News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Long Game v Short Game
« on: June 09, 2012, 05:32:47 PM »
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577454662959172648.html

A Columbia B School prof has concluded that the long game is more important to scoring than chipping and putting.  He also suggests that Tiger won more because of his ball striking than his short game. Something tells me that Dave Schmidt will disagree.




« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 05:36:43 PM by Carl Nichols »

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2012, 06:32:51 PM »
Some truth to this, your drive sets up your hole and you can get up and down from the part of the bunker nearest the green as opposed to being on a downhill slope furthest away from the green, ditto, you can make birdie from the center of the fairway easier than from in the woods.

I had a terrific short game when I played, but on days I din't hit it straight, i couldn't get it close enuf to save par.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2012, 06:42:06 PM »
My short game is more important than it used to be.  Years ago I averaged hitting about 12 greens a round.  Now it is about 9 greens.  My short game saves a lot of pars.  How many majors would Jack have won if his short game had been as good as his long game?
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2012, 08:14:27 PM »
Go ask Ben Hogan what he thinks.  I believe his quote was "you can make up a shot lost between tee and green, but a shot lost on the green is lost forever."  I think he knew more about golf than some Columbia professor who is writing articles well outside his depth.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2012, 08:20:39 PM »
Hogan said that cause his putting sucked.  This confirms my experience.  While my short game is pretty solid it's inconsistency tee to green that holds me back.  I bet this applies to us hacks as well as tour players.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2012, 08:29:27 PM »
To expand on this a bit, think about how you play when you have been putting really poorly (which is relative to what you consider good and bad putting, poor putting could mean you don't make everything under 8 feet, or could mean  you three putt eight times a round instead of only three)

My experience, and that of most people I've explained this concept to, is that when you are putting well, you tend to play your short game with less stress.  You feel like your putting will save you if you hit a poor chip or sand shot, and you will still save par (or for an egregiously bad short game shot, save bogey instead of earning yourself a quick double)  Because you are less worried about your short game, you tend to play more fearlessly on your approaches, and are less concerned about all those bad spots that normally would be on your mind because they mean bogey or worse for you.  You're more likely to play at a tight pin and be less concerned about short siding yourself.  It even feeds back into your tee shots.  You are less likely to try to press it for an extra 20 yards hoping to play a 7 iron instead of a 5 to increase your odds of hitting the green.  You are less worried about the consequences of a bad shot, because you feel like even if you knock it in the trees and have to lay up or punch out,  you still have a decent shot at par.  As a result, your tee shots are played with less stress and are thus more likely to have a good result.

Now think about how you play when you are putting badly.  You put lots of pressure on yourself with every shot game shot to get the ball within a few feet, because you don't feel confident you'll make anything outside kick in range.  On your approach shots you aren't concerned with just the really bad "you're dead there" spots to miss it, you don't want to miss it anywhere.  You might even worry about aiming away from a sucker pin and don't want to aim too far away from it because you're worried if you leave it too far you might three putt.  And of course off the tee you feel like you MUST get it in the fairway to have any chance at par, and you have to really blast the crap out of it to have even the tiniest prayer at a birdie.

Personally, I think this is exactly what went wrong with Tiger's game.  You could see the first signs of his putting leaving him about 5 or 6 years ago, when he started to leave putts short on a regular basis for the first time.  At first it was only on long putts, but soon it was even on 20 footers that Tiger used to think he could make every time.  That's what happens when you lose confidence, you're afraid of being too bold and leaving a 3-4 foot comeback so you start lagging everything.  Then he started missing short ones and the wheels start coming off his whole game.  It wasn't just the drives way right into the trees, you'd see him hit short game shots that were not only mortal, they looked like they were hit by a guy who can't break 90.

So don't give me this crap that his dominance was in his long game, or that the long game is more important.  If you don't have a short game, it doesn't matter how good your long game is,  you can't play well on a consistent basis.  Poor putting and/or short game puts way too much stress on the long game.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2012, 11:17:07 AM »
Nice post Doug (as always).

Anecdotally yout premise is evidenced by many greats who lost their putters first, then saw their entire game suffer due to the added pressure. Seems like there were far fewer Seve's, who lost their long games yet remained great putters.

The reality at the pro level is that they all do everything with varying levels of greatness, so it's tough to demonstrate analytically.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2012, 07:26:48 AM »
This discussion is alweays couched in the same terms; long game v short game. In my view however, it is the mid irons (5 - 8 ) which hold the key to successful golf every bit as much as long or short play.

Think about it; even top pros only average around 12 greens in regulation per round. For good amateurs it's nearer 9, and for high handicappers maybe 4 or 5.  A good short game is essential if you miss a lot of greens, but how about working on simply hitting more greens from 140 - 180 yards out?

This is most par three holes, and a fair proportion of approach shots on par 4's and par 5's for average length drivers. The most consistant players I know are deadly with a 7 iron from 150 yards - it is actually a far more important part of their game than their skill with either driver or wedge.

In fact, a 7 iron and putter would get a lot of guys round in not much over their handicap...



Incidentally, just why are the tour pros' Greens in Regulation stats apparantly so poor? I'd have thought they should all be hitting over 80%.

http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/info/?103&navid=nav:stats_greens_regulation
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 07:39:17 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2012, 09:20:33 AM »
I call B. S.  A missed three foot putt is the equivalent of a whiff off the tee or from the fairway.
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2012, 06:17:55 PM »
I would rather whiff or miss the three footer than re-tee after going OB.

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2012, 06:39:35 PM »
I used to coach high school golf.  I told my team, regularly (and probably unsuccessfully), that shots increase in importance as a hole is played.

There is no recovery from a missed putt.  A pushed drive can be made up.

WW

Jin Kim

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2012, 06:43:37 PM »
I read the article a couple of days ago.  Point of article, I believe, is that the standard deviation (shots gained/lost to field) is greater in the long game than the putting game.  So a pro can make up more strokes on the field by improving his long game relative to the field than he would if he improved his putting game.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2012, 06:58:51 PM »
It seems to make sense to me.

If it was unimportant, why are there no short knockers on tour?  Even Pavin is far longer than the average weekend Joe, even if he's short by tour standards.

Because by messing up on the tee, now you have as a result:

1)  A much longer approach shot, from a worse postion, with a much longer club.....
2)  Which means your approach will likely miss the green.....
3 )  Which means you'll likely be chipping from more 10-40 yards away from a green and potentially be out of position even worse....
4)  Which means you're now likely facing a long par putt.

That one bad tee shot has a compounding effect until the end of the hole, whereas if you hit a good drive, your in much better shape to hit a shorter club, in much better shape to hit the green, and get the two putt for par.  Its really as simple as that.

P.S.  How many bad 3 footers do you have in a round vs a bad tee shot.  I don't know about you but in aggregate over the many years I've been playing golf, thats about 10 to 1 ratio for me, if not 20 to 1.  Just this last weekend, over 4 rounds of golf, I had 1 missed putt from 3 feet and in... but I had at least 15 to 20 bad drives, probably more.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 07:02:50 PM by Kalen Braley »

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2012, 07:12:53 PM »
I read the article a couple of days ago.  Point of article, I believe, is that the standard deviation (shots gained/lost to field) is greater in the long game than the putting game.  So a pro can make up more strokes on the field by improving his long game relative to the field than he would if he improved his putting game.

Agreed -- I should have included the word "relatively" somewhere in my post.  And I think your last sentence should probably read

"So a pro can make up more strokes on the field by improving his long game relative to the field than he would if he improved his putting game relative to the field."

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2012, 07:20:12 PM »
He's reaching his conclusions because he's basing his analysis on a PGA Tour event. PGA pros need to make birdies to win. At that level, their short games are all universally so excellent that it's more a matter of who can hit the ball close and make birdies.  Even PGA players don't consistenly roll in 30-foot putts all day.

For beginnners, improving the long game is what will initially help a player move from the beginner to high handicap stage. But for players in the low to mid-handicap range, the short game is where you can shave the shots.

I'm a 10 index. There is really only one long game stat that matters to me - if I hit my tee shot in play. It doesn't have to be in the fairway. It just has to be something that won't take me out of the hole. From there, I usually hit maybe 5-8 greens per round, with an average birdie putt length of about 25 feet (trust me, I do track this stuff).

Some of GIRs are close enough to really have a go at birdie. But at an average length of 25 feet, on average I'm trying not to three putt. And hitting maybe 6 greens per round, I'm trying to get up and down a lot.

At my best, about 7 or 8 years ago, I was a 4 handicap. Right now I'm a 10 handicap. What is the difference?

- As a 4 handicap, I was getting the ball in play about 60% of the time off the tee. It's gone down to about 55% of the time.
- As a 4 handicap, I was hitting about 8 greens a round. Now I'm down to about 6. The average length of putt on a GIR has not changed.
- As a 4 handicap, I was taking about 33 putts per round. Now it's up to 35.

So I'm hitting 2 fewer greens per round, but it's based more on poor iron play than not getting tee shots in play. However, I'm taking two more putts per round despite hitting two fewer greens. That's a combination of not putting as well, and not getting my ball as close to the hole after the chip when I miss a green.

So four of the six shots I've lost are due to my short game. Two of the six are due to my long game.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 07:37:31 PM by JLahrman »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2012, 07:46:08 PM »
I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion.....

Perhaps the reason you are hitting less greens in regulation is because you are hitting less balls in play.  But even if you were driving the ball the same, hitting a green in regulation rarely has anything to do with short game play because you would still be hitting an iron of some sort, which is not a component of "short game"

Even the putts per round stat could be meaningless.  If you are playing courses with more difficult greens that are harder to read, that alone could be the sole factor for 2 more putts per round....not that you're "any worse of a putter"
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 07:47:43 PM by Kalen Braley »

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2012, 08:10:19 PM »
I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion.....

Perhaps the reason you are hitting less greens in regulation is because you are hitting less balls in play.  But even if you were driving the ball the same, hitting a green in regulation rarely has anything to do with short game play because you would still be hitting an iron of some sort, which is not a component of "short game"

Even the putts per round stat could be meaningless.  If you are playing courses with more difficult greens that are harder to read, that alone could be the sole factor for 2 more putts per round....not that you're "any worse of a putter"

I'm not hitting less balls in play though. I'm hitting two greens less per round, and it's apparently primarily because my iron play is worse, not because I'm worse off the tee. I was worse off the tee about 3 or 4 years ago, but now I'm hitting as many ball in play as I used to but I'm hitting fewer greens.

All the stats you have to take with a grain of salt. Additionally, I was living in Ohio when I was a 4 and I'm now in California. So the stats are based on different couses entirely (maybe I'm hitting fewer greens because the courses I'm playing are tougher? - though that shouldn't really be a factor in a handicap increase from 4 to 10). But I've got enough of a sample size that I think I can draw a few conclusions.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2012, 08:18:44 PM »
Yea,

Interesting stuff, sounds like you have lots of variables to consider. It could also be because you are shorter off the tee in Cali, that your approach shots are longer, hence missing more greens.  I know the bay area is one of the worst places for distance because its mostly at sea level with the thick dense coastal air.

I gained a fair amount of yardage by moving to Spokane where its 2000 feet and the air is thinner.

Bob_Garvelink

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2012, 08:33:52 PM »
My Grandpa (who got me into golf) told me along time ago "Drive for show and putt for dough $$$$".  Many of us have heard this before and I have to agree.  My best rounds are when my short game is on fire!
"Pure Michigan"

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2012, 10:40:01 AM »
Its actually really easy for anyone to see how us short hacks have to play the game.

1)  Take all the clubs out of your bag that you can hit further than 220 yards.
2)  On half of the non par 3 holes, walk your ball out about 200 yards and drop it in the rough somewhere and play the rest of the hole from there.
3)  On 2 other non par 3 holes, drop your ball 30 yards in front of the womens tee and play the hole out from there.

Just do those three things, and see how well you score compared to your handicap.

Then come back and tell me that it doesn't matter to have distance off the tee!!  ;D

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2012, 01:53:24 PM »
I know I play better when my driver is working. 'Nuff said.
Mr Hurricane

Dan Byrnes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2012, 02:04:42 PM »
My Grandpa (who got me into golf) told me along time ago "Drive for show and putt for dough $$$$".  Many of us have heard this before and I have to agree.  My best rounds are when my short game is on fire!

We all know that saying but I think there is some truth to this.  My best golf revolves around top tee shots giving me easy approaches, greens in regulation and two putts.  Start hitting bad tee shots and you really have be sharp with the chipping because GIR will be tougher?  My short game is weak so I can't rely on it I can only play well with a good tee game, however if my short game was more solid I could slap it around a bit more. 

To be good you really have to have all the tools, and I don't mean PGA tour good just 5 handicap or better. At that level you have all the tools but my be better at one than another.  I have never seen a 5 or better who couldnt chip well, putt well and strong iron and driver game.  Above tht handicap you can. I am a 9 and my short game is very poor.

Dan

Will MacEwen

Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2012, 02:07:46 PM »
In the long game, big misses kill you - three off the tee, punch outs, hazards.  You can recover, often, from little misses.

In the short game- little misses kill you - chipping to 10 feet instead of three feet, three putting, missing a 4 foot putt.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2012, 02:16:11 PM »
Dan,

I agree.  I'll take a guy who is long and relatively straight off the tee anytime over someone like me who is marginal off the tee at best, but is good with the putter.

Makes all the difference in the world when one is approaching the green with a 7 iron on a 410 yard par, as opposed to trying to hit the green with a 3 wood from the rough.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Long Game v Short Game
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2012, 02:45:42 PM »
Let's face it:

Pro tourneys typically consist of about 270 shots over four days.

Winning margins are usually one or two strokes.

When asked what one should work on to win, the answer is: yes.

It's just like the question, who's better, Jack or Tiger? Yes.

The best players, relative to the field, all drive it well, approach well, pitch and chip well, and putt well. The winner converts one of those elements just a wee wee teeny tiny bit better than everyone else.

Kalen, you're describing the difference between low handicappers and high handicappers. The article deals more with differentiating winners from losers on tour. I think the flaw in his methodology is that he is comparing discrete outcomes to a torrent of statistics. The winners for the week are each having above-par (pun intended) weeks in their weaknesses. I haven't totally dissected the guy's study, but it would seem that in a sport such as golf, where the best players win so infrequently, it would be necessary to look only at the winners each week, and compare them to the other contenders (maybe the top 5 or 10).
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back