Why have I always been told to work most on my short game?

[LankyLefty]

The short game is usually overstressed I think because it is the most obvious separation between a decent golfer and a great one.

Short game is very important for not losing shots on greens missed however the best way for a guy who misses 8 or 9 or more greens in a round is not to work on the short game... its to work on not missing as many greens.

If you missing 2 or 3 greens a round then maybe that cant be helped and your short game comes into play but when you shooting 110s and hitting a green is a reason for celebration the short game is not going to save you.

[x129]

I haven't seen that study for PGA players. For average golf players, yes GIR dominates. All of the ones I have seen on PGA pros having putting #1 with saves and GIR have decent correlation  while something like  driver distance has almost zero correlation.

Originally Posted by iacas

That's funny, because a lot of smart people have proven it matters the most.

[mdl]

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

The boldfaced statement is testable. I got current data from the PGA Tour web site for 188 players on GIR and scoring average, and ran a correlation. The correlation coefficient is -0.00039. This means there is NO relationship between GIR and scoring in this data set. NONE. Another way of saying it is, if you want to explain a player's scoring average, GIR contributes nothing to the explanation.

This is some evidence of there being no correlation, but just note that this is far from the last word.  A bivariate correlation in this case could easily be close to zero, but the relationship between GIR and scoring average could still be quite strong if you adjust for other factors that measure different skills for each player (FW %, Putting, Up and Down %, Sand Save %, Distance).

Also, look at http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadie/Assets/strokes_gained_pga_broadie_20110408.pdf

The author is using a different (and much better) metric that GIR, but his analysis shows very clearly that better pros differentiate themselves from worse pros much more through long shots (over 100 yards) than they do through short shots or putting (or sand saves or recovery shots or the like).  While this is obviously a different measure, not exactly the same as GIR, the point remains that accuracy with mid and long irons, and fairway woods, is the biggest determinant of scoring on tour, and likely for most amateurs too.

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by mdl

This is some evidence of there being no correlation, but just note that this is far from the last word.  A bivariate correlation in this case could easily be close to zero, but the relationship between GIR and scoring average could still be quite strong if you adjust for other factors that measure different skills for each player (FW %, Putting, Up and Down %, Sand Save %, Distance).

Also, look at http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadie/Assets/strokes_gained_pga_broadie_20110408.pdf

The author is using a different (and much better) metric that GIR, but his analysis shows very clearly that better pros differentiate themselves from worse pros much more through long shots (over 100 yards) than they do through short shots or putting (or sand saves or recovery shots or the like).  While this is obviously a different measure, not exactly the same as GIR, the point remains that accuracy with mid and long irons, and fairway woods, is the biggest determinant of scoring on tour, and likely for most amateurs too.

Quoted from the link:

"The availability of detailed golf shot data makes it possible to create golf measures that allow consistent comparisons between different parts of the game. Using the starting and ending locations of each shot, strokes gained gives the number of strokes a golfer gains or loses relative to an average PGA TOUR tournament field. Analysis of over eight million shots on the PGA TOUR in 2003-2010 shows that the long game (defined as shots starting over 100 yards from the hole) accounts for more than two-thirds of the scoring differences between PGA TOUR golfers. In the 2003-2010 data, Tiger Woods led in total strokes gained, with a gain of 3.20 strokes per 18-hole round. He gained 2.08 strokes (65% of the total) in the long game. """""                 " "

[NM Golf]

Silence........................................

[Shindig]

I just heard a commentator for the British Open say that Glover is doing well because of all those greens he's hitting in regulation. Another just mentioned that it's a ball striking competition at this point.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

Quoted from the link:

" . . .  He gained 2.08 strokes (65% of the total) in the long game. """""                 "              "

I suspect a lot of the gains was because of distance and proficiency with mid and long irons - specifically on longer holes like par 5s. I remember when Freddie and Davis were partnered in the World Cup a few times. Their length (and ball striking) when clicking was virtually unbeatable.

[ks8829]

Played 18 holes and shot 72 or even par.  below is a summary of my round and the short game saved my round.

26 Putts

13 front & 13 back

7 up and downs out of 11 tries or 63.4%

3 saves out of 4 attempts, front nine & 4 saves out of 7 attempts, back nine

9 out of 18 green on regulations or 50%

5 front & 4 back

11 out of 14 fairways hit or 78.6%

6/7 front & 5/7 back

35 Front

37 Back

front

2 birdies

1 boogie

6 pars

back

2 birdies

3 boogies

4 pars

26 putts and 63.4% up and down percentage is why a short game will help your score.

[max power]

No one said it wouldn't help your score.

And 35 and 36 is 71-don't shortchange yourself.

Originally Posted by ks8829

26 putts and 63.4% up and down percentage is why a short game will help your score.

[TourSpoon]

You have to stay away from those "boogies".

[sean_miller]

Dude - enough with the "boogies" already.

Originally Posted by ks8829

Played 18 holes and shot 72 or even par.  below is a summary of my round and the short game saved my round.

26 Putts

13 front & 13 back

7 up and downs out of 11 tries or 63.4%

3 saves out of 4 attempts, front nine & 4 saves out of 7 attempts, back nine

9 out of 18 green on regulations or 50%

5 front & 4 back

11 out of 14 fairways hit or 78.6%

6/7 front & 5/7 back

35 Front

36 Back

front

2 birdies

1 boogie

6 pars

back

2 birdies

3 boogies

4 pars

26 putts and 63.4% up and down percentage is why a short game will help your score.

[TourSpoon]

"I am your boogie man, that's what I am". KC

[KARR2001]

One of the reasons you hear about practicing short game all the time is because it is a MUST! Dave Pelz has performed many studies and has shown that more then half of all your shots occur from 100 yards and in. A good short game can really lower your scores, especially for players with a higher handicap. As a result I will spend 2 hours on the practice green for every hour I spend on my long game. Obviously you need to spend time on your long game but if you can learn to get short game shots close to the pin you can lower your scores significantly. Every inch farther away from the hole decreases the percentage of the putts you will make. 7 feet 10 inches is the point where Tour Pros make 50% of their putts and that stat is even lower for us amateurs so having a good short game to get closer to the hole is a must.

[max power]

What he said, except the complete opposite.

Originally Posted by KARR2001

One of the reasons you hear about practicing short game all the time is because it is a MUST! Dave Pelz has performed many studies and has shown that more then half of all your shots occur from 100 yards and in. A good short game can really lower your scores, especially for players with a higher handicap. As a result I will spend 2 hours on the practice green for every hour I spend on my long game. Obviously you need to spend time on your long game but if you can learn to get short game shots close to the pin you can lower your scores significantly. Every inch farther away from the hole decreases the percentage of the putts you will make. 7 feet 10 inches is the point where Tour Pros make 50% of their putts and that stat is even lower for us amateurs so having a good short game to get closer to the hole is a must.

[LankyLefty]

Im sure Dave Pelz has also done studies saying the best way to improve your short game is to buy his book....

The short game is important so is the long game, so is putting. Where you can improve the most is where you lack the most.

To those people putting fancy numbers into their calculators and trying to prove this and that with PGA tour statistics, I think this thread is more about why the average golfer is told to practice the short game above all else so often. Tour players are going to be good at everything, some are obviously better at some things then others, but no one on tour is going to be downright terrible at any one aspect of the game as compared to the average weekend golfer. So the fact that the correlation between GIR or any other real stat to score is marginal is not surprising. The best of the best golfers average 66-69 shots per round over a season on the PGA tour. The worst PGA Tour players average 73-75 shots per round. That's a swing of 5-9 shots over the course of perhaps 70-100+ rounds of golf for the entire PGA tour. It should be no great surprise that no one element can account for any great portion of that.

For the average golfer however it is a different matter. Many golfers may lose a vast majority of their shots in one area. If you are erratic with your tee-shots and hit them in the woods 3 or 4 times per round that can be a huge part of the score. If you hit only 3 or 4 out of 18 greens that can be huge. If you can never get up and down are always lose a shot when you get in trouble that can also be a big drop off. As for what is most important from a statistical point of view I don't think their is a data set available to analyze on that topic since most amateur players don't have people scoring their every shot.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by ks8829

Played 18 holes and shot 72 or even par.  below is a summary of my round and the short game saved my round.

26 Putts

13 front & 13 back

7 up and downs out of 11 tries or 63.4%

3 saves out of 4 attempts, front nine & 4 saves out of 7 attempts, back nine

9 out of 18 green on regulations or 50%

5 front & 4 back

11 out of 14 fairways hit or 78.6%

6/7 front & 5/7 back

35 Front

36 Back

front

2 birdies

1 boogie

6 pars

back

2 birdies

3 boogies

4 pars

26 putts and 63.4% up and down percentage is why a short game will help your score.

One round means nothing, I don't think anyone has said on here that short game is unimportant because that would be ridiculous, of course its important. What has been basically proven through statistical analysis is that the long game or full swing specifically Greens in Regulation is more important when it comes to scoring. What that means is it very well may be counterproductive to spend more time on the short game than on full swing.

Your stats show how a short game can save a round, but as I have said before saving a round is great but I prefer to go low. You want to talk stats.... in a tournament this weekend I shot 68 on Saturday and 72 on Sunday. The difference....... Saturday's round I hit 15 (83%) greens Sunday I hit 12 (66%). All my other stats were pretty close percentage wise. In fact my total putts were better in my round of 72, why because I had to get up and down. Remember getting up and down means PAR. I prefer to make birdies. BTW I have never had a boogie but they sound really bad.

Originally Posted by KARR2001

One of the reasons you hear about practicing short game all the time is because it is a MUST! Dave Pelz has performed many studies and has shown that more then half of all your shots occur from 100 yards and in. A good short game can really lower your scores, especially for players with a higher handicap. As a result I will spend 2 hours on the practice green for every hour I spend on my long game. Obviously you need to spend time on your long game but if you can learn to get short game shots close to the pin you can lower your scores significantly. Every inch farther away from the hole decreases the percentage of the putts you will make. 7 feet 10 inches is the point where Tour Pros make 50% of their putts and that stat is even lower for us amateurs so having a good short game to get closer to the hole is a must.

If you worked more on the long game you might not have to rely on the short game so much. No one improves their game by one putting for par all the time.

[ND Fan]

Comparing Tiger Woods to any of us is ridiculous.  He plays an entirely different game although his short game is one of the best in the world.

Amateurs such as ourselves miss greens and at times many of them, when you do you'll need a short game to salvage a decent round.  Unfortunately too many are very pleased with shooting 80+  if that's the case don't bother with the short game.  If shooting what ever while hitting your driver and irons fairly well makes you happy so be it.  I don't care about anything but the number on the far right hand side of the score card and a good short insures me that number will be respectable even if I am not playing my best.

[tomvk77]

Just look at the pro's within 100 yards they are able to make up and down in alot of cases,

up to 75 %. If we look at single hdc players like myselve that is 30 - 40 %.

If you have a bad driving day or iron day, shortgame can always keep the score together.

as mentioned above hitting only 9 GIR and still make level par is amazing. and in your mind it helps also,

if you can trust on a good shortgame, you can hit your irons more freely, myself i'm good at bunker play, having to an iron into a green

with alot of bunkers, does not scare me, my mind tells me if i hit a bunker i am still able to save par. that takes of the presure of your

iron shot.

if i practise for lets say 1 hour it's 15 min. long game, 30 chipping and pitching, 15 putting, to give you an idea.

take care