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

[Kelzzy]

It's not about how much you use those shots or else a PGA Tour pro would devote 15-20% of his time to tapping in from two feet. It's a combination of how often you use them, how important they are, and how difficult they are to do. The short game presents varied lies, so even if you only have one short game stroke you'll have to know how the ball will react out of various lies.

Great points. For me, it seems like everything in my game is solid besides my driver. If I could hit my driver consistently, I would go sub-par with ease.. every time I hit a good drive, I go par or better 99% of the time. I'll work hard on the driver, it's the hardest club for me.

[saevel25]

Also, I believe that the weighted percentages should work as a sliding scale in relation to your skill level. A guy that is a 25-30 handicap isn't going to knock 10 strokes off their handicap solely by improving their putting and chipping. They could save a few strokes in that department for sure, but it is likely that they struggle getting to the green so driving and long game is where the bulk of the potential savings lie. On the other hand, a 5 handicap player is likely pretty decent off the tee and a good ball striker. It's no secret that it becomes exponentially more difficult to knock strokes off your HI as it gets closer to 0, and many times the difference is in how many of those 10 footers you make in a round or how many times you were able to recover from a poor shot. I believe that aside from an obvious weakness, as you become a better player the savings potential begins to shift from long game to short game. The difference in a 5 HI and a scratch player from my experience is average distance from pin on GIR's (long game), # of putts made in the 6-12 foot range (putting), and ability to save a missed GIR whether it be from the rough or a bunker (short game). I don't want to belittle the importance of the long game, but it is not the norm for players of that caliber to have penalty strokes during a round, or to really hit a terrible iron shot. It happens, but it's not the norm. The same can't be said for players of a higher HI.

Moving this over here because it belongs in this discussion

Depends on the golfer, a 36 handicap, lets say cuts out three putting, and gets up and down 50% of the time. That is 9 strokes right there, if he misses every green. So it can happen, but that still leaves him at a 24 handicap, YAY!!

You are not looking that much difference, when you are looking at less than 4 strokes between the best scoring average and the worst scoring average. The players on tour have to assess their own weaknesses. It isn't something as general as, its all about better short game. Luke Donald had the best scoring average, and won the money title that one year because he improved his GIR from 152nd to 41st on the PGA tour. You don't really see players having a career year by improving their short game. Its all about birdie chances. Maybe the one player who needs to work on putting more is Zach Johnson. He has a great GIR and proximity to the hole, but his putting isn't that good.

Here's the thing, if a great ball striker is hitting 65-70% of their greens. Short game isn't an issue because they limit their short game opportunities. Usually when a great ball striker has a sub par year on scoring, yet still struck the ball good, its because of putting.

[parallax]

Please check out this thread,

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

Its a nice discussion on why short game isn't is as important as you think.

Such pidgin holed approaches (based upon statistics) are rarely useful. And in the case of golf (with so many approaches and techniques), even less useful.

[Stretch]

Such pidgin holed approaches (based upon statistics) are rarely useful. And in the case of golf (with so many approaches and techniques), even less useful.

"I will see your facts, and raise you my opinion."

[saevel25]

Such pidgin holed approaches (based upon statistics) are rarely useful. And in the case of golf (with so many approaches and techniques), even less useful.

Umm, I think you have the wrong definition of pidgin holed, which means to categorize someone, particularly in the workforce so that the person can't advance with in the business structure. That thread isn't categorizing anything or anyone. It is using logic to describe the general quantity of which golfers should practice. Hence debunking the myths that short game and putting actually are the most beneficial aspects of a golf game. You might actually want to know what you are talking about and/or actually read the thread before you throw comments around like that. If you actually read the thread, your assumptions on what you think is right on this subject will be shown to be incorrect.

[Dave2512]

For me playing is basically a test to determine whether or not my practice is leading to progress. Even if I don't see significant score changes I can measure it via my stats. One thing I found in 2013 is despite my scoring average improving so did my double or worse stats. Fairly certain it's due to risk taking. For me without the stats just looking back at scores wouldn't tell me much.

[parallax]

Umm, I think you have the wrong definition of pidgin holed, which means to categorize someone, particularly in the workforce so that the person can't advance with in the business structure. That thread isn't categorizing anything or anyone. It is using logic to describe the general quantity of which golfers should practice. Hence debunking the myths that short game and putting actually are the most beneficial aspects of a golf game. You might actually want to know what you are talking about and/or actually read the thread before you throw comments around like that. If you actually read the thread, your assumptions on what you think is right on this subject will be shown to be incorrect.

Nope, I have the right definition. And I did read the entire OP. Such a practice regimen (which globally defines how much most golfers should practice each aspect of their game) ignores the varying states of each players game. Some guys are good a lag putting, but bad at 3-5 footers. Some guys can hit their three wood off the tee, but not their driver. Some guys can chip it close everytime, and others only chunk or scull.

We all have different strengths and weaknesses (relative to the other parts of our game), and we need to change the ratio of our practice accordingly. If you want to improve your scoring you need to analyze the current state of your game, maintain your strengths, and improve your weaknesses. Once you improve, you reanalyze, and shift your practice ratio/regimen.

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the difference between facts and statistics. Statistics are not facts. They are analysis. They are generalizations. And they DO lie.

I do agree though, that GIR is EXTREMELY important. If you hit every green short game is superfluous.

Note: You are free to disagree, as this is my opinion...... except the part about facts vs statistics.

[parallax]

For me playing is basically a test to determine whether or not my practice is leading to progress. Even if I don't see significant score changes I can measure it via my stats. One thing I found in 2013 is despite my scoring average improving so did my double or worse stats. Fairly certain it's due to risk taking. For me without the stats just looking back at scores wouldn't tell me much.

The stats have given you a clue, but now you need to check the facts.

Analyze those specific holes and shots where you make doubles or worse, and you may find the answer and have a better idea where to practice (or intensify your concentration on the course).

[Dave2512]

The stats have given you a clue, but now you need to check the facts.

Analyze those specific holes and shots where you make doubles or worse, and you may find the answer and have a better idea where to practice (or intensify your concentration on the course).

Already done.

[Ernest Jones]

Nope, I have the right definition. And I did read the entire OP. Such a practice regimen (which globally defines how much most golfers should practice each aspect of their game) ignores the varying states of each players game. Some guys are good a lag putting, but bad at 3-5 footers. Some guys can hit their three wood off the tee, but not their driver. Some guys can chip it close everytime, and others only chunk or scull.

We all have different strengths and weaknesses (relative to the other parts of our game), and we need to change the ratio of our practice accordingly. If you want to improve your scoring you need to analyze the current state of your game, maintain your strengths, and improve your weaknesses. Once you improve, you reanalyze, and shift your practice ratio/regimen.

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the difference between facts and statistics. Statistics are not facts. They are analysis. They are generalizations. And they DO lie.

I do agree though, that GIR is EXTREMELY important. If you hit every green short game is superfluous.

Note: You are free to disagree, as this is my opinion...... except the part about facts vs statistics.

You may have read it but you obviously didn't read it very carefully or you would have noticed this part which clearly addresses your bolded:

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.

Seriously @parallax , welcome to the forum but do yourself (and everyone else) a favour and read through a thread before dismissing it. I think that you'll find that in the majority of cases your points have already been addressed, this is especially true in the longer threads. That's not to say you aren't entitled to your opinions but you should really try to form those opinions from a position of knowledge not ignorance. In this case the concept is that all else being equal your practice regime in percentages should be roughly 65-25-10. Obviously, if you have glaring weaknesses that you can identify as holding you back you should adjust the ratio to address it until it's no longer glaring at which point you should revert back to something like 65-25-10.

[saevel25]

The stats have given you a clue, but now you need to check the facts.

Analyze those specific holes and shots where you make doubles or worse, and you may find the answer and have a better idea where to practice (or intensify your concentration on the course).

Yep, most of the time for amateurs it is a poor long game shot. Driver that went OB or in the water, or behind a tree. A poor iron shot that ended up in a bunker, or in a horrible position around the green. I have been playing around golfers who range from single digit to 40 handicap for multiple years how. I can say with certainty that majority of blow up holes are caused by the long game not the short game or putting, coupled with poor course management.

Nope, I have the right definition. And I did read the entire OP. Such a practice regimen (which globally defines how much most golfers should practice each aspect of their game) ignores the varying states of each players game. Some guys are good a lag putting, but bad at 3-5 footers. Some guys can hit their three wood off the tee, but not their driver. Some guys can chip it close everytime, and others only chunk or scull.

We all have different strengths and weaknesses (relative to the other parts of our game), and we need to change the ratio of our practice accordingly. If you want to improve your scoring you need to analyze the current state of your game, maintain your strengths, and improve your weaknesses. Once you improve, you reanalyze, and shift your practice ratio/regimen.

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the difference between facts and statistics. Statistics are not facts. They are analysis. They are generalizations. And they DO lie.

I do agree though, that GIR is EXTREMELY important. If you hit every green short game is superfluous.

Note: You are free to disagree, as this is my opinion...... except the part about facts vs statistics.

Of course people do and if you actually read through the thread, i know a daunting task, it does have a lot of pages. The OP does go on to state if a golf game has a glaring weakness, by all means work on that with a higher percentage.

But the fact still remains, the most important part of the golf game will always be the long game. It has more significant and correlation to the overall ability of a golfer to score. I am not talking about what the current state of the golfer is, I am talking about shooting a low score. This is statistically proven. Its called "Strokes Gained". They do it for putting, but it has been done for long game. Long game has shown to be much more significant to a golfers ability to score.

[Ernest Jones]

Of course people do and if you actually read through the thread, i know a daunting task, it does have a lot of pages. The OP does go on to state if a golf game has a glaring weakness, by all means work on that with a higher percentage.

Actually that part is the third paragraph of the first post which isn't very long to begin with so…not what I'd call daunting.

[parallax]

You may have read it but you obviously didn't read it very carefully or you would have noticed this part which clearly addresses your bolded:

Seriously @parallax , welcome to the forum but do yourself (and everyone else) a favour and read through a thread before dismissing it. I think that you'll find that in the majority of cases your points have already been addressed, this is especially true in the longer threads. That's not to say you aren't entitled to your opinions but you should really try to form those opinions from a position of knowledge not ignorance. In this case the concept is that all else being equal your practice regime in percentages should be roughly 65-25-10. Obviously, if you have glaring weaknesses that you can identify as holding you back you should adjust the ratio to address it until it's no longer glaring at which point you should revert back to something like 65-25-10.

I read it fine. The truth is that glaring weaknesses are relative to the other aspects of your game. If you are not a very good golfer already, you have a (or many) glaring weakness.

So... I imagine we agree, that since very few golfers DON'T have a glaring weakness in their game, very few should pigeon hole themselves into such a generalized practice ratio.

[saevel25]

I read it fine. The truth is that glaring weaknesses are relative to the other aspects of your game. If you are not a very good golfer already, you have a (or many) glaring weakness.

So... I imagine we agree, that since very few golfers DON'T have a glaring weakness in their game, very few should pigeon hole themselves into such a generalized practice ratio.

Still, even if you have a glaring weakness, it might not take much at all to fix it. I had a glaring weakness in my pitching game. It took me 20 minutes to learn the proper technique, and now it is sufficient to just practice that at the described percentage in that thread. Same with putting, once you learn the proper technique, or a drill to fix a defect in the putting stroke, it doesn't take much time to practice the drills with purpose and get quick results. Putting, chipping, and pitching are all very simplistic motions that can be learned quickly.

If people actually learn, and not just bash golf balls, then things work out to were the long game will always be the most worked on aspect in the long run. Do players take short breaks from time to time to fix something that comes up, yea. The summation of all practice time should be prioritizing the long game.

Like the OP said in the link, if you have a glaring weakness work on it. That in it self is letting leeway to adjust the percentages to how it fits your game at the moment.

[parallax]

Still, even if you have a glaring weakness, it might not take much at all to fix it. I had a glaring weakness in my pitching game. It took me 20 minutes to learn the proper technique, and now it is sufficient to just practice that at the described percentage in that thread. Same with putting, once you learn the proper technique, or a drill to fix a defect in the putting stroke, it doesn't take much time to practice the drills with purpose and get quick results. Putting, chipping, and pitching are all very simplistic motions that can be learned quickly.

If people actually learn, and not just bash golf balls, then things work out to were the long game will always be the most worked on aspect in the long run. Do players take short breaks from time to time to fix something that comes up, yea. The summation of all practice time should be prioritizing the long game.

Like the OP said in the link, if you have a glaring weakness work on it. That in it self is letting leeway to adjust the percentages to how it fits your game at the moment.

For me, the more I hit my driver the worse I get. If I go to the range and start hitting snap hooks, or slices, I can make the adjustments and be good to go. I average about 250 (and my D's are creeping up as I play more)

If my driver isn't good that day, I will adjust my strategy.

With chipping, pitching, and putting TOUCH is the main factor. For me, that requires constant practice and maintenance. I get much better at putting when I practice A LOT. If I stop, my consistency, and confidence go down.

[iacas]

Such pidgin holed approaches (based upon statistics) are rarely useful. And in the case of golf (with so many approaches and techniques), even less useful.

It's not a pigeon holed approach. A pidgin is a greatly simplified language.

Such a practice regimen (which globally defines how much most golfers should practice each aspect of their game) ignores the varying states of each players game. Some guys are good a lag putting, but bad at 3-5 footers.

It does not ignore that. If you have a glaring weakness (which you later contend everyone does, but which I would suggest is incorrect given the word "glaring"), you practice that. If you're a relatively equally skilled golfer (i.e. no glaring weaknesses), you can divide the practice time given to each segment to the part of the game that's weakest in that segment.

So if you were a 9 with a relatively average game overall and in each of the three segments, you would spend the bulk of your 10% putting practice on 3-5 footers.

We all have different strengths and weaknesses (relative to the other parts of our game), and we need to change the ratio of our practice accordingly. If you want to improve your scoring you need to analyze the current state of your game, maintain your strengths, and improve your weaknesses. Once you improve, you reanalyze, and shift your practice ratio/regimen.

And if you're reasonably balanced, I've proposed that to maintain all of them in relatively similar levels of balance, working at them 65/25/10 will allow you to do so.

I read it fine. The truth is that glaring weaknesses are relative to the other aspects of your game. If you are not a very good golfer already, you have a (or many) glaring weakness.

I agree, but they're only glaring if they're very much offset from the other aspects of your game.

A 32 handicapper is not guaranteed to have three glaring weaknesses, nor is a scratch golfer guaranteed to have NO glaring weaknesses. They're relative to your other skills, and when dramatically or glaringly out of whack, are a "glaring weakness."

So... I imagine we agree, that since very few golfers DON'T have a glaring weakness in their game, very few should pigeon hole themselves into such a generalized practice ratio.

IMO, very few golfers have a "glaring" weakness in their game that would necessitate a dramatic change in the proposed schedule. You don't often find the 3 handicap who takes 37 putts per round, or the 18 who can't hit a driver 220 and within the same zip code of the fairway, but who gets up and down 60% of the time and makes almost everything from six feet and in.

Your definition of "glaring" is seemingly not strong enough. Everyone has a slight weakness, but on a day to day basis, that can change, too. That's not a "glaring" weakness.

For me, the more I hit my driver the worse I get. If I go to the range and start hitting snap hooks, or slices, I can make the adjustments and be good to go. I average about 250 (and my D's are creeping up as I play more)

If my driver isn't good that day, I will adjust my strategy.

Seems to me you should spend a good chunk of your full swing time working on the driver. The driver, among the full swing portion of your game, is potentially a glaring weakness.

With chipping, pitching, and putting TOUCH is the main factor. For me, that requires constant practice and maintenance.

It shouldn't. Your technique is probably lacking if it requires that much effort just to maintain your level of touch.

[Dave2512]

For me, the more I hit my driver the worse I get. If I go to the range and start hitting snap hooks, or slices, I can make the adjustments and be good to go. I average about 250 (and my D's are creeping up as I play more)

If my driver isn't good that day, I will adjust my strategy.

With chipping, pitching, and putting TOUCH is the main factor. For me, that requires constant practice and maintenance. I get much better at putting when I practice A LOT. If I stop, my consistency, and confidence go down.

Hate to gang up on you but this post really reinforces the 65/25/10 thing. It's fairly easy to improve chipping and putting and on course most of it depends the quality of the previous result, the long game. You can practice a lot of putts in a short amount of time simply because it doesn't take as much time as a full shot and the movement is much shorter and easier to refine. Just not having to wait as long to see the end result saves time. I practice everything dang near every day but most of it is full swing stuff because it has the biggest impact on the quality of golf I play.

[bplewis24]

I read it fine. The truth is that glaring weaknesses are relative to the other aspects of your game. If you are not a very good golfer already, you have a (or many) glaring weakness.

So... I imagine we agree, that since very few golfers DON'T have a glaring weakness in their game, very few should pigeon hole themselves into such a generalized practice ratio.

If you don't have one glaring weakness, but instead of many glaring weaknesses (oxymoron?), then basically you're right back into the general 65:25:whatever ratio.  Reality is that IF you suck at everything equally, the long game is still going to get you into more trouble than the short game.

Nevertheless, I never saw this practice ratio thing as a set of rules as much as it is a general guideline.  It's advice, and I find it to be generally sound advice, logically speaking.