Mac O'Grady's Ballstriking

[Yff Theos]

I like to take into account various points of view while talking about ballstriking on the highest level. While I know that some stories from the past can be exaggerated I also believe in all of them there is a seed of truth, the more these opinions usually were formulated by knowledgable people.  On the other hand, in my opinion, pure statistics are important means to determine the quality of ballstriking but even they never reveal the whole truth. Gross scores can be even more misleading, not talking about longevity of terms of playing on tour. My definition for ballstriking is the ability to play desired shots on command. I presume noone intends to drive the ball into the woods instead fairways or outside greens.

Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there;

Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less;

Both of the above are as ridiculous myths as one can imagine. Moreover, both can be easily busted with the same arguments:

# scoring is a derivative of tee-to-green play, short game and putting; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored not so well because of problems with putting (Ben Hogan, Moe Norman, George Knudsen, Mac O'Grady, not so long time ago Sergio Garcia) or even short game (today's Tiger Woods);

# scoring depends highly on mental side; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored poorly because of problems in this sphere and I believe golf is no different from all other sports and I know some prominent examples of great artists during  training hours, in sparrings or on the ranges who fail when they start real playing for something important (prizes, money, reputation, et caetera).

Ergo: it is not so easy to judge or compare ballstriking quality of players, especially from different generations.

 

[iacas]

Here's the problem… you're posting this from, so far as I can tell, a position of ignorance. I mean that word literally, not in a defamatory or disparaging way or anything.

Have you red Every Shot Counts?

Ballstriking matters a lot.

Even in events PGA Tour players win, putting contributes, on average, only 35% of their strokes gained. Short game adds very little. The majority still come from their full swing: driving and approach shots.

And the secret to long-term success on the PGA Tour is ball-striking.

P.S. I don't know how you're using "Meanders" in the title, but I'll change it when I can think of a better one because that's not the word you want to use there.

---

---

23 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there;

Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less;

I don't think either of those are myths, unless you lean really, really heavily on the capitalized word you snuck into each.

• PGA Tour players are, by and large, not otherworldly putters. A scratch player can out-putt a PGA Tour player 30% of the time. An 80s golfer 20% of the time.
• The winner each week on the PGA Tour is generally the guy who putts best out of the best ball strikers that week.

23 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

# scoring is a derivative of tee-to-green play, short game and putting; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored not so well because of problems with putting (Ben Hogan, Moe Norman, George Knudsen, Mac O'Grady, not so long time ago Sergio Garcia) or even short game (today's Tiger Woods);

• Ben Hogan did really well for himself and won a lot of tournaments due to his ballstriking.
• Moe Norman? He didn't even really try to play the PGA Tour. He intentionally threw tournaments to avoid the limelight. He dominated some Canadian events, and so on… despite being relatively short.
• George Knudsen and Mac O'Grady weren't particularly great ball-strikers. You're starting with the assumption that they are.
• Sergio Garcia saw a decline in his ballstriking in the years you're talking about. He could have putted average and still not MCed as often as he was. The problem was too many putts for par, not enough for birdie. He putted fairly average at the Masters last year, and his ballstriking helped him the most to win. https://www.masters.com/en_US/scores/stats/gir.html (2nd in GIR), https://www.masters.com/en_US/scores/stats/fir.html (2nd in Driving Accuracy), https://www.masters.com/en_US/scores/stats/drives_avg.html (6th in Driving Distance), and https://www.masters.com/en_US/scores/stats/putts.html (27th in Putting).
• Tiger Woods has been striking the ball poorly the last few years, missing greens he used to hit with ease. It's not been his short game costing him, it's been his ball-striking.

23 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

# scoring depends highly on mental side; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored poorly because of problems in this sphere and I believe golf is no different from all other sports and I know some prominent examples of great artists during  training hours, in sparrings or on the ranges who fail when they start real playing for something important (prizes, money, reputation, et caetera).

You're just saying that. You have no way to prove this at all.

23 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Ergo: it is not so easy to judge or compare ballstriking quality of players, especially from different generations.

You've not even come remotely close to proving this.

[Yff Theos]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Have you red Every Shot Counts?

No.

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Ballstriking matters a lot.

Never said it does not. I said that poor putting can spoil the best display of ballstriking.

 

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

PGA Tour players are, by and large, not otherworldly putters. A scratch player can out-putt a PGA Tour player 30% of the time. An 80s golfer 20% of the time.

I always heard that poor putting was the biggest obstacle for those who aspired to the tour. You cannot prove your assumption.

 

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

The winner each week on the PGA Tour is basically the guy who putts best out of the best ball strikers that week.

Yes, that is a fair statement. I would add being in a good mental form.

 

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

Ben Hogan did really well for himself and won a lot of tournaments due to his ballstriking.

Yes, but he also lost a lot because of his lousy putting.

 

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

Moe Norman? He didn't even really try to play the PGA Tour. He intentionally threw tournaments to avoid the limelight.

I heard he play badly because of lack of acceptajnce and hostility towards him. Mental thing.

 

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

George Knudsen and Mac O'Grady weren't particularly great ball-strikers. You're starting with the assumption that they are.

I base my assumptions on opinions of people who, I believe, were better qualified to express opinions back there than you are now: at least, because they witnessed them hit shots and play.

 

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

Sergio Garcia saw a decline in his ballstriking in the years you're talking about. He could have putted average and still not MCed as often as he was. The problem was too many putts for par, not enough for birdie. 

OK, sounds good.

 

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tiger Woods has been striking the ball poorly the last few years, missing greens he used to hit with ease. It's not been his short game costing him, it's been his ball-striking.

Well, OK you can always blame ballstriking quality for necessity of using short game, therefore I agree. What I meant were mainly his chipping/pitching childish errors/yips.

 

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're just saying that. You have no way to prove this at all.

I know many wizards of a given game who never were able to show all potential in real time matches while being much more above others during training hours or sparrings. I believe golf is not different and there were such examples.

 

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

You've not even come remotely close to proving this.

It is only your opinion.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

No.

Then I stand by my first statement.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Never said it does not. I said that poor putting can spoil the best display of ballstriking.

Eh. That's pretty vague.

Good ballstrikers tend to stick around. They make a lot of cuts and tend to keep their PGA Tour cards.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I always heard that poor putting was the biggest obstacle for those who aspired to the tour. You cannot prove your assumption.

You heard wrong. The stats I quoted there aren't "assumptions." They're stats. They're in Every Shot Counts.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, that is a fair statement. I would add being in a good mental form.

Eh. Mental game is over-rated, and since we can't ever really figure out what percentage to apply to those things… it's really not worth discussing. Some players have played great golf while being in some weird places mentally.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I base my assumptions on opinions of people who, I believe, were better qualified to express opinions back there than you are now: at least, because they witnessed them hit shots and play.

They're just opinions, though. We used to get a LOT of things wrong in golf. The entire idea of "Drive for show, putt for dough" remains, even though we know it to be wrong. People used to get the ball flight laws wrong. They used to think stupid things like "poor putting is the biggest obstacle for those who aspire to the Tour."

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It is only your opinion.

I think it's going to be the opinion of virtually everyone who considers your argument from a logical perspective. You've not proven anything.

[Phil McGleno]

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

I like to take into account various points of view while talking about ballstriking on the highest level.

Coulda fooled me.

Ballstriking matters way more than anything else.-It is not even close. The PGA Tour is the best ballstrikers in the world. They are not there because of their putting.

[b101]

We have posts like this crop up multiple times per year. @iacas and others will disprove it again and again - just look around the forum. Ballstriking matters more than anything else. 

[MacDutch]

Don’t feed the trolls.

[Yff Theos]

5 minutes ago, MacDutch said:

Don’t feed the trolls.

Who is the troll? Me? Because I have my point of view and I have courage to dispute? Are you mad?

 

33 minutes ago, b101 said:

We have posts like this crop up multiple times per year. @iacas and others will disprove it again and again - just look around the forum. Ballstriking matters more than anything else. 

Who said it does not? But imo you all underestimate both putting skills as well as mental aspects a lot. Both factors can make the best ballstrikers lose.

[b101]

12 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Who said it does not? But imo you all underestimate both putting skills as well as mental aspects a lot. Both factors can make the best ballstrikers lose.

Uh, you did. 

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there;

Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less;

I'm done with this now; you can either choose to accept what has been clearly proven or continue in ignorance. Even when players have a great record with their putting (e.g. you may remember Spieth's win in the Masters in '15 being credited to his amazing putting), their ballstriking has been what's given them that chance. Some more links based on that:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/this-is-how-you-master-the-masters/

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/jordan-spieths-record-breaking-2015-masters-numbers

---

Again, up to you what you choose to believe, but the facts clearly prove one side of this argument.

Edited January 3, 2018 by b101

[JxQx]

All other aspects of the game seem to be to recover/make up for poor ball striking. A thing worth considering is if a person leaves them self a 10' putt that's very difficult (lots of slope/ break) and they miss it do you blame solely the putting or do you factor in the ballstriking of not leaving themselves a better putt (flatter/less break)?

[rehmwa]

whew....if I could continuously leave myself 10 foot putts all day?.......

I'd consider myself the greatest ballstriker of all time

 

(if that was GIR anyway....sadly, most 10 foot putts I leave myself are when scrambling......or putting)

Edited January 3, 2018 by rehmwa

[Yff Theos]

43 minutes ago, b101 said:

Uh, you did. 

Show me, please. Where did I write that ballstriking is less important than putting. You are imagining things. I said there are other things important in scoring on tour besides ballstriking alone which is 1) putting skills and 2) mental skills.

 

47 minutes ago, b101 said:

you can either choose to accept what has been clearly proven or continue in ignorance.

Perhaps it is clearly proven to you. There are solid proven arguments that even the best ballstriking is not enough to succeed.

 

28 minutes ago, JxQx said:

A thing worth considering is if a person leaves them self a 10' putt that's very difficult (lots of slope/ break) and they miss it do you blame solely the putting or do you factor in the ballstriking of not leaving themselves a better putt (flatter/less break)?

It depends if this is a putt for birdie or for par, imo.

[kpaulhus]

Ball striking is the #1 reason why PGA tour players are at that level. If you put me and Dustin Johnson on a team and he hit all the shots and I only putted for him, we could win a PGA Tour event. Put us the other way around, and well, DJ would be making a lot of putts for double or worse.

[b101]

6 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Show me, please. Where did I write that ballstriking is less important than putting. You are imagining things. I said there are other things important in scoring on tour besides ballstriking alone which is 1) putting skills and 2) mental skills.

Ok, let's take this really slowly. This is my last post in here as you're not reading what you've written.

1 hour ago, b101 said:

Ballstriking matters more than anything else. 

 

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Who said it does not? 

 

58 minutes ago, b101 said:

Uh, you did. 

3 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there;

Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less;

 

Ballstriking matters most.

Edited January 3, 2018 by b101

[Yff Theos]

I know what I wrote, but I am afraid your reading comprehension is not good today.

3 minutes ago, b101 said:

Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there;

Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less;

So I explain: there is a word ALWAYS that I wrote with capital letters on purpose. These two sentences means nothing less, nothing more than these two:

these who play long on tour are NOT ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there = there are some cases that those who play long on tour are worse ballstrikers than those who (for any possible reasons) play shorter there.

these who win more are NOT ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less = there are some cases that winners are not better ballstrikers than losers.

OK ?

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Who said it does not? But imo you all underestimate both putting skills as well as mental aspects a lot. Both factors can make the best ballstrikers lose.

:sigh:

Yes, we can all come up with a hypothetical situation, or maybe even one that happened in real life, where someone with slightly lesser ballstriking skills beat a player with better ballstriking that week simply by having a streak of hot putting or something.

That's a pointless point to make, though. Ultimately, ballstriking matters significantly more than putting or the short game in sustained success on the PGA Tour.

4 hours ago, b101 said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/this-is-how-you-master-the-masters/

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/jordan-spieths-record-breaking-2015-masters-numbers

Good links.

3 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Show me, please. Where did I write that ballstriking is less important than putting. You are imagining things. I said there are other things important in scoring on tour besides ballstriking alone which is 1) putting skills and 2) mental skills.

You've not defined "importance" and you're just operating in this wishy-washy area so you can change the definitions or use your own to suit your argument.

Ultimately, ballstriking matters significantly more than putting or the short game in sustained success on the PGA Tour.

3 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Perhaps it is clearly proven to you. There are solid proven arguments that even the best ballstriking is not enough to succeed.

You've not even read the main book that discusses this.

Sorry, but reading and understanding Every Shot Counts, or even Rich Hunt's work, is the ante at this table.

You're speaking from a position of extreme lack of knowledge.

3 hours ago, kpaulhus said:

Ball striking is the #1 reason why PGA tour players are at that level. If you put me and Dustin Johnson on a team and he hit all the shots and I only putted for him, we could win a PGA Tour event. Put us the other way around, and well, DJ would be making a lot of putts for double or worse.

Yep.

@Yff Theos called my 30% stat (scratch golfers out-putting a PGA Tour player) an "assumption." No, it's a fact.

I could hit every shot inside of 50 yards for a PGA Tour player, as a +1, and we'd do well. Hell, if I hit every shot inside of 50 yards for Boo Weekley, the guy might have won a ton more than he did - he was a HORRIBLE putter, by PGA Tour standards (which are not as high as people think, for putting), and he won multiple PGA Tour events and played on a winning Ryder Cup team.

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

So I explain: there is a word ALWAYS that I wrote with capital letters on purpose. These two sentences means nothing less, nothing more than these two:

Yeah, awesome. It's pointless to discuss "always" situations because you only need one situation to disprove it. Nobody's discussing the "always" situation. To do so would be a complete waste of time.

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

these who play long on tour are NOT ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there = there are some cases that those who play long on tour are worse ballstrikers than those who (for any possible reasons) play shorter there.

That's highly unlikely to be true on an individual basis. Now, since thousands have played on the PGA Tour, you're going to find a few cases where it is true.

You're stuck thinking this because you're stuck thinking that Mac was a superior ballstriker, and you can't conceive of a reality that doesn't include that.

Occam's Razor: Mac was not one of the small minority of "great ball strikers" who couldn't last. Even Boo Weekley lasted quite awhile, and had a good amount of success, despite being a horrible putter and having a lousy short game.

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

these who win more are NOT ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less = there are some cases that winners are not better ballstrikers than losers.

Not interested in discussing "always"/"never" type crap. Pointless.

---

The ante to this table is reading and understanding some of the works, like Every Shot Counts, that deal specifically with this stuff.

You don't have the ante.

[Vinsk]

I don't understand the adamant reluctance of those who defend short game/putting importance when it has been proven to be otherwise. Not a 'new ideology or opinion', it's pure fact through statistics and rather common sense now.

@iacas: X=3, Y=4, therefore X+Y=7.                 @Yff Theos: 'That's your assumption'. Come on man.

[MacDutch]

10 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Who is the troll? Me?

Bingo!