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

[iacas]

41 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

Yes, I do.

You don't. I mean, this isn't an opinion. You went one route — you don't know that route was the "best" because, again, you didn't have several alternate universes in which to test other methods that may have been better.

41 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

His assessment was "your scores are ok but ... you'll never be any good because you just don't have a swing that repeats. And to create a swing that repeats, you have to ditch that shit you're doing now."

Everyone's swing "repeats" to within a pretty small degree.

41 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

So I hit thousands of SW shots. Still do. Just to find the face of the club at impact. I've worked on rebuilding my swing over the last 2 years and am playing the best, most consistent golf of my life.

I'm glad. Still doesn't change what I've said.

41 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

My point is ... which no one apparently agrees with ... is mechanics matter.

Nobody that I know of here disagrees with that.

They're disagreeing that the way you went about it should be followed by others. I'm pointing out the fact that you don't know if it was even the best plan for you. It's the one you chose, so you're going to believe in it, but you can't know.

I'm glad you're happy.

Thanks for adding the avatar.

[Vespidae]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I'm glad you're happy.

Yes. I’m happy. I have a plan, have a coach who supports that plan, and use LSW to support it with a practice plan with what I think is effective for me. 

Cheers.

[Vespidae]

Here's an interesting question. I'm a golf resort recently and spoke to a highly ranked female amateur, plays D1 golf at a top school, and who was preparing for a tournament. I asked her about 65/25/10 and if she practiced that way. 

She said she knew all about it and no, she didn't. In fact, her woman's team does the opposite. She said it's based on the slower swing speed that women generate and that the strategy of her team, and pretty much everyone she plays, puts the ball in play and in the fairway. So the game (in her opinion) comes down to short game. Her coaches employ a 70% short game practice and 30% full swing. 

She admitted, it is completely different for the men's team. They practice 70% full swing and only a little on the short game. She said they can really bomb it and it's a different game for them.

I'm not claiming one way or the other is accurate, but does this make sense? What do you think of her point?

[iacas]

47 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

I'm not claiming one way or the other is accurate, but does this make sense? What do you think of her point?

Her coach is wrong, and likely costing that team some of its performance.

Absent a glaring weakness, 65/20/15 holds up over a wide range of handicaps, genders, etc.

I could see how women might shift it slightly, because if you're hitting it 220, the fairways play a lot wider… but if you're hitting it 220, you're also hitting longer clubs into many greens, so you have to be better with a 5H from 170 than a guy does with a 9I from 140. Y'know?

The best players on the LPGA Tour are the better ball strikers, just like on the PGA Tour.

[StuM]

The 65-20-15 idea seems logical to me.  It is safe to assume I will only 1-putt occasionally and thus for any chance at Par I need to be GIR to get a 2-Putt Par, and then my 1-putts would be birdie, not to save par.  To get a GIR I need a good approach shot and my best approach shots are from the fairway, not the rough or from behind a tree.  If I want my approach shot to be from the fairway I need to land my tee shot in the fairway.  Thus, to me the Tee Shot sets up everything else so it makes sense to devote substantial time to that.  

I did recently spend time specifically on my long irons because I was hitting the fairway with my tee shots but then pushing my long irons right so I dedicated a lesson and practice time just for that for a couple of weeks, That was to address a specific weakness and will not be my permanent practice routine.  Unfortunately, I am now noticing that my driver is suffering so maybe I neglected it too long.

 

[ncates00]

On 9/18/2020 at 12:46 PM, Vespidae said:

She said it's based on the slower swing speed that women generate and that the strategy of her team, and pretty much everyone she plays, puts the ball in play and in the fairway.

Just think of how much more separation value she could get if she spent more time on ballstriking.

[Vespidae]

3 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Just think of how much more separation value she could get if she spent more time on ballstriking.

Maybe. If you mean by ball striking ... more length. I think her argument is that women simply don't have the swing speed necessary to do so and therefore, the women's game is the short game. She readily admits their game is a different game than the men. 

Interestingly, there are arguments that length alone is not the cure all. Lag Erickson makes the case that the lighter equipment leads to faster swing speeds and length and ... less control. Which means you need a better short game if this is your aim. James Sieckmann (admittedly, a short game guru) also says, length matters but ... if your short game sucks, what does that do for you really? 

Padraig Harrington makes the claim that "speed" is essential to the swing and yet, the game for speed improvement is largely over by the time you are twenty. You are simply not going to suddenly gain speed and with each year, it's harder and harder. Kids need to focus, focus focus on speed ... and then accuracy later. (His opinion, not mine.) So if you aren't a kid who can improve speed (and length), short game is the money.

Parker McLachlin won the Reno Open missing 11 of the first 13 greens and still won. I think he has the PGA record for missed greens while still shooting under par. He will tell you the same. A tour pro will miss 6 greens and an amateur will miss 13-14. 

Mark Immelman talks all the time about separation value being the "third shot". That, in his opinion is the game. 

Lastly, Pelz makes the comment that all of this research on length is totally valid .... IF you can do so. His example is ... take a 60 year old man and work with him 8 hours a day for a year. Will he ever swing like Rory McElroy? No. If you put the same effort into the short game, can you recover as well? Yes. 

My own view has evolved. I know I can hit 270 because I've done it and I work to do that accurately. I'm not worried about hitting it 300 because at my age (60), I don't think I can get there. So I do work on shot shape, but not so much on more length. I'm really working on the scoring clubs now and getting up and down inside of 30. 

Great discussion. I don't have the answers, but enjoy the journey.

Btw, this girl ... is pretty friggin good. I expect to see her on the LPGA. 

 

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

Maybe. If you mean by ball striking ... more length. I think her argument is that women simply don't have the swing speed necessary to do so and therefore, the women's game is the short game. She readily admits their game is a different game than the men. 

Again, she’s wrong.

And no, we aren’t talking about length like you seen to be. “Ballstriking” is not just length.

27 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

He will tell you the same.

He will not.

27 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

If you put the same effort into the short game, can you recover as well? Yes.

This makes the opposite case of what you think it does.

28 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

I'm not worried about hitting it 300 because at my age (60), I don't think I can get there.

You’re the one who keeps talking about length. That’s not “ballstriking.”

[Vespidae]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

Again, she’s wrong.

I’m not debating it. She is simply relaying how her women’s team organizes practice. The coaches know LSW but their emphasis is on the approach. What can I say? They made a decision... maybe it is the wrong one. It was an interesting discussion from a current D1 player and insight to how they think about the game. 

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

And no, we aren’t talking about length like you seen to be. “Ballstriking” is not just length.

He will not.

This makes the opposite case of what you think it does.

You’re the one who keeps talking about length. That’s not “ballstriking.”

Fine. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

Fine. 

:sigh:

The short game doesn’t matter as much as you want to think it does. This isn’t really opinion anymore.

[Vespidae]

Just now, iacas said:

:sigh:

What do you want? I’m just relaying an opinion. I bought into LSW. 

[iacas]

Just now, Vespidae said:

What do you want? I’m just relaying an opinion. I bought into LSW. 

Post #691 doesn’t read as “just  relaying an opinion.”

It argues for the short game and seemingly confuses ballstriking with length.

[Vespidae]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

It argues for the short game and seemingly confuses ballstriking with length.

I’m asking the poster what he meant. I understood it to be length because that’s what I asked her about. Perhaps she has a different opinion on ballstriking. And I’m fine with that.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Vespidae said:

I’m asking the poster what he meant. I understood it to be length because that’s what I asked her about. Perhaps she has a different opinion on ballstriking. And I’m fine with that.

That’s not what seems to have happened here. I think perhaps your memory is adding things that others don’t know because that’s not what has been typed here.

Please go to the top of the page and read what was actually written, then come back tomorrow if you want to clarify whatever point you’re trying to make.

[Vespidae]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

That’s not what seems to have happened here. I think perhaps your memory is adding things that others don’t know because that’s not what has been typed here.

Please go to the top of the page and read what was actually written, then come back tomorrow if you want to clarify whatever point you’re trying to make.

It’s a simple point. I asked a D1 player if she she used LSW to influence her practice time and she said no. She said it was because of slower swing speed and as a result, her team focuses on short game ... to great success. I’m not claiming she’s right or wrong, but thought her point ... as a different point of view .. was post worthy.

This tees up a question ... if a player is unable to generate additional length, should he/she still work on the long game? I introduced a number of players or individuals that seemed to say, that ... if you can’t improve accuracy and length off the tee, you should. But if you can’t, then spend your time on something else. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Vespidae said:

It’s a simple point. I asked a D1 player if she she used LSW to influence her practice time and she said no. She said it was because of slower swing speed and as a result, her team focuses on short game ... to great success. I’m not claiming she’s right or wrong, but thought her point ... as a different point of view .. was post worthy.

Brief meta-discussion, as the point of confusion is that that's not "all" that you did, because in post #791, you talked about Lag Erickson and Padraig and Parker and Mark Immelman (we've been on his podcast, as you may know), and Dave Pelz. You then talked about your own game and how you can't gain length so you work on getting up and down. The common thread was "distance" vs. "short game" with each of them deciding on "short game" in your post.

So you didn't just post a single thing about the women's team. You argued (at least in a devil's advocate sort of way) for practicing similarly to how that women's program practices quite a bit, across posts, and confused "ballstriking" with "length/distance" throughout.

But anyway, I'll move on in the interest of… moving on. But my last comment about the above is that you said "to great success," but you don't really know how successful they are or more to the point how successful they could be if they treated their program a bit more like the men's team (assuming the men's team is doing a good job).

Again, we know that — absent a glaring weakness — the full swing (driving, approach shots) matter twice as much to anything inside of about 75-80 yards for women: all short game and putting and even what I'd consider more full swing/approach shots, as the range extends to that 80 yards or so for them without counting as "approach shots."

To shoot good scores you shouldn't need your short game much. Your best rounds typically come when you get a few lucky breaks and you hit a lot of greens (and the luck is often that you pull an approach shot 20 feet and stuff it, when you were really aiming 20 feet right or something).

3 hours ago, Vespidae said:

This tees up a question ... if a player is unable to generate additional length

I'm not sure why you keep talking about length. Length ≠ "ballstriking." It's a component to be sure.

Guys on the PGA Tour aren't generally working on "generating additional length," and yet they spend the bulk of their time working on their ballstriking. That's the short answer to your question right there.

3 hours ago, Vespidae said:

This tees up a question ... if a player is unable to generate additional length, should he/she still work on the long game?

Of course they should be.

It's a complete no-brainer. The 65/20/15 idea doesn't assume anything about "generating additional length" at all.

3 hours ago, Vespidae said:

I introduced a number of players or individuals that seemed to say, that ... if you can’t improve accuracy and length off the tee, you should. But if you can’t, then spend your time on something else. 

I don't think you did what you say you did just there. I don't think that's what those people are saying at all (and Dave Pelz doesn't count for anything - the guy uses "bad math" all the f***ing time, which nobody can really blame him for, he teaches the short game).

Absent a glaring weakness, at just about every level of the game once you can shoot about 90-100, players should spend their practice time with 65% on the full swing, 20% on the short game, and 15% putting.

The "full swing" doesn't even often mean "generating additional distance." It means learning to hit the ball farther sometimes, but it mostly means learning to hit the ball more consistently, more solidly, at a better trajectory, or with a better curve or flight. It means learning to hit knock-downs, perhaps, or flighted shots. It means learning to get your 3W up in the air because 200 in the air with 10 yards of roll is often better than 180 in the air with 35 yards of roll. Or whatever.

That's what the 65% is. It's often not about "generating additional distance."

[Vespidae]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's what the 65% is. It's often not about "generating additional distance."

Thanks for the clarification. That helps. 

[ncates00]

20 hours ago, Vespidae said:

Maybe. If you mean by ball striking ... more length.

I don't mean this.  Length, I suppose could be a part of it, but to me ballstriking is more than just that.  Really, I'm referring to 2 things: 1) ballstriking is more important and 2) if most other women take the approach she espouses (more emphasis on short game), then she could be better than them and pick up shots over her competition because of the fact that ballstriking creates more separation value.  Surely you see the logic here--if everyone else is working on the things that give you little strokes gained, then you can really start to separate yourself from the field by working on the more important and more fruitful pieces.

Edited December 1, 2020 by ncates00