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

[iacas]

Originally Posted by McKee

15 minutes, really?  Is that not trivializing the short game?

Its imply doesn't take that long to figure out the distances you hit three wedges with 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 swings.

I've already given my numbers. I forget what they were - 60% full swing, 35% short game, 5% putting? Something like that.

I'm not saying you never practice your short game ("short game" is, to me, not 100 yards and in, but rather chips, pitches, flops, bunker shots, and putts. If you're at 75 yards with a pitching wedge or a sand wedge that's "full swing" work to me, even if it's really only 3/4 or 1/2 swings), I'm simply saying that practicing them as much as you "use" them is overkill.

If we practiced them the same percentage of the time we hit them, then we'd spend 15% of our time practicing tap-ins...

I'm simply saying "practice the easier things less frequently." Because... y'know... they're easier AND matter less to your final score.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by iacas

Its imply doesn't take that long to figure out the distances you hit three wedges with 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 swings.

I've already given my numbers. I forget what they were - 60% full swing, 35% short game, 5% putting? Something like that.

I'm not saying you never practice your short game ("short game" is, to me, not 100 yards and in, but rather chips, pitches, flops, bunker shots, and putts. If you're at 75 yards with a pitching wedge or a sand wedge that's "full swing" work to me, even if it's really only 3/4 or 1/2 swings), I'm simply saying that practicing them as much as you "use" them is overkill.

If we practiced them the same percentage of the time we hit them, then we'd spend 15% of our time practicing tap-ins...

I'm simply saying "practice the easier things less frequently." Because... y'know... they're easier AND matter less to your final score.

You're much more determined than I am.  Its next to impossible to relate to someone who doesn't want to believe that the quickest way to reach your best base potential is through ball striking.  They don't see that being a superb ball-striker would actually lead to better chipping and pitching.  You know..you're only hitting the center of the face with every club in your bag...but if you have to hit a chip..you will miss it!

90% of chipping doesn't have anything to do with the technique but rather the golfers head.  I see so many golfers that will have a short pitch or chip and they just grab their SW, walk into their stance and then swing("I'm just gonna get this on the green so I can putt).  The result is a one of many bad misses. That isn't a result of technique..its a result of not valuing the shot.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Paradox

90% of chipping doesn't have anything to do with the technique but rather the golfers head.

I can't say that I agree with that. People who suck at chipping and pitching typically have really bad technique, too.

[McKee]

You know what they say, "the short game is the first to go". Since Pelz's statistics are biased and every opinion expressed here is influenced by personal experience is it safe to say there is no objective answer to this conundrum? To say that chipping and putting are "easier things" is biased. The short shots are considered the most feared parts of the game (biased Pelz survey) and can develop nasty anxiety disorders.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by McKee

You know what they say, "the short game is the first to go".

So instead of personal experiences (over one round) we're going to use cliches now? Why not drag out "Drive for show, putt for dough?" Why? Because they're inaccurate. They're just sayings.

Originally Posted by McKee

Since Pelz's statistics are biased and every opinion expressed here is influenced by personal experience is it safe to say there is no objective answer to this conundrum?

I don't believe I said they were for certain biased (maybe I did; didn't mean to), just that it seems likely that someone who teaches ONLY the short game is going to stress its importance.

We have facts. So yes, there are objective answers. GIR is the single biggest determinant of your score. There's a fact. MoneyGolf gave us more facts: the shots in the "danger zones" (175-200 yards, 125-175 yards, etc. IIRC) were the single biggest separator between those who made the cut and those who missed, or the winner and the rest of the field, etc.

The long game - the full swing (and, to me, everything from about 50 yards out) - is statistically more important. I used to think the opposite too. I've been swayed by a lot of experience teaching people and seeing how truly bad they are at ballstriking, and the many studies which bear out the fact that GIRs are important and "full swings from 100-200 yards" are really important.

Originally Posted by McKee

To say that chipping and putting are "easier things" is biased. The short shots are considered the most feared parts of the game (biased Pelz survey) and can develop nasty anxiety disorders.

Seriously? C'mon. The full swing is easily an order of magnitude more complex - and thus more difficult - than a ten-foot putt. Or a straightforward pitch shot. I can show someone all they'll ever need to know about putting or a straightforward pitch shot (as well as some variations) in an hour. They can get really good in a few hours. That ain't happenin' with the full swing.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by iacas

I can't say that I agree with that. People who suck at chipping and pitching typically have really bad technique, too.

It might have been a slight exaggeration.

[ochmude]

Originally Posted by McKee

To say that chipping and putting are "easier things" is biased. The short shots are considered the most feared parts of the game (biased Pelz survey) and can develop nasty anxiety disorders.

Considered by whom?  What the heck is there to fear?  When I'm standing on the 1st tee at one of my local courses I'm afraid I'm going to go into crippling debt because I'm going to shank my drive into someone's ridiculously expensive car.  I never fear slicing a chip out of bounds.  Short shots are the easiest and most fun, and this is coming from someone that can't break 100.

[Luckner88]

Originally Posted by ochmude

Considered by whom?  What the heck is there to fear?  When I'm standing on the 1st tee at one of my local courses I'm afraid I'm going to go into crippling debt because I'm going to shank my drive into someone's ridiculously expensive car.  I never fear slicing a chip out of bounds.  Short shots are the easiest and most fun, and this is coming from someone that can't break 100.

Yeah me too!  Nothing worse than hitting a pull-hook right into the parking lot on my 1st teebox of my home course.  Thank goodness its just a small muni with everyday average joes, not some rich private course with mercedes and aston martins in the parking lot!  I love shortgame shots, they require the most creativity and imagination.  Keep working at it and you will develop your feel and touch for the short game.  I look at it this way, I go by the 2/3 rule, if you have an hour to practice each day, 40 min should be on short game and the other 20 should be on the range.  Thats saying that you have only an hour a day.

[newtogolf]

Thanks, then I'd agree ball striking is more important.  If I'm striking the ball properly I tend to avoid those awkward 30-40 yard chip and pitch shots where more usually goes wrong than right for me.

Originally Posted by iacas

That's not what others are calling ballstriking. That's power. Ballstriking is more about consistent power (whatever your number is) and consistent direction.

[Deryck Griffith]

Below from MoneyBall.  This excerpt from the article explains how Tiger used Ball striking to gain 8 strokes on the entire field during the 2008 Bay Hill Championship.  Oh and for the record, he had 21 putts that were over 22 feet and missed all of them; and the article also said that the best players in the world, over a 4 day tournament ONLY make 2 putts over 24 feet.

But now we reach one of the strongest parts of Tiger's game: He excelled at approach shots from 150-250 yards out, allowing him to pick up an amazing eight strokes on his closest competitors. This matches the highlights of his play. On Saturday, he hit a 4-iron around a stand of trees to within two feet of the hole. And on the last hole of the tourney, Tiger summoned what he called "the best swing I made all week" to land a 5-iron from 177 yards on the green and set up the winning putt. (Even with all of his 2010 struggles, Tiger remains the world's best on long approach shots. As I wrote last month , "His remarkable ball striking from this range is what keeps him in tournaments when other departments of his game are lagging.")

Thanks to his superb long approach shots, Tiger is now two shots up as we turn to the short game.

Broadie defines the short game as all shots from 100 yards and in, excluding bunker shots close to the green. Tiger loses two strokes in this department . This fits with the lowlights of Tiger's play, as when he hit a pitching wedge that flew the green and chunked a sand wedge that landed well short of the putting surface. Tiger's touch closer to the green was more assured. He gained four-tenths of a stroke from the sand.

As we finally get to putting, Tiger is fractionally ahead by 0.4 strokes. Even after that clinching putt on Sunday, his below-average long putting cost him four-tenths of a stroke. He also lost another stroke due to his relatively poor performance on putts between three and six feet. He's now one behind his nearest competitors.

In Broadie's final analysis, then, it was Tiger's long approach shots and midrange putting that "won" the tournament. So, it is ultimately fair to say that Tiger's win at Bay Hill can be partly attributed to his clutch putting—clutch putting on every single one of the 34 putts he took between seven and 21 feet. That last putt he rolled in from 24 feet just brought him closer to being an average golfer. And where did he pick up the most ground on his competitors? It wasn't on the green; it was far away from the hole, with an iron in his hands.

[McKee]

Originally Posted by iacas

So instead of personal experiences (over one round) we're going to use cliches now? Why not drag out "Drive for show, putt for dough?" Why? Because they're inaccurate. They're just sayings.

It's a proverb.  Big difference.

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't believe I said they were for certain biased (maybe I did; didn't mean to), just that it seems likely that someone who teaches ONLY the short game is going to stress its importance.

And he is supporting his stress with statistics.  Teaching only the short game is not a bad thing, it won't be brushed over in 15 minutes but instead worked on in a detailed and diligent manner.  I went to his school and it was amazing for me.  Aside from my major short game improvement I had the greatest leap in overall ball striking since I was a kid.

Originally Posted by iacas

We have facts. So yes, there are objective answers. GIR is the single biggest determinant of your score. There's a fact. MoneyGolf gave us more facts: the shots in the "danger zones" (175-200 yards, 125-175 yards, etc. IIRC) were the single biggest separator between those who made the cut and those who missed, or the winner and the rest of the field, etc.

"On the other end of the spectrum, there are players who have truly scrutinized the data to find holes in their game. I spent a long time on the range talking stats with Chris Stroud , a young Texan looking to make his name on the PGA Tour. He prints out all of his ShotLink numbers at the end of the year and analyzes them with his coaching team to figure out his weaknesses. This year, he noticed his putting, chipping, and bunker play were lacking, so that's where he put in the majority of his practice time."

Should we tell him to just hit more GIRs?  These guys are trying to shave off a fraction of a stroke per round.  They will look at every part of their game for improvement.

Originally Posted by iacas

The long game - the full swing (and, to me, everything from about 50 yards out) - is statistically more important. I used to think the opposite too. I've been swayed by a lot of experience teaching people and seeing how truly bad they are at ballstriking, and the many studies which bear out the fact that GIRs are important and "full swings from 100-200 yards" are really important.

These studies you are talking about, it seems like they only pertain to professionals.  Are you saying the statistics should also apply to the high handicappers you experience?

Originally Posted by iacas

Seriously? C'mon. The full swing is easily an order of magnitude more complex - and thus more difficult - than a ten-foot putt. Or a straightforward pitch shot. I can show someone all they'll ever need to know about putting or a straightforward pitch shot (as well as some variations) in an hour. They can get really good in a few hours. That ain't happenin' with the full swing.

I understand what you are saying.  The short shots are physically the easiest shots in golf.  But, short shots, because of their simplicity, contain a dynamic of stress that can be paralyzing to people who are prone to phobias.  As you get closer to the hole and the shot gets "simpler" the greater the fear of an embarrassing mistake.  In some, this fear can grow to become an anxiety disorder commonly known as the yips .  The yips are not "on or off" but can vary in degree - any amount of fear that contributes to missing a simple shot is a form of yip.

"We're in a golden age for golf research because the PGA Tour has opened ShotLink's books to researchers. Two professors at the Wharton school, for example, looked at 1.6 million tour putts and concluded that professional golfers are risk-averse . They examined putts for par and putts for birdie from the same distances and discovered that pros make the birdie putts less often. They suggest that pros leave these birdie putts short out of fear of making bogey, and then calculate that this bogey terror—and the resultant failure to approach birdie putts in the same way as par putts—costs the average tour player about one stroke per tournament."

[iacas]

Originally Posted by McKee

I went to his school and it was amazing for me.  Aside from my major short game improvement I had the greatest leap in overall ball striking since I was a kid.

Again, personal anecdotal evidence. You can't extrapolate much from that. You're one data point. Maybe your short game was lagging behind. In the majority of amateurs, their short game is not what's lagging behind. There's hard data and evidence from people who are unbiased. As an objective observer, which I feel I am in this case (we teach the short game really, really well, too), Pelz's data is given less credibility out of the gate. He's not an unbiased source. He's not a neutral source. That's all I've said about it.

Originally Posted by McKee

"This year, he noticed his putting, chipping, and bunker play were lacking, so that's where he put in the majority of his practice time."

Again, one case. What's so hard to understand that I'm not saying that everyone needs to follow the same path. I'm talking in generalities - you're giving me single experiences.

Originally Posted by McKee

These studies you are talking about, it seems like they only pertain to professionals. Are you saying the statistics should also apply to the high handicappers you experience?

I've seen a lot of studies, and very few of them (just MoneyGolf) deal exclusively with pros. Most of them are for the mid-20s to scratch golfers. I've also seen a fair amount of data from my own application, Scorecard. Stretch has shared a formula, and it's something like "95-2*GIR" or something, and it ends up being fairly close to accurate. GIR is, at all levels of play, the single biggest determinant of score.

And again, that's a generalization. It's not a specific that absolutely applies to everyone.

Originally Posted by McKee

I understand what you are saying. The short shots are physically the easiest shots in golf.  But, short shots, because of their simplicity, contain a dynamic of stress that can be paralyzing to people who are prone to phobias. As you get closer to the hole and the shot gets "simpler" the greater the fear of an embarrassing mistake. In some, this fear can grow to become an anxiety disorder commonly known as the yips. The yips are not "on or off" but can vary in degree - any amount of fear that contributes to missing a simple shot is a form of yip.

Okay. Let's discuss the really, really small minority of people. C'mon. I said what I said about the complexity of the shots, and you respond with "what about people with the yips!!!!????"

Originally Posted by McKee

"We're in a golden age for golf research because the PGA Tour has opened ShotLink's books to researchers. Two professors at the Wharton school, for example, looked at 1.6 million tour putts and concluded that professional golfers are risk-averse. They examined putts for par and putts for birdie from the same distances and discovered that pros make the birdie putts less often. They suggest that pros leave these birdie putts short out of fear of making bogey, and then calculate that this bogey terror—and the resultant failure to approach birdie putts in the same way as par putts—costs the average tour player about one stroke per tournament."

Yes, it's tied to risk aversion. This also has nothing to do with the generalized concept being discussed here.

[jeffhale08]

I agree with everyone.  I see both sides of the arguments and philosophy.  I have played with a number of 'poor' golfers (shooting over, well over 100) and I have played with a number of 'good' (shooting well below 80) golfers.  Ball striking is first to me, if you can't advance it and advance it somewhat straight, you will have a tough time breaking 100.  The short game, however is a close, very close second to ball striking, but typically only with a lower handicap player, do you see the difference the short game makes in a score.  If you are in the hi 90's or 100's, short game may not make up enough shots to break 90.  But, a good short game can send an 80's shooter into the 70's quickly.  Personally, hitting the fairway from the tee (backing off to a 3 wood) and improving iron play are the quickest routes to get to the low 80's and upper 70's consistently.

[Hollister]

Hmm, long discussion. I like to add my experience.

Been working on my full swing for the last 14 months now. I really practiced putting about 5 or 6 times on a green. I spend about 15 times with wedges. Thats it. Rest is full swing. Began working on the long sticks at end of May.

Today I played 9 holes at 7 over. I hit way to many hooks with the long sticks and got into the rough many times (plus one bunker). I would regard todays long stick performance as messy. Again, just 7 over. Am I happy? Well, if not so many 3 woods and 3 hybrids went... If I had hit every tee shot just good and on the fairway, I would have shaved off about 4 to 5 strokes. Two easy puts did not go in (on just aerified greens).

My experience is that my short game (<60 yards) got better by itself. I would state that if you really command your full swing with a mid iron, you are good to go with your wedges. You'll hit em well, you just have to figure distances, like Erik says. Even flop shots are easy once you figured the full swing, the role of the right wrist and how to use the bounce.

Hitting fairways (full swing), hitting greens (full swing - distance matters - a better full swing), putting. That are my practice priorities.

[McKee]

Originally Posted by iacas

Again, personal anecdotal evidence. You can't extrapolate much from that. You're one data point. Maybe your short game was lagging behind. In the majority of amateurs, their short game is not what's lagging behind. There's hard data and evidence from people who are unbiased. As an objective observer, which I feel I am in this case (we teach the short game really, really well, too), Pelz's data is given less credibility out of the gate. He's not an unbiased source. He's not a neutral source. That's all I've said about it.

I just wanted to support, with my personal experience, what you said - "I'm not saying that everyone needs to follow the same path".

My personal experience proved to me that improving your ball striking and hitting more GIRs can be a result of intense short game practice.  By practicing pitching I learned to make better contact, maintain soft grip pressure, and have better timing and tempo, all of which enabled me to strike the full shots better, swing freely and hit more greens.  It's tough to give a high handicapper a big club and have them "swing smooth" or "relax".  They can develop a great full swing by associating it with a slow, manageable pitch shot.

I like a sliding scale for practice percentage. Depending on the individual and the state of their swings. I like changing my practice routine to avoid getting comfortable and complacent.

Originally Posted by iacas

Again, one case. What's so hard to understand that I'm not saying that everyone needs to follow the same path. I'm talking in generalities - you're giving me single experiences.

It sounds very much like you are saying "this is how it should be done...60% long game, 35% short shots, 5% putting".  Correct?

Originally Posted by iacas

I've seen a lot of studies, and very few of them (just MoneyGolf) deal exclusively with pros. Most of them are for the mid-20s to scratch golfers. I've also seen a fair amount of data from my own application, Scorecard. Stretch has shared a formula, and it's something like "95-2*GIR" or something, and it ends up being fairly close to accurate. GIR is, at all levels of play, the single biggest determinant of score.

The question is how can GIRs be increased?  I would say every aspect of the game - short and long - including fitness would have and equal effect. Short because it nurtures tempo and relaxation.  Short because it gives you confidence that you can get up and down if you miss the green.

You know what they say, "confidence is key".

Originally Posted by iacas

And again, that's a generalization. It's not a specific that absolutely applies to everyone.

Then how can someone make the blanket statement that one part of the game is more important and should be practiced more than another?

Originally Posted by iacas

Okay. Let's discuss the really, really small minority of people. C'mon. I said what I said about the complexity of the shots, and you respond with "what about people with the yips!!!!????"

33 to 48 percent of serious golfers have experienced yips (Mayo Clinic), and these are just the people with measurable hand tremors.  Anyone whose anxiety manifests itself physically causing an errant shot is suffering from a form of yips.  I would venture to say every golfer has experienced that.  I would go as far to say that a professional golfer leaving a birdie putt short out of fear of a three-putt has just experienced the yips - a form of anxiety which compromises their ability to perform.  This epidemic warrants practicing putting more than 5% of the time.

Originally Posted by iacas

Yes, it's tied to risk aversion. This also has nothing to do with the generalized concept being discussed here.

This has to do with the discussion regarding the simplicity of putting.  If it is so simple why is there such risk?

[mobosecomin]

Great thread. Some great points made. But logically as it turns out ball striking and accuracy initially more important that the short game.

Simply

2 good strikes and your up around the green trying to save Par

3 poor strikes and your up around the green trying to save Bogey

I think Pelz was really smart when he stated from 100 yards in as short game as it suited his philosophy. But if you are more than a couple of yards off the green it can not be considered as short game. That would be crazy.

I think a sliding rule should be applied. You can't compensate bad ball striking with good short game, you can compensate bad short game with good short game.

[max power]

Originally Posted by McKee

Then how can someone make the blanket statement that one part of the game is more important and should be practiced more than another?

Because it is more important for the vast majority of golfers-statistically and subjectively from watching other golfers play and practice for 15+ years.  No one is saying that short game may not be more important for you or for another particular individual. And there has been nearly unanimous agreement that short game practice/execution becomes more important as a player gets better.

Every aspect of the game does not have the same effect on the final score, fitness included.  How can GIRs be increased?  By hitting more greens-by definition this occurs with full swings at least 98% of the time.  I would never advocate ignoring the short game-my lob wedge absolutely killed me during two rounds this week.  But inconsistent wayward tee shots and/or duffed approach shots would have been even worse.

[McKee]

There is little doubt that the pro who wins the tournament is probably on top of the GIR leader board.  But no one person does that every week.  It just happens.  Look at it this way, why are they all there to begin with?  Because they have exceptional short games.  Of course they strike the ball amazingly but so do all the other pros waiting in the wings for an opportunity to play in the big show.  The only difference is the guys who don't qualify are mediocre putters and chippers.  No stats to support this just good old fashioned experience and intuition.