Are you spending 70% of your practice time on your short game like Michael Breed implies you should?

[Dave2512]

Typical oblivious statement from an industry insider. You hear a lot of misinformation from the Golf Channel folks.

[Big C]

For a pro and practicing lots of hours a day, say six, then I can understand the 70% short game.  With those kind of hours, they have to be concerned with wear and tear on the body from the full swings.

That's a good point. Even though the pros are in great shape, 4-5 hours a day working on the full swing would be extremely hard on one's body. There comes a point where physically you just cannot put in more hours on your swing.

For the harder working pros out there, I'd imagine that tilts the scale towards short game.

[Golfingdad]

I would say I spend about 50% of my practice time in the short game area.  I work on bunker shots, just of the green with my PW, and then back up to 50 yards, and go 50-40-30-20 with about 20 balls at each location.  It has helped out my short game tremendously, and I now have the confidence to get up and down from anywhere around the green.  In fact, yesterday I went out and it was a bit windy, I only hit 38% GIR, but shot a 76 just because I was able to get up and down.  Time spent on the short game is time well spent IMO.

The counter argument is that perhaps you could spend 25-30% of your practice in the short game area, have it still be well spent and become proficient at getting up and down, and use that extra 20-25% of the time practicing your full swing such that you may have to use your short game less often.

---

To the OP, I would bet that if we had the researchers to handle it, we could compile a list of things Michael Breed says, or Martin Hall, or any of these guys, and add up all of the hyperbole-of-the-day into a crazy pie chart that adds up to like 725%.

[RFKFREAK]

[rule]To the OP, I would bet that if we had the researchers to handle it, we could compile a list of things Michael Breed says, or Martin Hall, or any of these guys, and add up all of the hyperbole-of-the-day into a crazy pie chart that adds up to like 725%.:-P

Oh, I know. I hear what they say sometimes and think about where they came up with it. I enjoy posting the preposterous things they say, sadly, though, I won't be posting stuff Martin Hall says because I just can't watch his show anymore. I find the show has gone downhill since Karen Stupples stopped being his guest co-host.

[Grinde6]

The counter argument is that perhaps you could spend 25-30% of your practice in the short game area, have it still be well spent and become proficient at getting up and down, and use that extra 20-25% of the time practicing your full swing such that you may have to use your short game less often. [rule]To the OP, I would bet that if we had the researchers to handle it, we could compile a list of things Michael Breed says, or Martin Hall, or any of these guys, and add up all of the hyperbole-of-the-day into a crazy pie chart that adds up to like 725%.:-P

I guess my counter argument is that if I spend more time on my short game it takes pressure off the rest of my game because now my approach shot can be anywhere within 20-30 yards of the green and I am very confident that I will at least get the ball up and down for par, maybe chip in. Not saying I'm ok with that scenario every hole, but it has definitely taken pressure off the rest of my game.

[Mugs050]

I enjoy practicing the short game more then the long game. After a small bucket say 20-30 shots I am bored of the long game. However I can practise getting up and down for a solid hour before my mind starts wandering.

What's better for my game? Hard to say I fight the BIG miss the pull hook but generally I am solid throughout the bag.

[shortstop20]

I guess my counter argument is that if I spend more time on my short game it takes pressure off the rest of my game because now my approach shot can be anywhere within 20-30 yards of the green and I am very confident that I will at least get the ball up and down for par, maybe chip in. Not saying I'm ok with that scenario every hole, but it has definitely taken pressure off the rest of my game.

That's all fine and well for a 1.2 handicap but the 20 handicappers out there need to learn how not to chunk and thin the ball around the course more than they need to develop a solid short game.

[Jackal66]

Out of 1-1/2 to 2 hours practice, 1/2 hour is wedges.

My mid game is where I need help. 150 -165 yard range, down to 125 yards.

My driver isn't predictable right now, but it is staying in fairway.

The second shots/recovery type are my biggest problem.

Hitting low shots from under trees, side hill lie, uphill and downhill.

If I could get my 2nd shot within 10 foot of the green on par 4's, then I could chip up and 1 or 2 putt.

I work on chipping, but don't spend too much time there, yet.

Jack

[Jeremie Boop]

Of course I do, and I spend 90% of that time making sure the grooves are clean and sharp on my wedges so when I compress the ball into the ground I get optimal spin results. ROFL

[cedrictheo]

I spend very little time on my short game, maybe 15%. However every once in a while my technique for a certain short game shot will go awry and I'll focus maybe 50% on that until I have it dialed in.

[Golfingdad]

I guess my counter argument is that if I spend more time on my short game it takes pressure off the rest of my game because now my approach shot can be anywhere within 20-30 yards of the green and I am very confident that I will at least get the ball up and down for par, maybe chip in. Not saying I'm ok with that scenario every hole, but it has definitely taken pressure off the rest of my game.

I completely appreciate that.  Proficiency in the short game can definitely relax you and help a bit in the long game.  I just think that it's not that terribly hard of a task.  So at some point, you're "wasting" your practice.  Meaning that if you cut back to, say, 30% of your practice time on the short game, perhaps you'd lose nothing, whereas you'd gain a lot with more practice time that's now added to your long game.

Plus, I dump it in the category of a "band aid" instead of fixing the root problem.  Certainly it's good to know basic first aid, but perhaps it's better practice driving (no pun intended) so I don't get in the car accident in the first place.

[RFKFREAK]

The way I look at it, I'd rather spend the majority of my time practicing my long game to get better getting more GIR and be putting for birdies rather than spending the vast majority of the time practicing my short game (which I feel is what Breed is suggesting) when, in most circumstances, the best I'll be able to score will be par.

[GolfLug]

For me it is at a point where I practice the driver only for 75% of the time if I ever get to the range. I have posted elsewhere but this club is worth a +/- 5-6 shots for me. Once I get to a certain level (a predetermined comfort level) I will do more long irons and the short irons, etc. While I can appreciate the nuances of the short game and keeping it sharp, beyond a basic functional motion, there is not much to practice that will make sufficient difference in my game.

I am assuming the pro has the most number of strokes to shave in the short game area. I don't know. Hugely different priorities.

[logo]

I'm trying to drive well and get that 150 yard iron shot on the green. I will spend more time on my short game when my shots are nice and straight and my GIR is much better. For now my short game is on the back burner.

[Shindig]

I guess my counter argument is that if I spend more time on my short game it takes pressure off the rest of my game because now my approach shot can be anywhere within 20-30 yards of the green and I am very confident that I will at least get the ball up and down for par, maybe chip in. Not saying I'm ok with that scenario every hole, but it has definitely taken pressure off the rest of my game.

I agree completely that having a competent (or better) short game makes approaches easier. This is especially true for long approaches, where we don't expect to get to within 30' even if we hit the green, and so birdie is almost entirely out of the question, par is a good score, and bogey isn't terrible. Of course, just how far out that is is probably closer to the green for me than it is for you. But the #1 on the PGA Tour in scrambling is barely over 70% (70.59%, Chad Collins), and the 100th best is under 60% (Keegan Bradley, 59.35%). And a large fraction of their misses are in better spots than you're likely to miss in (due to their superior ball striking). So while confidence is certainly better than standing over a shot thinking "I suck at this sort of thing," there's a practical ceiling to how good we can get. I hope it doesn't seem like we're piling on you for this topic; many of us think your game will improve further if you take some time away from the short game practice (don't neglect it entirely) and improve your ball striking -- if your 20-30 yard misses become 10-20 yard misses, your scrambling percent (and score) will likely improve, even with the reduced time devoted to the short game.

[Grinde6]

That's all fine and well for a 1.2 handicap but the 20 handicappers out there need to learn how not to chunk and thin the ball around the course more than they need to develop a solid short game.

Oh..I guess I was just going off the thread heading that asks if we are spending the 70% time on short game that Breed suggests...didn't know we were breaking it down by handicap. And I guessing would counter argue your claim that 20 handicappers need to work on long game more. If they could shoot for 20-30 yards from the green with their approach and have confidence to get up and down then their short game is pretty important...

[rkim291968]

Been playing and practicing golf for 6 years.   My short game practice percentage ranged from 10% to 60% during that time.  It probably averaged 35% over the years.    I am flexible though.   If my short game suddenly goes south, I will put more practice time there.

N/A for my wife.   She counts watching golf on TV as practice, and have been steadily improving her golf game in the same 6 years.   I need to figure out how she's doing that.

[iacas]

I guess my counter argument is that if I spend more time on my short game it takes pressure off the rest of my game because now my approach shot can be anywhere within 20-30 yards of the green and I am very confident that I will at least get the ball up and down for par, maybe chip in. Not saying I'm ok with that scenario every hole, but it has definitely taken pressure off the rest of my game.

You can't be very confident of that, when the best players with the best conditions (PGA Tour players) are not getting up and down frequently enough to be "very confident that [they] will at least get the ball up and down or maybe chip in."

Your odds of getting up and down are ALWAYS lower (given a large enough sample size, and one shot doesn't count) than your odds of two-putting from the same distance (let alone a shorter distance).

Check this thread out @Grinde6 :

Also, PGA Tour pros do not spend 70% of their time practicing their short games.