Yea heres my guess. He shoots the lowest round ever regardless of how he hits it. Most of the mid caps I teach are notoriously poor around the greens even when they think they are "pretty good." They prove it on TRACKMAN Short game tests regularly. As its the ONLY area where they could be so much better given the fact that much of the athleticism involved in full swings is NOT required. The average am could hit balls all day every day and not sniff a tour pro but I see no reason why they couldn't learn to chip and putt like them..
Where should the focus be, short or long?
- Thread starter mgranato
- Start date
- Status
Yea heres my guess. He shoots the lowest round ever regardless of how he hits it. Most of the mid caps I teach are notoriously poor around the greens even when they think they are "pretty good." They prove it on TRACKMAN Short game tests regularly. As its the ONLY area where they could be so much better given the fact that much of the athleticism involved in full swings is NOT required. The average am could hit balls all day every day and not sniff a tour pro but I see no reason why they couldn't learn to chip and putt like them..
dschultz6072
New
I love that playing lesson. Dude was deadly with a flatstick.
Once again the public gets confused by scientists who know FA about golf.
Think about it for a minute dudes. This info relates to TOUR PLAYERS!!!! Not Joe Schmoe golfer. And it concludes that there is a MARGINAL difference in the contributions of the long and short games. So marginal it doesn't even make much of a difference to anyone apart from the top players at the top of the top where the air is very thin.
Think about it for a minute dudes. This info relates to TOUR PLAYERS!!!! Not Joe Schmoe golfer. And it concludes that there is a MARGINAL difference in the contributions of the long and short games. So marginal it doesn't even make much of a difference to anyone apart from the top players at the top of the top where the air is very thin.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
There isn't many opinions I respect on here more than DC's but the average am has as much chance to chip and putt like a tour pro as they do to hit it like them. They are sensational from 50 yards in and it goes all the way back to things they learned from hundreds of hours practicing and playing as kids. They can certainly learn to do it better which would have an immediate impact on score. Unless the long game is so bad it causes penalty shots and disasters like tops, there isn't a guarantee that improvement will result in much lower scores. Maybe more enjoyment. I've never hit it better and I'm two shots a round worse than ten years ago when I couldn't hit it in the ocean.
Last edited:
Few yrs back I played with my friend 20yrs younger I was a 15 he a 4 handicap He drove the ball around 300 yrds me 200. I told him if I drove the ball 300 yrds I would be as good as him he said no way. Half way tru our round I said you hit from my drive and I`ll hit from your drive . We did, I pared all the way in......
mgranato
New
Purely anecdotal, but...
I have the most fun playing golf win I can put my drives anywhere I want. Long, short, high, low, left, right, anything the shot calls for... pure fun.
I score the best when my short game is sharp. Average to below average everywhere else gets a pass.
My most boring rounds are when my long game is good, but mediocre inside 100. The scores are good, but not bad either... a waste of 4 hours. :roll eyes:
I want golf to be as fun and entertaining as possible.
I have the most fun playing golf win I can put my drives anywhere I want. Long, short, high, low, left, right, anything the shot calls for... pure fun.
I score the best when my short game is sharp. Average to below average everywhere else gets a pass.
My most boring rounds are when my long game is good, but mediocre inside 100. The scores are good, but not bad either... a waste of 4 hours. :roll eyes:
I want golf to be as fun and entertaining as possible.
It's soooo much easier to choke in the short game. Confidence and belief in yourself are more critical than ever. How many times have you practiced your butt off leading up to a tournament, hit all your short shots clean as a whistle, then gone out and laid sod over your first tight lie pitch?
puttmaster
New
I have the most fun when I'm draining putts -- and chips -- from anywhere and everywhere. I almost float to the next tee.Purely anecdotal, but...
I have the most fun playing golf win I can put my drives anywhere I want. Long, short, high, low, left, right, anything the shot calls for... pure fun.
I score the best when my short game is sharp. Average to below average everywhere else gets a pass.
My most boring rounds are when my long game is good, but mediocre inside 100. The scores are good, but not bad either... a waste of 4 hours. :roll eyes:
I want golf to be as fun and entertaining as possible.
tilthatday
New
Really want to say "amen" to Kevin's post. I'm a little puzzled by the assumption that the short game is somehow easier than the full swing. Different, yes; but it requires touch and timing and coordination and skill. Just because it may not require the same strength as the full swing doesn't mean that the average amateur has the talent to master it.
In fact, in my limited experience practice on the full swing pays the most dividends for the truly ineffecient golfer. Hitting it OB, dribbling it along the ground and/or playing 18 holes from the rough will nullify any short game accomplishment and take all the fun out of the round. No matter how bad they are, most players can get off the green in 3 and/or "up and down" in 3 or 4. They're close enough to the hole that things can't go that far wrong. From 200 yds away? The sky's the limit.
In fact, in my limited experience practice on the full swing pays the most dividends for the truly ineffecient golfer. Hitting it OB, dribbling it along the ground and/or playing 18 holes from the rough will nullify any short game accomplishment and take all the fun out of the round. No matter how bad they are, most players can get off the green in 3 and/or "up and down" in 3 or 4. They're close enough to the hole that things can't go that far wrong. From 200 yds away? The sky's the limit.
birly-shirly
New
spatial awareness - s'like parking a car, innit...?
Alternatively, could it be that strength in depth on the men's tour means that it's harder to really set yourself apart based on ballstriking - meaning that you really need to seek out the extra edge in the short game?
Look at Jack vers Tiger. In his time, Jack could dominate without really developing a killer wedge game. Tiger's long approach play was/is awesome - but maybe not enough on its own?
Alternatively, could it be that strength in depth on the men's tour means that it's harder to really set yourself apart based on ballstriking - meaning that you really need to seek out the extra edge in the short game?
Look at Jack vers Tiger. In his time, Jack could dominate without really developing a killer wedge game. Tiger's long approach play was/is awesome - but maybe not enough on its own?
Matt 4-L
New
Quit lobbing softballs or I may have to knock one out of the park
magicmarker
New
I don't see them being able to simply learn to chip and putt like them. Tour Pros are spending most of their practice time on the short game, I see the reason for this being that the ceiling for how precise one can become is MUCH higher with the short game. They already understand the proper technique and they still have to stay diligent to remain sharp.
I might be crazy, but I tend to side with Rory and Jack on this one. The long game should be priority number one because it puts you in position to make birdies. The short game is the fall back option, there is nothing wrong with having a good fall back, but if the long game were better, you might have had a birdie putt instead of having to grind for par.
The more greens you hit the less you need a short game in order to go really low. Or as Johnny Miller has said, if you ever wanna go in a slump folks, just start driving it bad.
magicmarker
New
They could close some of that gap if they actually practiced their short game.
"Guys say you have to have a short game to win tournaments and it is not the case. Not at all," Rory McIlroy said last spring. His comments sparked a controversy, but Jack Nicklaus rose to his defense. "I agree with Rory," Nicklaus said. "I never practiced my short game because I felt like if I can hit 15 greens a round and hit a couple of par-fives in two and if I can make all my putts inside 10 feet, who cares where I chip it?"
I'm not sure if this is really an accurate quote from Jack, but if it is, it's kind of silly, because no one makes all their putts inside of 10 feet, and no one hits 15 greens a round in regulation. They hit 12-13 greens and they only make 50% of the 6-10 footers. But if this ridiculous statement were true, he'd be right. It's not hard to chip and hit sand shots to 10 feet, and you'd already be 6 or 7 under on the 15 holes you hit in regulation.
I'm not sure if this is really an accurate quote from Jack, but if it is, it's kind of silly, because no one makes all their putts inside of 10 feet, and no one hits 15 greens a round in regulation. They hit 12-13 greens and they only make 50% of the 6-10 footers. But if this ridiculous statement were true, he'd be right. It's not hard to chip and hit sand shots to 10 feet, and you'd already be 6 or 7 under on the 15 holes you hit in regulation.
Dear mgranato,
A very interesting article,thanks for posting it.
I had an interesting experience at the Titleist Performance Institute a few years ago in December 2007, when after presenting the attributes and detailed characteristics of a dynamically balanced swing I was asked by Dr. Greg Rose, "how does this apply to the elite and touring professionals we have come here?". I had anticipated such a question, and had with me the summary statistics from the earnings and other characteristics of the ist, 50th and 150th on the PGA tour that year.
In 2007, I am sure we all remember Tiger was the top money winner, earnings only. My points were, as I recall, he averaged 28 putts per round, versus less than 30 for the 150th. Then for total score, as I recall, Tiger averaged about 69 versus about 71 again for the 150th. What I pointed out to them, and a point I would like to enter here is that the difference in these numbers for Tiger, ie 69 minus 28=41, and for the 150th money winner, again, 71 minus 30 again equals 41, and if you do this for other years, this difference of 40-41, and the putting average for the year of the winner is always about 28 are pretty constant, so my points are these.
(1) The putting for the #1 player is always about 8 UNDER putting par. (2) On the other hand, the average for the other shots, which are dominated by full swings is 5 OVER par, consistently, each year.
My conclusion is that it is statistically IMPROBABLE that the putting can improve over 2 strokes for the 150th to become the 1st, so I told Dr Greg Rose et al, I believe that a dynamically balanced swing that reduces the number of 'full swings' had a much higher probability of being accomplished for players to move up the standinggs, especially below 125 th , and 50 th for the exemptions these positions provide.
Now, almost 5 years later, I am SURE this is still the case, as a better dynamically balanced swing will absolutely result in longer drives, and higher percentage fairways hit, and the dominant statistic, greens in regulation.
Finally, give your own golf statistics this simple subtraction test for insight as to how YOU should spend your practice time.
Sincerely, and interested in your comments,
art
A very interesting article,thanks for posting it.
I had an interesting experience at the Titleist Performance Institute a few years ago in December 2007, when after presenting the attributes and detailed characteristics of a dynamically balanced swing I was asked by Dr. Greg Rose, "how does this apply to the elite and touring professionals we have come here?". I had anticipated such a question, and had with me the summary statistics from the earnings and other characteristics of the ist, 50th and 150th on the PGA tour that year.
In 2007, I am sure we all remember Tiger was the top money winner, earnings only. My points were, as I recall, he averaged 28 putts per round, versus less than 30 for the 150th. Then for total score, as I recall, Tiger averaged about 69 versus about 71 again for the 150th. What I pointed out to them, and a point I would like to enter here is that the difference in these numbers for Tiger, ie 69 minus 28=41, and for the 150th money winner, again, 71 minus 30 again equals 41, and if you do this for other years, this difference of 40-41, and the putting average for the year of the winner is always about 28 are pretty constant, so my points are these.
(1) The putting for the #1 player is always about 8 UNDER putting par. (2) On the other hand, the average for the other shots, which are dominated by full swings is 5 OVER par, consistently, each year.
My conclusion is that it is statistically IMPROBABLE that the putting can improve over 2 strokes for the 150th to become the 1st, so I told Dr Greg Rose et al, I believe that a dynamically balanced swing that reduces the number of 'full swings' had a much higher probability of being accomplished for players to move up the standinggs, especially below 125 th , and 50 th for the exemptions these positions provide.
Now, almost 5 years later, I am SURE this is still the case, as a better dynamically balanced swing will absolutely result in longer drives, and higher percentage fairways hit, and the dominant statistic, greens in regulation.
Finally, give your own golf statistics this simple subtraction test for insight as to how YOU should spend your practice time.
Sincerely, and interested in your comments,
art
dschultz6072
New
Jack thought short game practice was boring.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Every phase of the men's game is better than the female game so why wouldn't the short game be the same?
- Status