"Putting is a huge part of the game."

[Shorty]

3 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

this doesn’t make sense... you’re saying just because you need to win 5/9 holes, the pro would shut you out 9 holes to none so somehow you’re able to win 1 hole the other 4 times you play? what? you automatically somehow have a 20% chance of winning? buddy, YOU WILL NEVER BE AS ACCURATE OF AN IRON PLAYER AS A TOURING PROFESSIONAL. i don’t know how much clearer it can be.

He is saying that he'd only have to beet the pro 5 times out of 9 (more than 55% of the time) to win one round from 180 yards out over 9 holes to get his 20% Easy.

One assumes he's just trolling, but there is a possibility that he's for real. That's the scary part. And if there were 4 others on the site who agree with him  who have been playing as long as he has, that's over 200 years of combined experience. You can't argue with that. Like the company with 10 crap employees who have each been there for a decade and boast 100 years of combined "experience".

It reminds me of an Australian site I was on and there was a thread that just wouldn't die with a guy who absolutely INSISTED that whether a 30 foot putt was fast or slow, it took the same amount of time for the ball to fall after being hit. Analogies like driving at 50mph or 75mph and how far you travelled in an hour or how long it took you to travel meant nothing to him. Hilarious but frustrating at the same time!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Shorty

[NEhomer]

Golfguy in this thread...

 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

You, nor i, not @iacas (no offense) would ever, and i mean EVER, win a 9 hole competition from 180 yards vs a tour pro.

Noooooone taken.

@MrGolfguy67, you’re winning 5 out of 9 almost never. Hell you’re almost never gonna win 2/9.

6 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

Isn't the topic about putting being a large part of the game? Isn't this thread you arguing with your minions that putting is not? This seems pretty related to your claim that a touring pro can win with an 8 handicap putting for him. Now I'm trying to understand the math and figure out where the over under line is on how bad can a player be to win putting for a touring pro? That could let us all know how huge or not huge putting is in the game.

I ran the math. You chose not to believe it because of your “experience.”

An average 8 handicapper could have putted well enough (about 30-35% of the time) to win the Tournament of Champions this year. Absolutely.

He still makes the six inch eagle putt on that par four, for example. Every time.

There is not much Separation Value® in putting.

[woodzie264]

33 minutes ago, NEhomer said:

Golfguy in this thread...

 

While I don't agree with Golfguy, I don't see how that in anyway is contributing to the conversation or constructive....

but admittedly funny. I gotta save that one

Edited March 30, 2018 by woodzie264

[NEhomer]

1 hour ago, woodzie264 said:

While I don't agree with Golfguy, I don't see how that in anyway is contributing to the conversation or constructive....

but admittedly funny. I gotta save that one

I apologize if any true insult is taken. I can only assure you that I can take a joke as well as dish them out~

 

[woodzie264]

41 minutes ago, NEhomer said:

I apologize if any true insult is taken. I can only assure you that I can take a joke as well as dish them out~

 

I was not offended. Given the tone of the thread, I was just trying to minimize the inflammatory comments. I realize it's not my job nor role to do that, so that probably wasn't my place to respond....but I did appreciate your humor . 

[BaconNEggs]

12 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

@MrGolfguy67 this thread is becoming a classic, and I have to tip my cap to you for that. It's now gone 8 pages, and you're still standing, swinging back. I'm not going to say I agree with you, if you look back, you'll see I don't. But I have to admit, I'm starting to get a kick out of how you're dealing with some of the usual "pile on" guys I've noticed on this site. I'm pretty new here, but I learned very early there are people here who wait to see what the prevailing opinion is on a subject, then pile on, basically repeating the same argument(s) given earlier. I've never seen them take an unpopular view on a subject here, only offer snarky comments once they feel the issue has been decided. Sort of like the young kid who watches his friend win a fight, and then goes over and kicks the kid who's down on the ground when everyone else is walking away. At this point, all I can say is, if they keep coming to pile on, have fun with them.

Yeah, no.

There are actual facts here, vs. the unsubstantiated opinions of a handful of people.

I would absolutely hope that most people would "pile on" to the side of the argument where literally 100% of the facts lay. That's how facts and debate should actually work. GolfGuy is wasting everyone's time because he's not coming from a position of honest debate, he's coming from a position of "here's what I believe, LALALALALALALALALALA."

I suppose it's entertaining in the sense that sometimes it can be funny to see people get frustrated at the ignorance of adults who should know better. I've seen the people who believe the earth is only 5000 years "debate" and that's pretty much what this has devolved into.

[saevel25]

12 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actually what's happening is y'all are totally dismissing my point of view, not giving it any credibility or respect at all.

People are thinking about your point of view, comparing it to the known facts regarding this topic, and then responding accordingly. How you respond to that response is all on you. So no, your point of view is not being dismissed. You are choosing to think that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be dismissing your point of view.

Dismissing your point of view would to not even acknowledge it existing. Since you are getting well thought out responses to your comments, the opposite is happening here.

12 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I've answered the hypothetical questions honestly, but again since my answers don't line up with y'alls way of thinking they are being totally dismissed.

You answered, and people answered back. Not agreeing with you does not equal dismissing your comments.

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

Yeah, no.

There are actual facts here, vs. the unsubstantiated opinions of a handful of people.

I would absolutely hope that most people would "pile on" to the side of the argument where literally 100% of the facts lay. That's how facts and debate should actually work. GolfGuy is wasting everyone's time because he's not coming from a position of honest debate, he's coming from a position of "here's what I believe, LALALALALALALALALALA."

I suppose it's entertaining in the sense that sometimes it can be funny to see people get frustrated at the ignorance of adults who should know better. I've seen the people who believe the earth is only 5000 years "debate" and that's pretty much what this has devolved into.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. I actually learned to look at improving my game in a new way thru this thread. I WAS a drive for show, putt for dough guy. I  think sometimes it reaches a point where you say, "hey, this guy just refuses to even listen. he doesn't even have to agree 100%, just admit there might be something to think about here I can learn from.... " I agree most are trying to help find a way to explain this to him, but now the "piling on" is starting. I'll stand by what I said about noticing a certain few who just never take an opposing view to the majority view on any thread I've seen thus far. They wait to see which way the wind is blowing, then add their voice to the chorus, usually with a snarky, condescending remark thrown in. ***I'm NOT referring to the owner of the site. I'm impressed with the amount of time and effort he puts into this, and I appreciate the fact this is a place where a lot of smart people share their expertise and offer up advice. I am talking about the small group which echoes not only his every opinion, but the prevailing one in each thread I see.***

[BaconNEggs]

Gotcha. I personally don't think that's the case here, since we're not really dealing with subjectives, or which way the wind is blowing. There are objective issues at hand here, what you may see as "piling on" I see as people accepting facts. I would probably agree with you on some other topics, but not here.

[jsgolfer]

18 hours 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.

 

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

But your reasoning is that less putts is the reason for the better score, when it is likely not the case.  

Here was my round from yesterday.

8 GIR, 30 putts - 78 - Right around my normal score (right in line with the table below), but actually less putts then normal but only because I had three putts from within a foot of the green.  If those balls would've been on the green instead inches off, the round would've been 11 GIR, 33 putts and the same score.  Now I also had 2 doubles which is why my score is higher than it probably should be.  But a better putting day wouldn't have saved me any strokes (The majority of my putts from the green for birdie were over 20 feet, some close to 40 feet.  Only a better full swing day would've shaved off strokes. And GIR is KING!

 (http://www.golfwrx.com/285949/the-truth-behind-greens-in-regulation-and-scoring/)

To cut five strokes off of someone’s average score, he will almost certainly have to average two more GIR per round. While it is possible to cut four strokes through short game alone (according to the chart), this assumes the golfer is among the worst at the short game for his ballstriking ability and then becomes among the best.

In conclusion, if you average at the high end of the chart for scoring average and want to cut a couple of strokes, you can indeed do it through the short game. But if you are already scoring as well as you can for your GIR numbers, the only way to lower your average score is to hit more greens. If that’s you, you either need to get some lessons or, in the words of Ben Hogan to Gary Player regarding practice, “Double it!”

 

[onthehunt526]

7 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

But your reasoning is that less putts is the reason for the better score, when it is likely not the case.  

Here was my round from yesterday.

8 GIR, 30 putts - 78 - Right around my normal score (right in line with the table below), but actually less putts then normal but only because I had three putts from within a foot of the green.  If those balls would've been on the green instead inches off, the round would've been 11 GIR, 33 putts and the same score.  Now I also had 2 doubles which is why my score is higher than it probably should be.  But a better putting day wouldn't have saved me any strokes (The majority of my putts from the green for birdie were over 20 feet, some close to 40 feet.  Only a better full swing day would've shaved off strokes. And GIR is KING!

 (http://www.golfwrx.com/285949/the-truth-behind-greens-in-regulation-and-scoring/)

To cut five strokes off of someone’s average score, he will almost certainly have to average two more GIR per round. While it is possible to cut four strokes through short game alone (according to the chart), this assumes the golfer is among the worst at the short game for his ballstriking ability and then becomes among the best.

In conclusion, if you average at the high end of the chart for scoring average and want to cut a couple of strokes, you can indeed do it through the short game. But if you are already scoring as well as you can for your GIR numbers, the only way to lower your average score is to hit more greens. If that’s you, you either need to get some lessons or, in the words of Ben Hogan to Gary Player regarding practice, “Double it!”

 

Great table. So my average score is about right for the greens in regulation I hit (around 7). 

For me to get to under a 5 this year I need to get to 8 or more (which is why my goal is 9 GIR per round).

At first, when I get that number up I'll probably score on the higher side at first. But it'll more be adjusting to having longer first putts than I'm used to.

It's not all about the total number of putts. You could have a round you hit 6 GIR, the rest being near greens, have 24 putts and shoot 72. And say, "oh, my putting was on today". Turns out you made nothing outside 5 feet all day. I'd say my chipping and short game was on point and my irons were close. 

You could also have a round where you hit 10 greens, have 7 nGIR, one bad hole (but one putt it for bogey), you have 31 putts and shoot 77. But you made a couple longer par saves. Made a 25 footer for birdie. Made a 20 footer to save bogey on the bad hole. You putted better with 31 putts than you did with 24 putts. 

[GrandStranded]

I'm going to throw something out here, hoping to change the focus from @MrGolfguy67, and his view here. I've only been playing for less then 8 years. I had never come across the view expressed here about ball striking affecting my score more then putting did. I saw the value in what was being said, and I ordered @iacas book on the subject yesterday. I'm interested, as I'm sure most are in learning as much as possible from someone who's offering me new information about how to improve. That said, does this new information being presented to me make me discount any theory a Dave Pelz, or any short game guru put forth about the importance of short game in their books? What about a Dave Stockton type putting guru, who argues the importance of putting? Do we suddenly dismiss everything we've heard about the importance of the short game, putting and off the tee for years simply because Erik and his co-author present us this new way to look at improving? I don't know this for sure, but I'd imagine the Pelz type books offer some convincing statistical arguments supporting their arguments also. I'm of the view, with the little I know so far, that I would be smart to focus more on improving my ball striking, simply because it makes sense. What do you folks think? 

[onthehunt526]

2 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm going to throw something out here, hoping to change the focus from @MrGolfguy67, and his view here. I've only been playing for less then 8 years. I had never come across the view expressed here about ball striking affecting my score more then putting did. I saw the value in what was being said, and I ordered @iacas book on the subject yesterday. I'm interested, as I'm sure most are in learning as much as possible from someone who's offering me new information about how to improve. That said, does this new information being presented to me make me discount any theory a Dave Pelz, or any short game guru put forth about the importance of short game in their books? What about a Dave Stockton type putting guru, who argues the importance of putting? Do we suddenly dismiss everything we've heard about the importance of the short game, putting and off the tee for years simply because Erik and his co-author present us this new way to look at improving? I don't know this for sure, but I'd imagine the Pelz type books offer some convincing statistical arguments supporting their arguments also. I'm of the view, with the little I know so far, that I would be smart to focus more on improving my ball striking, simply because it makes sense. What do you folks think? 

I think Pelz and Stockton have statistical "proof" to cover their theories on how the short game and putting will improve your score. And how important they are.

@GrandStranded let me ask you this is a 100-yard pitching wedge shot a full swing shot or a short game shot? 

Back to the topic. Putting is important. No one will argue it's not. But we have statistical proof, that proves putting isn't as important as we were led to believe by the Stockton, Pelz, and Faxon crowd. 

But length and hitting Greens In Regulation or near Greens are more important. 

Getting the ball in the hole once you get it on the green is important. But how you get to that green is more important.

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

That said, does this new information being presented to me make me discount any theory a Dave Pelz, or any short game guru put forth about the importance of short game in their books? What about a Dave Stockton type putting guru, who argues the importance of putting? Do we suddenly dismiss everything we've heard about the importance of the short game, putting and off the tee for years simply because Erik and his co-author present us this new way to look at improving?

Each comment should be taken with a grain of salt. If the advice is solid, then it should stand on it's own. Pelz has been known to spout out bad statistics to validate his expertise.

So no, do not dismiss, but do not just accept it as correct because they said so.

10 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm of the view, with the little I know so far, that I would be smart to focus more on improving my ball striking, simply because it makes sense. What do you folks think? 

Work on what ever is a glaring weakness. The odds are, it will be the long game that needs the most help. To know this, a golfer must know how their ability stands compared to their handicap level. Most people just assume it is always the short game or putting that needs help.

 

[Patch]

I don't see there ever being an end to the drive for show putt for dough scenario. Some pros still use the saying, and to them it probably means something. Someone new to the game reads, or hears this from a pga pro, then the putt must be more important, since it  came from a professional. 

Another pro to the putt being as important comes from putter manufacturers. Their commercials tell everyone that putting represents half of the par score, at 36 putts, or 2 putts per green. They go on to compare the part of only using 18 tee shots, to 36 putts or something similar.Their claim that a putt counts just as much as a tee shot, to the novice makes sense. They even offer statistics to prove their point. 

Then there's the well known teaching pro, or semi retired pga pro who publishes a book with a title that basically says the quickest way to save strokes is having a good short game. They will offer up their own statistics to prove their point. It's pretty tough for the novice golfer to discard this type of info when it comes from world class pro golf personalities.

There is just alot of believable info out there, that putting is a very important part of the game. 

Everyone has statistics to prove their point. I agree with the strokes gained/loss scenario. I just think it is not as well publicised as those scenarios I discribe above. That, and maybe there are alot of golfers who could care less. 

Of course another issue is (heaven forbid) someone Googles "are statistics 100% accurate". There's a monkey wrench if there ever was one. 

 

[DaveP043]

18 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

That said, does this new information being presented to me make me discount any theory a Dave Pelz, or any short game guru put forth about the importance of short game in their books? What about a Dave Stockton type putting guru, who argues the importance of putting? Do we suddenly dismiss everything we've heard about the importance of the short game, putting and off the tee for years simply because Erik and his co-author present us this new way to look at improving? I don't know this for sure, but I'd imagine the Pelz type books offer some convincing statistical arguments supporting their arguments also. I'm of the view, with the little I know so far, that I would be smart to focus more on improving my ball striking, simply because it makes sense. What do you folks think? 

I don't claim to have direct knowledge of either Pelz or Stockton's claims about putting and short game importance, although I've read a few things in golf forums.  It seems that both of these gentlemen have specifically chosen to work with short game (Pelz) and putting (Pelz and Stockton), have  made their fortunes in these specialties.  In essence, they're selling their services, and smart businesses specifically look for reasons that their services have value to the consumer.  It would be natural for any business to cherrypick statistics, or slant their analysis of statistics, to attempt to justify the value of the services they provide.  I'd simply keep that in mind when reading what they say.  I'd also hope that both men provide references for any statistics they use, so that you can review them for yourself.  And I've read that both men have some solid instructional content, with satisfied "customers" that include a number of high profile touring pros.

The more current belief, that full-swing shots are a more important part of scoring than short game or putting, come via the relatively new strokes gained analysis method.  As I understand it, the strokes gained concept started with a mathematician, someone without a real axe to grind.  Similarly,  @iacas doesn't seem to me to have a specific axe to grind, he offers instruction in full swing, short game, and putting.  He offers club-fitting for putters and wedges.  He gives away a lot of free advice in all of these parts of the game through this website.  He'll tell you exactly where to look to get the basic statistics her references.

My only suggestion, look at both types of instructional content, look at the statistical backup from all sides.  Then take a good look at your own game, and try to figure out where your weakest area is.  Then work on the weak area.  If your weak area really is putting, its possible that Stockton's approach can really help you.  Or maybe you'd learn better from @iacas, who has a number of good threads about putting available here.  If its full-swing stuff that needs the most help, find a good instructor for that.  Or post your video in the My Swings area in this forum.

[GrandStranded]

20 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

I think Pelz and Stockton have statistical "proof" to cover their theories on how the short game and putting will improve your score. And how important they are.

@GrandStranded let me ask you this is a 100-yard pitching wedge shot a full swing shot or a short game shot? 

Back to the topic. Putting is important. No one will argue it's not. But we have statistical proof, that proves putting isn't as important as we were led to believe by the Stockton, Pelz, and Faxon crowd. 

But length and hitting Greens In Regulation or near Greens are more important. 

Getting the ball in the hole once you get it on the green is important. But how you get to that green is more important.

Like I said, I'm buying into the "ball striking" theory 100%, because the facts you and others have put forth here make so much sense to me. So I'm not disagreeing at all. I want to answer your question honestly though, because I do want to learn as much as I can about this, so here goes: When I have a 100 yard shot, (not in trouble, but with a full unimpeded swing) I'm taking a comfortable swing with my Gap Wedge. I'm probably wrong here, but I don't look at that type of swing as a "short game" shot. In my mind, it's a scoring opportunity (the same as a shot from let's say gack to 120 yards or so), and a shot I want to hit as close to the pin as I can. When I think short game, I think of somewhere from a full LW (something I rarely like to attempt) and in, where I'm trying to see how I can get as close to the pin as possible. It might be a 8 iron bump from just off the fringe, or a 58* from the same distance on a different hole for various reasons.