Driving for Show, Putting for Dough, or Is It?

[Lihu]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Part 2… "P is an 8 handicap for the first six holes, and a 30 for the last 12." What?!?!?! C'mon. This is why this Golf Sidekick stuff is hot garbage.

Was wondering how you’d react to that statement, pretty much what I expected... 😂

Some of those “20”’s tee shots were pretty nice!

[edomingox]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

At the end, the video says the pro (Mo) shot +6, and the amateur shot +17. That's probably for all 18 holes, NOT that he saved "17 shots" on the back nine alone just from playing inside of 100 yards.

Ya.  sorry about that.  I misread that.

[edomingox]

Don't know why you're hating on the golf sidekick by calling him hot garbage.  He's not really teaching anything, but he advocates for stress free golf, which is what I would love to play.  I can tell you who is garbage.  All those instructors trying to teach a specific golfer's swing instead of working with the swing the player already has.

so from the 1st video, the pro saved the 20 handicapper 5.5 shots.

with the 2nd video, the +6 and +17 comparison, that's an 11 shot difference.  

Even as a one time experiment, it seems pretty evident that short game is more important than long game.  I think that is why we even have the saying "Drive for show and putt for dough" in the first place.  I've seen more books on putting and chipping than I do for driving.  Then again, I also see more books on the mental game as well.  

If I was to chose to have either Tiger's long game or short game, I'll take his short game.  Putts wins tournaments.  I seen plenty of videos of Tiger doing just that.

[DaveP043]

45 minutes ago, edomingox said:

If I was to chose to have either Tiger's long game or short game, I'll take his short game.  Putts wins tournaments.  I seen plenty of videos of Tiger doing just that.

This has been said before, but lets take 2 teams, and really compare full-swing game against short game:

Team 1, Tiger hits the "regulation to the green shots" and I finish out the hole.  By that I mean Tiger hits the tee shot for par 3s, the first two shots on par 4s, and three shots on par 5s (or two if he gets home in two).

Team 2, I hit the "regulation" shots and let Tiger get it in the hole.

Team 1 will beat Team 2 every single time.  Team 2 will miss more greens, will take more penalties, will have fewer short putts, have fewer eagle chances.  You could have done the same with the two golfers in the videos, just structured the experiment as I described.  They've structured their experiments in a way to produce the result they want to get.  Full swing is more than just driver.  And putts win tournaments only when the players are equal elsewhere.  

[klineka]

1 hour ago, edomingox said:

Even as a one time experiment, it seems pretty evident that short game is more important than long game.  I think that is why we even have the saying "Drive for show and putt for dough" in the first place.  I've seen more books on putting and chipping than I do for driving.  Then again, I also see more books on the mental game as well.  

There is so much wrong with that. Please please read a book like Lowest Score Wins, Every Shot Counts, etc. 

Quote

Broadie found that 68 percent of the differential between golfers can be found in the long game, with only 17 percent attributable to short game and 15 percent to putting.

“When I compare the top players on the PGA Tour, I find that the long game contributes about two-thirds to their success while the short game and putting contributes about one-third,” Broadie said. “Initially I was surprised, so I analyzed the data in different ways and found that all roads led to the same conclusion.”

For example, in any given year if you looked at the scoring average of the top 10 on the money list compared with those ranking 116-125, the scoring average differential would be about two strokes. Based on Broadie’s comparative analysis, about 1.4 of those strokes gained would come from the long game, while only 0.6 would be attributable to short game and putting.

Revolutionary Thinking

---

Edoardo Molinari is leading a statistical revolution, tracking data to prove that long is more important than short game.

 

[ncates00]

1 hour ago, edomingox said:

"Drive for show and putt for dough"

Only spoken by those who can't hit the golf ball.  They say it to discourage young folks who want to bomb it, to "one-up" them in some attempt to portray some fake sense of wisdom.  

Edited October 10, 2019 by ncates00

[iacas]

1 hour ago, edomingox said:

Don't know why you're hating on the golf sidekick by calling him hot garbage.  He's not really teaching anything, but he advocates for stress free golf, which is what I would love to play.  I can tell you who is garbage.  All those instructors trying to teach a specific golfer's swing instead of working with the swing the player already has.

…

Even as a one time experiment, it seems pretty evident that short game is more important than long game.  I think that is why we even have the saying "Drive for show and putt for dough" in the first place.  I've seen more books on putting and chipping than I do for driving.  Then again, I also see more books on the mental game as well.  

If I was to chose to have either Tiger's long game or short game, I'll take his short game.  Putts wins tournaments.  I seen plenty of videos of Tiger doing just that.

No. You’re incorrect. I’m not sure you got anything right there.

And the bold, I’m not even sure who you’re talking about, except that I know you’re not talking about me.

Shots outside of 100 yards, at every level of the game, are “worth” about 2x all shots inside 100 yards or on the greens.

[billchao]

5 hours ago, edomingox said:

Even as a one time experiment, it seems pretty evident that short game is more important than long game.

No it doesn't because it's a poorly designed "experiment." Why did the pro only hit the drives for the first part but the am had to hit it to within 100 yards in the second? Plus they weren't even playing the same set of holes.

[Lihu]

I question the validity of the experiment primarily because the 20 handicap seemed to hit relatively good tee shots and attempted shots I don’t normally see them attempt. He looked more like a 15. Or 13? At least off the tee, right?

Not sure about forcing the “20” hit to within 100 yards though? He must have a terrible short game with a glaring weakness in all aspects of that? That’s why the experiment worked.

They found a “20” with a decent tee shot and so so approach and horrible short game. If he’s a 20 because of that then, yeah, of course the experiment is biased to work...🤪

The person conducting the experiment even stated his bias and conclusion before the last shot was made 🤔
 

Quote

If I was to chose to have either Tiger's long game or short game, I'll take his short game.  Putts wins tournaments.  I seen plenty of videos of Tiger doing just that.

So, you’d rather hit 180-220 yard tee shots then chunk a ball to within 100 yards as a 20 handicap than pitch or chip from at most 50 yards from the green? 👀 Hmm, any other bets you’re willing to wager? 😁

Edited October 11, 2019 by Lihu

[RetiredOldMan]

Reading all this friendly banter about driving verses chipping and putting in my opinion, leaves a big gap, in my reasoning. 

If I have a +20 handicap, both driving and chipping and putting will be inferior to a scratch golfer. 

When I play against a better golfer, +10 handicap for instance, I need to stay in the fairway and not 3 putt a green. If, and a big if, he is having a rough day, I stand a good chance of beating him. 

I will not beat a scratch golfer. (Unless he falls down and can't get up.) 😄 

From personal experience, I play a good game when I keep my drives in the fairway and not missing my putts. 

Every shot counts. 

My 2 cents worth,

Retired Old Man

[klineka]

3 minutes ago, RetiredOldMan said:

Reading all this friendly banter about driving verses chipping and putting in my opinion, leaves a big gap, in my reasoning. 

If I have a +20 handicap, both driving and chipping and putting will be inferior to a scratch golfer. 

When I play against a better golfer, +10 handicap for instance, I need to stay in the fairway and not 3 putt a green. If, and a big if, he is having a rough day, I stand a good chance of beating him. 

I will not beat a scratch golfer. (Unless he falls down and can't get up.) 😄 

From personal experience, I play a good game when I keep my drives in the fairway and not missing my putts. 

Every shot counts. 

My 2 cents worth,

Retired Old Man

This doesnt affect the point you were making at all, but you dont add a + in front of the handicap unless they are better than scratch. 

PGA tour players would be like +6,+7,+8 handicaps if they kept them, meaning that they are 6,7,8 strokes better than scratch. Someone who is 10 or 20 strokes worse than scratch is simply a 10 or 20 handicap with no + in front of it.

[ShawnSum]

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

This has been said before, but lets take 2 teams, and really compare full-swing game against short game:

Team 1, Tiger hits the "regulation to the green shots" and I finish out the hole.  By that I mean Tiger hits the tee shot for par 3s, the first two shots on par 4s, and three shots on par 5s (or two if he gets home in two).

Team 2, I hit the "regulation" shots and let Tiger get it in the hole.

Team 1 will beat Team 2 every single time.  Team 2 will miss more greens, will take more penalties, will have fewer short putts, have fewer eagle chances.  You could have done the same with the two golfers in the videos, just structured the experiment as I described.  They've structured their experiments in a way to produce the result they want to get.  Full swing is more than just driver.  And putts win tournaments only when the players are equal elsewhere.  

You really know how to explain things well. Good stuff.

[RetiredOldMan]

20 minutes ago, klineka said:

This doesnt affect the point you were making at all, but you dont add a + in front of the handicap unless they are better than scratch. 

PGA tour players would be like +6,+7,+8 handicaps if they kept them, meaning that they are 6,7,8 strokes better than scratch. Someone who is 10 or 20 strokes worse than scratch is simply a 10 or 20 handicap with no + in front of it.

Thanks for straightening me out. 

What I was really trying to say is : The pro who plays with me, is going to be at a disadvantage whether I drive, chip, or putt. 😄 

Retired Old Man

[Vinsk]

15 minutes ago, RetiredOldMan said:

Thanks for straightening me out. 

What I was really trying to say is : The pro who plays with me, is going to be at a disadvantage whether I drive, chip, or putt. 😄 

Retired Old Man

Would you have a better chance against a pro in a putting contest or closest to the flag from 130-170yds?

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Would you have a better chance against a pro in a putting contest or closest to the flag from 130-170yds?

I would take on any Pro in a putting contest. I may lose, but I have a good chance to win.

I have less than zero chance beating them in any long game contest.

[Vinsk]

4 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I would take on any Pro in a putting contest. I may lose, but I have a good chance to win.

I have less than zero chance beating them in any long game contest.

Yep. I think a lot of golfers don’t realize that’s true for them as well. And if they do they don’t get the significance of it.

[iacas]

I have a bit more time for a longer response.

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

Don't know why you're hating on the golf sidekick by calling him hot garbage.

I feel as though I have ample evidence to support my opinion on that. This video adds to that ample evidence. Again:

• They played nine different holes.
• He didn't even keep the yardage at which they switched the same (pro only hit tee shots in the one, amateur hit everything outside of 100 yards in the latter).
• The amateur is "an 8 for the first 6 holes and a 30 for the rest." Uhmmmm…
• They didn't "warm up" and admitted after about six holes that they were finally feeling ready to play.
• He played ONLY nine holes for each side of the experiment.
• It's ONE example (one 20 handicapper, one pro), and the 20 handicapper didn't exactly play like a 20 handicapper much of the time.

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

He's not really teaching anything

He's putting out bad information.

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

he advocates for stress free golf, which is what I would love to play.

You know how you do that? Have a lot of tap-in pars. Hit the ball far and between the ropes, and then hit the green. Tap-in pars are as stress-free as golf can get.

And that's largely a function of your full swing.

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

I can tell you who is garbage.  All those instructors trying to teach a specific golfer's swing instead of working with the swing the player already has.

I still don't know who you're talking about here, except that you're definitely not talking about me.

Though, I will add this: what the golfer "already has" is a big part of why he's a 20. Until his swing changes, he's going to continue to be a higher handicapper.

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

Even as a one time experiment, it seems pretty evident that short game is more important than long game. 

Which is exactly backward. That's why that video is hot garbage.

That's a study conducted over millions of shots. Not nine holes with two individuals. The full swing (driving + approach shots) are "worth" 2x what the short game and putting are worth.

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

I think that is why we even have the saying "Drive for show and putt for dough" in the first place.

The saying is wrong.

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

I've seen more books on putting and chipping than I do for driving.

So?

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

If I was to chose to have either Tiger's long game or short game, I'll take his short game.

Bad choice.

Cripes, if you had Tiger's full swing (outside of 100 yards), you'd break par frequently. You'd have "stress-free" tap-in birdies on a few holes per round.

Bad choice, going with Tiger's short game.

[ncates00]

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

Don't know why you're hating on the golf sidekick by calling him hot garbage.  He's not really teaching anything, but he advocates for stress free golf, which is what I would love to play.  I can tell you who is garbage.  All those instructors trying to teach a specific golfer's swing instead of working with the swing the player already has.

so from the 1st video, the pro saved the 20 handicapper 5.5 shots.

with the 2nd video, the +6 and +17 comparison, that's an 11 shot difference.  

Even as a one time experiment, it seems pretty evident that short game is more important than long game.  I think that is why we even have the saying "Drive for show and putt for dough" in the first place.  I've seen more books on putting and chipping than I do for driving.  Then again, I also see more books on the mental game as well.  

If I was to chose to have either Tiger's long game or short game, I'll take his short game.  Putts wins tournaments.  I seen plenty of videos of Tiger doing just that.

If you know any scratch or plus golfers at your home course, experiment and open your eyes to what is very apparent to most of us: for one round, you hit all the drives and approaches, let the better golfer chip and putt.  The next round, let the better golfer do the long game, and you chip and putt.  Compare scores.

We don't even need to report back your findings; we already know what will result.  You should too if you really think about it.  

On 10/10/2019 at 12:52 PM, edomingox said:

If I was to chose to have either Tiger's long game or short game, I'll take his short game.  Putts wins tournaments.  I seen plenty of videos of Tiger doing just that.

Very bad choice.  Putting is important, but it's like the closing of a business deal; the deal is essentially done.  We just need some signatures.  All of the hard work of negotiating, drafting, negotiating some more, and all the due diligence is what gets the deal done.  Obviously, we need to close the deal or it doesn't count.  Similarly, in golf, the hard work and what creates the most value for your game is the long game.  Tiger is still relevant because he hits the ball so well, not because he putts well.  He's 43 with a fused back and still hits the ball with 170+ ball speed and sticks his irons.  That creates opportunities to allow for putts to drop.

Even in his prime, Tiger won so much because of his ballstriking.  He had wedges into Augusta's par 5's and obliterated fields with his power and superior iron play.  You only see the classic walk-ins and putts dropping because of the opportunities he gave himself through his long game. 

Name me a guy with superior short game and under 160 ball speed on the PGA Tour that is still winning big tournaments.  I'll wait.  

Edited October 11, 2019 by ncates00