Does Drive for Show and Putt for Dough really hold true today?

[rollin]

50% of the game is played with 100 yards and most of that is putting. Yep, putting is still much more important than hitting it long. BK and DJ where monsters tee to green in the US Open this year but could not putt for crap. That is why they lost.

and then the other 50% is played from the tee to that point. Fwiw 100% of holes begin with a tee shot. And 80% of those (minus par3's) are with one of our longest clubs (mostly driver).

Every single hole has an approach shot including par3 tee shots and so 100% of the holes we play have an approach shot of all different lengths.

And yet again we/you are talking tour pros who as a group are already getting to greens extremely consistently to begin with. Only then by default does the putting become more important. Guess where the pros are who cant get on most greens nor be close enough to the ones they miss? They dont really exist and are not there in the first place because they'd never compete.

Flip the scenario for a moment here. Take two players who are both about equally efficient at putting and just about everything else except for tee game. Give one of them the better driver/tee game over the other. Longer and better placed shots. That player now has a definite advantage over the other. You see, the thing that then becomes the separator between them is the driver/tee game. Well, thats whats happening the other way around when talking tour pros.

We are not tour pros. Most of us are not hitting 65 to 70% of our greens (or even 60 or 55%) nor also ending up very close on most all the ones we miss. In fact majority of amateurs are not even sitting near (let alone on) many greens in a regulation amount of strokes. Putting is not most important. Its only relevant to the rest of ones game on an individual basis. And so is the importance of everything else.

 

[FreddieMac]

I will ask again, In your average round for people on this board, what would you rather have? 100% fairways hit for that round or all one putts?

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Let me ask this. Have you ever hit 100% of fairways? I've done that quite a few times over the years.

Have you ever had 18 1-putts in a row? My personal low is (IIRC) 21 for a round.

And I'll say this. I am perfectly capable of hitting 100% of fairways and only 2 or 3 GIR. So many of those 18 1-putts will be for par or bogey rather than birdie.

All of which is a way of saying "It depends". Depends on how long the 1-putts were and on how far I was from the after hitting those fairways.

 

[-CRW-]

and another thing. the annals of major champions are rife with below average guys who kept the big numbers off the card but made a crap ton of putts. they didn’t all of a sudden find 20 extra yards off the tee that week; more like they found 20+ extra feet of putts made per day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This isn't accurate for modern golf. Maybe it was for the early 90's and before. You can look at this list of major champions and cross reference them to their strokes gained rankings for that year (off-the-tee/putting). It's not that difficult for people to do if they really want to learn the truth. There are only a handful of exceptions over the last 5 years. The stats are below (the 19 stats aren't complete I guess - not all where available as far as I could tell):

2018, Open, Francesco Molinari, Tee-8th Putting-182nd
2018, US Open, Brooks Koepka, Tee-9th Putting-68th
2018, PGA, Brooks Koepka, Tee-9th Putting-68th
2018, Masters, Patrick Reed, Tee-104th Putting-29th *I don't think anyone expect this
2017, Open, Jordan Spieth, Tee-44th Putting-48th *He performed best on approach - 2nd, and strokes gained total - 2nd **Not by putting...
2017, US Open, Brooks Koepka, Tee-18th Putting-5th
2017, PGA, Justin Thomas, Tee-29th Putting-43rd
2017, Masters, Sergio Garcia, Tee-5th Putting-162nd
2016, Open, Henrik Stenson, Tee-? Putting-? *No rankings, maybe not enough events?
2016, US Open, Dustin Johnson, Tee-2nd Putting-37th
2016, PGA, Jimmy Walker, Tee-85th Putting-47th
2016, Masters, Danny Willett, Tee-? Putting-? *No rankings, maybe not enough events?
2015, Open, Zach Johnson, Tee-59th Putting-96th *Best stats were approach and overall
2015, US Open, Jordan Spieth, Tee-15th Putting-9th
2015, PGA, Jason Day, Tee-3rd Putting-6th
2015, Masters, Jordan Spieth, Tee-15th Putting-9th *His best numbers here were around the green and tee to green.

So just under 1/3rd of the last 16 Major winners were better putters than they were off the tee. Of those 5 confirmed, Spieth (account for 2 of the 5), and Koepka (1) were really close in the actual strokes gained. So from a practical standpoint, only 2 were considerably better putters than they were off the tee.

And I don't think you can go pre-Tiger era (mid 90's and earlier is probably a good range), because the game was not the same. The courses were shorter, the golfers and equipment were shorter hitters, etc. Tigers driving average in 1992 was only 263 yards. In 1995 he jumped to closer to 300 off the tee and so did most of the other big hitters. It's pretty much stayed the same since then.

 

[FreddieMac]

Let me ask this. Have you ever hit 100% of fairways? I've done that quite a few times over the years.

Have you ever had 18 putts in a row? My personal low is (IIRC) 21.

And I'll say this. I am perfectly capable of hitting 100% of fairways and only 2 or 3 GIR. So many of those 18 1-putts will be for par or bogey rather than birdie.

All of which is a way of saying "It depends". Depends on how long the 1-putts were and on how far I was from the after hitting those fairways.

I have, not now but I once had an 8 handicap (That was peak, probably more like a 10 or 11 when playing). It helped but what I was shooting 78,79,80,81 consistently on par 72, it was a function of short game for me. Right now I hit between 68 and 71% of fairway as a 28 handicap but I could not hit the broadside of a barn with an iron and my touch around the greens blows. :banana: Statistically, short game, including putting, is more important than driving the ball.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

This isn't accurate for modern golf. Maybe it was for the early 90's and before. You can look at this list of major champions and cross reference them to their strokes gained rankings for that year (off-the-tee/putting). It's not that difficult for people to do if they really want to learn the truth. There are only a handful of exceptions over the last 5 years. The stats are below (the 19 stats aren't complete I guess - not all where available as far as I could tell):

2018, Open, Francesco Molinari, Tee-8th Putting-182nd
2018, US Open, Brooks Koepka, Tee-9th Putting-68th
2018, PGA, Brooks Koepka, Tee-9th Putting-68th
2018, Masters, Patrick Reed, Tee-104th Putting-29th *I don't think anyone expect this
2017, Open, Jordan Spieth, Tee-44th Putting-48th *He performed best on approach - 2nd, and strokes gained total - 2nd **Not by putting...
2017, US Open, Brooks Koepka, Tee-18th Putting-5th
2017, PGA, Justin Thomas, Tee-29th Putting-43rd
2017, Masters, Sergio Garcia, Tee-5th Putting-162nd
2016, Open, Henrik Stenson, Tee-? Putting-? *No rankings, maybe not enough events?
2016, US Open, Dustin Johnson, Tee-2nd Putting-37th
2016, PGA, Jimmy Walker, Tee-85th Putting-47th
2016, Masters, Danny Willett, Tee-? Putting-? *No rankings, maybe not enough events?
2015, Open, Zach Johnson, Tee-59th Putting-96th *Best stats were approach and overall
2015, US Open, Jordan Spieth, Tee-15th Putting-9th
2015, PGA, Jason Day, Tee-3rd Putting-6th
2015, Masters, Jordan Spieth, Tee-15th Putting-9th *His best numbers here were around the green and tee to green.

So just under 1/3rd of the last 16 Major winners were better putters than they were off the tee. Of those 5 confirmed, Spieth (account for 2 of the 5), and Koepka (1) were really close in the actual strokes gained. So from a practical standpoint, only 2 were considerably better putters than they were off the tee.

And I don't think you can go pre-Tiger era (mid 90's and earlier is probably a good range), because the game was not the same. The courses were shorter, the golfers and equipment were shorter hitters, etc. Tigers driving average in 1992 was only 263 yards. In 1995 he jumped to closer to 300 off the tee and so did most of the other big hitters. It's pretty much stayed the same since then.

CRW,

Let me just say this about that...

Dang!

Post of the Month at the very least.

 

[McLovin]

@crw just look at that list. 7 of the 10 unique names on that list are not bombers. if you want to tell me that driving it far is more important than putting well, you can't give me a list with danny willett, zach johnson, franesco molinari etc and go "see, told ya" lol

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Well in fairness. for my part I find Broadie's statistical argument very convincing that iron play is the skill that most separates the great Tour players from the nearly-great one.

But unfortunately, that conclusion doesn't fit nicely into any formulations about "dough", "show" and the like.

Great putting wins you a lot more majors when you're looking at twelve feet for birdie all day long, that's all I'm sayin'...

 

[-CRW-]

@crw just look at that list. 7 of the 10 unique names on that list are not bombers. if you want to tell me that driving it far is more important than putting well, you can't give me a list with danny willett, zach johnson, franesco molinari etc and go "see, told ya" lol

Driving for dough or show doesn’t have to mean bombers. I think it means total driving. Long enough, but also accurate enough to capitalize on the results.

Aside from that, here are their season distance averages for the years they won their respective tournaments:

Molinari - 301 yards
Willett - 288 yards
Z. Johnson - 282 yards

For reference, Koepka is averaging 308 this year. So on average he’s no longer than Molinari and from a practical standpoint, he’s only 1 or 2 clubs different for approach shots from the shortest hitters. And if a those drives are in the rough there is no advantage when it comes to average proximity to the hole. Hence the use of strokes gained off the tee and not just driver distance.

 

[Tennis19]

i rather be consistent at driving. doesnt even have to be bombs. 230-240 ill take.. at best im a avg putter. but it seems my bad rounds is when my driver is in the crapper.

now if i was a good player, you would take putt all day. a good player an recover from a bad tee shot. seems like week in week out on the pga its whoever has the hot putter that week will win.

 

[colorado_wade]

Both can get you in a lot of trouble on the scorecard. Equally important sticks IMO

 

[rollin]

I have, not now but I once had an 8 handicap (That was peak, probably more like a 10 or 11 when playing). It helped but what I was shooting 78,79,80,81 consistently on par 72, it was a function of short game for me. Right now I hit between 68 and 71% of fairway as a 28 handicap but I could not hit the broadside of a barn with an iron and my touch around the greens blows. :banana: Statistically, short game, including putting, is more important than driving the ball.

people really do need to stop with this notion that something is truly any more important than another. It really is IMO a misguided thought. There is no such thing as any parts of the game being less important to be good at doing, They all add up to how well we play and score.

When you were shooting high 70's to 80ish consistently , I'll bet my left arm you were not losing all that many strokes from the tees. or anywhere else for that matter. If you were you couldn't possibly been shooting high 70's. The math just doesn't work. Its not possible. You had to be getting from tees to greens regularly enough in a regulation amount of strokes. 2 for a p4, 3 for a p5, and 1 for a p3. Hitting plenty of them and being close enough when you didn't.

You only had 6 to 9 strokes to lose in order to score 78 to 81. You were not at all on any regular basis sitting 3 (especially 4) and only then being near enough the green. You were not spraying tee shots that costs recovery strokes nor especially penal ones costing 2 strokes.

Your talking an average of 7.5 bogeys and the rest being pars. And so even a few birds still only moves the stroke number from 7-9 up to 10-12. But remember your not making birdies unless your hittin greens and so those birdie holes are all about the importance of tee and approach shots (as well as putting). None of any of those is any less or more important towards the birdie.

it was your consistent efficiency from the tees and with approaches that allowed good putting to then maintain those low scores. or allow poorer putting to result in rounds not as good. if the tee and approach game were not consistently efficient but instead were costly you would had no (ZERO) shot at scoring those kinds of rounds. It wouldn't been possible. They were every bit as important as was your putting.

Just because one has the ability to get on and near majority of greens in regulation amount of strokes does not at all mean that stuff is any less important. It may become a given but it still doesn't become less important. because without it you cant score what you did anyway. It wouldn't be possible.

 

[DG_1234]

t. There is no such thing as any parts of the game being less important to be good at doing,

.

For hackers who struggle to get off a tee box consistently well or routinely miss greens from 150 yards, it is obvious all aspects of their game need work.
For the highest skill level players, the differentiating factor is always short game. Consider that when one adds up the number of D1 collegiate players, second and third tier Tours around the world etc.... there are literally thousands of players who have no problem striking beautiful straight long tee balls and purring gorgeous iron shots. Especially with modern equipment, it's just not that challenging to be excellent at full shots. Thousands of players do it.
At the highest skill level really sharp short games, all the shots played from inside 100 yards, is the one and only thing that separates the 200 major Tour players from the thousands who play Korn-Ferry Tour, Japan Tour, South American Tour, D1 level collegiate golf etc....

 

[DG_1234]

I will ask again, In your average round for people on this board, what would you rather have? 100% fairways hit for that round or all one putts?

Best post of this thread !

 

[bigskyirish]

It's a real toss up for me, but on the drive-for-dough end of things, I'd say accuracy is more important than distance for me, at least at my home course. It's tough to have a good round there if you are spraying the ball of the tee, but I can have a good round without lights out putting as long as the putting isn't awful. That said, no matter how well I hit it off the tee, I can't have a great round unless I putt really well.

 

[rollin]

For hackers who struggle to get off a tee box consistently well or routinely miss greens from 150 yards, it is obvious all aspects of their game need work.
For the highest skill level players, the differentiating factor is always short game. Consider that when one adds up the number of D1 collegiate players, second and third tier Tours around the world etc.... there are literally thousands of players who have no problem striking beautiful straight long tee balls and purring gorgeous iron shots. Especially with modern equipment, it's just not that challenging to be excellent at full shots. Thousands of players do it.
At the highest skill level really sharp short games, all the shots played from inside 100 yards, is the one and only thing that separates the 200 major Tour players from the thousands who play Korn-Ferry Tour, Japan Tour, South American Tour, D1 level collegiate golf etc....

your actually proving my points I have made in this thread. It becomes relevant between high level players only because high level players are already possessing a given of being very efficient at getting to greens. If they couldn't they wouldn't be high level players. That given is every bit as important to their level of play as their putting and or greenside games are. Just because its a given for them doesn't make any of it less important because without it they wouldn't be high level players. It wouldn't be possible.

 

[rollin]

I will ask again, In your average round for people on this board, what would you rather have? 100% fairways hit for that round or all one putts?

Id rather 100% fairways right now or in fact for past two seasons as my tee game has been the most costly (by far) for losing strokes and in fact my putting is relatively speaking pretty decent.
I lose far more strokes off tees than I do putting. In fact the only chances I ever get at shooting sub 90 is when my tee game is on. Because of my tee game and add in also some amount of poor iron approaches which can also be stroke costly I am simply not getting on or near enough all that many greens until sitting 3,4 (or sometimes worse).

So heck yea, give me the 100% of fairways all day any day and twice on sunday. That's where too many my lost strokes are coming from. With that all better and in fact even be great at the 100% Ill be shooting 80's golf again on a consistent basis and lowering my cap again for certain.

 

[JonMA1]

It's bewildering when folks take what I'm sure is sound data from Broadie's book and apply the results to each member of the entire population of golfers.

At one time, I suspected poor putting was costing too many strokes. I was told by those in the full-swing-is-more-important-camp that I was probably mistaken. Why? Because Broadie also took statistics from amateurs and the same held true for that segment of golfers. I bought into what I was being told because, what the hell did I know about my game?

But once I started keeping stats with GameGolf - which I believe uses a similar strokes gained methodology as Broadie - the stats didn't just back up my suspicions, it was worse than I'd thought.

At the end of a year of recording almost every round, I'd averaged 33% of GIR, yet my average score was just under 100 with an index of 25. My putts per hole was 2.3. (I'll get back to those stats in a minute). But what really blew me away was when another member of that forum - who played at around 10 - said he only averaged 25% GIR.

So I started paying attention to those who tried in vain to argue against what many considered to be a slam-dunk of statistical facts. One argument was that most of us will never develop the ability to hit 12 GIR and average less than 10' from the hole. What he meant was that we'd better develop a good short game and putting stroke if we're going to have a prayer of scoring low. That argument still makes a lot of sense to me.

The point of this long-winded post is that I don't believe we can apply something as general as this topic to an entire population with such a diverse skill set, available practice time, and level of golf each of us wish to obtain. As far as someone new coming into the game, suggesting they work on what helps tour players may not be the best advice.

Just so I can sit squarely on the fence, I do believe the full swing is harder to develop. That's not to say its more important, just that it takes longer and is easier to lose.

Oh, and that 33% GIR stat? It didn't show what was going on with the other 66% of the holes which included out-of-bounds drives and very poor chipping to go along with the horrific putting. I've since improved my putting (a little bit), lost some ground on approach shots, and still hit far too many drives out of bounds. My scoring average is now 3-4 strokes lower.

So many weaknesses... so little time.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Of course you can putt bad enough that you simply must do something about it. If you're taking 42, 43, 44 putts every round you gotta fix that.

Doesn't mean that across the entire population of Tour players or the population of Scratch golfer or of 10 hcp or of 20 hcp the biggest thing that separates the good players from the bad is putting. You've got to be REALLY bad at putting for it to cost you more strokes than your full swing. But some people are REALLY bad at putting, sure enough.

 

[fuffle master]

At the end of a year of recording almost every round, I'd averaged 33% of GIR, yet my average score was just under 100 with an index of 25. My putts per hole was 2.3. (I'll get back to those stats in a minute). But what really blew me away was when another member of that forum - who played at around 10 - said he only averaged 25% GIR.

So I started paying attention to those who tried in vain to argue against what many considered to be a slam-dunk of statistical facts. One argument was that most of us will never develop the ability to hit 12 GIR and average less than 10' from the hole. What he meant was that we'd better develop a good short game and putting stroke if we're going to have a prayer of scoring low. That argument still makes a lot of sense to me.

The point of this long-winded post is that I don't believe we can apply something as general as this topic to an entire population with such a diverse skill set, available practice time, and level of golf each of us wish to obtain. As far as someone new coming into the game, suggesting they work on what helps tour players may not be the best advice.

I can see why so many are on the fence or say it’s the whole game and not either driving/off the tee or putting.

I am very surprised and kinda a little questionable on someone have only a 25% GIR being a 10 handicap. That person can’t be gaining stroke via putting. They would have to be a FANTASTIC chipper.

My current stat of 22.7 GIR with a 14.7 and 3.3 data set in Arccos has me sitting firmly on the off the tee and approach shot (distance being key). The issue with approach shot is it is very dependent on the Off the Tee shot.

The putt is not dependent on much. If you Chip well, leaving a lot of 5 foot and in putts could lend you to think you are better at putting than you really are.

The chipping which I wasn’t including in the putt for dough I could argue is more important than the actual putting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DG_1234]

your actually proving my points I have made in this thread. It becomes relevant between high level players only because high level players are already possessing a given of being very efficient at getting to greens. If they couldn't they wouldn't be high level players. That given is every bit as important to their level of play as their putting and or greenside games are. Just because its a given for them doesn't make any of it less important because without it they wouldn't be high level players. It wouldn't be possible.

What you've written is true, but know that tee-to-green ball striking is relatively easy. Really anyone in reasonably good physical condition, from about age 13 to 50, if they're committed to learning and practicing basic sound fundamental technique, can be an excellent tee-to-green player.
But the short game shots involve nerves and tension much more so than full shots, and this is why there are thousands of great ball strikers but relatively few who are expert at short game play.

 

[Stemmy66]

If choosing one.... Puttin' for dough! It is a great equalizer

 

[rollin]

What you've written is true, but know that tee-to-green ball striking is relatively easy. Really anyone in reasonably good physical condition, from about age 13 to 50, if they're committed to learning and practicing basic sound fundamental technique, can be an excellent tee-to-green player.
But the short game shots involve nerves and tension much more so than full shots, and this is why there are thousands of great ball strikers but relatively few who are expert at short game play.

Oh I couldn't disagree more. Your speaking to someone who has placed a ton of solid time efforts, and money for a very long time into trying to gain good consistent ball striking skill set let alone not even mention being excellent at it. I am not even talking being great at it but simply just not too bad at it. It is well known that learning to be decent enough at short game is easier to obtain than a good long game. Ball striking troubles plague very many amateurs for a lifetime. Most people who were able to obtain it misguidedly believe that most anyone can achieve it. It simply couldn't be further from the truth.

being expert at short game is another story and that is left to the pros and is in part why they are pros. But being good enough is possible far more so than being good enough at ball striking for so many amateurs. Basic ball striking failures plague so very many us amateurs even so many of us that put in the time and efforts and lessons and money and practicing etc. etc... Your way off if you think most anyone can be an excellent tee to green player. Your as far off with that thought as Pluto is from the sun. Its actually almost a ridiculous notion. So many cant even obtain a decent consistency with it let alone even get close to being excellent at it. that is a life ling battle for so many just be consistently decent at it without even considering being excellent at it.

 

[DG_1234]

. So many cant even obtain a decent consistency with it let alone even get close to being excellent at it. that is a life ling battle for so many just be consistently decent at it without even considering being excellent at it.

Mostly the culprit is grip technique. I can't say I've ever come across a player with a fundamentally sound grip who did not strike beautiful golf shots. The late great player and teacher Tommy Armour said he wanted 6 months to teach a student the grip.Most of the today's "instructors" don't spend even 2 minutes teaching the grip. Big difference . And if you ask the average high handicap about the grip they will likely say "my grip is fine". So, I think more than anything else faulty grip technique is what causes high handicap players to remain so..

 

[GraniteRoost]

Here are my stats on the matter, which confirm my intuition that putting is much more important to my scoring: