Relative Importance of Driving/Approach Shots, Short Game, Putting, etc. (LSW, Mark Broadie, Strokes Gained, etc.)

[iacas]

I just can't see it any other way ...

Okay.

[BuckeyeNut]

It's hard to make an argument either way considering the vast differences in the playing abilities of forum members.  For example, it's difficult to convince a high handicapper that loses 7 balls a round the importance of the short game.

[inthehole]

Okay.

OK, with that response, we'll agree to disagree (I put a lot into that last post trying to explain and justify why I feel like I do - seems logical).

[mvmac]

Guys, please read the data. Erik is a smart dude and doesn't come to these kind of conclusions without hard facts.

Just a reminder for those who insists on one aspect of golf is more important than others .... your golf is as good as your weakest link in golf skills, be it driving, putting.

( And saying it multiple times on internet does not make it true.  Viola! )

Agree so please take a look a the data

- Mid hcp's can usually get off the tee & get their 2nd shot in reasonably well, it's the short stuff that prevents us (ok, me) from going low.

Like you said, it's probably you.  If you're missing more than half your greens, then you don't really have a chance to go low.  You can't get every ball up and down, even the pros don't.

Thing is there's no comparing any aspect of my game to a really good player, but when I see really low hcp's & how they get up and down more often than not, hit chip shots consistently to tap in range, get out of bunkers reliably, cozy the occasional awkward 40 yard pitch shot in close, and more often than not make those 5-7 foot putts that I make so infrequently ... its crystal clear this is what separates the really good guys from myself and those I play with in the mid hcp range.     I just can't see it any other way ... at least in reference to the mid-hcp'ers I see all the time  (this seemingly doesn't apply to the low & high hcp's as I indicated above & I agree for these groups it's all about the long game)

I'm guessing no.  The ability to hit more greens is what really separates the good guys from the mid-handicappers.  I agree a low handicapper's short game is also better but think about how much lower you would score if you played from where they hit their 3rd shots on par 4's, 4th shot of par 5's, etc.

If you had to bet $ and play against a low handicapper, would you rather compete against the guy in a short game competition or a GIR competition?

[rkim291968]

???????

Just teasing ya.

Chuckle.  I deserve that for misspelling a French word.   I took German in college.   Thought it was a good idea at time.

[Lihu]

Listen, lets just agree once and for all, it's hcp dependent, and leave it at that.    Grossly over-simplified generalizations to support this theory are as follows ...

Stage 3- Low hcp's/pro's need length & accuracy off the tee and with the 2nd shot long clubs (they already have a solid short game) - so long game is more important

Stage 2- Mid hcp's can usually get off the tee & get their 2nd shot in reasonably well, it's the short stuff that prevents us (ok, me) from going low.

Stage 1- High hcp's - most struggle off the tee & hit too many OB shots, so it's the long game for those guys that is most important.

I think your statements above support what Erik has been saying.

If we divide up the list into stages for a beginner to start his/her training this is what it would look like:

Stage 1: Get that Tee shot as good as you can get--->The ramification is that your longest shots (tee shots) are most important to go from a high handicap to a mid handicap.

Stage 2: Get from a Mid handicapper down to a low handicapper---> The ramification is that your second longest shots are the most important to progress to a low handicap.

Stage 3: Improvement of the short game and putting to get to scratch/pro?

The main thing is you can't lost the ability of any of the stages above the stage you are on in order to get to the next level. So, from stage 2 to 3 you cant lose the abilities gained from stage 1. You can just depend upon it. This does not detract from its importance. It's just not your learning priority, because you know it's there for you.

This means of course, your long game is the most important to have. If you don't already have a good one it is the one you need to work on for the most gain.

None of this directly means that a 300 yard hitter will always score better than a 200 yard hitter, because we know that is not always true.

However, it does help to hit long straight drives, it takes pressure off your next shot and in turn a good second shot takes the pressure off the next shot, etc.

The importance goes from long to short, because that is how golf is played.

[wils5150]

look at it this way. If you don't hit a good tee shot you probably wont have the opportunity to have a reasonable second shot to the green. Its pretty simple really. And no disrespect to high handicappers but wouldn't you rather 2 or 3 putt for a bogey or double instead of 1 putting for a triple.

[MS256]

Seems like there are different interpretations of most important part of the game and easiest way to decrease strokes .

Any of us that compete against lower handicap golfers know that we are behind the 8 ball from the start against people that consistently hit the ball a closer proximity to the hole in regulation. That is usually due to length and accuracy off of the tee and almost always accuracy with approach shots (even if we are as long as the lower handicap player).

No matter how good our short game is it won't consistently overcome the disadvantage of hitting approaches farther from the hole. Of course we work on the short game (and we are glad we've got it) because it gives us a fighting chance, but in the end it will never consistently be enough to beat the guys that are hitting it closer.

[inthehole]

I think your statements above support what Erik has been saying.

If we divide up the list into stages for a beginner to start his/her training this is what it would look like:

Stage 1: Get that Tee shot as good as you can get--->The ramification is that your longest shots (tee shots) are most important to go from a high handicap to a mid handicap.

Stage 2: Get from a Mid handicapper down to a low handicapper---> The ramification is that your second longest shots are the most important to progress to a low handicap.

Stage 3: Improvement of the short game and putting to get to scratch/pro?

The main thing is you can't lost the ability of any of the stages above the stage you are on in order to get to the next level. So, from stage 2 to 3 you cant lose the abilities gained from stage 1. You can just depend upon it. This does not detract from its importance. It's just not your learning priority, because you know it's there for you.

This means of course, your long game is the most important to have. If you don't already have a good one it is the one you need to work on for the most gain.

None of this directly means that a 300 yard hitter will always score better than a 200 yard hitter, because we know that is not always true.

However, it does help to hit long straight drives, it takes pressure off your next shot and in turn a good second shot takes the pressure off the next shot, etc.

The importance goes from long to short, because that is how golf is played.

This makes a lot of sense - I like how you phrased it.

[iacas]

OK, with that response, we'll agree to disagree (I put a lot into that last post trying to explain and justify why I feel like I do - seems logical).

Aside from the fact that you can't really "agree to disagree" on facts , I think Mike answered your post fairly well.

Seems like there are different interpretations of most important part of the game and easiest way to decrease strokes.

I would agree. I think there are two misconceptions.

1. The first is what you just said. I've said a hundred times now if you have three days and want to lower your score, practice your short game. Learn a new shot. Get better out of the bunkers. Fine tune your pitch shot touch. Work on your speed and line in putting. Whatever.
2. "The long game" is defined differently by many. I believe Broadie calls it any shot that's 100 yards from the flag or farther. It's not "hitting the ball far." If you're an 80-year-old golfer who drives it 180 yards, you still have "a long game." If you play tees that are farther back than you should you have too much of a long game.

[14ledo81]

I think some confused "most important" with what needs to be practiced the most. Again, the long game is the most important and "for most" should also be practiced the most. Some have a "glaring weakness" and should practice something else. Even if they are practicing something else, it does not change the fact that the long game is more important.

[Fourputt]

It's hard to make an argument either way considering the vast differences in the playing abilities of forum members.  For example, it's difficult to convince a high handicapper that loses 7 balls a round the importance of the short game.

And it's equally difficult to convince the 70 year old player who has lost 40+ yards off his tee shot in the last 10 years and is incapable of ever getting that back that the long game means squat.  Lack of flexibility alone will be a major factor in limiting the best he can expect.  For that guy it's all about minimizing the damage that age has done to his long game with a  stellar short game.  We've all seen that guy - 180 down the middle, 160 to near the green, and par or bogey at worst.  He almost never makes a double, because he keeps his ball away from trouble.  He understands his limitations and plays (and practices) for the things he can control. #1 on his list is short game.

[iacas]

And it's equally difficult to convince the 70 year old player who has lost 40+ yards off his tee shot in the last 10 years and is incapable of ever getting that back that the long game means squat.

@Fourputt , please see point #2 in this post not too far above: http://thesandtrap.com/t/14930/long-game-more-important-than-short/162#post_914963 . The long game is NOT "hitting the ball far." You went on to describe a guy with a great long game, which is why he's still able to shoot relatively good scores for his ability level.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And it's equally difficult to convince the 70 year old player who has lost 40+ yards off his tee shot in the last 10 years and is incapable of ever getting that back that the long game means squat.

@Fourputt, please see point #2 in this post not too far above: http://thesandtrap.com/t/14930/long-game-more-important-than-short/162#post_914963 . The long game is NOT "hitting the ball far." You went on to describe a guy with a great long game, which is why he's still able to shoot relatively good scores for his ability level.

Part of my point is that he doesn't have to be as accurate because he simply doesn't hit the ball far enough get deeply into trouble most of the time.  Take a shot from this guy and from the 300 yard guy, both with the same deviation from the aiming point, and when the 300 yard shot is unplayable, the 180 guy is just off the fairway.  They both have the same amount of swing inconsistency, but the 180 guy is probably going to make more use of a good short game, while the 300 guy needs to work harder on his long game.  Once the 300 guy gets his long game figured out, he will probably pass the short hitter for scoring, but some of us never do quite figure that out.

[iacas]

Part of my point is that he doesn't have to be as accurate because he simply doesn't hit the ball far enough get deeply into trouble most of the time.  Take a shot from this guy and from the 300 yard guy, both with the same deviation from the aiming point, and when the 300 yard shot is unplayable, the 180 guy is just off the fairway.  They both have the same amount of swing inconsistency, but the 180 guy is probably going to make more use of a good short game, while the 300 guy needs to work harder on his long game.  Once the 300 guy gets his long game figured out, he will probably pass the short hitter for scoring, but some of us never do quite figure that out.

The fact remains that if he's never taking penalty strokes and is constantly on or near the green in regulation, he's got a great "long game," particularly for his ability level.

[Dave2512]

look at it this way. If you don't hit a good tee shot you probably wont have the opportunity to have a reasonable second shot to the green. Its pretty simple really. And no disrespect to high handicappers but wouldn't you rather 2 or 3 putt for a bogey or double instead of 1 putting for a triple.

Story of my life and yes I would. I can honestly say I felt like my game turned a corner when I was disappointed 3 putting for bogey instead of being relieved I saved one. Usually because it was down to luck as much as anything. Having a legit chance to make par changes the way you play golf. This is what bogey golfers don't understand. You want the opportunity. GIR is the most important factor in how we score.

[David in FL]

Listen, lets just agree once and for all, it's hcp dependent, and leave it at that.    Grossly over-simplified generalizations to support this theory are as follows ...

- Low hcp's/pro's need length & accuracy off the tee and with the 2nd shot long clubs (they already have a solid short game) - so long game is more important

- Mid hcp's can usually get off the tee & get their 2nd shot in reasonably well, it's the short stuff that prevents us (ok, me) from going low.

- High hcp's - most struggle off the tee & hit too many OB shots, so it's the long game for those guys that is most important.

No they don't.  I'm sorry, but that's exactly the point.

They've gotten good enough that they seldom skull a ball, or lay the sod over it, and think that they are now reasonably good ball-strikers.  But when you break down their game, I guarantee they're seldom hitting more than a small handful of greens in regulation, often only one or two......even zero.  All they've done is to define striking the ball well , as NOT striking it terribly.  Without changing their perception of what it means to strike the ball well , they now move away from what still represents the biggest single opportunity for improvement and start spending more time on the short game, thinking that "if only I could get up and down better, I'd be in single digits tomorrow."  The way to get into single digits is to continue to improve the full swing so that they're not missing 15 greens in the first place........the way to get into the low single digits is to continue that improvement so that you're hitting 10 or more greens.  Now you make a putt here and there, get up and down just a couple of times from the relatively few greens that you missed, and you're shooting 75.....all with a relatively modest "short" game.

Again, no one's saying that short game and putting aren't important.  They are.  But the biggest opportunity for improvement for most of us remains in reducing the number of strokes it takes to get onto that putting green.

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Here's the latest article I've referenced. Let me quote one of the paragraphs:

I swear I didn't set you up for that, because that's the entire paragraph, and it's written word for word. It's exactly what you said you haven't read and what I said was the main point.

Here's another piece of supporting data:

Here's one more quote that puts into perspective how important they are relative to one another:

If you keep reading, you'll find that this stuff matters at all levels, too. The examples are for the PGA Tour, but Broadie's book will cover regular golfers, too, and the results are relatively consistent.

And again, all of that is only about comparing players to other players.  I've already stated more than once that the long game is more important there.  That isn't disputed.  It doesn't contradict anything I've said.  The same goes for data comparing Tiger and Rory to other players on the tour.  Yes, that is the main point of those articles.  That's what I've been saying all along.  This contradicts though what you've said was the main point:

Quote:

It's not about Tiger versus you. It's about shooting the lowest scores you can shoot, and just how important the long game is for YOU and EVERYONE to shoot the best scores.

It is an illogical leap to suggest that any of this data say anything at all about the lowest score that any individual, or that individuals on average, can shoot.  Or aboout the relative importance of the long game to such scores.   The data presented so far in no way supports any such conclusion.

Look at what the article you referenced says in context:

Quote:

There’s one headline-grabber that is sure to make headlines around the world:

Long game is more important than short game.

In a revelation that is sure to leave the old-school “drive for show, putt for dough” thinkers stomping in their soft spikes, 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.

Again, this is clearly talking about what are the differences between golfers.  Not what it is most important for any individual to improve.

And again, what Broadie himself says of his data:

Quote:

Broadie, who is a four handicap, knows the heresy his research suggests. He is not recommending that everyone abandon short-game clinics. He said, in fact, that his findings are not inconsistent with the accepted instruction doctrine that practicing the short game may be the easiest way to score lower.

My main points from the beginning were:

1.  Distance is a big part of the measured differences between golfers in the data, but may not be something everyone can improve a great deal in.

2.   Broadie's own suggestion about what golfers should work on really emphasized accuracy from 100-150 yards.  This is something everyone can work on and get good at.  The NYT article suggests that proficiency here is what determines whether you should work more on the "short game" or the "long game".

I'll add one more:

3.  While accuracy from 100-150 yards is hugely important, there's no reason to think it is more important than accuracy from 100 yards in!

The "long game" is "more important" here mainly because tee shots are being lumped in with approach shots over 100 yards, and on any hole longer than 300-380 yards (depending on the golfer), there will likely be at least two such shots.   If you are putting the tee shot together with the approach shot, yes those two things combined are going to account for more than half the hole.

And of course there is some similarity between tee shots and approach shots, but there is also a similarity between 100-150 yard approaches and those under 100 yards.  Good swing mechanics on a pitch aren't that different from a full swing.  To some degree, working on one is helping the other.  I think that really dialing in consistent distance and accuracy everywhere from 20 yards to 150 yards, from pitches, to wedges, to short irons, seems critical to me, no matter what you call it.