Long game vs short game

Dealerz

..."the difference between an avg tour player and the top 40 is explained by long game 68% , short game 15% and putting 17%- long game is the most important part of golf game" Eduardo mollinari sent this out on a tweet today and needless to say people agreed/disagreed in equal measure- research based on 130000 rounds of golf apparently.

My own opinion is tiger woods and Phil mickleson may spray it everywhere off tee but will win/top 5 with their putting and short game... But maybe the facts of proper research above show that those two players are just statistical outliers.

FixdePitchmark

Jaysus. If that lad Eduardo was on here. On boards.

He wouldn't last long.

kiers47

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Jaysus. If that lad Eduardo was on here. On boards.

He wouldn't last long.

Indeed.

I wonder what his thoughts are on course management??

FixdePitchmark

The only thing is , maybe Ed. Didn't do too much maths in school.
As in, he was smacking 4 irons all day.

He doesn't understand % . As we are seeing with another top pro.

If you spend all your life hitting golf balls. Something has got to give.

m r c

So basically fairways and greens and when you putt well for the week you win. Hard to disagree with him at that rate really isn't it?

Keano

Ah that's what set off another ex pro on Twitter.

Ed I'm afraid I think you are wrong!

GreeBo

Dealerz wrote: »

..."the difference between an avg tour player and the top 40 is explained by long game 68% , short game 15% and putting 17%- long game is the most important part of golf game"

I dont understand these numbers...did he elaborate at all?

68% of what exactly?
What/how did they analyse all these rounds?
How are the shots weighted?

Dealerz

He posted the attached 2003-2010 stats if that helps

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/sports/golf/21pennington.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Dealerz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/sports/golf/21pennington.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yeah this is the guy mollinari is quoting.

FixdePitchmark

Dealerz wrote: »

He posted the attached 2003-2010 stats if that helps

But the only thing that, that is proving is, that the pros are all as good as each other at the short game - there is a bigger gap in the long game.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/sports/golf/21pennington.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“I think what this proves is that consistency improves a golf round more than people may think,” Broadie said. “People also might look at their awful shots per round and wonder if maybe they’re taking too many risks.”

:eek:
Whats this? Course management is important?!

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

“I think what this proves is that consistency improves a golf round more than people may think,” Broadie said. “People also might look at their awful shots per round and wonder if maybe they’re taking too many risks.”

:eek:
Whats this? Course management is important?!

Legend:)

PARlance

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But the only thing that, that is proving is, that the pros are all as good as each other at the short game - there is a bigger gap in the long game.

Makes sense to me.
I think people see that tweet and forget that he's talking about the difference between the top 40 in the world vs the rest of the top 400 or so.

They are all so good from 100 yards and in that it creates very little differential.
Greater variances are found in the long game.

It's nothing to do with amateurs, this is the cream of the crop.

ShivasIrons

Molinari is right, the best players have better long games, if your long game is good, you are closer to the hole and your misses are in places that are easier to recover from.

Poor approach shots mean more difficult recoveries. There is a higher correlation between ball striking and scoring than short game.

Especially for the average golfer as well, hit more greens shoot lower scores.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

“I think what this proves is that consistency improves a golf round more than people may think,” Broadie said. “People also might look at their awful shots per round and wonder if maybe they’re taking too many risks.”

:eek:
Whats this? Course management is important?!

Indeed, but the overriding point of the article is that if you hit it longer, straighter and more consistently off the tee then you're on to a winner
And you'll never get there by leaving the driver in the boot Greebo

Don't reply, not going there, you win

FixdePitchmark

ajcurry123 wrote: »

Indeed, but the overriding point of the article is that if you hit it longer, straighter and more consistently off the tee then you're on to a winner
And you'll never get there by leaving the driver in the boot Greebo

Don't reply, not going there, you win

The doctor in question entered 1000s of shots and data.

But when he put in that a bloke layed up on a par 3 . Deep blue crashed.

Dealerz

ajcurry123 wrote: »

Indeed, but the overriding point of the article is that if you hit it longer, straighter and more consistently off the tee then you're on to a winner
And you'll never get there by leaving the driver in the boot Greebo

Don't reply, not going there, you win

Your right ye know- ok I suggest we close thread now.

GreeBo

ajcurry123 wrote: »

Indeed, but the overriding point of the article is that if you hit it longer, straighter and more consistently off the tee then you're on to a winner

Exactly!
If you hit it longer, straighter and more consistently....why would you be 18+...
Oh thats right...because you dont...but would like to think that you do

I've said since day 1, your strategy is yours; not mine; but the fact remains,there isnt a single 20 handicapper on here who is stuck on that handicap because they are too risk adverse.

FixdePitchmark

My strong part of my game is my long game. I'm 6, 7, 8 shots up on most with long game.

But I lose 9, 10, 11 shots on them with short game.

So it is true, the short game is so much easier to improve in. I think (this is me). It is easier to improve short than long.

That is why pros are equal on short. But have large divergance on long.

mike12

The big thing with Pros the better they are the less they miss in the wrong spot. it's easy for them to get up and down when their long game is off and they are missing in the wrong spots then their up and down% drops off.
Rory a couple of years ago siad why do i need to practice my short game if i'm not missing greens.
The better your long game means you can get away with the short game a bit.

John Divney

Look at Adam Scotts stats, he's well in the hundreds in 'Srtokes gained' on the putting green, so he doesn't sink many long putts, no advantage their for him.

But he's 11th in G.I.R

He's also one of the worst at getting eagles of the top players. (long putting)

But .he's the 29th at Birdies. (ok at short putting)

He's the 10th best scorer on tour. (via ball striking consistency imo )

Adam Scotts advantage is clearly his ball striking, long and mid. Not so much his short game/putting.


If he could do what Tiger does and scrambles from the putter in Strokes gained. he would be the best playr in the world possibly.

FixdePitchmark

John Divney wrote: »

Look at Adam Scotts stats, he's well in the hundreds in 'Srtokes gained' on the putting green, so he doesn't sink many long putts, no advantage their for him.

But he's 11th in G.I.R

He's also one of the worst at getting eagles of the top players. (long putting)

But .he's the 29th at Birdies. (ok at short putting)

He's the 10th best scorer on tour. (via ball striking consistency imo )

Adam Scotts advantage is clearly his ball striking, long and mid. Not so much his short game/putting.


If he could do what Tiger does and scrambles from the putter in Strokes gained. he would be the best playr in the world possibly.

That is perhaps is all true - but only thing I remember about his major win is the massive putts he holed.

Keano

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

That is perhaps is all true - but only thing I remember about his major win is the massive putts he holed.

And that's the crux of it. No point booming one down the middle and then stitching it to about 5 feet and then missing the birdie putt!

willabur

Keano A Legend wrote: »

And that's the crux of it. No point booming one down the middle and then stitching it to about 5 feet and then missing the birdie putt!

I can see every point in doing that

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Both mine are ****e. What do I win?