Sean Foley interview

TheRoomWrecker

For anybody interested in the game by numbers approach here is a great

interview with Sean Foley who puts doubts on the importance of short game to

improve and more on the 180-250yard in shots, that will get the scores lower on

the card, I can see where he coming from and he has the stats to back it up!

but I think most of my handicap gains have come by getting up and down

better, maybe its at the top level point of view he is speaking of (3hc and below) anyway here is the link

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2013/10/29/video-sean-foley-on-charlie-rose.html

ForeRight

I suppose the better your long game is the less you need to get up and down.

It's 6 in 1 half dozen the other really at amateur level but at pro level they are not trying to make pars like us. They need birds.

IMO the long game is more important for them. As they are more likely to birdie from 150-200 yards for a second shot than they are to chip in from around the green.

Russman

Golf always has been and always will be about the short game, no matter what level you play at.
Most of the tour guys hit it much the same, day in, day out. OK, some days they hit it really great, but almost all the time the only difference between the pro who shoots 68 and the one who shoots 75 is the short game ie a few more putts holed or getting up and down a couple more times.

Look at the range at a tournament, they'll all be hitting it exactly the same, perfect drives, wedge after wedge hitting or almost hitting the 100yd marker. Yet, after the round there will probably be 10 or 12 shots difference between the leader and the last guy, most of it will be down to short game IMHO.

That's not to say the long game isn't important, of course it is.

PARlance

Russman wrote: »

Golf always has been and always will be about the short game, no matter what level you play at.
Most of the tour guys hit it much the same, day in, day out. OK, some days they hit it really great, but almost all the time the only difference between the pro who shoots 68 and the one who shoots 75 is the short game ie a few more putts holed or getting up and down a couple more times.

Look at the range at a tournament, they'll all be hitting it exactly the same, perfect drives, wedge after wedge hitting or almost hitting the 100yd marker. Yet, after the round there will probably be 10 or 12 shots difference between the leader and the last guy, most of it will be down to short game IMHO.

That's not to say the long game isn't important, of course it is.

There was a thread recently about this where someone had done some considerable research into it.

The key to success for a Pro is the long game.
That is not to say they don't have a fantastic short game, but moreso that they ALL have fantastic short games so there isn't a big variance between the best and the worst.

There is a lot of variance in the long game in both length and accuracy. So anyone having a good day on the long game will be there or there abouts.

FixdePitchmark

If you are not getting 7 or 8 GIRs a round you are only going to get to a certain level.

You can have as good a short game as you like - but it is going to be for par at best

Short game is most important for us - but if you want to get to a certain level you need the full game.

That is why you have lads with unreal short games - but they are hanging around 12, 11, 10, 9.

Anybody can go and improve themselves with practice and hours and hours of short game. But some people do not deal with the root of their problem - this can be a short OR/AND a long game problem.

Russman

PARlance wrote: »

There was a thread recently about this where someone had done some considerable research into it.

The key to success for a Pro is the long game.
That is not to say they don't have a fantastic short game, but moreso that they ALL have fantastic short games so there isn't a big variance between the best and the worst.

There is a lot of variance in the long game in both length and accuracy. So anyone having a good day on the long game will be there or there abouts.

With respect, I'd wonder if there was a survey taken of the pros, whether they'd agree or disagree.

There's a massive variation in the best and the worst short games (the worst is still excellent, its all relative).

Look at the PGA Tour stats, from 20-30 yards, last year the leader got up and down just under 70% of the time and the guy who was last is at 34%. That's a lot of shots over the course of a season.

From 10-20 yards its similar, the leader is at 75% versus 43%. From this distance alone the leader picked up 30 shots over the season. Even say, over 15 tournaments I'd say that equates to a lot of cash.

FixdePitchmark

Russman wrote: »

With respect, I'd wonder if there was a survey taken of the pros, whether they'd agree or disagree.

There's a massive variation in the best and the worst short games (the worst is still excellent, its all relative).

Look at the PGA Tour stats, from 20-30 yards, last year the leader got up and down just under 70% of the time and the guy who was last is at 34%. That's a lot of shots over the course of a season.

From 10-20 yards its similar, the leader is at 75% versus 43%. From this distance alone the leader picked up 30 shots over the season. Even say, over 15 tournaments I'd say that equates to a lot of cash.

But the top top lads gained most from their long game over each other -

We will link other thread.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/487275/276057.jpg

PARlance

Russman wrote: »

With respect, I'd wonder if there was a survey taken of the pros, whether they'd agree or disagree.

There's a massive variation in the best and the worst short games (the worst is still excellent, its all relative).

Look at the PGA Tour stats, from 20-30 yards, last year the leader got up and down just under 70% of the time and the guy who was last is at 34%. That's a lot of shots over the course of a season.

From 10-20 yards its similar, the leader is at 75% versus 43%. From this distance alone the leader picked up 30 shots over the season. Even say, over 15 tournaments I'd say that equates to a lot of cash.

There was detailed study done on Pro's. On the phone so can't link the thread.

The main output I got for it that if there long game is on form then 20-30 yard shots don't come into it. They'll be hitting GIR's and most Par 5's in 2.
If you then look at the putting stats, there isn't a big variance between the best and worst (relative to other stats)
(Long game being driving and second shots)

FixdePitchmark

awful glasses.

Russman

PARlance wrote: »

There was detailed study done on Pro's. On the phone so can't link the thread.

The main output I got for it that if there long game is on form then 20-30 yard shots don't come into it. They'll be hitting GIR's and most Par 5's in 2.
If you then look at the putting stats, there isn't a big variance between the best and worst (relative to other stats)
(Long game being driving and second shots)

Not sure what exactly I'd read into the results of that link to be honest, its certainly interesting. Shots gained is IMO a bit of a mathematical exercise where they've come up with a stat against what the average is, for the sake of a stat, but in any given week, who's average ?

Put it this way, the leader in greens in regulation hits 12 and a bit greens per round, the guy who's last hits 10 and a bit greens - not a whole lot between them. That means, on average, they have between 6 and 8 holes every round where the short game (excl putting) will come into play and differentiate the good from the bad. Some rounds they might hit 15 or 16, and some they might only hit 8 or 9, but the short game determines how low they'll go.

Even if putting was broadly similar across the pros, its the pitching and chipping that really separates them. In reality there's probably another shot or two between the best and worst putters.

Of course, to get to the pro level you need the long game, and as FDP said, if a 9 handicapper has more or less maxed out his short game, its his long game that he'll need to improve to get to his next level. There's obviously a certain level of competency required in the long game for every level of golf.

I think it was Bob Rotella mentioned in one of his books that a good long game will ensure your bad rounds aren't that bad, but a good short game will ensure your good rounds are really good (words to that effect).
Its not really a one or the other though, if your short game is good and you're confident of getting up and down if you miss a green, you might swing a little more freely and your long game will improve.

PARlance

Russman wrote: »

Not sure what exactly I'd read into the results of that link to be honest, its certainly interesting. Shots gained is IMO a bit of a mathematical exercise where they've come up with a stat against what the average is, for the sake of a stat, but in any given week, who's average ?

Put it this way, the leader in greens in regulation hits 12 and a bit greens per round, the guy who's last hits 10 and a bit greens - not a whole lot between them. That means, on average, they have between 6 and 8 holes every round where the short game (excl putting) will come into play and differentiate the good from the bad. Some rounds they might hit 15 or 16, and some they might only hit 8 or 9, but the short game determines how low they'll go.

You're happy enough to work on averages when you want
At least the average in the analysis is taken over 8 years and on the Top 299 golfers... you're example isn't that scientific in fairness.

I don't think you'll find a better sample than the Top 299 golfers over 8 years. Shots gained is a perfectly good measure to use, I have a feeling you won't be converted, it does go against much that we have been told.

An important thing which will be weighted in those results is that there will be far more "Long game" shots over "Short game" ones.
The ratio will be about 2:1 I'd say, twice as many 100yard+ shots over less than 100yards.
So being better than average in that field will have more of an impact in the long game over short game.

The guy that did the analysis also stated that short game pratice is the quickest and best way for an amateur to drop shots... it's not as if he had am agenda or anything against the short game.

Russman

PARlance wrote: »

You're happy enough to work on averages when you want
At least the average in the analysis is taken over 8 years and on the Top 299 golfers... you're example isn't that scientific in fairness.

I don't think you'll find a better sample than the Top 299 golfers over 8 years. Shots gained is a perfectly good measure to use, I have a feeling you won't be converted, it does go against much that we have been told.

An important thing which will be weighted in those results is that there will be far more "Long game" shots over "Short game" ones.
The ratio will be about 2:1 I'd say, twice as many 100yard+ shots over less than 100yards.
So being better than average in that field will have more of an impact in the long game over short game.

The guy that did the analysis also stated that short game pratice is the quickest and best way for an amateur to drop shots... it's not as if he had am agenda or anything against the short game.

Fair comment, but there's no way I'll be convinced the long game is more important than the short game.

I don't think strokes gained is a good or even real stat. Its comparing against an intangible IMO or a moving target. At least GIR or fairways is a definitive, for me there's one layer too many in the strokes gained stat - but hey, that's just my opinion. I might hit 6 fairways more than the next guy but who knows whether I gained any shots on him ? How can it possibly be said someone gained a stroke through the driver, when the driver isn't used to put the ball in the hole ?

Surely you can't say you've gained strokes when there's still some of the hole to be played ? You'd need to assume that after the drive or long iron or mid iron, that everyone's game was exactly the same.

I can see how any individual might need to improve their long game to get better as a golfer and, for them, the long game is important. I probably fall into that category myself, in that my short game is generally excellent and driving can be a bit ropey - if I drive it well I tend to score well. Having said that, I recently played a few rounds where I hit an awful lot of fairways, way more than normal, but I putted like a donkey and scored accordingly .
Ultimately the ball must be put in the hole and that means the short game IMHO.

We'll agree to disagree slightly.:)

FixdePitchmark

I've an agenda against the short game , because I'm rubbish at it :mad::o

No, I just believe that there are golfer at our level who can get obsessed with the short game - but don't face up to their fear, that the swing is rubbish - they need to change and spend 100s of hours at changing. But we are amateur and most lads are happy to stay around 15 to 10.

But if you are not happy at that level - you can fool yourself with the short game - "I'm great at up and downs". "Great Putter" - Well done - but it is impossible to get to single figure with 4 or 5 GIRs.

If you look at all the top pros in the game - they have faced the reality that their swing had a flaw - say a bad hook or slice - this was a tournament loser for them

Faldo
Woods
Westwood

The list goes on and on - sure you wouldn't have the Foley types as big a deal in the game. And guys changing from one to another.

I think the pros and ourselves can self teach the short game with time and balls and a good practice green.

But to put it simply - the pros are far better off having a putt for birdie than being brilliant at up an downs - now they are all brilliant at up and downs. The only one that seemed to create and edge and win all around him from short game was Donald - he just always got up and down. But he was a freak that year. His putting from 5 feet - he never missed.

It is simple logic, would you rather - 12 GIRs or 8 GIRs. With 12 GIRs you are going to get 12 pars most days - even if you are awful at up an downs you will get 2 or 3 of them.

My best round this year and ever by a long margin was when my GIRs went from 30 to 40 % range - to 61 % one day. Now one round is not a great sample - but agree you can prove anything with stats.

It is just these are good stats (for top pros)

So we are all sort of saying the same thing. It is easy for us to drop shots in the short game - but it is harder and required to have a good long game to get to the next level (single figure and lower).

Whyner

Russman wrote: »

Golf always has been and always will be about the short game, no matter what level you play at.

Waffle. I totally disagree with this.

What's the point of having a sharp short game if you can't keep the ball in play off the tee

Once you get to a certain level, then yes, deffo spend more time practicing on the short game

Russman

Whyner wrote: »

Waffle. I totally disagree with this.

What's the point of having a sharp short game if you can't keep the ball in play off the tee

Once you get to a certain level, then yes, deffo spend more time practicing on the short game

The counter argument to that could be what's the point in hitting every green if you can't put it in the hole ? As you said, waffle.
The last shots you play on every hole are always short game shots (apart from holing out iron shots), and since golf is about the number of shots taken, its obvious that the short game is paramount IMO.

I'm not suggesting a total beginner should only practise his chipping and putting and not worry about hitting the ball - obviously he has to get to the green in the first place. But from a scoring perspective improving his short game will yield greater results.

ForeRight

Russman wrote: »

The counter argument to that could be what's the point in hitting every green if you can't put it in the hole ? As you said, waffle.
The last shots you play on every hole are always short game shots (apart from holing out iron shots), and since golf is about the number of shots taken, its obvious that the short game is paramount IMO.

I'm not suggesting a total beginner should only practise his chipping and putting and not worry about hitting the ball - obviously he has to get to the green in the first place. But from a scoring perspective improving his short game will yield greater results.

If you are on the green in two you are more likely to two putt for par than to get up and down all the time for par. At pro level of course.
If on the green in two you are more likely to putt for a birdie than to chip in for a birdie.

The long game is what gives birdie chances in general so IMO it's more important than the short game for scrambling pars. A good long gane requires less scrambling.

They are both very important but at pro level which is what the article is about I'd tend to agree with the opinion that the long game is more important.

GreeBo

Whyner wrote: »

Waffle. I totally disagree with this.

What's the point of having a sharp short game if you can't keep the ball in play off the tee

Once you get to a certain level, then yes, deffo spend more time practicing on the short game

you are using an extreme to prove your point.
keeping the ball in play is very different than having an excellent long game.
obviously of you cannot hit a fairway you have a problem, but that's not the level we are taking about.

top level pros have exhausted the benefits from their short games, so obviously GIR is the next place to focus on.
it's like a sprinter, you won't win much with a bad start, but they're is no point spending hours trying to eek out a few extra hundredths of a sec of you are already ok.

Whyner

Russman wrote: »

The counter argument to that could be what's the point in hitting every green if you can't put it in the hole ? As you said, waffle.
The last shots you play on every hole are always short game shots (apart from holing out iron shots), and since golf is about the number of shots taken, its obvious that the short game is paramount IMO.

I'm not suggesting a total beginner should only practise his chipping and putting and not worry about hitting the ball - obviously he has to get to the green in the first place. But from a scoring perspective improving his short game will yield greater results.

Because.........if you hit every green you'll score much better than if you're playing 3 off the tee

I disagreed with your previous statement, which seems fair. That should be directed towards better players

Russman

Whyner wrote: »

.if you hit every green you'll score much better than if you're playing 3 off the tee

Totally agree, but no matter how good you get at the long game, the best players will still miss 5 or 6 greens per round over the course of a season. Nobody will ever get to the stage of not missing greens. Its the short game that turns their "poor" ball striking days into decent rounds, and can let them score really low when their long game is maybe slightly off.

saintastic

My view for the amateur game is that if you took a group of 0, 3, 5, 8, 11, 15 and 18 handicappers, the average GIR percentage for each group would descend as the handicap goes up and it is my belief that the long game is what seperates us all.

Even if you get up and down every second time, you are losing a guaranteed shot for every two greens you miss.

At the pro level, a good short game will make the difference between winning and not winning a tournament. The long game will decide at what end of the leaderboard you are going to be at, imo.

Lee Westwood and Sergio Garcia have had one of the best long games in the last 10-15 years but their short game has stopped them from winning Majors. They still win some lesser events when a few putts drop or when their short game is on but when the toughest tests arrive under the biggest pressure, they can't do it.

When you look at players who are "short game specialists", they tend to be a lot more unpredictable in their performances - Mickelson, Snedeker, Donald, Poulter, McDowell. When their long game is on, they are then right in contention but their fantastic short game alone never gets them in contention.

michael1930

The most important part of the game to be excellent at, is long game, assuming all parts of your game are good.
The most important part of your game to practise is short game, as long game practise tends to yield very little performance improvement (even for pros).

GreeBo

michael1930 wrote: »

The most important part of the game to be excellent at, is long game, assuming all parts of your game are good.
The most important part of your game to practise is short game, as long game practise tends to yield very little performance improvement (even for pros).

+1

Worry about your medium and long game once your short game is good enough.
Its easier to take less putts and chips than it is to hit less drives or approaches, so work on getting your short game to that of a low handicap golfer before you try to drive they ball like they do.

pinseeker

For me it goes like this.
A bad score is saved when i have had really good day with the short game.
A great score will come from a really good day off the tee.

Not sure what that says really

blue note

Surely it's simply a combination of the whole lot and it's different what's good and what's bad for everyone. We all know a guy off 20 who would be off 13 I he could learn to putt / chip / drive it straight. Similarly, there are low single digit players who might have the long game of a plus figures golfer but the short game of a 15 handicapper. Or a low single digits guy who would be a scratch golfer if he had a bit more distance.

For me, if one of my driving / irons / short shots / putting is good I'll have a respectable score. If 2 are good I'll have a good score. 3 are good I'll be in contention. And if all 4 are good I'll eventually wake up.

GreeBo

blue note wrote: »

Surely it's simply a combination of the whole lot and it's different what's good and what's bad for everyone. We all know a guy off 20 who would be off 13 I he could learn to putt / chip / drive it straight. Similarly, there are low single digit players who might have the long game of a plus figures golfer but the short game of a 15 handicapper. Or a low single digits guy who would be a scratch golfer if he had a bit more distance.

I think its more complicated than that.
You dont need to hit a single fairway or green to have a good score for example.
You cant have a good score without putting well though.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

I think its more complicated than that.
You dont need to hit a single fairway or green to have a good score for example.
You cant have a good score without putting well though.

I think it's more complicated than that :P

My 2 best competitions this year were 40 (18HC) and 36 (17HC) points.
My putting stats for both of them were the two worst of the year, 41 putts and 43 putts respectively.....

I'd have accepted a higher than average putts per round for those two rounds due to the fact that I was hitting most GIR's thus was proabably putting from greater distances.
That said, there's no excuse for 84 putts in 2 rounds is rediculous, so it's fair to say I wasn't putting well but I did have a good score while doing it.

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

I think its more complicated than that.
You dont need to hit a single fairway or green to have a good score for example.
You cant have a good score without putting well though.

Nonsense.

I had 39 points and 39 putts about a fortnight ago. 39 points is a good score and 39 putts is not putting well.

Russman

blue note wrote: »

Nonsense.

I had 39 points and 39 putts about a fortnight ago. 39 points is a good score and 39 putts is not putting well.

Maybe you're off the wrong handicap ?

PARlance

Russman wrote: »

Maybe you're off the wrong handicap ?

I don't think the HC system stops at the fringe.

blue note

Russman wrote: »

Maybe you're off the wrong handicap ?

Possibly a little - I dropped a shot that day and another two on Sunday if the competition was a qualifying one.

However, I practically never putt well. Just about any good round or even 9 holes I average 2 putts per hole on. The difference between the good rounds and the average ones is usually having more birdie putts and shorter par putts.

If someone has an average day in every aspect of their game they should be coming in with about 32 or 33 points. If parts of their game are better than normal, say their iron play, then they should be looking at a good score. Without putting any better, if they're trying to 2 putt for pars instead of trying to get up and down for them they're bound to make a few more, even if they're not putting any better.

Whyner

Bad example yourself

GreeBo wrote: »

it's like a sprinter, you won't win much with a bad start,

Usain Bolt?

GreeBo wrote: »

but they're is no point spending hours trying to eek out a few extra hundredths of a sec of you are already ok.

Yeah there is, you're only 'ok' and sprints can be defined by the tinniest margins

Ok, I was wrong, golf has been and is always will be about the short game :rolleyes:

There is a no correct answer. Work the majority of time on the weakest part of your game. What's fairer than that

Russman

Maybe the best way to describe it is:

A good short game can rescue a bad drive or a bad approach shot, whereas there's nothing to rescue a bad short putt.

blue note

Russman wrote: »

Maybe the best way to describe it is:

A good short game can rescue a bad drive or a bad approach shot, whereas there's nothing to rescue a bad short putt.

It makes no difference to the scorecard whether you rescued a bogey with a great up and down or threw away a par with a bad 3 putt.

Wherever you're bad is where you need to improve - whether that's putting, chipping, driving or shot selection.

PARlance

Russman wrote: »

Maybe the best way to describe it is:

A good short game can rescue a bad drive or a bad approach shot, whereas there's nothing to rescue a bad short putt.

If you have scratched the hole before you get to the green then you may be picking up the ball rather than missing the putt

Here's the way I see it:

For a beginner that struggles everywhere:
Focus on the tee shot, make sure that you can get the ball in play with the big stick.
You could go down the route of playing irons of the tee, but the reality is that people like hitting the driver, it may make more sense to go with an iron but it takes more discipline than most people have to do this.

Once you have gotten to the stage where you are in play the majority of the time after your tee shot, it's then time to focus on the short game.

The short game is probably the area where you will see the biggest improvement to your score over the shortest time spent on it.

As someone who was 3 off the tee this summer, I got sick of the "short game is key" mantra...
Nope, it wasn't, short game wasn't getting a chance to come into it a lot of the time.
And nope, I'm not going to hit a 6 iron of the tee to keep in it play.

One regret I have after this year is that I got control and confidence with the driver but I didn't turn my attention to the short game.
My driving has continued to improve as a result, but I don't think that improvement has resulted in any significant improvement in my scores really.
I should have switched attention a few months ago.

Whyner

Russman wrote: »

Maybe the best way to describe it is:

A good short game can rescue a bad drive or a bad approach shot, whereas there's nothing to rescue a bad short putt.

You can possibly 4 putt for a point

I give up with you

GreeBo

You can be 20% off with every drive you hit and not even notice.
Try that with your short game and you will still be on the first green 2 hours later. (allbeit slightly closer to the hole)

Long game puts the ball in play, short game puts the ball in the hole.
You get nothing for hitting fairways or greens; only having 1 putt saves you a definite shot.

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

I think its more complicated than that.
You dont need to hit a single fairway or green to have a good score for example.
You cant have a good score without putting well though.

You do have to hit a single fairway or green to have a good score, because the best pros in the world are at 6/7 out of 10 up and downs. We may get close to that - but not the same if not pro - so not hitting fairway or green you are going to be 7 (at best) over par if you are a pro - we are not. In fact 50 % is a euro tour level so you end up +9.


You will score poorly with poor putting, but this can be reduced by high GIR. With 12 girs you will be 6 over with 30 putts on those holes (2.5 putts per green) - If you get half the up and down on remaining 6 you are 9 over for the round.

So above shows , you score poor both ways - Ok maybe 7 or 9 over is not poor for some - but it shows the limitations of a one track -approach.

I guess we are all sort of saying the same thing, I don't think anybody thinks you can be a great player without a decent level in both areas. you can't get away with a very poor long game or a very poor short game. (it's stating the bloody obvious in a way).

Easier to drop scores with short games - but there is limitations if you are poor in one or other.

So - my head is spinning - but mathematically , logically, statistically - you can't stick with one area and overcome a limitation created by another variable. You can approach a limit , but the limit is set by something else. You are wasting you time when you get to a certain point with one aspect.

spacecoyote

Just read this which leans towards the long game side of things:

http://www.yourgolftravel.com/19th-hole/2013/10/31/drive-for-dough-and-putt-for-show/?utm_campaign=1113564229&utm_content=1111227880794&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Emailvision