Stubbornness or lack of research?: "Drive for Show, Putt for Dough"

[iacas]

Thanks, @Ernest Jones, but remember we're not just talking about raw distance. We're talking about the relative importance of the full swing versus the short game/putting.

[vangator]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

No, you can't make the stats look like anything you want. Yes, over a small enough sample size, like your one example, you can. But not over a large enough sample. At that point, the truth is exposed.

Here's a statistic.  "For the entire world, the average person has one testicle."  The world is a fairly large sample.  That is also a fact.  Statistics have to be qualified.

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Once again that's not what this is about. It's not just about hitting the ball farther. And you're misleading by saying "where they spent 7 strokes." You're completely downplaying that a short drive, or a crooked drive, or a missed green, is "where they spent strokes" too.

Player said, " I think length is the most overrated thing in golf today."  That sounds like hitting the ball farther.  You changed it to full swing.

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Then you have a glaring weakness (putting), or you play on ridiculously large greens or something. Either way, you'd be an outlier.

When I was practicing yesterday, I was thinking to myself, "how I can chip closer to the hole than I can putt."  Not large greens.  Glaring weakness.
 

21 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Look at it this way:

Player A needs a 7 iron to reach the green from 150y. 

Player B needs a hard PW or an easy 9 iron. 

They hit 10 shots each and whoever has the closest average wins, who are you betting on?

This depends.  I watched a lot of those Shell's matches where they were hitting 7 irons from 150.  There are a lot of guys on this board that say they hit PW or 9 iron from 150.  I'm taking the guys from the Shell's matches.

I usually hit a 7 iron from 150.  I played with a guy yesterday that hit what looked like a PW from 150.  I beat him like a drum.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, vangator said:

Here's a statistic. "For the entire world, the average person has one testicle."  The world is a fairly large sample. That is also a fact. Statistics have to be qualified.

Nobody's twisting anything like that here. Give me a break…

24 minutes ago, vangator said:

Player said," I think length is the most overrated thing in golf today."  That sounds like hitting the ball farther.  You changed it to full swing.

I've only discussed the full swing. We have had plenty of threads on both, but since "distance" was poorly defined, and not even really put up contrary to something else… There was little point in discussing that.

If you want to go back to discussing only distance, you need to define the terms, and then, you can discuss the actual data. And you can do so without twisting the data around in a way nobody is doing here (like your one-testicle example) and without small sample sizes (like your previous example).

24 minutes ago, vangator said:

When I was practicing yesterday, I was thinking to myself, "how I can chip closer to the hole than I can putt."  Not large greens.  Glaring weakness.

That's again one person, a small sample size. You're an exception. Work on your putting.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, vangator said:

Here's a statistic.  "For the entire world, the average person has one testicle."  The world is a fairly large sample.  That is also a fact.  Statistics have to be qualified.

So the stats that Mark Broadie have compiled and justified are not qualified? The fact remains that the long game is more important than the short game. 

4 minutes ago, vangator said:

Player said, " I think length is the most overrated thing in golf today."  That sounds like hitting the ball farther.  You changed it to full swing.

These discussion are on the long game (driving & full iron shots) not just driving distance. 

Yet distance is an advantage. If you look at the top 10 best golfers last year (by scoring average). 8 out of 10 of them have above average PGA tour driving distance. 7 out of 10 are in the top 45. 

All but one were in the top 20 tee to green strokes gained. Odds are if you want to be at the top of the PGA tour you need to be in the top half in driving distance and you need to have a top 20 long game. 

Just because Player is a multi-time major win and an ambassador for the game of golf globally doesn't make him right on this.  

19 minutes ago, vangator said:

I usually hit a 7 iron from 150.  I played with a guy yesterday that hit what looked like a PW from 150.  I beat him like a drum.

Your one situation doesn't disprove an average. It just proves you experienced an outlier situation. I would put my 9iron/PW game from 150 versus your 7 iron from 150 anyday. 

[vangator]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

So the stats that Mark Broadie have compiled and justified are not qualified? The fact remains that the long game is more important than the short game. 

These discussion are on the long game (driving & full iron shots) not just driving distance. 

Yet distance is an advantage. If you look at the top 10 best golfers last year (by scoring average). 8 out of 10 of them have above average PGA tour driving distance. 7 out of 10 are in the top 45. 

All but one were in the top 20 tee to green strokes gained. Odds are if you want to be at the top of the PGA tour you need to be in the top half in driving distance and you need to have a top 20 long game. 

GP was clearly talking about amateurs that are fixated on length.  To decrease their scores, they'd be better served to work on their short games.  I doubt GP had full iron shots in mind. 

If somebody struggling to play the game came to you, you would work on increasing their driver length first? 

Clearly the long hitters on tour do better than the shorter hitters overall.  I don't think anybody here disputes that.  I think GP is right about the group he was talking about though.

I searched for a copy of the Golf Channel interview, but couldn't find it.  I've heard him speak on this topic several times before though.

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

 Your one situation doesn't disprove an average. It just proves you experienced an outlier situation. I would put my 9iron/PW game from 150 versus your 7 iron from 150 anyday. 

Any day?  Big talk.  You might be surprised.  I wouldn't bet the farm on that if I were you.  I think I recall you saying your best round was with 3 GIR?  Must have been more than 150 yards on you approach shots or you have a new 9i / PW.  Just sayin'

Edited January 3, 2016 by vangator

[vangator]

You may find this hard to believe, but I've actually sat down with Gary Player one on one.  I was sitting in the Ocala Florida airport waiting for my girlfriend to fly in.  I was absolutely the only one in the terminal.  After a bit, a solitary figure strolls through the terminal carrying a suit case and stops to ask me what time it was.  I told him and said "You're Gary Player".

This was 1980 or 81.  I think he was surprised anyone would recognize him.  He put down his suitcase and sat beside me and we just talked.  He was going to play Bay Hill in Orlando.  He said he generally flew into smaller airports and drove to his tournaments.  We probably talked 10 - 15 minutes.  He was past his prime, but I always would root for him when I saw him.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, vangator said:

GP was clearly talking about amateurs that are fixated on length.  To decrease their scores, they'd be better served to work on their short games.  I doubt GP had full iron shots in mind. 

Even if GP was talking about just driving distance he is still wrong. Even more so if you are talking about amateurs. It's a fact that distance increases with technique as well. So if an Amateur is looking for more distance they are inevitably looking to better their swing. 

22 minutes ago, vangator said:

Any day?  Big talk.  You might be surprised.  I wouldn't bet the farm on that if I were you.  I think I recall you saying your best round was with 3 GIR?  Must have been more than 150 yards on you approach shots or you have a new 9i / PW.  Just sayin'

My best GIR% for 18 holes this year was 50%. So that was 9 GIR. Though my best GIR% was 9 in a row about 8 years ago. I hit all the greens on the front nine once when playing with my dad and a few of his friends. 

So no, you are misquoting or misremembering what I said. 

3 minutes ago, vangator said:

You may find this hard to believe, but I've actually sat down with Gary Player one on one.  I was sitting in the Ocala Florida airport waiting for my girlfriend to fly in.  I was absolutely the only one in the terminal.  After a bit, a solitary figure strolls through the terminal carrying a suit case and stops to ask me what time it was.  I told him and said "You're Gary Player".

Does this mean you are biased to protect Gary Player's opinions even when they might be wrong? 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, vangator said:

GP was clearly talking about amateurs that are fixated on length.  To decrease their scores, they'd be better served to work on their short games.  I doubt GP had full iron shots in mind.

I disagree that's what he was talking about. From the quote, he also said "You drive for show and putt for dough and that's just a fact." Putting is the least important skill among the four into which we often divide things: driving, approach shots, short game, and putting.

So no, he does not seem to be talking about amateurs who are "fixated on length." You seem to be off base in saying that.

23 minutes ago, vangator said:

If somebody struggling to play the game came to you, you would work on increasing their driver length first? 

No, I wouldn't work on increasing their driver length first. I've often said that the quickest way to shoot lower scores is to work on the short game first, but long-term, the long game (full swing) matters significantly more, and deserves a heck of a lot more attention.

[HeGotGame]

Sorry but what is LSW?

[saevel25]

12 minutes ago, HeGotGame said:

Sorry but what is LSW?

Hover your mouse icon over the LSW in any of the posts ;)

http://lowestscorewins.com/

 

[natureboy]

14 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

what is most important, the short game or the long game, what is meant by "more important?"   More important in what way, and more important to whom?   How do you define whether something is more important?  Thanks in advance for responding.  

IMO 'important' is being defined as relative contribution to the score you shoot. Mark Broadie's study of golfer's score has shown that the long game (outside 100 yards) contributes roughly 2/3 to the score for all golfers and short game (inside 100 yards) roughly 1/3. These percentages do shift a bit depending on your HCP, but not a whole lot.

Quote

It seems to me that distance is an advantage.   Being able to chip and putt well is also an advantage.   What makes one more of an advantage than the other?   Is this like arguing over what is more important to a car- the engine or the wheels? 

I think one of the things that Broadie emphasized in his book Every Shot Counts is that golf is not just a collection of independent shots, but a sequence of shots on each hole.

Ultimately everyone putts better the closer they are to the hole and the shots leading up to the hole are the foundation on which you build your chances to get closer to the pin and sink a putt so they matter a bit more in determining whether you will make a good score or a bad one.

The shorter shots are not independent of the quality of the prior shots - but very dependent (on average). A long drive that puts you closer to the green lets you use a club with less variance in dispersion so the subsequent shot will have a greater chance of leaving your first putt close to the hole. The rough affects distance and accuracy so a fairway hit is more valuable to all golfers (more for the pros) than a rough hit of the same distance.

Also everyone hits it closer to the pin (on average) the closer they are to the green so the chances of hitting a shot that is going to cost you an extra shot in a penalty or having to punch out of the trees is a bit less likely (for everyone) when you are inside 100 yards, though higher HCP players have a greater chance of a bad flub closer in.

Of course you can always hit a great shot to recover from an awful one (part of the fun of golf). But the odds are more in your favor with a succession of great, good, or not too awful long shots that put you close to the green so you have a better chance to put the ball closer to the hole.

If you are already doing this fairly well, then your short game or putting may be a weak point. But I doubt that when you hit greens you are leaving it on average less than 20 feet from the pin so there's even still going to be room for improvement there that will help you score better.

On 1/2/2016 at 10:17 AM, Marty2019 said:

I don't see how you can logically say the short game is not the most important part of the game, when 60 to 70% of the strokes on anyone's scorecard, including the pros, are not even full swings.  

A lot of those strokes are short putts that everyone makes at a fairly high percentage though lower HCPs make more.

On 1/2/2016 at 2:52 PM, DrvFrShow said:

Red represents my driver, yellow my 3W, pink my 4 iron. This is a short par 5. An optimistic shot with the driver gives a good chance of reaching that green in 2, but too much of a chance of having to punch out from those trees. If that tree wasn't there on the right I'd hit driver every day. But I think I'll hit my 3W, even though it'll make this a definite three shots to the green. Then my next most important shot is my 50 yd lob shot hopefully off the short stuff.

A long hitter who consistently moves that red oval up into the open area past the tree on the right and tightens it to the size of the yellow oval would hit driver on this hole all day long. Distance is king but be smart about it.

I get this as a basic consideration of tradeoffs. But with par 5 strategy, the chance of shaving one or two full strokes really matters in considering the risk / reward.

I would agree that the red circle looks less attractive if you can hit it on in 2 on this hole consistently from the pink. But if the hole length has the red circle at around your hybrid range to the green then IMO the tradeoff for the relatively small area under the trees may well be worth it to give you a shot at hitting the green in 2.

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by natureboy

[vangator]

5 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Even if GP was talking about just driving distance he is still wrong. Even more so if you are talking about amateurs. It's a fact that distance increases with technique as well. So if an Amateur is looking for more distance they are inevitably looking to better their swing. 

My best GIR% for 18 holes this year was 50%. So that was 9 GIR. Though my best GIR% was 9 in a row about 8 years ago. I hit all the greens on the front nine once when playing with my dad and a few of his friends. 

So no, you are misquoting or misremembering what I said. 

Does this mean you are biased to protect Gary Player's opinions even when they might be wrong? 

I certainly could be misremembering. 

I don't think I'm protecting GP opinions.  I am just relating what I believe he is talking about.

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I disagree that's what he was talking about. From the quote, he also said "You drive for show and putt for dough and that's just a fact." Putting is the least important skill among the four into which we often divide things: driving, approach shots, short game, and putting.

So no, he does not seem to be talking about amateurs who are "fixated on length." You seem to be off base in saying that.

No, I wouldn't work on increasing their driver length first. I've often said that the quickest way to shoot lower scores, but long-term, the long game (full swing) matters significantly more, and deserves a heck of a lot more attention. The short game? That's relatively easy to fix, too.

We have to agree to disagree.

[mcanadiens]

Not that there aren't many wonderful things to learn from the world's best professional players,  but my priorities as a high-handicapper isn't one of them.

Gary Player and his ilk do putt for dough. Someone like me just hopes to be on the green in time for it to matter. Different worlds.

[iacas]

12 hours ago, natureboy said:

I get this as a basic consideration of tradeoffs. But with par 5 strategy, the chance of shaving one or two full strokes really matters in considering the risk / reward.

I would agree that the red circle looks less attractive if you can hit it on in 2 on this hole consistently from the pink. But if the hole length has the red circle at around your hybrid range to the green then IMO the tradeoff for the relatively small area under the trees may well be worth it to give you a shot at hitting the green in 2.

I almost made a similar post…

If 80% of the time you're inside the trees and can "go for it" with a second shot (even just getting to within 50 yards is a bonus), and the other 20% of the time you're punching out but still advancing the ball to where you have a mid- to short-iron third shot, the driver may still be the play, depending on that-round circumstances (i.e. if you're hitting driver like crap all day, maybe the 20% goes up to 60% and it doesn't make sense).

11 hours ago, vangator said:

We have to agree to disagree.

That's a cop-out. You've been here for years and never really engage with these discussions. If you disagree, say so, but say why… have the discussion. You may not even ultimately agree, but why drop in and make little posts but then fail to engage beyond the fly-by level?

IMO he's clearly not talking about amateur golfers working solely to add length. I don't even think he's talking about amateurs at all. He's just trumpeting the old "drive for show, putt for dough" line that's been proven to be false, false, false. Driving alone (ignoring approach shots) matters almost twice as much as putting (IIRC they're around 28% and 14% in Broadie's calculations for the PGA Tour). For amateurs the gap between those numbers narrows a bit, but only a bit.

2 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

Gary Player and his ilk do putt for dough. Someone like me just hopes to be on the green in time for it to matter. Different worlds.

They really don't.  You know this… @mcanadiens.

---

@Marty2019, did I/we answer your questions?

[mcanadiens]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

They really don't.  You know this… @mcanadiens.

Ok. ... Really I don't care about them anyway. Much more worried about me and my crappy length off the tee.

[turtleback]

17 hours ago, vangator said:

You may find this hard to believe, but I've actually sat down with Gary Player one on one.  I was sitting in the Ocala Florida airport waiting for my girlfriend to fly in.  I was absolutely the only one in the terminal.  After a bit, a solitary figure strolls through the terminal carrying a suit case and stops to ask me what time it was.  I told him and said "You're Gary Player".

This was 1980 or 81.  I think he was surprised anyone would recognize him.  He put down his suitcase and sat beside me and we just talked.  He was going to play Bay Hill in Orlando.  He said he generally flew into smaller airports and drove to his tournaments.  We probably talked 10 - 15 minutes.  He was past his prime, but I always would root for him when I saw him.

Great story.  I've always had a soft spot for Gary because my first full set of clubs was a set of hand-me down Shakespeare Golf fiberglass shafted Gary Player signature clubs.  Growing up he was my second fvorite golfer after Jack.

But that doesn't bear on the question of his misconception.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

Gary Player and his ilk do putt for dough. Someone like me just hopes to be on the green in time for it to matter. Different worlds.

I just think Gary is not a stats guy and relies on his perceptions.

It's clear from Broadie's analysis that putting becomes relatively more important in contributing to victory than just scoring for pros. But the long shots still set up the putts so they continue to be very important, but more like 60/40 (depending on how 'lights out' the putting was) versus 66/33. So GP remembers the good putts that helped him win over the other guy in his group on Sunday or the field. I think that without strokes gained type analysis it's just harder to evaluate or remember the contribution of marginally better placed drives and irons than versus a sunk tough putt.

Edited January 4, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

56 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I just think Gary is not a stats guy and relies on his perceptions.

It's clear from Broadie's analysis that putting becomes relatively more important in contributing to victory than just scoring for pros. But the long shots still set up the putts so they continue to be very important, but more like 60/40 (depending on how 'lights out' the putting was) versus 66/33. So GP remembers the good putts that helped him win over the other guy in his group on Sunday or the field. I think that without strokes gained type analysis it's just harder to evaluate or remember the contribution of marginally better placed drives and irons than versus a sunk tough putt.

A few quick points:

One: 66/33 is (driver+approach shots)/(short game+putting). The way you phrased it makes it appear that putting is 33 or 40%.

Two: When a player WINS on the PGA Tour, he often has a hot putting week, but getting hot is not a reproducible skill. Being good at putting increases your chances of getting "hot" but getting hot alone is not reproducible. What I mean by that is basically that ballstriking gets a player into the top 10 or 15 or so, but from there unless someone just blows everyone away with their ball striking, it becomes about putting.

In other words, if you have a great putting week, you could finish just about anywhere in the field. You might miss the cut because your ballstriking was bad. But, if you have a great ballstriking week, you are likely going to finish fairly high in the tournament. Exactly high depends a fair amount on your putting, yes, but you're basically going to make a really nice check unless you have the yips or don't make a single putt from farther than two feet away or something.

Ballstriking is the more repeatable skill. That's why the top players tend to be the top players, but occasionally, a no-name has a good week where both his ballstriking and putting get hot. Or they'll be in a few tournaments in a row where their ballstriking gets hot, rack up a few top-five finishes, but their putting never gets quite hot enough to win.

Pros tend to over-estimate putting because their ballstriking is generally fairly consistent, so the weeks their putting is "hot" relative to their standards, they perform better (even if that's just making cuts for guys who are around that skill level generally). They overlook the weeks they putt well but strike the ball poorly because more of their putts are for pars, or from longer range (a 40' putt to a foot gains a few tenths of a stroke on the field). That's all GP is doing with his re-iteration of the "drive for show, putt for dough" line.

From ESC, I think only two players have won on the PGA Tour while losing strokes to the field with their ballstriking, and they both did so in limited field events. Several players won events losing strokes to the field with their putting, but more than making up for it with their ballstriking.

Three: I'm not all that concerned with the PGA Tour. Never really have been. What they can teach us about the games of the average amateur is limited.