Why "Tee it Forward" is the antithesis of "the Golfe"

[Ken Moum]

Garland, is this you in the starter's shack?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUj_qqVxVrE&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP2D7CB23840E89266

[Sean_A]

For the life of me I can't understand how one doesn't play quicker from 6000 yards compared to 7000 yards.  Garland, please explain how one plays the same pace yet steps back 1000 yards.  Something doesn't add up with your logic.

Ciao

I've explained my position in the thread a couple of times. It should be clear by now that yes you take longer to play, but the difference is not significant enough to cause a Tee It Forward program. I will also note that even the Tee It Forward program is not asking people (except for the very shortest hitters, Jeff's example of the 130 yard hitter) to move forward 1000 yards. So your attempt at hyperbole is not working here.

What constitutes significant and for whom?  

I don't care in the least about the Tee...Program because I don't believe in huge differential multiple teeing areas unless the aim is provide extra angles, give folks a break who can't make a carry or accommodate near or top top flight golf tournies.  The sheer idea of a 90 shooter hitting the ball 300 yards yet requiring a 6800/7000 course is lunacy.  What that golfer needs is more practice and especially around the greens.  

I have seen exactly zero people tear up a 6000 yard course and tons of very low cappers get their ass handed back to them on these courses.   My bet is that if a 90 shooter could handle the distance properly he would be an 80 shooter.  Consistency is a hallmark of a good golfer.  Its no use saying Mr 90 does very well off the tee except for those 3 or 4 holes which completely bloat his score.  What that really means is the guy can't cope well enough.   

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

In regards to the shorter tees being condescending, I think I told the story about La Costa before, but it bears repeating on this thread.  With tees at 4400 yards (not the3000 recommended by TIF) some good, but130-140 yard hitting women said they loved it.  One told me that she could now hit the 4 par 3 holes, and 9 of 14 long holes, and wondered why we wouldn't have shortened the other 5 to make it even better.

In fact, at the 3-4 places I have recommended the shorter tees, women are at first in the "condescending camp" until they start thinking about it in terms of reaching more greens and having more fun.  Ditto on moving up the senior tees from 5700 to the former ladies tees near 5200 yards or so.

So, my opinions on this thread are based on some real world experience, not just the opinions of some old white guy who is sure he knows what is best for everyone.........I will continue to base my designs on typical players having fun, reaching greens, etc., rather than them having to spend their Saturday mornings enduring some sort of torture test that frankly, isn't any more fun than me playing 7600 yards. 

Where do we get this idea that golf is some sort of test of manhood rather than just plain old fun recreation?

[jeffwarne]

In regards to the shorter tees being condescending, I think I told the story about La Costa before, but it bears repeating on this thread.  With tees at 4400 yards (not the3000 recommended by TIF) some good, but130-140 yard hitting women said they loved it.  One told me that she could now hit the 4 par 3 holes, and 9 of 14 long holes, and wondered why we wouldn't have shortened the other 5 to make it even better.

In fact, at the 3-4 places I have recommended the shorter tees, women are at first in the "condescending camp" until they start thinking about it in terms of reaching more greens and having more fun.  Ditto on moving up the senior tees from 5700 to the former ladies tees near 5200 yards or so.

So, my opinions on this thread are based on some real world experience, not just the opinions of some old white guy who is sure he knows what is best for everyone.........I will continue to base my designs on typical players having fun, reaching greens, etc., rather than them having to spend their Saturday mornings enduring some sort of torture test that frankly, isn't any more fun than me playing 7600 yards. 

Where do we get this idea that golf is some sort of test of manhood rather than just plain old fun recreation?

Jeff,
Valid points, but I'm not sure I'm in total agreement.
Just to play devil's advocate...

With tees at 3000-4400 yards, aren't there often a lot of awfully long walks between holes?
I'm reminded of junior events where they're playing at 150 yards-fun except for the 300+ yard walk between holes.
Isn't PLAYING golf more fun than walking?

How did we get to the point where 130 yard hitting players are supposed to regularly hit greens in regulation?
Should we build 200 yard fairways so wild hitters like me can hit more fairways (and therefore more greens)in regulation?
What's wrong with walking off the green to a nearby tee and playing an extra shot (or 1/2 shot) to get to where the short tee would be?
i.e. playing our way there.
Who wants to walk and not play 3500 yards of a 7000 yard walk? (not suggesting 7000 yard women's tees but you get my point)
As a kid I learned to hit fairway woods because of the need to, and developed a sharp short game by being unable to reach greens.

Players playing very short tees can also disrupt play by basically skipping a shot and appear on the tee(which is actually in the landing area for other groups) and waiting as the group in "front" is waiting on the group in front of them.
i.e. it shrinks the available space to seperate groups and creates discrepancies in pace(one of the big failing of jr. event organizers who put too many kids onto courses that have been shrunk to 50% or less in size)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I understand what you are saying, but maybe multiple tees are like democracy, it may be a bad system, but its the best we've got.

In my last new work, Firekeeper, I paid attention to aligning the green with the middle or middle front of the next tee, not the back, figuring it would lead to the shortest walks overall and speed play.  Not enough time in to see if it contributes to speed of play, but it should shorten most walks, given less than 1% play the backs and maybe only 5% of play is from women. 

I guess there are some advantages to not reaching all greens, and my take in making the fw tees 4400 at La Costa and Firekeeper was that the women "should" accept the fact that they cannot reach all the greens.  That is why the woman's statement of "why didn't you shorten all the holes and not just some of them" hit me like a ton of bricks.  At one point, we had the new 16th shortened to about 145 (way shorter than a par 4 by USGA standards) to give women the same thrill of a driveable par 4, but others moved the tee back.  The question is not "when did we think women should be able to reach greens", IMHO, its "When did we think they didn't deserve to?"

I guess its all a matter of perspective, but I see no downside in letting the average woman enjoy the game of golf more than they do now.  I mean, its the best sport where they can compete without significant strength required in other sports, but we consider them an afterthought.

[Garland Bayley]

What constitutes significant and for whom?  

I don't care in the least about the Tee...Program because I don't believe in huge differential multiple teeing areas unless the aim is provide extra angles, give folks a break who can't make a carry or accommodate near or top top flight golf tournies.  

Exactly, we are on the same page there. I don't believe in multiple teeing areas either. Let golf be a social sport/recreation. This is a PGA/USGA program, but maybe they were put up to it by the GCAs to justify their multiple tees.


The sheer idea of a 90 shooter hitting the ball 300 yards yet requiring a 6800/7000 course is lunacy.  What that golfer needs is more practice and especially around the greens.  

This of course has been the conventional wisdom dished out by players that don't experience the average players game, e.g., PGA teaching pros. However, when put to scientific analysis, it has been shown that the average player is right by concentrating on this long game. This is because he is not muffing the shot around the green. If he could get in the proximity of the green in regulation all the time, he wouldn't be a 90s shooter. If he only got up and down 1/3 of the time he would be a low 80s shooter. The reason he is a 90 shooter is because of multiple shots muffed tee to green. Moving him forward 20 to 30 yards per hole will not prevent him from muffing shots.


I have seen exactly zero people tear up a 6000 yard course and tons of very low cappers get their ass handed back to them on these courses.   My bet is that if a 90 shooter could handle the distance properly he would be an 80 shooter. 

I.e., if he would quit muffing shots, he would be an 80 shooter.

Consistency is a hallmark of a good golfer.  Its no use saying Mr 90 does very well off the tee except for those 3 or 4 holes which completely bloat his score.  What that really means is the guy can't cope well enough.   

And moving him forward does not remove the 3 or 4 holes that completely bloat his score.

An apropos anecdote. I played in a company golf league at an executive course through a housing development. I decided the best thing I could do to keep the ball in play was to tee off each short par 4 with a 6 iron. What I found was that I could hit my 6 iron OB over houses just as often as I hit my driver there. There are any number of high handicappers on this board that will tell you the same thing. Kalen uses 3 wood off the tee, because he can't succeed with his driver. I'm here to tell you it's no picnic for him using his 3 wood either. George Pazin has stated on this website that what all you low handicappers don't understand is that we can't manage to square the club face properly. Etc.

Ciao

[Will MacEwen]

Garland,

If the hypothetical golfer is muffing multiple shots, then is it fair to say that he or she is not playing all the par 4s as driver wedge?

[Garland Bayley]

In regards to the shorter tees being condescending, I think I told the story about La Costa before, but it bears repeating on this thread.  With tees at 4400 yards (not the3000 recommended by TIF) some good, but130-140 yard hitting women said they loved it.  One told me that she could now hit the 4 par 3 holes, and 9 of 14 long holes, and wondered why we wouldn't have shortened the other 5 to make it even better.

In fact, at the 3-4 places I have recommended the shorter tees, women are at first in the "condescending camp" until they start thinking about it in terms of reaching more greens and having more fun.  Ditto on moving up the senior tees from 5700 to the former ladies tees near 5200 yards or so.

Cart riders or walkers Jeff?

So, my opinions on this thread are based on some real world experience, not just the opinions of some old white guy who is sure he knows what is best for everyone.........I will continue to base my designs on typical players having fun, reaching greens, etc., rather than them having to spend their Saturday mornings enduring some sort of torture test that frankly, isn't any more fun than me playing 7600 yards. 

Where do we get this idea that golf is some sort of test of manhood rather than just plain old fun recreation?

Nice bit of hyperbole Jeff. Maybe golf is losing players, because they can't see the point of recreating 3000 yards at full green fee without swinging a golf club. They can walk in the park for free.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

While I may even be bolstering your case, the facts that I know don't always jive with your statements.

While golfers don't muff chip shots, per se, they hardly ever get up and down, and three putt often, leading to the scores that are higher.  Most folks would say an improvement in their short games would help their scores more than anything.

They do, as you point out, muff long shots.  Some studies put the number of good shots per round at only 5-15 for the 100 shooter.  We can guess the 90 shooter may hit 18 of his 36 long shots well.  Just a guess. Actually, I only shoot in the 80's, can hit 90, and I think I hit more than that well on the long game, if by well, we mean airborne and at least 90% of the distance I intended to get, to get me somewhere in proximity to the green.

It is hard to quantify just where shorter shots might land but in general, golfers are more likely to get short irons airborne over long irons and fw woods.  As noted by Will, if a golfer is muffing over half his long shots, its hard to say that playing a shorter course would end up all driver wedge......I think the goal is driver and a variety of iron shots, but TIF obviously cannot go out to every course to set it up, they leave it to the individual courses.  Hard to generalize too much about how any course plays for "most golfers" on this forum.

In reality, you have presented lots of arguments as fact.  I have seen some studies that call your assumptions into question, and would be interested in knowing where you get some of these "facts."

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

If the hypothetical golfer is muffing multiple shots, then is it fair to say that he or she is not playing all the par 4s as driver wedge?

For the hypothetical golfer, no good drive goes unpunished. After driving well, he then lays sod over his wedge shot, and has to hit it again. So with the chip by the green it's actually driver-wedge-wedge-wedge.

Of course, this has strayed way from the original premise, because most of the people here are counting shots. In playing the odd, playing the like, the muffer is playing the odd over and over until perhaps and opponent muff, or a heroic shot of his own gets him back to playing the like.

[Garland Bayley]

What you've described in the middle paragraph isn't Tee it Forward, it's a shitty golf course. I see lots of them.  all the par threes are bunched around 150, all the par fours are 350-375 and all the fives are 475-500.  I hate them. ...

It was a hypothetical made up to make the math easy.

It is also hard to imagine you being able to declare it bad, because there is a high probability that one could do some research and find an acknowledged great golf course that had some tees that set up like that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Sorry I missed your last post.

Not sure if riders or walkers makes a difference in how much the women enjoy hitting more greens like "real golfers" do.  But, I guess it would be the national average of 55-60% cart riders.

Hyperbole?  I believe, as per my post above, you are engaging in it more.  As I said, I see you presenting "facts" that don't jive with my experience in the field.  

Golf has always had trouble attracting female players, and is on one of its repeated efforts to figure out what is wrong.  No one studying the situation has heard a group of women say the game is too easy, and ID's that as the problem.  

Some issues seem to be:

Time consumed/Speed of play,
Not feeling welcome on the course,
Condescending attitudes by men,
Poor design for their games, (not just length, but unplayable shots)
Too few females on staff,
Cleanliness of restrooms
Poor shopping experience/bad fashion choices (think Nordstroms with a golf course outside - laugh, but its true)
Guy oriented menu choices

As far as I can tell, the condescending attitude of "thats good enough for you, maam" is the number one contributor.

Going back to your original, if somewhat non connected point regarding match play, I do agree that the biggest reasons for faster play in Scotland is the proxmity of tees to greens AND match play, which allows those who duff a few to just pick up and start fresh the next hole.  If you wanted to assert that match play is better than stroke play for that reason alone, the thread would have been over, as far as I'm concerned.

I still believe that many of those matches would be more exciting if on length appropriate courses.  Think of hitting the fw bunker.  Seems as if the brilliant recovery is more possible from 125 yards than 200, where a 3 Iron might not clear the lip, etc.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

If the hypothetical golfer is muffing multiple shots, then is it fair to say that he or she is not playing all the par 4s as driver wedge?

For the hypothetical golfer, no good drive goes unpunished. After driving well, he then lays sod over his wedge shot, and has to hit it again. So with the chip by the green it's actually driver-wedge-wedge-wedge.

Of course, this has strayed way from the original premise, because most of the people here are counting shots. In playing the odd, playing the like, the muffer is playing the odd over and over until perhaps and opponent muff, or a heroic shot of his own gets him back to playing the like.

Sorry to have missed the glaring mistake here. I have stated Tee It Forward would seem most appropriate for the relatively low handicap, straight hitter. I.e., the person not typically muffing shots! So it would be driver wedge. However, I believe that the average golfer does not have his needs addressed by the TIF, and a better program would be to promote Play It Hole-by-hole.

[Garland Bayley]

... As I said, I see you presenting "facts" that don't jive with my experience in the field.  
...

Name some "facts" that don't jive.

Here are some facts.

Ken Venturi won the US Open at Congressional with a 249 yard driving average. Rory McIllroy won the US Open at Congressional with a 310 yard driving average.

If the USGA would control balls and implements, there would be little need for back tees, and Tee It Forward.

When Ken won, Congressional was at 7050 yards. When Rory won, Congressional was at 7574 yards.

Given they drive it an extra 60 yards on each of 14 holes, that adds 840 yards and says it should have minimally been 7890 yards long. If you conservatively estimate they have gained 30 yards on 14 other shots, then the course should have been 8310 yards long. The PGA came up with their table base on the tour pros playing driver wedge at 7600 to 7900 yard courses. That is why their suggestions for Tee It Forward turn out to be driver wedge for everyone.

If the PGA could do simple math, they wouldn't have come up with such ridiculous suggestions. They are fundamentally recommending that we change the game of golf. That is exactly what Pat Mucci intuitively knows and brought out his support for my ideas on this thread.

What I have given you is a back of the envelope estimation of a minimum 8300 yard courses. Those that have done a rigorous calculation have come out with 8500 yards to keep golf the same as it was.

Get your act together PGA/USGA!

[Garland Bayley]

Another fact. Rory hits his ball in about 10 seconds. No more than 20 seconds. If the PGA Tour actively policed slow play and penalized it, speed of play may just begin to improve elsewhere. Once again meaning we don't need the PGA to illogically tie speed of play to length of course as a significant factor that can be hypothetically be improved by TIF.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

I don't see that anyone is telling pros to tee it forward, and as a consequence, don't see how illustrating a point using tour pros has anything do to with golf in America, as played by legions of average golfers.  If you want to rant about Balls and Implements, do so, by all means.

Now that you have gone all Melvyn on us, I understand your point, I really do.  Its just that the cat is out of the bag, and banning TIF has nothing to do with it.  The simple fact is that every day courses have gotten longer and every day players really haven't, so they are just trying to get them to go back somewhere to a reasonable playing length for them.  And in truth, management companies have been doing it for years unadvertised, with weekend tee sets either at the front of the tee they are measured from, or at the back of the tee in front of it, shortening each hole 10+ yards from its measured value.

[Sean_A]

Garland

I don't know what science you follow, but in my experience the difference between a 90 and an 80 shooter is mainly down to better play around the greens. I guess I will always be old school and believe that driving is for show and putting is for dough.  I truly believe guys should play shorter tees untl they are very competent, then move back a set.  Golfers have to walk before they can run and blasting a ball 300 yards may look impressive, but its getting the ball in the hole that counts.  This is why I think there are very few players, including myself, that have any business contemplating a step back beyond 6500 yards and the vast majority should be looking at 6000 yard tees.  As I said before, I have never seen anybody tear up a well designed 6000 yard course and that is the crux of the matter - not how far one hits a ball.  If golfers learned to check their ego we would all be a bit better off.

Ciao      

[Ken Moum]

What you've described in the middle paragraph isn't Tee it Forward, it's a shitty golf course. I see lots of them.  all the par threes are bunched around 150, all the par fours are 350-375 and all the fives are 475-500.  I hate them. ...

It was a hypothetical made up to make the math easy.

It is also hard to imagine you being able to declare it bad, because there is a high probability that one could do some research and find an acknowledged great golf course that had some tees that set up like that.

You maybe right, but I have spent a lot of time working out what makes golf courses a joy to play, and a challenge for all levels of golfers.  Beyond that, I have also spent a lot of time working out how a golf course setup can make it possible for players of greatly varying distance ability can have an enjoyable match.

And in both cases, nothing is a better predictor than a wide variation in the length of holes in concert with even distribution of the yardages.

There is no better example in my experience than Coore and Crenshaw's Sugarloaf Mtn.  where (on the almost-short-enough-for-me blue tees) the holes range from 91 yards to 544.

The delta between the longest and shortest holes of comparable par is more than 100 yards.  ie. the threes range from 91 to 198, the fours from 252 to 455, and the fives from 443 to 544.

It was after playing there, and enjoying the hell out of it, that I began to formulate this idea.

I now know that I can compete against longer hitters on holes of 275, 300, 425 and 450, but have NO chance on four 365 yarders.

So... regardless of what other people think of them, courses like the one you described are crappy to play--in large part because the do what you said, they provide a boring experience.

K

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I don't see that anyone is telling pros to tee it forward, and as a consequence, don't see how illustrating a point using tour pros has anything do to with golf in America,...

Because the PGA based their TIF materials on PGA Tour pro play. That's why they got it so wrong! The courses aren't long enough for tour pros to do anything but bomb and gouge. To preserve the way the tour players played in Ken Venturi's day you architects need to build tees at 8500 yards. Fortunately you are smart enough to not do that. The PGA is not telling players to TIF because players are playing too far back (if they are then they are not bright enough to understand their own guidelines)! They are telling them to TIF because they are explicitly saying they want everyman to play like a tour pro, i.e., bomb and gouge.

EDIT: Sorry about going all Moriarty on you. As you can see, I have toned it down to Mucci.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

I don't know what science you follow, but in my experience the difference between a 90 and an 80 shooter is mainly down to better play around the greens. I guess I will always be old school and believe that driving is for show and putting is for dough.  I truly believe guys should play shorter tees untl they are very competent, then move back a set.  Golfers have to walk before they can run and blasting a ball 300 yards may look impressive, but its getting the ball in the hole that counts.  This is why I think there are very few players, including myself, that have any business contemplating a step back beyond 6500 yards and the vast majority should be looking at 6000 yard tees.  As I said before, I have never seen anybody tear up a well designed 6000 yard course and that is the crux of the matter - not how far one hits a ball.  If golfers learned to check their ego we would all be a bit better off.

Ciao      

The science I take note of is what the media reports university professors are publishing in refereed journals.

My experience is that playing with single digit handicappers in scrambles, often times their short games suck and they need to practice them in order to get to scratch. Generally it is not the low handicapper that is pouring in the birdie putts.

References to tear up a course are references to scoring low. My point is there is too much emphasis on that. I would guess that when golfers learn they can't go low, there enthusiasm wanes. However, if they get in friendly matches with like minded friends they will move heaven and earth to get to the course for their regular game.

TIF suits many posters on this website, because nearly all are well above average players. Kalen and I play very close to the average golfer in ability and we are the duffers on this site.

[Garland Bayley]

What you've described in the middle paragraph isn't Tee it Forward, it's a shitty golf course. I see lots of them.  all the par threes are bunched around 150, all the par fours are 350-375 and all the fives are 475-500.  I hate them. ...

It was a hypothetical made up to make the math easy.

It is also hard to imagine you being able to declare it bad, because there is a high probability that one could do some research and find an acknowledged great golf course that had some tees that set up like that.

You maybe right, but I have spent a lot of time working out what makes golf courses a joy to play, and a challenge for all levels of golfers.  Beyond that, I have also spent a lot of time working out how a golf course setup can make it possible for players of greatly varying distance ability can have an enjoyable match.

And in both cases, nothing is a better predictor than a wide variation in the length of holes in concert with even distribution of the yardages.

There is no better example in my experience than Coore and Crenshaw's Sugarloaf Mtn.  where (on the almost-short-enough-for-me blue tees) the holes range from 91 yards to 544.

The delta between the longest and shortest holes of comparable par is more than 100 yards.  ie. the threes range from 91 to 198, the fours from 252 to 455, and the fives from 443 to 544.

It was after playing there, and enjoying the hell out of it, that I began to formulate this idea.

I now know that I can compete against longer hitters on holes of 275, 300, 425 and 450, but have NO chance on four 365 yarders.

So... regardless of what other people think of them, courses like the one you described are crappy to play--in large part because the do what you said, they provide a boring experience.

K

Ken,

You, I and Mr. Doak are on the same page.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50179.0.html

[Sean_A]

Garland

I don't know what science you follow, but in my experience the difference between a 90 and an 80 shooter is mainly down to better play around the greens. I guess I will always be old school and believe that driving is for show and putting is for dough.  I truly believe guys should play shorter tees untl they are very competent, then move back a set.  Golfers have to walk before they can run and blasting a ball 300 yards may look impressive, but its getting the ball in the hole that counts.  This is why I think there are very few players, including myself, that have any business contemplating a step back beyond 6500 yards and the vast majority should be looking at 6000 yard tees.  As I said before, I have never seen anybody tear up a well designed 6000 yard course and that is the crux of the matter - not how far one hits a ball.  If golfers learned to check their ego we would all be a bit better off.

Ciao      

The science I take note of is what the media reports university professors are publishing in refereed journals.

My experience is that playing with single digit handicappers in scrambles, often times their short games suck and they need to practice them in order to get to scratch. Generally it is not the low handicapper that is pouring in the birdie putts.

References to tear up a course are references to scoring low. My point is there is too much emphasis on that. I would guess that when golfers learn they can't go low, there enthusiasm wanes. However, if they get in friendly matches with like minded friends they will move heaven and earth to get to the course for their regular game.

TIF suits many posters on this website, because nearly all are well above average players. Kalen and I play very close to the average golfer in ability and we are the duffers on this site.

Garland

If single figure golfers' short games sucks than the 18 capper sucks more.  Sure, you may find the odd duck who putts and chip well,  but on average, you will lose this bet by quite a margin.  You are misguided if scrambles is the test for theory.

Ciao 

[David_Tepper]

"My experience is that playing with single digit handicappers in scrambles, often times their short games suck and they need to practice them in order to get to scratch. Generally it is not the low handicapper that is pouring in the birdie putts."

Garland -

For someone who asks for "Source please," you are on very shaky ground with your observation.

If you are saying that double-digit handicaps have better short games than single-digit handicaps, I could not disagree with you more.

DT

[Jim_Kennedy]

My experience is that playing with single digit handicappers in scrambles, often times their short games suck and they need to practice them in order to get to scratch. Generally it is not the low handicapper that is pouring in the birdie putts.

To be fair, it's Garland's personal experience so he is his own source.

In reality, the pooch is laying on its back and lighting up a smoke. 

[Garland Bayley]

"My experience is that playing with single digit handicappers in scrambles, often times their short games suck and they need to practice them in order to get to scratch. Generally it is not the low handicapper that is pouring in the birdie putts."

Garland -

For someone who asks for "Source please," you are on very shaky ground with your observation.

If you are saying that double-digit handicaps have better short games than single-digit handicaps, I could not disagree with you more.

DT

All I said was "my experience". That means that in the few scrambles I have played in, it has often been my short game that has gotten the birdies. Mostly through putting, sinking the 10 to 15 footers, but there have been times when it has been my short pitch or chip that has laid us next to the hole.

What I am saying is that it is easier to not suck at the short game than the long game. Therefore, I find the research that says high handicappers are right in working on their long game rather than their short game as pros advise to ring particularly true.