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

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

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?  

Stat analyst are relatively a new thing for golfers. I would say in the last 5 years or so. 

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

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

If it improves his game then sure. It's not a full swing change, it's just practice allocation. Lets say he only needs 25% of his time on short game to maintain the short game were he wants it to be.  Then spending an extra 30-40% of his time on it is wasting time. That is something maybe he should look at. 

[Lihu]

Just now, iacas said:

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

I can see that too.

Long game is the foundation of anyone's game.

[pumaAttack]

1 minute 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.

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. . .

See I think that's the point that's being missed.  I am not saying everyone should focus on the short game more than the long game.  That would be silly. I know I personally need to spend much more time on my long game.  No argument there. 

My points are strictly about the worlds best player and his practice routine.  If he has found that spending a majority of his time working on the short game has helped him, NOBODY on this site has any grounds to argue that. 

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

See I think that's the point that's being missed.  I am not saying everyone should focus on the short game more than the long game.  That would be silly. I know I personally need to spend much more time on my long game.  No argument there. 

My points are strictly about the worlds best player and his practice routine.  If he has found that spending a majority of his time working on the short game has helped him, NOBODY on this site has any grounds to argue that. 

He's the worlds best player implying he's got nearly the best long game, and his personal best long game. It only makes sense that he'd focus on his weaknesses.

No one was arguing about that?

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

My points are strictly about the worlds best player and his practice routine.  If he has found that spending a majority of his time working on the short game has helped him, NOBODY on this site has any grounds to argue that. 

It's impossible for one player to conduct multivariate testing.

Have you responded to Matt's correction of your strokes gained stats?

Cuz you haven't answered my questions. That much I know for sure.

P.S. Jason is at his best when he has putts for eagle and birdie. Not when he's trying to get up and down for par.

[Hardspoon]

12 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

My points are strictly about the worlds best player and his practice routine.  If he has found that spending a majority of his time working on the short game has helped him, NOBODY on this site has any grounds to argue that. 

Umm, no.  They weren't.  If you had stuck to that argument, this discussion would have been much different (and much more interesting, since right now it's just a bunch of people using facts to refute your generalities).

Like:

10 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Yet people still think long game is more important?!  Ha.

Or:

17 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.

Your points are not "strictly about the world's best player and his practice routine".

 

[pumaAttack]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's impossible for one player to conduct multivariate testing.

Have you responded to Matt's correction of your strokes gained stats?

Cuz you haven't answered my questions. That much I know for sure.

P.S. Jason is at his best when he has putts for eagle and birdie. Not when he's trying to get up and down for par.

 

So you can't do multivarite testing, I agree 100%.   So how do you know your way is better?  Let me ask you this.  How many of your players have won majors?  How many are ranked in the top 3 of the world?   Right now the evidence lies firmly in the camp of the worlds best and his practice routine.   Once one of your students win a major or hit world number 1, then you can argue with Day.

 

Did anybody respond when I posted that the top 3 players in the world all rank better on the around the green versus approach the green?  You know, a fact that is relevant to this topic.  

[iacas]

Quote

Day, a three-time winner this season, is known for his length. He averaged 318 yards off the tee in the first two rounds of the Memorial Tournament, but he credited his short game with keeping him within range of the leaders (he was tied for first in the field in sand saves through 36 holes). If the driver is his show-off club, his wedges and putters are his scoring clubs.

And if Jason had found fewer bunkers and less obstructed approaches, he might have been leading instead of just being "within range."

Jason might not have to practice much to hit it 300+ but he gains a lot on the field with great driving and approach shots. When that's off he's not winning.

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

Right now the evidence lies firmly in the camp of the worlds best and his practice routine.   Once one of your students win a major or hit world number 1, then you can argue with Day.

Do you not understand how stupid that comment is? Don't answer that. Clearly you do not.

You have a sample size of one, and you don't even truly understand that sample!

I'm done for about eight hours now. You know… helping golfers get better.

[Groucho Valentine]

In a couple of Day's wins this season he had rounds where hitting the ball all over the yard, though. Particularly at Bay Hill if i remember right. He made some pretty miraculous saves with nice touch and timely putting. That kind of stuff keeps rounds going so you can capitalize when you do hit good shots. 

[pumaAttack]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

And if Jason had found fewer bunkers and less obstructed approaches, he might have been leading instead of just being "within range."

Jason might not have to practice much to hit it 300+ but he gains a lot on the field with great driving and approach shots. When that's off he's not winning.

Do you not understand how stupid that comment is? Don't answer that. Clearly you do not.

You have a sample size of one, and you don't even truly understand that sample!

I'm done for about eight hours now. You know… helping golfers get better.

So the answer is none.  0 of your students have won a major.  Yet you know better than a major winner and the worlds best ranked player?  Don't answer that, I already know you think you do...

[boogielicious]

8 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

So the answer is none.  0 of your students have won a major.  Yet you know better than a major winner and the worlds best ranked player?  Don't answer that, I already know you think you do...

You are completely off base here and being rude.

[DaveP043]

17 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

In a couple of Day's wins this season he had rounds where hitting the ball all over the yard, though. Particularly at Bay Hill if i remember right. He made some pretty miraculous saves with nice touch and timely putting. That kind of stuff keeps rounds going so you can capitalize when you do hit good shots. 

I do agree that the short game helps save things when the full swing game isn't exactly on, but the way to go really low is to hit greens, and hit it close, to minimize the need for anything other than putting.  Its all important.

[Hardspoon]

42 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

So the answer is none.  0 of your students have won a major.  Yet you know better than a major winner and the worlds best ranked player?  Don't answer that, I already know you think you do...

Setting aside - once again - the fact that you don't know what % of time Day was practicing his short game, because the article doesn't clarify it, it's perfectly plausible that major winners and players don't actually know what's best to work on.

There's a great anecdote from Sean Foley that illustrates this (ignore the false equivalence of "100 yards in" and "short game").

The mental side of golf has also been impacted. At Sloan, Sean Foley described how Justin Rose had been unhappy with his wedge game. Foley was able to use Broadie’s work as a platform to show Rose that he was in fact the number one on the PGA Tour from 100 yards in.

“He was so shocked and so surprised that he was number one in the short game” said Foley, whose experience with athletes is that they can start telling themselves stories, sometimes manifesting in an unhealthy and unwarranted self image.

[Groucho Valentine]

16 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I do agree that the short game helps save things when the full swing game isn't exactly on, but the way to go really low is to hit greens, and hit it close, to minimize the need for anything other than putting.  Its all important.

How many of us get good enough with ball striking that it disregards scrambling skills? Not many. Id say less than 10 players in the world are actually that good. You have guys like John Senden and Boo Weekly (who are absolute iron striking machines) that often struggle for good results because they dont recover from bad shots very well. The best players are able to combine all facets of the game into a tight package. The game will never be as simple as just knocking it close all the time. 

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, Groucho Valentine said:

 The game will never be as simple as just knocking it close all the time. 

Like I said up there, its all important.  Working to perfect one facet at the cost of losing ground in another is a poor choice.  Most people stand to gain the most by working on the full swing, but short game and putting are still important for them too.  Its not like we disagree (other than in our choice of baseball teams), we may just have a different emphasis due to our individual skill levels..

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, pumaAttack said:

So the answer is none.  0 of your students have won a major.  Yet you know better than a major winner and the worlds best ranked player?  Don't answer that, I already know you think you do...

 

58 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

You are completely off base here and being rude.

This classic scene comes to mind:

 

[mvmac]

4 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Them devoting an extra hour to a swing that's already automatic isn't gonna change much.

Pro's full swings aren't automatic. They have to work hard at maintaining the level of precision (ballstriking) required to survive on the PGA Tour. The best players also tend to be the best from tee to green. When they have a good putting week they'll probably win (or be close) but what puts them in contention week after week is their ballstriking. The great ballstriking gives them the opportunities they need to make birdies and eagles (and avoid trouble). You can't shoot 15 to 20 under par scrambling your way around the golf course.

You can make a great living being a good ballstriker and mediocre/poor putter (Boo Weekley, Justin Rose, Sergio), you won't be able to cash a check being a great putter and a below-average ballstriker.

The question @iacas posted sums it up perfectly,

17 hours ago, iacas said:

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?

 

[iacas]

10 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

So the answer is none.  0 of your students have won a major.  Yet you know better than a major winner and the worlds best ranked player?  Don't answer that, I already know you think you do...

I'm good friends with a guy whose student had won 14. Visited with him last week. They work mostly on the full swing. And that's where that student gained the most shots. In fact he gained more in approach shots than the other three categories combined in several years. Years he dominated.

Nicklaus won 18 and didn't have a great short game.

@pumaAttack, while you're taking your time out, read some of the many things posted here. There's a lot of detail you're ignoring.

And yes. I do know better. Now, I know how you'll take that, but I don't really care. This is an area of fact, and you're on the wrong side of it.

9 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I do agree that the short game helps save things when the full swing game isn't exactly on, but the way to go really low is to hit greens, and hit it close, to minimize the need for anything other than putting.  Its all important.

Yep.

The full swing matters more. Short game and putting are about half as important.

Still important, but relatively less so.