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

[Norm3333]

You must know that your response is completely illogical. Right?

Don't agree. If you are a 20 handicap, why would you think you have any room to dispense advice? What is illogical is to use Butch Harmon as an example to defend the 20 handicapper's inane advice. Oh and by the way Harmon was on the tour at one point. So, if you've had your card, feel free to give advice.

[x129]

From Broadies paper Tiger was (2.08/.42/.7) for the 2003-2010 period. Granted those numbers are a bit low do to 2010). In general you can gain a bit over2 strokes in the long game, about .75 in the short game, and about 1 in putting). If you look at the top 10 for that time period, there is a bias toward the long game but several guys (Donald, Padraig, Retief, Furyk) got there were games where long game and short game/putting equally important. There were also a bunch of guys (Ernie, Vijay, Sergio, Scott) that were worse than average putters (no one on the list was a worst than average long guy) but did fine because of great long game and decent short games. Of course these numbers might also be telling us that it is hard to gain strokes putting because everyone is spending more time on putting than their long game to keep up with their peers.

Your back up is a bunch of math tricks. You are discarding data (i.e. <2 ft putts) that don't lead to the results you want. At the end of the day the questions is will 1 more hour of long game result in a bigger improvement than 1 more hour of short game/putting. Hard to say. Yes you would rather have a better long game than short game. But if you have practiced 2 hours in the long game and 1 on the short game +1 on putting (50/25/25) is it better to spend the next hour on short game or long game? Given the law of declining returns (i.e. each hour after the first gives you less and less return) you might get better results off working on something that doesn't matter as much because it is easier to get improvement.

Again I think the numbers are about right but lets not pretend there is any real science behind them. There is a big leap of faith that practice time should be related to where strokes are gained/lost.   It make sense but common sense doesn't always match reality. Until there are some research papers backing it up it is a good hypothesis.

Originally Posted by iacas

FWIW, Tiger still gained way more shots per round with his long clubs than he ever did with his short game and putting. I'm fairly certain the gap was even wider then (his long game was even MORE important), but then again he was winning majors by 15 shots then, too, so... :P You aren't going to do that with putting. :)

It's backed up by studies about how important each part of the game is, but yes, the studies end there and I add things in like "how difficult the skills are to maintain" and stuff like that.

And 65/25/10 does not say you have to practice those same ratios each session. They simply say that to be balanced you should practice in roughly those ratios. Whether that ratio is within 90 minutes or over the course of a season doesn't matter to me, so you can have periods where you work only on your putting. No problems with that.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

Your back up is a bunch of math tricks.

Sorry, but you've grossly misunderstood what I've said. Your mistake is in thinking I put a whole lot of importance on strokes gained as a reason why I've proposed the 65/25/10 ratios. As I also said, those include things you can't put into numbers like the relative ease of having a putting stroke.

Originally Posted by x129

Again I think the numbers are about right but lets not pretend there is any real science behind them.

And again, nobody's really doing that. I'm just sharing numbers that hint towards the viability of what I've proposed. They're not proof, and I said as much.

In short:

Originally Posted by iacas

It's backed up by studies about how important each part of the game is, but yes, the studies end there and I add things in like "how difficult the skills are to maintain" and stuff like that.

"It's backed up" is far and away different than "these numbers prove I'm right!!!" I said the studies end there (and provide only a little "backup" that speaks to but in no way "proves" anything - I don't think I've used the word "proof" or variations) and then I add in a bunch of my own thoughts and intuitions and whatnot.

[Golfingdad]

Today while playing (6:30 am tee time New Year's Day - how 'bout them apples???) I thought of this thread.  Here was the scenario:

Short-ish Par 4, hit a good drive leaving myself with 120 yards from the middle of the fairway ... a perfect gap wedge distance.  I hit my approach a couple of grooves thin and pulled it left into the rough.  Then I hit a very mediocre pitch shot to about 10 feet, then just missed the putt and tapped in for a bogey 5.

That is a fairly common scenario for this 10 handicapper at this point, and I strongly feel that the best way to fix this is to concentrate my practice on the long game.  Even if I master putting, I'm still working for a par as the best outcome, and barring some luck, the same is true if I practice excessively on pitching and chipping ... best case result is a par.  If I "master" my full swing, however, then we're bringing birdie into the mix, and par is basically the worst result.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That is a fairly common scenario for this 10 handicapper at this point, and I strongly feel that the best way to fix this is to concentrate my practice on the long game.  Even if I master putting, I'm still working for a par as the best outcome, and barring some luck, the same is true if I practice excessively on pitching and chipping ... best case result is a par.  If I "master" my full swing, however, then we're bringing birdie into the mix, and par is basically the worst result.

Yes, and if you miss your drive, you're scrambling for par even earlier into the hole.

If you hit the green, the odds of you three-putting are (let's estimate high) 20% and the odds of you making a putt are (let's estimate really low and say) 5%. So your average score for a hole where you hit the green is +0.15 (and again that's if you're an awfully bad putter).

If you miss and you scramble at a PGA Tour leading level (65% - I'm even rounding up), and you chip in 5% of that time and two-putt the rest of the time, that's an average score of +0.4625.

Missing the green, even in the bizarre situation we've created where you scramble better than the best on the PGA Tour in one example and putt like a guy that can't break 130 in another example leads to a difference of a third of a stroke per hole or 5.625 strokes per round.

Plus, that's not counting the fact that players who hit a lot of GIRs tend to leave themselves in better positions around the greens than those who miss lots of GIRs.

[saevel25]

Its all about giving yourself opportunities for high percentage scoring. Like Erik said, 5% of the time you chip in for a pro, that's the only way you make birdies if you miss the green. On putting, the % making putts decrease dramatically as soon as you get outside 5-10 feet.

Lets say you chip the ball, you have less than 5% chance of a birdie, for amateurs, at 3' your looking at 95% chance at par, at 4-8' your chance of par has dropped to 55% chance, if you really mess up on chipping, lets say 10-15' your looking at 25% chance of making par.

Lets say you hit the green, Amateurs three putt anywere from 10% to 20% of the time, meaning 90-80% of the time your going to get a par or better if you hit a green. If you miss the green, your now have a 5% chance for birdie, then to make sure your going to get a good chance at par, greater than 80% range, your looking at chipping the ball 4' and in all the time. That's for all short game shots were you miss the green, chips, pitches, bunkers, ect.. Unless you can get the ball consistantly with in 4' of the hole, your percentage of making par is outside of that of just hitting the green.

[Golfingdad]

I'm sure nobody is surprised in this bump, seeing as how several of us just recommended this thread to a newbie.  Now it'll be easy to find. :)

I was just thinking about this some more, and while I believe that it makes loads of sense, I'm guilty of not really following the practice.

I have fallen into a fairly good routine lately, where I hit the driving range at least twice, and sometimes 3 times per week.  (I try my best to play at least one round about every two weeks.)  The driving range I practice at is away from the course and it does not have a putting green.  I do have a putting aid at home, and try to break that out occasionally, but life always gets in the way.  Long story short, I think this is where my numbers are right now:

Long game: 85%

Pitching/chipping: 10%

Putting: 5% (this counts a tiny bit at home and warming up before rounds)

I either really need to get on the ball and hit the short game area once in awhile, or take this as a sign that further confirms Erik's original theory that the long game is where its at ... because my handicap is dropping right now.

[mmoan2]

Originally Posted by slufoot7

I am comfortable with my swing so my time is quite a bit different. I spend 60% on short game 100yrds or closer. 30% on putting. Average range time on a practice day is 90 minutes. On full swing I switch up one time be a 6I or 7 or 8. I do hit 25 shots with driver 30 shots with 3 wood moving my aim point each time.On 3 wood 15 off deck 15 off teed ball. Some days I do a drill with my driver after I hit my 25 shots I set up and try to hit it 150 yrds and only 150yrds off the deck, this helps me overall with punch shots I have to use to get out of trouble. When you can control a driver like this drill then a 5 iron is easy. Also I never hit my driver full bore on the range. 80 to 90% swing.

If your average time practicing is 90 minutes and you hit 25 shots with driver or 30 with 3 wood, how can you possibly only spend 10% of your time on full swing? You hit 25 driver shots in 9 minutes? Not including any other clubs? Is that plyometric golf training? Just sayin'

[Boeing777]

i can't agree more!!!!  i gave up 18 strokes just from the tee box, and only had 1, 3 putt around.....

[seniorgolfpro]

In the past 25 years the golf industrie have invested millions into clubs to make the ball fly further.They have been successful and the average player hits it longer than before.He also hits it straighter through the more forgiving of the club.But most golf courses havent changed in Length.

It is a fact that the Handicap average world wide has not improved by 1 stroke.And the reason for this ,is the golfer spends just as less time working on their short games as before.Unless your consistant from 100 yards then you havent a chance

Now on the Tour scores have improved considerably,because the guys are bombing it out their 300 plus and the fairway bunkers dont come into play.And scores of more than 20 under par,which was rarely heard of before,are winning tournaments.A round of 62 happens most weeks.

So the difference is with the Pros is they are longer than before,and there short games a red hot,as always.Phil Mickelson says that in practice for every long shot he hits,he hits 3 short ones,not suprised hes hot from 100 yards.I garentee who wins the masters holes lots of putts -

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seniorgolfpro

It is a fact that the Handicap average world wide has not improved by 1 stroke.

That is not true.

There's evidence out there that handicaps HAVE DROPPED. I've linked to this before and I'll link to it again:

Source: www.golfdigest.com/golf-equipment/hot-list/hotlistevolution_0902

Quote:

Originally Posted by seniorgolfpro

And the reason for this ,is the golfer spends just as less time working on their short games as before.Unless your consistant from 100 yards then you havent a chance

Is that the reason simply because you say it is? Have you read this thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by seniorgolfpro

So the difference is with the Pros is they are longer than before,and there short games a red hot,as always.Phil Mickelson says that in practice for every long shot he hits,he hits 3 short ones,not suprised hes hot from 100 yards.I garentee who wins the masters holes lots of putts -

As will the guy who finishes 10th.

When Phil doesn't win, it's his long game that hurts him. When he does win, his long game contributes positively and well.

[seniorgolfpro]

oh sorry my mistake.Handicaps have improved by an average of 2 shots since early 90s,wow,massive difference.

IACAS this is a forum,and i would have thought you would realise as an expert that its peoples opinions and there is no reasonto be rude.Thankyou

[seniorgolfpro]

Is that the reason simply because you say it is? Have you read this thread?

no,a guy called Dave Pelz who is a short game guru,showed me this year all the facts.was really interesting.Especially the reason why Phil didnt bring a book out about the long game.Fasinating stuuf.Just love these guys.

[Ernest Jones]

oh sorry my mistake.Handicaps have improved by an average of 2 shots since early 90s,wow,massive difference. IACASS this is a forum,and i would have thought you would realise as an expert that its peoples opinions and there is no reasonto be rude.Thankyou

Pesky facts!!! How is anyone supposed make an invalid point around here when IACAS keeps tossing around these freakin' facts! Geez.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by seniorgolfpro

no,a guy called Dave Pelz who is a short game guru,showed me this year all the facts.was really interesting.Especially the reason why Phil didnt bring a book out about the long game.Fasinating stuuf.Just love these guys.

Dave Pelz teaches the short game. Think there might be some bias there in claiming the short game is important?

Newer studies show how important the long game is, and the average golfer loses far more strokes due to poor full-swing play than they do from poor putting, etc.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by seniorgolfpro

oh sorry my mistake.Handicaps have improved by an average of 2 shots since early 90s,wow,massive difference.

IACAS this is a forum,and i would have thought you would realise as an expert that its peoples opinions and there is no reasonto be rude.Thankyou

The average male hcp index is in the neighborhood of 16.  A drop of 2 strokes would equate to about a 12% drop, and I'd offer that that is significant.

I'd also offer that those statistics only include golfers who maintain an official handicap.  Those golfers tend to be more serious about the game and as a result, tend to be better players as a population than those that do not maintain an official handicap.  I'd expect that the improvements in technology (SGI irons, hybrids to replace long irons, large head drivers, shafts and balls dialed in for lower swing speeds, etc...) have benefited less skilled players more than they have highly skilled players.  As a result, I expect that the 12% improvement seen across the board, is likely more in the 20%+ range for the higher handicap players.  That would be in the order of 5+ strokes better, and that's a big deal.  Of course, I don't have any data to back that up, but I think the logic tracks pretty well....

[saevel25]

Quote:

Now on the Tour scores have improved considerably,because the guys are bombing it out their 300 plus and the fairway bunkers dont come into play.And scores of more than 20 under par,which was rarely heard of before,are winning tournaments.A round of 62 happens most weeks.

So the difference is with the Pros is they are longer than before,and there short games a red hot,as always.Phil Mickelson says that in practice for every long shot he hits,he hits 3 short ones,not suprised hes hot from 100 yards.I garentee who wins the masters holes lots of putts -

Here's the thing, the difference between good scramblers and bad on the PGA tour is 10%. That means of a person hits the number of greens in regulation, lts say 12, leaving 6 scrambling attempts. Your looking at 0.6 stroke difference betwen the best and worst scramblers. There's a reason why phil works on his short game, its because his long game is horrible half the time.

Putting is a little better, the difference in putting on the PGA tour is about 3 strokes over 18 holes.

The way you score is, hit greens. There's a reason why Tiger was the best in 2000, when he won 6 tournaments in a row, and going into 2001 won the masters to win all 4 majors titles in a 12 month period. He hit 75% of his greens. His scrambling was 67%, or 8% better than the average on the tour. Like is said, he's making nearly less than half a stroke on the field for short game. your thinking, well he must have putted well. Well he was 36th in putting that year. He is an amazing clutch putter, but it wasn't even cracking the top 25 during his best year playing. So were did he make all his scoring up, LONG GAME!, he drove the ball amazingly, and he hit greens.

Tiger woods didn't crack the top 10 in GIR's till 2006. After 2002 he didn't win another major till 2005. Since 2007, the last time he's won a major, he hasn't cracked the top 10 in GIR's as well.

Which doesn't bod well for him this year, he's near 40th in GIR's at 67%.

So tell me again how short game is better? Even for pro's the long game is the key. There's a reason why luke donald had his careeer year. He gained length of the tee, he improved his Fariways hit by a ton, and his GIR's by a ton. Coupled with his absurd putting he was able to become the money leader in both USA and European tours. Tiger isn't nearly as good a putter as Luke is, and Tiger needs to hit above 70% of his greens to be dominant. If not, then he's just a good player on the PGA tour and can be beat.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by seniorgolfpro

oh sorry my mistake.Handicaps have improved by an average of 2 shots since early 90s,wow,massive difference.

IACAS this is a forum,and i would have thought you would realise as an expert that its peoples opinions and there is no reasonto be rude.Thankyou

Perhaps if you used a space following your punctuation you would receive a warmer reception to your baseless claims.

Originally Posted by seniorgolfpro

Is that the reason simply because you say it is? Have you read this thread?

no,a guy called Dave Pelz who is a short game guru,showed me this year all the facts.was really interesting.Especially the reason why Phil didnt bring a book out about the long game.Fasinating stuuf.Just love these guys.

Shocking! You mean Dave Pelz, the guy who makes a living teaching the short game, thinks the short game is important?! Regardless of what Pelz says it only takes common sense, and a round or two with a 20 handicap, to figure out where they are throwing away the most shots.