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

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

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

I basically agree with your points, and the wording was a touch imprecise, but I do believe the long term historic average of putting (alone) % contribution to victory does get up around 35%. So I was mixing my numbers a bit. Among the top 40 players though this was only 15%, though.

Putting does become important in separating for the win, but agree you almost always still need to get to the green in style for a great putting performance to give you a chance. Just trying to understand why GP has that perception. Perhaps the impression of hot putters bubbling up out of the 'field' & beating him out made him think it was more skill related than normal variability in performance.

But don't you think that a stronger baseline skill level increases the chances of a hot putter putting a player (with exceptional long game) over the top...basically shifting the bell curve of putting performance ahead of the field so the highs are better and the lows are less bad. Just thinking this is what GP had in mind, not that the long game doesn't still remain primary in importance. Would Vijay have won even more if he improved his putting to at least tour average so his above average outlier putting performances put him deeper in the red?

Edited January 4, 2016 by natureboy

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Putting does become important in separating for the win, but agree you always need to get to the green in style to have a chance. Just trying to understand why GP has that perception. Perhaps the impression of hot putters from the 'field' beating him out made him think it was more skill related than expected performance variability.

Maybe because he is stuck in his ways. He's 80 years old. He doesn't care about the advancement in golf swing theory and statistics that has advanced in the past 15 years. He's been off doing his thing with his Gary Player Foundation, course design, and real estate. 

I think he just falls back what he knows. What he knows is outdated information. 

9 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Would Vijay have won even more if he improved his putting to tour average so his above average outlier putting performances put him deeper in the red?

Who's to say if improving his putting would increase his outlier performances? 

I think in the end I don't need to know why Gary Player is wrong. 

[Gator Hazard]

Got my copy of LSW for Christmas and am enjoying it quite a bit so far.  My golf partner and I were talking about this on Sunday because he is also of the "drive for show putt for dough" mindset.  In my opinion it doesn't take much pondering when you look at even your own game that the biggest seperator is the full swing and controlling it, especially with the longer clubs and driver.  I drained a few great putts Sunday, missed some I shouldn't have but all in all that is not the biggest piece I am missing.

I am not a good full swing striker but I can hit my wedges and up to about my 8 iron with relative ease and comfort (as well as expectation of where the ball is going to go).  It's those pesky 5W, 3W, 3H, and my completely schizophrenic driver that gets me in the most trouble.  

[colin007]

This right here summed it up for me. If you don't get this, then IDK…

"The long game is "more important" because it has the ability to positively (or negatively) affect your score the most."

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, colin007 said:

This right here summed it up for me. If you don't get this, then IDK…

"The long game is "more important" because it has the ability to positively (or negatively) affect your score the most."

Pretty much. It's very unlikely you ever end up with a penalty on a putt. Even if you have a 50 ft putt you leave 10 feet short you are losing half a stroke. If you jack a ball OB you lost a stroke right there. So you would have to leave two 50 FT putts 10 ft short to equal one ball hit OB. That's just assuming you break even on your next drive. 

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Pretty much. It's very unlikely you ever end up with a penalty on a putt. Even if you have a 50 ft putt you leave 10 feet short you are losing half a stroke. If you jack a ball OB you lost a stroke right there. So you would have to leave two 50 FT putts 10 ft short to equal one ball hit OB. That's just assuming you break even on your next drive. 

Actually two strokes, no?

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Actually two strokes, no?

That is correct, my bad 

[Golfingdad]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is correct, my bad 

I also agree with you and @colin007 that that sentence he posted might be the most succinct way to explain to people why long game is more important.

[RFKFREAK]

3 hours ago, colin007 said:

This right here summed it up for me. If you don't get this, then IDK…

"The long game is "more important" because it has the ability to positively (or negatively) affect your score the most."

Look at you being smart!

As for this debate, the information is out there and is pretty conclusive.  As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't want to accept that the long game is most important just has their head in the sand.

[vangator]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

---

 

Here is a link to a video where GP is talking about length.  Start listening at 9:30.  He talks about the pros, but he clearly says "that's what members must understand" when talking about length.  I've heard several interviews where he mentions that "members" are too fixated on length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=193chYRnTAk

BTW, I absolutely agree that length (not in trouble) is more important than the short game for really scoring.  I've always been a long hitter and I know the advantage that gave me.  I played many golfers that had better short games, but an opponent won't consistently win by hitting a 5 iron approach when I'm hitting a wedge.

If a golfer really sucks (and that what GP is getting at), work on the short game.  Once that is somewhat stable, then work on the length.

As for little posts, I don't have a lot of time for posting.  Too busy.  I know that is a cop-out, but it's reality.  I'm looking forward to retiring. 

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, vangator said:

BTW, I absolutely agree that length (not in trouble) is more important than the short game for really scoring.  I've always been a long hitter and I know the advantage that gave me.  I played many golfers that had better short games, but an opponent won't consistently win by hitting a 5 iron approach when I'm hitting a wedge.

This is the issue I have with this. As amateurs we are not playing in PGA Tournaments. This is why I think he is stuck in his ways. He can't differentiate between the fact that just because a hot putter wins a PGA Tournament doesn't mean it's what amateurs need to focus on. PGA Tour players are playing a totally different game then we are in terms of ball striking ability. 

Amateurs, they need to hit more GIR to score lower. A part of that is proximity to the hole, driving distance. 

[vangator]

I play at a local muni where I see people that really suck.  I mean awful.  Most of them would be better off not even touching a driver.  You've seen the guys that skull chips all the way across the green into bunkers.  I played with a guy two weeks ago that probably picked his ball up on at least 1/3 of the holes.  He actually hit the ball off the tee pretty far, but with a big slice.  Then he hacked the ball toward the green.  That is the guy GP is talking about.  I know.  Not the guy who has the basic game and is looking to improve.

For players that have a decent game, distance is king because they'll score better with a wedge than a 5 iron.  I also tell guys that I'm not afraid to hit it in a green side bunker versus laying up.  I can get the ball up and down better from a bunker than I can from 50 - 75 yards back.  This is especially true of par 5's where I may roll into a bunker versus roll up on the green since the ball won't be plugged.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

I basically agree with your points, and the wording was a touch imprecise, but I do believe the long term historic average of putting (alone) % contribution to victory does get up around 35%. So I was mixing my numbers a bit. Among the top 40 players though this was only 15%, though.

Yes, we weren't talking about just winning, though.

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

Putting does become important in separating for the win, but agree you almost always still need to get to the green in style for a great putting performance to give you a chance. Just trying to understand why GP has that perception. Perhaps the impression of hot putters bubbling up out of the 'field' & beating him out made him think it was more skill related than normal variability in performance.

Yeah. That's why I made the other thread.

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

But don't you think that a stronger baseline skill level increases the chances of a hot putter putting a player (with exceptional long game) over the top...basically shifting the bell curve of putting performance ahead of the field so the highs are better and the lows are less bad. Just thinking this is what GP had in mind, not that the long game doesn't still remain primary in importance. Would Vijay have won even more if he improved his putting to at least tour average so his above average outlier putting performances put him deeper in the red?

It's in the other thread, but yeah… there's a lot less separation there.

22 minutes ago, vangator said:

Here is a link to a video where GP is talking about length.

That's not the video we're discussing here.

22 minutes ago, vangator said:

Here is a link to a video where GP is talking about length. Start listening at 9:30.  He talks about the pros, but he clearly says "that's what members must understand" when talking about length.  I've heard several interviews where he mentions that "members" are too fixated on length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=193chYRnTAk

That video contains, just in that segment, enough to pick apart. So I won't, but I will point out that "strength" is not the same thing as "speed," and equating the two is bizarre.

Gary says Tiger and Phil win majors because… of the short game. No. He's wrong. Provably wrong. Then he says that the thing that wins golf tournaments is putting. Chipping, bunker shots, wedging, and putting. Again, provably wrong. Not correct.

28 minutes ago, vangator said:

If a golfer really sucks (and that what GP is getting at), work on the short game.  Once that is somewhat stable, then work on the length.

That's still not what we're talking about. I've said before (in this thread I think) that the short game is the fastest and easiest way to lower scores. But the biggest gains come from working on the full swing motion shots.

3 minutes ago, vangator said:

I play at a local muni where I see people that really suck.  I mean awful.  Most of them would be better off not even touching a driver.  You've seen the guys that skull chips all the way across the green into bunkers.  I played with a guy two weeks ago that probably picked his ball up on at least 1/3 of the holes.  He actually hit the ball off the tee pretty far, but with a big slice.  Then he hacked the ball toward the green.  That is the guy GP is talking about.  I know.  Not the guy who has the basic game and is looking to improve.

For players that have a decent game, distance is king because they'll score better with a wedge than a 5 iron.  I also tell guys that I'm not afraid to hit it in a green side bunker versus laying up.  I can get the ball up and down better from a bunker than I can from 50 - 75 yards back.  This is especially true of par 5's where I may roll into a bunker versus roll up on the green since the ball won't be plugged.

Again, this thread is not just talking about distance!

It's about the distance AND accuracy of the "Full Swing Motion" shots. Stop equating everything to just "distance." There's a helluva lot more to the shots outside of 60 yards than "distance."

[natureboy]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, we weren't talking about just winning, though.

Right which is why my wording was unclear. I was just going that route as a possible explanation for why this was Gary's impression (even though provably wrong). Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt as an experienced and observant Major Champion even if he's not so good on golf stats. The reasoning being a relative increase in putting % contribution to wins plus the recency bias may have understandably (though not correctly) magnified putting in his mind. Of course with normal human confirmation bias / avoidance of cognitive dissonance, the more he says that phrase, it the more his now somewhat distant memories of competition will tend to align to it.

Maybe it took a framework like strokes gained to enable us to better notice / visualize the fractional gains - other than an obviously great shot - vs. the binary of a made / missed putt.

Maybe he personally relied on hot putting more than other players (though I expect his approach game was top shelf even if he couldn't drive it as far owing to his size). I wonder how Player practiced in his prime though? Inverted short vs. long game? I kind of doubt it. He wasn't alone either, think how long that misapprehension was (and obviously is) there in golf as a whole.

Edited January 5, 2016 by natureboy

[colin007]

14 hours ago, RFKFREAK said:

Look at you being smart!

As for this debate, the information is out there and is pretty conclusive.  As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't want to accept that the long game is most important just has their head in the sand.

 

yup. basically, if you cant accept that theres more risk of losing strokes every time you make a full swing than when you chip, pitch, or putt, then i dont know what else to say.

[DrvFrShow]

On 1/4/2016 at 7:26 PM, 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.

 

The red circle doesn't tell the whole story. It includes my entire shot distribution on this hole, but the majority of my shots with my driver ended up around that tree off the right side of the fairway. A couple ended up on the left under those trees. Some I got lucky and hit the right center at the far end. 

That right side tree has low hanging branches which make hitting a low shot under it very difficult. I've tried with my 3W and it's still too lofted, and i don't have the club head speed to hit a stinger with it. You're looking at a chip out onto the fairway. 

The yellow 3W is more attractive, but it's definitely 3 shots to the green for me from there. 3W > (5i, or 5W) > pitch of some sort. I might as well hit something I'm hitting well for the second shot. Now if I do that I'll pull a 6 iron for 175 yds. total and keep it in the fairway. This leaves me with a pitch of about 40 yds. with a 64* that I should be able to put within 8 feet of the hole since I practice this shot at the range. Possible birdie.

The pink 4 iron is the most conservative play. I can also play this hole very conservatively with a 6 iron second shot and still be hitting a LW from about 60 yds onto the green. This will leave me about a 15 ft putt depending upon where they put the hole. Definite par. Birdie will require a very accurate LW and I'm not a scratch golfer.

 

[vangator]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not the video we're discussing here.

Didn't say it was.  I said it a video that also had GP's point of view.  I searched for the Morning Drive interview but could find it on Youtube.

22 hours ago, iacas said:

Again, this thread is not just talking about distance!

But that is what GP was talking about.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

The red circle doesn't tell the whole story. It includes my entire shot distribution on this hole, but the majority of my shots with my driver ended up around that tree off the right side of the fairway. A couple ended up on the left under those trees. Some I got lucky and hit the right center at the far end. 

That right side tree has low hanging branches which make hitting a low shot under it very difficult. I've tried with my 3W and it's still too lofted, and i don't have the club head speed to hit a stinger with it. You're looking at a chip out onto the fairway.

Do you literally mean a chip onto the fairway or a low running punch with an iron like below (much easier than 3 wood especially if the rough under the tree is a little less dense from the lower sunlight). Seems like there is very little undergrowth to contend with so a literal chip out of 10-20 yards might be an overly conservative play.

A shot like that could go ~ 100+ yards down the fairway. That would put you around or inside of 115 yards.which is a reasonable distance for making par if that was your approach on a par-4. I think if you can hit this punch shot consistently then the bogey man of the right side tree is less of an issue and you will still do okay if you're miss is under the tree (not talking about total block by the trunk or being rooted), but you still put a few in the short grass and have a go for it chance.

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by natureboy