Just how important is the short game?

[RC]

Here is a short clip from a newsletter from one of the top teachers in the USA. He is very focused on statistics and provides some great information:

"It is normally tough to be consistent year after year relying purely on short
game to be competitive. Exceptions would be Corey Pavin and Tiger Woods.
Note: We are not saying that Corey and Tiger can't hit the ball great,
just that they lead the Tour every year in scrambling and putting. Woods
is #1 in putting from inside 5 feet, 3-5 feet, 5-15 feet, 15-25 feet and
2nd from 15-20 feet. Padraig Harrington, Mike Weir, Ryuji Imada, Brian
Gay, Steve Stricker and Stuart Appleby relied on their short games a lot
to make their money. So either they need to keep up their great short
game play or their full game needs to improve."

We all know Tiger is a great ball striker, but perhaps his secret is the best short game on tour. The numbers above are nothing short of amazing -- what do you think?

[case31]

We all know Tiger is a great ball striker, but perhaps his secret is the best short game on tour. The numbers above are nothing short of amazing -- what do you think?

Doesn't surprise me. As you watch Tiger play, especially in majors, he is not a "fairway, green, 2-putt for par" player. His money is made from (besides endorsements

) being able to get up and down from spots where other players can't...as well as his uncanny ability to make that 12 foot putt he HAS to make to win. Perfect example is that 12 footer on 18 at last year's US Open.

[mirv]

yeah, tiger's big thing is that, when he gets himself in trouble, he can always get himself out of it beautifully. i think that's why i personally just don't really buy into the whole tiger hype. i'm much more impressed with players like ben hogan who basically didn't need recovery skills because he was always sitting nicely in the fairway.

[PiKapp23]

Remember when Tom Watson was number 1 in the world? He couldn't hit a fairway, but his scrambling and short game were so good that it didn't matter. Some people still consider him to be one of the best short game players ever.

[Norm3333]

Everyone always says the "short game" is the most important part to get down. I don't agree. If I could have a professional golfer hit a shot for me on a par 5, I would not have him hit a chip. The difference between his result and mine is not near as great as what a pro can do from ~230 yds away.

That's what seperates them from us. Not their short game. A NY Times writer wrote a piece about a statistical analyses that was done comparing an amatuer to a pro. The numbers for long iron shots are astounding. Not putting or chipping. Their ability to strike the ball and hit greens in regulation, dwarf what an amatuer does. The putting numbers are actually very close.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/sp...ennington.html

[Eeryck]

Everyone always says the "short game" is the most important part to get down. I don't agree. If I could have a professional golfer hit a shot for me on a par 5, I would not have him hit a chip. The difference between his result and mine is not near as great as what a pro can do from ~230 yds away.

I find this amusing. It is obvious that if a pro puts you on the green that your handicap is going to come down if all you have to do is putt. He might as well have said the sky is blue.

The author offers no advice on how one could become more accurate. For many that would be starting with a smaller version of the swing and working to a full swing. At the PGA tour level according to Pelz when he looked at the accuracy numbers the strongest correlation to top money earners was when the golfers were arranged by short game accuracy, not driving, not iron shots, not putting. Of course he is in the business of selling short game advice so take it for what it is worth. Oddly enough though this is where Tiger excels. I attempted to learn to golf by working on the full swing. It was not till I shifted focus to the short game and what was happening there that my full swing started to become more accurate. -E

[play4him]

I know back when I first started shooting in the 70's, it wasn't because I started hitting 14-16 greens in regulation. I learned to chip and putt better. And on those days now when I'm not hitting the ball quite as well as normal, I can still shoot in the 70's because of a good short game.

[neophyte]

Lets discuss this question looking at hackers and amateurs.

Last month I went to visit family in florida. They live in a gated community with golf course. I played everyday with seniors, many women who scored in low eighties. One woman in particular hit from the women's t's which were 50 to 100 ft in front of the men's T's. She hit her shots straight every time. Driver 100-125 yards. so she was always thae first to hit second shots. Woods always straight. Chips and pitches straight and she knew her distances. Putting was 2 putts or less per green. My brother in law said she is the most consistent player in the community. Usually scores around 80-85 inspite of short distance off the T.

4 years ago I played with an eighty year old man in Pa. We both played from the White T's. He only hit 150 from the t, hit his 7 wood just under 150, and could chip and bump and run his 7 iron any distance up to 100 yds he wanted. Usually chipped right next to the hole for an easy 1 putt. Except for four holes which were too long for him, he scored a 75 on a parr 72 course. He said he played five days a week in florida where he lived.

[Shindig]

Some professionals making their living off of that. I mean, look at Stan Utley - he was seen at the driving range after winning a PGA Tour event and some people commented that he was probably a pretty good 10-handicapper. And I think he said that he would only hit 10 or so GIR per round, but was still able to make a career on the tour.

his uncanny ability to make that 12 foot putt he HAS to make to win. Perfect example is that 12 footer on 18 at last year's US Open.

Let's not forget the "where's my hat?" putt a few months before that.

[GaijinGolfer]

Here is a short clip from a newsletter from one of the top teachers in the USA. He is very focused on statistics and provides some great information:

IMO, short game is very important. What good is being able to drive the ball 300 yards if you 3-putt ever hole?

I would say that having being a decent iron player is more important (if you cant hit a halfway decent full iron shot the best shortgame in the world doesnt matter much) but having a good shortgame is very important.

[DaveLeeNC]

I record data on my rounds that allows me to generate all kinds of stats. I often derive two short games stats

1) Net Putting - it isn't just a count of putts but a measure of how many putts I take to hole out vs. a table that defines "par putting" for every distance from 1 to 99' (1.0 from 1', 1.5 from 5', 2.0 from 20', 2.25 from 50', etc)

2) Chipping/Pitching accuracy

My key long game stat is "Error at Par" which is how far I am from the hole after 1 stroke on a par 3, 2 on a par 4, 3 on a par 5.

So I combined short game measures #1 and #2 into a single short game measurement number and found that the correlation between that short game measure and my scores against par. That correlation coefficient was 0.63 (where 1.0 would be perfect correlation and 0 would be no correlation).

I then looked at the correlation between my long game (Error at Par) and scores against par. That correlation coefficient was 0.67.

So for my game it would appear that my short game and long game have a roughly equal impact on my scores. I found that interesting - but I'm a bit of a numbers geek

dave

[Quinn07]

Huh?!

I would agree that the short game is very important. I consider the short game 120 yards and in. I think if you can master that part of the game you will see your index drop dramatically. I know from experience from last year when I focused on my short game, I dropped my index from 13.2 to where it is currently, a 7.4.

[Jay-Bird]

This proves that the game of golf is really about the ability to make a putt.

I think short game and scrambling ability are crucial, however. I can rely on them to shoot a low score when I'm missing fairways.

To go very low though, you can still miss fairways, but you must make putts.

Pavin is an amazing scrambler and can make a birdie after missing a fairway, that time he shot a 26 on the front 9, he hit only 2 fairways, but had only 10 putts for the front 9.

[Range King]

This proves that the game of golf is really about the ability to make a putt.

I think golf

scores are really about the ability to make a putt. For me, if I hit a GIR and then miss a 6 foot putt, it does not bother me too much. But if it takes me 4 strokes to get to the green, and I had terrible tee- and iron shots, the hole is ruined for me, and I am pissed, no matter how good I chip and put.

[Norm3333]

For those who thinkk Greens in Regulation isn't as important as the short game, look at the stats for 2007 (the last full year for Tiger).

Tiger's GIR rank - 1st (2006 - 1st)

Tiger's putts per round rank - 48th (2006 - 137th)

Tiger's scrambling rank (short-game) - 20th (2006 - 10th)

Tiger's sand saves rank - 60th (2006 - 29th)

Tiger's driving distance rank - 12th (2006 - 6th)

Let's look at Tim Clark's stats for 2007 so we are talking apples to apples

Clark's GIR rank - 176th

Clark's putts per round rank - 1st

Clark's scrambling rank (short-game) - 4th

Clark's sand saves rank - 1st

Clark's driving distance rank - 178th

How many tournements did Clark win in 2007? According to some in this thread, he should have won several.

Who had the most fedex points?

Vijay - putts per round rank 119th

GIR rank - 12th

driving distance rank - 25th

So, if you read the article, it stated that the pro has its biggest advantage, therefore scoring advantage, farther from the green. It also stated that the short game, for hackers, is the EASIST method to lower scores. However, the statistics undeniably show where the "greatest player in the world"'s advantage lies. Not in his short game, but in driving distance coupled with GIR (which is the most important stat).

So, stop with the, "what good is a 300 yd drive and a GIR when you 3 putt?" We all know that it is easier to become proficient at chipping compared to the full swing. But, don't let that cloud the facts. GIR and driving distance is more indicative of success.

If this were true (short game more important) Pavin would win a few times per year.

[DaveLeeNC]

This proves that the game of golf is really about the ability to make a putt.

One thing that is really true is that outstanding chipping/pitching can be almost a waste if you can't make 5'-6' putts.

dave

[tjy355]

...

Funny! Perhaps because we think it is easier, that is why we never practice the short game.

Anyway, I don't think comparing the stats of tour pros is meaningful in any way to the average amateur golfer. Those guys play a different game, believe me. From the pro view, even if one hits 100% of GIR, two putts only gives a PAR. To shoot under par, one have to make some putts. Putting = short game. And a "study" from a Columbia University "professor" ...LOL, I stopped reading right there

[Elvisliveson]

I think golf

Exactly, exactly, exactly. The point of golf for most amateurs is to have fun and you can't really do that if you are unable to get off the tee or hit greens consistently.

Yes, the short game is important for scoring. But does it really matter if you're just turning 7s into 6s? The tee to green game is important for long-term enjoyment of golf.