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

DG_1234;n8886301 said:
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..

Really? I only wish with and bet everything I got that it was that simple. With due respect to you.....the notion that most anyone can be very good at ball striking (im not even talking excellent as you put it) but just consistently good at it where as they are getting from tees to greens consistently well is just very far from only being about grip and fundamentals.

Certainly many amateurs do lack the fundamentals and is their big flaw. But there are a whole entire world of amateurs who don't and still cant maintain a good consistent ball striking tee to green on a regular basis. Your just flat out wrong if you believe its that simple for most anyone. And many better players of the game say similar to you and they are also wrong. There are very many people who learned and do posses sound fundamentals yet still far lack in consistency.

If all it was for most of us was simply fundamentals there would be so many more low cappers than there currently is. One can be taught well and know very well how to do it but even do it many times. But the act of being consistent at doing it regularly is another story. The notion is very wrong to be applied to most anyone. Its just not the case. In fact (I know you don't mean it this way of course) but its almost insulting because of what I been through. You know the time and money and efforts I could have saved if it was as simple as only grip or basic fundamentals? Trust me that is far from anything that simple for so very many.
 
DG_1234;n8886186 said:
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.

Can you provide any proof of this? If not, it’s a case of confirmation bias.

My son is a low single digit, competitive junior golfer. He was -2 on his last tournament. He told me he doesn’t really get nervous over any shot unless he’s not doing well in a certain area - could be driver, could be putter, short game, etc.

I’m not as good. Im currently a 12. If I play the front tees I’ll shoot 80 or better. If I move back and bring in longer tee shots (3 wood, driver) I shoot mid-80’s. There is no difference in short game over all. The difference is the tee game.
 
What is with all this 100% fairway talk and 18 1 putt talk. Drive for dough isn't fairways. You can hit 100% of fairways 250 off the tee and be like bottom 10 strokes gained off the tee on tour. 18 1 foot putts means nothing.
 
Some great takes on which side of the fence many sit on.

I would be interested to to hear your thoughts on ranking the overall aspects of the game then. Wonder how that plays out versus the drive for show vs putt for dough

if I ranked the different areas (not all encompassing) I would rank them in this fashion:

1. Distance
2. Off the tee
3. Chipping/inside of 50 yards
4. Approach
5. Putting

i just feel you can be a weaker putter if the other areas of you game are strong to score. However, if the other aspects are weak it doesn’t matter how good a putter you are.

Your thoughts?
 
fuffle master;n8886139 said:
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.

Ha!

I average around 30% GIR and have the chipping yips. So even though that's about 12-13 non-GIR per round, very very few of those result in short or tap-in putts.

I did several rounds of stats one time a while back. When I hit the GIR my average distance to the hole for the first putt is 25-30 feet. When I miss the GIR my average distance to the hole for the first putt is about 20 feet. I'm literally as close to the hole hitting a 7-iron from 140 yards as hitting a wedge from 25 yards.
 
fuffle master;n8886787 said:
Some great takes on which side of the fence many sit on.

I would be interested to to hear your thoughts on ranking the overall aspects of the game then. Wonder how that plays out versus the drive for show vs putt for dough

if I ranked the different areas (not all encompassing) I would rank them in this fashion:

1. Distance
2. Off the tee
3. Chipping/inside of 50 yards
4. Approach
5. Putting

i just feel you can be a weaker putter if the other areas of you game are strong to score. However, if the other aspects are weak it doesn’t matter how good a putter you are.

Your thoughts?

honestly i feel there is no pecking order of importance. Its all important and it all counts and it all contributes to or becomes detriment to scoring. It comes down to whatever areas of play the given player needs the most help with.

Ive always been a decent putter. of course i have my bad spells or runs but over all was never a big issue unless on extremely unfriendly gimmicky sloped greens (which i have seen in my experiences).

there was a time i had no clue how to chip/pitch green-side and had almost zero short game (putting not included in that). Even with decent ball striking it would just kill me. But since Ive developed one importance has shifted to become the constant failures at ball striking which plagues me and is most costly.

So imo there is no such thing as any rule for pecking order for which should be most important. Its all important and can only be based on the needs of the individual within his own game.
 
leapin llama;n8885438 said:
I would prefer being a long driver than a better putter. sometimes you can luck into a couple putts. you can't luck outdriving your opponent every hole.

excellent point, i agree completely.
 
GraniteRoost;n8886361 said:
Here are my stats on the matter, which confirm my intuition that putting is much more important to my scoring:




I'm not clear where the analysis of "more important" is shown on those screencaps. It shows about 50% of fairways, 46% of greens and 31 putts per round. None of those sound great but none of them seem cover-your-eyes awful either.

Of course putts per round or putts per GIR is virtually meaningless anyway without knowing proximity to hole for the first putts.
 
just my opinion:

1. driver distance (driving 250+ makes a 400 hole do'able)
2. approach shot (tough to constantly be playing from the rough around the green)
3. short game (when you do miss the green it's nice to up and down some, half is always my goal)
4. long irons and woods (nice for par 5's to actually be able to reach and maybe, just maybe, hit an eagle)
5. putting (i wouldn't consider myself a great putter but as long as i make a couple of long ones and stay away from 3 putts i will score well)
 
ntanygd760;n8886382 said:
What is with all this 100% fairway talk and 18 1 putt talk. Drive for dough isn't fairways. You can hit 100% of fairways 250 off the tee and be like bottom 10 strokes gained off the tee on tour. 18 1 foot putts means nothing.

Yes, this is correct.

It's why I hate myself every time I get suckered into this sort of wanna-be stats discussion. If it's going to be about "counting" type stats, the discussion is doomed.

Distance is the single most important thing about a golf shot and counting up this or that "hit" or "made" or "missed" without accounting for distance is just spitting into the ocean for all the good it does.

Getting the ball 40 yards from the hole in the rough (fairway missed) is not worse than leaving the ball 200 yards back in the fairway (fairway made). And making a 1-foot putt is not even close to as impactful as making a 30-foot putt. Likewise with "missing" a green by being in the fringe 20 feet from the hole versus "hitting" the green and being 60 feet away.
 
Et Tu Brute?;n8887409 said:
I'm not clear where the analysis of "more important" is shown on those screencaps. It shows about 50% of fairways, 46% of greens and 31 putts per round. None of those sound great but none of them seem cover-your-eyes awful either.

Of course putts per round or putts per GIR is virtually meaningless anyway without knowing proximity to hole for the first putts.

The point is in the summary table, that my handicap (best) rounds average 5% less FIR, 2% more GIR, and 1.6 less putts per round than average of all rounds. The putting is what moves the needle the most of those three.
 
GraniteRoost;n8887511 said:
The point is in the summary table, that my handicap (best) rounds average 5% less FIR, 2% more GIR, and 1.6 less putts per round than average of all rounds. The putting is what moves the needle the most of those three.

But all you'd need to do is hit a couple miss-green recovery shots to 4 feet instead of 12 feet and you'd save 1.6 putts. So with no distance denominator for the putts per round, you have no way of knowing if you putted 1.6 strokes better or if you putted just like usual and chipped it 1.6 strokes closer. Or if you were closer because you missed the greens in the fringe rather than in bunkers or deep rough.

The number of putts doesn't mean anything if you don't know how many of them were 4-footers, how many 12-footers and how many 50-footers. And if you're comparing your best 10-of-20 to your worst 10-of-20 recent scores (of whatever "handicap round" definition they use) it's highly unlikely that everything else is the same and you only putted better.

If I shoot 95 (doesn't count in my best 10-of-20) versus shooting 85 (does count in my best 10-of-20) I guarantee you I did several things better in the 85 round than the 95 round.
 
TheHammer0711;n8887418 said:
just my opinion:

1. driver distance (driving 250+ makes a 400 hole do'able)
2. approach shot (tough to constantly be playing from the rough around the green)
3. short game (when you do miss the green it's nice to up and down some, half is always my goal)
4. long irons and woods (nice for par 5's to actually be able to reach and maybe, just maybe, hit an eagle)
5. putting (i wouldn't consider myself a great putter but as long as i make a couple of long ones and stay away from 3 putts i will score well)

I'd bump putting to #3 but am otherwise right in line with this.
 
Lot of good, sound arguments on this topic. Good putting hides a lot of warts.
 
mbenro;n8887845 said:
Lot of good, sound arguments on this topic. Good putting hides a lot of warts.

No it doesn't. Nothing hides anything. Warts are still warts whether you putt well or not. There is no such thing. A stroke is a stroke is a stroke. Nothing hides that.

I just came home from a round of 92 where I putted well and fwiw also chipped well (in fact better than usual). But guess what? I had to recover 9 freaking times from poor tee shots that have been plaguing me all year. (not just driver but 3 and 5w as well). Costed me 9 opportunities for chances of hitting greens. I did not recover well on some of those requiring an extra recovery. Was penal on 2 of them and basically the whole thing added probably 10 strokes to my round.

putting well and playing a bit better than usual chip/pitch game prevented me from probably shooting high 90's. But that doesn't hide all those warts from my tee game. They still exist and costed me from playing a good (for me sub 90 round). Not only that but likely costed me a ow 80's round. You see,.....nothing hides anything in golf. There is no such thing. Those lost strokes from the warts are still there.
 
Good putting can shave a few strokes off the game. Good driving can shave a lot of strokes off the game.
 
I know I and many people follow Noelle Zavaleta from Srixon and Cleveland Golf. I asked her on Twitter and damn she didn’t agree with me. I am losing a bet with my wife on that one.

Noelle said putts are always more important then bombs.

I was so hoping to have an expert on my side.
 
fuffle master;n8887956 said:
I know I and many people follow Noelle Zavaleta from Srixon and Cleveland Golf. I asked her on Twitter and damn she didn’t agree with me. I am losing a bet with my wife on that one.

Noelle said putts are always more important then bombs.

I was so hoping to have an expert on my side.

well, Im an expert...…….at debating....and fwiw you got me on this one :) But unfortunately quite a few folks here ignore my debating.

I honestly don't care what any marketing person says nor any professional nor any tour pro would say fir that magtter. We simply cannot apply a general notion on all who play the game based on what the differences are between tour pros or people who are all already extremely efficient at everything else.

The idea that any part of the game is more or less important than any other is imo simply a very flawed statement. Its just not true. There is no such thing. The only thing that ever becomes any more important to work on is whatever is the most detrimental part to the individual. But even that doesn't at all make anything else less important.
 
fuffle master;n8887956 said:
I know I and many people follow Noelle Zavaleta from Srixon and Cleveland Golf. I asked her on Twitter and damn she didn’t agree with me. I am losing a bet with my wife on that one.

Noelle said putts are always more important then bombs.

I was so hoping to have an expert on my side.

Tell her Mark Brodie and years of strokes gained statistics prove otherwise.
 
rollin;n8887913 said:
No it doesn't. Nothing hides anything. Warts are still warts whether you putt well or not. There is no such thing. A stroke is a stroke is a stroke. Nothing hides that.

I just came home from a round of 92 where I putted well and fwiw also chipped well (in fact better than usual). But guess what? I had to recover 9 freaking times from poor tee shots that have been plaguing me all year. (not just driver but 3 and 5w as well). Costed me 9 opportunities for chances of hitting greens. I did not recover well on some of those requiring an extra recovery. Was penal on 2 of them and basically the whole thing added probably 10 strokes to my round.

putting well and playing a bit better than usual chip/pitch game prevented me from probably shooting high 90's. But that doesn't hide all those warts from my tee game. They still exist and costed me from playing a good (for me sub 90 round). Not only that but likely costed me a ow 80's round. You see,.....nothing hides anything in golf. There is no such thing. Those lost strokes from the warts are still there.

So what I'm hearing is that 92 could have been a 100 were it not for good putting and short game, and I usually lump the short game in with putting. Just good driving, not even great, makes life much easier, but it still doesn't guarantee your approach shot is going to be acceptable either. I've had many of my golfing buddies tell me "if I just had your short game....", my reply is usually "how much time have you spent on it"? That is the part of the game I enjoy practicing, different lies with different clubs, variety of distances, and the overall imagination of pulling off the seldom seen shot and what an acceptable result is. Occasionally I'll have a round when the driver and approach shots are both working, but the short game is usually pretty decent.
 
mbenro;n8888469 said:
So what I'm hearing is that 92 could have been a 100 were it not for good putting and short game, and I usually lump the short game in with putting. Just good driving, not even great, makes life much easier, but it still doesn't guarantee your approach shot is going to be acceptable either. I've had many of my golfing buddies tell me "if I just had your short game....", my reply is usually "how much time have you spent on it"? That is the part of the game I enjoy practicing, different lies with different clubs, variety of distances, and the overall imagination of pulling off the seldom seen shot and what an acceptable result is. Occasionally I'll have a round when the driver and approach shots are both working, but the short game is usually pretty decent.

yea but still it doesn't at all make anything else any less important. Nor does it hide the extra strokes lost either which costed me a mid 80. Those balls I hit into the trees from the tees not only didn't offer me a chance at hitting a green but cost me a stroke just to get back out and up into play again. Nothing hides that. That in my example is/was just as important as my better played short game that day was. It was costly and was extremely important.
 
Last edited:
OnePuttLarry;n8888792 said:
Seems that putting represents about 50% of your golf score. I say “putt for dough.”

In my round last weekend, I hit a 92 with with 35 putts. So, 38% of my shots were putting for a 1.94 average putts per hole.

You could argue that if I hit a few more one putts maybe my score would have been 2-4 strokes better. ThatÂ’s true. However, I had 11 bad hits off the tee. This is counting the par 3s where I was poor off the tee on 3 out of 4. If I just were to count drives then 8 were poorly hit.

This lead to only 2/18 GIRs.

If I hit just half of those shots better, I probably give myself a chance to score 4-6 strokes better putting the exact same. I would have less chipping shots and one less penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Is there really a correct answer here? I think it's extremely dependant on the individual. I have a buddy who can drive the ball 300+ yards and hits greens but he often has rounds with over 40 putts where I may have had 32 putting from the same spots. That's a killer.

On the flip side he's had rounds where he putted well but sprayed driver all over and it cost him strokes. Sure he only had 31 putts but he had penalty strokes.

Either way he lost several strokes that killed him but it came in two different ways which is why I say there is no answer.
 
KEV;n8889125 said:
Is there really a correct answer here? I think it's extremely dependant on the individual. I have a buddy who can drive the ball 300+ yards and hits greens but he often has rounds with over 40 putts where I may have had 32 putting from the same spots. That's a killer.

On the flip side he's had rounds where he putted well but sprayed driver all over and it cost him strokes. Sure he only had 31 putts but he had penalty strokes.

Either way he lost several strokes that killed him but it came in two different ways which is why I say there is no answer.

Agree 100%.

Brodie's stats and conclusion may be accurate in that the majority of amateurs lose or gain more strokes with the driver when compared to those of equal indexes. But if the majority is 51/49 (not saying it is), that leaves an awful lot of folks out there where it does not apply.

We all use personal experiences and anecdotal evidence to form our opinions. That doesn't mean it's useless information. I played 27 holes last night and this morning where the driver cost me almost no strokes - maybe 3 or 4 total in punch outs or shorter-than-average drives. This morning in 9 holes I hit 5 greens in regulation and 3-putted 4 of those 5... and none required long lag putts.

I'm not saying those are my normal rounds (my putting is consistently poor, however), and it certainly doesn't apply to everyone else, but it tells me that Brodie's argument is close to being a pissing contest and in some cases just isn't accurate.
 
Back
Top