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

[rkim291968]

Correct, most if not all low handicappers started off as high handicappers.   They didn't become low handicappers because they spent most of their time working on their short game, they made big improvements with their long game.  If you want to improve for the long-term devote more time to the long game.  You can have Seve's short game and not come close to breaking 80 if you chunck, top or thin every other shot.  (When I say "you" I don't mean you rkim)

I am not disagreeing with this at all.  In fact, I am focusing on my long game more than anything else (except for bunker).    But to say long game is more important than short for all golfers as a fact is not right either.   It's an extreme answer that does not apply to many.   Golf is different game at handicap 30, 20, 10, and 0.   As one goes through various stages of golf, I would imagine one aspects of golf becomes more important than the other, be it a long game, short game, mental, etc..   Having said that, in my case right now, long game is paramount to breaking into low teen handicap or better.  It's what stopping me now.

[Dave2512]

I am not disagreeing with this at all.  In fact, I am focusing on my long game more than anything else (except for bunker).    But to say long game is more important than short for all golfers as a fact is not right either.   It's an extreme answer that does not apply to many.   Golf is different game at handicap 30, 20, 10, and 0.   As one goes through various stages of golf, I would imagine one aspects of golf becomes more important than the other, be it a long game, short game, mental, etc..   Having said that, in my case right now, long game is paramount to breaking into low teen handicap or better.  It's what stopping me now.

Thing is golf is measured by the end result, the score, and you really can't have one without the other. IMO a good short game isn't recovering from bad shots it's capitalizing on the previous good shot. A good long game is the foundation for good golf. It's about opportunity. Especially for amateurs. I don't think anyone has discounted the short game just that unless you're getting up and down for par it's really not that good. You haven't saved much getting up and down for double because golf should be easier the closer you get to the hole. That's not an indication of prowess. It's doing what better golfers do without the big number.

[iacas]

But to say long game is more important than short for all golfers as a fact is not right either.

I've tried to say it other ways. Now I'll try it this way. Yes it is. It is not an extreme example and it applies to a huge majority. Like everyone. Please read my previous response if you don't like this one. ;-)

[wils5150]

I look at it this way. whats the first shot you play on a hole? The tee shot is so important it sets up how you will play the hole. Hit a good one on a par 3 and you have a birdie putt. Hit a long drive on a par 5 maybe have a go for the green in 2. I know from my own play that if I have a good day driving I will post a good score. Like I said in a earlier post one putting a green is great but if its for a 8 who cares.

[acerimusdux]

I don't think that's quite what it's saying. I think it's saying "don't give up on practicing your short game completely" (it still matters, it's just not quite as important as the full swing) as well as what I said above about having three days to get better.

I understand that's what you are saying.  But there really hasn't been any research posted in this thread which says anything like that.

It's also saying that, yes, there are some people who have better long games than their short games. But those people are the exceptions, and I would suggest they're a much smaller exception than those who have better short games than their long games.

That's an interesting theory, but where is the evidence?

It seems to me that it has been demonstrated that the long game is more important than the short game.  But it hasn't been shown that advantages in the long game (especially distance) are not more due to natural ability, rather than things that can be learned to the same degree as the short game.  I know that the biggest difference between me and Tiger Woods might be in his drives.  But if I am 5' 7" and 143 pounds, might I still not have more chance of learning to pitch or chip like Phil Mickelson than to drive the ball like Tiger Woods?

I wonder what the correlation is between height and weight and average driving distance, for example.  If there is little correlation there, then your case might be strengthened.

[iacas]

That's an interesting theory, but where is the evidence?

There's been evidence, but I think you're misunderstanding some things… This thread's also pretty old. Look at the 65/25/10 thread. It's more recent and has links to Money Golf (2009) and the recent articles which are setting up Broadie's book coming in March.

It seems to me that it has been demonstrated that the long game is more important than the short game. But it hasn't been shown that advantages in the long game (especially distance) are not more due to natural ability, rather than things that can be learned to the same degree as the short game.

That's the kind of stuff that makes me feel like you're not understanding what's being said.

This isn't about the correlation between height, weight, and driving distance. 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. Those scores might never beat Tiger Woods playing left-handed, but the facts still apply: the long game is really, really important.

[Fourputt]

I look at it this way. whats the first shot you play on a hole? The tee shot is so important it sets up how you will play the hole. Hit a good one on a par 3 and you have a birdie putt. Hit a long drive on a par 5 maybe have a go for the green in 2. I know from my own play that if I have a good day driving I will post a good score. Like I said in a earlier post one putting a green is great but if its for a 8 who cares.

Still beats 2 putting for a 9.

[wils5150]

I understand that's what you are saying.  But there really hasn't been any research posted in this thread which says anything like that.

That's an interesting theory, but where is the evidence?

It seems to me that it has been demonstrated that the long game is more important than the short game.  But it hasn't been shown that advantages in the long game (especially distance) are not more due to natural ability, rather than things that can be learned to the same degree as the short game.  I know that the biggest difference between me and Tiger Woods might be in his drives.  But if I am 5' 7" and 143 pounds, might I still not have more chance of learning to pitch or chip like Phil Mickelson than to drive the ball like Tiger Woods?

I wonder what the correlation is between height and weight and average driving distance, for example.  If there is little correlation there, then your case might be strengthened.

when I talk about long game I don't mean the 270 yard drive. The long game for some could be 220 yards or what ever there tee shot is. in my mind when I say long shot i am thinking tee shot not a specific distance.

Still beats 2 putting for a 9.

lol yup but at the point I am still pissed lol :)

[acerimusdux]

There's been evidence, but I think you're misunderstanding some things… This thread's also pretty old. Look at the 65/25/10 thread. It's more recent and has links to Money Golf (2009) and the recent articles which are setting up Broadie's book coming in March.

That's the kind of stuff that makes me feel like you're not understanding what's being said.

This isn't about the correlation between height, weight, and driving distance. 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. Those scores might never beat Tiger Woods playing left-handed, but the facts still apply: the long game is really, really important.

I agree the long game is important for me and everyone else.  But if it's about shooting the lowest score the individual can shoot, nothing in here, or in any of the recent articles I've seen, says the long game is more important than the short game.  Both are really important.  All of the actual data and analysis I've seen so far has been about comparing golfers to other golfers, not to themselves.

I think it might be interesting to see how these studies comparing different golfers would turn out if you controlled for weight, height, gender,  age and/or physical fitness.  Take cohorts of golfers of similar age, gender, and size, and then see what is resposible for more of the variation in scores within each cohort.  Will it still be the long game?

I also think this is very sensitive to a somewhat arbitrary definition of "long game" as being everything from 100 yards out.  This lumps the advantages of big hitters off the tee in with the advantages of those who hit strong approaches from 100-150 yards out.  But those are somewhat different things.   If you can stick it near the pin from 130 yards out, it really doesn't matter that much whether you are doing that with a PW or a 6 iron.   You don't need to be a big hitter to be able to reach from within 150 yards.

I think if you treated those as separate categories, you might find out it broke down something like 1/3 tee shots and long shots, 1/3 approach shots, 1/3 short game (chips, pitches, long puts).  And most of us could use to work on all three.

[Lihu]

... if I am 5' 7" and 143 pounds, might I still not have more chance of learning to pitch or chip like Phil Mickelson than to drive the ball like Tiger Woods?

The main point is that you need to be strong off the tee as a basis for everything else. Secondly, Ben Hogan was about that size. Thirdly, Phil Michelson is quite amazing at the short game he has a talent that would be hard to match. Maybe impossible for an Amateur.

[iacas]

I agree the long game is important for me and everyone else.  But if it's about shooting the lowest score the individual can shoot, nothing in here, or in any of the recent articles I've seen, says the long game is more important than the short game.

"The long game is more important than the short game" is the main point of both of the articles I referenced. I'm on my iPhone right now but I'll switch to my computer and make another post soon.

[iacas]

On November 1, 2013 at 4:57 PM, acerimusdux said:

But if it's about shooting the lowest score the individual can shoot, nothing in here, or in any of the recent articles I've seen, says the long game is more important than the short game.

Well…

On November 1, 2013 at 5:50 PM, iacas said:

"The long game is more important than the short game" is the main point of both of the articles I referenced.

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

Quote

Long game is more important than short game.

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:

On December 21, 2012 at 5:43 AM, iacas said:

A graphic from a recent magazine:

I know it's coming at the problem from the back side a little, but here are the #1 and #2 best players on the PGA Tour in 2012.

Rory gained 2.9 strokes against the field per round, and Tiger gained 2.8. Here's how those break down as percentages (or just look at the pie charts :D).

Stat	Rory	Tiger	Combined
Driving	1.2 (41.38%)	0.7 (25%)	1.9 (33.33%)
Approach Shots	1.3 (44.83%)	1.4 (50%)	2.7 (47.37%)
Long Game	2.5 (86.21%)	2.1 (75%)	4.6 (80.70%)
Short Game	0.3 (10.34%)	0.3 (10.71%)	0.6 (10.53%)
Putting	0.1 (3.45%)	0.4 (14.29%)	0.5 (8.77%)
Short Game	0.4 (13.79%)	0.7 (25%)	1.1 (19.30%)

Luke Donald is cited as the example of how you can make up strokes with putts gained, but his average (which put him third in 2012) is only 0.797 strokes. And his adjusted scoring average (remember, Rory is #1 and Tiger is #2)...? 10th. He's gaining almost twice as many putts per round as Tiger and Rory combined and yet finished eight spots behind the worst of the pair.

And btw, I've seen Luke Donald practice - even he doesn't spend more than 15% of his time on his putting.

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

Quote

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.

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.

[rkim291968]

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! )

[iacas]

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

???????

Just teasing ya. But seriously, look, the stats are what they are.

[inthehole]

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.

[iacas]

Listen, lets just agree once and for all, it's hcp dependent, and leave it at that.

I can't agree to something that I believe has been shown fairly convincingly is not true. The long game is consistently more important at all levels of play.

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

That may describe your game, but if so, you're not the typical mid handicapper.

[Dave2512]

I can't agree with that. How well you score starts on the tee for everyone. The only time scrambling comes into play is after a bad shot. Nobody does it on purpose.

[inthehole]

I can't agree to something that I believe has been shown fairly convincingly is not true. The long game is consistently more important at all levels of play.

That may describe your game, but if so, you're not the typical mid handicapper.

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)