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

[Mop Bucket]

19 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Ask yourself this, when Jordan struggles where is he losing the most strokes? Why isn't he winning more? Because he needs to work on his approaches. If he improved his approaches even to into the 50's or 40's he'd dominate the game. Even if he lost some ground in the putting and around the green stats doing that he'd still be the best player on tour and win more than anyone in the history of the game.

The most telling thing in the list above is how Spieth vs Watson. Guess who has more wins since 2010? Watson, 9 vs 8.

 

5. Jordan Spieth	9th	106th	1st	6th
6. Bubba Watson	2nd	4th	102nd	135th

When he was winning events last year, didn't he already lead the tour in putting? This year he has one of the best percentages outside of 20 ft.

You can't compare amateurs to pros. They way they score is capitalizing on opportunities, the way the average golfer scores well is cutting out mistakes, at least in the big picture.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Mop Bucket

[pumaAttack]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I keep going back to the original article, and this is the thing that I keep coming away with.  Improving your weakness isn't fun.  It doesn't matter whether that weakness is driving the ball, chipping, putting, it doesn't matter, its no fun because you do it poorly.  Its no fun to fail repeatedly.  What Jason Day did was to recognize that he needed to improve his short game, and do the drudge work to improve it.  That's one individual evaluating and improving his own game.  To say that because Day concentrates on short game, I should also concentrate on short game just as much is ludicrous, I should work to improve my specific weakness(es). The part that applies to every one of us, assuming we want to improve, is the honest evaluation, and the willingness to practice the "un-fun" stuff.  

Exactly, people love hitting driver and irons on the range.  That's great and yes can be a lot of fun and stress relieving.  That doesn't make it the most important thing to practice for though.  

What is ludicrous is people thinking they know better than Jason Day does.  That they know for SURE he would win more if he focused on long game more.  Winning more than 7/17 times... Give me a break and stop following some book. 

[Rainmaker]

As an amateur who is not a good driver of the ball, I'm sick of everybody who is a good driver of the ball telling me it's not important, lol.  You can have the world's best short game, but if you've got my long game, you're not making the tour. 

Sadly, the opposite is true . .if you have the worlds best long game but my short game you're also out.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

You all seem to miss my points about being to recover.  PGA pros can all hit their irons really well.  But the difference is what happens when they miss a green.  

Adam Scott could have the worst short game on the PGA tour and still beat Patrick Reed. If you drop Scott's around the green stat to the 199th ranked player's value he still has a total strokes gained of +1.299. That is still +0.145 strokes better than Reed. That is because Adam's long game is 1.1 strokes better than Reed's long game. Guess what, Reed has the best short game on the PGA Tour this year. How many times has Reed won this year compared to Adam? 

18 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Them I don't think it's any secret Day started winning when he worked on the short game.  Spieth returned to winning once he brought back that focus.  That Luke Donald went from world #1 to falling off the face of the earth when he tried to gain distance and lost focus on his amazing short game. 

He started winning because from 2014 to 2015 he went from 18th off the tee to 3rd off the tee, 72nd on approach shots to 25th on approach shots.

By improving his long game he gave himself better opportunities for birdies instead of scrambling for pars. 

Luke Donald is struggling because he's progressively gotten worse of the tee and on his approach shots. His short game has stayed in the top 20, over the past 6 seasons. He actually had a better short game in 2012 than he did in his best season of 2011. He had a better short game in 2013 than he did in either 2012 and 2011. What is the common theme. Luke's long game has deteriorated. 

 

 

[JxQx]

I think one thing people are forgetting but has been brought up earlier is that you only have a finite amount of time to practice and that focusing on one aspect is taking away from another which has a way bigger impact on amateurs vs. pro's. Long game I feel will always be more important due to one aspect that hasn't been mentioned, penalty strokes, it is an extreme rarity to take penalty strokes on short game. Amateurs have way bigger misses compared to pro's thus taking away time from the long game their misses will most likely be more frequent or larger or possibly both. You can be the best putter in the world but its going to be really hard to score well if you're hitting balls OB and into hazards all the time.

Edit: Another key people are assuming is that practice time and reward are linear. That a pro working 6 hrs on putting and 4 hrs on long game is the equivalent to 40 mins putting and 20 minutes long game for the amateur. Once you reach a certain point in practice time it seems to all change.

Edited June 9, 2016 by JxQx

[pumaAttack]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Adam Scott could have the worst short game on the PGA tour and still beat Patrick Reed. If you drop Scott's around the green stat to the 199th ranked player's value he still has a total strokes gained of +1.299. That is still +0.145 strokes better than Reed. That is because Adam's long game is 1.1 strokes better than Reed's long game. Guess what, Reed has the best short game on the PGA Tour this year. How many times has Reed won this year compared to Adam? 

He started winning because from 2014 to 2015 he went from 18th off the tee to 3rd off the tee, 72nd on approach shots to 25th on approach shots.

By improving his long game he gave himself better opportunities for birdies instead of scrambling for pars. 

Luke Donald is struggling because he's progressively gotten worse of the tee and on his approach shots. His short game has stayed in the top 20, over the past 6 seasons. He actually had a better short game in 2012 than he did in his best season of 2011. He had a better short game in 2013 than he did in either 2012 and 2011. What is the common theme. Luke's long game has deteriorated. 

 

 

You can't just take a stat and twist the results to say how it would affect a golf score.  This isn't math, its a real world game.  Dropping stats doesn't include practice time, conditions, courses, etc.  I could just as easily move Jeff Herman to number 1 in all rankings arbitrarily and say he has the best game.  Doesn't make it true.  What does matter is performance in the real world. 

 

You say Jason improved his long game but yet Day focused 66% of his practice time to his short game.  Maybe that's the  secret.  Stop obsessing over some magical GIR stat and actually round out your whole game.  Pounding driver after driver and iron after iron has diminishing returns. Day figured this out, will you?

[Elmer]

On 6/8/2016 at 10:30 AM, nevets88 said:

Obviously the writer never heard of 65/15/10, but yes, the short game is important.

 

What is  65/15/10????

 

[boogielicious]

8 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

You can't just take a stat and twist the results to say how it would affect a golf score.  This isn't math, its a real world game.  Dropping stats doesn't include practice time, conditions, courses, etc.  I could just as easily move Jeff Herman to number 1 in all rankings arbitrarily and say he has the best game.  Doesn't make it true.  What does matter is performance in the real world. 

 

You say Jason improved his long game but yet Day focused 66% of his practice time to his short game.  Maybe that's the  secret.  Stop obsessing over some magical GIR stat and actually round out your whole game.  Pounding driver after driver and iron after iron has diminishing returns. Day figured this out, will you?

You are being extremely aggressive with your responses again. Please slow it down. People are trying to help you understand what is important to work on to improve and you are just shutting them down.

You and I are both mid-cappers. We have a LOT to learn. We are better off listening to those that are better than us who are trying to help us than being defiant.

[Golfingdad]

4 minutes ago, Elmer said:

What is  65/15/10????

 

 

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Pounding driver after driver and iron after iron has diminishing returns. 

Determining weaknesses, getting good instruction on improving those weaknesses, and practicing effectively, are completely different from pounding anything.  If you're not practicing something specific, you're exercising.  

[Jeremie Boop]

28 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

That is such one way logic.  You can't assume by spending more time on his long game he would win more.  You are 100% assuming this.  But it is a fact he has won two majors and a fed Ex cup by being great at the short game.  Why would he change this?!  To lose his touch around the green and stop saving pars?!

You are using most wins from 2010 to compare the two? Two years before Jordan even turned pro?!  Oh my. Lets compare wins since Jordan was even eligible to win tournaments, you know, on the PGA tour.  Those numbers?  Jordan 8 wins. Bubba 5.  Still sticking with your long game approach now?

Agreed!  

It appears a lot of people here are chasing the magical green dragon.  No matter how much you practice your long game you will never average more than 60/70% GIRs.  You will be lucky, as an amateur, to ever sniff 50% GIR on average.  But yet you want to spend countless hours chasing that dream while blantedly ignoring an aspect of the game that comes up on 50/60% of holes you play every round.  Why?  All because some book promised you lower scores?

 

I compared starting in 2010 which is the first year listed for Jordan on the PGA tour stats, but fair point on that being before he turned pro. It's not one way logic, he LOSES now because he struggles with approach shots, it only stands to show that if he improved this area now he'd win more. It's not a difficult concept, if he improves his weakest area he'll do better overall and win more. Simple. I'm definitely sticking with my long game approach. Bubba is 102 and 135 in short game and putting but only has 3 fewer wins, I'd say that's pretty damn good indication that long game is pretty important. Bubba proves that you can win a lot on tour with pretty bad short game and putting. Not to mention be ranked right behind the person who is ranked top 10 in 3 of the 4 categories. Nobody is saying "don't work on short game" what they are saying is that improving tee shots and approach shots is going to give most people a much better chance to do well. If someone can't reliably hit a tee shot they can find, or hit an approach shot close enough to the green to give themselves a legitimate chance at an up and down they aren't doing themselves any favors focusing on chipping and putting. Also, it's been said many times, you work on whatever the biggest flaw is in your game the most. For most people, that's their full swing. For those people who's weakest area is short game, then of course they should work on that the most.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

What is ludicrous is people thinking they know better than Jason Day does.  That they know for SURE he would win more if he focused on long game more.  Winning more than 7/17 times... Give me a break and stop following some book. 

 

We teach some top 150 players (OWGR). It would shock you what they don't know and the questions they ask. They're good at playing golf. They're not good at analyzing golf. Or even knowing what to work on - that's why they pay instructors. And stats guys.

@pumaAttack, you're being rude again AND you're wrong on this. You're being dismissive, aggressive, and insulting. You're not responding to direct questions posed to you. You're arguing facts.

I'm following some of our top ranked female amateurs today or I'd write more, but dude… guess what? This is my life. Odds are I know a thing or two. Likely more than you. Once again it'd behoove you to listen with an open mind instead of blindly insulting people trying to help you.

[pumaAttack]

10 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

You are being extremely aggressive with your responses again. Please slow it down. People are trying to help you understand what is important to work on to improve and you are just shutting them down.

You and I are both mid-cappers. We have a LOT to learn. We are better off listening to those that are better than us who are trying to help us than being defiant.

This isn't about what I need to work on.  I need to work on all of my game. 

My issue is people thinking they know better than the worlds best golfer. That is blind arrogance. They don't get to tell Jason Day how to spend his practice time. I mean seriously, you can't argue with the numbers he puts up with the current practice regime he has.  Yet posters here want to. 

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

We teach some top 150 players (OWGR). It would shock you what they don't know and the questions they ask. They're good at playing golf. They're not good at analyzing golf. Or even knowing what to work on - that's why they pay instructors. And stats guys.

@pumaAttack, you're being rude again AND you're wrong on this. You're being dismissive, aggressive, and insulting. You're not responding to direct questions posed to you. You're arguing facts.

I'm following some of our top ranked female amateurs today or I'd write more, but dude… guess what? This is my life. Odds are I know a thing or two. Likely more than you. Once again it'd behoove you to listen with an open mind instead of blindly insulting people trying to help you.

People are constantly ignoring my points and facts, it's a two way street.   

I have listed just as many FACTS, you just disagree with them.  You can't say my facts are WRONG because they don't fit your agenda.  

Again this isn't about my game or helping me, it's 100% about Jason Day.  I'm gonna say Day knows what's best for him, and it's not spending 65% of his time on the long game.  It is arrogant and ignorant to suggest other wise. 

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

My issue is people thinking they know better than the worlds best golfer. That is blind arrogance. They don't get to tell Jason Day how to spend his practice time. I mean seriously, you can't argue with the numbers he puts up with the current practice regime he has.  Yet posters here want to. 

If the world's best players know what is best then why do they have swing coaches, mental coaches, stat analyst to all assessing their game and giving them professional help? 

Why did Tiger Woods go to Butch Harmon? Why not just be stuck in his ways and push forward because he's the Tour player? Tiger knew he didn't know all the answers and consulted with people who knew more. 

Sure I can argue the numbers he has put up.

As of right now he's losing 0.05 strokes on his short game compared to last year. Basically his short game is equal to what it was last year. His Approach game is down 0.11 strokes and his tee shots are down 0.41 strokes per round. Working on his short clearly has not helped him make up the difference compared to where he was last season. He's basically maintaining the same level of short game, yet he's lost half a stroke on his long game. 

[iacas]

This thread is not about Jason Day. That was the jumping off point. Even with Jason 80-150 yards is not short game.

It's not a two way street. Not even close. Your can't even respond to my questions.

Matt said you got bad strokes gained numbers. Did you address that?

Cut the crap. It's not arrogance. Your close mindedness is more arrogant than anything else in this thread.

As I wrote this Matt added another decent point.

P.S. Stop alleging "agenda." If I have an agenda it's helping golfers play better golf.

[pumaAttack]

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If the world's best players know what is best then why do they have swing coaches, mental coaches, stat analyst to all assessing their game and giving them professional help? 

Why did Tiger Woods go to Butch Harmon? Why not just be stuck in his ways and push forward because he's the Tour player? Tiger knew he didn't know all the answers and consulted with people who knew more. 

Sure I can argue the numbers he has put up.

As of right now he's losing 0.05 strokes on his short game compared to last year. Basically his short game is equal to what it was last year. His Approach game is down 0.11 strokes and his tee shots are down 0.41 strokes per round. Working on his short clearly has not helped him make up the difference compared to where he was last season. He's basically maintaining the same level of short game, yet he's lost half a stroke on his long game. 

You honestly think the worlds best golfer isn't aware of the stats?  That he doesn't have a team of coaches to help him?  

But regardless of that, he should change his approach that got him to world number one?  All because some book says so?

Come on man.  There are smarter people out there than anybody on this site.  Day knows his game better than anybody on this site...  Yet you honestly think you could devudlge a training plan that would help him more... 

 

Edited June 9, 2016 by pumaAttack

[Lihu]

59 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

That is such one way logic.  You can't assume by spending more time on his long game he would win more.  You are 100% assuming this.  But it is a fact he has won two majors and a fed Ex cup by being great at the short game.  Why would he change this?!  To lose his touch around the green and stop saving pars?!

You are using most wins from 2010 to compare the two? Two years before Jordan even turned pro?!  Oh my. Lets compare wins since Jordan was even eligible to win tournaments, you know, on the PGA tour.  Those numbers?  Jordan 8 wins. Bubba 5.  Still sticking with your long game approach now?

Not sure this has been said already, but all the pros have great long games, or they wouldn't be, and the differentiator is a great short game.

If you don't have a great long game the first thing you need to work on is long game.

I don't have even a "good" one but find it way less frustrating a sport because of my budding long game. I could literally chip twice and 4 putt and not blink an eye. I get lots of near greens and enough greens to make it a fun game. I'm like many other people in this state, and all the other mid cappers I know have similar games as mine.

If you have a great short game compared to your long game, I might be apt to asking you for war stories from WWII or something. . .

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Not sure this has been said already, but all the pros have great long games, or they wouldn't be, and the differentiator is a great short game.

The long game is still a bigger differentiator. It's not even close. 68%/32% IIRC.