Tommy Gainey-Bubba- and Ray Romano- Golf instruction is lousy!!!

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

I agree with what you have to say.  I see in your "list" that you have the Pelz book.  I must admit I started thinking about golf instruction after reading the way Pelz goes about his business.  He was one of the first to use hard data as a means to determine how someone plays.  I agree with his approach 100 per cent.  Coming to golf later in life I remember playing with guys who would leave the pin in on chip shots. These are hackers like me with handicaps of 8 -12 or so.  I would tell them that the data say to leave the pin in.  You will way better off, percentage wise.  They would say "well, I take it out cuz I'm saw Fred Couples take it out yesterday on TV".  The reality is for the one time this year you will chip in, it still will go in with the damn pin in or out.

I bought his Short Game Bible (I was advised to stay well away from his Putting Bible!) and really like it. I use it for teaching and for my own game. At least once a month I calculate my handicap using his method. It makes you a much better chipper/pitcher as it is tough to get the ball within 6 ft consistently. My students love it as it helps them focus their practice sessions and gives them a score so they know how they're getting on.

I've always left the pin in on chip shots but that was to help me stop the ball from rolling off the other side of the green rather than trying to chip it in!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

1) One of the keys to teaching golf successfully is to make the student understand that the long game is only part of what is a very complex sport. Too many students are obsessed with their swings and hitting the ball better, mistakenly thinking that that alone will reduce their scores. Unfortunately, they neglect the short game, putting, course management, fitness, proper preparation, the mental side of the game etc. which are really where they should concentrate their efforts. I am NOT saying the long game is not important, but something is very wrong when 85-90% of my lessons are on the driving range working on swings. I think most golfers gain more satisfaction from hitting the ball well than shooting low scores.

Frankly, I see it the other way. That's not to say we don't work on their short game much, but which would you rather have:

1. Guy hits 18 GIR. Average putter at best.
2. Guy hits 0 GIR but is much better than average putter and short game, so he gets up and down 60% of the time (that's average PGA Tour level good, by the way).

Par is 72. Do the math. Both players take 36 shots to get near the greens or on them. We'll ignore those.

60% of 18 is 10.8, so they take two shots to get down on 11 holes, and three to get down on 7 holes. So that's 11*2 + 7*3 = 43 strokes. That means the guy who hit all 18 greens in regulation would need to average 2.4 putts per hole to shoot a worse score. That's a lot of putts per green. My all-time putts per GIR is 1.87. 2.4 is a LOT. And that assumes the guy who can't hit a single GIR has a short game equal to the average PGA Tour quality short game!

MoneyGolf told us that the long game matters the most. Furthermore, so does this thread and so does the 40-30-20-10 rule . Now, note that in those two links putting is second, though I will point out that in the former, "Putts per Round" - more closely tied to "scrambling" and all around short game stuff - is well down on the list and it's putts per GIR which is second. And, PPGIR is high because guys who hit the green can either be close to the hole or 50 feet away, and it's the guys who - with their full swings - put the ball closer AND hit more GIR which do well.

In other words, a lot of people are gonna beat Steve Stricker time and time again if they're putting 18 times from 10 feet and Steve is putting 18 times from 30 feet.

Dave Pelz only teaches the short game. Do you think he might skew the stats to make the short game more important? Do you think that might be in his best interests?

Simply put, the fastest way to get better at the game is to strike the ball better, decrease your dispersion, increase your distance, and hit more greens in regulation.

Now obviously, there are exceptions, but it goes both ways. There's the lousy ballstriker who's a great putter. There might even be more of those than the great ballstrikers who are lousy putters. Again, in my example a guy can't hit a single green but gets up and down at the rate of an average PGA Tour player... good luck finding that guy. Far, far fewer of those guys than the ones who average 2.4 PPGIR...

Is the short game important? Yep. Can it save you during a round when your ballstriking is in the toilet? Sure. But when you shoot good scores it's not because of your putting or your short game - it's because you're hitting the ball close to the hole.

We want to teach a lot more short game this year... but I'd venture a guess that it won't ever really break 30%... nor should it (instructionally). Practice time? I'd have a hard time justifying going above 50%, frankly...

[westcyderydin]

iacas...thats a good point.  so i would think the advice to work mostly on short game to lower your handicap...would be better for a player trying to shave the hard to get stokes off their single digit handicaps? of course in the end you would have to see their game and all.

after reading through more S and T stuff it sounds like its a good thing to really think through all of the things that you hear in "conventional golf" instruction.

[ajschn06]

Yes, but I think all sports are like that too.  I've had a number of different baseball coaches over the years.  There were a few drills that every baseball coach does, but every coach I had ran a drill that none of the other coaches did.  They all ran practices differently and emphasized different parts of the game.  Same thing isn't it?

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Sorry my posts look like I was talking to myself. It my first time on a forum and I thought I was answering each person, one at a time under the "reply" tab. I agree with you ajschn06 about everything you say are fundamental to a good golf swing. My point is simply that the methods to teach those fundamentals aren't very consistant industry wide. That it, plain and simple.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by westcyderydin

iacas...thats a good point.  so i would think the advice to work mostly on short game to lower your handicap...would be better for a player trying to shave the hard to get stokes off their single digit handicaps? of course in the end you would have to see their game and all.

Yes, exactly. Obviously at some point if your ballstriking is outpacing your short game, you spend some time on your short game or learn some better methods... but most people have a better short game than a long game, basically.

[nleary9201]

Good morning Erik--Just a thought about the original intent of my rant. The disagreement between you and Pharoh seems to make my point.  I am a lousy 10-12 index golfer.  We all want to play better so we listen to you scratch golfers and instructors.  But here you guys go again in total disagreement of something as important as which part of the game is most important. One say short game one say long game. Don't you guys see what you are telling us is inconsistant and opposite. What are we supposed to do? Get together ( all you instructors) come up with a message that is consistent and correct, scientifically tested and then teach us that.

[Zeph]

Compare the putting stats of a mid handicapper with that of a pro, they do not make up the 20-30 shot difference.

I found some quick stats. The average on the PGA Tour is around 29-30 putts per round. When looking at the putting stats of 15-20 handicappers on this forum, it was usually around 35.

The difference in scoring between a pro and a 15 handicapper is a lot, maybe 20-30+ shots per round. With 5 of those shots being putts, that is only 15-25%. Short game cover some of it, but I would think 50% or more of the shots are a result of poor ballstriking.

[Harmonious]

Agree that ballstriking is the most important aspect to get from "awful" to "OK" golfing.  Advance the ball down the fairway every time without whiffs, chunks, shanks, etc.  But once you reach the level where the ball flies approximately the same distance and goes in the general direction of where you want, then the short game and putting becomes the most important.

Another point to consider is that people will eventually reach their full swing potential.  Whether due to injury, athletic ability, the quality of instruction or the amount of time spent practicing, there is a point for everybody where their full swing is as good as it will get, more or less.  And chances are, it won't be the same level as Dustin Johnson or Martin Kaymer.

That's when the short game becomes so important.  Sure, the pros average under 30 putts per round, and they hit 12 greens per round and sink a few birdies.  Joe Hacker only hits 4 greens per round, but has 14 opportunities for a one putt by chipping or pitching it close enough.  He would average under 30 putts per round if his short game were better.  (Assume two putts for each GIR, and 50% up and down, that's 29 putts). Short game and putting is something that requires far less physical capability than the full swing.  The average guy can get much closer to tour level than the full swing.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

Frankly, I see it the other way. That's not to say we don't work on their short game much, but which would you rather have:

Guy hits 18 GIR. Average putter at best.

Guy hits 0 GIR but is much better than average putter and short game, so he gets up and down 60% of the time (that's average PGA Tour level good, by the way).

Par is 72. Do the math. Both players take 36 shots to get near the greens or on them. We'll ignore those.

60% of 18 is 10.8, so they take two shots to get down on 11 holes, and three to get down on 7 holes. So that's 11*2 + 7*3 = 43 strokes. That means the guy who hit all 18 greens in regulation would need to average 2.4 putts per hole to shoot a worse score. That's a lot of putts per green. My all-time putts per GIR is 1.87. 2.4 is a LOT. And that assumes the guy who can't hit a single GIR has a short game equal to the average PGA Tour quality short game!

MoneyGolf told us that the long game matters the most. Furthermore, so does this thread and so does the 40-30-20-10 rule. Now, note that in those two links putting is second, though I will point out that in the former, "Putts per Round" - more closely tied to "scrambling" and all around short game stuff - is well down on the list and it's putts per GIR which is second. And, PPGIR is high because guys who hit the green can either be close to the hole or 50 feet away, and it's the guys who - with their full swings - put the ball closer AND hit more GIR which do well.

In other words, a lot of people are gonna beat Steve Stricker time and time again if they're putting 18 times from 10 feet and Steve is putting 18 times from 30 feet.

Dave Pelz only teaches the short game. Do you think he might skew the stats to make the short game more important? Do you think that might be in his best interests?

Simply put, the fastest way to get better at the game is to strike the ball better, decrease your dispersion, increase your distance, and hit more greens in regulation.

Now obviously, there are exceptions, but it goes both ways. There's the lousy ballstriker who's a great putter. There might even be more of those than the great ballstrikers who are lousy putters. Again, in my example a guy can't hit a single green but gets up and down at the rate of an average PGA Tour player... good luck finding that guy. Far, far fewer of those guys than the ones who average 2.4 PPGIR...

Is the short game important? Yep. Can it save you during a round when your ballstriking is in the toilet? Sure. But when you shoot good scores it's not because of your putting or your short game - it's because you're hitting the ball close to the hole.

We want to teach a lot more short game this year... but I'd venture a guess that it won't ever really break 30%... nor should it (instructionally). Practice time? I'd have a hard time justifying going above 50%, frankly...

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with you. It's OK to disagree (take note leary). You've created a theory which is the ideal situation but not realistic. Even the best pro on tour only hits 12-13 greens on average per round. And that is with a very good swing and practicing for hours and hours. You are in dreamland if you think you can teach someone to get to 18 GIR.

I don't know if you give lessons on the course or play rounds with your students. I do all the time and the usual scenario is as follows. Eg is a par 4 for simplicity and because there are usually more par 4s on a regulation golf course. Student hits ball off tee down the fairway or in rough, then hits approach shot close to green or on it. If they are on the green, then usually they are miles from the pin and 3 putt. If not on the green, they hit a chip fat, then thin one over the back of the green before dribbling one on to the putting surface. Their confidence destroyed, they then proceed to 3 putt. That happens way more often than one chip on followed by 2 putts. Now, tell me honestly where they can shave quite a few shots off their scores?

The average golfer usually doesn't have the talent, drive, ability, time etc. to make drastic changes to their swing in order to hit the ball longer and straighter. Even if they do, the difference is only going to be very slight. More often than not, they'll still be missing most greens in regulation and relying on a good short game to shoot lower scores. The chipping and putting motions are smaller and much easier to improve for the average golfer with limited talent and time to practice. Also, a lot of the times the lesson I give has nothing to do with technique, it is more HOW to play the shot (check out the Rule of 12 video for eg).

Once again, I am not saying the long game is not important. It is. But as you'll see from my real life situation above, the easiest way to improve is to work on your short game. You can throw all the stats, MoneyGolf, 40-30-20-10 analysis you like at me, but the reality is the one I've described above.

You work for Golf Evolution, a golf academy teaching a radical new way to look at the golf swing. Is it possible you might be skewing the stats to make the long game more important? Could that be in your best interests? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) I'

[LongballGer]

It has been proven that the long game IS the most important part of the game. It´s a myth that the short game is what seperates the pros from the very good amateurs. The tour pros play courses that are a lot harder and longer than your average muni. They´d average close to 16 GIR on short muni courses.

I remember reading an "experiment" in which a tour pro was paired up with a hacker. One round the tour pro was supposed to hit all the long shots and the hacker had to chip and putt. The other round the hacker would hit all the shots from tee to green and the tour pro had to chip and putt.

Result was that the score was way higher when the hacker would hit all shots from tee to green. Of course the tour pros have a superior short game compared to the hackers, but the hacker loses most shots by lacking distance, slicing too many balls OB and not hitting a lot of greens. It´s not because they 4 or 5 putt every green and skull every chip shot.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with you. It's OK to disagree (take note leary). You've created a theory which is the ideal situation but not realistic. Even the best pro on tour only hits 12-13 greens on average per round. And that is with a very good swing and practicing for hours and hours. You are in dreamland if you think you can teach someone to get to 18 GIR.

I don't know if you give lessons on the course or play rounds with your students. I do all the time and the usual scenario is as follows. Eg is a par 4 for simplicity and because there are usually more par 4s on a regulation golf course. Student hits ball off tee down the fairway or in rough, then hits approach shot close to green or on it. If they are on the green, then usually they are miles from the pin and 3 putt. If not on the green, they hit a chip fat, then thin one over the back of the green before dribbling one on to the putting surface. Their confidence destroyed, they then proceed to 3 putt. That happens way more often than one chip on followed by 2 putts. Now, tell me honestly where they can shave quite a few shots off their scores?

The average golfer usually doesn't have the talent, drive, ability, time etc. to make drastic changes to their swing in order to hit the ball longer and straighter. Even if they do, the difference is only going to be very slight. More often than not, they'll still be missing most greens in regulation and relying on a good short game to shoot lower scores. The chipping and putting motions are smaller and much easier to improve for the average golfer with limited talent and time to practice. Also, a lot of the times the lesson I give has nothing to do with technique, it is more HOW to play the shot (check out the Rule of 12 video for eg).

Once again, I am not saying the long game is not important. It is. But as you'll see from my real life situation above, the easiest way to improve is to work on your short game. You can throw all the stats, MoneyGolf, 40-30-20-10 analysis you like at me, but the reality is the one I've described above.

You work for Golf Evolution, a golf academy teaching a radical new way to look at the golf swing. Is it possible you might be skewing the stats to make the long game more important? Could that be in your best interests? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))    I'

[bwdial]

The long game is what separates the average high-handicap duffer from the very good amateur.

The short game is what separates the very good amateur from the rank and file golf professional.

Putting is what separates the rank and file golf professional from the tour professional.

[The_Pharaoh]

It is possible we are coming at the same information from different sides. I read your post below and it backs up my argument that the short game and putting is more important. If all the pros are hitting 16 GIRs on your average muni course, then the winner will be decided by who makes more putts.

For the average golfer, the ones I teach, they are much better off trying to turn 5 shots into 3 or 4, or 4 shots into 2 or 3 etc. around the green than try to hit their drives further (usually further OB) or their irons shots straighter. That is why I give it more importance. It is a much easier to work on ones short game/putting and see noticeable improvement in relatively short time.

Originally Posted by LongballGer

It has been proven that the long game IS the most important part of the game. It´s a myth that the short game is what seperates the pros from the very good amateurs. The tour pros play courses that are a lot harder and longer than your average muni. They´d average close to 16 GIR on short muni courses.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by LongballGer

It has been proven that the long game IS the most important part of the game. It´s a myth that the short game is what seperates the pros from the very good amateurs. The tour pros play courses that are a lot harder and longer than your average muni. They´d average close to 16 GIR on short muni courses.

I remember reading an "experiment" in which a tour pro was paired up with a hacker. One round the tour pro was supposed to hit all the long shots and the hacker had to chip and putt. The other round the hacker would hit all the shots from tee to green and the tour pro had to chip and putt.

Result was that the score was way higher when the hacker would hit all shots from tee to green. Of course the tour pros have a superior short game compared to the hackers, but the hacker loses most shots by lacking distance, slicing too many balls OB and not hitting a lot of greens. It´s not because they 4 or 5 putt every green and skull every chip shot.

Your experiment with the tour pro and the hacker may have been valid, but it really misses the point.  No matter how much instruction and practice a hacker gets, he will never, ever, EVER come close to hitting it like a tour pro.  He could hit a thousand balls a day and it just won't happen.  No doubt he would improve his long game, but at a certain point, he just won't hit it any better.  That is life.

So, the question then becomes - What will lower the hacker's score at that point?  Hitting more long shots or getting his short game and putting in order?  Of course, the answer is short game/putting.  And it is one area of the game where the hacker can, with practice, be much closer to  tour player, since it does not involve as much physical ability.

[max power]

The short game is the area of the game where the amateur or hacker will be closer to better golfers just by the very nature of the difficulty involved.  Of course practicing putting and chipping is important.  But just take note of 95% of the golfers at the range, and at the short game practice area, and 95% of the golfers you get paired with if showing up as a single or twosome-it's the long game and ballstriking that does them in.  I've never, ever played with another golfer who was a solid ballstriker who was clueless around the green.  Played with plenty of guys who hit decent chip shots and are solid putters who lose every other first shot off the tee, and top another 4, 5, or 6 to get down near the green.  The previous posters who said short game practice becomes more important the better you get are spot on.  Short game is probably the difference between a 2 handicap and a scratch or + handicap golfer, but the other 99% of golfers should spend at least 2/3 of their practice time devoted to ballstriking.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

The disagreement between you and Pharoh seems to make my point.

And the several arguments about how other sports are also coached differently do the opposite, never mind the related arguments regarding the level of complexity.

Originally Posted by nleary9201

I am a lousy 10-12 index golfer. We all want to play better so we listen to you scratch golfers and instructors. But here you guys go again in total disagreement of something as important as which part of the game is most important. One say short game one say long game. Don't you guys see what you are telling us is inconsistant and opposite. What are we supposed to do? Get together ( all you instructors) come up with a message that is consistent and correct, scientifically tested and then teach us that.

Both Phil and myself were speaking in generalities. If you came to me and were a decent ball striker but sucked at chipping and putting I'd work on your short game. If you went to Phil and had a great short game for your handicap but duffed every third full swing you made, he'd work on that.

We're disagreeing about the generalities, and as much as you'd like to cling to the belief that there's some general, over-riding, scientifically tested way to improve people, everyone is different and requires a unique approach .

Again, yes, there are lousy instructors out there. The vast majority. Golfers who take lessons from them need luck to get better. I'm not one of those guys, nor is Phil.

And there's no "scientific" "one best swing" to teach everyone. Two planes like Nicklaus? One like Hogan? And that's leaving out a thousand other pieces.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

But once you reach the level where the ball flies approximately the same distance and goes in the general direction of where you want, then the short game and putting becomes the most important.

Of course. Once things get out of balance, you work on the "worse" side. But in general people's ballstriking is behind their short games.

I'll put it this way: if you took the average bogey golfer and gave him my shots after par-2 strokes (the GIR stroke) and had him finish out the hole, he might shoot six shots worse than me. If you had me finish out after the GIR stroke for the 18 handicapper, I guarantee my final score would be a good bit higher than the score he'd shoot playing my GIR strokes to the finish.

But yes, once something's out of balance, you work on the weaker thing. For most golfers that's their ballstriking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Another point to consider is that people will eventually reach their full swing potential.  Whether due to injury, athletic ability, the quality of instruction or the amount of time spent practicing, there is a point for everybody where their full swing is as good as it will get, more or less.  And chances are, it won't be the same level as Dustin Johnson or Martin Kaymer.

I don't buy into that. Not until you quite literally begin aging, and even then you have to be at a high enough level that your aging prevents you from improving.

People tend to reach a plateau and stop getting better, but in no way do I believe they can't become better ballstrikers.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with you.

I'

Disagree all you'd like. I used to feel the opposite as well, but there's no denying the fact that GIR is the single biggest determinant of success. PPGIR is second (which, again still puts emphasis on hitting the ball closer to the hole), and "putting" is further down the list. That much is a fact - GIR is the single biggest determinant of success.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

You've created a theory which is the ideal situation but not realistic. Even the best pro on tour only hits 12-13 greens on average per round. And that is with a very good swing and practicing for hours and hours. You are in dreamland if you think you can teach someone to get to 18 GIR.

Yep. It's the same dreamland in which we find the guy who can't hit 18 GIR getting up and down at a PGA Tour level, yes. Look at the statistics, my man...

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I don't know if you give lessons on the course or play rounds with your students. I do all the time and the usual scenario is as follows. Eg is a par 4 for simplicity and because there are usually more par 4s on a regulation golf course. Student hits ball off tee down the fairway or in rough, then hits approach shot close to green or on it. If they are on the green, then usually they are miles from the pin and 3 putt. If not on the green, they hit a chip fat, then thin one over the back of the green before dribbling one on to the putting surface. Their confidence destroyed, they then proceed to 3 putt. That happens way more often than one chip on followed by 2 putts. Now, tell me honestly where they can shave quite a few shots off their scores?

By hitting the green and taking two putts. Heck, even if they three putt or four putt they're going to beat the guy you just made up every time. I think you're making your memory fit your hypothesis. I almost never see a bogey golfer (or a 27 index) doing what you've just suggested - regularly taking six shots from near the green. The guy just got an eight on the hole, c'mon...

If that truly was the case with any particular student, Phil, I'd be right there teaching the guy the short game. But your guy is statistically not the typical golfer. You're just making up an exception.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

The average golfer usually doesn't have the talent, drive, ability, time etc. to make drastic changes to their swing in order to hit the ball longer and straighter. Even if they do, the difference is only going to be very slight.

My experience does not parallel yours, Phil. I disagree completely with the "very slight" and will leave it at that, because I don't want to make any assumptions about how anyone teaches, motivates, etc. All I can say is that my experience doesn't parallel yours at all.

We had a guy come to our first clinic last year and go from an 18 to a 12 in three weeks. Another guy went from a 9 to a 1 and shot a few rounds in the 60s last year. Another guy, playing golf for five months, shot 76 and 78 on a course with some pretty small, tricky greens. We have lots of these success stories.

I'm just going on statistics and facts, which when I apply them as objectively as possible, line up with my experience: most people are relatively worse ball strikers than they are short game players. When we encounter a person who is the opposite, we work on the short game.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Once again, I am not saying the long game is not important. It is. But as you'll see from my real life situation above, the easiest way to improve is to work on your short game. You can throw all the stats, MoneyGolf, 40-30-20-10 analysis you like at me, but the reality is the one I've described above.

You work for Golf Evolution, a golf academy teaching a radical new way to look at the golf swing. Is it possible you might be skewing the stats to make the long game more important? Could that be in your best interests?

It's not really "radical," and we teach the short game as much as or more than anyone around. We're doing AimPoint and Edel because we believe in the short game. But... we don't over-teach it. We teach whatever that particular golfer needs to improve the most. The majority of the time it's ballstriking. I don't care how good your short game is if it takes you too many shots to get near the green.

And you're kidding yourself if you think your guy getting an 8 on the hole is "reality" for the average golfer. And again, if that was the reality for one particular golfer, we'd be around the green immediately and ignoring the full swing until his short game improved dramatically. But that's not even close to realistic.

Originally Posted by LongballGer

I remember reading an "experiment" in which a tour pro was paired up with a hacker. One round the tour pro was supposed to hit all the long shots and the hacker had to chip and putt. The other round the hacker would hit all the shots from tee to green and the tour pro had to chip and putt.

Result was that the score was way higher when the hacker would hit all shots from tee to green. Of course the tour pros have a superior short game compared to the hackers, but the hacker loses most shots by lacking distance, slicing too many balls OB and not hitting a lot of greens. It´s not because they 4 or 5 putt every green and skull every chip shot.

Yep.

Originally Posted by bwdial

The long game is what separates the average high-handicap duffer from the very good amateur.

The short game is what separates the very good amateur from the rank and file golf professional.

Putting is what separates the rank and file golf professional from the tour professional.

Myth.

That's not to say there's not some truth to it, but... the average Nationwide Tour pro is statistically just about as good a putter as the average PGA Tour pro. But the average PGA Tour pro hits more greens and hits shots closer to the hole.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

It is possible we are coming at the same information from different sides. I read your post below and it backs up my argument that the short game and putting is more important. If all the pros are hitting 16 GIRs on your average muni course, then the winner will be decided by who makes more putts.

For the average golfer, the ones I teach, they are much better off trying to turn 5 shots into 3 or 4, or 4 shots into 2 or 3 etc. around the green than try to hit their drives further (usually further OB) or their irons shots straighter. That is why I give it more importance. It is a much easier to work on ones short game/putting and see noticeable improvement in relatively short time.

You didn't read what he wrote properly. His post clearly demonstrated how the long game matters most.

Again, if you have an amateur who is taking 5 shots from "around the green" then I agree you probably work on the short game first with that guy. But who are these guys who are scoring 7s on every hole and shooting 126 despite being "near the green" in regulation!? They don't exist, not in any sort of majority.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Your experiment with the tour pro and the hacker may have been valid, but it really misses the point.  No matter how much instruction and practice a hacker gets, he will never, ever, EVER come close to hitting it like a tour pro.

So what? That's not the point.

Let me put some numbers on this. Completely made up off the top of my head. For the general bogey golfer (an 18 handicap), their long game handicap is often about a 22 and their short game handicap is often about a 14.

They are worse ball strikers than they are at the short game. The ballstriking - generally speaking - will have the largest impact.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Of course, the answer is short game/putting.  And it is one area of the game where the hacker can, with practice, be much closer to  tour player, since it does not involve as much physical ability.

"Of course" would imply that you have statistics or facts to back up what you're saying, but you do not. The statistics and facts back up the fact that hitting GIR and getting the ball close to the hole is the single biggest predictor of score, and the average golfer is downright terrible at this. Hitting a GIR basically guarantees that they'll get no worse than a bogey, and missing the GIR virtually guarantees nothing better than par.

Again, generally speaking.

Originally Posted by max power

But just take note of 95% of the golfers at the range, and at the short game practice area, and 95% of the golfers you get paired with if showing up as a single or twosome-it's the long game and ballstriking that does them in.  I've never, ever played with another golfer who was a solid ballstriker who was clueless around the green. Played with plenty of guys who hit decent chip shots and are solid putters who lose every other first shot off the tee, and top another 4, 5, or 6 to get down near the green. The previous posters who said short game practice becomes more important the better you get are spot on. Short game is probably the difference between a 2 handicap and a scratch or + handicap golfer, but the other 99% of golfers should spend at least 2/3 of their practice time devoted to ballstriking.

Don't agree with some of the specifics (or the 95% part), but overall, yes, agreed. That's what the statistics are telling us.

If we want to make up hypotheticals, what's more costly? Rolling your drive or missing a ten-footer? What's worse - leaving a bunker shot in the bunker or hitting a tee shot OB? I'm not really interested in hypotheticals, though - the average golfer is a poorer ballstriker relative to their short game. The long game and full swing have a greater impact on scoring than short game prowess.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

By hitting the green and taking two putts. Heck, even if they three putt or four putt they're going to beat the guy you just made up every time. I think you're making your memory fit your hypothesis. I almost never see a bogey golfer (or a 27 index) doing what you've just suggested - regularly taking six shots from near the green. The guy just got an eight on the hole, c'mon...

If that truly was the case with any particular student, Phil, I'd be right there teaching the guy the short game. But your guy is statistically not the typical golfer. You're just making up an exception.

My experience does not parallel yours, Phil. I disagree completely with the "very slight" and will leave it at that, because I don't want to make any assumptions about how anyone teaches, motivates, etc. All I can say is that my experience doesn't parallel yours at all.

We had a guy come to our first clinic last year and go from an 18 to a 12 in three weeks. Another guy went from a 9 to a 1 and shot a few rounds in the 60s last year. Another guy, playing golf for five months, shot 76 and 78 on a course with some pretty small, tricky greens. We have lots of these success stories.

I'm just going on statistics and facts, which when I apply them as objectively as possible, line up with my experience: most people are relatively worse ball strikers than they are short game players. When we encounter a person who is the opposite, we work on the short game.

It's not really "radical," and we teach the short game as much as or more than anyone around. We're doing AimPoint and Edel because we believe in the short game. But... we don't over-teach it. We teach whatever that particular golfer needs to improve the most. The majority of the time it's ballstriking. I don't care how good your short game is if it takes you too many shots to get near the green.

And you're kidding yourself if you think your guy getting an 8 on the hole is "reality" for the average golfer. And again, if that was the reality for one particular golfer, we'd be around the green immediately and ignoring the full swing until his short game improved dramatically. But that's not even close to realistic.

First apologies for not being able to use the multi-quote function and also if my reply to your post was on the aggressive side, that most certainly wasn't my intention. My last comment was a bit cheeky in reply to your comment about Pelz! ;-)

Moving on to my example. It does appear our experiences are different with regards to teaching. The above 8 is a very common example for the high handicappers I teach. Obviously not on every hole, but it happens frequently. Where possible, I like to play a full 18-hole round with potential students in order to get a feel for their entire game. I take my pen and notebook with me and jot down every swing they take so we can go over the data in the club house afterwards. This allows me to then prepare them an Improvement Programme. Perhaps a 27 handicap index golfer in the US is different (I am not being funny here, we have different handicap systems), but in Spain a 27 handicapper has an average score of 8-12 shots over their handicap. Usually, a 27 handicapper doesn't go bogey-double bogey-bogey-double bogey etc., shooting 99 on a par 72 course, they go triple-par-par-bogey-double-quadruple-par-double-bogey-double-par on their way to 110. I am not making this up, this is what I observe all the time. For me, the above is the typical golfer. I was exaggerating the poor short game for effect (although I have seen worse!), but maybe it's not 3 or 4 chips and then 3 putts, but it's rarely 1 chip, 2 putts and hardly ever 1 chip, 1 putt. The data proves that they would be genuine 27 handicappers OR better if they could simply chip on and take no more than 2 putts.

If you've had a guy go from 9 to a 1 that is awesome and I take my hat off to you. I've also had guys come to me that couldn't break 90 and after a couple of long game lessons only start shooting in the low 80s. But my experience is that this isn't the typical golfer because that guy practiced like a Trojan and starting playing 3 times a week! The typical golfer has a lesson one week and then turns up the next having not touched a club all week. That is why I said it was difficult for most golfers to improve their swing considerably. Not because they can't but because they simply do not have the time. I focus on the short game as students can improve very quickly, usually in the first lesson. They see the results immediately, rather than having to trust me for a few weeks until their swing starts to come good.

We disagree because you feel their long game is holding them back but the majority of the time I see that their long game is good enough to shoot their handicap or slightly better but the real reason why they are so many shots over their handicaps is because they fritter away far too many shots around the green.

Perhaps you get a lot more students that are closer to their handicaps and people only come to me when their games have completely gone! I don't know!

[The_Pharaoh]

Read my other post on this. I never said they were taking 7 on every hole and shooting 126 despite being near the green in regulation. But the average 28 handicapper does shoot 110 being near the green in regulation and then taking the same number or more shots to complete the hole. And please don't tell me they don't exist as they are all over the place. I invite you to play at my club in Madrid. They are up by a par 5 in 3 or 4 shots and then take 3 or 4 shots to hole out. They avoid shooting 126 because they'll then hit the next short par 3 in regulation and fluke a birdie or par.

Originally Posted by iacas

Again, if you have an amateur who is taking 5 shots from "around the green" then I agree you probably work on the short game first with that guy. But who are these guys who are scoring 7s on every hole and shooting 126 despite being "near the green" in regulation!? They don't exist, not in any sort of majority.