Pro Golfers Know Working on Short Game Goes a Long Way [NYT]

[pumaAttack]

16 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm sure others will bring the actual statistics, but I'd bet that the winners are most often the guys who hit the ball closest to the hole in regulation.  That's full swing mechanics.  Sure, sometimes a great putting week will overcome average ball-striking, but I'll take the guy who averages 15 feet in regulation over the guy who's averaging 25 feet.

In the OP, the issue was Jason Day recognizing that his short game was weaker than his full swing, and dedicating the time and effort to make it better.

And what has Jason Day done in the last few months?!

To the topic:

I have recently converted to the fines wedge technique that James Seickman teaches.  It took me much longer to get the touch aspect down.   I didn't know how hard to swing and how much backswing to have for a certain shot.  Once I got that aspect down the scoring followed. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by pumaAttack

[Hazsa]

47 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

I guess we agree to disagree.  

I think that touch can have a huge impact and that touch can be improved with practice.   Not everybody has the exact same swing mechanics, but they can still get good results.  Too much emphasize is placed on mechanics around here sometimes.   There is still an art to golf.

Umm, it isn't that big of a scoring factor.  The longest hitters on tour aren't winning every week. It's the people who can get up and down and putt well for that week.  Those are the winners on tour week in and week out.  

If distance was so important DJ and Rory would win every week.

Yep. I certainly see where you're coming from.

I wouldnt say my 'mechanics' are perfect for chipping/ pitching, but I've found a method through practice, and I've developed my touch so that I can see a shot from within 50 yards and execute it often enough to make half decent scores. Don't get me wrong, I don't knock 'em stone dead all day, but I see others with perfectly good techniques for pitching with absolutely no concept of how far they need to carry it or even any idea of how far they will carry it.

[Golfingdad]

20 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Do you think you could maybe turn more pars into birdies or bogeys into pars if you spend a few more minutes working on the short game?  Surely putting a chip shot to within 5 feet consistently will knock strokes off your game.  Especially if before you double chipped or left yourself a 30 footer downhill.  

No, I believe I will lose strokes.

Again, the amount of time I (most of us) have to practice is finite.  A couple of days a week on my lunch break and whenever I can talk my son into going on the weekends.  Because it is finite, every extra minute I spend on the short game is one less minute on the full swing.  Considering that the long game is something on the order of 2 1/2 times more important than the short game, it stands to reason that I'll be costing myself strokes if I practice my chipping and pitching too much in lieu of my full swing. 

I also think that the amount of practice (or skill, really) to be able to put "a chip shot to within 5 feet consistently" is a heck of a lot more than most people would imagine.  It's just not worth it.  My (what I consider to be) adequate short game means that, other than in really tricky situations, I virtually guarantee myself that I will be putting on my next shot after my short game shot.

Yesterday I had 11 short game shots, 10 of which had me putting afterwards, and I had a total of 20 shots follow those 11 pitch/chips.  I got up an down three times, took one extra bunker shot on a really tricky situation I left myself, and two putted all of the rest.  Incidentally, I left myself with make-able putts (inside of about 8 feet) 3 of the times and I didn't make any of them.  The ones I made were 20-25 feet.

Could I have gotten up and down more times with more pitching practice?  Perhaps.  But I would cost myself practice time on the full swing, which could very well lead to fewer greens hit. 3/11 is certainly nothing to write home about, but I'd rather have that (and know that a couple of putts drop and I'm at 6/11 without any extra short game practice) than 4/13 or 4/14.  Not to mention that the proximity of my shots that remain on the green will go up as well.  That also increases the putting stats.

[saevel25]

4 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

I have played with plenty of people that will chip and putt across the width of a green simply because they have no sense of touch

I would bet that has more to do with technique over touch. The better the technique the better you can develop touch. 

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Do you think you could maybe turn more pars into birdies or bogeys into pars if you spend a few more minutes working on the short game?  Surely putting a chip shot to within 5 feet consistently will knock strokes off your game.  Especially if before you double chipped or left yourself a 30 footer downhill.  

Nope. You get more birdies by hitting more greens. You get more pars by hitting more greens. You get more bogies by missing greens. You can only be so good with your short game.

PGA Tour players makes bogey 32% of the time on a 75 FT putt. PGA Tour players bogey 50% of the time from a 25 yard short game shot. Just hitting the green improves their shot of making par by 18% from the same distance. 

If short game is a glaring weakness then yea work on it. Otherwise spend time on refining your long game (tee shots, approach shots). Eve for PGA Tour players being on the green is an advantage. 

1 hour ago, pumaAttack said:

And what has Jason Day done in the last few months?!

Jason might want to work on his long game. He's ranked a combined 49th on his tee shots and his approach shots. He's lucky he's having an elite putting year. His short game is ranked 43rd. If all three of those things are equal in ranking then his priority should be his long game. It gives him more chances to use that putter to make birdies. 

49 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I also think that the amount of practice (or skill, really) to be able to put "a chip shot to within 5 feet consistently" is a heck of a lot more than most people would imagine.  It's just not worth it.  My (what I consider to be) adequate short game means that, other than in really tricky situations, I virtually guarantee myself that I will be putting on my next shot after my short game shot.

I agree. PGA Tour players average 7'5" on scrambling attempts. Even the top short game guys average just over 5' and they put substantial time into their short game that we just don't have time to do. This notion you can hit it to 5 ft consistently is ridiculous.

 

[dave s]

Over maybe the past 10 years, the young guys coming onto the PGA tour are complete players.  They have every part of their game honed.  It used to be get to the tour, THEN realize you have to have a short game and be able to putt to complete at that level.  And short game was something they'd work on AFTER gaining their tour card.  Not anymore.

If you look back to Tiger Woods first seasons on tour, had he been able to putt when he arrived, he'd already have Sam Snead's tournament record and probably 6-8 more major wins.  He flat out couldn't make 4-6' putts.

Now ALL the young guys have good, (maybe not GREAT, yet) short games and are very good putters when they make the big show.

Nobody will ever make me believe a quality short game is overrated.

Finally, if Dustin Johnson was a better putter he'd have won 3 or 4 majors by now.  I'm sure he's working on it, but probably spent way more time learning to bomb every club in the bag and neglected working hard on the most important scoring club in the bag--the putter.

dave

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, dave s said:

If you look back to Tiger Woods first seasons on tour, had he been able to putt when he arrived, he'd already have Sam Snead's tournament record and probably 6-8 more major wins.  He flat out couldn't make 4-6' putts.

It was probably more he changed his swing under Butch Harmon during the middle of the 1997 season and it took him a year and a half to hit his stride. 

9 minutes ago, dave s said:

Nobody will ever make me believe a quality short game is overrated.

It's overrated in how the PGA Tour makes it seem like it's the end all to be all to scoring. The best short games are averaging half a stroke better than the field. The best driving + approach shots are averaging 1.25 to 1.5 strokes better than the field. For PGA Tour players, when it comes to how low can they shoot, it starts and ends with their full swing. A hot putter might get them the win for a weekend, but over the course of the season long term success comes from the long game. 

13 minutes ago, dave s said:

Finally, if Dustin Johnson was a better putter he'd have won 3 or 4 majors by now.  I'm sure he's working on it, but probably spent way more time learning to bomb every club in the bag and neglected working hard on the most important scoring club in the bag--the putter.

You just assume he neglects his putting because he can crush the ball? The guy is 6'4" tall and uber-athletic. Also, he's a halfway decent putter. This year he's averaging 1/3rd of a stroke better than the field in putting. He's just had a few non-clutch moments that has cost him. 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

I can't agree with that part...

I've taught a few thousand people. They all miraculously experience improved touch when I improve their mechanics.

They have plenty of touch to get very good results. Their technique is lacking. People - human beings - have good touch. Ask someone to lob a ball to you, and they'll probably do just fine. Ask them to lob a ball toward a hole or a basket, and they'll probably do okay. Even though they may have never done it before.

They seem to lack touch with the short game because their mechanics suffer. They hit the ball all over the face with all kinds of clubhead speed and impact conditions vary from one swing to the next.

4 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

I have played with plenty of people that will chip and putt across the width of a green simply because they have no sense of touch.

Circular logic. You're assuming they have no touch and then ascribing their problems to that assumed flaw. I could teach all of those players, given enough interest on their part, better mechanics and their "touch" would improve quickly, without me ever talking about their "touch."

Same kind of example is in the putting/accelerate thread.

4 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Touch is learned from experience and practice.

Yes, but the amount of experience, given proper technique, is pretty small.

We give an example in LSW of Lebron James. Great sense of touch, clearly. But if you give him a 58° wedge with a ball buried in the rough and a bunker between him and the green, he might not get the ball on the green. Is it his lack of touch, or does he lack the proper technique and mechanics to tap into his sense of touch?

3 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

If they were confident in their touch, they would just swing without worry.

You can't develop confidence in your touch when you're hitting the ball all over the clubface, with different impact conditions, etc. Or when you're accelerating the putter into and through impact.

3 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Exactly.  I think all of this talk about distance being key is way overblown.  Doesn't matter how far you hit if you can't get up and down for birdies and pars.

You don't have to get up and down for par if you hit the green.

3 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Look at the recent USGA study, distance has pretty much been the same as always.  It really isn't that big of a factor.  Scoring touch around the green is.

Read up on some things. Buy my book. There are newer, better ways to look at how we shoot good scores in golf.

Greenside shots are SV③. No doubt. But Driving and Approach Shots are SV④. Putting are mostly SV② and SV① skills.

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

I think that touch can have a huge impact and that touch can be improved with practice. Not everybody has the exact same swing mechanics, but they can still get good results.  Too much emphasize is placed on mechanics around here sometimes. There is still an art to golf.

There is. But you express that art with proper mechanics.

Discussing mechanics doesn't mean you're thinking about mechanics, it simply builds the framework through which a player expresses his feels or his art or his touch.

There is an art to golf, absolutely. But bad mechanics means you have almost no chance of expressing your artistry.

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Umm, it isn't that big of a scoring factor. The longest hitters on tour aren't winning every week. It's the people who can get up and down and putt well for that week.  Those are the winners on tour week in and week out.

You seem to be out of touch with the newer understanding we have in golf.

Distance is a huge advantage.

And when people say "the long game" they are not saying "hit it far." They're talking about the full swing - driving, approach shots, etc.

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

I have recently converted to the fines wedge technique that James Seickman teaches.  It took me much longer to get the touch aspect down.   I didn't know how hard to swing and how much backswing to have for a certain shot.  Once I got that aspect down the scoring followed. 

Right… so you improved your mechanics, and that has allowed you to improve your touch. Because you have a more solid framework to express your sense of touch.

Heck, my "touch" would be off if you gave me a 60° wedge with the wrong grind and only 4° bounce… Because I'd have to change mechanics to produce the shots and feels I wanted.

10 minutes ago, dave s said:

If you look back to Tiger Woods first seasons on tour, had he been able to putt when he arrived, he'd already have Sam Snead's tournament record and probably 6-8 more major wins.  He flat out couldn't make 4-6' putts.

Huh?

Tiger won the first major - by 12 - in which he played as a pro. Then went to work on his swing, and won the Grand Slam (held all four majors) in 2000-2001.

He also won the PGA in 1999. So that's three majors in 1997, four in 1998, and three in 1999 that I suppose he could have won… Ten majors, again during which time he voluntarily took on swing changes following a record-setting margin of victory in his first pro major… and you think he could have won 6 or 8 of those 10?

So… you think he could have (should have????) won 12 or 14 of his first 17 majors as a pro?

10 minutes ago, dave s said:

Nobody will ever make me believe a quality short game is overrated.

Quick question for you. Take two identical 80s shooters. Two identical PGA Tour players. Put them on a 7000 yard course. One team has the PGA Tour player hit every shot outside of 60 yards, and the 80s shooter everything 60 yards and in. The other team does the opposite.

Which team wins? By how many?

10 minutes ago, dave s said:

Finally, if Dustin Johnson was a better putter he'd have won 3 or 4 majors by now.  I'm sure he's working on it, but probably spent way more time learning to bomb every club in the bag and neglected working hard on the most important scoring club in the bag--the putter.

If Dustin Johnson was a worse ballstriker you'd have never heard of him. Instead, he's won something like at least one PGA Tour event each year for the past 9 or 10 years. Despite being suspended twice for the nose candy.

Dustin's in the top quartile in putting this year.

You seem to vastly over-rate putting. Even Boo Weekley - a horrible putter - can win on the PGA Tour. This research is out there, Dave. Go read up on it. It'll change the way you see your game.

---

Also, and I'm not kidding about this bit here… this stuff isn't really opinion anymore. It's crossed well over into the realm of fact: putting and the short game are far less important than the full swing.

If you have a glaring weakness, work on it. And don't ignore the two parts of your game - even here we suggest that they get 1/3 of your practice time. But more than that is likely not the best use of your time.

[pumaAttack]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I've taught a few thousand people. They all miraculously experience improved touch when I improve their mechanics.

They have plenty of touch to get very good results. Their technique is lacking. People - human beings - have good touch. Ask someone to lob a ball to you, and they'll probably do just fine. Ask them to lob a ball toward a hole or a basket, and they'll probably do okay. Even though they may have never done it before.

They seem to lack touch with the short game because their mechanics suffer. They hit the ball all over the face with all kinds of clubhead speed and impact conditions vary from one swing to the next.

Circular logic. You're assuming they have no touch and then ascribing their problems to that assumed flaw. I could teach all of those players, given enough interest on their part, better mechanics and their "touch" would improve quickly, without me ever talking about their "touch."

Same kind of example is in the putting/accelerate thread.

Yes, but the amount of experience, given proper technique, is pretty small.

We give an example in LSW of Lebron James. Great sense of touch, clearly. But if you give him a 58° wedge with a ball buried in the rough and a bunker between him and the green, he might not get the ball on the green. Is it his lack of touch, or does he lack the proper technique and mechanics to tap into his sense of touch?

You can't develop confidence in your touch when you're hitting the ball all over the clubface, with different impact conditions, etc. Or when you're accelerating the putter into and through impact.

You don't have to get up and down for par if you hit the green.

Read up on some things. Buy my book. There are newer, better ways to look at how we shoot good scores in golf.

Greenside shots are SV③. No doubt. But Driving and Approach Shots are SV④. Putting are mostly SV② and SV① skills.

There is. But you express that art with proper mechanics.

Discussing mechanics doesn't mean you're thinking about mechanics, it simply builds the framework through which a player expresses his feels or his art or his touch.

There is an art to golf, absolutely. But bad mechanics means you have almost no chance of expressing your artistry.

You seem to be out of touch with the newer understanding we have in golf.

Distance is a huge advantage.

And when people say "the long game" they are not saying "hit it far." They're talking about the full swing - driving, approach shots, etc.

Right… so you improved your mechanics, and that has allowed you to improve your touch. Because you have a more solid framework to express your sense of touch.

Heck, my "touch" would be off if you gave me a 60° wedge with the wrong grind and only 4° bounce… Because I'd have to change mechanics to produce the shots and feels I wanted.

 

 

I get what you mean by increased touch from better mechanics, that makes sense.   I am mostly referring to people who NEVER practice their short game, not people who only practice 1/3 of their time on the short game.  

I 100% agree you have to have solid mechanics to reliable perform well around the green, but I do think developing that touch is huge.  If that takes up 35% of your practice, I would say it's worth it. 

I guess I should clarify what I mean with the driving/long game is overrated.  How often is the winner each week in the top percentiles of putting and short game?  You have to have that touch around the green to make the birdies and par saves.  Not every green is going to be hit in regulation.  And certainly most PGA Tour players are great ball strikers.  So if you can improve on getting up and down for par or better that increases your chances for winning dramatically.  Look at who Spieth wins, its usually be saving par from ridiculous lies and birdies from normal par ops. 

 

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

No, I believe I will lose strokes.

Again, the amount of time I (most of us) have to practice is finite.  A couple of days a week on my lunch break and whenever I can talk my son into going on the weekends.  Because it is finite, every extra minute I spend on the short game is one less minute on the full swing.  Considering that the long game is something on the order of 2 1/2 times more important than the short game, it stands to reason that I'll be costing myself strokes if I practice my chipping and pitching too much in lieu of my full swing. 

I also think that the amount of practice (or skill, really) to be able to put "a chip shot to within 5 feet consistently" is a heck of a lot more than most people would imagine.  It's just not worth it.  My (what I consider to be) adequate short game means that, other than in really tricky situations, I virtually guarantee myself that I will be putting on my next shot after my short game shot.

Yesterday I had 11 short game shots, 10 of which had me putting afterwards, and I had a total of 20 shots follow those 11 pitch/chips.  I got up an down three times, took one extra bunker shot on a really tricky situation I left myself, and two putted all of the rest.  Incidentally, I left myself with make-able putts (inside of about 8 feet) 3 of the times and I didn't make any of them.  The ones I made were 20-25 feet.

Could I have gotten up and down more times with more pitching practice?  Perhaps.  But I would cost myself practice time on the full swing, which could very well lead to fewer greens hit. 3/11 is certainly nothing to write home about, but I'd rather have that (and know that a couple of putts drop and I'm at 6/11 without any extra short game practice) than 4/13 or 4/14.  Not to mention that the proximity of my shots that remain on the green will go up as well.  That also increases the putting stats.

 

I guess this kinda goes with my point.

You are not hitting a lot of greens in regulation despite all of the attention you DO pay attention to your full swing.  Wouldn't you SCORE better if you worked on the shots you have often?  You had 8 chances out of 11 holes (I think?) to save par or even knock in a birdie.  If putting all that time towards your long game still isn't resulting in hitting a large percentage of GIRs, maybe more time should be spent on the shots you end up with to increase scoring.

Does that extra 30 minutes on the range have tangible results on your GIR weekly?  I would say spending an extra 15 minutes around the green would help more.

[pumaAttack]

I think its funny you disagree with the practice plan of the number 1 golfer in the world:

Quote

He said he would typically spend four and a half hours practicing chips, sand shots, putts and approaches inside 150 yards and two hours hitting his long irons and woods.

 

I would tend to side with the PGA Championship winner and World #1.  If he thinks is paramount to devote 2/3 of his time to the short game/putting and only 1/3 to Driving and long irons, who is anyone to disagree?

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

I guess I should clarify what I mean with the driving/long game is overrated.  How often is the winner each week in the top percentiles of putting and short game?  You have to have that touch around the green to make the birdies and par saves.  Not every green is going to be hit in regulation.  And certainly most PGA Tour players are great ball strikers.  So if you can improve on getting up and down for par or better that increases your chances for winning dramatically.  Look at who Spieth wins, its usually be saving par from ridiculous lies and birdies from normal par ops. 

Winners are basically statistical outliers. Isolating winners is not a good way at all to evaluate what is important.

Look at it this way. Jordan won the DEAN & DELUCA Invitational. His average strokes gained putting for the season is 0.642. His average strokes gained putting for that tournament was 2.27 per round. He was 3.5x better putting that weekend than his true putting ability on average. People will sit back and say, "Well putting is the most important, he was draining everything." They overlook the fact he hit 71% of the greens in regulation giving him the opportunity to make those birdie putts. 

9 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

I think its funny you disagree with the practice plan of the number 1 golfer in the world:

I would tend to side with the PGA Championship winner and World #1.  If he thinks is paramount to devote 2/3 of his time to the short game/putting and only 1/3 to Driving and long irons, who is anyone to disagree?

Maybe he needs to work on his long game. The fact he's ranked in the high 40's for strokes gained off the tee, on approach shots, and around the green means his priority should be on his long game over his short game. 

Look at it in terms of potential from a top 10 in the category. 

Tee Shots: .36 compared to a top 10 at .67 a -0.31 strokes per round
Approach: .36 compared to a top 10 at .79 a -0.43 strokes per round
scrambling: .23 compared to a top 10 at .51 a -0.28 strokes per round

Yet working on his full swing will benefit both his iron game and his tee shots. So he's gaining 0.74 compared to 0.28 in the short game. There is much more potential for Day to score lower by improving his long game. 

 

[RandallT]

http://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-statistics.html

Quote

Player	Off the tee	Approach	Around the green	Putting
1. Jason Day	44th	29th	23rd	1st
2. Rickie Fowler	6th	25th	11th	34th
3. Adam Scott	40th	1st	94th	110th
4. Phil Mickelson	111th	10th	12th	3rd
5. Jordan Spieth	9th	106th	1st	6th
6. Bubba Watson	2nd	4th	102nd	135th
7. Rory McIlroy	1st	62nd	8th	122nd
8. Dustin Johnson	3rd	28th	134th	48th
9. Hideki Matsuyama	7th	3rd	132nd	94th
10. Justin Rose	4th	14th	25th	117th
Average	22.7	28.2	54.2	67.0
Note: Top-10 rankings in bold.

 

6 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

I think its funny you disagree with the practice plan of the number 1 golfer in the world:

I would tend to side with the PGA Championship winner and World #1.  If he thinks is paramount to devote 2/3 of his time to the short game/putting and only 1/3 to Driving and long irons, who is anyone to disagree?

8 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

How often is the winner each week in the top percentiles of putting and short game?  

In addition to @saevel25's thoughts, the chart above shows the top players this year and where they separated from the field in the various categories. This doesn't show practice times for each area, of course. 

If you squint to zone in on the bold red numbers, the top 10 players on this list mostly have separate themselves in the area of full swings.

For "putting," 5 of the top 10 players rank outside of the top 90 putters. For "around the green," 4 of the top 10 players rank outside the top 90 players.

However, it's rare for a top 10 player to be worse than 90th for either full swing category (driving/approach), and if they are, they are in the top 10 for the other full swing category (see only Spieth and Mickelson).

Take a look at Hideki and Bubba. They do VERY well in the driving and approach categories, but relatively poorly in short game areas. Yet they are in the top 10 overall. 

This would lead me to conclude that generally, pros separate themselves on tour using the full swings. What this all says to me is: Although he is no slouch, watch out when Jason Day gets as hot and consistent with his full swing as he is with his putter!!!!!! Can you say unstoppable? 

 

[pumaAttack]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Winners are basically statistical outliers. Isolating winners is not a good way at all to evaluate what is important.

Look at it this way. Jordan won the DEAN & DELUCA Invitational. His average strokes gained putting for the season is 0.642. His average strokes gained putting for that tournament was 2.27 per round. He was 3.5x better putting that weekend than his true putting ability on average. People will sit back and say, "Well putting is the most important, he was draining everything." They overlook the fact he hit 71% of the greens in regulation giving him the opportunity to make those birdie putts. 

Maybe he needs to work on his long game. The fact he's ranked in the high 40's for strokes gained off the tee, on approach shots, and around the green means his priority should be on his long game over his short game. 

Look at it in terms of potential from a top 10 in the category. 

Tee Shots: .36 compared to a top 10 at .67 a -0.31 strokes per round
Approach: .36 compared to a top 10 at .79 a -0.43 strokes per round
scrambling: .23 compared to a top 10 at .51 a -0.28 strokes per round

Yet working on his full swing will benefit both his iron game and his tee shots. So he's gaining 0.74 compared to 0.28 in the short game. There is much more potential for Day to score lower by improving his long game. 

 

Your logic is so confusing...  You want to throw out the winners?!?  He won because of his putting and scrambling.  If he doesn't do both really well he doesn't win.  Period.   But you want to advocate for less short game practice?!  Jordan even said himself he lost his touch around the greens due to focusing on his swing too much.   He changed his focus back to short game and won... Yet you still can't see that?

All tour players can hit a driver and iron long well.  It is the hot putter that wins tournaments.  It happens every week.  The short game can make up for poor iron shots.  A driver isn't going to make up for a poor putt or chip.  You can recover and score well with a great short game.  Not sure why this is a debate...  

Ha, so you know better than what a world number 1 should practice?  He has won 7 out of what 18 tournaments with this practice routine.  You think that is poor and he could do better?!  Please. 

There is only so much you can practice with the full swing.  There is SO MUCH more variety with the short game and with that reason alone it should get a major of your practice time.  Bunkers, forced carries, lobs, bump and runs, downhill lies, etc, etc.   

I am going to take the advise of the best golfer in the world any day of the week over some stat junkie.  Time to look past the analytics and into reality. 

 

[Golfingdad]

51 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

I get what you mean by increased touch from better mechanics, that makes sense.   I am mostly referring to people who NEVER practice their short game, not people who only practice 1/3 of their time on the short game.  

I 100% agree you have to have solid mechanics to reliable perform well around the green, but I do think developing that touch is huge.  If that takes up 35% of your practice, I would say it's worth it. 

I guess I should clarify what I mean with the driving/long game is overrated.  How often is the winner each week in the top percentiles of putting and short game?  You have to have that touch around the green to make the birdies and par saves.  Not every green is going to be hit in regulation.  And certainly most PGA Tour players are great ball strikers.  So if you can improve on getting up and down for par or better that increases your chances for winning dramatically.  Look at who Spieth wins, its usually be saving par from ridiculous lies and birdies from normal par ops. 

 

 

I guess this kinda goes with my point.

You are not hitting a lot of greens in regulation despite all of the attention you DO pay attention to your full swing.  Wouldn't you SCORE better if you worked on the shots you have often?  You had 8 chances out of 11 holes (I think?) to save par or even knock in a birdie.  If putting all that time towards your long game still isn't resulting in hitting a large percentage of GIRs, maybe more time should be spent on the shots you end up with to increase scoring.

Does that extra 30 minutes on the range have tangible results on your GIR weekly?  I would say spending an extra 15 minutes around the green would help more.

Doing it the way I've done it (practice long game almost exclusively) Ive managed to get better CONTINUOUSLY for the last three or four years.  I cannot see the logic behind changing it up. :)

[pumaAttack]

5 minutes ago, RandallT said:

http://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-statistics.html

 

In addition to @saevel25's thoughts, the chart above shows the top players this year and where they separated from the field in the various categories. This doesn't show practice times for each area, of course. 

If you squint to zone in on the bold red numbers, the top 10 players on this list mostly have separate themselves in the area of full swings.

For "putting," 5 of the top 10 players rank outside of the top 90 putters. For "around the green," 4 of the top 10 players rank outside the top 90 players.

However, it's rare for a top 10 player to be worse than 90th for either full swing category (driving/approach), and if they are, they are in the top 10 for the other full swing category (see only Spieth and Mickelson).

Take a look at Hideki and Bubba. They do VERY well in the driving and approach categories, but relatively poorly in short game areas. Yet they are in the top 10 overall. 

This would lead me to conclude that generally, pros separate themselves on tour using the full swings. What this all says to me is: Although he is no slouch, watch out when Jason Day gets as hot and consistent with his full swing as he is with his putter!!!!!! Can you say unstoppable? 

 

Look at your own stats you listed.  Jordan is 106th in approach...  And 1st in around the green and 6th in putting.  It's pretty obvious why he wins.  It's not his iron game...  It's 100% his short game.  

Look at how awful Matsyoma is around the green.  How often has he won this year?  How often has he collapsed during a weekend?  Maybe if he short game was better it could save him on his off days.  

Look all PGA tour players can smack a golf ball well.  The need a solid short game to WIN.  They need it to bail them out when their swing is off.  Which is often.  You aren't gonna go pin seeking on every hole.  You NEED to save par and turn pars into birdies. You do that with your short game.  

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Doing it the way I've done it (practice long game almost exclusively) Ive managed to get better CONTINUOUSLY for the last three or four years.  I cannot see the logic behind changing it up. :)

So have you tried it the Jason Day way? Do you actually have a control in your tests?!

How do you know you couldn't be SCORING better with more short game practice?  66% like JD does.  

I get it, it's fun to watch a well struck 4 iron or driver but you are not using a 100% proven technique to Lower your scores.  In fact you are going against the advice of the best golfer in the world. 

[RandallT]

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Look at your own stats you listed.  Jordan is 106th in approach...  And 1st in around the green and 6th in putting.  It's pretty obvious why he wins.  It's not his iron game...  It's 100% his short game.  

Look at how awful Matsyoma is around the green.  How often has he won this year?  How often has he collapsed during a weekend?  Maybe if he short game was better it could save him on his off days.  

Look all PGA tour players can smack a golf ball well.  The need a solid short game to WIN.  They need it to bail them out when their swing is off.  Which is often.  You aren't gonna go pin seeking on every hole.  You NEED to save par and turn pars into birdies. You do that with your short game.  

I'm strictly talking about separating from the field, not necessarily winning that week. Just broad numbers across the season so far. I might dive deeper to see how each tournament goes.

Your thesis seems to be that the winner is the guy who does the best on and around the greens, because you see that every week. My guess is that the winner each week will NOT be the one who putted the best, nor the one who was the best around the green. I bet there will be anecdotes where that is true, but not universally so- nor likely even too common. We shall see.

As for the best players this year around and on the greens, see this chart below (at the same link above): 

These guys have awesome touch, right?  Bryce Molder is pretty close to Jordan Spieth. 0.08 strokes behind around the green, and 0.05 strokes behind in putting. That's 0.13 strokes per round. Or just a half stroke worse per TOURNAMENT around the greens. But we don't throw around Bryce Molder's name around like he's a winner.

I get that short game is important. I'm not trying to say you can't win with it. I'm not qualified to know what percentages of time to work on which skills even. Although my sense is that the guidance in threads here on TST is correct.

I'm just saying the numbers suggest that it's the full swing that puts you in the ballpark of winning events,  and it's the short game shots that can certainly "seal the deal." That's what I'm seeing, anyway, and I don't have an axe to grind. 

STROKES GAINED: AROUND-THE-GREEN		STROKES GAINED: PUTTING
Rank	Statistic	Rank	Statistic
1. Jordan Spieth	+0.61	1. Jason Day	+1.01
2. Patrick Reed	+0.59	2. Steve Stricker	+0.91
3. Aaron Baddeley	+0.59	3. Phil Mickelson	+0.87
4. Padraig Harrington	+0.57	4. Jamie Donaldson	+0.82
5. Bryce Molder	+0.53	5. Adam Hadwin	+0.73
6. Retief Goosen	+0.52	6. Jordan Spieth	+0.68
7. David Toms	+0.48	7. Brian Harman	+0.67
8. Rory McIlroy	+0.46	8. Andrew Landry	+0.64
9. Brendon Todd	+0.46	9. Brian Stuard	+0.63
10. Bill Haas	+0.45	10. Bryce Molder	+0.63
Note: Players in top 10 of strokes gained: total in bold.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Your logic is so confusing...  You want to throw out the winners?!?  He won because of his putting and scrambling.  If he doesn't do both really well he doesn't win.  Period. 

Lets say he makes the same number of putts, but misses 10% less greens. He loses 7 strokes. If his scrambling drops by 10% he loses 2 strokes and still wins. You are really off on what is important. Giving his hot putter birdie shots over par shots lets him shoot -17 to win that tournament. It's basic math really. 

8 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Jordan even said himself he lost his touch around the greens due to focusing on his swing too much.   He changed his focus back to short game and won... Yet you still can't see that?

Again, Spieth would not be in contention if he doesn't have his full swing going for him. Stan Utley, one of the best short game guru's out there. A former PGA Tour player only won 1 tournament in his career. If short game was that important than he would have won tons of tournaments. 

Look at Luke Donald. He's one of the best putters on tour over the past 10 years. He has one of the best short games out there. The guy hasn't won in since 2012! If short game was that important than how come Luke is still with out a Major and hasn't won in 4 years? You want to know why Luke Donald got to be #1 in the world in 2011. He was #1 on the PGA Tour in strokes gained on approach shots. He gave his amazing putting ability chances for birdie. 

15 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

All tour players can hit a driver and iron long well.  It is the hot putter that wins tournaments.  

Yet that hot putter isn't worth shit unless the golfer hits the greens needed to make birdies. You are putting the chicken before the egg here. Everything revolves around the long game. 

16 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Ha, so you know better than what a world number 1 should practice?  He has won 7 out of what 18 tournaments with this practice routine.  You think that is poor and he could do better?!  Please. 

He could do better if his long game was sharper. I pointed that out by using stats. He has much more potential to get strokes over the field by improving his long game, over 2x as much versus if he moved into the top 10 in scrambling. 

PGA Tour players are routinely wrong. They were wrong for years on the ball flight laws. Heck, more PGA Tour players are consulting Mark Broadie and other stat analysis to have their game looked at to prioritize their practicing. A lot of PGA Tour players are stuck in the stone age of golfer logic. 

16 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Look at your own stats you listed.  Jordan is 106th in approach...  And 1st in around the green and 6th in putting.  It's pretty obvious why he wins.  It's not his iron game...  It's 100% his short game.  

You are nit picking to fit your point of view. If you look at the top golfers more only 2 have top 10 short games. 4 out of 10 have short games out of the top 50. If you look at the long game 9 out of the 10 golfers have a top 10 ranked long game either off the tee and/or on approach shots. Overall, not based on one golfer, but based on what is a commonality among the top players, it is a top level long game. 

 

 

[pumaAttack]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Lets say he makes the same number of putts, but misses 10% less greens. He loses 7 strokes. If his scrambling drops by 10% he loses 2 strokes and still wins. You are really off on what is important. Giving his hot putter birdie shots over par shots lets him shoot -17 to win that tournament. It's basic math really. 

Again, Spieth would not be in contention if he doesn't have his full swing going for him. Stan Utley, one of the best short game guru's out there. A former PGA Tour player only won 1 tournament in his career. If short game was that important than he would have won tons of tournaments. 

Look at Luke Donald. He's one of the best putters on tour over the past 10 years. He has one of the best short games out there. The guy hasn't won in since 2012! If short game was that important than how come Luke is still with out a Major and hasn't won in 4 years? You want to know why Luke Donald got to be #1 in the world in 2011. He was #1 on the PGA Tour in strokes gained on approach shots. He gave his amazing putting ability chances for birdie. 

Yet that hot putter isn't worth shit unless the golfer hits the greens needed to make birdies. You are putting the chicken before the egg here. Everything revolves around the long game. 

He could do better if his long game was sharper. I pointed that out by using stats. He has much more potential to get strokes over the field by improving his long game, over 2x as much versus if he moved into the top 10 in scrambling. 

PGA Tour players are routinely wrong. They were wrong for years on the ball flight laws. Heck, more PGA Tour players are consulting Mark Broadie and other stat analysis to have their game looked at to prioritize their practicing. A lot of PGA Tour players are stuck in the stone age of golfer logic. 

You are nit picking to fit your point of view. If you look at the top golfers more only 2 have top 10 short games. 4 out of 10 have short games out of the top 50. If you look at the long game 9 out of the 10 golfers have a top 10 ranked long game either off the tee and/or on approach shots. Overall, not based on one golfer, but based on what is a commonality among the top players, it is a top level long game. 

 

 

 Your logic is anecdotal... You assume he will hit every green and have makable putts?  Those scrambling numbers will reduce his putts per hole.  Getting to birdie is the KING, not an arbitrary green in regulation.  Based off your logic, its better to hit a par 4 in 2 shots, leave yourself a 50 foot putt and hopefully 2 putt for par.  Where as I am saying its just as important to miss a green and STILL be able to save par.  Or hell chip in for birdie.  A PGA tour player is pretty automatic from within 7 feet putting.  If you can get your chip shot inside that you will do just as well as your best approach shot and two putt average.  Pros are not sticking it to 5 feet from 180 yards out.  They are closer to 30 feet out.  What is the difference between two putting for par and getting up and down for par, in terms of scoring?  The odds are proven you won't drain that 30 foot birdie putt often at all.  But if you suck at the short game and fail to get up and down you are LOSING strokes.  

You are assuming that every GIR is a par or birdie and every missed green is par or worse.  But when a player can scramble to make up for that missed green, that is far more important that hitting a green and getting a sure fire two putt.  I would agree with you if pros were actually knocking it stiff for tap in birdies, but they 100% are not doing that. I would also agree with you if PGA players hit anywhere near 90% GIR.  They don't.  They have to have that short game to survive rounds and win on tour.  

It is far more important to RECOVER and save a score than it is to have a ho hum two putt par.  One, the scramble, saves your score.  The other simple is doing what you are expected to do.  Look at the Memorial playoff.  Curran hit the green on 18 and two putted for par.  McGirt had to get up and down from the sand to save par.  What was more important there?  Currans two putt or McGirts up and down?  Should McGirt only focus on his long iron game for the next month and assume he will hit 100% of greens in regulation?  Or should he keep honing that short game that saved him and ultimately won the tournament?

 

[pumaAttack]

Jason Day is gaining 1.33 strokes with his short game.
Jason Day is gaining 0.89 strokes with his long game.

His two best stats are Putting and Around-the-green.  Which rank 1st and 23rd respectively.  Off-the-tee and Approach-the-green rank 44th and 29th.  

Please tell me how it is his long game that is winning tournaments... Don't tell me he would win more with more long game practice.  7 out of 17 is really damn impressive.  You do not know how he should practice better than he and his team does.  

 

And GIR is 100% not king.

Lets look at the top 5 world ranked players and their GIR:

1.  Jason Day - 67.87% and ranked 42 on tour.
2.  Jordan Spieth - 64.77% and ranked 124th on tour.
3. Rory Mcilroy - 69.01% and ranked 26th on tour.
 

Two out of the 3 rank better in scrambling on the tour than GIR.  Only Rory is worse when it comes to scrambling rank.  Day is 17th on tour and Jordan is 58th.

Edited June 9, 2016 by pumaAttack