"Putting is a huge part of the game."

[JonMA1]

13 hours ago, NM Golf said:

I mean good god people, is it that hard to get your head around?

In all fairness, it's what instructors, good players and even tour pros have been preaching for a long time. What else are new golfers supposed to believe?

I have this disagreement with my son every time we play and I've had this disagreement with his HS coach - who he learned it from. The PGA pro at the local course was all about the short game and the reason I loaned him my copy of LSW (to his credit, he liked what he'd read because of the use of statistics to support it). Hell, people have made a decent amount of money writing books about putting and the short game by promoting its importance.

Of course everyday hacks are going to buy into it.

I don't know how much more important the long game is, but I know how bad my game can become when that part of it is off. Personally, I think it's important to get better at everything equally (not that my opinion carries any weight). Still, I spend far more practice time on the full swing even though putting is a serious weakness of mine. It's so much harder to learn the full swing and so much easier to slip back if I don't practice it.

14 hours ago, NM Golf said:

But I guess you will always have that person that knows more than everyone else. The person that is a self made expert. Well keep practicing your 30 foot putts, one less person I have to worry about beating.

This is what I kept thinking about the OP. All we can do is try to help people. If they choose not to occasionally question what they've always been told, oh well.

[NM Golf]

51 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

In all fairness, it's what instructors, good players and even tour pros have been preaching for a long time. What else are new golfers supposed to believe?

Exactly. It's still preached at the course where I work today. My good buddy, who has been my partner in too many partner competitions to count, is a staunch supporter of the short game. He and I have had numerous arguments on the subject. He is also of the belief you have to lay up to a "good yardage" which is just as irritating when you are playing in a scramble with him.  I've offered up LSW and ESC to him and he just refuses to even consider it. He's very much like the people on here, he was taught that as a kid and its just the way it is. The stats may say different, but HE knows his game. It's ridiculous and probably part of the reason he very rarely beats me. 

[Patch]

Back some years ago, when my Grandson, and I would enter tournaments as a best ball team, we never finished out of the top 10. We even won a couple of those tournies. 

He had a very good long game. Anything over 200 yards, he was money. 300 yard plus tee shots, no problem. Always fairways and/or first cut off the tee. He once drove the green on a 390 yard par 4. The last 30 yards were down hill. He 5 putted from 30 feet. He had nothing even remotely close to a short game. 

Myself, I had a pretty good all around game at the time. I just didn't have anything close to his longer game. He was easily 50+ yards longer than I was.

My short game was pretty darn good, and I could putt. So, between his long game, and my short game, we were very competitive in those tournaments. 

This scenario is why I believe the long game is more important. I have known this since reading one of Pinick's books.

I  also understand that the strokes gained/lost against the field scenario shows a golfer where their weak points are. But there is still a point somewhere in the game that you need play well in all phases of it to be successful. How much weight you give each part over the other, I have no idea. 

In my Grandson's case he was at best, half of a golfer. He only had half a game. He loved the fact he could hit the ball a mile, and really didn't care about the other parts of the game. Brain fart? Yeah, probably. He now resides up in Reno, plays sometimes with his aunt who is a retired lpga pro in her own right. Last I heard she still had most of her hair. 

[dennyjones]

1 hour ago, Patch said:

How much weight you give each part over the other, I have no idea. 

Look at @iacas's book "Lowest Score Wins".   It details and ranks which part of the game is more important than others, he calls it Separation Value.

[criley4way]

It seems to me this is perception vs data. The data clearly shows that there is a bigger spread off the tee and in the approach shots for pros vs others and low vs high handicaps. To get to a new level these are the factors that will get you there. Once in that range the short game will get you on the right side. Yes a good short game will help me save par more often but not shoot lower scores over time. 

TO me the biggest thing that we can do to improve the putting is practice 4-12' putts. This is where higher handicaps give up easy to get strokes. If you are shooting 90-100 and want to quickly break 90 once an awhile maybe you can get over the line with some better chipping and putting. Same with breaking 80 for someone shooting 80-85. But if you want to go from shooting 95 to 85 you need to get closer to the pin putting for birdie. As a single digit trying to consistently shoot under par I simply need to hit more greens and get more birdie putts <20'.

I made that mental change and boom I score better.

If we assume that our expectations are set by our scoring range. If we are at the low end of that we feel great a see the improvements as significant if we are at the high end we look for the reason. But there is a factor of human nature here.We write off the big numbers as bad luck or flukes.

[onthehunt526]

I think we should more take pride that Erik, has educated a lot of people on this site. He always has the statistic or fact ready when something like this happens. When people have an opinion on something and their opinion is not supported by fact. 

We aren't piling on nor cronies we just are educating the truths. No more, no less.

[Shorty]

I don't think the "Drive for show, putt for dough" mantra is really even supporting the idea touted in the thread. My interpretation of it is really that long drives are exciting to watch and impressive to see, but there can be real pressure on putts even though they usually aren't thrilling to watch. . It's not saying that putting is more important. In any case, it is assumed that the rest of their game is in shape for a tour player to have to worry about the pressure of putting. Tour players don't have to worry too much about smothered drives, double crosses and out of bounds cuts.

For the average weekend golfer, unless they are an absolutely pathetic putter, shots are lost well before they get to the green. I've seen some poor putters in my time - and some good players whose putting is not great. But I've never seen a really good putter whose putting destroys their scores. Guys like Adam Scott look worse than they are because so many of their missed putts follow sublime iron shots and it seems like such a waste. When Rory putts well he does better, but no amount of great putting will help him if the rest of his game is off. It's just a question of less wasted opportunities. 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Shorty

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Tour players don't have to worry too much about smothered drives, double crosses and out of bounds cuts.

It’s still happens. I think Poulter shanks every other shot 

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, criley4way said:

It seems to me this is perception vs data. The data clearly shows that there is a bigger spread off the tee and in the approach shots for pros vs others and low vs high handicaps. To get to a new level these are the factors that will get you there. Once in that range the short game will get you on the right side. Yes a good short game will help me save par more often but not shoot lower scores over time. 

I just thought of another way to think about this.

Consider a 400-yard par four. A PGA Tour pro will average 3.99 on such a hole. Standing on the tee, he'll average 3.99 to play that hole.

So let's play it with him.

As this is not a long hole, the PGA Tour player chooses to hit a 3-wood from the tee. He catches it a tad in the neck and it gets out there into the right-center of the fairway at 245 yards or so, leaving about 160 to the hole.

From 160, he hits the ball to about 33'.

From 33', he putts up to 2'10", and makes the tap-in.

These numbers are all straight from the PGA Tour's strokes gained numbers:

• From 400 on the tee, the PGA Tour player averages 3.99.
• From 160 in the fairway, they average 2.98.
• From 33' on the green, they average 2.0 putts.

Please, @MrGolfguy67, consider where the bogey golfer loses his shots. He averages almost 5.25 on the hole. But imagine we let him play along with the PGA Tour player… where do you think he'd gain his shots? Let's work backwards to see how we might get from 5.25 to 3.99, shall we?

From 33', the average bogey golfer takes 2.16 strokes. Hell, let's assume we've got a bad putter who takes 2.3 strokes, on average, from 33'. This is a guy who averages 5.25 strokes on the hole… to a PGA Tour player's 3.99. He's losing 0.3 strokes in this example (really only 0.16), out of the total 1.26 strokes that he loses to a PGA Tour player. 0.3 out of 1.26 is only 23.8%. The correct number, 0.16, is only 12.7%.

Where do the other 1.1 strokes (if using 0.16) to 0.96 strokes come from?

Why… covering the 400 yards from tee to green!

Let's put that into a pie chart or two:

 

Note: this assumes that the poor putting bogey golfer still manages to average 5.25, and that the other parts of his game are equally better than his putting is worse than the average for his handicap. And it's still a tiny percentage of why he lost strokes on the hole.

In case it's not really obvious now, @MrGolfguy67, the average amateur loses far more strokes tee to green than on the putting green.

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

I think we should more take pride that Erik, has educated a lot of people on this site.

I think you should take more pride in:

• Understanding good information when you see it.
• Doing your part to share that with others, even if they're stubborn and close-minded.
• Trying to find new ways to do the second bullet point.
• Applying what you've learned to your own games, for your own betterment.

1 hour ago, Shorty said:

I don't think the "Drive for show, putt for dough" mantra is really even supporting the idea touted in the thread. My interpretation of it is really that long drives are exciting to watch and impressive to see, but there can be real pressure on putts even though they usually aren't thrilling to watch. . It's not saying that putting is more important. In any case, it is assumed that the rest of their game is in shape for a tour player to have to worry about the pressure of putting. Tour players don't have to worry too much about smothered drives, double crosses and out of bounds cuts.

No. PGA Tour players still "separate" themselves primarily with their ballstriking. The best players - the ones who earn the most "dough" - do so with their ballstriking. Driving is a part of that, and contributes about 2.5x as much as putting does (28% to 11%) over the course of a season.

Those 28/39/14/11 numbers hold up across a pretty wide range of abilities… including the abilities between the top ten players on the PGA Tour and the bottom ten players on the PGA Tour (over a long enough number of years that your sample size isn't small).

[onthehunt526]

38 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think you should take more pride in:

• Understanding good information when you see it.
• Doing your part to share that with others, even if they're stubborn and close-minded.
• Trying to find new ways to do the second bullet point.
• Applying what you've learned to your own games, for your own betterment.

I'll work on it, Erik. The fourth bullet hit me when I read LSW. I'm really not that terrible of a putter. Do I lose strokes? Probably. But it's probably a fraction of a stroke at most.

I need to do better on my approaches and a little bit better on driving... So I went and found an instructor that helps me with both. My short game needs work... But most of that will come with working on the motion more. But if I want to be better my approaches need to be on or nGIR and my driving needs to be a little less wild... A little off line is okay. Not over 2 fairways when I really go for it.

 

[JonMA1]

I should know better than to post when I'm as tired as I am. Hopefully, my math isn't completely screwed up. But here goes...

Average putts per hole 2.2. I'm going to assume that is evenly distributed between par 3, 4, and 5's (I have no evidence to say otherwise).

Putting is a glaring weakness and getting down to 2 putts per hole would save me 3.6 strokes per round. Improving to that modest target would drop my scoring average from 99 to 96. I'll take that all day long.

But too much time working on putting would mean a slide in my already poor non-putting game, which is...

Par 3s : 4.21 strokes - 2.2 = 2.01 non-putting strokes per hole, or +1.01 strokes over regulation.

Par 4s: 5.57 strokes - 2.2 = 3.37 non-putting strokes per hole, +1.37 strokes over regulation

Par 5s: 6.84 strokes - 2.2 = 4.64 non-putting strokes per hole, +1.64 strokes over regulation. 

If I neglected putting and practiced only my full swing and short game, I could possibly get down to 1 stroke over regulation.

On a par 72 course, that would save:

.04 strokes on par 3's (4 x .01)

3.7 strokes on par 4's (10 x .37)

2.56 strokes on par 5's (4 x .64)

6.3 strokes would be saved by improving my non-putting strokes to the modest target of 1 over regulation, bringing my scoring average down to 92.7

Even though I'm a godawful putter, improving in that area does nothing to improve the shots before. However, improving on my non-putting skills would presumably help reduce my putting average.

I take the 65/20/15 practice ratio as the correct baseline (not to say I always follow it). I don't know that it's correct, but I trust it is. In the end, I don't want to have a glaring weakness. It's unrealistic for me to expect to get anywhere near the statistics of a PGA pro, so I have to make decisions based on my current condition and on my potential. There are other important stats to consider beyond putts per hole and GIR. Also, some of us deviate farther from the average. 

At it stands now, I'm trying to adjust that baseline to 50/25/25 or even 50/30/20. If in a few years I can obtain both goals, I'm averaging in the upper 80's which I'd be very happy with.

Edited April 1, 2018 by JonMA1

[colin007]

[JonMA1]

Sorry about the long-winded, sleep-deprived reply to a question nobody asked. 

I should learn to listen to that little voice in my head telling me "do not hit the Submit Reply button".

Edited April 1, 2018 by JonMA1

[Patch]

I am courios about something. With the strokes lost/ gained scenario, is there a minimum distance off the tee for this to work? Sure, it tells one they are losing strokes off the tee, but is there a point it is not applicable?

My game is such that since last October I have averaged 4.66 strokes per hole in the rounds I actually keep score. When I score rounds, those are the rounds I put my best effort into. 

I average 1.88 putts per hole. That tells me I am averaging 2.78 strokes from the tee to the green,  and/or I am losing .78 strokes from tee to green. It also says I am saving .12 strokes putting. 

Now, due to age, and other physical issues, I am short in my full swing tee to green game. It is what it is. Not much I can do about it, except for going to driver off the deck for my second shot. A tough shot in it's own right. 

Most of the places I play, the various tee boxes are so close together, moving up is not that big of savings.  

[saevel25]

9 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

Average putts per hole 2.2. I'm going to assume that is evenly distributed between par 3, 4, and 5's (I have no evidence to say otherwise).

I'm going to guess not. Probably less putts per hole on a par 3? They tend to be much more challenging, you probably average further away on your approach shots on a Par 3 then the rest of the course. This probably leads to more short game shots and closer first putt proximity. It's probably something negligible anyways. 

The only thing I see wrong with your late night analysis, is that you don't take into consideration by improving your long game you'll end up with longer first-putts on average. This would move the 2.2 putting upward. You are sacrificing inside 10 FT putts with more 30+ FT putts. 

12 minutes ago, Patch said:

I am courios about something. With the strokes lost/ gained scenario, is there a minimum distance off the tee for this to work? Sure, it tells one they are losing strokes off the tee, but is there a point it is not applicable?

I think strokes lost/gained are being applied incorrectly here. 

16 minutes ago, Patch said:

I average 1.88 putts per hole. That tells me I am averaging 2.78 strokes from the tee to the green,  and/or I am losing .78 strokes from tee to green. It also says I am saving .12 strokes putting. 

No, you can still be losing strokes in putting. 

Lets say you have 18 up and down opportunities. Lets say you make 50% from 8 FT putting. Lets say you hit all your short game shots to 8 FT. (A very simple, but unrealistic example for math purposes)

You should be expecting to have a putt per hole of 1.5. 9-One Putts and 9-Two Putts equals 27 putts.  

If you have a putt per hole of 1.88 then you would have lost .38 strokes that round because you missed a putt that based on your average you should have made. The only way to know if you are losing or gaining strokes based on your average is to know your average putting from different increments and compare how you performed that day. 

I would rather compare my putting to PGA Tour stats because it means that I have a baseline isn't me. 50% from 8 FT is the PGA Tour average. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by saevel25

[JonMA1]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The only thing I see wrong with your late night analysis, is that you don't take into consideration by improving your long game you'll end up with longer first-putts on average. This would move the 2.2 putting upward. You are sacrificing inside 10 FT putts with more 30+ FT putts. 

Yes, that absolutely makes sense with an increase in GIR. 

I wonder though if it would be offset at all by closer nGIR's that I'm currently getting. Certainly if I improved both the full swing and pitching, chipping and putts from off the green, that would reduce my putting average.

What I found interesting about the whole thing last night is that the numbers support something you guys have been saying for some time. With higher cappers, par 4s and 5s offer more opportunity to screw up, hence the higher stroke averages relative to regulation.

Just opposite with lower cappers. Par 5's become an opportunity to take advantage of their better ball-striking skills.

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Patch said:

I average 1.88 putts per hole. That tells me I am averaging 2.78 strokes from the tee to the green,  and/or I am losing .78 strokes from tee to green. It also says I am saving .12 strokes putting.

That's not how "strokes gained" works.

PGA Tour players take 1.87 putts from 20 feet. On the greens you play, that would probably be as close as 18'.

So if you're comparing your "strokes gained" against a PGA Tour player and you're averaging 20', you may be gaining strokes. If your average is closer than 18' (which it probably is), you're losing strokes putting.

(Note for the pedants: strokes gained is calculated on each shot, not on an average, really - putting strokes gained is not linear.)

As for being old and thus a shorter hitter… Yeah, of course that affects things. But being shorter and older doesn't mean you can't improve your driving or approach shots.

[iacas]

It's a small sample size, so I'm not putting a lot of weight on it myself, but…

Actually, the last part of that post isn't a small sample size.

It's not about what you "believe" @MrGolfguy67. There are facts, borne out of millions and millions of shots hit.

You will average close to 2 putts from 20', and so will every PGA Tour player ever. There's not much "Separation Value®" in putting.

Putting is a "huge" part of your score, but it's also a built-in part: everyone is going to average about 28-30 putts per round, period, over a long enough time to get enough of a sample size. You cannot get so good at putting that you make even 50% of your 12-footers, let alone better than that, so there's a limit on how good you can get.

And given how easy the skill is, a lot of people get pretty darn good at putting.

You're operating under some very, very antiquated ways of thinking, @MrGolfguy67, and it starts with how you simply "count putts" without regard for their position, or distance, or the shots that put you in those positions.