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

[Shaupeen]

Yep.  That's about the practice ratio I find myself following.

Unless I start missing four footers.  Then it's all putting green and up and down practice.

[mvmac]

Erik is right again

Molinari's revolution: Long game trumps short game

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/jason-sobel/molinari-leading-charge-for-statistical-analysis-long-trumps-short-game/

Quote:

In March, Broadie will release his newest book, “Every Shot Counts.” It will be filled with more than 10 years of statistics from both the professional and amateur ranks, employing comparative analysis to prove where players are gaining and losing strokes against their competitors.

The data in the book will present a revolution already found in other sports. We’ll get to those analogies, but let’s not bury the lede any longer. There’s one headline-grabber that is sure to make headlines around the world:

Long game is more important than short game.

In a revelation that is sure to leave the old-school “drive for show, putt for dough” thinkers stomping in their soft spikes, Broadie found that 68 percent of the differential between golfers can be found in the long game, with only 17 percent attributable to short game and 15 percent to putting.

“When I compare the top players on the PGA Tour, I find that the long game contributes about two-thirds to their success while the short game and putting contributes about one-third,” Broadie said. “Initially I was surprised, so I analyzed the data in different ways and found that all roads led to the same conclusion.”

For example, in any given year if you looked at the scoring average of the top 10 on the money list compared with those ranking 116-125, the scoring average differential would be about two strokes. Based on Broadie’s comparative analysis, about 1.4 of those strokes gained would come from the long game, while only 0.6 would be attributable to short game and putting.

Quote:

“You and I are having a match,” the man with nine career professional victories says to a single-digit handicapper. “Would you rather have a match on the putting green, chipping or who hits it longer and straighter? You’d take the putting green every time. At least you’d have a chance. You’d have no chance in the other areas. When you think about it, it makes sense.”

[bplewis24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Erik is right again

Molinari's revolution: Long game trumps short game

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/jason-sobel/molinari-leading-charge-for-statistical-analysis-long-trumps-short-game/

Quote:

“You and I are having a match,” the man with nine career professional victories says to a single-digit handicapper. “Would you rather have a match on the putting green, chipping or who hits it longer and straighter? You’d take the putting green every time. At least you’d have a chance. You’d have no chance in the other areas. When you think about it, it makes sense.”

There is absolutely no doubt about the quoted part.  I'm not even a single, and I definitely would fancy my chances on the green, with a putter in hand vs a pro about 50 to 100 times greater than a ball-striking contest.

[Golfingdad]

Erik is right again

Get's kind of annoying after awhile, huh? ;)

Everybody knows that I am a big believer in this theory, but I'm actually a bit surprised at this data.  I would have thought that at the PGA tour level things were skewed a bit more towards short game making up the difference.  And that's probably because of stories about people like Mac O Grady, Grant Waite, and even Boo Weekley.  There are always those guys who would have been, or could have been great, except they couldn't putt.  Now that I've read this, I realize that those guys were just players with a "glaring weakness."

[mvmac]

Get's kind of annoying after awhile, huh? ;)

Not for me, makes my job easier, "yep what Erik said".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Everybody knows that I am a big believer in this theory, but I'm actually a bit surprised at this data.  I would have thought that at the PGA tour level things were skewed a bit more towards short game making up the difference.  And that's probably because of stories about people like Mac O Grady, Grant Waite, and even Boo Weekley.  There are always those guys who would have been, or could have been great, except they couldn't putt.  Now that I've read this, I realize that those guys were just players with a "glaring weakness."

In terms of Grant and Boo, I agree that could be "great" if they were better putters but there is something to be said for keeping your card for 15 years (Grant).  Boo won this year and will continue to make a nice living for himself.  Mac is another case altogether.  Even if he could putt he would find a way to screw things up imo.

[bplewis24]

Get's kind of annoying after awhile, huh? ;)

Everybody knows that I am a big believer in this theory, but I'm actually a bit surprised at this data.  I would have thought that at the PGA tour level things were skewed a bit more towards short game making up the difference.  And that's probably because of stories about people like Mac O Grady, Grant Waite, and even Boo Weekley.  There are always those guys who would have been, or could have been great, except they couldn't putt.  Now that I've read this, I realize that those guys were just players with a "glaring weakness."

I've also believed in this for a while, so I don't really have much to add.  However, the only real issue I have at this point is that sometimes when having general chit-chat with random golf partners during a round, they will say things like "if you want to improve, it's all about the short game!"  Happens all the time .  The thing I struggle with, is how to respond.  Do I engage that and spend the next 15 minutes arguing about it, or just nod and let it go?

Last month I played a course I used to play regularly but hadn't been to since the Spring.  A guy working in the clubhouse asked me where I'd been, and I mentioned practicing at another course a lot and playing a few tournies here or there, but not really getting much better.  He asked, "how much have you worked on your chipping and putting?"  I responded, "not much," and he went on to say "SEE!  I tell guys all the time that unless you're working on the short game, you're not going to improve."  I just said, "yeah, you're right," paid my green fee and went out to the first tee.  Didn't feel like deconstructing that idea.

[mmoan2]

I've also believed in this for a while, so I don't really have much to add.  However, the only real issue I have at this point is that sometimes when having general chit-chat with random golf partners during a round, they will say things like "if you want to improve, it's all about the short game!"  Happens all the time.  The thing I struggle with, is how to respond.  Do I engage that and spend the next 15 minutes arguing about it, or just nod and let it go?

Last month I played a course I used to play regularly but hadn't been to since the Spring.  A guy working in the clubhouse asked me where I'd been, and I mentioned practicing at another course a lot and playing a few tournies here or there, but not really getting much better.  He asked, "how much have you worked on your chipping and putting?"  I responded, "not much," and he went on to say "SEE!  I tell guys all the time that unless you're working on the short game, you're not going to improve."  I just said, "yeah, you're right," paid my green fee and went out to the first tee.  Didn't feel like deconstructing that idea.

I would love to engage in this conversation with random partners. Usually by the 9th hole we've exhausted all of the "how are the wife and kids" chats. I'd make it a challenge to drive the point home by 18!

[boil3rmak3r]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here... Is it possible that the pro's "strokes gained" numbers mean something different than high handicappers? Let's be real, the pro's generally have the fundamentals down, whereas the high capper doesn't. Sure, the high capper is going to lose more strokes compared to the pro on 200 yd approach shots and on drives. Part of that is simply due to the length of the shots (more margin for error). But what if us amateurs can't even hit a fundamentally sound half pitching wedge (maybe we flip, or reverse pivot, or whatever). Would you tell that amateur to immediately work on their driver and long irons? Or would it be smarter for that amateur to understand fundamentals by working on partial wedges and short irons. I could imagine a golf instructor meeting with a 20 handicapper... "You only hit the green 20% of the time with your pitching wedge, but that's not what's most important. Get that 3 iron out of your bag and let's learn to bomb that down the middle." I think these discussions are all relative. In my experience, the golfer that doesn't have the fundamentals to hit a 50 yd half wedge sure as heck won't have very good full swing fundamentals. It's also interesting that those that have poor full swing fundamentals usually have poor games around the green. How many people stink from 50 yds and out, but tear up 20 yd pitches or 45 ft chips? I know there have to be some, but they are the exceptions. Until you have a very solid game (single digits, maybe?), shouldn't the practice start at the green and go back?

[mvmac]

Sure, the high capper is going to lose more strokes compared to the pro on 200 yd approach shots and on drives. Part of that is simply due to the length of the shots (more margin for error). But what if us amateurs can't even hit a fundamentally sound half pitching wedge (maybe we flip, or reverse pivot, or whatever). Would you tell that amateur to immediately work on their driver and long irons? Or would it be smarter for that amateur to understand fundamentals by working on partial wedges and short irons.

I might call that a glaring weakness, depends on how bad it is.  Like Erik said in the first post (below).  25% is still a good chunk of time, it's not like anyone is saying to NOT practice the short game.

Unless you have a glaring weakness or a facet of your game which far outshines the others, you should spend 65% of your time practicing the full swing, 25% of your time practicing the short game, and 10% of your time practicing putting.

[boil3rmak3r]

I might call that a glaring weakness, depends on how bad it is.  Like Erik said in the first post (below).  25% is still a good chunk of time, it's not like anyone is saying to NOT practice the short game.

I guess my question is what defines a glaring weakness? In my experience, most 20 cappers can't consistently hit a 40 yard pitch shot consistently. Why not? They don't have the correct fundamentals. They may break the wrists down, reverse pivot, stand up, ect... If they exhibit these swing flaws on short shots (which most 20 cappers do), they'll probably exasperate those flaws on full swings. If you are going to give the golfing community a blanket standard of 65/25/10, I think the definition of a glaring weakness should be better defined. For example, work on short game much more until you can nail keys 1 and 2 (I'm just using an example. It may not even be applicable to 5SK based on my knowledge). If someone can't keep a flat left wrist, get their weight forward, and keep a steady head on a partial 40 wedge shot, they sure as heck aren't going to be able to do it on a full 9 iron shot. Heck, many of those folks can't get those fundamentals down on a longer chip. So, if their technique is equally bad on long and short shots, where will they lose the most strokes? On long shots, of course... But, how should they work to improve? I would argue from shorter swings to longer swings.

[saevel25]

I guess my question is what defines a glaring weakness? In my experience, most 20 cappers can't consistently hit a 40 yard pitch shot consistently. Why not? They don't have the correct fundamentals. They may break the wrists down, reverse pivot, stand up, ect... If they exhibit these swing flaws on short shots (which most 20 cappers do), they'll probably exasperate those flaws on full swings.

If you are going to give the golfing community a blanket standard of 65/25/10, I think the definition of a glaring weakness should be better defined. For example, work on short game much more until you can nail keys 1 and 2 (I'm just using an example. It may not even be applicable to 5SK based on my knowledge).

If someone can't keep a flat left wrist, get their weight forward, and keep a steady head on a partial 40 wedge shot, they sure as heck aren't going to be able to do it on a full 9 iron shot. Heck, many of those folks can't get those fundamentals down on a longer chip.

So, if their technique is equally bad on long and short shots, where will they lose the most strokes? On long shots, of course... But, how should they work to improve? I would argue from shorter swings to longer swings.

Question,

How often do they have a 40 yard pitch shot, compared to a full swing shot? I would say they hit a full swing at least around 46 times. Now how many times do they get a half wedge? Maybe a handful of times a round. So what's more important? I rather get them good at something they are going to encounter more often. It will have a higher impact on their game. Also if they improve their long game, it takes away even more opportunities they will have half wedge shots.

Of course taking smaller swings is important, but many times a shorter swing in a drill isn't something you would use on the course. Like a video for key #2, Dave asks Erik to keep the weight forward and hit half shots, really focusing on were the club hits the ground. That is not a pitching motion because it doesn't bring in the bounce, its a half swing motion for that drill.

Sure, the high capper is going to lose more strokes compared to the pro on 200 yd approach shots and on drives. Part of that is simply due to the length of the shots (more margin for error). But what if us amateurs can't even hit a fundamentally sound half pitching wedge (maybe we flip, or reverse pivot, or whatever). Would you tell that amateur to immediately work on their driver and long irons? Or would it be smarter for that amateur to understand fundamentals by working on partial wedges and short irons.

Here's the thing, you can take an amateur and in one day get them getting a good pitching motion. Meaning, why would want to spend 65% of your time on something that can be easily learned. You can spend 25% of your time on it, and dedicate your time to something else.

[billchao]

Until you have a very solid game (single digits, maybe?), shouldn't the practice start at the green and go back?

I'd argue that without a good long game, I'll never get into single digits. I think I've mentioned something like this earlier in the thread, but it doesn't matter if I one putt every green if it takes me four or five to get on, I'm still posting a high score.

Think about a reasonable par 3, say 150 yards or so. I've got a good long game. I hit the green. Chance for birdie, two putt for par, at worst, three putt for bogey. Same par 3, but my long game is not as good, so I miss the green. Now, the best (reasonable) result is par. Chip/pitch close enough to one putt. Likely result is a two putt bogey. The first guy in here will be a better golfer in the long run because it's unlikely that he will three putt every GIR he hits, whereas the guy with the weaker long game is giving up strokes every time he misses GIR (not likely to get up and down EVERY hole).

[boil3rmak3r]

Question, How often do they have a 40 yard pitch shot, compared to a full swing shot? I would say they hit a full swing at least around 46 times. Now how many times do they get a half wedge? Maybe a handful of times a round. So what's more important? I rather get them good at something they are going to encounter more often. It will have a higher impact on their game. Also if they improve their long game, it takes away even more opportunities they will have half wedge shots.  Of course taking smaller swings is important, but many times a shorter swing in a drill isn't something you would use on the course. Like a video for key #2, Dave asks Erik to keep the weight forward and hit half shots, really focusing on were the club hits the ground. That is not a pitching motion because it doesn't bring in the bounce, its a half swing motion for that drill.  Here's the thing, you can take an amateur and in one day get them getting a good pitching motion. Meaning, why would want to spend 65% of your time on something that can be easily learned. You can spend 25% of your time on it, and dedicate your time to something else.

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).

[boil3rmak3r]

I'd argue that without a good long game, I'll never get into single digits. I think I've mentioned something like this earlier in the thread, but it doesn't matter if I one putt every green if it takes me four or five to get on, I'm still posting a high score. Think about a reasonable par 3, say 150 yards or so. I've got a good long game. I hit the green. Chance for birdie, two putt for par, at worst, three putt for bogey. Same par 3, but my long game is not as good, so I miss the green. Now, the best (reasonable) result is par. Chip/pitch close enough to one putt. Likely result is a two putt bogey. The first guy in here will be a better golfer in the long run because it's unlikely that he will three putt every GIR he hits, whereas the guy with the weaker long game is giving up strokes every time he misses GIR (not likely to get up and down EVERY hole).

How many people are good at their long game, (full swings) but suck at their short game (partial shots, pitches, chips, and putts), compared to the other way around? In my experience, no many. If you don't have good fundamentals on the shorter shots, you're likely to be even worse on the longer ones. Again, I question what the definition of a "glaring weakness" is. If you have the same, crappy swing fundamentals on a 40 yd pitch as you do a 150 tee shot, sure, the 150 yd tee shot will generally get you in more trouble. If you are that golfer's coach, do you try to fix his flaws by starting him off with a full swing 3 iron, or half swing wedges? I would argue the fundamentals would be better learned with the partial shots and graduate to full shots. BTW - I'd bet that a golfer that hits most 150 yd par threes in regulation (per the example you give) would boot a helluva short game to back up his ball striking abilities.

[bplewis24]

If you suck at both 50 foot chips and full swings with the driver, it's a no brainer which one you should practice.  The 50 foot chip might add an additional stroke to the hole when executed poorly.  The full swing from the tee could add 3-4, PLUS you still may have the 50 foot chip at some point.  This is a question of which you will deal with more often, and which can damage your score greater.

[David in FL]

How many people are good at their long game, (full swings) but suck at their short game (partial shots, pitches, chips, and putts), compared to the other way around? In my experience, no many. If you don't have good fundamentals on the shorter shots, you're likely to be even worse on the longer ones.

Again, I question what the definition of a "glaring weakness" is. If you have the same, crappy swing fundamentals on a 40 yd pitch as you do a 150 tee shot, sure, the 150 yd tee shot will generally get you in more trouble.

If you are that golfer's coach, do you try to fix his flaws by starting him off with a full swing 3 iron, or half swing wedges? I would argue the fundamentals would be better learned with the partial shots and graduate to full shots.

BTW - I'd bet that a golfer that hits most 150 yd par threes in regulation (per the example you give) would boot a helluva short game to back up his ball striking abilities.

Not a 3-iron, but full swing, for sure.....

[iacas]

I'll respond more later, but boilermaker, a couple of quick notes.

1) A 40-yard shot can be either a short game shot or a miniature version of a full swing. If it's the latter, the 65% matters. If it's a pitch, which engages the bounce, then it's likely not going to have an inline impact condition ("flat left wrist"). In other words, practicing a 50-yard wedge shot is quite possibly in the 65% full swing practice. You're misreading things if you believe that "full swing practice" means hitting FULL SHOTS. It's not. We almost NEVER hit full shots when we practice our "full swing."

2) I don't know if it's worth the effort to define "glaring weakness." There will always be holes or exceptions. If you three putt regularly, or you get up and down almost never, that's a glaring weakness. If you top your driver every fourth hole, that too is a glaring weakness. Unless you're a 36. Maybe then it's right in line. You can't define glaring weakness because everyone's situations aren't the same - not the same handicap, same conditions, same abilities, etc.

[billchao]

How many people are good at their long game, (full swings) but suck at their short game (partial shots, pitches, chips, and putts), compared to the other way around? In my experience, no many. If you don't have good fundamentals on the shorter shots, you're likely to be even worse on the longer ones.

I've never met any golfers who were short game gurus and sucked at the long game, either. Maybe some older guys I know are great around/on the greens, but lost some of their long game distance due to physical limitations, but they also don't practice as much as they used to (so they tell me). Either way, their scores would be lower if they worked on the long game.

Again, I question what the definition of a "glaring weakness" is. If you have the same, crappy swing fundamentals on a 40 yd pitch as you do a 150 tee shot, sure, the 150 yd tee shot will generally get you in more trouble.

If you are that golfer's coach, do you try to fix his flaws by starting him off with a full swing 3 iron, or half swing wedges? I would argue the fundamentals would be better learned with the partial shots and graduate to full shots.

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.

Try this example then: You're 30 yards out and you pitch one to eight feet. Nice shot, BTW. Assuming your target was the hole, you missed it by 9%. Miss your 150 yard approach by the same margin and you're off by 13.5 yards. 250 yards out and its 22.5. A 22.5 yard shot differential left or right off the tee is most likely in big trouble. And that is only if your short game and long game skills are equivalent (same % of success). If you work on your short game more and are better at it, say 95% accuracy vs 85% accuracy in the long game, I don't know how you'd play good golf. Missing from short distances is much more forgiving than missing from long distances, IMO.