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

[Kevlar10]

Sorry if this has already been said but for each golfer it’s different.  It depends on where you lose the most strokes per hole.  If you hit ob on your tee shot or duff it, that’s one or two.  If you can’t get on the green from the fairway that’s one or two there.  If you can’t chip, that’s one there even if you get on the green but aren’t at a reachable distance. If you can’t two putt from 15-20 feet, that’s another one or two.  

Right now, I’ve improved my GIR from 0% to 30-40%, next I need to improve my putting.  3 putts blow up my score more than anything right now but last year, it was my driving more than anything.  I’ve always been a decent iron player. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Kevlar10 said:

Sorry if this has already been said but for each golfer it’s different.

It’s impossible to have a conversation about everyone. Hence generalities are made. They’re still quite relevant and important.

[NM Golf]

16 hours ago, Kevlar10 said:

Sorry if this has already been said but for each golfer it’s different.  It depends on where you lose the most strokes per hole.  If you hit ob on your tee shot or duff it, that’s one or two.  If you can’t get on the green from the fairway that’s one or two there.  If you can’t chip, that’s one there even if you get on the green but aren’t at a reachable distance. If you can’t two putt from 15-20 feet, that’s another one or two.  

Right now, I’ve improved my GIR from 0% to 30-40%, next I need to improve my putting.  3 putts blow up my score more than anything right now but last year, it was my driving more than anything.  I’ve always been a decent iron player. 

See this is where people don't understand the partial strokes gained methodology. You are seeing everything in complete strokes. What you don't realize is just about every time you three putt, it's probably partially your drive or approach shot that caused it. For example, you hit a poor drive and you have to hit a long iron out of the rough to the green. You leave yourself a 50 foot putt and you 3-putt. People blame the putter, but its the long game that actually is to blame.

People are aIso poor judges of distance. I doubt you are actually 3-putting much from 15 feet. Those 3-putts are probably coming from more of the 30-50 foot range. Take a tape measure to the putting green and check it out, its hard to 3-putt from 15 feet.

[Kevlar10]

24 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

 Take a tape measure to the putting green and check it out, its hard to 3-putt from 15 feet.

Not for everyone.  Lol

[NM Golf]

56 minutes ago, Kevlar10 said:

Not for everyone.  Lol

If you really do 3-putt consistently from 15 feet that would be a glaring weakness in your game that needs to be addressed. I still somewhat doubt the validity of that claim though. People are notoriously poor at analyzing their own games, hence the decades old belief that short game is the most important part of the game. It's not.

[Yukari]

1 hour ago, NM Golf said:

See this is where people don't understand the partial strokes gained methodology. You are seeing everything in complete strokes. What you don't realize is just about every time you three putt, it's probably partially your drive or approach shot that caused it. For example, you hit a poor drive and you have to hit a long iron out of the rough to the green. You leave yourself a 50 foot putt and you 3-putt. People blame the putter, but its the long game that actually is to blame.

People are aIso poor judges of distance. I doubt you are actually 3-putting much from 15 feet. Those 3-putts are probably coming from more of the 30-50 foot range. Take a tape measure to the putting green and check it out, its hard to 3-putt from 15 feet.

+1.  I couldn't agree more.  Most people don't recognize the cause of three putts or a need for chipping to get on the green.  They just blame poor chip or poor putting for high scores.  If you can get on the green in regulation by at least 20-30% or more, your score will drop.

Granted at the tour level, it may be the putting that separates the winners from the field (see Rory), but at the amateur level - and especially for weekend hackers like us - more often than not it is the long game that blows up the score.

[ghalfaire]

A few years ago there was an article in one of the golf rags, Golf Digest or Golf, that did a study and concluded that the closer to the pin you are the more important the stroke is to your final score.  At first glace one might conclude this supports the theory the short game is more important to scoring.  But, if you think about this conclusion and the fact we all know 10' putts are easier than 25' putts and it is easier to hit a green with wedge as opposed to a 7 iron, maybe what this result says is that it is important to get a close to the pin as you can with each shot.  That thought leads one to conclude that it is important that you have a long game and that giving yards away to the opponent makes it difficult to win. 

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on what part of the game is more important.  It all is really.  My personal experiences are that my best scores are when all the pieces are fitting together and working.  I have had some of my best rounds when my tee to green game was great (for me anyway) but my putting was marginal, but I have also had work the other way (sloppy from tee to green but better than normal short game). 

So my conclusion is that whatever shot you're hitting you want to get it as close to the pin as you can (and keep it playable of course).

[DennisMiller]

11 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

A few years ago there was an article in one of the golf rags, Golf Digest or Golf, that did a study and concluded that the closer to the pin you are the more important the stroke is to your final score.  At first glace one might conclude this supports the theory the short game is more important to scoring.

 

I have no disagreement with all you wrote, but this part really rang bells to me. Like many of us, I have days when I hit greens and more days when I miss greens. I've always been a pretty good putter, so on the days I miss greens, the quality of my chipping or sand game is really what makes the difference between a good round and something I'd rather forget. It's kind of a matter of neither driving for show nor putting for dough. I can't make a cute saying out of it... chipping for my flipping sanity?... but among the old fart generation I'm part of now, I see an awful lot of good scoring based on guys who can get up and down really well.

[ncates00]

44 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

So my conclusion is that whatever shot you're hitting you want to get it as close to the pin as you can (and keep it playable of course).

This thread is now closed.

On 10/2/2019 at 6:48 PM, Kevlar10 said:

I’ve always been a decent iron player. 

Your self-reported stat of 0% to a now improved 30-40% says otherwise.  Ballstriking is king in this game.  The short game is the easiest part of this game to do reasonably well; to master, it is difficult, but not in the same way the long game is.  It's hard to hit shots accurately to targets at a long distance, all the while keeping the ball in play.  Focus on good ballstriking and you'll not only enjoy the game more and play better, you'll have a longer "career" as you age.  After all, any one can putt, as it takes little to no athletic ability.  Pitching has some to it, but what do you think will be harder to do as you age?  Become a ballstriker now and worry less about the short game.  Go re-read @NM Golf's post about what really causes problems.

Edited October 6, 2019 by ncates00

[Vinsk]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:27 PM, NM Golf said:

hence the decades old belief that short game is the most important part of the game. It's not.

This is quite frustrating as well. I was following the Jim Venetos method and enjoying it, but feared I may be capping my actual potential. I decided to leave the ‘group’ as he and one of is his disciples who even started an entire YouTube series swear by the short game. Jim’s most recent video even states the short game is where strokes are saved. I wish people would let their old misinformed ways go and just be open to learn the facts and accept it. I get irritated hearing people teach new golfers utterly false concepts.

[iacas]

59 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

A few years ago there was an article in one of the golf rags, Golf Digest or Golf, that did a study and concluded that the closer to the pin you are the more important the stroke is to your final score.

I think you understand this pretty well, but that's poorly stated by Golf Digest if you've summarized it accurately.

As you go on to say, a one-foot putt has almost none of what we coined as Separation Value®. Everyone takes 1 stroke to hit it. The thing that separates people is whether the 1-foot putt was the result of a 3-foot putt, a 30-foot putt, a 30-yard chip, a 130-yard shot, or a 230-yard shot.

59 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

So my conclusion is that whatever shot you're hitting you want to get it as close to the pin as you can (and keep it playable of course).

Our GamePlanning philosophy in a nutshell is summarized pretty well in what we call "The Rule."

34 minutes ago, DennisMiller said:

I have no disagreement with all you wrote, but this part really rang bells to me. Like many of us, I have days when I hit greens and more days when I miss greens. I've always been a pretty good putter, so on the days I miss greens, the quality of my chipping or sand game is really what makes the difference between a good round and something I'd rather forget. It's kind of a matter of neither driving for show nor putting for dough. I can't make a cute saying out of it... chipping for my flipping sanity?... but among the old fart generation I'm part of now, I see an awful lot of good scoring based on guys who can get up and down really well.

Those old guys who score well also don't get into trouble.

The simple facts are that the old guys who hit more greens, even if they're not quite as good at putting or chipping, generally shoot better scores than those old guys scrambling all the time.

[Double Mocha Man]

Here's a way to look at this if it hasn't already been pointed out on this lengthy thread.  I am in the camp that the longer you are off the tee (given you hit it relatively straight) the better off you are.  Golf strength matters.  Which is not the same as brute or raw strength, but has to do with technique, timing and athleticism.

Personal case in point... I get my drives out there pretty well... through genes, technique, lots of practice, whatever.  I am usually 30-40 yards beyond my usually younger golf buddies.  But there's more.  If I brought my drive back to where they are I'd be hitting one or two clubs less.  So my net distance gain on them is 40 to 60 yards.  I'm hitting a wedge into the green while they're stroking a 4 hybrid.

With the one day exception of the day I played with two older gentlemen and they were putting their hybrids to the green inside my wedges!

[phan52]

Most of my golfing life, I have always scored better when I drove the ball consistently. It kept the double and triple bogies at bay, which invariably occurred when I drove it poorly and into trouble. That has kind of flipped now as get older. I don't have a lot of length anymore so I find that it is actually harder to get in big trouble because I can't reach the "trouble". There are fairway bunkers on my course that used to give me fits and now I aim at them because I can't reach them and it gives me better angles of attack. I am invariably forced to lay up, which I find that I have to do sometimes even with a decent drive (for me). My better scores in recent years are when I am rolling it well and making some putts.  

[klineka]

26 minutes ago, phan52 said:

That has kind of flipped now as get older. I don't have a lot of length anymore so I find that it is actually harder to get in big trouble because I can't reach the "trouble". There are fairway bunkers on my course that used to give me fits and now I aim at them because I can't reach them.

If you want to play the course as it was intended, then you would probably need to move up a tee box, so that way those fairway bunkers would be in play for your tee shot, which was likely the intended design by the architect. That was always my understanding of one of the reasons for having different tee boxes, so players of different lengths would be subjected to a similar course experience in regards to trouble off the tee, reachable hazards, etc.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, klineka said:

If you want to play the course as it was intended, then you would probably need to move up a tee box, so that way those fairway bunkers would be in play for your tee shot, which was likely the intended design by the architect. That was always my understanding of one of the reasons for having different tee boxes, so players of different lengths would be subjected to a similar course experience in regards to trouble off the tee, reachable hazards, etc.

Right.

You saying that your driving no longer "matters" is like someone choosing to hit nothing longer than a 7-iron off the tee and for all full swing type shots, and then claiming that how they hit their 7-iron that day really has little bearing on their final score, because they'll inevitably hit some good ones, some bad ones, etc. and they'll all be lost in the noise.

You're not playing the proper tees for you, it sounds like, and as such, you've removed all of the risk/reward that puts your driver and approach shot game into play.

P.S. I bet your approach shot play is still under-weighted by you.

[phan52]

22 minutes ago, klineka said:

If you want to play the course as it was intended, then you would probably need to move up a tee box, so that way those fairway bunkers would be in play for your tee shot, which was likely the intended design by the architect. That was always my understanding of one of the reasons for having different tee boxes, so players of different lengths would be subjected to a similar course experience in regards to trouble off the tee, reachable hazards, etc.

We have added tee boxes that do exactly what you say and put all of the intended challenges into play. I play a forward tee occasionally and it is way more fun. But I also play in a lot of tournaments at our club and they are always played from our men's tees so I prefer to stay in touch with that yardage. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by phan52

[edomingox]

found this video where the guy experimented by taking a 20 handicapper and a pro and have them do the following:

1. phase 1:  pro hits the drives, 20 handicapper plays the ball in from there.

2. phase 2:  20 handicapper hits to 100 yards, pro plays it from there.

The final results are at the end of phase 2 video. 

Phase 1: pro saved 6 strokes

Phase 2: pro saved 17 strokes

It's not explicitly driver vs. putter, but more like long game versus short game.

 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, edomingox said:

It's not explicitly driver vs. putter, but more like long game versus short game.

No it isn’t.

Why didn’t the pro play to 100 yards?

Also this am is NOTHING like the average if the pro saved him 17 shots from 100 in. Nothing.

Wait, each phase was OVER NINE HOLES? Completely bogus.

And, the course is 6300 yards.

On the first hole alone, the pro had 151 in after his tee shot on a par five, and the 20 was dropping his second about 150 yards back of that, hitting 3 from 300. That's 2+ shots right there saved for an average 20+. The second shot is again 2+ shots saved, as the guy was in the bunker and the pro was nine feet away. The next hole, he hits it to 20 feet? Not gonna happen very often. On the fourth, he's wet while the pro is putting from close range, so again, 2+ shots, but they only call it 2. By now I'm already at 7, and they're already at 5, and it's been four holes. On the fifth hole, they play bad strategically, and don't count the strokes that they should have. The next hole, he makes double, but they count that as one stroke lost because he played against himself after the tee shot and made bogey. Then he lost three shots on 7… I give up. Watch the video and the amateur 20 handicapper is not like an average 20.

I mean, their takeaways from part 1 - where they apparently didn't warm up at all - included "working out and stretching are key to a good start." Great. Thanks.

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.

He's "biased toward thinking the short game is everything." He's wrong.

And here's how you get 17 shots… P apparently wasn't lying when he is an 8 and then a 30. He misses the green from like 15 yards on the very first hole while on the previous nine he splashed out of a bunker to 15 feet. The next hole, he blades one over the green, then shanks one, etc. The next two holes, he saved 0 shots. Then on the next hole, they're tabulating strokes lost because of "decisions" off the tee and then from under a tree, which are NOT inside of 100 yards.

I'm skimming the rest.

52 minutes ago, edomingox said:

Phase 1: pro saved 6 strokes

Phase 2: pro saved 17 strokes

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.