[Tommy Williamsen]

I am thinking more about the pros than we mere mortals.  Neither am I not talking about putting. I am talking about chipping, sand play, etc. those inventive shots that around the green that help scoring. I have no statistics but with added length to courses and more varied greens surrounds, it seems that to be very successful on the TOUR today the short game is more essential than it was forty years ago. Neither Jack nor Arnie had the best short games of their era.  Shorter hitters like Chi Chi and Gary Player had good short games.  In between the two eras was Tom Watson who was both long but also had a great short game. Today Tiger and Phil have two of the best short games in the business.  Luke Donald credits his short game to his ascendancy to world number one.  Rory said in an interview that the need for a great short game is over rated.  Can he really dominate without a great short game?

[Dan Byrnes]

Worst part of my game but this discussion isn't about 9 handicaps.  My thoughts on this are it's always the most important part.  Some top amateurs and pros I know who do q school, US Open qualifiers; one who just finished second in the National Assistant Club Pro championships.  So solid players.

They feel the they compare very favorable to PGA Pros they play with in qualifiers and such, maybe not the top PGA guys but names you know from Tee and fairway.  The get blown away in the short game and putting.  They may even hit the ball better but can't compete around the greens.  They say the PGA guys routinely get up and down from tough spots where they can't and then they also putt better. 

A couple of PGA Pros I have met who lost their card eventually say they can do everything but put at the top level. They  all get around the greens and get up and down.  It's making enough of the longer puts you need to shot several under that they can't do.

Dan

[Sam Morrow]

Jack wasn't a very good wedge player but the guy was the best putter ever. That counts as short game if you ask me. A guy can be the best wedge player in the world but if he's a poor putter it doesn't really matter.

[Scott Stearns]

one might contend that if a tour player never has to hit anything longer than an 8 iron on a par 4, its ALL short game now. 

[Sam Morrow]

one might contend that if a tour player never has to hit anything longer than an 8 iron on a par 4, its ALL short game now. 

True but it's crazy to think about the guys that can hit an 8 iron 180.

[Carl Rogers]

yes, but the prerequisite is very high club head speed .... then other abilities and qualities

[David_Tepper]

The best tour players rarely average hitting more than 13 or 14 G.I.R. per round, yet they often shoot under par rounds. You simply cannot do that without excelling at all aspects of the short game.

I recently watched Tom Watson & Hale Irwin in a twosome playing in the final round of the Schwab Cup at Harding Park in San Francisco. Over the 5 holes I saw, the one bogey they each made was caused by three putting. Between them they missed 4 or 5 greens, but they always got up & down for par.      

[Jud_T]

Given that all they ever show on TV is putting, I'd say it's fairly important.    I'd love to see some GIR stats from the old days.  Seems like it's a lot easier to hit more greens with an 8-iron than a 2-iron or fairway wood, so it's not clear to me.

[Will MacEwen]

For recent elite players, I think Vijay had the most pedestrian short game.  I recall he won the Masters with the highest number of putts ever, by a good margin.

[Mark Johnson]

depends on the level, one pro once told me that the guys on the PGA tour are the 100 best putters in the world.  Maybe an exaggeration but point made.

for me i think what is most important to improve varies based on handicap

20+  ball striking, key is to get at least pin high in regulation
8-20 -- iron play; key is to hit greens and avoid penalties
1-8- short game/ recovery game;  need to hit wedges closer and improve scrambling
1-Pro: putting-- the big differntiator; most people will hit 9-13 greens; its all about converting

[Melvyn Morrow]

Why do we continue to shower the game with all this crap?
Why have we made the game so complicated?
Why do we feel the need to raise question along the lines of ‘Is the short game more important today’?

The game has, if anything, been water down, it’s not as challenging or interesting which I suppose translates that the enjoyment has been squeezed out of a round. The simple and basic are no longer the simple and basics of the game.

Without the short game there would be no golf so of course it’s important, but then the same applies re the long game although the short game has been more consistent, thank God.

The game has taken second place in the minds of many players, the importance of the game is posting a low score, of only wanting to face easy challenges, the minimising the difficult because it adds strokes to the scorecard and we can’t have that, can we. Blind shots disliked and with fairway bunkers disappearing from our courses, penal is a dirty word and the key buzz word is strategic, but guys it has to be penal to be strategic. All focusing on that great fear of losing rounds, of losing revenue, yet the real problem with the game is totally overlooked and ignored. It’s back to basics guys, throw out all the bullshit and address a course with a little respect, starting with understanding its story, not just its history.

Golf has been or is about to be derailed, the R&A can’t see it but they are not even looking, yet if you abuse something soon or later it’s going to react. Today that’s clear with courses closing, player giving up the game and courses still being built in unsuitable areas at great costs, will we ever learn – but at least the short game is still important today.

Melvyn 

[RSLivingston_III]

More important today than when or what?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Melvyn, the question is pretty simple really.  I have no empirical data, but it seems that the top pros of the 60's and 70's didn't need the short same short game skills to succeed as players do today.  Both eras required great putting.  But the shots around the green seem to be more difficult today than 50 years ago.  They also didn't have 60 degree wedges or pins tucked as tight to the fringe as is the case today.  It seems that years ago the general unwritten rule was that pins should be 15 feet from the fringe.  Shots around many of the US courses are more difficult than when I was a kid. When I watched tour pros play years ago, there were more straight forward chip shots and less need for flop shots etc.  I have always loved the short game and have practiced it fervently, even when I was a kid.  I practice fewer chip shots now and more of the creative shots around the greens.  So, if it is true that the game requires more variety in short game shot making skills, is its mastery more important toady than 50 years ago.

[Scott Stearns]

i remember Jack leading the GIR stat regularly in the early 80s with a number in the 73-75% range. 

i think pros today have better short games than in the 80s--equipment has helped, but i think that competition generally has driven the improvement. 

Coupled with the increase in distance off the tee "bomb and gouge" is the way most players play...a pitch from the rough is better than a wedge from the fairway, at least in a regular way tour event. 

[Steve Lang]

  NO... I seem to remember Tom Kite going to 4 wedges back in the 80's, damn, that was 30 years ago!

[jeffwarne]

i think pros today have better short games than in the 80s--equipment has helped, but i think that competition generally has driven the improvement. 

 

If you don't have a great short game today, you're off the tour.
years ago you could hit a lot of greens, shoot70-73 and make a good living because you had to beat 30-60 guys other than the part time club pros and minimal foreign competition.
Now you've got 100 guys on every tour that can go low

[Dave Greene]

Jeff,
You are absolutely right about pros and the short game.

Melvyn,
You have made my day with your response. Isn't this so much of what the game is all about? There are "golfers" and then there are people who just "play golf". I have such an appreciation for the short game or as I like to think of it as "caddy yard shots'. Growing up as a caddy at the National Golf Links  and working on putting and the short game or betting my brother when we were teenagers for dimes and quarters to see who could get the closest to a clothes line and lob the ball over was great practice for this wonderful game of golf. So many modern day golfers are missing out on so much of the game.

[Tim Martin]

Exhibit A- Tiger`s entire career before he rammed the Escalade into the telephone pole. Next question.

[Matt_Cohn]

I think everything is more important because guys are just better. You don't see many guys who hit it great but can't put, but then, you don't see many guys who putt lights out but can't hit it, either.

You wouldn't hear Hogan's comment about Casper selling hot dogs at the turn anymore.

Bottom line, guys are just better now.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Matt

Are the modern golfers better?

I will say that their equipment plus the maintenance condition of many a modern course is perhaps just slightly over the top, (over watered, manicured and just dressed too much). By that I am not taking away their high state of fitness nor their ability to play a first rate game of golf, yet I also know that many an early golfer was more than just fit.

I believe that while the odd player may be a cut above the rest, it’s the latest state of the equipment and course quality that makes the difference to past generations of golfers.

In the old days from the 19th Century to pre WW2 players utilising Hickory with the Gutty then the Haskell performed more than 36 Holes a day; the numbers of Matches they participated in per year, I feel would put the modern golfers to shame. Nevertheless to play that consistently (remember this was when golf was a humble walking game) they had to be in state of fitness. Then we must remember the game itself played with Hickory/Gutty or Haskell, it took the player to control the whole game requiring real skill. Today with improved technology the task for the Pro is somewhat easier and the skill is shared between the golfer and his equipment.

It’s so difficult to compare. But we do make statements at times forgetting the quality and vast skills and abilities of past generations.

In some parts of Scotland I have heard arguments re Tiger Woods v. Young Tommy Morris, as to who was the greatest golfer. It’s an argument that can’t be won or for that matter can’t be lost. Both at their peak, they outperformed all others and have a record to prove that point.

So are the modern golfer’s better, well they certainly have better prepared courses to play upon with very high tech equipment, perhaps if we could give them some older equipment then they may prove to be better, but you may well be surprised.

Melvyn

[Mike Hendren]

No.  It's all about ball striking, with putting separating the winners from the runners-up.

I've played with a lot of low handicappers who've been to the schools, taken lessons and strike the ball like a scratch.  However, they have surprisingly little feel for the short game which we all know is not a matter of robotics.  As a result they leave 4-5 shots on the table that is the difference between 76 and par. 

Even when I played to a 4 I was a poor ball striker.  Give me their ball-striking and I would have easily been scratch.  I remember competing with the men in high school and one of them remarked "I cringe every time he pulls that wedge out of the bag."

A brilliant short game is a lost art because it's not necessary to scoring any more.

Mike

[Steve Lang]

  The original Bomb and Gouger, ..  The Play Club and Niblick

[Mike Hendren]

Then again, I might be wrong.  in 1997 four players on the PGA Tour averaged more than 70% greens hit in regulation.  In 2011 that number only increased to 6.    Looks like the average is relatively consistent around 65%.

[jeffwarne]

No.  It's all about ball striking, with putting separating the winners from the runners-up.

I've played with a lot of low handicappers who've been to the schools, taken lessons and strike the ball like a scratch.  However, they have surprisingly little feel for the short game which we all know is not a matter of robotics.  As a result they leave 4-5 shots on the table that is the difference between 76 and par. 

Even when I played to a 4 I was a poor ball striker.  Give me their ball-striking and I would have easily been scratch.  I remember competing with the men in high school and one of them remarked "I cringe every time he pulls that wedge out of the bag."

A brilliant short game is a lost art because it's not necessary to scoring any more.

Mike

Don't all your arguements support the fact that it's all about short game....
once you get to the 65-70% GIR required for the tour?

If Tiger was hitting 70% in his prime, and averaging 68, how was it he was averaging 3-4 under, while missing 4-6 greens per round, without a great short game?

For some players it's especially about short game, others like Nicklaus it was about length and consistency.
All are good-great putters

[Bill_McBride]

I find it very amusing that, in spite of the vast improvements in technology, conditioning, length off the tee, 180 8-irons, etc, the average for GIR hasn't really improved over the past 40-50 years!    This leads me to believe the short game is a bit more important today because scoring is a little bit lower today.    The smoother, faster greens today almost might be responsible, more six footers being made.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()