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

[Ernest Jones]

20 minutes ago, alleztom said:

No in my view - it's driver - how often do you hit/need a perfect 3/4 iron in the round? And I'd still rather fight Adam Scott in a 3i than a Driver competition (he'd beat me by lots in both)

Sorry, my post could have been clearer. I was just using the 3/4 iron example to reflect the other post. What I really mean is "long game" or more accurately, "full swing". My point is, that many people can, relatively quickly, get good at short game stuff. It's the full swing, distance aspect of the game the creates the biggest gap, whether you're talking driver, 3 iron or whatever. The players that can hit every club longer have a distinct advantage. 

[ghalfaire]

I guess my only comments on this thread is that you won't play well unless you have some skill in all parts of the game.  The other comment is correlation and causality are very different things and sometimes (often in fact) not related.   

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, pganapathy said:

I agree the hole length remains the same.  What I am saying is if I am a 150 from the green, I need a 7 iron.  Someone who is longer only needs say a PW.  He will be more accurate in general.  So even if we both hit the same length off the tee he still has an edge because he is hitting PW instead of 7i.  Not necessarily that he hit it longer off the tee, maybe because he went with a shorter club and I used a driver.  Length does matter but my point is hit shorter clubs in and your game improves, which is my point.  The short game is key.  Each persons definition of short game depends on their length.  An old man who can only hit his PW 50 yards or some really long hitter getting 170 yards off the PW makes that their short game distance

By "long game", we mean anything requiring a full swing. If the same old guy that hits his PW 50 yards only hits his driver 150, then that golfer would be better off working on his driver to try to get, for instance, 160 yards. Doesn't matter how far he hits, all that matters is that he works on his weakness, which in this case would be his long game.

 

1 hour ago, sirhacksalot said:

I watch a lot of Mark Crossfield, he has a couple of videos where he has beaten tour pros in fun little putting competitions.  But honestly he would probably lose 8/10 times to those same pros in match play, due to being shorter.  

It's probably me just giving credit to past heros, but now when I hear things like Gary Player said "drive for show and putt for dough" , I take it as more of don't buy a 48" driver and swing for the fences everytime maybe getting one good drive in 3-4 rounds and honestly probably never that goes the most 10-15- even 20 at most yards past the short driver that you can swing.  

 

He's played Lee Westwood, and by the "Dan Plan" standards "held his own", but if they played a pro length course he would have lost by a huge amount. Mark is a slightly plus handicap.
 

41 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

My Pro at my home course missed getting on the Euro Tour by one shot I asked him what was the biggest difference between him and the guys that made it....he simply replied " the extra 20 yards!"  Mind you he hits it 285 on average.  They all have nasty short games and can make putts but he mentioned that when they came to a par 5 you might as well write down a birdie....unless you had to erase it and pencil in an eagle.  They were looking to attack even from 280 -290 out cause they could still reach.

That's pretty amazing. . .

[pganapathy]

Am just wondering whether Gary Player's logic is this.  Assume you can hit a long par 5 in 2 (or get it within a few yards of the green) but then take at least three if not four shots to get down from there (bad chipping, bad putting etc) and another player hits it GIR or gets it close to the green with the third and two puts or gets up and down every time.  Every so often he will get it close enough for a tap in birdie and maybe putt well enough to guarantee a par or even make a birdie a lot of the time.  At the end of the day the score on your card matters more than the distance you hit any club I suppose, though hitting it further potentially makes it easier to get that lower score.

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

Am just wondering whether Gary Player's logic is this.  Assume you can hit a long par 5 in 2 (or get it within a few yards of the green) but then take at least three if not four shots to get down from there (bad chipping, bad putting etc) and another player hits it GIR or gets it close to the green with the third and two puts or gets up and down every time.  Every so often he will get it close enough for a tap in birdie and maybe putt well enough to guarantee a par or even make a birdie a lot of the time.  At the end of the day the score on your card matters more than the distance you hit any club I suppose, though hitting it further potentially makes it easier to get that lower score.

Both players in your example maximized their long games. They both still needed a good long game. The longer player who can't chip or putt obviously has a glaring weakness, but ordinarily would shoot one less stroke on a hole like the one described if he didn't have such a horrible short game.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, alleztom said:

No in my view - it's driver - how often do you hit/need a perfect 3/4 iron in the round? And I'd still rather fight Adam Scott in a 3i than a Driver competition (he'd beat me by lots in both)

You'd lose every time in both. The point is you'd rather take him on in a putting competition, or a short game competition.

1 hour ago, sirhacksalot said:

I watch a lot of Mark Crossfield, he has a couple of videos where he has beaten tour pros in fun little putting competitions.  But honestly he would probably lose 8/10 times to those same pros in match play, due to being shorter.

If they're PGA Tour pros, he'd lose a lot more often than that (assuming they're playing PGA Tour type setups, too - the shorter and quirkier a course gets, the less their advantage).

1 hour ago, sirhacksalot said:

It's probably me just giving credit to past heros, but now when I hear things like Gary Player said "drive for show and putt for dough" , I take it as more of don't buy a 48" driver and swing for the fences everytime maybe getting one good drive in 3-4 rounds and honestly probably never that goes the most 10-15- even 20 at most yards past the short driver that you can swing.

I'd agree with that. But when he goes on to say "the short game, wedging, bunker play, putting" is what matters, you can't keep taking it that way, IMO.

2 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

Am just wondering whether Gary Player's logic is this. Assume you can hit a long par 5 in 2 (or get it within a few yards of the green) but then take at least three if not four shots to get down from there (bad chipping, bad putting etc) and another player hits it GIR or gets it close to the green with the third and two puts or gets up and down every time.  Every so often he will get it close enough for a tap in birdie and maybe putt well enough to guarantee a par or even make a birdie a lot of the time.  At the end of the day the score on your card matters more than the distance you hit any club I suppose, though hitting it further potentially makes it easier to get that lower score.

You're still not really paying attention. C'mon, @pganapathy.

You can concoct silly examples all day long. Nobody on planet Earth would tell Player A in your example to keep hitting the ball far. They'd tell him "my God man, you have a glaring weakness, and really need to work on your chipping and putting." Everyone. Everywhere. (Unless he was a long drive competitor playing golf for the hell of it with some buddies.)

If these skills were relatively the same, you'd bet on the player with the A full swing ("long game") and the B short game/putting over the guy with the A short game/putting and the B full swing.

You should buy LSW.

Quote

Imagine a game in which you pair two average PGA Tour players with two average 80s golfers. Team A will play by having the pro hit every shot that requires a Full Swing Motion (roughly every shot from 60+ yards), and the 80s golfer will play every short game shot and hit every putt. Team B will play the opposite way: the pro will hit every short game shot and putt after the 80s golfer plays every shot from the tee to about 65 yards.

On a typical 7000-yard golf course, what might you expect these teams to score? Which team would win? The answer should probably come as no surprise, assuming you’ve read the first parts of this book already — Team A can be expected to wipe the floor with Team B. It’s not even that close. On average, Team A can be expected to shoot even-par 72, while Team B struggles to break into the 70s and averages about 80. That’s a full eight shots. 

The full swing matters a heck of a lot more than the short game and putting.

[alleztom]

 

1 minute ago, iacas said:

You'd lose every time in both. The point is you'd rather take him on in a putting competition, or a short game competition.

Agreed - but I still think what I said holds true.

[mvmac]

5 hours ago, pganapathy said:

Length does matter but my point is hit shorter clubs in and your game improves, which is my point.  The short game is key.  Each persons definition of short game depends on their length.  An old man who can only hit his PW 50 yards or some really long hitter getting 170 yards off the PW makes that their short game distance

A full pitching wedge isn't short game, that's long game because it's utilizing full swing mechanics. Short game is pitching, chipping, putting, green side bunker shots.

[Vinsk]

I think it's common sense that putting is an easier skill to better yourself in than the full swing. When people say "what good is a sound long game if you 4 putt every green?" thats simply not reasonable. I'm a mediocre golfer, 8hcp. The chances of me 4 putting are slim and even 3 putts aren't that common....yet I never practice putting. However, the chances of me hitting a poor full swing shot thus causing an immediate penalty or horrible spot resulting in no chance to par is quite high EVERY SWING I take. I never shank, lose a ball, hit a hazard, wiff, and I very seldom hit a putt where the end result is a worse position than before striking the ball. "Drive for show, putt for dough" is 100% wrong.

[bubble]

to get into short game talk you need to hit it closer to the green than average.

spieth is a bit from mars in driving not so long.

yet he sparks his 3 irons 250 yards within 6 feet at hawai this week. thats long and straight.

he putts good but really gets its close or on the right side to putt at. + he gets risk (double bogey) totally out of play (never seen him double yet).

for me he is more game wise than others. therefore he drives with less pressure and putts freelance.

 

 

 

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, bubble said:

yet he sparks his 3 irons 250 yards within 6 feet at hawai this week. thats long and straight.

 

Bit of an outlier tournament. The average driving distance for that tournament is typically 30 yards farther than most tournaments. 

[mvmac]

46 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Bit of an outlier tournament. The average driving distance for that tournament is typically 30 yards farther than most tournaments. 

Right and he also landed that shot well short of the game. He certainly didn't fly it 250 yards.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, bubble said:

spieth is a bit from mars in driving not so long.

He's just a bit above average in distance, but he's very consistent and accurate with the driver so he may pull it more on tight holes. He uses that accuracy to strategically place his drives in spots for good approaches - possibly favoring inside of doglegs to negate his distance disadvantage relative to some of the other top players. Rarely misses 'big', but has good recovery shot skills. Distance with accuracy is why he was in the top 15 for SG Driving in 2015.

Quote

yet he sparks his 3 irons 250 yards within 6 feet at hawai this week. thats long and straight.

I think that may have been 250 by the dog leg like Tiger's shot over the water in Canada. It was also significantly downhill - maybe as much as 100'.

Quote

he putts good but really gets its close or on the right side to putt at. + he gets risk (double bogey) totally out of play.

He's got a very good all around game.

Quote

for me he is more game wise than others. therefore he drives with less pressure and putts freelance.

What does 'putt freelance' mean?

Edited January 10, 2016 by natureboy

[mvmac]

Case closed 

Jordan Spieth led the Hyundai field in strokes gained putting. He would have won gaining zero with his putting. https://t.co/Y6H3nhFwFL

— Mark Broadie (@MarkBroadie)

January 11, 2016

[ZappyAd]

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Case closed 

But wouldn't he also have won if his strokes gained driving and approach were 0?  In fact wouldn't he have won by more (driving + approach) gained zero vs (putting) gained zero?

[tmac20]

17 minutes ago, ZappyAd said:

But wouldn't he also have won if his strokes gained driving and approach were 0?  In fact wouldn't he have won by more (driving + approach) gained zero vs (putting) gained zero?

Yes. If his strokes gained putting was 0 he would have won by 0-1 stroke. 

If his strokes gained short game was 0 he would have won by 4 strokes.

If his strokes gained driving was 0 he would have won by 5-6 strokes. 

If his strokes gained approach was 0 he would have won by 4-5 strokes.

If his strokes gained long game (driving+approach) was 0 he would have won by 2-3 strokes.

If his strokes gained short game (short game+putting) was 0 he would have lost by 3-4 strokes. 

So yeah, last week was a poor example. 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, tmac20 said:

Yes. If his strokes gained putting was 0 he would have won by 0-1 stroke. 

If his strokes gained short game was 0 he would have won by 4 strokes.

If his strokes gained driving was 0 he would have won by 5-6 strokes. 

If his strokes gained approach was 0 he would have won by 4-5 strokes.

If his strokes gained long game (driving+approach) was 0 he would have won by 2-3 strokes.

If his strokes gained short game (short game+putting) was 0 he would have lost by 3-4 strokes. 

So yeah, last week was a poor example. 

A fairly rare moment of sloppiness for Mr. Broadie.

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, ZappyAd said:

But wouldn't he also have won if his strokes gained driving and approach were 0?  In fact wouldn't he have won by more (driving + approach) gained zero vs (putting) gained zero?

Probably not. If your strokes gained driving and approach is 0 then you have less birdie opportunities because you have more short game shots and typically shorter putts. So his strokes gained putting is in conjunction with his strokes gained tee to green  because he has to make putts at a significant distance to have that much strokes gained putting.