O/T Is ball striking over-rated?

« **on:** April 05, 2006, 01:57:44 PM »

Is ball striking over-rated as a predictor of greatness as witnessed in young players?

Michelle Wie
Sergioi Garcia
Ty Tryon

May as well isolate the thought.

« **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2006, 02:00:17 PM »

I think so. I think great ball strikers are a dime a dozen....

« **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2006, 02:15:04 PM »

Absolutely!!!

You've heard it from the pros themselves...it ALWAYS comes down to chipping (read: creativity) and putting. Get the ball in the hole more often...you're gonna win. Simple as that...

« **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2006, 02:39:39 PM »

It is only overrated if you already have it!

That is a given on tour...I cannot name a poor ball striker in the true sense, however, it is no guarantee for success.

« **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2006, 02:53:46 PM »

Is putting underrated?

Sergio and Wie seem to be excellent tee to green adn then they pull out the flat stick.

« **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2006, 03:04:16 PM »

I'm trying to figure out how why we don't think Sergio and Michelle can play? Last time I looked they are pretty good with a significant upside. (she's only 16 !!!!!!)

I understand greatness is a relative term.

« **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2006, 03:07:21 PM »

I would argue that Sergio Garcia is a great player. He's No. 6 in the world (or thereabouts), has an excellent Ryder Cup record, and has been in contention at majors many times. Yes, he hasn't yet won a major and it's his putting that has held him back. BTW, in some sense ball-strikers may be a dime a dozen but not ball-strikers of the calibre of Garcia. He's incredible as far as moving the ball with every club in the bag. It's a real treat to see him in person. Tee to green, I don't think there's anyone better. Maybe Singh.

« **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2006, 03:13:02 PM »

Quote from: archie_struthers on April 05, 2006, 03:04:16 PM

I'm trying to figure out how why we don't think Sergio and Michelle can play? Last time I looked they are pretty good with a significant upside. (she's only 16 !!!!!!)

I understand greatness is a relative term.

I dont think its that we think they cant play, its just the one common thread we always see holding back an exceedingly talented player.

On the other hand, guys like Faxon who are documented as some of the worst ball strikers on tour are tournament winners - Not a major winner, but he's won out there. Certainly some element of ball striking ability is required, but short game is what separates the men from the boys time and time again.

« **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2006, 03:25:11 PM »

Sergio's problem is that he is a less than average putter for a tour player - borderline bad putter in fact. Offsets ball-striking that is better than average. Wie is a kid who plays an amateur schedule. Once she matures and is a full-time player she will dominate the women because of her power and overall ball-striking. I don't know about Tryon, other than his father pushed him on to the tour before he was ready physically and emotionally.

Isn't GIR the ultimate standard of ball-striking? Hogan, Nicklaus and Tiger at his peak with the Butch Harman swing hit more greens than most anybody else.

« **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2006, 04:28:37 PM »

BillV,
..as defined in the Tour stats?, yes.

..as defined by the ability to, say, hit a 6 iron 270+ yds over water to a tiny green from a fairway bunker and stick the landing, ala TW, then no, I don't tihnk so.

« **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2006, 04:41:00 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on April 05, 2006, 04:28:37 PM

BillV,
..as defined in the Tour stats?, yes.

..as defined by the ability to, say, hit a 6 iron 270+ yds over water to a tiny green from a fairway bunker and stick the landing, ala TW, then no, I don't tihnk so.

270 yards? Even Tiger's not that good.

« **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2006, 05:42:00 PM »

It is in the context of today ultra linear game. I hope it coes back though.

« **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2006, 08:07:21 PM »

Tim,
Amend that to read 218 yd 6 iron. Don't know where the 272 came from.

« **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2006, 09:55:28 AM »

for the pros, yes: hit it as far as you can off the tee, etc.....

« **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2006, 10:21:10 AM »

I have a friend that I used to work with who played on the mini tours of the 70's. He played in the U.S.Open twice in the 70's. He came into work one morning and I asked him "where were you yesterday? " He says "Pine Valley" I ask "What did you shoot?" Response "69", very matter of fact like.. So, you may begin to think he is pretty good.

I have played with him several times. He can pretty much do whatever he wants with a ball. He told me he just couldn't putt well enough to make it.

« **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2006, 02:06:43 PM »

I think the relative importance of driving, ball striking and putting may shift over time but the ability to put the ball in the right position on the green is no less an important component for success today than it was in the past.

« **Reply #16 on:** April 06, 2006, 02:12:28 PM »

There's no substitute for getting the ball in the cup with the fewest strokes. Since there generally should be appx. 36 play shots in a round, the lowest total depends on what?

D-oh!

Getting the ball holed. Some media/marketing darlings aren't doing that just yet, are they?

« **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2006, 03:40:54 PM »

To be fair having an excellent short game makes you a "better putter". A good short game should absolve you of any 15 foot par putts.

Any stats on short game ability as it relates to putting?

« **Reply #18 on:** April 06, 2006, 03:46:34 PM »

The scorecard cares not how you hole the ball. (pictures NOT included).

« **Reply #19 on:** April 06, 2006, 09:14:03 PM »

Bill,
You're right, the card doesn't care how but there sure are various ways of getting to how many and I think these 3 examples show that.
-In 2005, Garcia was #1 in GIR but 196th in putting average, 197th in putts per round, and 30th in par breakers (the percent of the time a player is under par for a hole).
In 2005, DiMarco was 125th in GIR but 10th in putting average, 20th in PPR, and 97th in PBs.
-In 2005 Woods was 6th in GIR, 5th in PA, 33rd in PPR and 1st in PBs.

Garcia(#10 on the money list) appears to be living by his ball striking, not his putting, although he does take advantage of holes that he likes.
On the other hand, DiMarco(#7 on the ML) tends to rely more on putting than ball striking.
Woods(#1 on the ML) has both putting and ball striking going for him.

« **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2006, 09:29:35 PM »

Quote

Yes, he hasn't yet won a major and it's his putting that has held him back. BTW, in some sense ball-strikers may be a dime a dozen but not ball-strikers of the calibre of Garcia. He's incredible as far as moving the ball with every club in the bag. It's a real treat to see him in person. Tee to green, I don't think there's anyone better.

I'd place Adam Scott in the same category, fantastic player till he gets on the green and a similar ranking and age to Garcia.

« **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2006, 08:32:54 AM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on April 06, 2006, 09:14:03 PM

-In 2005, Garcia was #1 in GIR but 196th in putting average, 197th in putts per round,

I've always felt that one putts (sic - can't change this Freudian slip

) a lot of pressure on the other. The two totalled is perhaps the most telling number in the story.

« **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2006, 09:04:44 AM »

"I'm trying to figure out how why we don't think Sergio and Michelle can play? Last time I looked they are pretty good with a significant upside. (she's only 16 !!!!!!)
I understand greatness is a relative term."

Archie:

You're so right. The way a lot of opinions on this website seem to look at things there should be about 50 or so #1s in the world at all times.

« **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2006, 10:18:15 AM »

You'd be one of my 50 #1's Tommy.

« **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2006, 12:47:03 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on April 07, 2006, 09:04:44 AM

" greatness is a relative term."

Archie:

You're so right. The way a lot of opinions on this website seem to look at things there should be about 50 or so #1s in the world at all times.

Tommy

I'd expect you to have trouble with this

relative concept, after all you've never seen DL III as a (relative) underachiever, just as Sergio might be considered now by some (although he's much younger and may yet reach his "potential" - whatever that is).

Wie? No guarantee she will ever get "it all together", but I grant that the odds are very short compared to the wimmen folk, but long compared to the Y-chromosomers.

Relative is a good word to use when discussing potential, greatness and results.

News:

redanman

Sean Leary

Evan Fleisher

Michael Wharton-Palmer

John Keenan

archie_struthers

Tim Pitner

rjsimper

Phil Benedict

Jim_Kennedy

Tim Pitner

Jim Thompson

Jim_Kennedy

PThomas

mike_malone

Jim_Kennedy

redanman

John Keenan

redanman

Jim_Kennedy

Andrew Thomson

redanman

TEPaul

JESII

redanman