Whats the most important part of the game?

[Lefty2380]

I propose this question out of curiosity...I want to see what people think the most important part of the Golf game is...if i didnt include an option that you may find more important, please let us know in here

obviously it takes all of these aspects to be a great golfer, but I guess i can ask the question this way for all you you post-modernists out there...

if you could PERFECT one part of your game, what would it be?


there...no avoiding that one!

[prutkows]

I propose this question out of curiosity...I want to see what people think the most important part of the Golf game is...if i didnt include an option that you may find more important, please let us know in here

i chose course management. everything you can practice and learn and get a lot better at. course management is something that most people take a long time to learn and i think its probably the hardest part of golf.

[Xt1ncT]

Course management and short game for me.

They both lack what they need.

[rembrandt]

I voted short game cause most of your score is on and around the green. You didn't have "All of the above" so it was tough to pick just one.

[Rafcin]

I think Corey Pavin answered this question last weekend... weak tee shot, good irons and outstanding short game is good enough

[Wood]

For my game, I've found that my driver sets up the rest of my round. Maybe it is because I leave short irons into most par 4's when my driver is right. I think it is a confidence thing. If I'm booming the driver, the rest of my game feels easier, and I score better. Unfortunately, I still have to MAKE the putt......

[iacas]

I voted for course management. If you can manage your way around the course, you shouldn't need to hit too many recovery shots, tough short game shots, etc.

[cdriver]

I go with course management... Everything else affects the way you manage your way around the course, but at the heart of it, regardless of all other aspects, it is finding the way to get it in the hole in the fewest strokes that makes the difference... That is course management.

[RayG]

I'd agree with Course Management. But "AMAZING" Course Management? Nobody has that kind of discipline. That would eliminate those risk/reward type of decisions by always taking the easy way out.

A close tie would be something not listed- Accuracy off the Tee. Hitting fairways consistently sure makes scoring easier than trying to make miracle saves from the jungle.

[Rafcin]

I'd agree with Course Management. But "AMAZING" Course Management? Nobody has that kind of discipline. That would eliminate those risk/reward type of decisions by always taking the easy way out.

course management ability is not the same as "playing safe". Comparing to a poker game - you move all in when odds are in your favor, you don't if you're a underdog... unless you're a nutcase gambler

Discipline at poker is the same as course management in golf game. Take your chances, but only when they're good.

[BigAl5150]

I voted course management. If you don't have to waste strokes to recover from bad shots or take penalty stokes for OB, etc. you can score quite well (relative to your ability). Of course, a perfect short game can bail you out as well.

[wachesawgolfer]

I voted for short game as the persons who holes the most one putts will win. But, having said that, I also think the driver determines most where you play, whether in the 70s, 80s or beyond. The person who consistantly puts their drive 260 into play has an easy attack at the green with a high iron and can shoot well in the 70s even if their putting is a little off. The guy who drives 185 into play has to hit long irons and woods to the green or lay up and everything has to be on to break 90.

[iacas]

I'd agree with Course Management. But "AMAZING" Course Management? Nobody has that kind of discipline. That would eliminate those risk/reward type of decisions by always taking the easy way out.

Ditto what Rafi said: "course management != playing safe."

If I can make a shot 2/3 of the time, or 1/3 of the time with minimal risk, or 1/10 of the time with almost no risk, it's good course management to attempt the shot. It's bad course management to go against the odds (or just plain dumb). Jack Nicklaus is widely revered as having great course management. Doesn't mean he never took risks.

[RayG]

Ditto what Rafi said: "course management != playing safe."

If it's 1/10 with no risk- that's not a risk/reward situation. Having the CONFIDENCE to attempt a high risk/reward shot I think is what I was trying to get at. Down by one with 3 or 4 tougher holes to go, Par 5, 220 carry over water to a shallow green with trouble behind. I don't have those gonads even though I KNOW I can hit it OCCAISIONALLY- on a good day- with no pressure. In this case, instead of playing for the Eagle, I play for the layup and hit my SW in close and go for the birdie. After that, play the next few as well as I can and see what opportunities arise.

[iacas]

If it's 1/10 with no risk- that's not a risk/reward situation.

C'mon now, I said "almost" no risk. I was pointing out the balancing act: 2/3 with lots of risk, 1/3 with some risk, 1/10 with little risk... That's course management. It doesn't mean playing safe.

Having the CONFIDENCE to attempt a high risk/reward shot I think is what I was trying to get at.

Well, confidence is another thing entirely. I think to have good course management, confidence should be a small factor - at the most - in the decision-making process. Necessity is another factor, and the magnitude of necessity's role depends on what stage of the tournament/match a golfer is at.

[Rafcin]

if you really want to get into numbers discussion... I wasn't paying much attention in college (too tired in discovering woman and alcohol ) I remember one thing from the games theory we were learning about. Simplified it's something like this:
' if amount you're going to win, multiplied by probability of a win,divided to amount you wager multiplied by probablilty you're going to lose returns 1 - the game is "fair". If it's less - you're being ripped off, if it's more - you've an edge.

As an example - if lottery jackpot win is something like 1:80 000 000 - you're mathematically sane with a $1 bet, if you play lottery, once the jackpot reaches $80 000 000 ( or little more assuming your numbers are not the only ones that win ). To make a $2 bet you need the jackpot to be $160 000 000, etc, etc...

I think this theory defines exactly what "course management" is. To be a good course managing player you have to know (or estimate pretty good) odds of executing any particular shot. Assigning an imaginary value to a eagle, birdie, par, bogey, etc. you can make a decision what shot to try to execute. It's much easier to do towards end of a tournament , where your knowledge of the value (winnings) is better.

Let's take Mickleson on the 18th tee at the US Open. Here how I'd apply the theory of games before the tee shot (don't argue about exact $ figures, I'm too lazy to look it up) :
1st place - 700 000. 2nd place - 300 000. his "wager" is $400 000 (what he puts on the line),

1. driver off the tee hitting the fairway = resulting in bogey or better : winning : $700 000. Probability of hitting the fairway : 1/14 (based on current round). Assuming missing the fairway results in double bogey (to simplify it):
$700 000 * 0.071 = 4970 ('winning' factor)
$400 000 * 0.929 = 371600 ('losing' factor)
game fairness indcator = 0.013 ( bad, bad, bad... )

2. iron off the tee hitting the fairway = resulting in bogey or better:
winning : $700 000, Probablilty of hitting the fairway : 90/100 (#2 in the world with an iron in hand... )
$700 000 * 0.9 = 630 000
$400 000 * 0.1 = 40 000
game fairness indicator = 15.75 ( that's a steal !!!! )

Again - figures used are "assumed and fictional" - but you get the idea - Mickleson is a moron

[RayG]

C'mon now, I said "almost" no risk. I was pointing out the balancing act: 2/3 with lots of risk, 1/3 with some risk, 1/10 with little risk... That's course management. It doesn't mean playing safe.

Agreed- so let's call it a draw...

But do you think that course management is harder to learn the actual playing of the game? I play with an individual who has played for awhile, yet has NO ability to "contain his enthusiasm" on the course. 240 yd carry over water? 'No problem!" Even though he doesn't hit it 200 yds in the air with his best shot. No amount of gentle coaching or "What the hell are you doing?!" seems to make an impact, so it's tough to keep a straight face when I hear "Gee, how'd I shoot a 102? I'm better than that..."

[Ghost Runner]

I voted "Solid, Consistant Ball striking" over course management. You can manage your way around a course all day but if you're not hitting your shots where you intend all the management in the world isn't going to help.