65/20/15 Practice Ratios: Where to Devote Your Practice Time

[mvmac]

And I would argue that learning the short game would be easier with better understanding of full swing fundamentals. I'm no golf coach, though, so I may be wrong, here. Point is, golf would be easier if you just hit that green in the first place.

Little bit off topic but yes there are some key differences with the short shorts, for simplicity I'll say 30 yards and in.  For these shots you're going to be engaging the bounce more than the leading edge (hopefully) so the technique is different.  Great thread that gets into the differences .

[GangGreen]

IMO, there's also the psychological side effect of getting off the tee well. If I hit my driver/3W well, then I feel a lot better standing over my approach shot. Needless to say (and strokes aside), my confidence is a lot higher then if I were to have sprayed my first shot into the woods and then had to punch it out under some trees to get the ball back in play. If I'm spending the whole day doing the later, I start getting down on myself and my whole game tends to suffer as a result. If I'm doing the former, I start feeling good about my swing in general and that positive vibe/momentum often flows through to the rest of my game. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think high handicappers like myself need to work on all aspects of our game, but to paraphase someone else's post, I feel alot better with that 150 yard 7i when its my 2nd shot into the green and not my 3rd or 4th.

[mmoan2]

Let me be clear, I believe golfers at our handicap should focus on the 65/25/10. I struggle, though, giving that advise to my father (and others like him who are near a 20 hdcp.

I respectfully disagree with you about partial swings and pitches not being a good lead-in to the full swing motion. The three biggest detriments I see with higher handicappers I play with are a lack of using the lower body and hips to drive the downswing, they keep their weight on their back foot, and they tend to cup their left wrist at impact.

I would think it would be more productive to work on these faults in partial swings than to immediately have them just concentrate on full swings.

You're example of potentially getting a poor amateur good at the pitching swing in just one day (which is being optimistic) is what I'm thinking. If they can master that motion, it will transition well to a full swing.

Again, I wonder what the term "glaring weakness" means. Heck, to me, ANYONE that averages more than 33 putts per round has a glaring weakness in their putting (regardless if they are a 30 capper or a 10 capper).

Boilermaker,

My two cents - I used to argue with a lot of people on this forum about revisiting this ratio from a high-handicapper's perspective, and eventually I came around to agreeing pretty wholeheartedly with the 65/25/10 ratio. I think your perspective on "full swing" vs. "short game" may be confusing you as to what the ratio was designed to impart. "Full swing" is a 1/2 8-iron shot, 3/4 5-iron shot, and a full driver shot. The first one may go 70 yards for your father, but it's still a "full swing" shot. Short game is from 100 in with full wedges, pitches, chips, and greenside bunker play. If you practiced for 10 hours a week and dedicated 2.5 hours to short game, I think you'd find it was more than enough IF YOU LEARNED THE PROPER TECHNIQUE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Like someone else said, you can learn how to pitch and chip properly in one day, but practice allows you to literally "own" these shots. Anyone, IMO, can be a superior short game player, even your dear old dad with his 20 HDCP, if they practice the right thing. It takes much more practice and skill to maintain the coordination, flexibility, etc. to hit 200+ shots well. Some have argued that short game requires more "touch and feel," and therefore more practice, but I think consistent practice from various lies for two hours a week will allow you to develop touch galore in a few months tops. I honestly think that for someone like me who drilled short game so much for a long time, the ratio is closer to 70/15/15, but there's that glaring weakness in my long iron game thing again...

[boil3rmak3r]

Boilermaker, Like someone else said, you can learn how to pitch and chip properly in one day, but practice allows you to literally "own" these shots.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I generally agree with the recommended practice ratios, for some. The quoted text above, however, is my point about what a glaring weakness exactly means. There have been many posts on this thread that have said the short game is easy to learn and, therefore, doesn't need as much practice. If it truly only takes one day to learn the pitch, chip, and putting strokes, then shouldn't every golfer be about the same level of ability on those shots? However, how many 20 handicaps do you play with that consistently shank pitches, flub chips, and 3 putt greens? In my experience, a bunch of them do. If those golfers just concentrated on short shots, and developed the correct techniques, they would be able to improve much more quickly. Also, I think their improvement in the short game would translate well to long game mechanics. If they learn to not flip on a chip, they can take that learning to a full shot. If they learn not to reverse pivot on a pitch, they can take that to a long shot.

[iacas]

If it truly only takes one day to learn the pitch, chip, and putting strokes, then shouldn't every golfer be about the same level of ability on those shots?

How many of them have a) had exposure to the proper technique(s), and b) have actually practiced those proper things for a day?

However, how many 20 handicaps do you play with that consistently shank pitches, flub chips, and 3 putt greens?

About the same number as top tee shots, shank their 7-irons, and slice their drivers into the ponds and trees.

If those golfers just concentrated on short shots, and developed the correct techniques, they would be able to improve much more quickly.

I've specifically said that if you want to improve QUICKLY, spend a little time on the short game. But you'll become a 17 (down from a 20), and then you'll have to spend a lot of your time on the full swing stuff to go any lower.

These ratios are for long-term, overall improvement and/or maintenance (if you're happy where you are).

Also, I think their improvement in the short game would translate well to long game mechanics. If they learn to not flip on a chip, they can take that learning to a full shot. If they learn not to reverse pivot on a pitch, they can take that to a long shot.

You're making more of this than you should. And there are plenty of people who flip like crazy but can keep their hands ahead on a chip.

[mvmac]

However, how many 20 handicaps do you play with that consistently shank pitches, flub chips, and 3 putt greens? In my experience, a bunch of them do. If those golfers just concentrated on short shots, and developed the correct techniques, they would be able to improve much more quickly.

I think I get what you're saying but we have different views of what full swing practice looks like.  Our idea of full swing practice for someone who really struggles with contact might look similar to your idea of working on solid short game fundamental practice.  Making sure the weight is forward at impact with solid (flat left wrist) alignments.  Something like the drill below. Full swing practice doesn't mean making full swings at full speed.

Also, I think their improvement in the short game would translate well to long game mechanics. If they learn to not flip on a chip, they can take that learning to a full shot. If they learn not to reverse pivot on a pitch, they can take that to a long shot.

Maybe, most short game shots (40 yards and in) involve different mechanics than the full swing.  Weight doesn't move back, agree with you there, but the shaft is more vertical at impact, arms are more flexed and you're pivoting more left for the short shots.  Even for chip shots you're not going to have that much handle lean, more like a putting motion.

[mmoan2]

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I generally agree with the recommended practice ratios, for some. The quoted text above, however, is my point about what a glaring weakness exactly means. There have been many posts on this thread that have said the short game is easy to learn and, therefore, doesn't need as much practice.

If it truly only takes one day to learn the pitch, chip, and putting strokes, then shouldn't every golfer be about the same level of ability on those shots? However, how many 20 handicaps do you play with that consistently shank pitches, flub chips, and 3 putt greens? In my experience, a bunch of them do. If those golfers just concentrated on short shots, and developed the correct techniques, they would be able to improve much more quickly.

Also, I think their improvement in the short game would translate well to long game mechanics. If they learn to not flip on a chip, they can take that learning to a full shot. If they learn not to reverse pivot on a pitch, they can take that to a long shot.

Learning them in one day and practicing them for a few hours a week are not the same thing. Heck, I can learn how to hit a driver properly in one day and in 20 years I'll still be struggling. I think if you worked on short game 65% and full swing 25% you'd find that your full swing game would be a "glaring weakness" in a hurry.

[TheScientist]

I think this depends greatly on the residual effect of the practice, and what you want to get out of it. If you're working on a swing change you're probably better off forgetting about putting and short game while you bed in the swing changes you desire. Similarly if you are about to play a competition/tournament you're more than likely going to benefit from half an hour to 45 minutes on the range followed by a couple of hours of chipping and putting. As far as residual effects of practice go, the delicate touch affirmed from practicing the short game/putting is the quickest to escape us therefore we need to practice more of it directly before we play. Also getting a feel for how the greens are playing is pivotal to the scores we produce. However, I do not disagree with the findings of your study for a general upkeep of skills.

[iacas]

I asked a few people to move this type of discussion over here as I feel it belongs here more. They didn't do it, so I'll quote the relevant post:

I thought his formula was interesting.

For all approach shots from between 100 and 150 yards from the green, measure how far away the shot ends from the hole.  Divide the remaining distance by the starting distance.   Take your median for this ratio (after playing 18 holes), and compare to the following:

5.6% PGA professional

8.7% Low handicap, average score 79

12.0% Mid handicap, average score 90

17.3% High handicap, average score 104

Match your percentage to the closest group and:

- If your 18-hole scores are higher then the group's average score, work on your short game.

- If your 18-hole scores are lower than the group's average, your long game needs more work.

Note that nothing in this formula measures your distance off the tee!  Working on the long game here seems to be primarily about improving accuracy.  If you aren't accurate on fairways shots from 100-150 yards, you aren't likely going to be accurate off the tee, either.

I'm not sure of the source of this @acerimusdux so perhaps you can clarify. It seems somewhat valid, though, and could be a small step in helping a player to determine their relative weaknesses. In other words, if you're a 12 handicapper but you've got a 14 handicap short game and an 11 handicap long game, getting your short game handicap down would be important. Conversely if you're a 6 handicap short game with a 14 handicap long game, it's off to the range for you.

The median PGA Tour player in 2013 averaged (not median value, average, so that's a difference) 23'1" from 125-150 yards, and 19'9" from 100-125 yards. Averaging those two together you get 21'5", and 125 * 0.056 = 7 yards, so by "PGA Professional" it really means PGA Tour player. And the guy who hopes to break 100, by these numbers, is still 60+ feet away after hitting a 125-yard shot (median shot).

The use of a median shot (and a single round) is somewhat interesting. On the one hand, it throws away any weirdly good or weirdly bad shots, but on the other hand, you can hit a bunch of shots in the 30-60 foot range, but if enough are 30-34' to offset the ones from 35-60' you'll get a median value that's a good bit lower than what your average would be. And one round is a very small sample size.

I've been asked by, among others but primarily @boil3rmak3r to detail what "glaring weakness" I still do not believe there's any real way to do it. By using the word "glaring" I've implied if not come right out with the concept that it should be pretty obvious. If one facet of your game routinely costs you shots - if you dread a certain part of your game because you know you're in trouble before you even hit the shot - that's a glaring weakness. It might be bunkers, it might be tee shots, it might be downhill putts. I don't think you need to study your game in super-fine statistical detail to discover glaring weaknesses.

If your game lacks a glaring weakness, then I think 65/25/10 is a good place to start. 25% of your time spent on your short game is still a LOT of time. So is 10% of your time spent practicing your putting (and by practicing your putting, I don't just mean throwing three balls down and whacking them towards holes). I feel that in most cases of people who don't have a glaring weakness, 65/25/10 will get them back on schedule. If one part of their game is slightly weaker (but again not glaring), 65/25/10 is enough practice time not only to maintain that skill level, but to improve it and bring it in line with the others.

Unless, of course, you're diving your 65/25/10 up amongst 15 minutes a week or something. Even the putting practice at 10% likely requires 15 minutes of focused time itself (for a minimum of about 2.5 hours of practice per week).

Happy to discuss this though, as it's quite relevant to this topic (while being related to the other thread).

[amac]

iacas, I see the logic behind the 65/25/10 practice principle.  I probably spend more that 65% of my time on the full swing.  I feel my "glaring" weakness is executing the full swing shot when on the course.  Problem is, I rate my range handicap at +1, while my course handi is 8!

My question is about your 1 shot per 4-5 minutes practice session.  What are you doing to spend so much time between shots?  Also, when practicing the full swing, how do you replicate the less-than-perfect range lies and how do you add the PRESSURE experienced/felt on the course?  The phrase, "You play like you practice", certainly applies to the game of golf.  Knowing how to practice might be something I need to learn.  Thanks for a great read.

amac

[iacas]

My question is about your 1 shot per 4-5 minutes practice session.  What are you doing to spend so much time between shots?  Also, when practicing the full swing, how do you replicate the less-than-perfect range lies and how do you add the PRESSURE experienced/felt on the course?  The phrase, "You play like you practice", certainly applies to the game of golf.  Knowing how to practice might be something I need to learn.  Thanks for a great read.

Rehearsing. Looking in a mirror. Checking the camera to see what feels produce the results I want. All sorts of things. I'm seeking to get the most out of each swing, not just whack balls mindlessly.

I couldn't disagree more with adding pressure and/or practicing from poor lies while you're working on changing elements of your swing.

[birlyshirly]

I asked a few people to move this type of discussion over here as I feel it belongs here more. They didn't do it, so I'll quote the relevant post:

I'm not sure of the source of this @acerimusdux so perhaps you can clarify. It seems somewhat valid, though, and could be a small step in helping a player to determine their relative weaknesses. In other words, if you're a 12 handicapper but you've got a 14 handicap short game and an 11 handicap long game, getting your short game handicap down would be important. Conversely if you're a 6 handicap short game with a 14 handicap long game, it's off to the range for you.

The median PGA Tour player in 2013 averaged (not median value, average, so that's a difference) 23'1" from 125-150 yards, and 19'9" from 100-125 yards. Averaging those two together you get 21'5", and 125 * 0.056 = 7 yards, so by "PGA Professional" it really means PGA Tour player. And the guy who hopes to break 100, by these numbers, is still 60+ feet away after hitting a 125-yard shot (median shot).

The use of a median shot (and a single round) is somewhat interesting. On the one hand, it throws away any weirdly good or weirdly bad shots, but on the other hand, you can hit a bunch of shots in the 30-60 foot range, but if enough are 30-34' to offset the ones from 35-60' you'll get a median value that's a good bit lower than what your average would be. And one round is a very small sample size.

I've been asked by, among others but primarily @boil3rmak3r to detail what "glaring weakness" I still do not believe there's any real way to do it. By using the word "glaring" I've implied if not come right out with the concept that it should be pretty obvious. If one facet of your game routinely costs you shots - if you dread a certain part of your game because you know you're in trouble before you even hit the shot - that's a glaring weakness. It might be bunkers, it might be tee shots, it might be downhill putts. I don't think you need to study your game in super-fine statistical detail to discover glaring weaknesses.

If your game lacks a glaring weakness, then I think 65/25/10 is a good place to start. 25% of your time spent on your short game is still a LOT of time. So is 10% of your time spent practicing your putting (and by practicing your putting, I don't just mean throwing three balls down and whacking them towards holes). I feel that in most cases of people who don't have a glaring weakness, 65/25/10 will get them back on schedule. If one part of their game is slightly weaker (but again not glaring), 65/25/10 is enough practice time not only to maintain that skill level, but to improve it and bring it in line with the others.

Unless, of course, you're diving your 65/25/10 up amongst 15 minutes a week or something. Even the putting practice at 10% likely requires 15 minutes of focused time itself (for a minimum of about 2.5 hours of practice per week).

Happy to discuss this though, as it's quite relevant to this topic (while being related to the other thread).

The source for those figures is here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/sports/golf/21pennington.html?scp=4&sq;=golf&st;=cse&_r=0

It's the same article cited in the thread starter for the Long Game vers Short Game thread.

The bands are based on ratio of finishing distance from hole as a proportion of the original shot distance. Bands are in the region of 3 or 4% apart and we're counting shots of 100 - 150 yards. So the variance between bands is somewhere in the region of 10 - 20 feet from the hole.

A 1 round sample size (and counting only approach shots of 100 - 150 yards) is small - but no reason I guess in principle not to look at larger data sets from multiple rounds. Also, it should be possible to track relative progress within a band - although I suspect that we're you're working off your median FRL on a small sample size, the bands need to be reasonably broad.

I think a useful topic for discussion would be how closely does performance in the 100 - 150 yard (short iron?) range reflect overall long game performance. I know we're used to seeing tour pros classed as "birdie zone" stars or "danger zone" stars or what have you - but do those distinctions really hold up as significant for average players? Or will the same swing mechanics that get you home from 140 yards also keep you out of jail from the tee?

On the issue of glaring weaknesses - there's an interesting discussion here (apologies if this has been posted already) of what constitutes a major shotmaking error. http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-instruction/2010-07/make-me-better

Executive summary is that the big, avoidable, errors are driving into trouble, missing the green from inside of 50 yards and 3 putting inside of 30 feet. Only one "big miss" is a long-game issue - but that obviously doesn't mean that it's not the most frequent miss, or the most damaging part of your score.

[iacas]

The source for those figures is here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/sports/golf/21pennington.html?scp=4&sq;=golf&st;=cse&_r=0

It's off a link that you can miss on that page, actually, and in an image making search engines fairly useless:

I think a useful topic for discussion would be how closely does performance in the 100 - 150 yard (short iron?) range reflect overall long game performance. I know we're used to seeing tour pros classed as "birdie zone" stars or "danger zone" stars or what have you - but do those distinctions really hold up as significant for average players? Or will the same swing mechanics that get you home from 140 yards also keep you out of jail from the tee?

You can't really say. Some players are better drivers than they are with wedges and vice versa. Sometimes the same golfer is both on different days of the week, or on different courses. I see that type of discussion as a lot of guessing and basing things on personal experiences only. Even on the PGA Tour there isn't a strong correlation.

[jsgolfer]

iacas - About a year ago, I started practicing on the range by playing my course or another course I'm extremely familiar with on the driving range, without putting of course.  I would try and play each of the holes, trying to hit my tee shot and then +/- play the club you think you would hit to the green, sometimes that means hitting knockdown shots or other recoveries depending on your ball flight and guessing on lie.  It seems to break up the range stuff rather than just hitting several of each club and I've noticed I'm more consistent?  Thoughts on that?

[Kelzzy]

If I had to say, a good routine for a 10+ hour workout:

3 hours solid putting

1 hour solid chipping

2-3 hours range work

Play 9 holes

Hit the range again and putt some more

Just for a short day, like getting out there for 3-4 hours only.. I would just focus on your short game, as it's the short game that lowers your score.. but irons are very important too.

[mvmac]

If I had to say, a good routine for a 10+ hour workout:

3 hours solid putting

1 hour solid chipping

2-3 hours range work

Play 9 holes

Hit the range again and putt some more

Just for a short day, like getting out there for 3-4 hours only.. I would just focus on your short game, as it's the short game that lowers your score.. but irons are very important too.

Spending three hours on putting would be a complete waste of time.  What the heck can you do on the putting greens for three hours anyway?  You'd be bored out of your mind.

Would recommend you read the first post in the thread and this one.  Improving your long game (full swing) is what lowers your scores.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/58816/65-25-10-practice-ratios-where-to-devote-your-practice-time/324#post_911781

And these

http://thesandtrap.com/t/14930/is-the-long-game-more-important-than-short-game/144#post_914889

http://thesandtrap.com/t/14930/is-the-long-game-more-important-than-short-game/90#post_914540

http://thesandtrap.com/t/14930/is-the-long-game-more-important-than-short-game/72#post_914432

http://thesandtrap.com/t/14930/is-the-long-game-more-important-than-short-game/72#post_914442

[bplewis24]

Sometimes, I wish I could thumbs down a post.  Re-hashing old arguments just isn't worth the time.

[Lihu]

If I had to say, a good routine for a 10+ hour workout:

1/2 hour solid putting

1 hour solid chipping

2 hours full swing work against a net

2 hours of range work

Play 36 holes

Made a few simple modifications, IF I could dedicate 10+ hours a day to golf.

I train about 2.5 hours a day on average and mostly do full swing practice and use roughly the same ratios, and only play the course on the weekends. 27 holes per week.

This is only for my current stage of development. Plus, landing a 6 yard target from 100 yards is a real fun challenge on the range.