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

[parallax]

Quote:

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

Sorry for the typo. Defining the same practice regimen for all golfers seems to be the definition of pigeon holed. I am not understanding the benefit of doing so.... I have improved more by focusing most of my practice effort on one aspect at a time while maintaining the others, and then switching to the new weakness when the former weakness is improved.

Quote:

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.

Yes, weakness is relative to the rest of your game. As you improve in one aspect, another aspect becomes relatively weaker (even though it didn't become weaker in and of itself).

I analyze my game -> figure out where I am weak -> improve my weakness -> and repeat ->

It is more a a feedback loop process, where I greatly vary the ratio of my practice routine depending on where I need to improve the most.

Quote:

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."

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.

I don't really think the distinction between glaring and not, matters much. We all have weaknesses, or aspects where improvement will provide us with the best overall gain in scoring. It makes sense to determine those weaknesses, and improve them until they become strengths, not spend your limited practice time on the parts of your game that are being limited by your weakness.

Quote:

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.

I did 5 months ago, not it is the strongest part of my game. So most of my practice is determining how to make the right adjustments depending on how it is going that day.

Quote:

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

I don't know about that.... but it is relative. As I improve my expectations are rising, and my level of touch is improving. What I used to think was good would probably be scoffed at.

For now, all of the aspects of my game are pretty even (more so than ever), my glaring weakness is the ability to focus on every shot in a 5 hour round, and that can only be done on the course. So that is where the majority of my practice is happening.

[parallax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

Hate to gang up on you but this post really reinforces the 65/25/10 thing.

I don't see how.... ?

Quote:

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.

I disagree. I gain confidence in my chipping and putting my repetition. With my long game, I can make myself worse over practicing. I don't need touch in my long game. I just have to be able to make adjustments based upon how I am hitting the ball that day, and those happen fast.

Quote:

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.

I have been in your position before, but I made improvements to my long game, and then my short game and putting became weaker.

[iacas]

Sorry for the typo. Defining the same practice regimen for all golfers seems to be the definition of pigeon holed.

I'm not defining the same practice regimen for all golfers. Heck, I told you to spend more time on your drivers and 3-5 foot putts, while others might need to spend time on their wedges and lag putts, as well as their bunker play.

As others have said to you as well, they're guidelines, and I think they're optimal for the widest variety of golfers, with the caveat that the "glaring weakness" bit provides.

As you improve in one aspect, another aspect becomes relatively weaker (even though it didn't become weaker in and of itself).

Generally speaking (again, some golfers have a knack for putting, for example, and don't need even 10% of the time on that). The 65/25/10 ratio keeps you from developing parts of your game in advance of the others, or to put it another way, keeps you from forgetting about part of your game and letting it fall behind.

Obviously I cannot develop custom ratios for every golfer. But far too many golfers spend far too much time working on the short game, at the expense of their long game, and if everyone adheres to the rules I've laid out, I believe that this ratio is optimal and will produce the best results among the general population. A few may regress slightly (like the natural putters and short game wizards who should do 80/15/5), but on the whole far more people will advance, IMO. That's the point and purpose of this thread, and this idea.

It's been said elsewhere in this thread that the easiest way to reduce strokes QUICKLY is to work on your short game and putting. That's still true. But this is a long-term improvement plan, and you can't just look at your practice schedule over a week, or perhaps even over a month. If you want to improve, month over month, and year over year, consistently in all phases of the game (or just maintain all phases equally), IMO you'll be best served to practice them at about 65/25/10.

I've based this on what statistics tell us, what facts tell us, and what I've seen from having worked with thousands of golfers.

I analyze my game -> figure out where I am weak -> improve my weakness -> and repeat ->

And that seems like a waste of time and effort to me. Better to just say "all parts of my game are roughly equal" (once they are, and you don't have a glaring weakness) and develop them all.

It is more a a feedback loop process, where I greatly vary the ratio of my practice routine depending on where I need to improve the most.

And again, I'll point out that this is not a per-day or even a per-week measurement. If you want to micromanage your time to that nth degree, be my guest. That's too much for most people.

I don't really think the distinction between glaring and not, matters much.

I disagree… which should be obvious, since I chose my words carefully, and have expounded on what I mean by "glaring."

We all have weaknesses, or aspects where improvement will provide us with the best overall gain in scoring. It makes sense to determine those weaknesses, and improve them until they become strengths, not spend your limited practice time on the parts of your game that are being limited by your weakness.

Here's why I think that's kind of ridiculous.

Let's say 100% is perfection, and you're at 82% full swing, 83% short game, and 81% putting. So you work on your putting, and now it's 83%. So then you work on your full swing, and it goes to 83%, but your short game's now fallen to 80%, so now you work on that. Then your putting starts to suffer, but your short game is now at 85%, so you work on your putting again.

At the end of the day, if you're honest with yourself and maintaining or slowly advancing…

wait for it…

You'll probably spend about 65% of your time working on your full swing (where the changes come slowly), 25% of the time on the short game (where changes come relatively quickly), and 10% of your time working on your putting (where changes can be made very, very quickly.

And the above was not to be snarky. I just like How I Met Your Mother.

I disagree. I gain confidence in my chipping and putting my repetition. With my long game, I can make myself worse over practicing.

Simply put: you're not practicing properly. You're probably just hitting balls.

Seriously, all these practice ratios go out the window if you're not actually practicing . There are a few articles here on how to practice. Absolutely none of them would have you "getting worse by over-practicing" (unless it's due to an injury).

[parallax]

Also, sorry... It wasn't my intention to come on here and try to "debunk" this method. I posted a response in another thread, and then it ended up here.

There are lots of different ways to learn, practice, and teach.

[iacas]

Also, sorry... It wasn't my intention to come on here and try to "debunk" this method. I posted a response in another thread, and then it ended up here.

No need to apologize. I can't speak for everyone, but I probably can speak for the majority of the good guys here: we like discussion, disagreement, etc. It's how we can advance our knowledge. I don't like repeating myself, really, but I don't feel I've done that too much here. And the thread is quite long, so it's tough to blame you for not reading every post here.

There are lots of different ways to learn, practice, and teach.

You're right. There are good ways, and bad ways… and really lousy ways… :D

I'll re-iterate this because I think it's the crux of what I'd get at with you:

Let's say 100% is perfection, and you're at 82% full swing, 83% short game, and 81% putting. So you work on your putting, and now it's 83%. So then you work on your full swing, and it goes to 83%, but your short game's now fallen to 80%, so now you work on that. Then your putting starts to suffer, but your short game is now at 85%, so you work on your putting again.

At the end of the day, if you're honest with yourself and maintaining or slowly advancing… You'll probably spend about 65% of your time working on your full swing (where the changes come slowly), 25% of the time on the short game (where changes come relatively quickly), and 10% of your time working on your putting (where changes can be made very, very quickly.

[parallax]

Quote:

And that seems like a waste of time and effort to me. Better to just say "all parts of my game are roughly equal" (once they are, and you don't have a glaring weakness) and develop them all.

If it works (and this process works in learning all sorts of skills) how could it be a waste of time and effort?

If the parts of your game are not roughly equal, then why develop them all at the same time and pace?

Quote:

Here's why I think that's kind of ridiculous.

Let's say 100% is perfection, and you're at 82% full swing, 83% short game, and 81% putting. So you work on your putting, and now it's 83%. So then you work on your full swing, and it goes to 83%, but your short game's now fallen to 80%, so now you work on that. Then your putting starts to suffer, but your short game is now at 85%, so you work on your putting again.

At the end of the day, if you're honest with yourself and maintaining or slowly advancing…

wait for it…

You'll probably spend about 65% of your time working on your full swing (where the changes come slowly), 25% of the time on the short game (where changes come relatively quickly), and 10% of your time working on your putting (where changes can be made very, very quickly.

And the above was not to be snarky. I just like How I Met Your Mother.

Most golfers I play with are not that "roughtly equal", most have a glaring weakness. The guys who are better than me (low single digits), are in the situation you describe.

Quote:

Simply put: you're not practicing properly. You're probably just hitting balls.

Seriously, all these practice ratios go out the window if you're not actually practicing . There are a few articles here on how to practice. Absolutely none of them would have you "getting worse by over-practicing" (unless it's due to an injury).

I gave that up over a year ago. My practice is quite deliberate, but I do think my practice process could improve. I find it easier to practice my long game on the course. Less shots with better focus, and varying elements, makes me better.

[parallax]

full swing (where the changes come slowly)

the short game (where changes come relatively quickly)

putting (where changes can be made very, very quickly)

This is interesting.

When I first started this was true. Then my expectations changed, and the opposite became true, and now that I am improving (and still raising my expectations) it is becoming true again.

I don't know if everyone goes through this process, or if I am a special case, but it is the basic point of my comments.

[iacas]

If it works (and this process works in learning all sorts of skills) how could it be a waste of time and effort?

I think I was pretty clear on that. And the part I repeated spoke to further reasons. It's simply inefficient to constantly monitor your game to that small a degree where you can't just say "meh, they're roughly equal, I have no glaring weakness, so I'll just work 65/25/10" rather than worrying about tiny weaknesses and constantly trying to stay on top of what your new tiny weakness might be.

If the parts of your game are not roughly equal, then why develop them all at the same time and pace?

That's either putting words in my mouth or misunderstanding everything I've said: if your game is roughly equal, I'm suggesting 65/25/10 will continue to develop or maintain them at the same pace. In other words, once you have no glaring weakness, 65/25/10 will work well to ensure that you don't develop one.

Most golfers I play with are not that "roughtly equal", most have a glaring weakness.

That's your opinion. I disagree, unless you play with some weird exceptions. Most people have fairly even games. Even the guy you know as "a good putter" probably isn't too far ahead of where he should be. There are exceptions, no doubt, but they're called "exceptions" and they stand out because they're not generally how things go.

I gave that up over a year ago. My practice is quite deliberate, but I do think my practice process could improve. I find it easier to practice my long game on the course. Less shots with better focus, and varying elements, makes me better.

If you're practicing on the course you're not really practicing properly. You're just hitting shots. Very little good practice is "let's take a full swing at this ball on the golf course and see what happens to it."

[parallax]

I think I was pretty clear on that. And the part I repeated spoke to further reasons. It's simply inefficient to constantly monitor your game to that small a degree where you can't just say "meh, they're roughly equal, I have no glaring weakness, so I'll just work 65/25/10" rather than worrying about tiny weaknesses and constantly trying to stay on top of what your new tiny weakness might be.

No you were not clear on this. I think you are misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about constantly monitoring your game. It is a process.

You analyze your game and determine where you can gain the most strokes. You practice that part of your game the most until you improve. Repeat.

There is nothing "tiny" or "small degree" to it... until you become a pretty good player.

Originally Posted by iacas

That's either putting words in my mouth or misunderstanding everything I've said: if your game is roughly equal, I'm suggesting 65/25/10 will continue to develop or maintain them at the same pace. In other words, once you have no glaring weakness, 65/25/10 will work well to ensure that you don't develop one.

That's your opinion. I disagree, unless you play with some weird exceptions. Most people have fairly even games. Even the guy you know as "a good putter" probably isn't too far ahead of where he should be. There are exceptions, no doubt, but they're called "exceptions" and they stand out because they're not generally how things go.

I think that this is where we disagree. Along with the difference between a "tiny weakness", "normal weakness", and "glaring weakness".

I'll use your 100% is perfection model (L=long game, S=short game, P=putting) to explain:

Take Plays 3 Times A Year Guy.

L= 20%

S= 10%

P= 20%

20 Handicap #1:

L= 40%

S= 20%

P= 30%

20 Handicap #2:

L= 20%

S= 40%

P= 50%

12 Handicap #1:

L= 50%

S= 60%

P= 70%

12 Handicap #2:

L= 70%

S= 40%

P= 50%

8 Handicap:

L= 70%

S= 60%

P= 60%

3 Handicap:

L= 80%

S= 90%

P= 80%

The guys at the ends of the spectrum (Plays 3 Times a Year, and 3 Handicap) each have fairly even games. The novice sucks everywhere, and any improvement anywhere will be noticed. The 3 handicap is solid, and needs small improvements everywhere to improve. I am willing to bet that most golfers are in between. There is a lot of variation in their skill sets.

I know guys that can bomb their drive, but have poor short games and mediocre putting.... I know guys with weak drives, and excellent short games, and good putting...... I know mediocre drivers of the ball, who have mediocre short games, but are very good putters. And they all score about the same.

The other thing to notice is the difference between 10% and 20% in the 3 Times a Year Guy, is 50%, where as the difference between 80% and 90% is 14%. The difference for less skilled players is "more glaring".

[iacas]

No you were not clear on this. I think you are misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about constantly monitoring your game. It is a process.

I think you missed my point.

You could literally spend ten minutes working on your putting until something else becomes the weakest part of your game if you don't just generalize a little. Again, imagine your three skills are 82, 82, 81. So you work on the 81 until it's an 83. Then you have to re-assess. Did either 82 slip while you were getting the 81 to an 83? How much? More than the other 82?

If you play golf and lip out a bunch of putts, was it just your day or has your putting gone backwards? Or your irons, did you pull them all a little because the wind was goofing with you, or did you actually regress?

That's a waste of time. It is much simpler mentally and schedule-wise to say "my game is roughly even, so I'm going to practice 65/25/10 to keep it even and advance forward."

65/25/10 also serves a secondary purpose: to get people to realize how much practice is truly required to maintain and improve a balanced game. Spending 50 or 60% of your time practicing your short game is wasting time. You may develop your short game a little better… but you might also become bored and form bad habits, all because someone told you how important the short game is.

And again, all of this assumes you're practicing properly. I couldn't tell you what the ratios should be for someone (like yourself) who doesn't practice properly. Practicing means working to improve in this thread. I've had students practice their putting indoors, in their living rooms, without a golf ball. I've had students practice full swing pieces while brushing their teeth using their bathroom mirror. They get better. Practice isn't all on the course, and you need to know what to practice and how, or at least be in the general neighborhood.

You analyze your game and determine where you can gain the most strokes. You practice that part of your game the most until you improve. Repeat.

There is nothing "tiny" or "small degree" to it... until you become a pretty good player.

I disagree. The vast majority of golfers are pretty close to each other. Close enough that trying to find the weakness would be pointless, and next week it might be different anyway.

I'll use your 100% is perfection model (L=long game, S=short game, P=putting) to explain:

I skipped all of that, because you just made stuff up, and it's contrary to my experience with people. Are there some 3 handicaps who have a great short game but who stink at putting and their long game? Sure. Are they the rule or the exception? The latter.

Every one of your contrived examples had glaring weaknesses. So again, none of them fit the criteria to begin 65/25/10. Most golfers, however, do fit 65/25/10 because you listed a bunch of exceptions. Since there's no way to prove it, and it's just my opinion based on my experience, if your counter-argument revolves around the legitimacy of those numbers, and how widespread they are, we can both save ourselves the time.

The guys at the ends of the spectrum (Plays 3 Times a Year, and 3 Handicap) each have fairly even games.

I don't think they do. A 90 short game might be Web.com Tour level… an 80 wouldn't match up with a guy struggling on the mini tours.

And I'm not interested in discussing the "plays three times a year" guy because he's the last guy that's gonna worry about practice ratios.

I know guys that can bomb their drive, but have poor short games and mediocre putting.... I know guys with weak drives, and excellent short games, and good putting...... I know mediocre drivers of the ball, who have mediocre short games, but are very good putters. And they all score about the same.

And they all have glaring weaknesses, as you've just pointed out. They should not worry about 65/25/10.

And again, the second point of this, which I'll say again , is to point out how if you have a reasonably balanced game, spending more than 10% putting or more than 25% on your short game is starting to waste time, be inefficient, and to the detriment of other parts of your game. It's a great way to develop a glaring weakness if you don't have one already.

[saevel25]

No you were not clear on this. I think you are misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about constantly monitoring your game. It is a process.

You analyze your game and determine where you can gain the most strokes. You practice that part of your game the most until you improve. Repeat.

There is nothing "tiny" or "small degree" to it... until you become a pretty good player.

I think that this is where we disagree. Along with the difference between a "tiny weakness", "normal weakness", and "glaring weakness".

I'll use your 100% is perfection model (L=long game, S=short game, P=putting) to explain:

Take Plays 3 Times A Year Guy.

L= 20%

S= 10%

P= 20%

20 Handicap #1:

L= 40%

S= 20%

P= 30%

20 Handicap #2:

L= 20%

S= 40%

P= 50%

12 Handicap #1:

L= 50%

S= 60%

P= 70%

12 Handicap #2:

L= 70%

S= 40%

P= 50%

8 Handicap:

L= 70%

S= 60%

P= 60%

3 Handicap:

L= 80%

S= 90%

P= 80%

The guys at the ends of the spectrum (Plays 3 Times a Year, and 3 Handicap) each have fairly even games. The novice sucks everywhere, and any improvement anywhere will be noticed. The 3 handicap is solid, and needs small improvements everywhere to improve. I am willing to bet that most golfers are in between. There is a lot of variation in their skill sets.

I know guys that can bomb their drive, but have poor short games and mediocre putting.... I know guys with weak drives, and excellent short games, and good putting...... I know mediocre drivers of the ball, who have mediocre short games, but are very good putters. And they all score about the same.

The other thing to notice is the difference between 10% and 20% in the 3 Times a Year Guy, is 50%, where as the difference between 80% and 90% is 14%. The difference for less skilled players is "more glaring".

Pro1 (PGA tour players scoring in the range 64-71),

Pro2 (PGA tour players scoring in the range 72-79),

Am1 (low-handicap amateurs scoring in the range 70-83),

Am2 (middle-handicap amateurs scoring in the range 84-97),

Am3 (high-handicap amateurs scoring in the range 98-120)

In all instances, at every level of play the "Long Game" makes up at least 55% of the strokes for that playing level. It gets higher the closer you get to being a Pro.

Also, to make the long game more important is. Even if you have a TOUR level short game, lets say 60%. If you miss all the greens, then that short game accounts for more to the game. If you hit a lot of greens that short game is less significant. This is because the short game is totally dependent on the long game. Same with putting. If you hit the ball closer to the hole, you will make more putts.

Even still, the difference in putting between a Pro and lets say a decent Amateur at the Am 2 level is 3.7 strokes. Yet there is a 25 stroke difference in overall strokes between the two. That means putting makes up 15% of the stroke difference between the two players. This could be 1 less three putt, and three more one putts. Doesn't sound that big of a difference to me.

Also, if you consider the fact pro's have better short games, then the putting difference is even less. Every up and down is one stroke gained when the other person wouldn't. If a pro gets up and down 50% more of the time than an Am 2, then that means they would be saving 2-3 strokes per round on them.

Due to the fact that outside of 15 feet the difference in putting between an amateur and a pro is even less significant. Also throw in that amateurs play on less than perfect golf courses, this diminishes this by even more. It just proves that the difference in putting isn't that large as people think it is. Were Pro's are good, inside of 15 feet. For a professional golfer the average distance for them to get a 50% chance of 1 putting is just over 8 feet. This lowers to 5 - 6 feet for Am 1 & Am 2. This percentage drops dramatically as the distance increases.

The best way to improve a handicap is still working on the long game. Its a trickle down effect. The pros of working on the long game.

1) Less penalties due lost golf balls, and hazards

2) More opportunities for birdies do to more GIR's and closer proximity to the hole.

3) Less need to use the short game

4) Easier Putts

Cons,

1) Its hard work

2) It takes time and effort

So lets think about this, working on the Long game will lower the strokes required from EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE GAME OF GOLF!!!

Makes me wonder what percentage I should be working on it.

[cipher]

@parallax let me put it like this.   For the entirety of 2013 hit about 50% greens and got up and down a little under 50%.  The year prior I was about 44% and 44%  The point is I spent a lot of time trying to make the changes in the full swing that were tougher.  I spent very little time working on the short game until this past fall and so I did not even see those results.  I spent all season(well 5-6 months here in WI) trying to fine tune the swing and too little time working in the short game and improved about the same in both.  It is not all that different for any handicap.

[Harmonious]

Pro1 (PGA tour players scoring in the range 64-71),

Pro2 (PGA tour players scoring in the range 72-79),

Am1 (low-handicap amateurs scoring in the range 70-83),

Am2 (middle-handicap amateurs scoring in the range 84-97),

Am3 (high-handicap amateurs scoring in the range 98-120)

Here's a little different take: I like the chart, but I think it confuses the issue to compare amateurs with the best players in the world to see where the shots are lost.  In the short term, most Am3 players just want to progress to Am2, and most Am2 players want to become Am1. So let's look at where they would gain their strokes.

Between Am3 and Am2, the putting difference is 2.8 strokes, short game/sand is 4.4 and long game is 8.2. Total difference is 15.4 strokes. On strictly percentage basis, the long/short/putting practice ratio for an Am3 should then be 53/29/18 .

Between Am2 and Am1, the putting difference is 1.5, short/sand is 3.0 and long game is 7.1. Total difference is 11.6. Practice ratio should be 61/26/13 .

Between Am1 and Pro2, the putting difference is 0.4, short/sand is 0.7 and long game is 7.2. Total difference is 8.3. Practice ratio should be 87/8/5 .

Granted these are gross approximations, but it may serve to show that high handicaps should perhaps practice their putting a little more, and low handicaps should spend almost all their time on the long game. Almost seems counter-intuitive to me, as I figured the better one got the less they needed to improve their long game. The numbers show I was wrong. OK, out to the driving range!

[iacas]

Between Am3 and Am2, the putting difference is 2.8 strokes, short game/sand is 4.4 and long game is 8.2. Total difference is 15.4 strokes. On strictly percentage basis, the long/short/putting practice ratio for an Am3 should then be 53/29/18.

That fails to take into account how difficult each of those things are to achieve. You can achieve an 18% gain in putting improvement with far less than 18% of your time spent. Conversely a 53% improvement in the long game will take more effort and time.

The numbers become skewed at the end (Am1/Pro2) for the same reasons that going from a 2 to a 0 is inordinately more difficult than going from an 18 to a 16. That too can skew the numbers based just on strokes gained/lost.

[saevel25]

Here's a little different take: I like the chart, but I think it confuses the issue to compare amateurs with the best players in the world to see where the shots are lost.  In the short term, most Am3 players just want to progress to Am2, and most Am2 players want to become Am1. So let's look at where they would gain their strokes.

Between Am3 and Am2, the putting difference is 2.8 strokes, short game/sand is 4.4 and long game is 8.2. Total difference is 15.4 strokes. On strictly percentage basis, the long/short/putting practice ratio for an Am3 should then be 53/29/18.

Between Am2 and Am1, the putting difference is 1.5, short/sand is 3.0 and long game is 7.1. Total difference is 11.6. Practice ratio should be 61/26/13.

Between Am1 and Pro2, the putting difference is 0.4, short/sand is 0.7 and long game is 7.2. Total difference is 8.3. Practice ratio should be 87/8/5.

Granted these are gross approximations, but it may serve to show that high handicaps should perhaps practice their putting a little more, and low handicaps should spend almost all their time on the long game. Almost seems counter-intuitive to me, as I figured the better one got the less they needed to improve their long game. The numbers show I was wrong. OK, out to the driving range!

It does show that high handicappers need improvement in all areas. Given that subsequent areas in golf lead back to what a person does on their 2nd shot (long game), then improving that has drastic influence on every other aspect of their game.

It also proves that when you get to become a better golfer, the differential between you and your competition is small. The difference between winning and loosing a tournament on tour is basically a few extra chances at making a putt.  Usually it is someone making one extra great shot. Or another golfer making one extra poor shot.

[iacas]

It also proves that when you get to become a better golfer, the differential between you and your competition is small. The difference between winning and loosing a tournament on tour is basically a few extra chances at making a putt.  Usually it is someone making one extra great shot. Or another golfer making one extra poor shot.

Or one golfer having one of those weeks where they just happen to make a lot of putts (in addition to giving himself chances to make putts, of course).

[parallax]

I think you missed my point. You could literally spend ten minutes working on your putting until something else becomes the weakest part of your game if you don't just generalize a little. Again, imagine your three skills are 82, 82, 81. So you work on the 81 until it's an 83. Then you have to re-assess. Did either 82 slip while you were getting the 81 to an 83? How much? More than the other 82? If you play golf and lip out a bunch of putts, was it just your day or has your putting gone backwards? Or your irons, did you pull them all a little because the wind was goofing with you, or did you actually regress? That's a waste of time. It is much simpler mentally and schedule-wise to say "my game is roughly even, so I'm going to practice 65/25/10 to keep it even and advance forward." 65/25/10 also serves a secondary purpose: to get people to realize how much practice is truly required to maintain and improve a balanced game. Spending 50 or 60% of your time practicing your short game is wasting time. You may develop your short game a little better… but you might also become bored and form bad habits, all because someone told you how important the short game is. And again, all of this assumes you're practicing properly. I couldn't tell you what the ratios should be for someone (like yourself) who doesn't practice properly. Practicing means working to improve in this thread. I've had students practice their putting indoors, in their living rooms, without a golf ball. I've had students practice full swing pieces while brushing their teeth using their bathroom mirror. They get better. Practice isn't all on the course, and you need to know what to practice and how, or at least be in the general neighborhood. I disagree. The vast majority of golfers are pretty close to each other. Close enough that trying to find the weakness would be pointless, and next week it might be different anyway. I skipped all of that, because you just made stuff up, and it's contrary to my experience with people. Are there some 3 handicaps who have a great short game but who stink at putting and their long game? Sure. Are they the rule or the exception? The latter. Every one of your contrived examples had glaring weaknesses. So again, none of them fit the criteria to begin 65/25/10. Most golfers, however, do fit 65/25/10 because you listed a bunch of exceptions. Since there's no way to prove it, and it's just my opinion based on my experience, if your counter-argument revolves around the legitimacy of those numbers, and how widespread they are, we can both save ourselves the time.   I don't think they do. A 90 short game might be Web.com Tour level… an 80 wouldn't match up with a guy struggling on the mini tours. And I'm not interested in discussing the "plays three times a year" guy because he's the last guy that's gonna worry about practice ratios.   And they all have glaring weaknesses, as you've just pointed out. They should not worry about 65/25/10. And again, the second point of this, which I'll say again , is to point out how if you have a reasonably balanced game, spending more than 10% putting or more than 25% on your short game is starting to waste time, be inefficient, and to the detriment of other parts of your game. It's a great way to develop a glaring weakness if you don't have one already.

I guess we will just ave to disagree, I am fairly observant and the vast majority of golfers I play with 8-20 handicap, have glaring weaknesses. I have been one of them in the past. My numbers were made up (just like yours, it's your model), to make the point that the same proficiency discrepancy for less skilled golfers is a larger and more gloating weakness, than for better players. The implication you are making, that I don't know how to practice because I disagree with you is laughable.

[parallax]

That fails to take into account how difficult each of those things are to achieve. You can achieve an 18% gain in putting improvement with far less than 18% of your time spent. Conversely a 53% improvement in the long game will take more effort and time. The numbers become skewed at the end (Am1/Pro2) for the same reasons that going from a 2 to a 0 is inordinately more difficult than going from an 18 to a 16. That too can skew the numbers based just on strokes gained/lost.

You are making stuff up to fit your model. This is called confirmation bias. It seems YOUR mind is made up, so I'll leave you to it..:~(