40 Putts per Round, Average of 96 (Dave Pelz)?

[Lihu]

40 minutes ago, lastings said:

you're still averaging 4 less putts per round than what the OP suggests is the average.   

If you average 4 putts less per round, you are a wayy better putter than they are.   you said "I don't actually consider myself a terrible putter".   Those don't exactly sound like the words of someone that is wayy better than average.    Actually kind of sounds like the words of someone that feels like they are an average putter.  

I’m also better at putting than the “average” 96 shooter so it seems totally plausible to average 40 for someone shooting that high.

However, what I’m trying to improve to fix my high number of putts isn’t just more putting practice. My approach game sucks as much as my putting. So, I’m working on that as well.

[lastings]

well..  I just gotta say..    If you're a 16 index.   That probably means your average score is like 92 or 93.   

So, that means that you are exactly the same or slightly worse that the average "96" golfer from tee to green, but youre a much, much better putter.   Thats what the numbers would suggest, but I'd venture to guess that doesn't feel like a true statement to you.  

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by lastings

[billchao]

I'm a terrible putter and I average 36. Have I made 40 putts? Of course I have, but I don't average 40.

Plus, if a guy averaging 96 averages 40 putts, he's making 56 other strokes, including penalties. A 20 handicap averages 3.11 strokes tee to green? I don't think so.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, lastings said:

well..  I just gotta say..    If you're a 16 index.   That probably means your average score is like 92 or 93.   

So, that means that you are exactly the same or slightly worse that the average "96" golfer from tee to green, but youre a much, much better putter.   Thats what the numbers would suggest, but I'd venture to guess that doesn't feel like a true statement to you.  

More like mid to high 80s average score. You can see my scores on my game golf page. The ones I didn't post there are around the same type of scores.

[lastings]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

More like mid to high 80s average score. You can see my scores on my game golf page. The ones I didn't post there are around the same type of scores.

well, your handicap on GG, also says 10.2, rather than the 16 in your profile...  so that would change by previous statement.. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by lastings

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, lastings said:

well, your handicap on GG, also says 10.2, rather than the 16 in your profile...  so that would change by previous statement.. 

No need, but stats don’t take into account exceptions. Personally, I’m not exceptional

I fit into the mold of long game first then short game improvement are needed to reduce the putts.

However, it’s totally possible that 96 shooters can get 40 putts. Remember that a 96 shooter’s long game is terrible and chipping and pitch shots are not that far behind in badness which easily leaves many with 2 putts for doubles. 3 putts are not unreasonable for double breaking putts landing 80 feet away too.

[uitar9]

Just started rereading Pelz's "short Game Bible" as one of my regular winter reads. I can see why folks get riled up as he does have his opinion regarding the importance of short game...but...for me, short game is important...getting a ball to the middle of the putting surface  "rules". I'm a comfortable two putt putter. Having said that, getting a few extra straight yards out of a drive and second shot would reduce a few chips and reduce overall scores.

My immediate goal is GIR +1 for all holes. Thats normally a 90 and 36 putts. Not sure about other hackers, but a 96 could easily mean 40 putts for me.

As another poster mentioned, actually counting all of a rounds putts, may have an impact on that total putt number.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, uitar9 said:

Just started rereading Pelz's "short Game Bible" as one of my regular winter reads. I can see why folks get riled up as he does have his opinion regarding the importance of short game...but...for me, short game is important...getting a ball to the middle of the putting surface  "rules". I'm a comfortable two putt putter. Having said that, getting a few extra straight yards out of a drive and second shot would reduce a few chips and reduce overall scores.

My immediate goal is GIR +1 for all holes. Thats normally a 90 and 36 putts. Not sure about other hackers, but a 96 could easily mean 40 putts for me.

As another poster mentioned, actually counting all of a rounds putts, may have an impact on that total putt number.

I don't think people are getting riled up so much as slapping their foreheads reading his stuff and thos who preach his stuff.

Whats surprising is that he and his followers still believe all the short game stuff's importance even in light of all the physical evidence showing that it's not as important as they think.

Personally, I can't play a hole and hit a mediocre tee shot, hit a so so approach the best I could from where that shot was made, get to 30 yards of the green with a tight lie over a bunker from under a tree, then barely make it in 2 putts and think to myself "If I only had a better short game, I could have saved par." Then the 96 golfers usually roll their balls all the way down wherever that tight lie lands them 60 to 80 feet away from 40 yards instead of 30 and make their best putt to 7 feet miss the 7 footer and take a tap in double thinking if I could only make all my 7 footers.

Slapping forehead at people who actually think that.

If you play enough golf and actually observe what's happening with a unfettered opinion of your long game, there's no way you can't see the obvious. Long game is the primary culprit for high putting averages with very few exceptions.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Lihu

[CR McDivot]

In my limited experience, 40 putts are possible, but not common.

I consider myself a fair (but not great) putter. I can miss a 3 footer as often as I make a 20 footer. The missed 3 footer seems to happen most for birdie.

Averages from my last 20 rounds -

Putts    35.7
Putts (average)    2
Putts per GIR    2.2
0 Putts    0
1 Putts    2.9
2 Putts    12.6
3 Putts    2.5
4 Putts    0

I think this average is more likely for high handicappers like myself.

I would like to get my average down closer to 32. Obviously, I need to get rid of the 3 jacks. These usually occur from my GIRs leaving way too long of a putt. Need to improve approach shots!

My 1 putts are typically the result of a good wedge from 50 yards in.

[uitar9]

I heard some "expert" say that Birdies is the # to look at so I looked at first and last through 12.18.17

PGA Birdies per GIR

Phil #1 46.59%, #296 Heath Slocum 11.11%

Then thought about this thread and looked at putts per round, same people.

PGA putts per round

#2 Phil 26.25, #214 Slocum 30.25

Since distance vs short game  is such a forum topic of interest 

Average Driving distance 

65 Phil 299.6, 214 Slocum 259.1

Fairways hit

#66 Slocum 67.86%, Phil #290 41.96% 

GIR

255 Phil 61.81%, 294 Slocum 50%

Proximity from the fairway

38 Phil 29 ft, Slocum 30.25 ft

Money list

Phil 34 $466,000

Slocum-I saw nothing

So does this tell me that lower putts equals more birdies and more tour winnings. Is proximity important? Does this sound like short game being somewhat important

...and it starts....

 

 

 

[lastings]

299 drive vs 259 drive.  

Phil approaches from much closer to the green, thus puts the ball closer to the hole.  Closer to the hole = shorter putts = more putts made. 

[iacas]

@uitar9, that’s not really the debate.

The debate is full swing vs short game and putting. It’s not about distance.

And two people is a ridiculously small sample size.

[uitar9]

It appears to be about whether the stats quoted by Pelz are correct/reasonable.

Too much emphasis on short game

Too small a sample size

Reference to game golf suggesting 40 putts is too high.

 Is it possible Game golf is going to have a bias sample? Only hard core/avid golfers (better??) will use Game Golf, (no different than the forums having better/avidgolfers). Appears reasonable to think putting stroke numbers should be a bit lower from GG.

 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, uitar9 said:

It appears to be about whether the stats quoted by Pelz are correct/reasonable.

Partly. And maybe they are reasonable, if you weigh the golfer who plays once a year evenly with the golfer who plays 40 times per year. Because a lot of guys who drink beer and play golf twice a year will take a lot of putts. They also don't shoot 96, so again… maybe they're not reasonable.

Either way, suggesting that because the short game and putting is 63% of your strokes is a "bad" way to justify spending most of your time on the short game and putting, because the limit isn't zero, and a missed 30-footer doesn't "cost" you anything, really, if you look at it in terms of the limits of what's actually possible.

8 minutes ago, uitar9 said:

Too much emphasis on short game

From Dave Pelz, yes.

8 minutes ago, uitar9 said:

Too small a sample size

Two PGA Tour pros? Yes.

And they're not super tightly related, since we're talking about the amateur game.

8 minutes ago, uitar9 said:

Reference to game golf suggesting 40 putts is too high.

GAME GOLF players don't average 96, either… but 34 to 40 is a big jump.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-many-putts-does-the-average-golfer-make-new-data-shows-you-need-more-time-on-the-practice-greenand-the-range

8 minutes ago, uitar9 said:

Is it possible Game golf is going to have a bias sample? Only hard core/avid golfers (better??) will use Game Golf, (no different than the forums having better/avidgolfers). Appears reasonable to think putting stroke numbers should be a bit lower from GG.

Sure, but again, 34 to 40 is a big jump.

You have 340 posts here, and have been a member for awhile… but you don't have any achievements or awards. Yet I still think it's likely you've seen these topics:

The full swing - driving and approach shots - account for about 67% of the difference between two classes of golfers, with the short game and putting combining for about 33% (19% short game, 14% putting). This bears out on the PGA Tour, too. From a post I made the other day when someone said that the top eight players (it was nine, but I stopped at eight) were all good players because they were good putters…

Strokes Gained (2017)
Johnson: Tot: 1.905. Tee: 1.002 (1), App: 0.702 (5), Putt: 0.096 (81)
Spieth: Tot: 1.871. Tee: 0.276 (56), App: 0.906 (1), Putt: 0.320 (42)
Thomas: Tot: 1.618. Tee: 0.398 (32), App: 0.680 (6), Putt: 0.289 (47)
Rahm: Tot: 1.814. Tee: 0.935 (2), App: 0.535 (17), Putt: 0.274 (49)

So in looking at the top four…
Average Strokes Gained Total: 1.802
Average from Tee Shots: 0.65275 (36%) Avg. Rank: 22.75
Average from Approach Shots: 0.70575 (39%) Avg. Rank: 7.25
Average from Putts: 0.24475 (14%) Avg. Rank: 54.75

Over 75% of their strokes gained come from their ballstriking. 14% (13.58 IIRC) is from putting. So about 11% from the short game.

Hideki 26th Tee, 7th App, 173rd Putt
Rose 10th Tee, 39th App, 123rd Putt
Fowler 36th Tee, 38th App, 2nd Putt
Koepka 24th Tee, 118th App, 12th Putt
Averages: 24th Tee, 50th App, 77.5th Putt

[uitar9]

Iaacus, thanks for all your input on this site.

I have been really fighting the attention paid to full swing because I did see a quick improvement by practicing short game and putting listening to Haney's idea of limiting chips/pitches to 1 and putts to 2. I am probably the typical geezer, taking it up late in life and having a shorter full swing game.

All this reading about tour stats has really opened my eyes to overall improvement from strokes gained (recognizing proficiency in all areas is required) Been spending the past couple of winter indoor range time months on improving this full swing shortfall.

Merry Christmas to you and your family

[JonMA1]

I think that even if the margin between the importance of full shots and the short game were closer, I'd still put more time into the full swing because it just seems that much harder to improve upon.

I've found this to be an interesting topic since joining TST, with most of those on either side of the debate being better than I'll ever be.

From what I've found online about Pelz, I don't disagree on some of what he says. I also see the wisdom of how a good short game can help offset a poor full swing - until one's full swing can "catch up" to a better, easier-to-learn short game.

However, when folks dismiss the importance of a full swing, or suggest you "drive for show", I don't need to look at tour stats or be a low capper to disagree. While many things in golf are not always intuitive, putting more time into learning a more difficult skill (that has at least as much impact on scoring as an easier skill) seems almost obvious. 

Having experts reinforce some of my opinions does help me feel a bit less crazy.

 

[The Hook Meister]

40 putts per round, only if I have a bad day with the putter. That average seems a little high to me. For the average golfer 2 putts a hole times 18 equals 36. Most average golfer will 1 putt a couple of holes and 3 putt at least 1, that would get you to 35 not 40.

[DaveP043]

I think when evaluating anything Mr. Pelz says, its important to remember that he's made his living teaching short game stuff.  From what I've read, he started 30 or 40 years ago, before the age when proper statistics were available, and the prevailing wisdom DID put a huge emphasis on short game.  He chose that as his specialty, and has probably done a lot of valuable research and experimentation in that field.  But he has to market his work.  Of course he's going to look for evidence that says the short game is hugely important.  He's going to interpret whatever statistics he finds in a way that makes the short game seem important.  He's selling his lessons, he's selling his books, he's selling online stuff.  To a huge extent, he's a salesman.  Don't be surprised when he says that HIS specialty is the most important specialty in golf, that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.