Chipping - Short Game ---- Is it the Most Important Part of the Game?

rollin · May 23, 2016

c.a.eleric said:
i thought we weren't allowed to use one person to prove a generic point? i kid, i kid! and another example to prove your point is that brooks koepka dunked his tee shot on 18 into the hazard and lost to a guy who hit the fairway and the green. but that's just one guy. seve couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with is driver, but his short game was maybe the best there has ever been and he did pretty damn well. hence the reason we can't glom onto one person as the proof of an entire statement.

.

your right, I don't like specific examples but I just thought why not play along with that avenue to a point made.

emart2173 · May 23, 2016

Six4three5 said:
"Its not how well you hit your good shots, its how well you hit your bad shots."

Something I try to keep in mind every time I tee it up.

This is so true. Have to manage the miss and minimize the damage from it.

rollin · May 23, 2016

KinlochRVA said:
Golf is a game of good misses. The lower the handicap, the better the missed shot is.

30+ handicaps struggle off the tee and OB/Hazards are much more in play for them. Short game shots over water/bunkers they may struggle with and take a big number.
18+ handicaps keep the ball in play more often, but may have the 1-2 shots a round where they take a double bogey or worse due to an errant shot.
10 handicaps and below typically keep the ball in play and don't incur penalty shots every round. Their scores are dictated by the short game.

good analogy. But I would say in general 18+ cappers can regularly lose more than just a couple doubles or worse due to missed tee and approach shots.

Its no coincidence that in general (as the caps drop), the ability to be more efficient with tee and approach shots increase because they are very much a part of the lowering caps. And the word miss or term poor play is only relative as for just how bad the misses or poorer play are. For the most part...just as you indicated, the better one is over all, the better in general the misses pan out. This also ties to your other point that the short game can be a dictator among them. Simply putt, their tee and approach games are already a given for being efficient enough even when its somewhat less than their better play.

.

Tadashi70 · May 23, 2016

c.a.eleric said:
i thought we weren't allowed to use one person to prove a generic point? i kid, i kid! and another example to prove your point is that brooks koepka dunked his tee shot on 18 into the hazard and lost to a guy who hit the fairway and the green. but that's just one guy. seve couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with is driver, but his short game was maybe the best there has ever been and he did pretty damn well. hence the reason we can't glom onto one person as the proof of an entire statement.

i think this is an excellent point. and i would be interested to know whether this is a way to run data to determine whether the difference between a 36 and 18 handicap is the long game, and whether a combination of long game and short game is the difference between an 18 and 9.

You know Sergio only hit 57% of his fairways but managed 73% of his greens. Seems to me short game played a greater roll in his win than the long game which really didn't matter. And let's be honest, the poor play of Brooks aided in that win. We also need to look at how many greens he hit with wedges in hand that would further justify the need to work more on your short game vs you long game.

Nate · May 23, 2016

Tadashi70 said:
You know Sergio only hit 57% of his fairways but managed 73% of his greens. Seems to me short game played a greater roll in his win than the long game which really didn't matter. And let's be honest, the poor play of Brooks aided in that win. We also need to look at how many greens he hit with wedges in hand that would further justify the need to work more on your short game vs you long game.

2 balls in the water on Sunday and he managed to go +1 through that stretch. 2 amazing chips and putts or he would have been staring at +3 or worse on those 2 holes.

ntanygd760 · May 23, 2016

Long game and putting did it for me today. Lost most of the strokes on 1 chunky chip and 1 bladed 35 yard wedge, was decent other than that.
Shot 72 (E)
Only hit 50% of fairways but those are kind of over rated as I didn't put myself in many bad spots off the tee, 12 greens hit

Long game +1.56 (+0.96 tee, +0.6 approach)
Short game -1.97 ( -2.02 short. +0.05 putting)

Fourputt · May 23, 2016

Tadashi70 said:
You know Sergio only hit 57% of his fairways but managed 73% of his greens. Seems to me short game played a greater roll in his win than the long game which really didn't matter. And let's be honest, the poor play of Brooks aided in that win. We also need to look at how many greens he hit with wedges in hand that would further justify the need to work more on your short game vs you long game.

According to your reckoning, he only played 14 shots in the long game, since you seem to feel that everything else is short game. In that case, of course you would put a premium on practicing what you consider short game. Off the tee? Okay now it's all short game from here. Good grief.

He could have been only missing fairways by 2 inches and his FW's hit stat wouldn't be any different than if he'd missed by 50 yards. I'd also be willing to bet that around half of those 27% missed greens still allowed him to use the putter. So he may not have been doing all that much hard scrambling.

Tadashi70 · May 23, 2016

Fourputt said:
According to your reckoning, he only played 14 shots in the long game, since you seem to feel that everything else is short game. In that case, of course you would put a premium on practicing what you consider short game. Off the tee? Okay now it's all short game from here. Good grief.

He could have been only missing fairways by 2 inches and his FW's hit stat wouldn't be any different than if he'd missed by 50 yards. I'd also be willing to bet that around half of those 27% missed greens still allowed him to use the putter. So he may not have been doing all that much hard scrambling.

Where in my statement to Chris did I say he hit 14 long shots?

20 par 5s and a drivable par 4. He went at the green each time. Went at the par 5 in two. Add all his putts over the course of the event and the greens he missed and most of his shots fall into short game. The premium you and other out on long game was not a factor for him as he hit just over half the fairways. And when left with an iron into the greens he proximity to hole wasn't all that close putting premium in the flat stick.

Nate · May 23, 2016

I look at Sergio's Sunday round like this: He made 3 fatal mistakes in his round.

4th hole when he hit the fairway bunker from the tee which he chunked his bunker shot but proceeded to make a 10 footer for a bogey.

11th hole, short par 4 which he drove into the water. Chip and another 10 footer for a par.

14th....into water with long iron, a long chip and putt for bogey.

3 long game mistakes where he went +2 on but with 6 short game shots that got him out with minimal damage. To me, that won him the tourney as he easily could have been 3 or 4 over on those mistakes.

mikedean441 · May 23, 2016

Its like the hamster in the wheel...round and round and round

rollin · May 23, 2016

Nate said:
2 balls in the water on Sunday and he managed to go +1 through that stretch. 2 amazing chips and putts or he would have been staring at +3 or worse on those 2 holes.

Then we can also say if he didn't put 2 balls in the water he would have been staring at -1 because it works the other way too. And to be honest that's only figuring all the other shots were the same. Had he not put the 2 in the water those other shots would be different and who the heck knows he may have had 2 birdies there for an even better -2

rollin · May 23, 2016

Nate said:
I look at Sergio's Sunday round like this: He made 3 fatal mistakes in his round.

4th hole when he hit the fairway bunker from the tee which he chunked his bunker shot but proceeded to make a 10 footer for a bogey.

11th hole, short par 4 which he drove into the water. Chip and another 10 footer for a par.

14th....into water with long iron, a long chip and putt for bogey.

3 long game mistakes where he went +2 on but with 6 short game shots that got him out with minimal damage. To me, that won him the tourney as he easily could have been 3 or 4 over on those mistakes.

we can just as easily say that if he didn't fail at those shots he could have made 3 more birdies. But its still amazing how people forget to credit the 19 birdies and an eagle and 79% greens hit as for saying that's what won him the tourney. Had he not made those other long game mistakes could have went another 3 birds for 22. And never even been in a playoff. It cant be just about the fact that he prevented further damage with some short game play because it also has to be about the fact that he had great success without having to use it. Somehow htiing 79% greens receives no credit for the win but only preventing further damage via some short stuff does. Had he not made as many good tee and approach shots as he did he would have not have won as well.

Nate · May 23, 2016

rollin said:
Then we can also say if he didn't put 2 balls in the water he would have been staring at -1 because it works the other way too. And to be honest that's only figuring all the other shots were the same. Had he not put the 2 in the water those other shots would be different and who the heck knows he may have had 2 birdies there for an even better -2

If's and But's were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. He hit 3 bad long game shots that were saved by his short game play. He hit a lot of other shots in between during the round but those 3 holes stuck out to me as game changers.

mikeg_74 · May 23, 2016

The sky is purple

rollin · May 23, 2016

Nate said:
If's and But's were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. He hit 3 bad long game shots that were saved by his short game play. He hit a lot of other shots in between during the round but those 3 holes stuck out to me as game changers.

But...lol.....you used the if's and but's or would have's when you said he "would have" been staring at +3 had he not made the short magic. So its then every bit as fair to speculate he would have been staring at -3 if he didn't miss those shots in the first place. But its also funny to me how the eagle and 19 birds and 57 greens had nothing to do with being a dominating factor or collective game changer.