Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Dave Pelz on the Importance of Putting (and Making Exactly the Opposite Argument He Thinks)


Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
Posted

This video is 11 years old and Dave Pelz has since passed on. And the video above reminded me of this gem of a thread:

I have two issues with this video.

First, Dave's math is once again wrong. Winners historically putt to a level where it accounts for 35% of their "win." Very little of a win is short game, leaving most of the 65% for the full swing.

Second, and perhaps most importantly… he makes the opposite point he thinks he's making. He proves that the short game is easier and that putting is easier to reach a high level, and that most people have no hope of improving their full swing to the point where they can compete with a PGA Tour player. Because that's the area where better players separate themselves the most. That's the area where the biggest batch of strokes to be gained or lost exists for almost every player.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Informative 1

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • It was worse than that.  Under 10 course handicap I think was NDB, but 10-19 CH had a maximum score, and 20-29 had a higher one (by one).  Might have been 7 and 8, I'm going from memory here.  When my handicap was low 20s / high teens, I had to look up  my course handicap every time I had a bad hole and adjust before I posted the number.  Now there's maybe one hole per course where that might be an issue, and I have the option to enter hole-by-hole in the GHIN app anyway if I have any doubts.   I remember reading a lot of Dean Knuth's writing 15-20 years ago, when I was starting in golf.  I liked the history of the (old?) handicapping system.  I really like the changes WHS brings with par.  I suppose I'm sorry he doesn't seem to like that change, I thought it solved a problem that had been irking me. 
    • Wordle 1,811 4/6 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟩🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Couple of things. In the UK they play a lot of stableford competitions. 2 points for a net par, 1 for a bogey, 3 for a birdie, 4 for an eagle, 0 for a double bogey or worse. Playing to your handicap typically means getting 36 points, being 18 x 2 points. If your course rating is a long way different from par, then playing to your handicap would mean getting 32 points or 40 points or some such. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that input from the R&A is the reason for the CR-Par adjustment, which brings it to 36 points is playing to your handicap. A round of net pars really should be playing to your handicap. Now it is. Yay. I would think the people most likely to be upset about the CR-Par adjustment would be 6 or 7 indexes whose course is par 72, with a 74/140 rating. 6.5 x 140/113 + 74 - 72 = 10. So the "single figure" golfer who has probably defined himself that way for a long time is now a 10 and getting double digit strokes. Oof. I must admit I'm a 0.0 right now (sure makes the math easy) and if I play Bethpage Black from the blues, suddenly I'm a 7. That takes a little bit of getting used to. It also means I do have to pay attention to the stroke indices to be sure of whether I'm making the net double bogey adjustment properly.  I do think it's much less likely that NDB is applied properly vs the old system where it was max double bogey or max 7 depending on handicap (I think anyway - I know it was max double bogey at my handicap level - I didn't much care about where it changed or what it changed to). NDB is clearly better, but it does mean people either have to adjust it themselves accurately (questionable) or input their hole by hole scores (also questionable). I do it, because I care about it (and don't tend to make too many scores worse than double and also rarely play courses where I'm giving strokes back to the course and would therefore have max bogey on some holes). I'm sure there are many who don't and will just guess or assume. Under the old system, if I was playing a scratch tournament (which is most of my golf), I didn't care what my course handicap or stroke allocations were. They didn't affect my posted scores at all. Now they do (although the MGA and LIGA post all scores at their events themselves directly - something I am very happy about). That is a complication under the new system - one I think is worth it given the benefits, but a complication all the same.
    • Wordle 1,811 4/6 ⬜🟩🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Good analogy Stinky 😜
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.