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

[rehmwa]

I guess I am just pointing out that any missed GIR is a long game shortcoming,

the term "throwing darts today" is what we're looking for.  they are the guys that win

or "he gave himself a lot of birdie putt opportunities"

I never hear an announcer say "the winner got up and down to save par well on most of the holes today"

[mvmac]

I never hear an announcer say "the winner got up and down to save par well on most of the holes today"

If you do hear an announcer say that, it can happen but it's very rare, there is a good chance the guy had a decent sized lead going into the last round and "held on" for the win.

[Ernest Jones]

[QUOTE name="rehmwa" url="/t/14930/is-the-long-game-more-important-than-short-game/306#post_917006"] I never hear an announcer say "the winner got up and down to save par well on most of the holes today" [/QUOTE] If you do hear an announcer say that, it can happen but it's very rare, there is a good chance the guy had a decent sized lead going into the last round and "held on" for the win.

Or it's freak windstorm events like we had several times last season. Or the Open.

[rehmwa]

Or the Open.

LMAO

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKolya

I guess I am just pointing out that any missed GIR is a long game shortcoming,

the term "throwing darts today" is what we're looking for.  they are the guys that win

or "he gave himself a lot of birdie putt opportunities"

I never hear an announcer say "the winner got up and down to save par well on most of the holes today"

But they will often point to a specific save that might have been crucial to the win... especially if it's Tiger or Phil. That just supports the fact that you can't totally neglect any facet of the game if you want to be the best you can be.

[mvmac]

But they will often point to a specific save that might have been crucial to the win... especially if it's Tiger or Phil.   That just supports the fact that you can't totally neglect any facet of the game if you want to be the best you can be.

Agree, reason why we recommend 25% of the practice time to pitching/chipping and 10% to putting

[boil3rmak3r]

I mentioned it in the "what did you shoot today" thread, but it's worth noting here too. Shot a 77 yesterday.  15 pars, 2 doubles, and a bogey.  Hit 11 greens (with 3 of the misses close enough to putt), but a very pedestrian short game......missed 5 birdie putts under 10-12 feet.....and those 2 doubles?  They weren't the result of bad "short game" shots..... The sooner you get the ball on the green......even if you don't make a putt, the better you'll score.

After reading this thread for a while, I now realize the question is no more and no less - will a good long game save you more strokes, or a good short game. I've also learned that long game includes all full shots, recovery shots from 50+ yds from the green, and even 1/2 swings with a wedge from 40 yds away. In those terms, I will retract my previous posts and say, DUH, a better long game will certainly save you more shots than a good short game. I thought (and Erik earlier pointed out that I'm a nobody and my thoughts don't mean anything) it was more of a question of what any given golfer needs to work on. Having said that, it cracks me up to see people say that ALL they need to do is hit greens in regulation. If they do that, the short game won't matter (I.e. a great short game isn't needed if you have a great long game). The last I checked, the average PGA pro hit 65% GIR's and something like 60% of FIR. That's about 12 greens per round and 8.5 FW per round. Their scrambling percentage is close to 60%. So, for all of us that think we should be hitting 12+ GIR's, I like that as a long-term goal (and, yes, it would improve our scores the most). But if the pros only average 12, and they do this for a living, is that realistic? Let's put things in perspective for us amateurs... David, your post peaked my interest. You hit 11 GIR's and had three other holes where you were putting from just off the green. You also had quite a few makeable birdie putts. One of your two doubles was from a drive that was JUST off the fairway, but you were unlucky to get an unplayable lie. You even said that your short game was less than stellar. For this particular round, why do you think your long game let you down and not your short game?

[Golfingdad]

I thought about this thread again today while playing.  On a fairly straightforward, but long par 3 (190, into the wind) I hit a pretty poor, hooked 5 iron into the greenside bunker.  The greens were fairly slick, and I had short-sided myself.  I hit a really nice bunker shot that rolled to about 10', leaving a putt that was basically straight up the hill.  I made the putt and saved par.  My conclusion:  The long game is more important than the short game.

Wait, what??  Why would I say that??

Because, that was just about the best bunker shot from that position that I think most anybody (obviously not scratch players and pros, but most people) could play (short-sided, green running away) and I still ended up 10' away.  Today I made the putt, but what is the typical average on 10' putts for decent putting amateurs?  I'm going to guess something like 25% success rate??  That means that from that position, I will likely get down in 3 shots 75% of the time, even with a great bunker shot.  OTOH, a poor bunker shot is going to put me 25-30 feet away at worst?  I would bet that I three-putt from 30 feet something on the order of 1 in 8 times, maybe?

This means that if I play that scenario 8 times over, if I play it well every time, I'm going to finish in around 22 strokes, and if I play it poorly every time, I 'm going to finish in around 25 strokes.

So I'm thinking to myself, how important can the short game really be if the difference between really good and really bad here is only 3/8 of a stroke?  By contrast, the difference between a good shot from the tee and a bad shot from the tee is basically a full shot.

I apologize if I'm speaking gibberish here, the math and logic all makes sense in my head, but I'm not sure if it came out right. (It's late ... time to go to bed anyway) :)

[mvmac]

Having said that, it cracks me up to see people say that ALL they need to do is hit greens in regulation. If they do that, the short game won't matter (I.e. a great short game isn't needed if you have a great long game).

Well it's not something Erik or myself are saying.  You can have both, a great short game and long game, it's just that the short game doesn't need as much attention or maintenance as the long game.  Short game matters, GIR matters, every shot matters.

[deekay]

This thread seems to be all about scoring. But I would like to take another approach.

It’s the “click” of a sweetly struck shot, and watching it soar down the fairway straight towards where I was aiming, which makes me feel that I CAN actually play this game. Those are the shots which bring me back to the course again and again, and not the 15 yard chip which occasionally happens to stop right beside the hole.

The opposite is also true. For me, a poor chip (or short pitch) which causes me to miss my up-and-down is not going to cause me to hurl my clubs down in disgust. But a horribly hooked tee shot, or a massively chunked iron shot, or spending 5min in the rough looking for my ball, only to immediately send it straight back into the rough, will.

A brilliant short game may well save your score, but what’s the point if you have a rotten afternoon from tee to green?  Perhaps the short game is the king of the scorecard, but it’s the long game which determines whether you leave the course with a smile, or not!

[David in FL]

This thread seems to be all about scoring. But I would like to take another approach. It’s the “click” of a sweetly struck shot, and watching it soar down the fairway straight towards where I was aiming, which makes me feel that I CAN actually play this game. Those are the shots which bring me back to the course again and again, and not the 15 yard chip which occasionally happens to stop right beside the hole. The opposite is also true. For me, a poor chip (or short pitch) which causes me to miss my up-and-down is not going to cause me to hurl my clubs down in disgust. But a horribly hooked tee shot, or a massively chunked iron shot, or spending 5min in the rough looking for my ball, only to immediately send it straight back into the rough, will. A brilliant short game may well save your score, but what’s the point if you have a rotten afternoon from tee to green? Perhaps the short game is the king of the scorecard, but it’s the long game which determines whether you leave the course with a smile, or not!

But it's not . That's the whole point of this thread......

[David in FL]

After reading this thread for a while, I now realize the question is no more and no less - will a good long game save you more strokes, or a good short game. I've also learned that long game includes all full shots, recovery shots from 50+ yds from the green, and even 1/2 swings with a wedge from 40 yds away. In those terms, I will retract my previous posts and say, DUH, a better long game will certainly save you more shots than a good short game. I thought (and Erik earlier pointed out that I'm a nobody and my thoughts don't mean anything) it was more of a question of what any given golfer needs to work on. Having said that, it cracks me up to see people say that ALL they need to do is hit greens in regulation. If they do that, the short game won't matter (I.e. a great short game isn't needed if you have a great long game). The last I checked, the average PGA pro hit 65% GIR's and something like 60% of FIR. That's about 12 greens per round and 8.5 FW per round. Their scrambling percentage is close to 60%. So, for all of us that think we should be hitting 12+ GIR's, I like that as a long-term goal (and, yes, it would improve our scores the most). But if the pros only average 12, and they do this for a living, is that realistic? Let's put things in perspective for us amateurs... David, your post peaked my interest. You hit 11 GIR's and had three other holes where you were putting from just off the green. You also had quite a few makeable birdie putts. One of your two doubles was from a drive that was JUST off the fairway, but you were unlucky to get an unplayable lie. You even said that your short game was less than stellar. For this particular round, why do you think your long game let you down and not your short game?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. 11 greens is a huge day for me. My long game saved my ass.....even in the face of a pretty mediocre short game. I was thrilled with my full-swing results. If only I could do it more often..... I'll reiterate again though, the short game isn't unimportant . It needs to be practiced and refined too. All we're talking about here is relative importance as it relates to performance, especially for those looking to improve their overall scores.

[Ernest Jones]

11 GIR is a huge day for anyone! Well done!

[boogielicious]

I thought about this thread again today while playing.  On a fairly straightforward, but long par 3 (190, into the wind) I hit a pretty poor, hooked 5 iron into the greenside bunker.  The greens were fairly slick, and I had short-sided myself.  I hit a really nice bunker shot that rolled to about 10', leaving a putt that was basically straight up the hill.  I made the putt and saved par.  My conclusion:  The long game is more important than the short game.

@Golfingdad ,  The fact that you are hitting a 5-iron on a 190 yard par 3 into the wind makes me feel old.  That is at minimum a 3H or 3W for me.  No wind and down hill, maybe a 4 iron.  20 plus mph wind?  Driver.

The key takeaway is if we have a good long game, the likelihood of success of parring a hole like this par 3 increases dramatically.  A tee shot in the fairway also increases significantly your chance of parring a hole.  And GIR will give you the best chance.

[MS256]

After reading this thread for a while, I now realize the question is no more and no less - will a good long game save you more strokes, or a good short game. I've also learned that long game includes all full shots, recovery shots from 50+ yds from the green, and even 1/2 swings with a wedge from 40 yds away. In those terms, I will retract my previous posts and say, DUH, a better long game will certainly save you more shots than a good short game.

I thought (and Erik earlier pointed out that I'm a nobody and my thoughts don't mean anything) it was more of a question of what any given golfer needs to work on.

Having said that, it cracks me up to see people say that ALL they need to do is hit greens in regulation. If they do that, the short game won't matter (I.e. a great short game isn't needed if you have a great long game). The last I checked, the average PGA pro hit 65% GIR's and something like 60% of FIR. That's about 12 greens per round and 8.5 FW per round. Their scrambling percentage is close to 60%.

So, for all of us that think we should be hitting 12+ GIR's, I like that as a long-term goal (and, yes, it would improve our scores the most). But if the pros only average 12, and they do this for a living, is that realistic? Let's put things in perspective for us amateurs...

David, your post peaked my interest. You hit 11 GIR's and had three other holes where you were putting from just off the green. You also had quite a few makeable birdie putts. One of your two doubles was from a drive that was JUST off the fairway, but you were unlucky to get an unplayable lie. You even said that your short game was less than stellar. For this particular round, why do you think your long game let you down and not your short game?

Maybe some people have such a poor short game that the general rule doesn't apply to them...But doubt that's many people. If most people could walk out to the middle of the fairway 280 to 300 yards from the tee and play their second shot from there they would score much better than they currently do.

I do know one guy that has a very good long game, below average mid game, and absolutely horrific short game. His scores are probably 15 to 20 strokes higher than they should be so he certainly needs to work on the short game. Even with that he shoots better than people with a very poor long game and without his outstanding tee shots he would barely be able to get around the course at all.

[iacas]

This means that if I play that scenario 8 times over, if I play it well every time, I'm going to finish in around 22 strokes, and if I play it poorly every time, I 'm going to finish in around 25 strokes.

So I'm thinking to myself, how important can the short game really be if the difference between really good and really bad here is only 3/8 of a stroke?  By contrast, the difference between a good shot from the tee and a bad shot from the tee is basically a full shot.

Well, hitting the green you'll three putt sometimes too, but you'll also occasionally make birdie. You'd technically have to run the stats on that, too. And if you're three-putting from only 30 feet once in eight tries, you know what I'd practice in that 10%? :) (BTW, it's probably either your distance control from 30' or so if you're leaving yourself outside of four feet, or your short putting if you're just missing the three footers you leave yourself).

I've also learned that long game includes all full shots, recovery shots from 50+ yds from the green, and even 1/2 swings with a wedge from 40 yds away.

I think you're confusing two things.

I've defined working on "full swing mechanics" as "full swing practice" in the other thread. Sometimes I hit a shot with "full swing mechanics" (just a shorter, slower swing) from 60 yards, yes. Broadie, however, defines the short game as any shot played within 100 yards of the hole, and the long game as any shot played outside that range (even if you're chipping out from behind a tree).

So, for the purposes of the statistics that he's brought us, the 100-yard mark is the barrier. For the purposes of practice, I've defined a different barrier, as working on shots that go 70 yards is sometimes a great way to practice and work on your full-swing mechanics.

I thought (and Erik earlier pointed out that I'm a nobody and my thoughts don't mean anything) it was more of a question of what any given golfer needs to work on.

I did not say that. I simply pointed out that you were sharing your feelings but trying to dispute a statistician with a pile of stats. I also moved the percentages and the discussion of "glaring weakness" back to the original thread, and replied to it, but nobody's added anything after that.

Having said that, it cracks me up to see people say that ALL they need to do is hit greens in regulation. If they do that, the short game won't matter (I.e. a great short game isn't needed if you have a great long game).

I don't believe anyone has said that at all. They're simply saying it's more important. And if you're on roughly equal levels, I still propose that you spend more than a full third of your time practicing the short game and putting. That's a lot of time considering how simple many short game shots are relative to the full swing, IMO.

And be wary comparing your GIR stats to PGA Tour level play. They're also playing from 7200 yards, with thick rough, and firm greens. It's not impossible for a low handicapper to hit more GIR than a PGA Tour player. It's not particularly common, but it's not unusual, either.

[Ernest Jones]

There is a fundamental difference between this thread and the 65-25-15 ratio thread that a lot of people are blurring or missing completely, I have been guilty of this too. They are very different threads with different points. The ratio thread is about the relative difficulty in execution and why you should allocate practice time accordingly (absent any glaring weaknesses). This thread is about scoring impact. They both lead you to the same place for the most part but for very different reasons. They should be, and are, different debates.

[Fourputt]

There is a fundamental difference between this thread and the 65-25-15 ratio thread that a lot of people are blurring or missing completely, I have been guilty of this too.

They are very different threads with different points. The ratio thread is about the relative difficulty in execution and why you should allocate practice time accordingly (absent any glaring weaknesses). This thread is about scoring impact. They both lead you to the same place for the most part but for very different reasons. They should be, and are, different debates.

Very true.  As far as scoring is concerned, you can lose strokes just as quickly on either end of the hole.  The difference is that a missed shot in the short game won't usually be quite as bad as an equivalent miss in the long game.  It's more likely that an errant 260 drive will be in more trouble than a chunked chip.  It's still possible that a thin bunker shot could airmail the green into a water hazard, just less likely that the set of circumstances would occur to cause that sort of thing to happen.

Also, having a strong long game will be of immense assistance in recovering from those occasional poor drives which will inevitably happen.  Just watch Tiger survive despite some horrific driving days.  Even though his driver regularly fails him, the rest of his long game bails him out time and time again.