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

[iacas]

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 disagree, yes. And again, if they have glaring weaknesses, you really can't complain about trying to pigeon hole people because I specifically say, in bold text IIRC, that those people don't fit the 65/25/10 guidelines.

My numbers were made up (just like yours, it's your model)

65/25/10 was not "made up." And the 80-84% numbers were made up but make a point - they could have been any series of close numbers. The point there was to show that if you constantly only work on your "slight weakness" it'll be a constantly revolving door… and you're likely to end up at 65/25/10 or thereabouts anyway. It's a hassle and wasted effort to constantly track things down to that nth degree.

The implication you are making, that I don't know how to practice because I disagree with you is laughable.

I've never implied that. I've told you that don't know how to practice for improvement because of the statements you've made about how you "practice."

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..

False. It's easier to get better at putting than to get better at the full swing.

Seriously, c'mon. How long do you think you'd have to train to putt as well as a PGA Tour player? How long do you think you'd have to train to have a full swing that works as well as a PGA Tour player?

It's not even close. The putting motion is simple and easy to learn.

My mind's not made up - I love to change my mind because as a scientifically oriented person that's the fastest way to improve on something - to learn something new. But you've not said anything that makes me re-consider anything, really.

[saevel25]

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.

Nope, not made up. It clearly shows that the long game makes up 55-90% of strokes gained by the golfer, depending on skill level. Better golfers the strokes gained in long game make up more. With Amateurs not so much because strokes are wasted elsewhere. But, long game is at least 55% the amount of strokes for the golfer.

[iacas]

Nope, not made up. It clearly shows that the long game makes up 55-90% of strokes gained by the golfer, depending on skill level. Better golfers the strokes gained in long game make up more. With Amateurs not so much because strokes are wasted elsewhere. But, long game is at least 55% the amount of strokes for the golfer.

To be fair I think he was talking about my 80-84% numbers.

The point of those was to illustrate how much of a waste of time it would be to track what your current "weakness" is (not to mention how that would literally be impossible) and work on that… and how even if you were able to do that (you can't possibly measure things to that degree), you'd probably end up close to 65/25/10 anyway.

But you're right that 65/25/10 is based on:

1. Where shots are generally gained or lost.
2. How relatively easy or difficult the skills are to improve.
3. A golfer without a glaring weakness… in which case everyone agrees they should work on that first, with up to 100% effort.

You're right that those numbers aren't "made up" at all.

P.S. I'm off to meet up with Dave so we can continue to write our successfully funded book on shooting lower scores. So if I don't respond until this evening (when I have a soccer game, so maybe not then either…), that'll be the answer to "where's Erik?" I'm sure others will be around though.

[billchao]

The more I read this, the more I believe that @parallax is misunderstanding the use of "glaring" weakness. It's glaring relative to the individual golfer's skill, not compared to a better golfer or a scratch ability. I have a glaring weakness. My long game is holding me back, so I work on it more. My short game and putting are actually pretty good for my level (actually, I should spend a little more time on my putting because it's starting to regress). I have a friend who scores a bit better than me, but I'm amazed that he plays as well as he does, given his skills all around. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, he just kind of hacks around every aspect of the game. I'd say his skills are weak, but equally so, and therefore he should folow the practice model.

[saevel25]

P.S. I'm off to meet up with Dave so we can continue to write our successfully funded book on shooting lower scores. So if I don't respond until this evening (when I have a soccer game, so maybe not then either…), that'll be the answer to "where's Erik?" I'm sure others will be around though.

WRITE AWAY!!!

[Stretch]

Imma just leave Stewart Cink's head here to demonstrate that no matter what you practice, you betta practice a lot!

PS: Potentially relevant for the "Do you take your hat off when shaking hands?" thread.

[Ernest Jones]

Imma just leave Stewart Cink's head here to demonstrate that no matter what you practice, you betta practice a lot!

PS: Potentially relevant for the "Do you take your hat off when shaking hands?" thread.

Image saved for future use as avatar.

[Hammer 4]

Wonder if ole Stu, went to a fake bake salon to even that tan out..?  lol

[saevel25]

Quote:

Many of the results show that conventional wisdom is not to be trusted. For example, breaking down the ShotLink numbers for the top 40 players from 2004 to 2012, Broadie shows that approach shots accounted for 40 percent of their scoring advantage, driving accounted for 28 percent, the short game (shots off the green and inside 100 yards) for 17 percent and putting for 15 percent.

"The importance of the long game versus the short game is surprising to many people, but looking at the data it is striking how true it is throughout the whole range, from top pros to lesser pros to amateurs," says Broadie. "It becomes clear if you think about some examples. If I were playing a par 5 of 550 yards and I could have Tiger Woods hit the shots outside 100 yards or inside 100 yards, I think it's pretty clear I would choose outside 100."

Proponents of the importance of putting might be encouraged by the fact that wielding a hot putter is somewhat more of a factor in winning, as putting contributes 35 percent to victories as opposed to 15 percent to being a top player overall. However, that still leaves tee-to-green play the greatest contributor to taking home the top prize. In the 2013 season, the week's leader in strokes gained/tee to green won eight times and finished second 11 times in the 30 tournaments where all four rounds were covered by ShotLink, finishing out of the top 10 only once. The week's leader in strokes gained/putting won only twice with just four runner-up finishes, missing the top 10 fully a third of the time.

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/2014-01/gwar-shotlink-feature-david-barrett-0113?currentPage=2#ixzz2q1hjb5Sk

A bit of information from Golf Digest on Shot Link and how it is used by touring professionals.

[mvmac]

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.

I think it's clear you don't understand the definition of "glaring weakness".  You're reading "glaring weakness" as being the same thing as "weakness", it's two different things.  Sand saves might be the weakest part of my game but I get it out of the bunker each time and make a few up and downs.  Glaring weakness would be either leaving it in the bunker or skulling it across the green the majority of the time I'm in the bunker.

[iacas]

I think it's clear you don't understand the definition of "glaring weakness".

The more I read this, the more I believe that @parallax is misunderstanding the use of "glaring" weakness. It's glaring relative to the individual golfer's skill, not compared to a better golfer or a scratch ability.

…

I have a friend who scores a bit better than me, but I'm amazed that he plays as well as he does, given his skills all around. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, he just kind of hacks around every aspect of the game. I'd say his skills are weak, but equally so, and therefore he should folow the practice model.

I think these are both pretty close to the truth.

[parallax]

I think these are both pretty close to the truth.

If you read my posts you will see that I am not confused about the concept of a "glaring weakness" (both of the assessments you quoted would be incorrect)... It was actually the point of my "made up" percentages using your model.

My evidence is only anecdotal, and is only based upon observing the players I play with (my friends, and random golfers I am paired with weekly). My observations are that "most" golfers in the mid-handicap range (10-18) have a glaring weakness. Some have a glaring weakness in the long game (hit OB alot, or not long enough), some have a glaring weakness in the short game (can't get the ball on the green with one shot, or can't get close enough for an easy 2-putt), and some have a glaring weakness in their putting (have bad touch, bad aim, and 3 putt or more a lot). If these golfers didn't have a strength in one or two of these parts of golf, they would be a lot worse! The golfers at the other ends of the spectrum (low single digits, and "plays 3 times a year guy"), don't have glaring weaknesses. The good player has overall strength, and the bad player has overall weakness. Neither "glaring".

I am not a golf pro, and have only been playing for (almost) 3 years (GolfShot says my handicap is now 7.8, and consistently steadily dropping), but I do have a lot of experience with practice (other sports and music), and have a degree in Cognitive Science. So I am familiar with learning and practice. I have used a feedback method of self assessment, and focused (on specific aspects of the discipline) practice/study, to good success.

I would actually go so far to claim, that most people when learning most new disciplines, would go from beginner (all around weakness), to intermediate (where some necessary skills come easy and others not, therefore developing a (or multiple) glaring weakness), to advanced (no glaring weakness, and relative strength).

So... this is why I disagree with the proposed regimen. It doesn't jive with my experience or observations (in golf, or other disciplines). I understand that you disagree. And, frankly, I am surprised that you guys (who are actually golf pros, and observe intermediate golfers daily) think otherwise.

[iacas]

If you read my posts you will see that I am not confused about the concept of a "glaring weakness" (both of the assessments you quoted would be incorrect).

I did read your posts, and that's why I concluded that you seemed to be confused about what constituted a glaring weakness.

My observations are that "most" golfers in the mid-handicap range (10-18) have a glaring weakness.

Great. So then… the 65/25/10 stuff doesn't apply to them.

The golfers at the other ends of the spectrum (low single digits, and "plays 3 times a year guy"), don't have glaring weaknesses.

That's incorrect. Boo Weekley is one of the best ball strikers on the PGA Tour, but he's got a glaring weakness.

The good player has overall strength, and the bad player has overall weakness. Neither "glaring".

I'll say this again: "glaring" is relative to the level of the other parts of your game.

I would actually go so far to claim, that most people when learning most new disciplines, would go from beginner (all around weakness), to intermediate (where some necessary skills come easy and others not, therefore developing a (or multiple) glaring weakness), to advanced (no glaring weakness, and relative strength).

And I will continue to disagree with that.

Sidney Crosby is (arguably) one of the best players in the NHL. He works every summer on what he feels is the glaring weakness in his game. One year it was face-offs, for example. Alexander Ovechkin's a pretty good player too, but his glaring weakness is that he only plays on half the ice. To date, he's done little to address that. The "glaring" nature may be reduced slightly at the higher levels, and it may not be as obvious, but that doesn't mean it's not still potentially there.

I see a lot of golfers in the +1 to 3 handicap range who I would say have glaring weaknesses. Sometimes it's things that don't even need practicing - like simple course management - and sometimes it's basic stuff like "you three putt a lot from 30+ feet."

I understand that you disagree. And, frankly, I am surprised that you guys (who are actually golf pros, and observe intermediate golfers daily) think otherwise.

And I feel that the fact that we're good instructors who observe golfers daily is why we disagree.

You seem to keep missing one thing, too: if you have a glaring weakness, 65/25/10 doesn't apply. Work mostly on that. 65/25/10 is only for when your skills are fairly equal. So… many PGA Tour players (most aren't extreme cases like Boo), and many higher handicappers who suck at everything.

And that's the thing… You actually agree more than you realize.

[parallax]

I did read your posts, and that's why I concluded that you seemed to be confused about what constituted a glaring weakness.

Great. So then… the 65/25/10 stuff doesn't apply to them.

That's incorrect. Boo Weekley is one of the best ball strikers on the PGA Tour, but he's got a glaring weakness.

I'll say this again: "glaring" is relative to the level of the other parts of your game.

And I will continue to disagree with that.

Sidney Crosby is (arguably) one of the best players in the NHL. He works every summer on what he feels is the glaring weakness in his game. One year it was face-offs, for example. Alexander Ovechkin's a pretty good player too, but his glaring weakness is that he only plays on half the ice. To date, he's done little to address that.  The "glaring" nature may be reduced slightly at the higher levels, and it may not be as obvious, but that doesn't mean it's not still potentially there.

I see a lot of golfers in the +1 to 3 handicap range who I would say have glaring weaknesses. Sometimes it's things that don't even need practicing - like simple course management - and sometimes it's basic stuff like "you three putt a lot from 30+ feet."

And I feel that the fact that we're good instructors who observe golfers daily is why we disagree.

You seem to keep missing one thing, too: if you have a glaring weakness, 65/25/10 doesn't apply. Work mostly on that. 65/25/10 is only for when your skills are fairly equal. So… many PGA Tour players (most aren't extreme cases like Boo), and many higher handicappers who suck at everything.

And that's the thing… You actually agree more than you realize.

The only thing I can conclude from your post(s) is that you have poor reading comprehension skills. I am not making absolute statements, yet you are countering with examples as if I have.

And since you agree that there are so many golfers with "glaring weaknesses", you actually AGREE with me, deeming your practice ratio regimen moot. Yet you continue to argue to confirm your narrow theory.

I will kindly bow out from this thread now, since it is obvious that we are not getting anywhere.... Since it sounds like you are writing a book on this subject, I will periodically return to see if it is out. I enjoy reading material that is counter to my experience and own personal approach.

[iacas]

The only thing I can conclude from your post(s) is that you have poor reading comprehension skills.

Ian, since you may wonder why a moderator restricted you from the thread, that's the answer.

I am not making absolute statements, yet you are countering with examples as if I have.

Absolute-ish statement: " The golfers at the other ends of the spectrum (low single digits, and "plays 3 times a year guy"), don't have glaring weaknesses."

And since you agree that there are so many golfers with "glaring weaknesses", you actually AGREE with me, deeming your practice ratio regimen moot.

I didn't agree. I simply said "great" and pointed out that the very rule itself, in bold, excludes anyone with a glaring weakness from practicing 65/25/10.

I've said several times that most people don't have a glaring weakness.

---

And let's assume I thought 90% of golfers had a glaring weakness (I do not; I believe the percentage is well under 50%). So what if I wrote a thread that pertains to 10% of golfers? Do those golfers not deserve guidance because they have a relatively balanced game?

[mvmac]

That's incorrect. Boo Weekley is one of the best ball strikers on the PGA Tour, but he's got a glaring weakness.

I'll say this again: "glaring" is relative to the level of the other parts of your game.

Exactly, I think you said this earlier but you can be a high handicap and not have a glaring weakness and be a tour pro and have one aspect of your game that really sucks.  Off the top of my head, other than Boo, Bernard Langer, Grant Waite with putting and Kenny Perry with pitching/chipping (couple years ago).

[RFKFREAK]

That's incorrect. Boo Weekley is one of the best ball strikers on the PGA Tour, but he's got a glaring weakness.

I don't follow Boo Weekley at all.  What's his glaring weakness?

[Golfingdad]

I don't follow Boo Weekley at all.  What's his glaring weakness?

English.