Higher handicaps should be practicing the short game more [mygolfspy]

[ghalfaire]

I tend to just discount articles that lump a large number of people based on an assumption that they are all the same because they have this one characteristic (in this case high handicap) in common.  Just isn't so.  There a lot of reasons one can have a high handicap and it might not have a thing to do with short game.  If you lying 5 just on the fringe all the time you're short game isn't going to get you to a single digit handicap.   My non-professional advice it to keep statistics on your game and find out where you're losing the most strokes and work on that.  If your tee/approach shots are costing you 5-6 strokes a game because they are in trouble or OB better spend more time improving your long game.  As someone above said, you got to get close to the green before your short game helps. 

[iacas]

52 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I tend to just discount articles that lump a large number of people based on an assumption that they are all the same because they have this one characteristic (in this case high handicap) in common. Just isn't so. There a lot of reasons one can have a high handicap and it might not have a thing to do with short game.

While you (and I) could certainly come up with exceptions, that's what they tend to be: exceptions to the rule. Some things are "more true" than others (without getting into R² values and stuff), whether they apply specifically to you or not, and that doesn't make them less valuable.

The whole "strokes gained" or the "Separation Value" stuff from LSW, etc. is true far more frequently than it's not. That's valuable information.

52 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

My non-professional advice it to keep statistics on your game and find out where you're losing the most strokes and work on that. If your tee/approach shots are costing you 5-6 strokes a game because they are in trouble or OB better spend more time improving your long game.

Yeah, it sounds nice in theory, but even then, how do you know? Suppose you hit it 225 with what you feel is an average accuracy? How do you know if your accuracy is average? How many shots will learning to hit it 250 save you? Is that 25 yards worth losing a little bit of accuracy? How much?

Or should you look elsewhere entirely?

There are so many little parts of the game, and so many people out there that are basically islands with no real understanding of anyone but the three other guys with whom they normally play, that these stats help those people because it's unlikely they're the exception.

@david_wedzik and I are working on what we're calling the "Lowest Score Wins Playbook." It's not going to be available for sale individually, but to instructors who can teach you the principles of LSW specific to your game and your home course in an easy, informative 90-minute presentation for small groups. In it, we've isolated a few key stats that can tell golfers if they have a glaring weakness for their handicap level (as well as, obviously, what it will take to get to the next handicap level).

[JonMA1]

I don't study tour pro stats and have never read Broadie's book, but I can say without any doubt, the short game has been easier for me to learn and develop than the full swing... far easier. So why would I spend less time on the full swing when it's more difficult to learn and arguably a bit more important?

Having said that, both are important - I think everyone agrees.

Even as a player who sucks, I can understand why GIR are king. They open up a lot of opportunities for getting strokes back. But few of us will hit a high percentage of them. That's when it's nice to have the ability to chip the ball to within 1-putt distance.

I don't have any argument against the 65/20/15 practice ratio. In fact, with the state of my game, I practice the full swing more than 65% of the time. And from what I've experienced with the slight improvement/eventual decline of it, I'll likely devote a higher percentage towards maintaining it.

Bottom line, recognize and work on what's hurting you the most.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Bottom line, recognize and work on what's hurting you the most.

Yes, but (and I assure you if it feels like I'm hammering on this, that's not the intent… there's just so many facets to why people can delude themselves or go down the wrong path about what's "hurting them the most")… case in point: A golfer misses a ten-footer for par. His tee shot was okay - a bit of a heel cut in the right rough. His second shot he caught fat in the rough so it only went to a spot about 40 yards away from the hole in the left rough. He pitched the ball to ten feet from a middling lie, and missed the putt.

Where is that golfer going to place blame? In my experience, the two leading candidates are:

• He should have made the putt.
• He should have chipped it closer.

The golfer will say "if my short game was better, I could have saved par there." The point is that the first two shots put him into a position where you needed to SAVE par. His tee shot cost him 0.3 strokes. His second shot cost him 0.6 strokes. His third may have been break-even, and his fourth cost him another 0.3 strokes or so… Yes, he could have made the 10-footer, but PGA Tour players don't make those even 50% of the time, so odds were against him making it.

Because there's more of a finality to it, and because the distance covered is so much smaller, golfers tend to drastically over-emphasize the shots that occur toward the end of the hole and under-emphasize the shots that put them in those positions.

See also the section in LSW (I think Broadie had a similar section) where PGA Tour players hit Full Swing Motion shot and a bogey golfer hit every other shot and played a team that did the opposite. One team dusts the other.

[Golfingdad]

On November 25, 2015 at 9:10:03 AM, nevets88 said:

 

 

These charts don't apply to me, even remotely. I practice a small handful of pitches at the beginning and end of each practice session, otherwise it's all irons and drivers (and the occasional 3 wood or hybrid practice).

This method has gotten me from a 10 or so cap to a 4.8 (and still dropping) in 3 years.

Oh yeah, no putting practice either. ;)

[JonMA1]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, but (and I assure you if it feels like I'm hammering on this, that's not the intent… there's just so many facets to why people can delude themselves or go down the wrong path about what's "hurting them the most")

No, it doesn't seem that way at all. You see this behavior on a regular basis. And I'm sure like everyone else at my skill level, there is some self-conning when I assess my game.

Still, I can't understand how anyone would see it any differently.

Here's an example. My putting is terrible, I don't keep stats, but likely average somewhere around 2.5 per hole. And I'll miss very short putts after doing an ok job of lagging and sometimes after hitting a GIR. Yet, it is so painfully obvious that my weakness lies in the full swing. I see it my scores round after round. While both are bad, the poor full swing does more damage.

So lets say after a year of steady work, I start seeing improvement in the way of less penalties and a higher nGIR percentage. At some point, wouldn't I want to go to an Aimpoint clinic or something and devote a bit more time towards improving my putting?

[Dave2512]

I don't think anyone said don't practice short game. 

[JonMA1]

10 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I don't think anyone said don't practice short game. 

Not sure if this was intended for me, but my post was more of a question asking whether that 65/25/15 ratio changes depending on strengths/weaknesses, and if so, how much?

[iacas]

4 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

Here's an example. My putting is terrible, I don't keep stats, but likely average somewhere around 2.5 per hole. And I'll miss very short putts after doing an ok job of lagging and sometimes after hitting a GIR. Yet, it is so painfully obvious that my weakness lies in the full swing. I see it my scores round after round. While both are bad, the poor full swing does more damage.

So lets say after a year of steady work, I start seeing improvement in the way of less penalties and a higher nGIR percentage. At some point, wouldn't I want to go to an Aimpoint clinic or something and devote a bit more time towards improving my putting?

You should practice your putting for awhile.

It's simple, you can make big gains quickly, and you won't back-slide much on your full swing in the little time it takes to work on your putting.

Or just work on your putting separately for five minutes a day.

65/20/15 is not  100/0/0.

2 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

Not sure if this was intended for me, but my post was more of a question asking whether that 65/25/15 ratio changes depending on strengths/weaknesses, and if so, how much?

I'm sure you've probably seen the original thread:

[JonMA1]

Makes perfect sense. Thanks.

[RFKFREAK]

I know for me the practicing I do is probably somewhere in the vicinity of 90/5/5 because my biggest issue is not hitting the ball consistently.  I hit way too many shots fat and thin, so, I don't have a consistent place where the bottom of the arc is.  Add to this the fact that the overwhelming majority of my shots are off-center, it's the biggest reason why on a good day I shoot in the 90's and on a bad day I'm capable of shooting in the 120's.

Whereas my goal is to shoot the lowest scores, my goal at the moment is to regularly shoot in the 80's and all the short game and putting practice in the world isn't going to do that for me.  Therefore, I rarely practice short game and putting and, when I do, it's usually after hitting a bucket at the range or at home during the winter when I really can't get outdoors to do any practice either at the range or in my net.   

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, RFKFREAK said:

I know for me the practicing I do is probably somewhere in the vicinity of 90/5/5 because my biggest issue is not hitting the ball consistently.  I hit way too many shots fat and thin, so, I don't have a consistent place where the bottom of the arc is.  Add to this the fact that the overwhelming majority of my shots are off-center, it's the biggest reason why on a good day I shoot in the 90's and on a bad day I'm capable of shooting in the 120's.

Whereas my goal is to shoot the lowest scores, my goal at the moment is to regularly shoot in the 80's and all the short game and putting practice in the world isn't going to do that for me.  Therefore, I rarely practice short game and putting and, when I do, it's usually after hitting a bucket at the range or at home during the winter when I really can't get outdoors to do any practice either at the range or in my net.   

This is what I was trying to say in my posts and didn't do a very good job of communicating it. Even though all the different parts of my game need improvement, issues with my full swing are far more damaging than the others.

If l had to guess, my practice is probably at something like 80/5/15. My evaluation isn't very scientific, but that ratio is based on where my "strengths" and weaknesses lie and what effect they have on my scores week-in and week-out.

[isukgolf]

As HC kind of guy ... I score the worse when the ball is in someones backyard ... I do not think to-date I have never chipped into someones back yard ...

For me is how did I get out of the tee box, and what did the second shot do.  

When I do practice, it is the full swing mainly.  Chipping is all feel for me ... and with aimpoint and an Edel putter I now feel I can do "pretty good" on most weekend warrior courses I play ... 

 

 

 

[Dave2512]

For me it's a cumulative thing. I don't get to the range with a stop watch and devote strict times to any one thing. It's just a general idea of where to spend the most time over any given period. There are some days I do nothing but putt. Doesn't mean I've abandoned full swing work it's just how it shakes out.

[natureboy]

On 11/26/2015, 8:48:18, natureboy said:

It's not perfect - was a rough initial pass just to see if there was something there. I revisited it given your question.

The basic decreasing relationship of relative long game to short game value from high HCP to ~ 5 HCP remains - mostly due to increasing value of putting, which is peaking in the low single digits. On the far left (plus HCP) side, driving actually dips, approach is going back up, putting dips down again, short is going up, overall long ticks down slightly while short plus putting ticks up. But the basic long / short levels 2/3 to 1/3 value remain about the same throughout.

Actually, the original chart may be ~ on target...relative to the course type. It probably better reflects how the trends would be on a 'typical course' though the driving % is too high for higher HCPs and the putting peak is too low (should be up above 20%) - oversmoothed it. I think the trend changes described above better reflect 'actual conditions' - pros playing on longer courses that yield longer approaches and more missed greens while amateurs are on more typical courses.