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

[iacas]

I haven't read all 11 pages of this thread, so I apologize if this has already been discussed... In my opinion, a high handicapper looking to improve should definitely skew those ratios more to the short game.

I wish you'd read the thread, particularly the bold part in the first post. And 25% of the time is actually a pretty large amount of time.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

The other day I hit the most greens I've ever hit (15) and had the second best score I've ever had.  The ironic thing I putted like shit.  There is no denying that ball striking rules.

As in more putts? More 3 putts? Just felt off? I played a course the other day where there were some really big greens which I hit most of them and as a result, a higher number of putts. When you can hit 15 greens and have 30 putts or less, then you are really scoring.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

In my opinion, a high handicapper looking to improve should definitely skew those ratios more to the short game. They should do this until they can rely on their pitching, chipping, and putts to have a reasonable expectation of getting up and down.

But getting up-and-down for your double or "other" isn't going to lower your handicap all that much if you're a high capper.

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

It amazes me how many avid golfers (folks in this forum included - based on what they've said) can usually get somewhere near the green in regulation, but things go bad from there.

I think you're putting too much stock in the posts of guys who claim to hit it 290 and be 20 handicappers.  Realistically if you are often somewhere around the green in regulation, you shouldn't be TOO high of a handicapper.  Looking at my stats, I probably practice my short game less than 5% of the time, and I'm getting up and down 40% of the time.  Let's say I hit 3 greens in regulation and make 2 pars and 1 bogey.  Then I get up and down 40% of the time I'm around the green in regulation, which is 6 more pars.  That's 8 pars and 1 bogey through 9 holes, leaving 9 more holes left for some bogeys and a couple "others" (let's say 1 double and 1 triple).  By my math*, that's +13 through 18 holes.  Not exactly a high 'capper.

Reality is that a high capper is often nowhere near the green in regulation, which contributes more to the score than a few chunked or skulled chips.

*feel free to check my math, assuming Par is 72

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

As in more putts? More 3 putts? Just felt off? I played a course the other day where there were some really big greens which I hit most of them and as a result, a higher number of putts. When you can hit 15 greens and have 30 putts or less, then you are really scoring.

Hell, if you hit 15 greens and have 35 putts , you're in the low 70's!

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

It amazes me how many avid golfers (folks in this forum included - based on what they've said) can usually get somewhere near the green in regulation, but things go bad from there. I am dumbfounded when I play with one of these golfers and they have no clue how to hit a straight-forward 10 yd pitch. While they are preparing for the shot, you just know they'll likely chunck it or hit a low screamer that ends up on the back fringe... In reality, they should have an expectation of getting it within 6'.

Here is a perfect example that illustrates, again, why Erik's theory makes sense.  Your "bad" short game player ends up on the back fringe with a skulled 10 yard chip, and the good player is going to end up 6' away.  How often is an average player going to 3-putt from the fringe? 1/3 of the time, maybe?  The majority of the time, he's going to be able to 2-putt.  Likewise, how often is an average player going to drain that 6-footer for par?  50% of the time maybe?  60 even?

I realize that I pulled those numbers out of my butt, however they aren't drastically off, and the bottom line is, that a large chunk of the time (25-40% maybe) - in your example - the net end result is going to be exactly the same .  (And a vast majority of the time, the difference is only going to be 1 shot)  So, where is the benefit gained from spending so much extra time practicing the short game?

Mistakes made with the full swing have a lot more potential for damage (hitting into the trees, into hazards, hitting OB) that will affect your score a heck of a lot more than one chunked chip or poor lag putt.

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

Becoming proficient in the short game can be accomplished in a relatively short time (one golf season, maybe). Becoming proficient in full swing ball-striking can take multiple seasons

This is simply a 'macro' application of Erik's 'micro' theory.  You generally agree with his premise ... the short game is (relatively) easier at which to become proficient than the long game.  (Along the same lines, putting is even easier ... hence the ratio.)

You are suggesting that for a short period of time, bad golfers spend even less time on the part of the game that is the hardest.  That doesn't seem quite as productive to me.

[iacas]

Realistically if you are often somewhere around the green in regulation, you shouldn't be TOO high of a handicapper.

Right. And if you are still a high handicapper, the bold part about having a deficiency in one facet of your game applies.

[boil3rmak3r]

I wish you'd read the thread, particularly the bold part in the first post. And 25% of the time is actually a pretty large amount of time.

I saw the bolded part and agree with it. I guess I believe that a higher handicapper would be best served to develop a short game that exceeds his long game first. Anyone can become a good putter if they put the practice time in. I think it's also true (probably to a lesser degree) with chipping and pitching. I just cringe when a 20 capper throws away 5 stokes putting and maybe another 4 or 5 strokes with short pitches and chipping. These are the things, if they wanted to, they could work to improve in a relatively short time. I think you even eluded to this in an earlier post. I guess it boils down to this... I think a higher handicapper would take years to develop the ball striking skills of a scratch golfer. IMO, they could become almost as good as that scratch golfer on shots around the green in a much shorter period of time. I'm not saying the higher handicapper should ignore long game practice. I just think they'd be best off skewing the numbers early on...

[boil3rmak3r]

Here is a perfect example that illustrates, again, why Erik's theory makes sense.  Your "bad" short game player ends up on the back fringe with a skulled 10 yard chip, and the good player is going to end up 6' away.  How often is an average player going to 3-putt from the fringe? 1/3 of the time, maybe?  The majority of the time, he's going to be able to 2-putt.  Likewise, how often is an average player going to drain that 6-footer for par?  50% of the time maybe?  60 even? I realize that I pulled those numbers out of my butt, however they aren't drastically off, and the bottom line is, that a large chunk of the time (25-40% maybe) - in your example - the net end result is going to be [U] exactly the same [/U].  (And a vast majority of the time, the difference is only going to be 1 shot)  So, where is the benefit gained from spending so much extra time practicing the short game? Mistakes made with the full swing have a lot more potential for damage (hitting into the trees, into hazards, hitting OB) that will affect your score a heck of a lot more than one chunked chip or poor lag putt. This is simply a 'macro' application of Erik's 'micro' theory.  You generally agree with his premise ... the short game is (relatively) easier at which to become proficient than the long game.  (Along the same lines, putting is even easier ... hence the ratio.) You are suggesting that for a short period of time, bad golfers spend even less time on the part of the game that is the hardest.  That doesn't seem quite as productive to me.

Maybe there's a disconnect in our ideas of how we perceive an avid, high handicap golfer... Most of the high cappers at my course will hit the ball 220 off the tee. They'll hit an iron to within 50 yds of the green. They don't have (at least at my home course) many shots that result in OB or water. Once they get to within 50 yds, though, they stink. Your example of the high capper putting from the back fringe is a great one. If they do that 8 times a round (with 1/3 resulting in a 3 putt), and I do it 8 times a round with a 50% up and down rate, that's a 7 shot difference in a round!! I guess if someone doesn't care about immediately lowering their scores, they shouldn't go with my line of thinking...

[iacas]

I just cringe when a 20 capper throws away 5 stokes putting and maybe another 4 or 5 strokes with short pitches and chipping. These are the things, if they wanted to, they could work to improve in a relatively short time.

25% is a "short time." Heck, 25% is starting to sound generous. I'm seriously considering calling it 70/20/10. The average golfer wastes more strokes in the long game. Most golfers ARE better at the short game relatively than they are at the long game. [quote name="boil3rmak3r" url="/t/58816/65-25-10-practice-ratios-where-to-devote-your-practice-time/300#post_886585"]Most of the high cappers at my course will hit the ball 220 off the tee. They'll hit an iron to within 50 yds of the green.[/quote] You seem to either have a bizarrely easy, open, short course or an atypical collection if higher handicappers.

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by iacas

You seem to either have a bizarrely easy, open, short course or an atypical collection if higher handicappers.

Not saying I agree or disagree with your theories, but I would say by the same token many people in this thread must play at courses with bizarrely easy greens.  Stuff like "even bad putters will only 3 putt from the fringe 1/3 of the time."  I think people really exaggerate how poorly things can go around the green.  As if getting the ball close to the hole means "well even someone who has never played golf before can get it into the hole in 4 strokes if they are chipping."  I hate the use of anecdotal evidence but I see lots of poor players spend 5, 6 even 7 strokes around the green to get it in.  I just played with a high handicap friend today who had a 7 foot birdie putt and ended up 4 putting for a double bogie.  Greens can be incredibly hard.  You can misjudge speed and end up doubling the length of your putt.  Skull a chip and wind up in a bunker.  I often have holes or rounds where my ball striking is crap but I can still get it near the green to save scores.  I.e. I top a drive, or chunk an approach but the ball still stays straight and goes a reasonable distance.  I can't think of an analgous short game scenario where you make a bad stroke or completely misread speed but "accidently" end up ok.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just see a lot of assumptions made about the skill differential in the short game and assumptions about how difficult putting can be score rise--i.e. 4 and 5 putting.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

Stuff like "even bad putters will only 3 putt from the fringe 1/3 of the time."

The simple truth of the matter is this: people don't three-putt anywhere near as often as they fail to get up and down from the rough, sand, etc. And the nearer they are to the green (i.e. ball striking is what gets you there), the fewer shots they'll take to hole out.

If you're so bad a putter that you three-putt from 30 feet or so more than 33% of the time, then you have - again - a glaring deficiency, and 70/20/10 (or the thread namesake 65/25/10) doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

I hate the use of anecdotal evidence but I see lots of poor players spend 5, 6 even 7 strokes around the green to get it in.

I don't see that. I think you're exaggerating things. Obviously someone who isn't breaking 125 doesn't really fit this mold at all (5 * 18 = 90; 90 + 2 * 18 [to get near the greens] = 126 - and that's if someone who takes 90 strokes just CLOSE to the greens is proficient enough to get NEAR them in regulation , which ain't happenin'), so your numbers continue to strike me as bizarre.

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

You can misjudge speed and end up doubling the length of your putt.

Seriously? When is the last time - outside of five feet - that someone "doubled the length of their putt"? C'mon. Let's be reasonable here. It's far more likely that someone drives a ball OB than "doubles the length of their putt." And heck, even if they do, and they three-putt, that's better than or equal to the two strokes the OB costs you.

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

Skull a chip and wind up in a bunker.

Yes, those things can happen. But what happens more often are the other kinds of things, like a guy topping the ball off the tee. Shanking his six-iron. Fatting a wedge into a bunker. Blading his 9I into the shit. Slicing his 3W off the face of the planet.

The nice thing about the short game shots is - wait for it - they're not as complex, and easier to get proficient at. They take less time to practice. Hence the 30-35% weight they're given (including the putting).

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

I often have holes or rounds where my ball striking is crap but I can still get it near the green to save scores.  I.e. I top a drive, or chunk an approach but the ball still stays straight and goes a reasonable distance.  I can't think of an analgous short game scenario where you make a bad stroke or completely misread speed but "accidently" end up ok.

To put it simply, if you're near the greens in regulation, your ball striking isn't as "crap" as you think it is. PGA Tour players only average 12-13 GIR.

[Pretzel]

I have to say that, for someone below a 10 handicap at least, this practice methodology is pretty much spot on. Thinking back on my recent rounds, the worst scores I had came when I wasn't striking the ball well and when I was missing greens left and right (metaphorically and literally).

To provide specific examples, I'll dig out my little notebook I record stuff in and read you my two previous rounds' stats.

Round 1 (18 holes): Hit 3 greens in regulation on 18 holes, Hit 4 fairways, had 29 putts, and ended up shooting an 82. This was a generally poor round with multiple penalties off the tee, but zero 3-putts. Was 10 over par total with 0 birdies and 2 doubles. My scrambling was 46%, whereas my GIR was only ~17%

Round 2 (only 11 holes): Hit 6 greens, hit 8/9 fairways, and had 21 putts. I ended up at 1 over par through 11, with 3 birdies and 4 bogeys. Surprisingly enough, every single bogey there came from holes on which I missed the green (meaning no 3-putts). My scrambling was only 1/5, or 20% that day, while my GIR was ~55%.

While these might not be perfectly comparable stats, as I made two lucky 25 footers in the second round, they are about as good as any other set of statistics you can come up with. They conclusively point in favor of GIR being the largest contributing factor in my scores. In addition, when I hit the fairway my chances were much higher (hit the green from the rough once in Round 1, once in Round 2) when I hit the fairway on the corresponding hole.

Looking at my personal stats, I will average a Scrambling % of somewhere around 30-45% of the time, meaning I make par only about 40% of the time on a missed green on an average day. However, after hitting the green, I will make par about 90-95% of the time when I factor in one to two 3-putts a round. Hitting the fairway will increase my personal chance of hitting a green by around 35% (tree lined fairways are popular near where I live), which effectively means that a tee shot in the fairway is almost equal (35% x 60% increase in chance for par equals .21) for scoring purposes as an up & down is on a bad short game day.

By the logic of practicing depending on what has the largest impact on your scores, that means that I should practice my tee shots for more than half of the amount of time that I practice my short game. I also should practice my ballstriking for irons for about 2.5 times as long as my chipping. That means that, after setting aside a standard 10% of time for putting, I should practice my full swing about 67.5% of the time, and my short game only 22.5% of the time (when giving tee shots a lesser weight of only .5 of chipping)!

TLDR: I can mathematically prove that I save more shots personally from my ballstriking and tee shots than my chipping, so please at least read my post before arguing that I'm wrong.

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Hell, if you hit 15 greens and have 35 putts, you're in the low 70's!

Precisely

[Deryck Griffith]

I just heard last week that Luke Donald dumped his old golf swing coach Pat Goss and hired Chuck Cook (Jason Dufner's coach).  Luke apparently first asked Sean Foley for his services but Foley is full so he recommended Cook.

Interesting to see the player who arguably has the best short game on Tour barely make a top ten because he's hitting it all over the park week to week.  Short game isn't saving him right now......

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

I just heard last week that Luke Donald dumped his old golf swing coach Pat Goss and hired Chuck Cook (Jason Dufner's coach).  Luke apparently first asked Sean Foley for his services but Foley is full so he recommended Cook.

Interesting to see the player who arguably has the best short game on Tour barely make a top ten because he's hitting it all over the park week to week.  Short game isn't saving him right now......

Luke has a crazy short game, and putting. When he's putting his best, he's still only getting 0.844 strokes gained on the field. Basically his putting doesn't even give him a full stroke. His putting was similar in 2010, what changed to allow him to become leading money winner, going from 152nd  to 41st in GIR's sure helped him a ton. ;)

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by saevel25

Luke has a crazy short game, and putting. When he's putting his best, he's still only getting 0.844 strokes gained on the field. Basically his putting doesn't even give him a full stroke. His putting was similar in 2010, what changed to allow him to become leading money winner, going from 152nd  to 41st in GIR's sure helped him a ton. ;)

Exactly.  Out of 185 people Luke is still top 50 in scrambling.  He issue ISN'T lack of short game, it's piss poor ball striking; especially, off of the tee...short and crooked.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

I just heard last week that Luke Donald dumped his old golf swing coach Pat Goss and hired Chuck Cook (Jason Dufner's coach).  Luke apparently first asked Sean Foley for his services but Foley is full so he recommended Cook.

Interesting to see the player who arguably has the best short game on Tour barely make a top ten because he's hitting it all over the park week to week.  Short game isn't saving him right now......

Yeah we got some pics of them working together here

http://thesandtrap.com/t/69022/2013-pga-championship-sand-trap-coverage-photos-and-swing-videos

[steviegrace]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Thanks Erik,

My single biggest weakness, IMO, is the driver and keeping the ball in the fairway.  When I do, then chances for par go up.  My GIR for the last 20 rounds is ~23%.  My GIR from the fairway is ~43%.  That's a huge difference.

I know what you mean. It's definitely mine as well. It pretty much "sets the tone" for the hole. If I can master that, I usually make par.