The misperception of the short game.

[Jud_T]

Phil,

So you're saying they won when their short games were off?  Who are the best ball strikers on tour?  Sergio?  Westwood?  What's held them back in Majors?  Oh yeah, their short games.  Maybe it's as Mike suggests.  A world class short game is a prerequisite for playing at the highest levels and it's only AFTER that prerequisite is met that the big knockers can separate themselves.  Otherwise why isn't the tour dominated by all the Remax Long Drive guys?

[BCowan]

When Tiger was at his peak he made 100% of his putts from three feet and in...if he averaged 1500 such putts over a year and he only made 90% of them he would have added 150 strokes to his game for that year.  I'll take my long game and his short game...

And making 100 percent of those putts from 3 feet and in was the result of avoiding unnecessarily long lag putts; it's easy to make 3 ft and under putts for your second putt when your first is from 15 feet away.

Phil,

   JN, was one of the best lag putters ever.  A stat that I don't think they keep.  Again, you are saying when Tiger hit greens in two on par 5's, that he had 15ft putts.  Obviously if you are really long, par is 68.  Is there a stat for making putts when they count ''under the gun''

[BCowan]

The hilarious thing about this thread is that the original post suggests that the short game doesn't get enough respect, when in fact most dopes at the local muni believe adages like "Drive for show, putt for dough!" The general golfing public already thinks it's the most important aspect of the game.

Mike's first post basically suggests that the short game (and putting) deserves more attention, and then he builds an entire "argument" around conventional wisdom. I guess I'm too ambitious, but it amazes me that anyone can't see the hilarious irony. I've been laughing for four pages now.

I don't think anyone's saying the short game is wholly unimportant. That sort of binary reaction is just stupid. Personally, I just think its importance is just about properly rated, and probably just slightly overrated.

What amazes me is that you serenade Pelz as revolutionary just recently, and now this guy who is totally opposite of Pelz you are in love with....  Only on GCA does something like this make sense in some people's mind...

[BCowan]

I don't think most of you guys realize how good the pros really are.

Sam,

   I've been in the same group as Kirk Triplett, in one of his good years.  He rolled the ball incredibly, and his ball striking wasn't anything special.  I believe he made a Ryder Cup or two

[Phil McDade]

I don't think most of you guys realize how good the pros really are.

Sam,

   I've been in the same group as Kirk Triplett, in one of his good years.  He rolled the ball incredibly, and his ball striking wasn't anything special.  I believe he made a Ryder Cup or two

And won zero majors.

Jack won 18 majors -- a record unlikely to be broken any time soon -- for a reason. He was better at everything than anyone else. Probably the best pressure putter in the game's history (only Tiger deserves to be in that debate). But -- also one of, if not the, longest players in his era, perhaps the best ball striker off fairways, clearly the best at major championship course management, and yes, a great major tournament putter.

[Mike_Young]

So now we are talking about majors?  I ws calling 150-250 player great out of about 30 million.  Can we go with that or do we not consider them great?   

[Phil McDade]

So now we are talking about majors?  I ws calling 150-250 player great out of about 30 million.  Can we go with that or do we not consider them great?   

Mike:

I blame Jud -- he introduced Jack, Phil and Bubba into this thread (one of whom doesn't belong in that conversation ).

But I'd make the same argument for your Tour exempt/Euro Tour best/a few other scattered around the globe. The 250 best players in the world have very different games than anyone else, and from what I've seen first-hand, it mostly has to do with their ball striking.

[Bill Brightly]

Phil,

   JN, was one of the best lag putters ever.  A stat that I don't think they keep.  Again, you are saying when Tiger hit greens in two on par 5's, that he had 15ft putts.  Obviously if you are really long, par is 68.  Is there a stat for making putts when they count ''under the gun''

So was Tiger in his prime. His lagging putting was sick, almost always a tap in. He was the best 8-10 foot putter I've ever seen, except perhaps for Jack. They made those puts for birdie or perhaps sand save pars, etc. I've always felt one of their strengths was not have to grind out 3-5 footers to avoid three putting.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

   JN, was one of the best lag putters ever.  A stat that I don't think they keep.  Again, you are saying when Tiger hit greens in two on par 5's, that he had 15ft putts.  Obviously if you are really long, par is 68.  Is there a stat for making putts when they count ''under the gun''

So was Tiger in his prime. His lagging putting was sick, almost always a tap in. He was the best 8-10 foot putter I've ever seen, except perhaps for Jack. They made those puts for birdie or perhaps sand save pars, etc. I've always felt one of their strengths was not have to grind out 3-5 footers to avoid three putting.

Bill:

I always thought one of Tiger's strengths as a putter was his fearlessness in going after putts anywhere on the green, being really aggressive, and not being afraid of the 3-5 foot comebacker for par. His struggles recently with putting seem to be almost wholly related to him being afraid of that 3-foot par putt, so he's not as aggressive. See the PGA at Valhalla where he held off Bob May as a prime example.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

That erosion of confidence seems almost systemic.

Hogan, Snead, Palmer and Watson just to name a few of the greats.

Throw my name in if you want

There was a time when I "thought I could make every 4-5 footer, so I was bold on my first putt, and that in turn always left me with a return putt where I had observed the precise break, hence the comeback putt was much easier than the same distance putt left short.

Once the confidence in making the short putts flies the coup, the long putt transitions from aggressive to defensive, and that 's rarely a good mindset.

[Thomas Dai]

Now here's some questions in the short game-long game debate.

What type of golf ball should a short straight hitter with an excellent short game use?

A soft, feely, spinny ball to help him around the greens he's gonna struggle to reach or a distance ball to get him closer to the green and hope to compensate from there?

And should course type and ground condition - firm & fast or soft and lush - effect the choice?

atb

[Jim Nugent]

 A world class short game is a prerequisite for playing at the highest levels and it's only AFTER that prerequisite is met that the big knockers can separate themselves.  

I don't agree.  Jack Nicklaus did not have a world class short game.  He was a world-class putter, though, and that combined with his all-universe ball-striking made him so great. 

[Craig Van Egmond]

A world class short game is a prerequisite for playing at the highest levels and it's only AFTER that prerequisite is met that the big knockers can separate themselves.  

I don't agree.  Jack Nicklaus did not have a world class short game.  He was a world-class putter, though, and that combined with his all-universe ball-striking made him so great.  

Jack didn't miss many greens, so he didn't need to have a great short game. And he never 3 putted.

[Mike_Young]

Sounds to me like if a guy like JN can chip it close and never three putts he would not need a good short game???

[Jud_T]

Jim,

I was always under the impression that putting was a somewhat significant subset of "the short game".  Besides, we all know there were only 3 or 4 guys who Jack had to beat on any given week.

[Josh Tarble]

To be a pro-caliber player, you have to be able to do everything great.  They're is no other way to do it. 

However, to put together a truly dominate performance - the top of the top, the long game is most important.  The reason being is that there is more to lose and more discrepancy with the long game.

Anyone that is arguing otherwise owes it to themselves to read "Every Shot Counts" from Mark Broadie.  In no way does he discredit the value of a tremendous short game.  But he shows pretty clearly the value of a long game.

[Jason Topp]

For people with handicaps of 14 or lower - keep track of the number of greens people in your group hit in regulation.  Subtract two strokes from 95 for each green hit.  For example if someone hits 9 greens the forumula will be 95-18=77

I bet the scores will be pretty close to the number you calculate unless the course is a very unusual design with very large or very small greens. 

I am not sure what the formula proves because someone who hits a lot of greens probably has (1) easier short game shots and (2) a better short game.   My read of the "Every Shot Counts" book is just that - every shot counts.  Long game largely determines how well you do on average and short game determines how you do that day.

[Jon Wiggett]

So my opponent has a dodgy long game meaning he misses half the greens. He does however have a great short game and gets up and down each time and makes two birdies on the greens he hit in regulation meaning he is 2 under par. I have a great long game and hit all the fairways and 15 greens in reg but have a lower than par short game so fail to make any birdies and do not get up and down on the missed greens leaving me 3 over par.

Tom Watson maintained a very high standard with his long game and even at the age of 60 was an outstanding ball striker yet once his fabulous short game went he stopped being the dominant force he once was.

Yet if the important thing was long game and ball striking how come Tom Watson and I are not winning? The problem with stats is you can make them tell you the results you want.

Jon

[Russ Arbuthnot]

It's very unlikely that your friend gets up and down 100% of the time. Even the best on the PGA tour only get up and down 2/3 of the time.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

I was always under the impression that putting was a somewhat significant subset of "the short game".  Besides, we all know there were only 3 or 4 guys who Jack had to beat on any given week.

I always thought short game was distinct from putting.  Putting was on the green, 99.9% of the time with the putter.  Short game was from around the green, but off it.  Jack was great at the former, not the latter. 

It's interesting to speculate on how Jack would have done, had he played alongside Tiger, during the Tiger era.  Say from 1990 through now.  I imagine some epic battles.  18 majors for Jack?  14 for Tiger? 

[Michael Felton]

So my opponent has a dodgy long game meaning he misses half the greens. He does however have a great short game and gets up and down each time and makes two birdies on the greens he hit in regulation meaning he is 2 under par. I have a great long game and hit all the fairways and 15 greens in reg but have a lower than par short game so fail to make any birdies and do not get up and down on the missed greens leaving me 3 over par.

Tom Watson maintained a very high standard with his long game and even at the age of 60 was an outstanding ball striker yet once his fabulous short game went he stopped being the dominant force he once was.

Yet if the important thing was long game and ball striking how come Tom Watson and I are not winning? The problem with stats is you can make them tell you the results you want.

Jon

The point is that the best short games in the world, missing greens in the right places, still only get up and down around 70% of the time. Your friend who is hitting only 9 greens is not getting up and down 100% of the time. Not even close. A good short game is 2/3 of the time and a bad short game is 1/3 of the time. If someone is hitting 15 greens, they're probably hitting it closer than the guy hitting 9 greens too. There just isn't a game where someone hits 15 greens and makes no birdies with regularity. Not on the same course that someone who hits 9 greens is making them. You're also assuming that the 9 greens guy hasn't put himself in any trouble at all other than missing those greens. Nothing in the water, nothing OB, nothing in the trees with a pitch out. Not realistic.

More likely is the guy who hits 15 greens, but has a poor short game is going to make 2 bogeys from his 3 missed greens and probably makes 2 or 3 birdies, if only on the par fives. The guy who hits 9 greens, let's assume he has an all world short game and is a great putter, he might make 3 birdies, but he's also making 4 bogeys.

The other thing is that 9 greens isn't that bad. That's still a decent long game. 15 greens is amazing (to be done consistently). But even comparing a decent long game with a spectacular short game against a spectacular long game and a hopeless short game, you're still looking at Mr 15 greens winning most of the time.

Bottom line is there is not a single golfer on the planet who is shooting 100+ each time out who could be turned into a 70 shooter just by improving his short game. There are plenty of people shooting 100+ each time out who could be turned into a 70 shooter just by improving their long game (granted a large improvement, but still).

[Jason Thurman]

The problem with stats is you can make them tell you the results you want.

Jon

I think you have the word "stats" confused with "silly and unrealistic made-up hypothetical examples."

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

[Michael Felton]

This is worth a read: http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadie/Assets/broadie_wscg_v_200804.pdf

Page 8 has the meat and potatoes of it. The rest is interesting too if it's your sort of thing.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jason,

stats are not science but a collection of information so maybe you should not be so condescending and stop trying to be such a smart arse.

Michael,

it was just an example though I am not sure how you expect changing what I wrote adds any validity to what you say. It is possible to miss 9 greens and get p and down 9 times indeed I once missed 17 out of 18 greens and got up and down 17 times. But as I say it was just one example and not meant to be a hard and fast rule that you seem to think it would be.

So what about Tom Watson? If you are correct then why did he stop dominating the game just because his short game was not as good. He himself has said he was hitting the ball better later in his career.

Great ball striking is a given for anyone on the tour so it can not be the decisive difference between the top few and the rest and ALL the top players have faded when their short game and especially their putting went off the boil. I agree that the long game is generally important to winning but players have won majors despite missing many fairways and green ala Seve in 1988 but I am struggling to recall a winner of a major who averaged more than 30 putts per round.

Jon

[Matthew Essig]

Long game largely determines how well you do on average and short game determines how you do that day.

+1