"Putting is a huge part of the game."

[DaveP043]

Just now, MrGolfguy67 said:

I never said anything close to that, nor did I say something about the earth is flat. Please stop putting words in my mouth that you then attack to make me look bad.

Interesting article, suggesting that Speith's putting issues may not put him out of contention at the Masters.  https://sports.yahoo.com/why-jordan-spieth-apos-putting-145132440.html

 

[b101]

Also, I'm sure that someone will have posted these before, but please read these:

 

 

 

[klineka]

12 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I have done that, if they are not adequate for you then im not sure what to tell you. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I have read and reread every single response you have made on this topic. The reasons you have given so far are based on your opinion and your own personal experience. You have yet to explain using numbers and statistics anything that justifies your beliefs. 

I am not asking for you to agree or disagree with me, I am asking you to prove to me that your beliefs are true.

 

Since you didnt answer my question, I will ask it again

Can you please share numbers and statistics that support your beliefs?

[b101]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Interesting article, suggesting that Speith's putting issues may not put him out of contention at the Masters.  https://sports.yahoo.com/why-jordan-spieth-apos-putting-145132440.html

 

Great article. Even on Jordan's amazing performance in 2015, it was still his approach play that gained him more shots than his putting.

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

The below is a good one about the trends at the Masters, defying that old adage of putting mattering more at Augusta (I also thought that one might go away when Adam Scott won there... )

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

[iacas]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

Just to play a little Devil's advocate here, I believe Mark Broadie did show that putting contributes more to a PGA Tour tournament winner's score than the top 40 golfers which suggests that getting hot with the flagstick can lead to lower scores. So in theory, having a good putting round can be a contributor to a low scoring round, but it's also important to remember that scoring fluctuates more as handicap goes up - the average golfer will be more affected from round to round by their ballstriking than the average PGA Tour pro. There's a difference between putting being a factor in scoring (which nobody will argue) and putting being a "huge part" of the game.

Yes around 35%. Still not more important than the full swing. Nor is “being hot” with the putter something you can repeat.

22 minutes ago, Patch said:

I recently golfed four rounds using the same caddy. We actually discussed the long game being more important to "most" golfers. This guy sees 100s of different golfers every year. There was no disagreement that given the right circumstances, the tee shot was more important than a putting stroke. We both remembered the old "bomb and gouge" scenario the pros use to talk about. 

We agreed that my long game wasn't long enough to be much of a factor in me shooting my lowest scores. Especially on par 5s and longer par 4s. 

Myself, I have  relied on my short game to shoot my lowest scores. That's why it takes up most of my practice time. However, being the open minded guy I am, I asked for, and received his comments on my game. 

Hitting good chip shots was a big part of my game. My caddy showed me that by beefing up my approach game in accuracy, and a little added distance, I could do away with some of those chip shots. This included pitch shots too. According to him I could save any where from 3-5 shots per round, once I became a better approach shot player. That was the part of my game that would reward me most with better play.

So, with his tuition, most of my practice time now will be "beefing up" my approach game. Once, I get reasonably well at it, it will show dividends on par 3s, shorter par 4s, and most par5s. 

I guess this makes me an outlier since my game does not fit into the statistical categories. I also suspect there are more golfers like me out there than one might imagine 

I recently golfed four rounds using the same caddy. We actually discussed the long game being more important to "most" golfers. This guy sees 100s of different golfers every year. There was no disagreement that given the right circumstances, the tee shot was more important than a putting stroke. We both remembered the old "bomb and gouge" scenario the pros use to talk about. 

We agreed that my long game wasn't long enough to be much of a factor in me shooting my lowest scores. Especially on par 5s and longer par 4s. 

Myself, I have  relied on my short game to shoot my lowest scores. That's why it takes up most of my practice time. However, being the open minded guy I am, I asked for, and received his comments on my game. 

Hitting good chip shots was a big part of my game. My caddy showed me that by beefing up my approach game in accuracy, and a little added distance, I could do away with some of those chip shots. This included pitch shots too. According to him I could save any where from 3-5 shots per round, once I became a better approach shot player. That was the part of my game that would reward me most with better play.

So, with his tuition, most of my practice time now will be "beefing up" my approach game. Once, I get reasonably well at it, it will show dividends on par 3s, shorter par 4s, and most par5s. 

I guess this makes me an outlier since my game does not fit into the statistical categories. I also suspect there are more golfers like me out there than one might imagine 

@Patch, long game isn’t about hitting it far. Yes, if you’re constrained because of age the numbers can shift but only a little. Far less than you likely imagine.

7 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I have done that, if they are not adequate for you then im not sure what to tell you. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

You have not given any reasons at all. No data. No points. You made up a bogus hypothetical. That’s been about it.

2 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I never said anything close to that, nor did I say something about the earth is flat. Please stop putting words in my mouth that you then attack to make me look bad.

The point is that you’re entitled to “believe” what you want, but it doesn’t at all mean you’re correct.

34 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

In your opinion

No. This isn’t an opinion.

[onthehunt526]

1 minute ago, b101 said:

Great article. Even on Jordan's amazing performance in 2015, it was still his approach play that gained him more shots than his putting.

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

The below is a good one about the trends at the Masters, defying that old adage of putting mattering more at Augusta (I also thought that one might go away when Adam Scott won there... )

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

Usually if you're in the top-10 in GIR, and you get through the entire Masters with no 3-putts or only one 3-putt, that's usually the formula to win. 

Yes. There have been champions that have won with a seemingly hot putter, but those champions weren't making 50, 60, and 70 footers, either. They were gaining strokes putting because they either were perfect inside of 10 feet (See Tiger, 1997) Or making more from the makeable range than average (see Ben Crenshaw, 1995). 

Hell, in 1986, when Jack won, he said basically until the 9th Hole on Sunday, he made nothing. He did, however, play well tee to green the entire week. Including 7 of 9 greens in the second nine 30, and 2 under greens in regulation, and 12 putts.

Yes, Jack's putter was hot on the second nine. But he doesn't birdie the 10th without a good iron shot. He doesn't hit it pin-high on 11 without a big drive so he only had an 8-iron in. He doesn't birdie 13 without a good 3-iron pin-high to two-putt range. He doesn't eagle 15 without that 214 yard, 4-iron to 12 feet. He doesn't birdie 16 without a well-struck 5-iron to three feet. He doesn't birdie 17 without the pitching wedge pin-high 12 feet. 

You see, I just went through maybe the most famous charge in perhaps golf history, and proved ball striking is more important. In fact, it set up his 30.

[DaveP043]

 

35 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I have done that, if they are not adequate for you then im not sure what to tell you. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Like @klineka, I've re-read all of the posts in this thread.  I went back to the original thread about the Match Play to make sure I didn't miss anything.  I've read your opinion that putting is a huge part of the game.  I've read that you say there are no guarantees coming from a good tee shot, or even from a good approach shot.  But I haven't seen anything else, no statistics, no backup.  If you have that kind of information, please share it.

On 3/28/2018 at 11:39 AM, MrGolfguy67 said:

Golfer A - hits 14 of 18 greens, gets up & down 3 of 4 times, makes 6 birdies, has no 3 putts, shoots 67 with 27 putts

Golfer B - hits 14 of 18 greens, gets up & down 0 of 4 times, makes 0 birdies, has (2) 3 putts, shoots 78 with 38 putts

I can also cherry pick a scenario that makes my point.

I did see your scenario, and discussed it a few holes back.  I don't think the scenario is particularly unrealistic, but I also don't think it shows the "huge" importance of putting.  It could as easily demonstrate how full-swing problems could significantly impact scoring, even with normal "decent" putting performance.

It has been my experience on this particular site that most of us like to get beyond the conventional wisdom of most things.  I'm another "experienced" player, been going at it for about 50 years now.  I keep learning stuff, and most of the stuff I learn disagrees with what I thought I knew before.  But to learn, I had to look at the data that supported the newer ideas, and compare them to whatever basis I can find for the older stuff.  The thing is, all of the support we can find for the "huge impact" of putting is anecdotal, and can't overcome the simple statistics.  Statistics don't always apply to every player for every round, there are without doubt exceptions, but they can give a pretty good indication of the relative importance of different parts of the game.

[MrGolfguy67]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Since you didnt answer my question, I will ask it again

Can you please share numbers and statistics that support your beliefs?

Actually i did answer your question and i have given numbers that support my beliefs. I'm sorry you are not satisfied with that, i guess i can't help you.

2 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

@MrGolfguy67,

Putting is relatively simple motion. 

The notion that because putting is simple means that it is insignificant is absurd. 

[iacas]

40 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actually i did answer your question and i have given numbers that support my beliefs. I'm sorry you are not satisfied with that, i guess i can't help you.

No, you didn’t. Several people have told you this.

Here’s another question that may help you get it. If you were forced to bet $10,000 against a PGA Tour player, would you take him on in a 9-hole game of closest to the pin from 180 yards away or a 9-hole putting match from 15-25 feet?

How often do you think you’d win either of those games? How often do you think an average 10 handicapper wins either of those games?

[klineka]

10 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actually i did answer your question and i have given numbers that support my beliefs. I'm sorry you are not satisfied with that, i guess i can't help you.

Below are all of your posts for this thread that contain numbers. Here are the descriptions of when you used numbers in your posts

• The 3rd quote used numbers in the post where you described one specific scenario
• The 5th quote where you stated how long you have been playing
• The 6th quote where you describe the length of a drive and the length of a hole
• The 9th post where you talk about the yardage of a course in relation to a specific scenario that was presented to you

That's it. None of those numbers prove your point. 

So no, you have not given numbers that support your beliefs.

 

 

On 3/28/2018 at 11:39 AM, MrGolfguy67 said:

Golfer A - hits 14 of 18 greens, gets up & down 3 of 4 times, makes 6 birdies, has no 3 putts, shoots 67 with 27 putts

Golfer B - hits 14 of 18 greens, gets up & down 0 of 4 times, makes 0 birdies, has (2) 3 putts, shoots 78 with 38 putts

I can also cherry pick a scenario that makes my point.

 

20 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Fact:  I'm new to golf, only having played for 41 years, but my best scores are when I putt well. Far & away. When you putt well you are making birdies or saving pars.

Driving good (into the fairway) guarantees nothing, you've still got to get it into the hole. Good approach shots guarantee nothing, you've still got to get it into the hole.

 

 

19 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Sorry but that is absurd. You actually believe that if I, for example, hit my drive 280 yds straight down the middle on a 450 yd par4, I then automatically have a birdie putt. Insanity.

Like I said before, which was correct then and is still correct, you still have to get the ball in the hole. A good drive down the middle guarantees nothing.

 

17 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Here's my answer:

Game 2 - absurd because virtually nobody is ambidextrous and 0% of golfers carry 28 clubs, which would be necessary to pull off this game. I have no idea who would win because i have no idea how good or bad a righty would be hitting lefty. 

Game 1 - the 80s player having to hit all full shots would be at a total disadvantage because they normally play on courses that are 6200 - 6700 yds. A 7000 yd course is above their ability, there's a reason for the several different sets of tees on every course.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by klineka

[onthehunt526]

40 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actually i did answer your question and i have given numbers that support my beliefs. I'm sorry you are not satisfied with that, i guess i can't help you.

The notion that because putting is simple means that it is insignificant is absurd. 

I never said it was insignificant. Is putting important? Yes. Does putting determine your score on a hole? It plays a part of it. Do pros win because they gain strokes putting? Absolutely. But they are gaining more strokes with driving, and approaches. 

The difference between us and pros negligible when it comes to putting. Maybe 1-3 strokes at most overall. Mostly because amateurs have a higher 3-putt percentage outside of 40 feet. But inside of 40 feet. It's 1 stroke or so. (I don't know the exact numbers, Erik you do). So if Bubba Watson shoots 71, and I shoot 91 for example (I'm not that bad, maybe from his tees). And it's a wash Bubba and I putting, why the hell am I shooting 20 strokes higher than him?

34 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, you didn’t. Several people have told you this.

Here’s another question that may help you get it. If you were forced to bet $10,000 against a PGA Tour player, would you take him on in a 9-hole game of closest to the pin from 180 yards away or a 9-hole putting match from 15-25 feet?

How often do you think you’d win either of those games? How often do you think an average 10 handicapper wins either of those games?

The 180-yard approach shot: out of 10, maybe once if they hit a really good shot.

The 15-25 feet: the Tour Pro probably wins 5 or 6 out of 10 matches, the 10 handicapper 4 or 5 out of ten. If you played the scenario 100 times, it might be 55:45.

[MrGolfguy67]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

 If you were forced to bet $10,000 against a PGA Tour player, would you take him on in a 9-hole game of closest to the pin from 180 yards away or a 9-hole putting match from 15-25 feet?

How often do you think you’d win either of those games?

I figure either one I'd have the same chance at winning. My guess would be 1 of 5 (20%).

[onthehunt526]

1 minute ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I figure either one I'd have the same chance at winning. My guess would be 1 of 5 (20%).

Wrong.

I'd take the putting match every time. 100 times out of 100. I have the best chance to get my money back.

[Groucho Valentine]

No matter how good of a ball striker you are, half or more of of your strokes will take place on or around the green. So i would say yes, putting is a huge part of the game..  Math says so 

[GrandStranded]

Until yesterday evening, I was a believer that since "half" of the 72 strokes to shoot par were allotted to putting, it had to be the most important to focus on. Second, I thought, was my short game. However, this conversation, which I luckily stumbled upon when it was in another thread, has been eye opening. I can't understand how people can deny the facts that have been given here. So many of you have given various examples in an effort to explain more clearly what you're talking about. I mean, come on, this isn't a topic where we're discussing which driver, or which course or player is better then the other. If it were, I could understand arguing a point based on an opinion. But how can someone be presented the evidence that we have been here, and not stop and think, "hmm, there is something to this, let me think about what you're saying..." At best I can see someone holding firm to their belief putting is important to their scoring. But how do you look at this and not say, "well it might be important, but you've shown me it isn't as important as I thought." 

Edited March 29, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I figure either one I'd have the same chance at winning. My guess would be 1 of 5 (20%).

No. The PGA Tour player wipes the floor with you 99 times out of 100 in a 9-hole closest from 180 match. The 100th match is closer but you still lose.

You have a chance putting. He only wins 60-80% of those.

[MrGolfguy67]

Why am i not surprised that my honest response was immediately shouted down as wrong. No ifs ands or buts about it, i'm just totally wrong.

 

 

 

Actual numbers from my last 2 rounds played on 1 of the 2 courses in my town, par 72 - 6700 yds

Round 1 - 7 GIR, 34 putts, shot 85

Round 2 - 5 GIR, 30 putts, shot 81

Edited March 29, 2018 by MrGolfguy67

[GrandStranded]

7 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Why am i not surprised that my honest response was immediately shouted down as wrong. No ifs ands or buts about it, i'm just totally wrong.

I"m really curious here. I know you're frustrated with how this is going, so let's forget putting for a second. Do you at least agree that focusing on ball striking might be more valuable then you previously thought?

Edited March 29, 2018 by GrandStranded