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

[Pushy]

I would vote for the long game.  With a decent long game you have a chance to score well, which is when the short game takes over.  With a bad long game, you have little to no chance to score well, no matter how well you chip and putt.

[Golfingdad]

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).

Well, I did just kind of pull that number out of thin air.  I don't know. ......

OK, I did a little research.  In my last 10 full rounds combined, I have had fifteen 3-putts.  In those same 10 rounds I hit 67 greens.  I'm still making assumptions here (If I had Scorecard I probably wouldn't have to ;)) but it's probably a safe bet that my average first putt distance on GIR is >30', and by the same token, it's probably a safe bet that my average first putt is <30' on missed greens, so that 30' number might correlate decently to GIR.  This means that I way underestimated my putting suckitude ... it's more on the realm of 1 in 4 or 1 in 5.  Yikes!!!!!!!!!)

However, I do know that my 3 putts are caused waaaaay more due to poor distance control on the first putt than they are to missed 3 footers.  The short putts inside of 6 feet or so are, I believe, a strength of mine.  (Probably due to the fact that I leave them so often.  Same reason why I'm not so bad at punch shots out from under trees, and intentional low hooks and slices. ;))

(In those same 10 rounds I hit 50 fairways, so I think maybe I have two glaring weaknesses now ... driving and lag putting.)

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.

Yes, I keep having the same problem.  Everytime I try and make an argument in here my brain always goes to which is more important to practice.  I think my last post I was finally making an appropriate argument for this topic, but who knows. :)

[birlyshirly]

Well, I did just kind of pull that number out of thin air.  I don't know. ......

OK, I did a little research.  In my last 10 full rounds combined, I have had fifteen 3-putts.  In those same 10 rounds I hit 67 greens.

So, according to Lou Riccio, based on your GIR performance, your expected average score would be somewhere between 81 and 83.

Expected Score = 95 - (2 x GIR)

Depending on whether you actually scored better or worse than this estimate, does that put your short game and putting performance in context?

[Golfingdad]

So, according to Lou Riccio, based on your GIR performance, your expected average score would be somewhere between 81 and 83.

Expected Score = 95 - (2 x GIR)

Depending on whether you actually scored better or worse than this estimate, does that put your short game and putting performance in context?

In those 10 rounds, I happened to have my worst, craziest, round in pretty much ever ... a 101 in my last tournament.  If I throw that one out, then my average score of the other 9 is 82.7.

But that really isn't news to me.  I don't know that it gives me any more context.  I know I put myself in trouble off the tee way more often than I should (which is why I typically score really well at courses that are wide open) and I know that I could stand to cut down a bit on 3 putts.**

**Actually, I have already done this.  The numbers above are my last 10 rounds.  In my last 5 rounds , I have 3 putted 4 times total in 37 GIR.  That's closer to 1 in 9.  And according to that guys calc, I should average 80.2 over those rounds, but my actual average is 82.4, for whatever that's worth.

[birlyshirly]

First impressions then are that your long game and short game aren't far out of balance.

Curious though that you appear to have improved your 3 putt percentage, but scored a little worse relative to your ballstriking as measured by GIR.

It doesn't strike me as huge though. A penalty here, a shanked wedge there and it might all balance out. I worry about my short game and putting when I score 3 or 4 shots worse than my GIR prediction.

[saevel25]

All you have to do is ask yourself the simple question. If I had two golf balls, and I told you, I am going to place a golf ball just off the green, on the fringe. Then I am going to place a golf ball on the green, both are 20 feet from the hole. Which one do you choose?

Basically all those who say short game is more important to score, would you honestly say you would take a chip over a putt?

[iacas]

All you have to do is ask yourself the simple question. If I had two golf balls, and I told you, I am going to place a golf ball just off the green, on the fringe. Then I am going to place a golf ball on the green, both are 20 feet from the hole. Which one do you choose?

Basically all those who say short game is more important to score, would you honestly say you would take a chip over a putt?

That's kind of a weak example, because I'd putt both, so then it comes down to which putt is the easier putt. :) Putting from the fringe doesn't matter that much unless it's a very bumpy fringe or you've got a glob of mud on your ball or something.

I also don't think too many people are still arguing about the short game. Many who were have understood the points being made.

[saevel25]

That's kind of a weak example, because I'd putt both, so then it comes down to which putt is the easier putt. :) Putting from the fringe doesn't matter that much unless it's a very bumpy fringe or you've got a glob of mud on your ball or something.

I also don't think too many people are still arguing about the short game. Many who were have understood the points being made.

True, I thought of that a few minutes after I clicked "submit", oops.

[Golfingdad]

First impressions then are that your long game and short game aren't far out of balance.

Curious though that you appear to have improved your 3 putt percentage, but scored a little worse relative to your ballstriking as measured by GIR.

It doesn't strike me as huge though. A penalty here, a shanked wedge there and it might all balance out. I worry about my short game and putting when I score 3 or 4 shots worse than my GIR prediction.

I always try to simplify it as much as possible.  Maybe too much.  Here's my round yesterday, for example:

I always look at the "bad" holes, since, at least in theory, on the "good" holes (pars, birdies) I likely had a little success in both the long game and short game.  So, just looking at those, the "causes" are: Short game causes green, and long game causes red.

#3 - drove into fairway bunker.

#4 - poor pitch shot.

#6 - drove into hazard (playable) and poor pitch.

#7 - three putt from 40'

#10 - drove into bunker, hit into bunker lip, hit into next bunker lip.

#11 - yanked approach from 100 yds.

#13 - missed green in impossible spot.

#16 - drove into trees.

#17 - mishit approach. chunked pitch into bunker

Now, there are also a couple of putts I feel I should have made (par putt on 4, 11, and 16 - all in the 6-8' range) but I was still behind the 8-ball on those occasions due to a preceeding shot.  And those two shots into the bunker lip were stupid mental issues, so they probably shouldn't count against either.  So it looks like I could make the argument that long game and short are nearly equal, at least for yesterday.  6 strokes attributable to the long game, and 5 attributable to the short game.

[FlappyGilmore]

I would probably take the chip...

[birlyshirly]

Golfingdad - it depends on what you mean in saying that long game and short game are "equal". RIccio's formula focusses on how your how your long and short game compare to the average golfer who shoots the same score as you. It's a different approach from what you've set out in terms of attributing dropped shots.

By Riccio's data - you've recovered your "misses" relatively well. 4 GIR and a score of 84, against an expected score of 87. On the other hand, unless you were playing a harder than normal course or conditions were bad yesterday, your "normal" long game would have yielded 2 or 3 more GIRs, possible birdie opps, easy 2-putt pars etc.

Where's the improvement on yesterday's round likely to come from?

It's somewhat counter-intuitive, IMO, but according to Riccio - every additional GIR will on average save you not just one stroke, but two.

Whereas looking at the short game, good putters on good greens have a make rate of roughly 50% from about 6 feet, I believe. So in order to save just 1 shot with your short game, on average you need to chip or pitch to within 6 feet. For me, that's a better than average chip if I'm coming in from any sort of distance, and a great pitch shot if I need to loft the ball over a contour or hazard. If I managed that 4 or 5 times a round, I think I'd be well pleased with myself. And the kicker? Compared to hitting an extra GIR, it's really hard to save 2 shots in the short game. That's the difference between a pitch shot so awful that it causes you to 3 putt and either a great pitch shot, or a pitch and a long 1 putt that you can't expect to repeat.

That's my understanding of why the long game is a more powerful determinant of your score. That would only change when you're scoring significantly worse than your GIR figure would lead you to expect from Riccio's formula.

[Golfingdad]

Golfingdad - it depends on what you mean in saying that long game and short game are "equal". RIccio's formula focusses on how your how your long and short game compare to the average golfer who shoots the same score as you. It's a different approach from what you've set out in terms of attributing dropped shots.

By Riccio's data - you've recovered your "misses" relatively well. 4 GIR and a score of 84, against an expected score of 87. On the other hand, unless you were playing a harder than normal course or conditions were bad yesterday, your "normal" long game would have yielded 2 or 3 more GIRs, possible birdie opps, easy 2-putt pars etc.

Where's the improvement on yesterday's round likely to come from?

It's somewhat counter-intuitive, IMO, but according to Riccio - every additional GIR will on average save you not just one stroke, but two.

Whereas looking at the short game, good putters on good greens have a make rate of roughly 50% from about 6 feet, I believe. So in order to save just 1 shot with your short game, on average you need to chip or pitch to within 6 feet. For me, that's a better than average chip if I'm coming in from any sort of distance, and a great pitch shot if I need to loft the ball over a contour or hazard. If I managed that 4 or 5 times a round, I think I'd be well pleased with myself. And the kicker? Compared to hitting an extra GIR, it's really hard to save 2 shots in the short game. That's the difference between a pitch shot so awful that it causes you to 3 putt and either a great pitch shot, or a pitch and a long 1 putt that you can't expect to repeat.

That's my understanding of why the long game is a more powerful determinant of your score. That would only change when you're scoring significantly worse than your GIR figure would lead you to expect from Riccio's formula.

I simply meant they were equal yesterday in that I had 13 bad shots that, IMO, directly cost me.  2 of those were stupid mental errors not really attributable to long or short game (although they were supposed to be full shots) and the other 11 split as evenly as they could between long and short.  If I could go back and re-do each of those 11 shots and hit them like I'm capable, then I would have shot a 73, give or take 1.

I should also add that I don't think that is typical for me.  Normally there is a tee shot or two dumped OB or in a hazard that lead to my doubles and triples.  It's a pretty safe bet that, by and large, if I finish a round with the same ball I started it with (like I did yesterday) I'm usually breaking 80.  So, I think yesterday, my short game was a bit atypically poor.

Next time out I think I might try and track all of my shots in the 100-150 yard range and plug the findings into the formulas you are Erik were discussing on the 65/25/10 thread. :)

[birlyshirly]

I don't think that is typical for me.  Normally there is a tee shot or two dumped OB or in a hazard that lead to my doubles and triples.  It's a pretty safe bet that, by and large, if I finish a round with the same ball I started it with (like I did yesterday) I'm usually breaking 80.  So, I think yesterday, my short game was a bit atypically poor.

Next time out I think I might try and track all of my shots in the 100-150 yard range and plug the findings into the formulas you are Erik were discussing on the 65/25/10 thread. :)

As I said, I don't know anything about the conditions, or the course or your usual game, but just going off the numbers you've posted -

Your average score over 10 rounds is at least 83.

Yesterday, you scored 84 - with a couple of mental lapses.

You successfully negotiated penal tee shots - but you hit fewer greens. Did you feel like you kept the ball in play OK? You visited a few hazards, but no LB or OOB.

Drives into penal spots take you out of the running for GIR, however good your iron play is. So, IF you kept the ball in play off the tee but still hit fewer than usual greens, I still think there's an argument (not having been there, I know) that your long game was not its usual strength yesterday. But your score was average - which suggests your short game took up some slack.

However, it's always possible (you haven't said) that you had one of those days where, although you don't feel like you're hitting the ball great, you manage to avoid big mistakes. That tends to happen to me more by luck than judgement - and I'm usually pleasantly surprised by my score on those days, which often feature a modest number of GIRs and lots of easy chips and putts from the fringe. I'm never sure whether to characterise those days as good ballstriking days, or the calm before the regression to the mean.

[Golfingdad]

I'm up in the air again on this one.  When it comes to whats more important to practice, I'm 100% on board with the 65/25/10 plan, and I fully believe that the long game is where it's at, but as far as what is more important to your score, I don't know how to quantify that one.  Yesterday my short game was my saving grace.  I played pretty well overall, and shot an 80 ... with an 8 on a par 4.  I shot that 80 because I was money with the short game.  My putting was as good as it's ever been.  I had 29 total putts, including 3 made over 20 feet (one of those was over 30).  I missed one 6 or 7 foot birdie putt, but other than that one, I missed nothing under 12 feet.  I put 4 tee shots into hazards, and one 3 of those I got up and down for bogey and I got up and down for par on two other occasions.

So, yes, obviously the long game is important in the sense that I would have liked to have not put myself in those positions, but boy did my short game save me.

I guess what I'm seeing is that the short game is super important to scoring well IF the long game is not doing too good. :)

[billchao]

I'm up in the air again on this one.  When it comes to whats more important to practice, I'm 100% on board with the 65/25/10 plan, and I fully believe that the long game is where it's at, but as far as what is more important to your score, I don't know how to quantify that one.  Yesterday my short game was my saving grace.  I played pretty well overall, and shot an 80 ... with an 8 on a par 4.  I shot that 80 because I was money with the short game.  My putting was as good as it's ever been.  I had 29 total putts, including 3 made over 20 feet (one of those was over 30).  I missed one 6 or 7 foot birdie putt, but other than that one, I missed nothing under 12 feet.  I put 4 tee shots into hazards, and one 3 of those I got up and down for bogey and I got up and down for par on two other occasions. So, yes, obviously the long game is important in the sense that I would have liked to have not put myself in those positions, but boy did my short game save me. I guess what I'm seeing is that the short game is super important to scoring well IF the long game is not doing too good. :)

I think that's the most important point: you need a good short game if your long game isn't good. If your long game is good, you'd only need to know how to putt.

[Ernest Jones]

I'm up in the air again on this one.  When it comes to whats more important to practice, I'm 100% on board with the 65/25/10 plan, and I fully believe that the long game is where it's at, but as far as what is more important to your score, I don't know how to quantify that one.  Yesterday my short game was my saving grace.  I played pretty well overall, and shot an 80 ... with an 8 on a par 4.  I shot that 80 because I was money with the short game.  My putting was as good as it's ever been.  I had 29 total putts, including 3 made over 20 feet (one of those was over 30).  I missed one 6 or 7 foot birdie putt, but other than that one, I missed nothing under 12 feet.  I put 4 tee shots into hazards, and one 3 of those I got up and down for bogey and I got up and down for par on two other occasions. So, yes, obviously the long game is important in the sense that I would have liked to have not put myself in those positions, but boy did my short game save me. I guess what I'm seeing is that the short game is super important to scoring well IF the long game is not doing too good. :)

That's what is interesting about the subtle differences between those two threads, you can buy into the 65-25-10 thread without necessarily agreeing with the "long game is more important to score" concept. One concept is a "how" and the other is a "why", as long as you're getting the "how" part it doesn't really matter where your opinion on the "why" part falls.

[birlyshirly]

I'm up in the air again on this one.  When it comes to whats more important to practice, I'm 100% on board with the 65/25/10 plan, and I fully believe that the long game is where it's at, but as far as what is more important to your score, I don't know how to quantify that one.  Yesterday my short game was my saving grace.  I played pretty well overall, and shot an 80 ... with an 8 on a par 4. I shot that 80 because I was money with the short game. My putting was as good as it's ever been. I had 29 total putts, including 3 made over 20 feet (one of those was over 30). I missed one 6 or 7 foot birdie putt, but other than that one, I missed nothing under 12 feet. I put 4 tee shots into hazards, and one 3 of those I got up and down for bogey and I got up and down for par on two other occasions. So, yes, obviously the long game is important in the sense that I would have liked to have not put myself in those positions, but boy did my short game save me. I guess what I'm seeing is that the short game is super important to scoring well IF the long game is not doing too good. :)

One of the tough things in this discussion is to separate out long-game vers short-game performance - in the sense of repeatable skill and knowledge - from the short term and somewhat random fluctuations in outcomes that can be influenced by, dare I say it, luck. I don't mean this in a negative way - because I certainly believe that when you improve your putting skill, you have many more opportunities for luck to play a part and actually drop a putt. However, a plus 30 foot putt holed, 2 x plus 20 foot putts holed, and only 1 miss inside of 12 feet - sounds to me like the sort of putting round that comes along once in a while but not consistently for anyone, regardless of their putting skill. It IS possible, especially if your long game leaves you loads of putts in the 12 - 30 foot range which you basically leave stone dead. But otherwise I'm thinking it's statistically unlikely. And if it's statistically unlikely, I'd say that it gives a somewhat skewed representation of (a) your true level of putting skill, and (b) the true importance or significance of putting over the longer term. But congrats anyway on a great putting round - which I am sure would NOT have happened if your reads, aim, stroke and pace weren't pretty good.

[pjchangmd]

Depends on how you define scoring.  Scoring in the 70s 80s or 90s?  If your cant hit to within a midiron, you can't score in the 70s no matter how good your short game is.  That might be true even for the 80s.