[JMEvensky]

Tom Doak,a related question. If Ballesteros and Nicklaus each won at TOC and ANGC (and RM-W?),what does it say about those golf courses?

[Russ Arbuthnot]

Just chiming in here to again recommend the work done by Rich Hunt. Anyone who thinks that short game is the most important needs to read his work, otherwise you're fighting a losing argument. The numbers simply don't back it up.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,a related question. If Ballesteros and Nicklaus each won at TOC and ANGC (and RM-W?),what does it say about those golf courses?

The Old Course and Augusta National [at least the versions of each that Nicklaus and Seve played] both ask for a combination of long game and short game, about as well as any two courses that ever existed.  Royal Melbourne might be in the same class, but Jack never played there until he was long past his prime.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike

The four keys to success on tour are strokes gained putting, driving effectiveness, 10-20 yards around the green and 175-220 approaches.

I doubt there's many local guys who hit the ball as well as anyone on tour. Touch and short game can be taught and learned. What truly separated Hogan and Nicklaus, Norman, Tiger etc is how they hit the ball.

Padraig,

While Nicklaus and Woods were great ball strikers, the one asset they had over all others, was their ability to make critical putts when they were needed.

[Jud_T]

Padraig,

Touch is like rhythm or an ear for languages. You either have it or you don't.  A guy can learn to be a consistently mechanical short game player but he can't learn to be an artist around the greens.

[Grant Saunders]

I think a great short game can help a player keep pace with a better ball striker but its rare for it to trump a great long game. Corey Pavin is one example that I can think of where he was competitive mostly on the back of his skill around the greens but his long game (not just lack of length) possibly held him back from achieving more.

[Steve Wilson]

Is putting part of the short game or is it a different game altogether?  Hogan reputedly liked to play a money game that awarded points for drives in the fairway and for greens hit.  Beyond that point he considered it to be putting, a discrete activity.

I never thought of putting as the short game until I became an habitué of this site.  I differentiated between putting and chipping and pitching because when we chip and pitch we try to impart different spin and trajectory to control the ball.  When we putt we are concerned about line and pace.

I know that Bobby lock was reputed to hit his putts with hook spin, but do any of my fellow habitués intentionally try to control their putts with spin (I'm virtually certain that trajectory is out of the question).

Upon consideration, I do consider it a valid point that the full swing, chipping and pitching are golf and putting is well...putting.  And I think the increase in green speed and the nearly perfect surfaces have accentuated that difference.  

[Mike_Young]

TD,
To answer your question I would go JN.  I was looking at this entire thing in a different light.  I am stating that anyone on the Web.com or the PGA Tour or the European Tour has an exceptional short game and that in many many cases that short game took them to those tours when there were guys in their hometowns that struck the ball as well as any of them.  Using those parameters I feel that the great players "Tour level" have exceptional short games above and beyond golfers that strike the ball as well as they do but cannot chip or putt.  Short game, long game, they can all get it in the hole...    Hell, I'm trying to say that forget all the length and narrowness and fairway bunkering for 99 percent of the amateur players.  Interesting greens complexes that make them create shots will bring them back over and over because psychologically they don't feel like full shots were keeping them from shooting a better score.  They can deal with missing a putt or a chip.

I don't know how to read all of the various stats I read about tour players.  Rotella told Rymer a few years back that the most critical stat for making money on tour was making cuts.  His theory was that in order to make a cut one needed to hit whatever club he needed to keep the ball in the short grass.  If he was outside 175 yards to the green then play to the middle of the green.  If he was between 175 yards and 125 yards then play to the inside of the "pin side" of the green.  If one was inside 125 then go for it.  I think many use that theory on tour.
I read just recently that Keegan Bradley changed teachers in order to get into the top of the owrld order and that #10 was not good enough.  He ranked like 49 or 59th in putts made from 5 feet or shorter.  He had like 1080 such putts in 2012 and only missed like 55 of them and was 49th....THESE GUYS ARE GOOD....

[John McCarthy]

I always figured that the great short game fellers were like fighters with a good left hook...they can end the game fast but if they go bad they are doomed. 

One of my roommates in college caddied at Chicago Golf.   He said there were a handful of members who were better ball strikers than Ben Crenshaw...but none of them had a major. 

[Pat Burke]

There is no (one or the other answer) IMo.
Every player I saw, had strengths and weaknesses.  Personally, I drove it pretty well,
hit a lot of greens, and was a pretty good short range putter.
I was a miserable mid and long range putter.  Didn't make many putts from outside 8 feet relative
to the tour.
My head was the biggest obstacle to greater success.  Cannot tie ballstriking or putting either way.

And if anyone thinks that Alan Doyle could have competed with Greg Norman on anything other
than a Champions Tour setup, I'd call you crazy

Davis Love, hit it unbelievable, and had a pretty nice career.  Not a great putter, but not awful
Phil hits it long but inconsistent, chips and pitches it great, and his putting is great, with an occasional glaring miss.
Early Tiger, after he dialed in his distance control in his first year, was a full package of holy shit.

Hogan hit it great  
Nicklaus hit it great
Jones hit it great
Tiger hit it great (early career)
Nelson hit it great
Don't know enough about Snead (stats), but sure looked like he hit it great

They also made putts when they HAD to, especially early.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, off the related posts (and my own post from the leveller thread):

Take a course that Dr. Mackenzie designed (Augusta) and one that he loved (St Andrews) and Jack and Seve can both win there.  Have them go head to head a hundred times on those two courses -- might the ball striker and the short game wizard come out about even?

Now take a course that Robert Trent Jones designed/re worked (and no offence intended to him particularly) and have Jack and Seve go head to head a hundred times -- any guesses on the percentage of wins for the long hitting machine over the magician around the greens?

Which is to say, the underlying ethos/spirit of the game did change after the Golden Age, and for many decades. The short game wizard could win on a Mackenzie course because Mackenzie DESIGNED it that way, on purpose, based on a belief system about what made the game special and unique.

And what made it special was the 'balance' between the two types of game, a balance imbedded in the very way we keep score, i.e. where the 3 inch putt is worth exactly the same -- one stroke  -- as the 300 yard drive.  It was a balance that Dr. Mac believed in, and tried to ensure in the playing of the game/on his courses. 

And then after the war, that belief system changed, and with it went that balance. It changed, I suppose, for economic, social, technological reasons etc....but I think that for a long time no one really noticed, or at least didn't have the language to explain/frame the changes. Sometime in the 1950s, it was as if there was an unconscious 'echo' floating around the golfing world, whispering in everyone's ear:

"The Behr-Crane debates are over. Crane won!"

And for a long time, no one was brave enough or independent enough to argue against that belief.



 

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Padraig,

Touch is like rhythm or an ear for languages. You either have it or you don't.  A guy can learn to be a consistently mechanical short game player but he can't learn to be an artist around the greens.

Disagree with this completely relative to the amateur golfer, perhaps you are right if you are referring to the pros.  The reason the average player struggles to develop touch is that they seldom practice the short game.   Or they do practice and hit the same pitch from the same place 40 times and call it "practice."  I never understood that.  99% of the short game practice I see is in that form, small bucket from literally the same spot to the same pin.  I hit no more than 3 balls from the same general area, then it's on to a different spot.  Or if the practice green is empty I will fling balls into a ring around the entire green and work my way all the way around it alternating between however many pins there are on the green.  Faldo used to do that with Fanny placing golf balls in all manner of weird spots.  He said he would say "Fanny, give me some tournament lies."

[Jim Nugent]

Here's a question that may help sort things out:  Nicklaus vs. Seve.  Obviously Jack had the MUCH better game tee to green, and Seve had the MUCH better short game.  But if you give Jack a "10" for long game and Seve a "10" for short game, what were they each in the other's category?  And how does that compare to which of them was better overall?

I think Jack's game was more complete than simply tee to green.  He was a fantastic putter.  Add that to great ball-striking, and that's a big reason he demolished everyone in sight. 

His only shortcoming (relatively speaking) was his short game.  But he hit so many greens, that didn't matter so much.  Also, Jack's length and long-iron play let him own the par 5s.  That's where he made his living. 

[Jon Wiggett]

I have yet to see a tour player who did not strike the ball great. I have yet to meet a tour player who did not have a great short game. Great ball striking does not mean hitting the target where as great short game DOES mean getting it up and down.

If you look at the greats of the past:

Hogan had a great long game from at least the time he started winning regular on tour. He was also had a very good short game until his eyesight started fading effecting his ability to judge. As his sight failed legend would have it his long game got better but he stopped winning

Nicklaus was consistent through out his career. Great ball striker and outstanding around the greens when it mattered. I doubt there is any player who has hold more clutch putts then him. He stopped winning the big tournaments as his interest faded and his body started telling him to slow down

Player was a great ball striker even in his 60's and had a very good short game. As with many South Africans he was exceptional with the putter but it was this part of his game that faded as he got older/

Watson is perhaps the best example as someone who was/is a great ball striker and in his day 75-84 a fantastic short game. He still strikes the ball great but how many majors would he have won if his short game had not deserted him? I guess there are not many of us here who could not bear to watch him fall apart around the greens stood there hesitating over four foot putts without a hope of knocking it in.

Norman also a great ball striker and good short game but with him it was all about the putting. When the putter was hot he holed some outrageous putts but he probably has had more 3 putts from nowhere than any player ever to grace the tour. Norman won less when he stopped getting so hot with the putter.

You can say the same for just about any of the great golfers they were all great ball strikers and that did not change as they aged or stopped winning but the short game and especially the shorter putts 15' and closer went.

And just to bust a myth about Westwood's short game. Compared to your club champion he is very, very good around the green though does lack the variety of many players on tour. He does however, like many others (including Woods today) not seem to ba able to do it in the majors which are used to separate the great form the good.

It is the green complex that decides not only the strategy of the short game but on great holes also that of the second shot and ultimately that of the tee shot. I would agree with Mike 100%.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Not a lot of chance for short, crooked hitters who can't chip and putt then!
atb

[A.G._Crockett]

The single biggest key to a good short game is good ballstriking.  Given that even the best miss greens, the question becomes WHERE the misses are, and the guys on Tour consistently miss in places where they have a chance to get up and down.  The higher the handicap of an amateur golfer, the worse the misses become, and THAT alone prevents getting up and down and saving the round.

When you see guys on TV aiming for a particular bunker because they don't want to be above the hole or in deep rough around the green, and then they get up and down for par or even birdie, that's ballstriking even more than short game.

When you see that the guy who won a particular major didn't 3 putt all week, that's ballstriking as much as it is putting; they hit their approach to places where they could always at least two putt.  Think about the difference a foot or two in the landing spot of the approach can make on the first putt at Augusta.

I agree with Mike 100%; it's all about the green complexes on great golf courses.  But if you consistently short-side yourself or miss above the hole, etc., you quickly find that NOBODY has that much short game in their bag.  The better/more interesting/more challenging the green complex, the more important control of ballstriking becomes.  Any of us could go to almost any green and put a ball down in a place where Tour guys would be hard-pressed to get up and down 50% of the time.  And we could put the ball in places where a decent amateur could get up and down 75% of the time.  The trick is the pros miss to the latter spot and the ams miss to the former spot.

[Mike_Young]

As usual, Peter sums it up perfectly for me in post #35 except he forgot one thing rarely mentioned when length is discussed.  During the time frame mentioned homes were being placed around courses and a 7000 yard course vs. a 6500 yard course would equate to approximately 30-40 more home lots ( at 100ft wide lots) per course

A.G.,
I think you hit on the one thing tour players don"t do and that is "short side" but I do think when they do they can usually figure a way to save it mch more often than the norm...

Pat B,
I used Allen Doyle because we were having a small pro-am last week and John Mahaffey was telling a story of where Norman said he the one guy he would have feared in match play while on the tour was AD.  Of course I think this was based on his experiences with him while on the senior tour or at least a couple of majors on the senior tour.

[BCrosby]

Peter says:

"And what made it special was the 'balance' between the two types of game, a balance imbedded in the very way we keep score, i.e. where the 3 inch putt is worth exactly the same -- one stroke  -- as the 300 yard drive.  It was a balance that Dr. Mac believed in, and tried to ensure in the playing of the game/on his courses.  

And then after the war, that belief system changed, and with it went that balance. It changed, I suppose, for economic, social, technological reasons etc....but I think that for a long time no one really noticed, or at least didn't have the language to explain/frame the changes. Sometime in the 1950s, it was as if there was an unconscious 'echo' floating around the golfing world, whispering in everyone's ear:

"The Behr-Crane debates are over. Crane won!""

Agreed. Your approach helps sort out what happened to gca in the 1950's, post Golden Age.  A way to think about the period is that the "Monster Course" set-ups that RTJ pioneered for US Opens in the early '50's caught the American imagination and became a model for gca more broadly.

That model - tighter fw's, more length and high roughs - stressed tests of ball-striking over short game skills. There's not much doubt that Hogan was the best golfer of his time, but the architecture of the era played into the strengths of his game. Someone who could hit it straight and long was going to beat the crafty short game artist all day long at Oakland Hills circa 1953.

Bob

[BCrosby]

As usual, Peter sums it up perfectly for me in post #35 except he forgot one thing rarely mentioned when length is discussed.  During the time frame mentioned homes were being placed around courses and a 7000 yard course vs. a 6500 yard course would equate to approximately 30-40 more home lots ( at 100ft wide lots) per course

Interesting idea that the 7,000 yd course in the 1950's was a response to demands for more lots to sell and not a response to a longer game.

Bob

[archie_struthers]

  



It's all about the putting and short game at the highest levels .  Many have the ball striking talent to make the tour , very few have the putting and short game skills . Focus and composure also factor into the making of a tour player.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I always figured that the great short game fellers were like fighters with a good left hook...they can end the game fast but if they go bad they are doomed. 

One of my roommates in college caddied at Chicago Golf.   He said there were a handful of members who were better ball strikers than Ben Crenshaw...but none of them had a major. 

John,

I hear anecdotal stories like that from time to time.

The fact is that no local player does anything better than a PGA Tour Pro when playing in competitions, and even for fun.

If they did you would have heard of them.

My friend who played on the Stanford golf team with Tom Watson played with Watson at NGLA when people were saying that Watson couldn't putt anymore.  My friend said that he putted better than any amateur he knew.  And my friend played in numerous U.S Amateurs and U.S. Mid-Amateur.

When they were on the first tee he asked Watson if he wanted to go to the range to warm up.
Watson dropped three balls on tee, turned around and drove them into the Bay and said, "Nope, I'm ready"
TALENT

[Jason Thurman]

Just chiming in here to again recommend the work done by Rich Hunt. Anyone who thinks that short game is the most important needs to read his work, otherwise you're fighting a losing argument. The numbers simply don't back it up.

You're correct, but don't expect anyone to let facts get in the way of a fun argument. The original post reads like a joke if you know anything about the statistical research that's been done on golf in the last few years.

I just got off the phone with Lee Trevino and he's seriously pissed that nobody will talk about him in these lists of legendary players.

[Bill Brightly]

When they were on the first tee he asked Watson if he wanted to go to the range to warm up.
Watson dropped three balls on tee, turned around and drove them into the Bay and said, "Nope, I'm ready"
TALENT [/color]

[/quote]

No, Pat. It shows that Watson knows golf history...Pretty cool that he did that.

[Pat Burke]

As usual, Peter sums it up perfectly for me in post #35 except he forgot one thing rarely mentioned when length is discussed.  During the time frame mentioned homes were being placed around courses and a 7000 yard course vs. a 6500 yard course would equate to approximately 30-40 more home lots ( at 100ft wide lots) per course

A.G.,
I think you hit on the one thing tour players don"t do and that is "short side" but I do think when they do they can usually figure a way to save it mch more often than the norm...

Pat B,
I used Allen Doyle because we were having a small pro-am last week and John Mahaffey was telling a story of where Norman said he the one guy he would have feared in match play while on the tour was AD.  Of course I think this was based on his experiences with him while on the senior tour or at least a couple of majors on the senior tour.

No worries. And my comment was more about how good Greg was at his best,
Not a reflection on Alan.  Sorry if it read differently

[Padraig Dooley]

Padraig,

Touch is like rhythm or an ear for languages. You either have it or you don't.  A guy can learn to be a consistently mechanical short game player but he can't learn to be an artist around the greens.

I'm sorry Jud, this is wrong. Look at Seve's history, he learned a great short game, he wasn't born with it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()