The misperception of the short game.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,

   You are confusing long game with course management.  Explain how that can be measured?

No, I'm not.  The two can't be separated, so the only way to measure either is together.

Almost any good player can look at almost any hole and know that miss A is way, way better than miss B; that isn't the issue.  I KNOW where to hit the ball on every single hole on my home course, but the simple fact is that I'm not good enough to always avoid missing left on #1, or long on #2 and #3, or right on #4 and so on.  My worst scoring average relative to par is on #13, where I KNOW not to hit it in the fairway bunker off the tee, and not to miss long or left.  But I do both all too often...

If a player's long game is good enough, they are able to manage their ball well enough to have better misses.  If a player's long game isn't good enough, they miss in places where they are dead.  And the result is very, very different short game stats, with the accompanying statistical illusion that the short game is what is determining their success; correlation without causation, one might say.

Hogan didn't hit every green.  Nicklaus didn't hit every green.  Woods doesn't hit every green.  But those three guys at their best could navigate golf courses like few others because they controlled their long games and managed their misses.  THAT was what separated them from the field when they were playing well.

[BCowan]

A.G.,

   You are confusing long game with course management.  Explain how that can be measured?

No, I'm not.  The two can't be separated, so the only way to measure either is together.

Almost any good player can look at almost any hole and know that miss A is way, way better than miss B; that isn't the issue.  I KNOW where to hit the ball on every single hole on my home course, but the simple fact is that I'm not good enough to always avoid missing left on #1, or long on #2 and #3, or right on #4 and so on.  My worst scoring average relative to par is on #13, where I KNOW not to hit it in the fairway bunker off the tee, and not to miss long or left.  But I do both all too often...

If a player's long game is good enough, they are able to manage their ball well enough to have better misses.  If a player's long game isn't good enough, they miss in places where they are dead.  And the result is very, very different short game stats, with the accompanying statistical illusion that the short game is what is determining their success; correlation without causation, one might say.

Hogan didn't hit every green.  Nicklaus didn't hit every green.  Woods doesn't hit every green.  But those three guys at their best could navigate golf courses like few others because they controlled their long games and managed their misses.  THAT was what separated them from the field when they were playing well.

Does Michelson's course management differ from Jack Nicklaus in his prime?  Certain pros manage their game much better.  When JN's long game wasn't good he'd go to 3W, then to 1I, and so on.  Can you say the same for Phil?  Hogan I bet hit more greens in reg than the other two with worse golf ball, this is my hunch.  Woods and JN made every pressure putt, and yes they managed their game better than anyone.  Tiger used to win tourney's missing greens with SW early in his career.  Phil, can go for broke and have it pay off at times and miss many cuts and nobody cares about consistency. 

[David Whitmer]

I have a great friend who worked at Isleworth for nine years. He said when Tiger was there all day practicing, he would spend double the time on his short game as he did on the driving range.

I used to play golf with a guy named Randy Leen, who was an all-American at Indiana, semi-finalist at the US Amateur, low am at the US Open, etc. He was trying to make the Nationwide Tour (or whatever it was called back then) and couldn't. When I asked him why he wasn't out there, he said, "Putting, and confidence."

I once spent 4 days at Bandon Dunes, and had the same caddie, a guy named Hoops, the entire time. I drove the ball very well that week, but my low round was like 73 or 74. Hoops used to caddie for a guy on the tour named Willie Wood. He once told me if Willie drove the ball as well as I did, he would have won quite a bit. Probably blowing smoke up my rear, but it stuck with me.

I once caddied for a buddy in the US Open sectional in Columbus, OH. He was paired with a guy named Brad Elder, who played at Texas, and spent time on both the Buy.com tour and, I believe, the PGA tour. For 36 holes he missed either 4 or 5 greens...I've never seen a guy hit it so good tee-to-green. He did not qualify, because he couldn't make a putt. No lie...on about the 7th hole at Brookside CC in Columbus, he started putting one-handed. Didn't work.

I think amateurs need to practice their short games way more than their long games in order to get better. Same goes for the pros. The very elite pros need to be great at both.

[Josh Tarble]

A.G.,

   You are confusing long game with course management.  Explain how that can be measured?

No, I'm not.  The two can't be separated, so the only way to measure either is together.

Almost any good player can look at almost any hole and know that miss A is way, way better than miss B; that isn't the issue.  I KNOW where to hit the ball on every single hole on my home course, but the simple fact is that I'm not good enough to always avoid missing left on #1, or long on #2 and #3, or right on #4 and so on.  My worst scoring average relative to par is on #13, where I KNOW not to hit it in the fairway bunker off the tee, and not to miss long or left.  But I do both all too often...

If a player's long game is good enough, they are able to manage their ball well enough to have better misses.  If a player's long game isn't good enough, they miss in places where they are dead.  And the result is very, very different short game stats, with the accompanying statistical illusion that the short game is what is determining their success; correlation without causation, one might say.

Hogan didn't hit every green.  Nicklaus didn't hit every green.  Woods doesn't hit every green.  But those three guys at their best could navigate golf courses like few others because they controlled their long games and managed their misses.  THAT was what separated them from the field when they were playing well.

Does Michelson's course management differ from Jack Nicklaus in his prime?  Certain pros manage their game much better.  When JN's long game wasn't good he'd go to 3W, then to 1I, and so on.  Can you say the same for Phil?  Hogan I bet hit more greens in reg than the other two with worse golf ball, this is my hunch.  Woods and JN made every pressure putt, and yes they managed their game better than anyone.  Tiger used to win tourney's missing greens with SW early in his career.  Phil, can go for broke and have it pay off at times and miss many cuts and nobody cares about consistency. 

What?  That's not even a rebuttal to A.G.'s comment.  

And Mickelson's course management is VASTLY different from Nicklaus.  If anyone, Phil is like Arnie.  That's why they lost as many US Opens as they've won.

[David Ober]

A.G.,

   You are confusing long game with course management.  Explain how that can be measured?

No, I'm not.  The two can't be separated, so the only way to measure either is together.

Almost any good player can look at almost any hole and know that miss A is way, way better than miss B; that isn't the issue.  I KNOW where to hit the ball on every single hole on my home course, but the simple fact is that I'm not good enough to always avoid missing left on #1, or long on #2 and #3, or right on #4 and so on.  My worst scoring average relative to par is on #13, where I KNOW not to hit it in the fairway bunker off the tee, and not to miss long or left.  But I do both all too often...

If a player's long game is good enough, they are able to manage their ball well enough to have better misses.  If a player's long game isn't good enough, they miss in places where they are dead.  And the result is very, very different short game stats, with the accompanying statistical illusion that the short game is what is determining their success; correlation without causation, one might say.

Hogan didn't hit every green.  Nicklaus didn't hit every green.  Woods doesn't hit every green.  But those three guys at their best could navigate golf courses like few others because they controlled their long games and managed their misses.  THAT was what separated them from the field when they were playing well.

Does Michelson's course management differ from Jack Nicklaus in his prime?  Certain pros manage their game much better.  When JN's long game wasn't good he'd go to 3W, then to 1I, and so on.  Can you say the same for Phil?  Hogan I bet hit more greens in reg than the other two with worse golf ball, this is my hunch.  Woods and JN made every pressure putt, and yes they managed their game better than anyone.  Tiger used to win tourney's missing greens with SW early in his career.  Phil, can go for broke and have it pay off at times and miss many cuts and nobody cares about consistency. 

You make some good points, but I would counter that Phil's ball-striking is so good AND his short game is so good that he's both willing and capable (in his own mind) of firing at the toughest of pins and pulling off the most ridiculous of shots (pinestraw from 210, anyone?), knowing that there is nowhere on a golf course from which he cannot get up and down. And he's right. But it does all start with the ball-striking.

We can debate Phil's mental game all we want and whether he would be better if he played "smarter" golf (he would, IMO), but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is one of the all-time best ball-strikers. He just also happens to have one of the all-time best short games. If he also was an all-time best "thinker," he probably would have won a few more majors, at least.

[BCowan]

''If a player's long game is good enough, they are able to manage their ball well enough to have better misses.''

   Yes it is, not every pro has the same course management.  Phil puts a lot of pressure on his short game, by going for everything.  

Yes, we agree Josh, which is my point.  JN and Phil's management is vastly different, hence course management isn't accounted for and skews short game data..

[BCowan]

A.G.,

   You are confusing long game with course management.  Explain how that can be measured?

No, I'm not.  The two can't be separated, so the only way to measure either is together.

Almost any good player can look at almost any hole and know that miss A is way, way better than miss B; that isn't the issue.  I KNOW where to hit the ball on every single hole on my home course, but the simple fact is that I'm not good enough to always avoid missing left on #1, or long on #2 and #3, or right on #4 and so on.  My worst scoring average relative to par is on #13, where I KNOW not to hit it in the fairway bunker off the tee, and not to miss long or left.  But I do both all too often...

If a player's long game is good enough, they are able to manage their ball well enough to have better misses.  If a player's long game isn't good enough, they miss in places where they are dead.  And the result is very, very different short game stats, with the accompanying statistical illusion that the short game is what is determining their success; correlation without causation, one might say.

Hogan didn't hit every green.  Nicklaus didn't hit every green.  Woods doesn't hit every green.  But those three guys at their best could navigate golf courses like few others because they controlled their long games and managed their misses.  THAT was what separated them from the field when they were playing well.

Does Michelson's course management differ from Jack Nicklaus in his prime?  Certain pros manage their game much better.  When JN's long game wasn't good he'd go to 3W, then to 1I, and so on.  Can you say the same for Phil?  Hogan I bet hit more greens in reg than the other two with worse golf ball, this is my hunch.  Woods and JN made every pressure putt, and yes they managed their game better than anyone.  Tiger used to win tourney's missing greens with SW early in his career.  Phil, can go for broke and have it pay off at times and miss many cuts and nobody cares about consistency. 

You make some good points, but I would counter that Phil's ball-striking is so good AND his short game is so good that he's both willing and capable (in his own mind) of firing at the toughest of pins and pulling off the most ridiculous of shots (pinestraw from 210, anyone?), knowing that there is nowhere on a golf course from which he cannot get up and down. And he's right. But it does all start with the ball-striking.

We can debate Phil's mental game all we want and whether he would be better if he played "smarter" golf (he would, IMO), but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is one of the all-time best ball-strikers. He just also happens to have one of the all-time best short games. If he also was an all-time best "thinker," he probably would have won a few more majors, at least.

He can get away with that course management at Augusta, he can't at the US Open.  Also with the lengthening of Augusta they have taken the shorter hitter out of play.  Hottie didn't want Phil hitting SW into #11, so they added like 40 yards and made it very hard for the short hitter. 

He has improved his chances hitting 3 woods off the tee, which he refused to do in his younger days. 

[Brent Hutto]

Speculative stuff aside, there are of course limitations on any conclusion based only on play during PGA Tour events. So it is indeed true that such data is best applied to comparison among PGA Tour players. And or course we can not know how much of, let's say, Tiger Woods' dominance in the 175-yard-and-up approach shots are due to swing mechanics vs. course management vs. being smiled upon by Big Earl from the afterlife.

But sticking to the facts at hand, being an above-average "long game" player (through whatever path one gets there) is a larger influence on scoring than being an above-average player from 100 yards or being an above-average putter or being above-average at any other facet of the game. Among PGA Tour players. Not counting majors BTW.

Anything about how one gets on Tour to start with or what mechanism underlies excellence in various facets of the game are at best extrapolations from the actual data. And at worse, they are equivalent to the "I know a guy..." anecdotes. All we really know is the degree to which "long game" success produces scoring results on Tour and the answer is that it matter way more than any conventional wisdom would have lead us to believe in the past.

P.S. And also by the way there is non-ShotLink data out there which I still find compelling that shows the contribution of "long game" is in fact also large when it comes to scoring success at lower levels of play than the PGA Tour.
 

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,

   You are confusing long game with course management.  Explain how that can be measured?

No, I'm not.  The two can't be separated, so the only way to measure either is together.

Almost any good player can look at almost any hole and know that miss A is way, way better than miss B; that isn't the issue.  I KNOW where to hit the ball on every single hole on my home course, but the simple fact is that I'm not good enough to always avoid missing left on #1, or long on #2 and #3, or right on #4 and so on.  My worst scoring average relative to par is on #13, where I KNOW not to hit it in the fairway bunker off the tee, and not to miss long or left.  But I do both all too often...

If a player's long game is good enough, they are able to manage their ball well enough to have better misses.  If a player's long game isn't good enough, they miss in places where they are dead.  And the result is very, very different short game stats, with the accompanying statistical illusion that the short game is what is determining their success; correlation without causation, one might say.

Hogan didn't hit every green.  Nicklaus didn't hit every green.  Woods doesn't hit every green.  But those three guys at their best could navigate golf courses like few others because they controlled their long games and managed their misses.  THAT was what separated them from the field when they were playing well.

Does Michelson's course management differ from Jack Nicklaus in his prime?  Certain pros manage their game much better.  When JN's long game wasn't good he'd go to 3W, then to 1I, and so on.  Can you say the same for Phil?  Hogan I bet hit more greens in reg than the other two with worse golf ball, this is my hunch.  Woods and JN made every pressure putt, and yes they managed their game better than anyone.  Tiger used to win tourney's missing greens with SW early in his career.  Phil, can go for broke and have it pay off at times and miss many cuts and nobody cares about consistency. 

BCowan,
I'm not going to question Mickelson much; the reality is that he is one of the 15 or so best to ever play the game, and EVERYBODY suffers in comparison to Nicklaus in terms of managing his game.

But I think if you put those two on any tee of any hole they would agree on HOW to play the hole; their ability to execute would be the difference.  Execution includes pulling the right club and all that, but more than anything else it means managing your misses.  And at THAT, all are not created equal.  

As an example, on 18 at Winged Foot, I think both men would agree that missing in the trees to left would be a really, really bad thing.  But Mickelson hit a push slice off the scorer's tent with one of the worst swings of his career, a result that would be unimaginable when we think of Nicklaus in the same situation.

And before you tell me about what Mickelson did on the second and third shots and that Nicklaus would never have done THAT, remember that you don't know what Nicklaus would have done in that hypothetical situation.  Would he have accepted bogey and tried to win a playoff, which Mickelson chose not to do?  We'll never know.  We only know that Mickelson's long game cost him the US Open at Winged Foot and again at Merion where he missed two par threes with wedges on Sunday with the lead; one where he missed long, which was death, and one where he didn't take spin off the ball and it came back off the green.

I like and admire Mickelson, btw, and hope like heck he wins at Pinehurst in June.  But if he doesn't, it won't be because of his short game OR not knowing how to play a particular hole.  It will be about execution of the full swing, like it pretty much always is.

[BCowan]

''As an example, on 18 at Winged Foot, I think both men would agree that missing in the trees to left would be a really, really bad thing.  But Mickelson hit a push slice off the scorer's tent with one of the worst swings of his career, a result that would be unimaginable when we think of Nicklaus in the same situation.''

   Didn't Phil have a lead on the 72 hole at WF?  If so, JN I highly doubt would of hit a driver off the tee, which i believe Phil did.  I am just going by memory and I have no desire to check, so let me know if I stated inaccurately.  I never said Phil's short game was his problem, his course management has always been his biggest issue IMHO.   

[Michael Felton]

Looking further down, the best long game is Tiger Woods - he gains 2.08 strokes per round from his long game. Craig Perks loses 1.79 strokes per round from his long game. So that's 3.87 shots from best to worst on the PGA Tour from long game.

The best short game is Steve Stricker - he gains 0.69 shots per round from his short game (inside 100 yards remember). Jose Maria Olazabal is the best chipper. He gains 0.30 shots per round from his chipping. The worst short game I'm not sure about but Guy Boros is 292nd and is losing 0.41 shots per round, so that's 1.1 shots from short game from best to pretty much worst.

The best putter is David Frost - he gains 0.72 shots per round from his putting. The worst that is shown is David Gossett (295th place out of 299) with -0.61. That's a range of 1.33 shots from putting.

So the range of best to worst for each of long game, short game and putting is 3.87 shots from the long game, 1.1 shots from the short game and 1.33 shots from putting. What does that tell you?

It's possible to read the same numbers and make different conclusions.

What the numbers above say to me is one of two things, either:

(a)  The long game presents more opportunity for error and therefore a wider dispersion of results among Tour players, so the long game is more important overall, or

(b)  The smaller numbers for short game and putting indicate that unless you are within a stroke of Tour average at both, you just can't make it on Tour ... so that's the more important overall.

Your point (b) is an interesting one. I think there's no doubt that in order to make it on Tour you have to be able to do everything very well. Ignoring Tiger for a second, the differences between being one of the best players and losing your card is maybe a shot or two per round. At those rarefied heights, that shot or two is an enormous difference and for a player who has a mediocre long game (by tour standards) but is a good putter is going to find himself in serious trouble if his putting slips. A player like Tiger who finds his putting going off will find himself still really good and in contention a lot, but not winning as much as he used to. Undoubtedly both are important, but I think it's pretty clear that the long game is the biggest reason for the difference between most players. If you read Broadie's earlier paper, he compares groups of amateurs and pros with each other. For each level, the long game explains the largest part of the difference.

A couple of further thoughts. One is that while the long game may be the biggest part of the reason why a player is not as good as the best guys out there, that doesn't mean that he should work on his long game. Especially if he has limited time to work on his game. A 10 handicap might be 12 shots worse than Tiger in the long game, 5 shots worse in the short game and 5 shots worse at putting. Those numbers will vary depending on the difficulty of the course they're playing, but let's leave that be for now. It might be that said 10 handicap would need to spend 3 hours a week working on his long game to make up 2 shots, but could make up 3 or 4 by spending the same time working on his short game and putting. That player should work on his short game and putting if he wants to improve, even though it's his long game that is the majority of the difference between himself and Tiger Woods.

The other thing is that a lot of the anecdotal stuff comes out because someone saw someone hit 18 greens and shoot 73 and someone else hit 5 greens and shoot 68. In any given week on tour you'll be able to find someone who had a strokes gained putting stat of 2+ per round. Typically the guys at the top of the leaderboard that you get to see on the television are the ones who are holing their putts that week. One thing that you get to see these days (when he's playing) is Tiger hitting every shot he plays. You see him miss a bunch of putts and people think he's putting badly. They'll point at some other guy who they saw hole a bunch of putts, but we only saw that other guy hit 4 putts all day and he holed all 4 of them. We watch Tiger miss 8 putts from 15 feet and make 2 of them and we think that wasn't very good, but then at the end of the round you see his strokes gained stat and he has a positive number. People only really remember what they saw and they extrapolate from that. So you see Joe Bloggs hole 2 putts out of 2 and assume that he was great on the greens today and you watch Tiger hole 2 putts out of 10 from that range and you think he had a bad putting day. In reality, they probably both putted about the same.

Of course, every now and again someone goes out and holes 8 out of 10 of those and shoots 63 and everyone thinks wow if I could putt like that I'd be really good too. But nobody putts like that. Not consistently. It's simply not possible. Tiger, when he was at the top of the leaderboard every week was there because his long game enabled him to be, so he could putt average for him and shoot 67. The other guys out there would have to have a great putting week to keep up with him, because their long game put them at such a disadvantage. People have great putting weeks from time to time, but not week in, week out. So there would be people contending each week, but they'd be different people each time. That's a little oversimplified I will admit. Tiger was so good because he did everything extremely well.

[David Ober]

^^^^^^
This.

[BCowan]

''Tiger, when he was at the top of the leaderboard every week was there because his long game enabled him to be, so he could putt average for him and shoot 67''

   Conventional Wisdom says that a pro hits the ball good 2 days out of 4.  Tiger used to practice out of trees with Butch and recovery shots, I doubt many pros did that.  He minimized his bad rounds and turned 74's into 70's by having a great short game and never giving up, hence his game between the ears was incredible.  When you get up and down you take pressure off your long game and your less likely to doubt the long game, freeing your mind up to making better swings.  When tiger had an off day he would hit stingers off the tee, choke up on irons and trap it, get it into the clubhouse, then work on it on the range.  Those things right there aren't collected and are what is overlooked.  Jack said when he was off he, used to go down to a 3 wood, then 1 iron.  I don't see that course mentality used much in the modern game.  Of course having the length Jack and Tiger had makes par 68!   

[A.G._Crockett]

''As an example, on 18 at Winged Foot, I think both men would agree that missing in the trees to left would be a really, really bad thing.  But Mickelson hit a push slice off the scorer's tent with one of the worst swings of his career, a result that would be unimaginable when we think of Nicklaus in the same situation.''

   Didn't Phil have a lead on the 72 hole at WF?  If so, JN I highly doubt would of hit a driver off the tee, which i believe Phil did.  I am just going by memory and I have no desire to check, so let me know if I stated inaccurately.  I never said Phil's short game was his problem, his course management has always been his biggest issue IMHO.   

BCowan,
Mickelson DID have the lead and DID hit driver on 18 at Winged Foot.  

But your hypothetical about what JN would have done is exactly the stuff I'm NOT interested in.  Would JN have hit driver on a 450 yd. par 4 with a one shot lead on the 72nd hole of the US Open?  I don't know, and neither do you!  

But that's NOT the point anyway.  Mickelson made a horrendous swing, regardless of the club he was using.  As I pointed out earlier, he also lost an Open in which he led late into the 4th round when he missed the two par 3's on the back with wedges!  Throughout his career, Mickelson (like Palmer before him) has won and lost with great drama.  For every shot like the tee shot at Winged Foot, there has been a shot like the one off the pine straw at Augusta.  For every shot like the wedge that spun back off the green at Merion, there has been a magnificent shot like the 3 wood into the 17th at Muirfield.  That's just the way he plays golf.

In each case, I don't think the issue was his inability to properly assess the holes, and I doubt he would have seen them any differently than Nicklaus or any other Tour pro in that regard.  And the reality is that in each case, even Mickelson's world class short game wasn't enough to save him from his long game.  

And if you want to engage in hypotheticals, forget Mickelson's "course management".  Just hypothesize what his career would have been like if he could reliably hit a driver in play!

[BCowan]

A.G.,

   Missing greens with wedges, isn't that short game?  Or is the modern day 140 yard wedge shot the problem?  I call that course management, taking a 9 and hitting a chippy like Tiger has done in the past to reduce backspin is course management. 

    The course set up at last years Open Championship was very disappointing.  They softened the greens, backwards how normally the course gets firmer as the tournament goes on, and they had perfect weather too.  Phil's 6 iron from 200 yards on 18, released like 2 feet, I thought I was watching a different tournament.  Tiger was bewilder to the course set up, with lightning fast greens and softer conditions than normal with ideal weather.   

   Of course a back swing that goes dramatically past parallel is going to have big misses, but lets overlook course management, that makes sense.  I just miss J. Miller comments on ''lets see what phil will do next''.  When Arnie was in his hey day they didn't have double/triple irrigation systems. 

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,

   Missing greens with wedges, isn't that short game?  Or is the modern day 140 yard wedge shot the problem?  I call that course management, taking a 9 and hitting a chippy like Tiger has done in the past to reduce backspin is course management. 

    The course set up at last years Open Championship was very disappointing.  They softened the greens, backwards how normally the course gets firmer as the tournament goes on, and they had perfect weather too.  Phil's 6 iron from 200 yards on 18, released like 2 feet, I thought I was watching a different tournament.  Tiger was bewilder to the course set up, with lightning fast greens and softer conditions than normal with ideal weather.   

   Of course a back swing that goes dramatically past parallel is going to have big misses, but lets overlook course management, that makes sense.  I just miss J. Miller comments on ''lets see what phil will do next''.  When Arnie was in his hey day they didn't have double/triple irrigation systems. 

Both shots were from 121 yds.  If you want to call that "short game" then so be it; I don't, and I don't think most do.  But we're back to imaginary stuff again, right?

The FACT is that Mickelson hit full shots on both; a PW (instead of gap) that airmailed the green on 13 and then a gap wedge that he hung out to the left and spun back off the green on 15.  Two full swing shots with wedges that even HIS short game couldn't save him from.  And his short game is pretty good, I think...

[BCowan]

A.G.,

   Phil's short game is awesome.  Enough with the semantics.  We are in the grey area.  Did Phil go for the pin more than Justin Rose would have from 120 yards??  I don't know, but he doesn't play percentages and that won't result in wins at US Opens (course management).  If only we could get an interview with Jack regarding Phil, and get his perspective, but I'd bet you call his observations imaginary.   

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,

   Phil's short game is awesome.  Enough with the semantics.  We are in the grey area.  Did Phil go for the pin more than Justin Rose would have from 120 yards??  I don't know, but he doesn't play percentages and that won't result in wins at US Opens (course management).  If only we could get an interview with Jack regarding Phil, and get his perspective, but I'd bet you call his observations imaginary.   

I think I won't argue with you any more on this; you're going to have to find somebody else to play "what if..." with.

My contention has been and is that the biggest factor in having a great short game performance is the quality of your misses.  Good misses make for high percentages of up and downs, sand saves, etc.  Bad misses make for worse percentages.  The statistics being amassed at Columbia bear this out in spades, and arguing otherwise is silly.

Bad players miss a lot, and in bad places; they can see the water or the bunker or OB, but they can't avoid it because their swing isn't good enough.  Better players miss less frequently, and they miss in places where they can find and play their ball.  And great players miss infrequently, and when the do miss, they miss in places where they can best score.

It's really much more simple than all the "course management" mumbo jumbo you are talking about.  The trick is "golf ball management" and that's largely about the long game.  The reason a pro beats a scratch isn't because the pro understands percentages or a golf hole any better; it's because THEY MISS BETTER AND LESS OFTEN!  The reason a scratch beats a 5 is exactly the same, and so is the reason a 5 beats a 10.  The pro, the scratch, the 5, and the 10 ALL know HOW to play the hole, but their ability to do so varies wildly, as do their results!

[JMEvensky]

AG,agree with everything you typed,especially the last sentence. PGAT players know,and play according to, their limitations better than the rest of us.

[BCowan]

A.G.,

   Phil's short game is awesome.  Enough with the semantics.  We are in the grey area.  Did Phil go for the pin more than Justin Rose would have from 120 yards??  I don't know, but he doesn't play percentages and that won't result in wins at US Opens (course management).  If only we could get an interview with Jack regarding Phil, and get his perspective, but I'd bet you call his observations imaginary.    

I think I won't argue with you any more on this; you're going to have to find somebody else to play "what if..." with.

My contention has been and is that the biggest factor in having a great short game performance is the quality of your misses.  Good misses make for high percentages of up and downs, sand saves, etc.  Bad misses make for worse percentages.  The statistics being amassed at Columbia bear this out in spades, and arguing otherwise is silly.

Bad players miss a lot, and in bad places; they can see the water or the bunker or OB, but they can't avoid it because their swing isn't good enough.  Better players miss less frequently, and they miss in places where they can find and play their ball.  And great players miss infrequently, and when the do miss, they miss in places where they can best score.

It's really much more simple than all the "course management" mumbo jumbo you are talking about.  The trick is "golf ball management" and that's largely about the long game.  The reason a pro beats a scratch isn't because the pro understands percentages or a golf hole any better; it's because THEY MISS BETTER AND LESS OFTEN!  The reason a scratch beats a 5 is exactly the same, and so is the reason a 5 beats a 10.  The pro, the scratch, the 5, and the 10 ALL know HOW to play the hole, but their ability to do so varies wildly, as do their results!

A.G.,

   I will try one last time with you, for you speak to me like I am a schmuck.  I've been inside the ropes, and I've caddied for former PGA tour pro's to 40 handi's, I have a little first hand experience.  I have a friend who played the LPGA tour and took lessons from a Butch Harmon Assoc., Phil flew out to Butch in 01'ish for a closed door chat.  Butch wanted him to give up the long ball, Phil didn't want to and went back to Rick.  That is a fact Jack.  So when he went to Butch and after a few years he started hitting more 2 and 3 woods off of tees and found himself in contention much more in Majors.  If that isn't course management I don't know what is mumbo jumbo.  Knowing how aggressive Phil plays, I would make a small bet from 120 yards that Phil goes for every pin, and doesn't play conservative like other pro's in a US Open, which missing the green is much more severe penalty than your Phoenix Open.

   If one flag hunts and get greedy, they often can find themselves in a whole lot of trouble.  ''The reason a pro beats a scratch isn't because the pro understands percentages or a golf hole any better; it's because THEY MISS BETTER AND LESS OFTEN!''  We aren't comparing club champ Am's to the best players in the world.  As Jack Nicklaus said ''I never beat myself on the Golf Course'', can that be said about Phil?  ''What if'' my response is logical and yours is the mulberry bush.

[John McCarthy]

A.G.,

   Missing greens with wedges, isn't that short game?  Or is the modern day 140 yard wedge shot the problem?  I call that course management, taking a 9 and hitting a chippy like Tiger has done in the past to reduce backspin is course management. 

    The course set up at last years Open Championship was very disappointing.  They softened the greens, backwards how normally the course gets firmer as the tournament goes on, and they had perfect weather too.  Phil's 6 iron from 200 yards on 18, released like 2 feet, I thought I was watching a different tournament.  Tiger was bewilder to the course set up, with lightning fast greens and softer conditions than normal with ideal weather.   

   Of course a back swing that goes dramatically past parallel is going to have big misses, but lets overlook course management, that makes sense.  I just miss J. Miller comments on ''lets see what phil will do next''.  When Arnie was in his hey day they didn't have double/triple irrigation systems. 

Wasn't last year's Open a bit of an outlier?  IIRC ot was very very dry all summer and the wind was having a go.  They had to keep the ball on the green somehow.  Either way I thought it a thrilling Championship Phil won, there was no backing in.

[BHoover]

For some reason, my scores seem to be lower when I make putts. Go figure.

[A.G._Crockett]

For some reason, my scores seem to be lower when I make putts. Go figure.

Brian,
I would point out that you make a putt on every hole!

The key is not taking quite as many putts prior to the one you make, and THAT is most easily accomplished by getting the ball close to the hole as quickly as possible!

Which recalls to mind the famous Hogan story in which a young pro asks Hogan to watch him putt.  After Hogan watches a few, the young pro asks what he should work on, to which Hogan replies, "Hit the ball closer to the hole."

[Jim Nugent]

You can believe whatever crap you want. The great thing about facts is that they can't really be argued with, though if you still want to try you can start by explaining the following article, which includes the quotes below (and FYI, its findings just confirm what numerous other studies have also found): http://golfweek.com/news/2014/mar/01/golf-analytics-pga-tour-total-strokes-gained/

"I want to attack what I think is one of the biggest misconceptions in golf," Broadie began. "Conventional wisdom says that putting is the most important part of the game, and what I mean by most important is the number of shots that separates the winner of a tournament from everybody else, or from the best players to the average players."

Continued... From 2004 to '12, Luke Donald, Brad Faxon and Tiger Woods led the PGA Tour in strokes gained-putting, which should surprise almost no one. However, Jesper Parnevik, Brian Gay and Loren Roberts tied for sixth (0.062), followed by Bryce Molder (0.58) and Ben Crane (0.56). Not exactly a Murderers' Row of PGA Tour winners and major contenders.

Continued... From 2004-12, here the top 10 players in total strokes gained: Tiger Woods, Jim Furyk, Phil Mickelson, Luke Donald, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, Sergio Garcia, Adam Scott, Steve Stricker and Zach Johnson.

That, not the putting stat, looks much more like a list of the players who saw their names on Sunday leaderboards.

"When you break down their games, the average of these top 10 golfers gained 1.7 strokes per round against the field," Broadie said. Broadie then pointed out that as a group, the Terrific 10 averaged a gain of 0.3 strokes against the field off the tee, 0.7 strokes from the fairway and 0.4 strokes near the green. Their collective strokes gained-putting average was just 0.2 better than the PGA Tour average.

"So, basically, two-thirds of the strokes that they gained were from shots outside of 100 yards and one-third was from inside 100 yards," Broadie said. Putting accounted for just 15 percent of the scoring difference between the top 10 golfers in the world and the average PGA Tour pro."

Again, there are tons of studies now that all find the same conclusion. Anyone who still believes it's all about the short game and putting is just plain wrong.

Do you know the results of these types of studies over other time frames, besides 2004-12?  I'm curious to know how the same analysis works out year by year. i.e. who does it predict will do best on tour each year (we have to define what that means)... how do those guys actually do... and how do the top ten or twenty money winners do?

I'd also like to know how well it predicts or analyzes major winners, when they win those majors.  i.e. where did they gain the most, according to this analysis? 

[Jon Wiggett]

Wow, this thread has really run along. I have only skimmed most posts due to quantity but still do not agree that it is the long game that is decisive. The Watson example still has not been adequately countered. Trying to prove which part (long/short game) is the most important is like trying to decide which arm is the important one. It really takes both. All tour players have great long games but when you look at players of the past it is ALWAYS the short game that goes leading to their demise (well except maybe IBF who just lost it all). You get the yips with the putter (Peter Senior with the wedge) and players often lose their chipping but I am struggling to find a player who just lost their long game after a long period (5 years or longer) of being consistently good with it.

The long game is more automated therefore less mental so once learned is easier to maintain where as the short game is more feel and therefore mental and tends to desert us all in the end.

I will revise my earlier statement and say that both long and short game are equally important in deciding how well a top player preforms but it is the short game failing that leads to a players demise. Ergo, the short game is decisive in whether a player will perform well.

Jon