Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Why do so many golfers think short game is holding them back?


Note: This thread is 2937 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

It's a mixture of different things.

 

First off, if you have a solid long game, and hit around 10 greens a round, you're an above average striker. A better short game in the end will lower their score, because if you can't get up and down on 8 greens, you make bogey or worse, causing your scores to rise. If you can get up and down on those greens, say, around 6 of them, your scores will be around 6 shots lower.

 

If you're not a solid striker, and you have a poor short game, you're probably a 100 shooter.

 

To put it plainly, I think you're downplaying the short game a bit, which is the wrong way to look at golf. All aspects are equal, in terms of relevance. 

 

Another thing is course management. If you don't leave yourself in good spots to get up and down, you're unlikely to do so. I had plenty of easy bunker shots today and I played them well, because I wasn't short sided. Bunkers are easy regardless, but if you only have 10 feet of green to work with, and you're in a bunker, it's not as easy as say, a 10 yard shot from that same bunker with 25 feet of green. Keep in mind your position.

 

Overall the short game is where people need to most work, because most people are already good enough strikers to expect themselves to hit around 7-9 greens, so getting up and down consistently will bring your score down to low 70's, if you get up and down around 80% of the time. And if a few of those birdie putts drop on those 7-9 greens, say, two, then you're likely to shoot even par or better.

 

Don't look down on players with a good short game, they deserve just as much due as someone who can blast 320 yard drives and hit low rising irons that fall dead on target.


  • Administrator
Posted
29 minutes ago, Jacktgolf said:

First off, if you have a solid long game, and hit around 10 greens a round, you're an above average striker. A better short game in the end will lower their score, because if you can't get up and down on 8 greens, you make bogey or worse, causing your scores to rise. If you can get up and down on those greens, say, around 6 of them, your scores will be around 6 shots lower.

Of course, the best PGA Tour players typically scramble at only about a 2/3 rate, so 6/8 or 75% would be pretty damn remarkable, really.

29 minutes ago, Jacktgolf said:

To put it plainly, I think you're downplaying the short game a bit, which is the wrong way to look at golf. All aspects are equal, in terms of relevance. 

That's not really true. The short game and putting "matter" the least.

You're new to the site, but it's been covered about a thousand times. The full swing (driving, approach shots) account for about 2/3 of the differences in scores between groups of players.

29 minutes ago, Jacktgolf said:

Bunkers are easy regardless, but if you only have 10 feet of green to work with, and you're in a bunker, it's not as easy as say, a 10 yard shot from that same bunker with 25 feet of green. Keep in mind your position.

Bunkers are easy? Said nobody not on a pro tour, ever.

29 minutes ago, Jacktgolf said:

Overall the short game is where people need to most work, because most people are already good enough strikers to expect themselves to hit around 7-9 greens, so getting up and down consistently will bring your score down to low 70's, if you get up and down around 80% of the time.

I don't think that's at all accurate.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

You hardly can be scratch with mediocre driving and approaches and excellent short game; you can easily be scratch with excellent driving and approaches and mediocre short game.

  • Upvote 1

Mac O'Grady Acolyte, or "Macolyte"


Posted

I'm a mediocre player, but I can say that those rare occasions when I shoot a really good score are almost always due to hitting more greens in regulation. If I were really serious about improving my game, I would work on my iron shots -- long, mid-, and short irons. Getting even a long putt close enough to hole out is so much easier than getting up and down from off the green. I think the "drive for show, putt for dough" idea really only applies to near-scratch golfers, all of whom are hitting way more greens than the average duffer like me.


Note: This thread is 2937 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 12: stole about 10 minutes in the garage, doing my drill with foam balls. 
    • Day 116 12-6 Still working on getting to lead side. Tonight I also tried some skill work with clubface awareness.  Hit foam balls. 
    • To flog this subject even further, if that's even possible, this article from Golf Monthly just appeared today in one of my news feeds. Written by a golf writer in the UK who I never heard of, he's basically saying that there should be only 3-5 rounds from the most recent 20 that should count towards the average and only competitive rounds should count. He claims the erratic scorers would have less of an advantage than they do now. He makes a lot of references to "club golfers" in the UK being the ones who are mostly dissatisfied. https://share.google/qmZZBEoJvOxHxJGil  In my experience with my league where we have golfers with indexes ranging from 5 to 40, looking at the weekly results from the past two years, I can detect no pattern that would substantiate the claim that the current system gives an unfair advantage to either erratic golfers (aren't we all?) or higher handicappers. Apparently though, at least in the UK, this seems to be "a thing."
    • Day 26 (6 Dec 25) - Another day of rainy weather - got in some mirror work rehearsing forward weight shift as finishing back swing. 
    • Wordle 1,631 3/6* 🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟩🟩⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 no eagle -  but a birdie is a nice follow-up
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.