The Importance Of Short Game - #OWN125 By Cleveland Golf

[rollin]

Even in your scenario, which the numbers are a bit off based ................

But none of it changes the fact that if you do #Own125 you will score better.

without copying your whole post I guess I cant argue those points. I only go by my past experiences and the fact that for me I know my over all scoring has come down the past season mostly because I am less errant less often with the longer shots. Even my poorer play is now somewhat more reasonably manageable and simply not as bad nor as often as it was. But I here ya and I did mention earlier that when my longer game isn't any good its the short game that then either can make it bow-up twice ad bad or prevent that from happening. So in the end (and I have also said similar) we all still need a dependable shorter game regardless. I am with you and everyone on that. I do believe that.

Unfortunately like many others I am guilty of not practcing the short game nearly as much as I should. At best I am just "ok" with it. sure there are days when it works pretty darn good but more often than not its usually just ok and there are still days when I cant do any of it even :"ok".
and honestly I do know that being "ok" at best is really not enough.

Priobably like many others it can just get a bit boring practicing short stuff at the range chipping/pitching area and there always seems to be some thing to work on with the other clubs anyway that ya get caught up in. I have done this before but its not often and next time at the range I have to convince myself to hit that short practice area instead of the booth. I am guilty as charged.

 

[-CRW-]

Even in your scenario, which the numbers are a bit off based on what we have viewed at over a hundred events and gatherings, you are still looking at 50%. Which is exactly half. I can look at scorecards across the board at every event and show that the higher handicapped players lose more actual strokes from inside of 125 than any other part of the game and its not really close.

Even if the higher handicap golfer is two putting every green and averaging 36 putts per round and shoots 100, that is already 36% without ever having missed a green, found a bunker or hit a wedge. To think that all of those strokes combined are not adding up to more than 14 to bring it to higher than 50 is just not fathomable based on what we watch at the events.

FWIW, it was even proven as a test at a THP Event where a scratch golfer played alongside a higher handicapper and played everything from a PW and in. The difference was 19 strokes. Showed exactly wear the golfer was actually losing strokes around the course comparing his 26 index to that of a scratch golfer.

But none of it changes the fact that if you do #Own125 you will score better.

I would think for most (not all) higher handicap players, if you are all over the map with the driver the short game is probably hurting you to a degree as well. So for most (again, not all), it's more likely than not still a 45/65% ratio but with total strokes higher in every category. So when I was hitting 8 tee shots OB and shooting 110, I was still hitting roughly 65% of shots inside 125 yards even when putting well. For example:

Total score - 110
-16 strokes from penalties = 94
-30 putts = 64
-18 tee shots in play (all par 3's over 125) = 46
-14 follow up shots on par 5's and approaches over 125 on par 4's = 32 short game shots other than putting

32 short game strokes + 30 putts = 62 which is 56% of 110 strokes.

So even in a scenario where I did every possible thing to swing the stats into the favor of those that disagree with the 65% rule, the 125 and in still accounts for more than half of the shots. And the reality is that some of those approach shots (if not most) will be 125 and in, I will probably have more like 34-36 putts, and I will have occasional mis-hits from 125 and in just like I would from 126 and longer - all of which would increase that 125 and in percentage.

 

[rollin]

A scratch player hits driver 20% of the time, the guy that shoots 90 hits driver 15% of the time...and we collectively get geeked out over every new color, weight placement and shaft option there without debating how needed it is. I say who cares if the short game number is 30%, 50% or 65%. Is there anyone that wouldn't like to be better at it? Bonus points if the equipment helps us get there.

yes I agree that statement . But as said o JB I admit I don't put the work into it as I should. get too caught up with trying to tweak and practice full swings from the booth. I started doing it earlier this year but have since let it lapse.

 

[Nate]

This.

I created a little tracking spreadsheet a few months back to track my preparation for certain things that I know are key to my game, just in case I should get selected into a certain other event. I mark each topic red, green or yellow for the week. It isn't a measure of skill, but rather a way to answer the question: "am I doing the work?" I forgot about it for a while and went back to update my progress yesterday. Short game: red, red, red, red...it is silly that we don't practice this stuff enough. My index has gone from low 10s to almost 12 over the same period. Coincidence?

Almost every driving range I go to it's the same thing: 90% on the range and 10% on the putting/chipping area at one time. And the 90% on the range hit a few wedges and then move straight to the longer clubs. I am guilty of the above. I have a plan for this fall and it revolves around this exact topic which is why I was really excited getting in to the Up and Down event.

 

[mpeterson]

Not to argue the importance of the shorter parts of ones game but those facts are only relative and subject to those who indeed do have a higher percentage of shorter game shots.

Many mid and especially higher cappers may have it the other way around. Lets look at very real hypothetical scenarios that many people do indeed face.

We usually have18 tee shots longer than 125. And in general I think its fair to say we probably have (even after good tee shots and minus the par3's) 11 of 14 approach shots from longer than 125. That's 29 shots so far. Now consider how many of those are topped, flopped, chopped, scribbled, sliced and diced not to mention outright errant. lets say even if 10 of the 29.
Those 10 now must be any combo of either re-hit from not much closer in, or must be recovered from very bad places, and not to mention any penalties associated with any of them. Then a small percentage of those shots too can also be poorly hit.
So those 10 poor ones can add up to another 20 strokes easily when all said and done.

Point is that it wouldn't be at all a stretch to say that when one shoots in the 90's to 100 and more that often enough 50% of his strokes may indeed certainly be coming from his longer game.

None of this suggests one should ignore the shorter game nor deny its importance. Regardless of any of this, everyone should work to minimize the short game strokes imo, eventually they will pay off no matter what. But to say most strokes are from 125 and in is just not correct for everyone and why I have said that the shorter game imo tends to become more important (more so)as one gets better at their golf over all.

To sort of counter the bolded - couldn't a lot of these recovery shots from bad spots be considered specialized versions of the 125 or less yard shot? If you're in the trees, or in a rough spot, you're often trying to get back into the fairway to a specific position, and not taking an all out swing at the green.

Anecdotal data, of course, but I was a shining example of why this was important this weekend in Savannah. My driving was probably as good as it has been in a long time, but my wedge game most certainly was NOT. I was decelerating on half swings, which brought the shanks back in play. Despite being in pretty good position on the majority of holes, often coming home with less than a 9i in hand, I was bogeying and double bogeying holes. Additionally - I play in a league where a lot of guys are carrying 20+ course handicaps for 9 holes. These guys are often taking 4-5 shots to get in from just off the fringe. While there may be a disagreement on the percentage, there's no arguing that those guys are going to see the biggest bump in performance by fixing their game around the green - it's probably easier to fix the flaws there than to learn to hit 200+ and straight off the tee.

 

[-CRW-]

This.

I created a little tracking spreadsheet a few months back to track my preparation for certain things that I know are key to my game, just in case I should get selected into a certain other event. I mark each topic red, green or yellow for the week. It isn't a measure of skill, but rather a way to answer the question: "am I doing the work?" I forgot about it for a while and went back to update my progress yesterday. Short game: red, red, red, red...it is silly that we don't practice this stuff enough. My index has gone from low 10s to almost 12 over the same period. Coincidence?

I've said this before, but golf is a perishable skill. If you don't use it, you lose it - at least to some extent.

 

[tequila4kapp]

I've said this before, but golf is a perishable skill. If you don't use it, you lose it - at least to some extent.

Yep. I always treat partial shots as my warm up and conclusion to a range session, spending maybe 15 to 20 balls total on Pelz shots from 40-77 yards. So at least I'm doing something. But instead of hitting a large bucket maybe I should choose a medium and use that same time in the bunkers, chipping range or putting green.

 

[rollin]

To sort of counter the bolded - couldn't a lot of these recovery shots from bad spots be considered specialized versions of the 125 or less yard shot?
.

Yes but the point was the fact that it was the tee or long shot that costed you the strokes. But I hear you and don't disagree with what your saying there and with the rest of your post

 

[McLovin]

Yes but the point was the fact that it was the tee or long shot that costed you the strokes. But I hear you and don't disagree with what your saying there and with the rest of your post

this study analyzed the data and found that longer shots cost golfers more than shorter shots. there are definitely rounds when i'm finding fairways and have wedge or less in hand for approach, but i'm missing greens and therefore not scoring. but my higher-score rounds seem to more often include struggles off the tee, leading to longer second shots, and then missed greens and problems scoring. this latter category of bad rounds still yields gross strokes inside 125y that exceed those outside 125y; however, being in trouble off the tee makes those strokes significantly more important with respect to par. my short game blows, and i know that improving it would definitely benefit me, but my scoring is significantly better when i'm getting off the tee and hitting my mid-irons well.

i like the initiative, and i think it's important, but i don't think it's as important as it's often made out to be. i think what's far more overlooked is how you end up at 125y, not just what you do from 125y.

 

[rtparty]

As someone trying to break 70 right now I have noticed three things in my game.

1) Poor driving will never allow me to go low as I'm constantly trying to save par. Guess where I'm trying to save par though? With my wedge game and putter.

2) Great driving never scores. It can never bring my score lower by itself. It can make my score higher though.

3) My greatest rounds have come from my wedge game being on. For me that's 150 and in.

Yesterday was a prime example of this. I couldn't miss a fairway and put myself in awesome scoring opportunities. However, my scoring clubs let me down and I didn't shoot as well as I could of.

 

[JB]

i think what's far more overlooked is how you end up at 125y, not just what you do from 125y.

The irony is that none of that changes the amount of strokes from 125 and in. Its still a large number and still a larger percentage than is being viewed. One could argue that if you are hitting mostly mid irons into greens, you are actually playing the wrong tees, just as much as they could argue that long game is more important.

 

[TheWoo]

Just did the numbers for myself based off my round yesterday: 75 total shots, 49 within 125 yards = 65.3%.

Partially this was due to playing a relatively short course - I had legitimate approach shots off my drive of under 125 yards 5 times. A longer course could potentially give me none, but even then if you drop it to 44 shots it's 59%.

I had no penalty strokes and no drives in such bad shape that I had no shot. I made 4 birdies, 6 bogeys and a double. Every one of those bogeys was the result of a failure to get up and down around the green. The double was a failure to get up and down for bogey. And while I made 4 birdies, I had a chance to hit it closer than I did several other times.

I need to spend some time in the short game area so I can #Own125.

 

[McLovin]

The irony is that none of that changes the amount of strokes from 125 and in. Its still a large number and still a larger percentage than is being viewed. One could argue that if you are hitting mostly mid irons into greens, you are actually playing the wrong tees, just as much as they could argue that long game is more important.

there is no denying that on average we hit more shots from this distance range than any other in an 18 hole round. the natural conclusion is that this is therefore the most important way to lower scores. but in the study of 43,000 shots of golfers of varying abilities, "It is the long game that proves to be the biggest factor when examining the difference in scores between pros and amateurs and even between low- and high-handicap amateurs. If, for example, a PGA Tour player were available to hit shots for an amateur from 100 yards and in, or available to hit all the shots leading to the 100-yard mark, Broadie says the amateur would benefit the most from having the PGA player hit the long shots, not the short ones."

and you make a very good point about perhaps playing the wrong set of tees. but that possibility presumes that tee shots putting you in a position are all "good" tee shots. if i'm hitting good tee shots all day and i'm left with anywhere from 5i-8i, i absolutely agree i need to move up. but most of time i have these longer shots into greens i'm really struggling off the tee and flat-out mishitting.

 

[JB]

there is no denying that on average we hit more shots from this distance range than any other in an 18 hole round. the natural conclusion is that this is therefore the most important way to lower scores. but in the study of 43,000 shots of golfers of varying abilities, "It is the long game that proves to be the biggest factor when examining the difference in scores between pros and amateurs and even between low- and high-handicap amateurs. If, for example, a PGA Tour player were available to hit shots for an amateur from 100 yards and in, or available to hit all the shots leading to the 100-yard mark, Broadie says the amateur would benefit the most from having the PGA player hit the long shots, not the short ones."

and you make a very good point about perhaps playing the wrong set of tees. but that possibility presumes that tee shots putting you in a position are all "good" tee shots. if i'm hitting good tee shots all day and i'm left with anywhere from 5i-8i, i absolutely agree i need to move up. but if i'm hitting my "wounded quail" hook that goes 180y because i'm just off that day, or i'm blocking everything and finding water on 12-13 of 14 non par 3s (see my first round at liita for prime example), then i'm dropping at distances that leave me mid-irons pretty much all day. so perhaps it is me being too optimistic about which tee ball hitter is going to show up that day, as i'd rather assume i'm going to hit good drives all day and pick the tees accordingly, than assume i'm going to spray it short all day and therefore play more forward.

I have read the study before. It does not change any part of more shots hit ratio wise and getting better from that area lowers scores. I also disagree with the study based on calculations at THP events as well as the test done, but that is for another thread.

 

[McLovin]

I have read the study before. It does not change any part of more shots hit ratio wise and getting better from that area lowers scores. I also disagree with the study based on calculations at THP events as well as the test done, but that is for another thread.

last thing I'll say about the study: I haven't read it, only commentary on it. so I would defer to you and anyone else who has actually read it, as well as the hundreds of rounds you've seen at events. the best counterpoint to my own argument is that a better short game when the long game is struggling would actually bail me out and lower the scores! missing greens wouldn't be as big of a deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CBaker]

I can't tell you how much practicing and having a decent short game bails me out, especially recently. It's not just about scoring better, it's about saving strokes. It's a fact that amateurs will miss more greens than they hit in a round. Being able to save par on those holes is absolutely crucial in scoring better. There really isn't an argument to that. Get better at short game for the roughly 10-14 holes you'll miss the green, and your scores will drop.

 

[Nate]

Study is also about 8 or 9 years old when you take into account the data that had to be collected. Wonder how technology and the huge gains in distance for players over that time would change that study now?

 

[GolfFest]

Good video. What I really need to work on more is owning 25 and in. Getting more greenside shots to 0-5 feet instead of 6-10.

 

[Dave Alvarado]

Many mid and especially higher cappers may have it the other way around. Lets look at very real hypothetical scenarios that many people do indeed face.

Take a look at my scorecard on page 3 of this thread. It seemed like I was advancing the ball every direction except toward the hole, only had a few 3-jacks, put up a 100 score, and still over 50% of my shots were inside 100 yards.

Bad players play bad everywhere and will still have a majority of shots inside 125. You'd have to be a huge statistical anomaly to have more than 50% of your shots outside 125--it would mean you spray your driver and irons like a 36 handicap, but wedge and putt like a player. I'd argue that nobody actually has that game, because I'm close after all my Legacy work. My short game is what pushes my handicap down, and I still can't get more than half of my shots to be outside 125.

 

[rollin]

Just did the numbers for myself based off my round yesterday: 75 total shots, 49 within 125 yards = 65.3%.

Partially this was due to playing a relatively short course - I had legitimate approach shots off my drive of under 125 yards 5 times. A longer course could potentially give me none, but even then if you drop it to 44 shots it's 59%.

I had no penalty strokes and no drives in such bad shape that I had no shot. I made 4 birdies, 6 bogeys and a double. Every one of those bogeys was the result of a failure to get up and down around the green. The double was a failure to get up and down for bogey. And while I made 4 birdies, I had a chance to hit it closer than I did several other times.

I need to spend some time in the short game area so I can #Own125.

To be fair you are almost a scratch player and I have said imo that the numbers are subject to relative play. In other words a lot of it does depend on just where one is at with his current game. No doubt higher cappers will struggle with many more shots from the tee and on approaches than you will in an average round. He would certainly loose many more shots than you but to be fair the other way I do understand he would also loose more shots in both areas of play so the percentages may after all stay about the same. But I have also seen (although rare) people who actually can chip/pitch and putt yet cant get themselves near the green in a worthwhile manor or amount of strokes.

But also fwiw - and I know JB said "for the purpose of this discussion" we must consider 125 and in "short game" because that's what the video was about. I understand that but I just cant consider that short game so my view is sort of skewed and perhaps different all together on short game because of that.

I consider a missed green to be short game. Not a 120 yard approach. And when one views short game as only anything truly greenside (within reason) such as i do than it makes me feel the percentage is much lower simply by default. And in that logic the percentage is indeed much lower. Perhaps removing the term "short game" and just saying "the game from 125 and in" brings much more into the equation. Heck, 125 is 9iron for many people and that's only with todays lower lofted irons. some years back those same people may even be in an 8. I have to get it into my head that this is about "125 and in" regardless of whether or not I consider that my short game. Because then I can see the percentages much more clearly. It increases the dramatically. regardless of any of it I do wish I was much better at all of it and "my" short game or my game from 125 and in could certainly use a huge boost.

 

[CBaker]

To be fair you are almost a scratch player and I have said imo that the numbers are subject to relative play. In other words a lot of it does depend on just where one is at with his current game. No doubt higher cappers will struggle with many more shots from the tee and on approaches than you will in an average round. He would certainly loose many more shots than you but to be fair the other way I do understand he would also loose more shots in both areas of play so the percentages may after all stay about the same. But I have also seen (although rare) people who actually can chip/pitch and putt yet cant get themselves near the green in a worthwhile manor or amount of strokes.

But also fwiw - and I know JB said "for the purpose of this discussion" we must consider 125 and in "short game" because that's what the video was about. I understand that but I just cant consider that short game so my view is sort of skewed and perhaps different all together on short game because of that.

I consider a missed green to be short game. Not a 120 yard approach. And when one views short game as only anything truly greenside (within reason) such as i do than it makes me feel the percentage is much lower simply by default. And in that logic the percentage is indeed much lower. Perhaps removing the term "short game" and just saying "the game from 125 and in" brings much more into the equation. Heck, 125 is 9iron for many people and that's only with todays lower lofted irons. some years back those same people may even be in an 8. I have to get it into my head that this is about "125 and in" regardless of whether or not I consider that my short game. Because then I can see the percentages much more clearly. It increases the dramatically.

For the percentages to be skewed how you're thinking about them, someone would have to be absolutely miserable off the tee, and a wizard around the greens. I doubt that's a high percent of golfers if any. Most of the people who can't get off the tee, also struggle mightily chipping and putting around the greens. And I believe the "125 and in" is probably the best percentage to use of when most players get down to a 9i or PW and lower. But it's also a campaign, not science. If someone can't hit a 9i more than 100 yards, then push the number down to 100 and in. Whatever distance your 9i or wedges start, use that as your "short game". But the argument and numbers still stand.

 

[tequila4kapp]

@Rollin - The 125 part is a bit arbitrary, I suppose. Maybe it is better to think of it in terms of 'scoring zone', the place where we can reasonably expect that proficiency would directly lower scores. 125 for me equals a very full gap wedge. "Scoring zone" isn't 100% precise but full gap wedge is close enough for me - I can start saving or losing savable strokes in that range.

 

[-CRW-]

@Rollin. The 125 part is a bit arbitrary, I suppose. Maybe it is better to think of it in terms of 'scoring zone', the place where we can reasonably expect that proficiency would directly lower scores. 125 for me equals a very full gap wedge. "Scoring zone" isn't 100% precise but full gap wedge is close enough for me - I can start saving or losing savable strokes in that range.

Some players could probably go the other way too, and consider maybe an 8 iron and shorter as their "scoring irons". In which case their 'scoring zone' may be 160+ yards and in.

 

[emart2173]

I went and looked at a scorecard from earlier in the year when I shot a few strokes over 100, I was a 15 hdcp at the time and played a course I know well. I hit 6 of 14 fwy and zero GIR. I had about 60 shots from 125 and in including putts.

That at day short game saved the score from being a lot worse. I converted 50% of my up and down chances. I had 28 putts.

shot 80 a few weeks ago and had 43 shots including putts from 125 and in. Converted 4/7 up and down, had 8 GIR and only 6 fwy. Had 29 putts.

for me short game work has been a big factor in getting scores lower and preventing them from getting to high.

 

[CAA_Beat]

So back to the topic.

Damn this is just a very cool video and cool campaign.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk