[Jon Wiggett]

DD= Driving Distance
DA = Driving Accuracy
Scr= Scramble
SGfP Shots gained from Putts

Scoring Average Rankings

1   Matt Kuchar    DD 157th  DA 32nd GiR 35th Scr 14th SGfP 35th
2.   Segio Garcia    DD 47th   DA 123rd GiR 20th Scr 7th  SGfP 36th
3.   Bubba Watson DD  1st    DA 142nd GiR 13th Scr. 9th SGfP 51st

Looking at the top three in the scoring averages Matt Kuchar is the shortest of the three yet is number one where as the longest player is third and Garcia 47th so being long is no advantage to result. However driving accuracy is directly reflected in the scoring with Kuchar being the most accurate of the three and Watson the least accurate. GiR is also the wrong way round if you believe the long game to be decisive as best scorer Kuchar is the worst of the three in this category whilst Watson is the highest plced in this catergory of the three. Scrambling shows a different story with Kuchar being the worst of the three though he has to scramble more often and Garcia the best.

Finally there is Kuchar is the best in shots gained from putting with Garcia next and Watson bringing up the rear.

As the rankings for driving distance are inverted in the scoring rankings it would appear to be a disadvantage to hit the ball long.  Driving accuracy does correlate with the scoring and so would appear it does lead to better scoring but as the best placed top ten long hitter was 85th and second place was 125th it appears that you cannot be both long and straight so straight trumps.
Greens in Regulation are also inverted from the scoring results and though all three are quite high up it is certainly not a decisive advantage.
All three are high up in the scramble rankings and it is here that the difference in seems to be made and the also with Shots gained from putting where Kuchar is a head of the other two despite being better in GiR and so having more chances.

So in order of importance I would see this as first scrambling, second putting being most important to score with accuracy off the tee being third GiR coming fourth and length being possibly a negative in last.

To me that shows short game as more influential

[Josh Tarble]

Or you could say driving accuracy is the most important as proportionally, Kuchar is far and away better than either Sergio or Bubba than either Scrambling or Strokes Gained Putting.


Or you could read "Every Shot Counts" look at the research and see that it's easier to make a bigger impact with your long game than short game.  It doesn't say anything about the short game not being important, just that it's easier to make an impact with the long game.

[Brent Hutto]

Jon,

The problem is that your "distance", "accuracy" and "scramble" numbers do not adequate represent what you're probably expecting them to mean. The entire reason Broadie and others have developed their methodology is because poorly thought out counting and percentage stats like that are misleading.

It's not just that they don't answer the question you might expect them to based on their names but they do answer those questions incorrectly.

At least the list you're giving lists strokes gained from putting. But the others are the functional equivalent of counting "total putts" or "putts per GIR". They do not take into account the distance and situation from which each shot was played nor the distance and situation resulting from each shot. Therefore they conflate various mixtures of outcomes and then tally up the resulting mishmash.

And beyond that, your summary does not include any information specifically about the factor that we're trying to tell you is the most important factor at all: long approach shot success.

[George Pazin]

On the other hand, Bubba has two majors and Kuchar and Sergio combined have zero.

I would be very interested in knowing what the stats for those categories were for the individual events each won.

[BHoover]

Let's change the subject just a bit.  What part of the game is the most important on classic tournament courses such as Pinehurst #2, Shinnecock or Winged Foot?  I say putting and/or iron play.

[Josh Tarble]

Brian, I think that's an interesting because of the venues you listed, especially Pinehurst vs. the other two.  At Pinehurst, I vote iron play because you must put yourself in proper position around the green otherwise your chances of getting up and down are pretty small.

At Shinny and Winged Foot I would vote driving because the advantage of playing out of the fairway and hitting low irons vs. long irons is so significant.

[George Pazin]

Or you could say driving accuracy is the most important as proportionally, Kuchar is far and away better than either Sergio or Bubba than either Scrambling or Strokes Gained Putting.


Or you could read "Every Shot Counts" look at the research and see that it's easier to make a bigger impact with your long game than short game.  It doesn't say anything about the short game not being important, just that it's easier to make an impact with the long game.

Josh, how easy do you think it would be for Bubba to go from 142nd in DA to 50th?

[Brent Hutto]

At least Brian's couching of the question has the advantage of firmly placing the discussion back in the realm of free speculation and gut feelings. Honestly, that's a more productive use of this forum than arguments between fact-based nerds and conventional wisdom-based true believers.

[Peter Pallotta]

"...the best way to play good golf, day in and day out, year in and year out, is to get the ball from the tee to somewhere on or near the green in as few strokes as possible, and when you miss greens to miss them in the correct places, rather than relying on a magical wedge game and a hot putter."

AG - that's very well put and no doubt true, and true for you and for me and for good/very good players and pga tour players alike. And when you or me or good/very good players or pga tour players happen to miss greens in the wrong places, a magical wedge game and a hot putter will sure help all of us out (in getting the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.) So, to bring the discussion back to architecture, I think the question is: do we want a design where a magical wedge and a hot putter will help us all out a lot, or only a little?

Peter

[Josh Tarble]

Or you could say driving accuracy is the most important as proportionally, Kuchar is far and away better than either Sergio or Bubba than either Scrambling or Strokes Gained Putting.


Or you could read "Every Shot Counts" look at the research and see that it's easier to make a bigger impact with your long game than short game.  It doesn't say anything about the short game not being important, just that it's easier to make an impact with the long game.

Josh, how easy do you think it would be for Bubba to go from 142nd in DA to 50th?

Obviously not easy, otherwise he'd do it. 

The point wasn't who was better.  It was to say, like Brent's post, traditional stats are terrible at proving anything.  They can be twisted and turned to match any point you'd like to make.

[A.G._Crockett]

"...the best way to play good golf, day in and day out, year in and year out, is to get the ball from the tee to somewhere on or near the green in as few strokes as possible, and when you miss greens to miss them in the correct places, rather than relying on a magical wedge game and a hot putter."

AG - that's very well put and no doubt true, and true for you and for me and for good/very good players and pga tour players alike. And when you or me or good/very good players or pga tour players happen to miss greens in the wrong places, a magical wedge game and a hot putter will sure help all of us out (in getting the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.) So, to bring the discussion back to architecture, I think the question is: do we want a design where a magical wedge and a hot putter will help us all out a lot, or only a little?

Peter

Pete,
My answer would be both a lot AND a little.  A great green complex, or even a good one, should have areas where up and down is at least relatively easy, others where it is difficult, and even areas where it is virtually impossible.  That, along with contour, seems to be a wonderful way to differentiate between better and lesser players. 

[Pete Lavallee]

It just occurred to me that the ideal way to "Tiger-proof" a course is to eliminate all second shots in the 185 to 225 yard range; be they into par 4's or par 5's. Lengthening the course only plays into his hands by offering more opportunities to display his skill in this range. I would bet the house that Tiger has very few of these shots (185-225) at Riviera, which explains why he has never won there and why he refuses to return!

[George Pazin]

The point wasn't who was better.  It was to say, like Brent's post, traditional stats are terrible at proving anything.  They can be twisted and turned to match any point you'd like to make.

Doesn't that invalidate much of Mr. Broadie's thoughts? Or do you consider his stats non-traditional?

[Brent Hutto]

Broadie's work is entirely a reaction to the ubiquity and sheer fecklessness of "traditional stats" as published in the golf media, talked about on golf telecasts and pored over by some players and their coaches.

Once you have ShotLink measuring where each shot was played from and where it ended up, there is no reason NOT to compile meaningful tabulations of scoring in various situations. As soon as a couple seasons worth of ShotLink were in the can, so to speak, it was possible for the first time to actually answer some of these questions.

The traditional crap like "fairways hit" or "distance" as measured on two holes per round with god knows what club was never useful. At all. But people will tabulate useless information if there is no good information to rely on so that's what was done for decades. To quote or use that stuff nowadays is as clueless as trying to discuss the practice of golf architecture while ignoring environmental permitting and the use of golf carts.

[Peter Pallotta]

AG - nice answer, and (appropriately) subtle/nuanced. I was probably thinking in terms that were too black and white, and yet two images keep coming to mind i) a golf course where Curtis Strange could win a major and ii) a golf course where Ben Crenshaw could win a major.  I think those images might be telling, and that those two golfers (very good tour pros, but not amongst the greats) are the kind that can help us explore this topic best. The greats of the game - Nicklaus, Player, Hogan, Woods etc -- win majors on any golf course.   

Peter

[Michael Felton]

AG - nice answer, and (appropriately) subtle/nuanced. I was probably thinking in terms that were too black and white, and yet two images keep coming to mind i) a golf course where Curtis Strange could win a major and ii) a golf course where Ben Crenshaw could win a major.  I think those images might be telling, and that those two golfers (very good tour pros, but not amongst the greats) are the kind that can help us explore this topic best. The greats of the game - Nicklaus, Player, Hogan, Woods etc -- win majors on any golf course.   

Peter

That is an interesting question. Both players were at their best before I really started following the game, but I'm assuming that Strange was very straight and consistent and I know that Crenshaw was an incredible putter, but with a weaker long game.

I would think if you wanted to give the straight and consistent player to do well, then you'd want lots of trouble in landing areas, be that water or rough or bunkers or trees or what have you, with some very difficult areas around the greens (I'm thinking Pebble Beach 1992 green surrounds). In that situation hitting fairways and greens would be much more important than anything else.

If you want the slightly less consistent, but great putter to win, then you would want a little more forgiveness in the landing areas and some difficult but not too difficult green sites. Those greens need to be playable, but difficult to allow the hot putter's ability to shine through.

I like to think that I came up with this without thinking of Strange winning two US Opens and Crenshaw winning two Masters.

[Matthew Essig]

Let's change the subject just a bit.  What part of the game is the most important on classic tournament courses such as Pinehurst #2, Shinnecock or Winged Foot?  I say putting and/or iron play.

I believe that putting is the most important at any course. If you are putting poorly, you can't do well at any course.

So then it comes down to driving vs. iron play vs. scrambling as the second most important.

For Shinny, I would say it is iron play. Winged Foot is driving, and #2 is more scrambling-oriented. You aren't going to hit every iron perfect or exactly where you want to, and when you miss slightly, you can be severely penalized by the ball rolling off the green down to who-knows-where.

[Phil McDade]

Crenshaw won both of his Masters when Augusta played under 7,000 yards (and Crenshaw was never long off the tee), was still wide (so accuracy off the tee wasn't critical), and of course demanded great putting on its turbulent greens.

Strange won back-to-back US Opens at Brookline and Oak Hill at probably the apex of the U.S. Open's narrow fairways/high rough/demanding set-ups that rewarded accuracy more than, say, great putting or length off the tee.

[BCowan]

''Strange won back-to-back US Opens at Brookline and Oak Hill at probably the apex of the U.S. Open's narrow fairways/high rough/demanding set-ups that rewarded accuracy more than, say, great putting or length off the tee.''

   Strange hit like 2 greens in reg on Sunday of one of the opens.  His short game was stellar.  Of course his full swing was in Golf Digest the next week...

[Michael Felton]

It's interesting that a guy like Faldo, who was the poster child of hit it straight and consistently, but was never considered a great chipper or putter (I don't think anyway) won three Masters and no US Opens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

How do you explain Andy North ?

[BCowan]

It's interesting that a guy like Faldo, who was the poster child of hit it straight and consistently, but was never considered a great chipper or putter (I don't think anyway) won three Masters and no US Opens.

Really, I thought Faldo was a great putter, especially when in contention and a great chipper too.  It is surprising he never won a US Open, but was in contention frequently I believe, which people overlook..   

[Michael Felton]

It's interesting that a guy like Faldo, who was the poster child of hit it straight and consistently, but was never considered a great chipper or putter (I don't think anyway) won three Masters and no US Opens.

Really, I thought Faldo was a great putter, especially when in contention and a great chipper too.  It is surprising he never won a US Open, but was in contention frequently I believe, which people overlook..   

Maybe - I just remember him always struggling with his putting and seemingly always trying new things with it.

He certainly was in contention for them - he lost one in a playoff to Curtis Strange I think. He was also right there in the PGA Championship that Azinger won. In another universe, he's on the list of people who won the career grand slam.

[jeffwarne]

It's interesting that a guy like Faldo, who was the poster child of hit it straight and consistently, but was never considered a great chipper or putter (I don't think anyway) won three Masters and no US Opens.

Faldo was a great wedge  player and putter

[BCowan]

It's interesting that a guy like Faldo, who was the poster child of hit it straight and consistently, but was never considered a great chipper or putter (I don't think anyway) won three Masters and no US Opens.

Really, I thought Faldo was a great putter, especially when in contention and a great chipper too.  It is surprising he never won a US Open, but was in contention frequently I believe, which people overlook..   

Maybe - I just remember him always struggling with his putting and seemingly always trying new things with it.

He certainly was in contention for them - he lost one in a playoff to Curtis Strange I think. He was also right there in the PGA Championship that Azinger won. In another universe, he's on the list of people who won the career grand slam.

I was there in 93', Norman blew it doubling the easiest par 4 on the course #11, drove it in a divot.  Faldo missed playoff by a shot i think.  Norman blew it in 86 too. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()