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

[ks8829]

sorry, my mistake,

35 front, one under front

37 back, one over back nine

I made the change above

[ks8829]

one round is nothing, you are right.  I played the next day and shot 12 over par.  12 stroke difference from the day before, my short game failed me, I must say.

Sunday, 7/17/11

33 putts

5 out of 12 up and downs

shot 84

vs

Saturday, 7/16/11

26 putts

7 out of 11 up and downs

shot 72

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ND Fan

Amateurs such as ourselves miss greens and at times many of them

That's why others are pointing out that the single best way to lower your scores is to HIT MORE OF THEM. Rely on your short game to "save" par less and have more BIRDIE opportunities.

Originally Posted by 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,

a) The leader on the PGA Tour in scrambling is 66%. You're vastly over-estimating how good the pros are at getting up and down, and likely vastly under-estimating how similar the positions they are in which they leave themselves. Pros are far, far, far more likely to be putting from the fringe than 120 yards away in the rough because their tee shot went into the trees.

b) I agree short game can keep a bad round from completely disintegrating, but if you're relying on your short game too much you'll never shoot a great score. Just lots of rounds in which you "keep the score together."

Originally Posted by tomvk77

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

That's not a great ratio IMHO. I'm sticking with something in the 60/30/10 range, and the 10 is putting and the 60 is the full swing or shots from 50+ yards.

Originally Posted by ks8829

one round is nothing, you are right.  I played the next day and shot 12 over par.  12 stroke difference from the day before, my short game failed me, I must say.

See, I look at that and see that your long game failed you on both occasions. In one round you "held" it together, and in the other, were unable to.

I'd also venture to guess that your misses in the round of 72 were better than your misses in your 84. It's a lot easier to scramble when you're two yards off the green because you hit the ball pretty well than when you're having to flop shots over bunkers or something because you've put yourself in terrible spots.

You've been beating the "short game" drum for a long, long time, and in doing so and based on the two rounds above, if I were to guess your short game is probably about a 1 or 2 handicap, but your ballstriking is about a 6 or 7 handicap. You only hit 36% of your GIR. Birdie putts beat par putts over the long haul every time...

P.S. Two rounds is almost exactly as useless as one round.

[bunkerputt]

Golf is like a baton relay.  Ballstriking->Putting or Ballstriking->Short Game->Putting.  The fewer handoffs you have, the better your time and in golf, the better your score.  Short game is important when it's important.  Otherwise it's not important.  You can spend all your time practicing a 2 handoff game, or trying to make it a one-handoff game.  I know which one I'd choose....

[x129]

Why don't you focus on having a zero handoff game. Just hole everything on the approach shot and you don't have to practice putting at all.  You can try to make it a one-hand off game but you will fail at least 20% of the time.  Better have a back up plan for those cases.

As far as what to practice, you focus on your weakest area. If you hit 12 GIR but miss 6 up and downs from 10 yards (where the pros are up around 85%), you have a choice either try and increase your GIR to 100% or work on your short game.  You have to decide which is easier to improve.

You also have to decide what is more important to you: A GIR or a legit birdie shot. Aiming for the fat part of the green will increase your GIR. Aiming at the pin will increase your birdie attempts (along with the number of 10 yard chips you want). On some holes you don't have to make that tradeoff (and a lot of people suggest that midhandicappers would score better aiming for the center of the green) but on a lot you do.

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

Golf is like a baton relay.  Ballstriking->Putting or Ballstriking->Short Game->Putting.  The fewer handoffs you have, the better your time and in golf, the better your score.  Short game is important when it's important.  Otherwise it's not important.  You can spend all your time practicing a 2 handoff game, or trying to make it a one-handoff game.  I know which one I'd choose....

[Elvisliveson]

Apropos story: several weeks ago, my buddy and I got paired with these older guys (late 50s, early 60s). My short game was off all day, I missed 4 birdie putts under 10 feet and the only pars I got were from the 8 greens I hit in regulation. In short I turned a 76 into an 82. Meanwhile, one of the old guys was chipping and putting like nobody's business, turning something like a 105 into around a 97. So, when we get off the final green, I say to him "if I had your short game, I'd be dangerous", to which he replies "yeah, but if I had your long game, I'd be a golfer!". Kind of sums up the importance of ballstriking in separating the men from the boys.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

You also have to decide what is more important to you: A GIR or a legit birdie shot. Aiming for the fat part of the green will increase your GIR. Aiming at the pin will increase your birdie attempts (along with the number of 10 yard chips you want). On some holes you don't have to make that tradeoff (and a lot of people suggest that midhandicappers would score better aiming for the center of the green) but on a lot you do.

I will say this... not many courses have greens large enough that hitting the center of the green fails to give you a reasonable birdie opportunity.

[x129]

I haven't seen many greens where a forward pin placement isn't 25 feet to the center. That is a less than 10% putt. Your experience may differ. Obviously as the pin moves towards the center of the green, aiming towards the center becomes more optimal.

Originally Posted by iacas

I will say this... not many courses have greens large enough that hitting the center of the green fails to give you a reasonable birdie opportunity.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

I haven't seen many greens where a forward pin placement isn't 25 feet to the center. That is a less than 10% putt. Your experience may differ. Obviously as the pin moves towards the center of the green, aiming towards the center becomes more optimal.

They're still gonna take less strokes on average putting than if they randomly miss the green.

[Deryck Griffith]

Quote:

I haven't seen many greens where a forward pin placement isn't 25 feet to the center. That is a less than 10% putt. Your experience may differ. Obviously as the pin moves towards the center of the green, aiming towards the center becomes more optimal.

Aiming at tucked pins if you aren't an above average ball striker is one of the biggest remedies to amateur's missing greens.

[x129]

Originally Posted by iacas

They're still gonna take less strokes on average putting than if they randomly miss the green.

Depends on who you are talking about and what you mean by randomly missing the green. Obviously if you don't have a short game missing the green is real bad. If you a pro whose approach shot is going to land in a 20 foot rectangle and who can hit a 20 ft chip, the math works out differently

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

Quote:

Aiming at tucked pins if you aren't an above average ball striker is one of the biggest remedies to amateur's missing greens.

Agree you will hit more greens by aiming towards the center. It may or may not result in a lower score depending on your game and the hole. At the pro level attacking the pin at the expense of GIR seems to work (compare the GIR list to the birdie or better list). As I said for a midhandicapper that is probably wrong. But even the pros use judgement of when to be agressive and when to be passive.

I have a feeling that half the reason people suggest working on the short game is because no on does it. Compare the number of people at the driving range to the chipping green. Pretty much the only time I encounter someone with a great short game but lacking a long game is either a junior who practices a lot but doesn't have the strength yet or the old guy with tons of practice under his belt but whose flexibilty and strength have faded.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by x129

I have a feeling that half the reason people suggest working on the short game is because no on does it.

I think that's the crux of the debate. Instructors tell people to practice short game the most because even if they only practice it 1/3 of their range time, it will feel like they're practicing it the most. Unless you have a great practice facility, where does one practice the short game other than on the course? How many people get a chance to play solo rounds with open holes behind them so they can practice on the course? How many courses allow it anyway?

I'd say most people should practice short game every chance they get, because in reality, even then it will likely be under practiced.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

Depends on who you are talking about and what you mean by randomly missing the green. Obviously if you don't have a short game missing the green is real bad. If you a pro whose approach shot is going to land in a 20 foot rectangle and who can hit a 20 ft chip, the math works out differently...

...

Agree you will hit more greens by aiming towards the center. It may or may not result in a lower score depending on your game and the hole.

Look, it comes down to this. In general, it's better to hit the green than be off the green. The math does not work out differently. It's always better, in general (not on a specific situation or with a specific golfer) to hit the green than to miss it.

Originally Posted by x129

I have a feeling that half the reason people suggest working on the short game is because no on does it. Compare the number of people at the driving range to the chipping green. Pretty much the only time I encounter someone with a great short game but lacking a long game is either a junior who practices a lot but doesn't have the strength yet or the old guy with tons of practice under his belt but whose flexibilty and strength have faded.

To be fair, virtually none of those people - at either location - are actually "working" on anything at all. I'm talking about actual dedicated time working, in which case the fact that the chipping motion is simpler (and easier) helps to dictate that you spend less time working on it. Combined with the fact that it's a little less important (not as unimportant as people might think I'd say - it's almost as important as ball striking), and the amount of time you spend drops again.

Those are the two main reasons not to spend as much time "working" on your short game: a) it's less important to scoring (not a lot, but a little, provably so), and b) it's easier to pick up and remain consistent at.

And again all of it is predicated upon people actually working on these parts of their game. Standing on a range hitting mindlessly doesn't count.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I'd say most people should practice short game every chance they get, because in reality, even then it will likely be under practiced.

A fair point. Obviously it probably wouldn't surprise you to say that when I say 60/30/10, I mean actually 60/30/10. Which might be, as you suggest, a LOT of short game practice compared to what people do now!!!

[Elvisliveson]

That is completely irrefutable. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

Originally Posted by iacas

Look, it comes down to this. In general, it's better to hit the green than be off the green. The math does not work out differently. It's always better, in general (not on a specific situation or with a specific golfer) to hit the green than to miss it.

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by x129

At the pro level attacking the pin at the expense of GIR seems to work (compare the GIR list to the birdie or better list). As I said for a midhandicapper that is probably wrong. But even the pros use judgement of when to be agressive and when to be passive.

You would be surprised at how often the pros aim for the fat part of the green vs. pins.  Pro's usually start firing at pins on the Sunday of a tournamnet or if they are desperately trying to make birdies.  Interesting enough, Phil's short game this past weekend at the British Open didn't help much when he was trying to catch Darren Clarke and his ability to hit greens the first half of the round is why he made all those birdies.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think that's the crux of the debate. Instructors tell people to practice short game the most because even if they only practice it 1/3 of their range time, it will feel like they're practicing it the most. Unless you have a great practice facility, where does one practice the short game other than on the course? How many people get a chance to play solo rounds with open holes behind them so they can practice on the course? How many courses allow it anyway?

I'd say most people should practice short game every chance they get, because in reality, even then it will likely be under practiced.

The foundation of this debate is based on all things being equal.  If you are a mid to high capper on a range where the practice facility has areas to practice all aspects of your game, key time should ABSOLUTELY be put towards short game; however, as a poor ball striker, dedicating a larger amount of time on ball striking will assist in lowering scores as a mid to high capper.  But I can't seem to get why everyone is assuming people are saying NOT to practice short game.  If you are practicing 60% ball striking and 40% short game, how is the 40% off time you put towards it NOT going to help that part of your game?   Let's say you are at the range for 2 hours, 40% represents close to 50 minutes of time.  So every range session, you are practicing the short game for 50 mintues.  Where in that has anyone said, NOT to practice short game?  50 mintues of short game practice every range session will help you to improve on that aspect of your game and the remaining 70 mintues will do wonders for improving on your ball striking.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

. . . But I can't seem to get why everyone is assuming people are saying NOT to practice short game.  If you are practicing 60% ball striking and 40% short game, how is the 40% off time you put towards it NOT going to help that part of your game?   Let's say you are at the range for 2 hours, 40% represents close to 50 minutes of time.  So every range session, you are practicing the short game for 50 mintues.  Where in that has anyone said, NOT to practice short game?  50 mintues of short game practice every range session will help you to improve on that aspect of your game and the remaining 70 mintues will do wonders for improving on your ball striking.

Was that aimed at me somehow or the guy I was quoting in my post? Since it's pretty consistent with what I've just said, I'm not sure.

[B-Con]

First, I agree that GIR is invaluable for shooting consistent good scores. But I maintain that high scoring players have terrible short games on average. Between myself and others, I've seen countless greens missed from just 30 yards out and simple 12 foot chips get left 7 feet from the hole. With a competent short game, you should be hitting those greens from 30 yards and be able to turn 12 foot chips into up-and-downs most of the time. That sort of thing will play itself out a few times a round and cost the player a stroke nearly every time it happens. Learning to not hit chips fat or blade the ball as well as some moderate distance control isn't too hard and it would benefit a lot of players. So for really high shooting players (say, 95+), I have to wonder if the quickest way for most of them to drop a few strokes would be to improve their short game. Not that ball striking wouldn't help them a lot, especially if they want to get a lot better, but I think that a few strokes could be shaved off more easily just by working on 50 yards and in. Going from hitting 2 GIR out of luck to hitting 5 GIR is actually a really big difference in ball striking. I absolutely think it's worth working on, but the strokes saved in going from 2 GIR to 5 GIR could probably also be saved by half as much effort on the short game. Get up and down from 20 feet and never miss greens with your wedge While ideally you could hit every GIR and not need much by way of short game, you're not there until you're hitting 50%+ GIR, which is almost a lifetime away from the 95-shooter. If you're missing most of your GIR, it will take a lot of work to reverse that, and in the mean time you can develop score-salvaging skills. It won't get you to a 10 HDCP, but it'll help you become a (honest) bogey golfer, which a lot of players would consider progress. Working on the short game, for me, was what brought me from a 98 to a 93. I honestly don't think much else in my game improved noticeably there. But I stopped taking 4 strokes to do what should've been done easily in 3. I worked on my chipping -- and to a lesser degree, my putting -- and I got myself from a 98 to a 93 basically over a winter and half a spring of very little golf practice otherwise. Anyway, thought I'd throw in the perspective of a higher handicapper. :-)

[jshots]

Can't believe I started this lol