Mac O'Grady's Ballstriking

[Lihu]

25 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I created this thread mainly for the discussion about Mac's ballstriking quality. I simply believe Mac was a better ballstriker than whole bunch of average PGA tour players despite he played shorter on tour than some of them and won less than some of them. I wanted to say that neither the number of years played on tour nor the number of wins can always determine a better ballstriker.

How should I try to discuss it then, in your opinion?

I would start off by stating what you just stated in your post. Being direct can avoid a lot of confusion.

 

25 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I think you misunderstood the word 'long'. I meant not these who are long off the tee, but these who play long periods of time.

Yes, I completely misunderstood that. Sorry. . .

 

25 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It is a widely known fact that it is possible. Hogan is the best example to illustrate that myth.

Some locals in my area might disagree with you on this one.  http://myswingevolution.com/

Hogan is somewhat of a hero to them.

 

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Lihu, he meant play for a number of years (a "long" time), not distance.

He's Polish. Like you, "ESL."

Ah, makes a lot more sense now. Thanks.

[klineka]

11 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

By the way, it is you who make yourself look foolish when arguing against opinions of knowledgable people from the past who were eye witnesses. 

Lets break this down a little.

@iacas has been supporting his side of the argument with data and statistics.

Your side of the argument contains "opinions of knowledgeable people from the past who were eye witnesses"

Someone is presenting data and statistics, someone is presenting opinions. Its pretty clear to me who the foolish one is.

Edited January 4, 2018 by klineka

[Yff Theos]

3 minutes ago, klineka said:

Lets break this down a little.

@iacas has been supporting his side of the argument with data and statistics.

Your side of the argument contains "opinions of knowledgeable people from the past who were eye witnesses"

Someone is presenting data and statistics, someone is presenting opinions. Its pretty clear to me who the foolish one is.

What data and statistics has Iacas presented concerning the examples I had used?

[Ty_Webb]

I think most people instinctively know that long game is more important than short game and putting. It's why people spend most of their time practising their long game and not so much time on their short game. It's why the youngsters that are up and coming are always on the range and rarely on the putting green and even more rarely on a chipping area.

It's also why there are players like Lee Westwood, who was world number 1 for a while who is a rubbish putter. It's why Jack Nicklaus, arguably the greatest of all time and definitely the winningest in majors of all time (up to the present if anyone wants to be facetious), has a reputation for having a weaker short game. He was well known as a tremendous putter, especially under pressure, but he was also well known as perhaps the best driver ever and in the top three all time for his iron play.

Then you have a guy like Tiger who was a decent driver of the ball (he got bad publicity on this because he could be wild, but he hit it a long way and his misses were generally in not too bad shape - I don't think that was an accident), also in the top three all time for his iron play (I think he's probably no. 1), had a great short game and was a great putter (may still be - we shall see). He's what happens when you put them all together.

To answer the question about Every Shot Counts, it was written by a statistics professor (I think anyway) named Mark Broadie. He took shotlink data from the PGA Tour from 2003 through I think 2011 and compiled basically an estimate of how many shots on average it takes to get in the hole from any particular point. Once you've done that you can look at a player's shot and see how many shots he improved as a result of hitting it once. So if you stand on the tee and on average it takes 4.2 strokes to get in the hole from that tee, you hit your tee shot and it goes 320 in the fairway and leaves you 150 in, from 150 in the fairway, the average might be 2.9, so your position improved 1.3 strokes from hitting it once, so you gained 0.3 strokes over the field. Conversely if you hit it 250 yards into the trees, it might take 3.6 shots to get in the hole from 220 in the trees, so your position only improved 0.6 shots for hitting it once, so you lost 0.4 strokes to the field. Bucket all of those results over a season into a shot type (off the tee, approach, short game, putting) and you have your average strokes gained for that person. Objective certainly. Educational definitely. The result is that long game is much more important than either short game or putting.

In any case, I do think there is a difference of intent here. I think on one side, @Yff Theos is saying maybe long game is more important, but it's not always more important and putting and short game are important too. I don't think anyone is saying that's wrong. The person with the highest strokes gained off the tee/approach doesn't win every week and the person with the highest strokes gained putting wins sometimes. Broadie goes into it in his book. I think the stat is something like in the 9 years he looked at there was only one person who won despite having a negative strokes gained long game for the week. He had something insane on the putting like a +3.8 average for the week, which is making up 15 strokes on the field putting. Hopefully it's clear that is quite unusual though. There are several instances of people having negative strokes gained putting and short game and still winning. (Thank you Vijay if memory serves). The other thing is that a spectacular long game is fairly sustainable. It is possible (for some lucky few) to hit it 300+ off the tee and reasonably straight consistently. It is not possible to putt at a +2 lick for a season. Putting is much more variable week to week. You can have a round where you're +5 putting, but you can also have a round where you're -3 putting even if you're a great putter. Putting is basically a numbers game. If you hit 1000 8 foot putts and you're an average tour player, you'll hole around 500 of them, but in that 1000 stretch there will be peaks and troughs where you might hole 5 in a row and then miss 7 in a row etc. 

Why don't we take a look at 2006 since it's in the middle of the period in Mark Broadie's book (and not because it suits my argument). Top five strokes gained tee to green are: Tiger Woods, Adam Scott, Jim Furyk, Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh. Top five strokes gained putting are: Ben Crane, Stewart Cink, Rod Pampling, Jim Furyk, Brad Faxon. Spot the difference...

In summary, if your point is that it's not ALWAYS the case that a better ball striker will beat a worse one, well then duh. Clearly that's true. No one is saying otherwise. It's just not particularly interesting. It is true that Dustin Johnson will ALWAYS beat me, even if I putt better than him. The gulf in ability between us tee to green is so high that I just can't keep up with him. And if I wanted to make it on tour, I would have to become a far better ball striker (I'd also have to get better at short game and putting, but not as much, and I say that in the knowledge that my long game is my strength).  

[Yff Theos]

23 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I would start off by stating what you just stated in your post. Being direct can avoid a lot of confusion.

Well, I sort of started that way but widened the subject with some more examples that could illustrate my point. Besides, I used Mac O'Grady name in my first post if I remember well.

 

23 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Some locals in my area might disagree with you on this one.  http://myswingevolution.com/

Hogan is somewhat of a hero to them.

Disagree with what? With the fact that Hogan lost many important tournaments due to his bad putting? or with the fact Hogan was a better ballstriker than all his fellow tour players? Please explain.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Yff Theos
grammar

[Yff Theos]

15 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

In summary, if your point is that it's not ALWAYS the case that a better ball striker will beat a worse one, well then duh. Clearly that's true.

Thank you. And I must say I liked your post.

 

15 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

The person with the highest strokes gained off the tee/approach doesn't win every week and the person with the highest strokes gained putting wins sometimes. Broadie goes into it in his book.

That makes me be more interested in reading and analyzing that book.

15 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

It's just not particularly interesting. It is true that Dustin Johnson will ALWAYS beat me, even if I putt better than him. The gulf in ability between us tee to green is so high that I just can't keep up with him.

Without any doubt. However, I can imagine a hypothetical situation that a scratch amateur has a great day and putting flawlessly while DJ has a bad day overally: the gross scores might be very close to each other that time.

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Yff Theos
grammar

[klineka]

24 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

What data and statistics has Iacas presented concerning the examples I had used?

Did you not read the first post he made on this topic?

You stated that "poor putting can spoil the best display of ball striking."

You also stated "there are solid proven arguments that even the best ballstriking is not enough to succeed."

This image, which was one of the multiple pictures Erik included in his first post, uses data and statistics to refute those two claims you have made.

These are the top 11 golfers in terms of strokes gained from 2004-2012. 5 of those golfers actually lost strokes to the field due to their putting, yet their ballstriking, mainly their approach shots, more than made up for their lack of putting skill.

One step further, EVERY single golfer that lost strokes putting, was in the top 10 in approach shots. 

All of the players on this list are considered to be successful golfers between 2004 and 2012.

So this data clearly shows how the best ballstriking is enough to be successful, even if their putting is statistically below average when compared to their peers. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by klineka

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, this can be wrong. But this can be also right, which you do not seem to be able to accept.

I can accept it just fine. I've said in this very topic that out of the many thousand PGA Tour players who have played, you'll find some exceptions.

But it's highly unlikely that Mac was one of those exceptions. That he was one of the top-ten best ball strikers of all time, but couldn't stay on Tour (or make it to the Tour for like 17 tries) because of his putting.

38 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

By the way, it is you who make yourself look foolish when arguing against opinions of knowledgable people from the past who were eye witnesses.

People used to think putting was super important. "Knowledgeable people from the past who were eye witnesses" used to think that where the ball started was primarily governed by the path of the club.

So no, I don't agree that I look foolish at all.

I think that as we come to know more, it's imperative that we re-examine old things, and we can shed some new light on them.

Old thing: "Mac is a tremendous ball-striker."

Current Understanding: "Ballstriking is incredibly important to success on the PGA Tour. It's about 2/3 of what separates players at that level. In fact, with even a poor short game and ballstriking, someone with Tiger Woods' ballstriking would have still finished top 30 on the PGA Tour in scoring average most of the years he played."

Phil Mickelson? The evidence supports that he was a far superior ballstriker than Mac O'Grady.

The PGA Tour is a tour of ball strikers. Unless Mac was a worse putter than a twenty handicapper, you're gonna have a hard time convincing people who understand what we know now about how you score in golf that he was a top ten ballstriker of all time. Read below… he wasn't even top 30 on his best year on the PGA Tour.

38 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It is a FACT that Hogan lost several important tournaments because of lousy putting. Lots of greats confirmed this when memorizing Hogan. I wonder if you are so ignorant in this point or you want simply to stirr the shit?

As @Phil McGleno pointed out, the guy was in his late 40s to early 50s at the time.

And since we don't have the stats for those events, for all we know, he was missing a lot of longer par putts because he didn't hit the ball as close to the hole as he did in his heyday. A heyday that, with superior ballstriking, got him 60+ wins on the PGA Tour.

Look, you've not once supplied anything but what people may have said about Mac O'Grady. So here are some facts about two of Mac O'Grady's BEST years on the PGA Tour:

1986:
Driving Distance: 277.3 8th
Driving Accuracy Percentage: 58.8% 150th
Greens in Regulation Pct.: 67.3% 40th
Putting Average: 1.828 129th
Total Driving: 158 61st

1987:
Driving Distance: 278.2 4th
Driving Accuracy Percentage: 59.9% 152nd
Greens in Regulation Pct.: 68.3% 32nd
Putting Average: 1.819 130th
Total Driving: 156 55th

Was he a good putter? No.

Could some of his poor putting be due to the fact that, like the Tiger Woods/Camilo Villegas thing, that he was hitting his first putt from farther away from the hole? Absolutely. We don't have Strokes Gained stats for that long ago. But obviously, a guy who hits it to 38 feet every time is going to take more putts in a round and per green than a guy who hits it to 28 feet on average. The higher PPG stat is thus a fault of poorer ballstriking in that case.

But, I could make the case that in terms of ballstriking, Mac was bested by at least 30 other people those two best years alone. He finished 40th and 32nd in GIR. GIR is a measure of a player's ballstriking: they have to drive it off the tee, and hit the green. Your own definition says as much:

22 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

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.

If Mac hated putting, he should have desired to hit the shots close to the hole, so he wouldn't have long putts, or at least hit the green more often, so he wouldn't have to hit longer par putts as frequently.

Mac was a poor putter. But he was also worse than 30th, during his best two years, in hitting greens, which is all about ballstriking.

Players in 1987 who hit far more greens than he did?

Gil Morgan, Bruce Lietzke, Hal Sutton, Wayne Levi, John Mahaffey, Dan Pohl, Mike Reid, Tim Simpson, Mark McCumber, Tom Watson, Fred Couples, Jay Haas, Curtis Strange, Mark O'Meara, Kenny Perry, David Edwards, Paul Azinger, Bobby Watkins, Scott Hoch… goodness. What was the average length of THEIR careers?

Ballstriking matters. Those players were all better ball strikers than Mac O'Grady (as were some others I didn't list), and that's just from his single best year.

Quote

Mac was a physical speciman. He made a "neat and tidy" pivot, but a powerful one. He hit the ball hard and on the range, would make a David Toms look like an also-ran.

But then, so would Tom Bartlett.

Golf "experts" worry about ALL SORTS of things that the BALL has no idea of.

David Toms would easily hit it inside of Mac 6 or 7 times out of 10 from every yaradge from 10 yards to 230.

I am not posting this to DIS Mac, I am just DISSING the so-called experts.

…

The POINT is Mac was NOT a "great ball-striker" if that means hitting it where you are looking.

Stats vs. Hype.

…

I have seen Mac a LOT in person, and I thought he hit it very SOLID. But, so does Mike Finney. So what?

NOT STRAIGHT ENOUGH. NOT ENOUGH CLUBFACE CONTROL. NOT ENOUGH DISTANCE CONTROL.

Last time I looked, those 3 things were part of ball-striking.

(Source)

Ouch.

2 minutes ago, klineka said:

These are the top 11 golfers in terms of strokes gained from 2004-2012. 5 of those golfers actually lost strokes to the field due to their putting, yet their ballstriking, mainly their approach shots, more than made up for their lack of putting skill.

One step further, EVERY single golfer that lost strokes putting, was in the top 10 in approach shots. 

All of the players on this list are considered to be successful golfers between 2004 and 2012.

So this data clearly shows how the best ballstriking is enough to be successful, even if their putting is statistically below average when compared to their peers. 

Yep.

[Ty_Webb]

7 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Thank you. And I must say I liked your post.

 

That makes me be more interested in reading and analyzing that book.

Without any doubt. However, I can imagine a hypothetical situation that a scratch amateur has a great day and putting flawlessly while DJ has a bad day overally: the gross scores might be very close to each other that time.

 

 

Thank you :)

The book is certainly worth reading if you're interested in the game.

That hypothetical situation is going to remain hypothetical. A scratch amateur has no chance of beating him. Zero. None. A great day for a scratch would be to get within 4 or 5 shots. The only way a scratch amateur could beat him is by going 18 holes on the practice putting green. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

That hypothetical situation is going to remain hypothetical. A scratch amateur has no chance of beating him. Zero. None. A great day for a scratch would be to get within 4 or 5 shots. The only way a scratch amateur could beat him is by going 18 holes on the practice putting green. 

Yup.

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

1987:
Driving Distance: 278.2 4th
Driving Accuracy Percentage: 59.9% 152nd
Greens in Regulation Pct.: 68.3% 32nd
Putting Average: 1.819 130th
Total Driving: 156 55th

BTW, 130th was 1.819 PPG as we can see. 188th was 1.87. Median (94th) was 1.805. So, Mac took 0.252 more strokes putting (some of which could be due to hitting it farther from the hole than others) per round than the median putter on the PGA Tour that year.

If he truly was one of the world's best ball-strikers, he'd have more than made up for a quarter of a shot per round (which would have been less, anyway, from hitting it closer to the hole).

[Ty_Webb]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Yup.

BTW, 130th was 1.819 PPG as we can see. 188th was 1.87. Median (94th) was 1.805. So, Mac took 0.252 more strokes putting (some of which could be due to hitting it farther from the hole than others) per round than the median putter on the PGA Tour that year.

If he truly was one of the world's best ball-strikers, he'd have more than made up for a quarter of a shot per round (which would have been less, anyway, from hitting it closer to the hole).

Putting average I think was putts per GIR. He was missing a fair few GIR it looks like, so if he hit it better, his putts/GIR may not actually move much. All the GIRs he was hitting before he would be hitting it closer, but some of those missed GIRs would become GIRs but further away from the average. In any case, looking at the strokes gained results, some players (think Tiger in 2006) were gaining almost 3 strokes a round tee to green. You'd have to be a spectacularly bad putter to just be average on tour with those numbers. To be not able to keep your card, you'd have to putt like Ernie Els on the 1st at Augusta last year.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Putting average I think was putts per GIR. He was missing a fair few GIR it looks like, so if he hit it better, his putts/GIR may not actually move much.

Yes. It's just PPGIR.

The average number of putts per green in regulation. By using greens hit in regulation, we are able to eliminate the effects of chipping close and one-putting in the computation. (104)

So again, some of those 0.252 putts could have been saved if he simply hit it closer to the hole.

6 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

In any case, looking at the strokes gained results, some players (think Tiger in 2006) were gaining almost 3 strokes a round tee to green. You'd have to be a spectacularly bad putter to just be average on tour with those numbers. To be not able to keep your card, you'd have to putt like Ernie Els on the 1st at Augusta last year.

Yep.

Tiger Woods was one of many people who were MUCH better ballstrikers than Mac ever was.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Disagree with what? With the fact that Hogan lost many important tournaments due to his bad putting? or with the fact Hogan was a better ballstriker than all his fellow tour players? Please explain.

I'm not a Ben Hogan fanatic, but he did pretty well compared to his fellow players. . .

Quote

His nine career professional major championships tie him with Gary Player for fourth all-time, trailing only Jack Nicklaus (18), Tiger Woods(14) and Walter Hagen (11). He is one of only five golfers to have won all four major championships currently open to professionals (the Masters Tournament, The Open (despite only playing once), the U.S. Open, and the PGA Championship). The other four are Nicklaus, Woods, Player, and Gene Sarazen.

 

[No Mulligans]

And re: Hogan, much of his career was after the bus accident and he walked the courses under extreme physical pain.

[Ty_Webb]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes. It's just PPGIR.

The average number of putts per green in regulation. By using greens hit in regulation, we are able to eliminate the effects of chipping close and one-putting in the computation. (104)

So again, some of those 0.252 putts could have been saved if he simply hit it closer to the hole.

Yep.

Tiger Woods was one of many people who were MUCH better ballstrikers than Mac ever was.

Right, so in a typical round of golf, let's say he hit 12 greens in regulation at an average distance from the hole of 25' and he missed 6 greens. Let's say he missed those by a range of 1 yard off the green to 10 yards off the green (optimistic, but hear me out) and are on average 50' from the hole. Let's suppose he gets better and now the 12 greens he hits are at an average distance of 23 feet instead of 25 feet. He got better too, so 2 of those missed greens become hit greens, but they're further away from the hole on average, so let's say those two are 38 feet away instead of 45 feet away. His other missed greens are also missed closer, but they're still missed greens. What's his average first putt distance now? (12 x 23 + 2 x 38) / 14 = 25.1 feet away. He's got better, but his average first putt *on greens hit in regulation* is the same. So those 0.252 shots are going to probably stay pretty flat. May even go up a little bit because he has more holes for that difference to apply.

Put that another way, who's the better ball striker? Player A hits 12 greens at an average distance from the hole of 25 feet. Player B hits 14 greens at an average distance from the hole of 26 feet. If they putt the same who's going to have the better putting average? Granted the better ball striker is probably likely to leave himself in a better position (more putts from good spots and fewer from awkward ones), so that may make a difference. I just don't buy that becoming a better ball striker means that your first putt per GIR is shorter.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

And re: Hogan, much of his career was after the bus accident and he walked the courses under extreme physical pain.

The accident was in 1949. He was 37. He only won about 10 or 11 of his PGA Tour events after the accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hogan#PGA_Tour_wins_(64)

And @Yff Theos, Ben Hogan may have lost a few tournaments here and there from his putting (and I'm not even granting that it actually happened), but he still finished second, or third, or fifth or whatever because of his ballstriking.

3 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Right, so in a typical round of golf, let's say he hit 12 greens in regulation at an average distance from the hole of 25' and he missed 6 greens. Let's say he missed those by a range of 1 yard off the green to 10 yards off the green (optimistic, but hear me out) and are on average 50' from the hole. Let's suppose he gets better and now the 12 greens he hits are at an average distance of 23 feet instead of 25 feet. He got better too, so 2 of those missed greens become hit greens, but they're further away from the hole on average, so let's say those two are 38 feet away instead of 45 feet away. His other missed greens are also missed closer, but they're still missed greens. What's his average first putt distance now? (12 x 23 + 2 x 38) / 14 = 25.1 feet away. He's got better, but his average first putt *on greens hit in regulation* is the same. So those 0.252 shots are going to probably stay pretty flat. May even go up a little bit because he has more holes for that difference to apply.

Here's the thing though… that typically doesn't work out that way. Hitting more greens doesn't tend to increase the average distance of a player's first putt. Some of the greens they miss are short sided. If they hit the green in those cases, they often have about 45 feet - 20 on the short side of the pin, and 25 beyond it - that could lower their average. 

Yes, what you're saying could happen, but far more often than not it doesn't - the average stays about the same, or drops a little if their normal 12 GIR are hit a little closer, too.

The simple fact of the matter is that in Mac's BEST year on the PGA Tour, 31 players were better at hitting greens than he was.

[Yff Theos]

2 hours ago, klineka said:

Did you not read the first post he made on this topic?

I did. These data do not refer to my examples. They just confirm that one can win with a just below average putting.

 

2 hours ago, klineka said:

You stated that "poor putting can spoil the best display of ball striking."

Yes, and this is true. Poor means something different than just below average (which means very close to average). Read stories about Ben Hogan so you will know what I am talking about. Moe, Mac and Knudsen (all my examples) were regarded as horrible putters which is far from being just below average which would have not been even mentioned. For instance, if Jack Nicklaus says that someone has a million dollar swing and a ten cent putter it means something really unusual and not close to average by any means.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

But it's highly unlikely that Mac was one of those exceptions. That he was one of the top-ten best ball strikers of all time, but couldn't stay on Tour (or make it to the Tour for like 17 tries) because of his putting.

It could be putting combined with mental problems, who knows.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

People used to think putting was super important. "Knowledgeable people from the past who were eye witnesses" used to think that where the ball started was primarily governed by the path of the club.

So what? Everyone back then believed in this. Lack of understanding the correct ball flight laws does not make them ignorants. They watched many pros on the range and could easily compare who strikes the ball better without thinking about putting or ball flight laws. And their verdict was that guys as Hogan, Moe, Knudsen and Mac were great ballstrikers.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Phil Mickelson? The evidence supports that he was a far superior ballstriker than Mac O'Grady.

What evidence?

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

The PGA Tour is a tour of ball strikers. Unless Mac was a worse putter than a twenty handicapper, you're gonna have a hard time convincing people who understand what we know now about how you score in golf that he was a top ten ballstriker of all time. Read below… he wasn't even top 30 on his best year on the PGA Tour.

I have no intention to do it any more. It is hard to convince people with closed minds.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Look, you've not once supplied anything but what people may have said about Mac O'Grady. So here are some facts about two of Mac O'Grady's BEST years on the PGA Tour:

1986:
Driving Distance: 277.3 8th
Driving Accuracy Percentage: 58.8% 150th
Greens in Regulation Pct.: 67.3% 40th
Putting Average: 1.828 129th
Total Driving: 158 61st

1987:
Driving Distance: 278.2 4th
Driving Accuracy Percentage: 59.9% 152nd
Greens in Regulation Pct.: 68.3% 32nd
Putting Average: 1.819 130th
Total Driving: 156 55th

Was he a good putter? No.

Could some of his poor putting be due to the fact that, like the Tiger Woods/Camilo Villegas thing, that he was hitting his first putt from farther away from the hole? Absolutely. We don't have Strokes Gained stats for that long ago. But obviously, a guy who hits it to 38 feet every time is going to take more putts in a round and per green than a guy who hits it to 28 feet on average. The higher PPG stat is thus a fault of poorer ballstriking in that case.

But, I could make the case that in terms of ballstriking, Mac was bested by at least 30 other people those two best years alone. He finished 40th and 32nd in GIR. GIR is a measure of a player's ballstriking: they have to drive it off the tee, and hit the green. Your own definition says as much:

On 3.01.2018 at 7:12 PM, Yff Theos said:

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.

If Mac hated putting, he should have desired to hit the shots close to the hole, so he wouldn't have long putts, or at least hit the green more often, so he wouldn't have to hit longer par putts as frequently.

Mac was a poor putter. But he was also worse than 30th, during his best two years, in hitting greens, which is all about ballstriking.

Players in 1987 who hit far more greens than he did?

Gil Morgan, Bruce Lietzke, Hal Sutton, Wayne Levi, John Mahaffey, Dan Pohl, Mike Reid, Tim Simpson, Mark McCumber, Tom Watson, Fred Couples, Jay Haas, Curtis Strange, Mark O'Meara, Kenny Perry, David Edwards, Paul Azinger, Bobby Watkins, Scott Hoch… goodness. What was the average length of THEIR careers?

Ballstriking matters. Those players were all better ball strikers than Mac O'Grady (as were some others I didn't list), and that's just from his single best year.

I agree to you. Your conclusions are good. However, pay attention to what you wrote:

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I did. These data do not refer to my examples. They just confirm that one can win with a just below average putting.

No, they don't. They speak to what it takes to succeed on the PGA Tour. Short version: ballstriking.

28 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, and this is true. Poor means something different than just below average (which means very close to average). Read stories about Ben Hogan so you will know what I am talking about.

Ben Hogan is a terrible example for you to use. He had a hugely successful PGA Tour career because he was a great ballstriker. His ballstriking was top ten of all time, and made up for any detriments he had in his full short game or putting.

And again, the few tournaments he lost "due to putting" he still finished top five or whatever in. Because of his ballstriking.

28 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Moe, Mac and Knudsen (all my examples) were regarded as horrible putters which is far from being just below average which would have not been even mentioned.

And, as we've been saying, Mac wasn't a top-ten ballstriker of all time. He probably wasn't even a top 20 ballstriker the ONE YEAR on the PGA Tour.

28 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

So what? Everyone back then believed in this. Lack of understanding the correct ball flight laws does not make them ignorants. They watched many pros on the range and could easily compare who strikes the ball better without thinking about putting or ball flight laws. And their verdict was that guys as Hogan, Moe, Knudsen and Mac were great ballstrikers.

Follow the freaking conversation, man.

You said that I'm disagreeing with what "knowledgeable" people thought back then as if that proves me wrong or something. I countered with other examples of how "knowledgeable people back then" were wrong.

Mac was not a great ballstriker. Had he been, he'd have finished higher than 32nd in his BEST year on the PGA Tour, and he'd have done well on the PGA Tour despite slightly worse than average putting.

What "knowledgeable people" used to think can be shown to be wrong, over time, as we learn more.

28 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

What evidence?

His entire career, man.

28 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It is hard to convince people with closed minds.

You're right, but you should be talking about yourself: not once have you considered the possibility that Mac is not one of the top ballstrikers of all time.

I'm done talking to you. It's a complete waste of time. You don't have the table stakes.

Do not quote me, respond to me, or @mention me.