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

[boogielicious]

Oh, Breed, you just keep bringing it.

I wonder where he got his 70% figure from.

It should be obvious from this that you want to hit more GIR!!!!!!!  You only do that by practicing the long game more than the short game.

[GHIN0011458]

Honestly I slowly go more towards the short game throughout the tournament season. I work heavily on the full swing from March and April. End of April I start learning to score again. Here is my problem- I average 11-12 GIR per round, usually doesn't matter the length of the course. Ultimately I end up practicing up to 50 percent short game (putting and chipping). Practice two times a week plus about 3 rounds per week or two rounds per week practice 3 times per week. Usually I get my practice round in for a tournament as well as playing two tournament rounds on the weekend. Luckily, I have 3 tournament rounds this weekend.

[DeadMan]

The day or two before a tournament, I'll practice my short game 70% of the time. Does that count?

[MrDC]

Yeah the 70% thing is probably a bit much, the more I think about it I'm probably closer to 50-50, but the 70% thing is kind of just a way of saying stop spending so much time hitting the irons and driver, it's fun but wasting valuable time after a while, there are so many variables around the greens and so many lose a big chunk of shots there it's just wise to work harder on the short game, and that advise is for those that can already hit their driver and irons, not those still learning, those people should be at the range learning to hit the long ball first IMO, 90% of time.

[iacas]

Yeah the 70% thing is probably a bit much, the more I think about it I'm probably closer to 50-50, but the 70% thing is kind of just a way of saying stop spending so much time hitting the irons and driver, it's fun but wasting valuable time after a while, there are so many variables around the greens and so many lose a big chunk of shots there it's just wise to work harder on the short game, and that advise is for those that can already hit their driver and irons, not those still learning, those people should be at the range learning to hit the long ball first IMO, 90% of time.

It's really not.

The long game is where you save the most strokes, and where there is the most room for improvement. It's not even close.

[MrDC]

It's really not.

The long game is where you save the most strokes, and where there is the most room for improvement. It's not even close.

But what if the person is good with driver and long irons/H/W, not long but accurate, but 3 putts all the time, chips short/over the green constantly, takes two to get out of bunkers, and rarely gets it up and down? how many strokes can they really save by getting longer?

I see it all the time.

I think what you're talking about is better players, where they can see the most improvement is with more length, of course, but I'm talking about weekend players, most of us, that are pretty decent with the long-ish shots because they spend so much time at the range, but then take 5 shots to get in from the approach.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

It's really not.

The long game is where you save the most strokes, and where there is the most room for improvement. It's not even close.

But what if the person is good with driver and long irons/H/W, not long but accurate, but 3 putts all the time, chips short/over the green constantly and rarely gets it up and down? how many strokes can they really save by getting longer?

I see it all the time.

I think what you're talking about is better players, where they can see the most improvement is with more length, of course, but I'm talking about weekend players, most of us, that are pretty decent with the long-ish shots because they spend so much time at the range, but then take 5 shots to get in after the approach.

No.  His data is a based on players of all levels.  GIR is king. Near GIR is queen.  For players at our level, the long game is even more important.  If you can't come close to getting a GIR, you are wasting strokes.

[MrDC]

No.  His data is a based on players of all levels.  GIR is king. Near GIR is queen.  For players at our level, the long game is even more important.  If you can't come close to getting a GIR, you are wasting strokes.

Yes but isn't a 60-100 yd shot a big part of getting a GIR on par 5's? 120 yd approach on par 4's?- but are still the short game.

[rkim291968]

But what if the person is good with driver and long irons/H/W, not long but accurate, but 3 putts all the time, chips short/over the green constantly, takes two to get out of bunkers, and rarely gets it up and down? how many strokes can they really save by getting longer?

I see it all the time.

I think what you're talking about is better players, where they can see the most improvement is with more length, of course, but I'm talking about weekend players, most of us, that are pretty decent with the long-ish shots because they spend so much time at the range, but then take 5 shots to get in from the approach.

I see it, too.   When I see it, I mutter to myself, "if I have his long game, I will be playing to 5 HI."  But we are talking generality here.   For most golfers (iacas will say "all"), focus on long game is where the most bang for the buck is.   But I believe short game is easy to get to certain level, and maintain it.  Early on, I spent more than 50% of my practice on short game - putting, chipping mostly.   My short game practice time is about 30% (maybe less) now.  Most of it is spend on keeping my short game at my current level. A little bit of that time is spent on working on a specific skill I want to add to my short game.   The rest (70%+) of my practice is focused on ball striking, IMO, much harder part of the two.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

It's really not.

The long game is where you save the most strokes, and where there is the most room for improvement. It's not even close.

But what if the person is good with driver and long irons/H/W, not long but accurate, but 3 putts all the time, chips short/over the green constantly, takes two to get out of bunkers, and rarely gets it up and down? how many strokes can they really save by getting longer?

I see it all the time.

I think what you're talking about is better players, where they can see the most improvement is with more length, of course, but I'm talking about weekend players, most of us, that are pretty decent with the long-ish shots because they spend so much time at the range, but then take 5 shots to get in from the approach.

I don't see a lot of weekend players who are "pretty decent with the long-ish shots".  I see a lot of weekend players who hit driver OB or into unplayable lies, top or shank their long irons/fairway woods and cost themselves a lot of strokes on the way to the green.  Being an ace with the short game doesn't mean a lot when you're getting up and down for a triple bogey.

Also, iacas (and others making the same points) aren't talking about an either/or proposition (practicing long game vs. short game).  Putting, chipping and pitching are much less complex and  skills than the full swing (a good and consistent full swing, anyway).  Nobody is saying not to ever practice short game - just that it doesn't merit as much practice time (or matter as much to the average amateur's score overall) as the full swing does.

[Shindig]

But what if the person is good with driver and long irons/H/W, not long but accurate, but 3 putts all the time, chips short/over the green constantly, takes two to get out of bunkers, and rarely gets it up and down? how many strokes can they really save by getting longer? I see it all the time. I think what you're talking about is better players, where they can see the most improvement is with more length, of course, but I'm talking about weekend players, most of us, that are pretty decent with the long-ish shots because they spend so much time at the range, but then take 5 shots to get in from the approach.

I've [i]never[/i] seen a player who has a good long game but has a short game like you describe. I suppose it's theoretically possible to hit 18 GIR and not break 90, but that sort of thing doesn't happen. And if it does, then their short game is glaring weakness (see the 65/20/15 thread, linked above) and needs to be worked on... But if their full swing mechanics are as good as you describe, they aren't in 3-putt range that often. And if they are, the problem with their putting can be fixed in an afternoon, maybe two if you include a putter fitting. Learning a competent short game doesn't take that long, and it's certainly a lot easier to maintain. [quote name="MrDC" url="/t/81674/are-you-spending-70-of-your-practice-time-on-your-short-game-like-michael-breed-implies-you-should/54#post_1135332"] Yes but isn't a 60-100 yd shot a big part of getting a GIR on par 5's? 120 yd approach on par 4's?- but are still the short game. [/quote] You have an interesting definition of "short game." The shots you describe involve shots that are exclusively full swing mechanics.

[iacas]

But what if the person is good with driver and long irons/H/W, not long but accurate, but 3 putts all the time, chips short/over the green constantly, takes two to get out of bunkers, and rarely gets it up and down? how many strokes can they really save by getting longer?

Then that person has a glaring weakness (or three). But…

I see it all the time.

… they're not that common. In other words, "no you don't." You don't see it all the time. You don't see a guy regularly hitting 9-10 GIR and shooting 89 because he's such a lousy putter. It just doesn't happen often at all.

Yes but isn't a 60-100 yd shot a big part of getting a GIR on par 5's? 120 yd approach on par 4's?- but are still the short game.

No. Those are full swing skills. 60-100 yards are not chip shots or pitch shots. They're not putts. They're smaller full swings. A 3/4 swing is still a "Full Swing Motion." It's not a chip motion.

Plus, most people don't have many sub-120-yard approach shots on par fours. If you have a bunch you're either freakishly long or you're playing the wrong sets of tees.

I see it, too.   When I see it, I mutter to myself, "if I have his long game, I will be playing to 5 HI."  But we are talking generality here.   For most golfers (iacas will say "all"), focus on long game is where the most bang for the buck is.   But I believe short game is easy to get to certain level, and maintain it.  Early on, I spent more than 50% of my practice on short game - putting, chipping mostly.   My short game practice time is about 30% (maybe less) now.  Most of it is spend on keeping my short game at my current level. A little bit of that time is spent on working on a specific skill I want to add to my short game.   The rest (70%+) of my practice is focused on ball striking, IMO, much harder part of the two.

I don't say "all." If you have a glaring weakness, work on that. If your game is pretty even, and you want to maintain or improve at the same levels, 65/20/15 is roughly a good way to proceed.

I don't see a lot of weekend players who are "pretty decent with the long-ish shots".  I see a lot of weekend players who hit driver OB or into unplayable lies, top or shank their long irons/fairway woods and cost themselves a lot of strokes on the way to the green.  Being an ace with the short game doesn't mean a lot when you're getting up and down for a triple bogey.

You and I must live on the same planet! :D

Also, iacas (and others making the same points) aren't talking about an either/or proposition (practicing long game vs. short game).  Putting, chipping and pitching are much less complex and  skills than the full swing (a good and consistent full swing, anyway).  Nobody is saying not to ever practice short game - just that it doesn't merit as much practice time (or matter as much to the average amateur's score overall) as the full swing does.

Precisely.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

I see it, too.   When I see it, I mutter to myself, "if I have his long game, I will be playing to 5 HI."  But we are talking generality here.   For most golfers (iacas will say "all" ), focus on long game is where the most bang for the buck is.   But I believe short game is easy to get to certain level, and maintain it.  Early on, I spent more than 50% of my practice on short game - putting, chipping mostly.   My short game practice time is about 30% (maybe less) now.  Most of it is spend on keeping my short game at my current level. A little bit of that time is spent on working on a specific skill I want to add to my short game.   The rest (70%+) of my practice is focused on ball striking, IMO, much harder part of the two.

I don't say "all." If you have a glaring weakness, work on that. If your game is pretty even, and you want to maintain or improve at the same levels, 65/20/15 is roughly a good way to proceed.

Forgot a smilie in my previous post.   Fixed in the quote above.   I know what you have been saying in bold (in countless posts in similar threads).

[GHIN0011458]

I've never seen a player who has a good long game but has a short game like you describe. I suppose it's theoretically possible to hit 18 GIR and not break 90, but that sort of thing doesn't happen. And if it does, then their short game is glaring weakness (see the 65/20/15 thread, linked above) and needs to be worked on...

But if their full swing mechanics are as good as you describe, they aren't in 3-putt range that often. And if they are, the problem with their putting can be fixed in an afternoon, maybe two if you include a putter fitting. Learning a competent short game doesn't take that long, and it's certainly a lot easier to maintain.

You have an interesting definition of "short game." The shots you describe involve shots that are exclusively full swing mechanics.

Me- well minus the chipping. I can 3 putt from 20 feet no problem.

The local PGA pro who just won an event states he only practices 50 yard shots to my friend who played with him. Now to me, that makes no sense, but if he is that comfortable over the last 3-4 years with where his long game is at, maybe it is what helps him score well.

I will say this, golf is VERY mental. While numbers and statistics are fun to look at and do make sense, the placebo of working on short game may be just as important as working on long game possibly? Remember Power Balance bracelets? People wore them and in their minds, thought they performed better but in reality, it was a placebo. Anything to mentally help you is also of big benefit for the game of golf.

If Vegas were playing, they would take the long game every time because they go based off of stats. If the Cubs go into the playoffs with the #1 seed, Vegas will play those odds accordingly when we all know they will choke and not win the World Series. Not sure if that is connecting over the internet and making sense, but some things get you mentally prepared more than others, and those are intangibles that we cannot quantify.

[Strandly]

Yeah 70% short game practice is absurd.

[RFKFREAK]

It should be obvious from this that you want to hit more GIR!!!!!!!  You only do that by practicing the long game more than the short game.

It's funny, when I saw that on the screen, I thought that it's pretty messed up that they're saying that practicing to hit more GIR's wouldn't be a better use of time than spending a significantly more amount of time on the short game than the long game.

[Gunther]

Just starting into LSW and while this concept seems counter-intuitive to everything I've ever been told, I'm a believer. Numbers can be fudged but the data provided in the book is really indisputable. Long game is where to spend your time, which coincidentally, is a concept I've always followed, although somewhat guiltily in the past. No more. I chip maybe 20 or 30 balls during a typical range session and never putt. I practice putting before the round cuz here in TX, greens are so different course to course that it doesn't make sense to practice on the fuzzy driving range green. I also have a 7' putting strip in my house where I can groove my stroke but speed practice is done before a round.

[mdl]

So I'm totally in agreement with the general 65/25/10 rule espoused around here, where short game + putting is only ~35% of practice time.  Honestly over my golf lifetime it's probably been more like only ~20% of my practice time.

And of course I don't know if Breed is right, but if he is I'd say it's pretty much a known fact that the biggest shot differentials among pros are with full shots, so they're doing it wrong.

BUT...  I wonder actually if the majority of golfers don't practice much or if they do practice poorly and aren't really improving their ball striking much, and so the only strokes they have available to gain are the easier to gain ones in the short game.  So then maybe, if you assume the practice amount and quality of the average golfer isn't going to change, the average golfer should spend most of their time in the short game area, cause that's the only way they're going to shave (a few) strokes off their scores?