Drive for show, putt for dough only applies to "good" golfers

[JonMA1]

It is all important. Driving, Irons, chipping and putting. Think of it this way. A bad shot will cost you a stroke. Missing a 5 footer is no different than slicing a drive and having to punch out. One stroke.

Exactly. And missing a 5 footer so badly that you have another 5 footer back is the same as hitting a drive out of bounds.

There's more to it than that, of course. People at my skill level are not supposed to make 5' putts every time, any more than we are going to hit the fairway every time. I don't know what the "average" range is, but I promise I'm worse than average at both for my skill level.

I need to improve both regardless of what Broadie's book or some archaic saying indicates.

The bottom line is that we all have strengths and weaknesses that are unique and we need to learn to recognize what that weakness is if we're going to put the right effort into improving our greatest weaknesses. Knowing what a common weakness is among the entire population does little to help me decide what is best for my game.

The knowledge that GIR have the highest correlation to score for most golfers does very little good if I'm already better than average with that skill (among my level) but poorer than average in others. I'm always going to suck at golf as long as I have some serious flaws in my game.

I think improvement and lower scores come from knowing your weaknesses and working on getting them closer to your strengths.

 

[charley48]

For the higher handicappers like myself, driving well off the tee is most important. Guys like me are not good enough to play our way out of bad spots. We need the fairways to give ourselves a chance. Its a lot more enjoyable hitting off the short grass than from the rough. Or worse. After years of struggling with the driver I finally found something that works. For the past year and a half the driver has been my most consistent club overall. And I score in the mid to upper 90's. Can you imagine how that score card would look if I couldn't hit fairways?

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I agree. The odds of someone needing to go down to a 6i off the tee as a way to score better is astronomically slim. If you can't hit a longer club well enough to improve your chances, you're really unlikely to be consistent enough to hit 6i, 6i, pw solidly, consecutively, and not handicap yourself even further. The only likely scenario I can even think of it being true might be a very experienced player who just has limited swing speed at that stage of their playing. A beginner anomaly might exist too.

edit: the friend you described I guess might fit the first example? He's doing it more to manage a bad swing day (same reason I go down to an iron), and has the straight ball experience and consistency to pull it off. It's likely a rare day for him though.

Yes it's rare and I've not seen him start hitting irons until the back nine. Didn't mean he resorts to it as soon as he hits a very wayward 3-woods.

 

[wadesworld]

Sure there's a happy medium - a 300-yard drive and a 2-inch putt both cost us one stroke, and being good at both of them will save you more strokes than being good at only one of them.

With that said, I've never hit my putter out of bounds, into a pond, under bushes, in between trees, into a bunker, into deep rough, etc. My putter has never cost me a penalty stroke, and I've never had to hit a provisional ball after hitting my putter. It's a less dangerous club to my game than my driver is.

Clearly you haven’t played enough golf if you haven’t done those things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

One problem I have understanding the "never three putt" choice probably stems from the fact I simply don't play with horrible putters. My home course is a classic "defense is the greens" design with large greens, multiple tiers or sections and generally speeds on the quicker side. I don't know that an awful putter would want to be a member at a course like that if it might mean literally taking 45 putts a round or something like that.

So there may be guys out there capable of wasting as many strokes on the green as I can chipping out of the woods after numerous bad drivers per round. I just wouldn't normally see them putt.

 

[goalie]

For the higher handicappers like myself, driving well off the tee is most important. Guys like me are not good enough to play our way out of bad spots. We need the fairways to give ourselves a chance. Its a lot more enjoyable hitting off the short grass than from the rough. Or worse. After years of struggling with the driver I finally found something that works. For the past year and a half the driver has been my most consistent club overall. And I score in the mid to upper 90's. Can you imagine how that score card would look if I couldn't hit fairways?

I can.

It was me last year.

It's more fun when you're hitting fairways and greens.

 

[OldandStiff]

So I was thinking, 'What's the difference between a really good putter, and a really bad putter? 10 strokes? 30 vs. 40?' My reason behind that was that I think there can be way more than 10 strokes difference between a really good driver of the ball and really bad one.



And then I found this. So assuming this is accurate, 10 strokes putting.

Only 10 strokes.





sidenote - This isn't something I'm passionate about. Driving, nor putting top my list. I'm in a borderline food coma though, and being forced to watch World of Dance. So I need something to do.

 

[ShootzGolf]

Unlike others, I may have actually putted into the ocean once in hawaii.

That said, dropping 5+ OB tee shots from my average round has meant vastly better scores despite putting rather poorly this season.

Congrats on hitting the world's largest water hazard!

 

[rollin]

Obviously, an amateur player who struggles to break 80 has ball striking issues which contribute to his high scores. But the title of this thread reads "good golfers", and among that group tee-to-green game is consistently good, so "drive for show, putt for dough" is true.

I agree but actually breaking 90 regularly (not 80) is a struggle for those with ball striking issues.
Yes the saying I agree sort of holds more value for better players only who are all already efficient enough at the rest.

But due respect (and fun to debate) there can easily be argument with this at the better player levels too. What i mean is this..........take any two players who are of very similar ability and consistency in every area of play except one given area. And that area (whatever it is) will be the separator which then makes that player better and will win more often vs the other. It can be any part. Tee game, approach game, pitching, chips and or putts. Any two (or more) players comparable in all those areas except for one player who might excel a bit better in any one of those areas while all else and all others being equal then that player will hold the slight advantage over the others.
Two lights out putters of the ball are equally talented at putting and most everything else. One of them drives longer and straighter and so that player will hold the advantage over the other. Just is what it is.

 

[greenOak]

Exactly. And missing a 5 footer so badly that you have another 5 footer back is the same as hitting a drive out of bounds.

There's more to it than that, of course. People at my skill level are not supposed to make 5' putts every time, any more than we are going to hit the fairway every time. I don't know what the "average" range is, but I promise I'm worse than average at both for my skill level.

I need to improve both regardless of what Broadie's book or some archaic saying indicates.

The bottom line is that we all have strengths and weaknesses that are unique and we need to learn to recognize what that weakness is if we're going to put the right effort into improving our greatest weaknesses. Knowing what a common weakness is among the entire population does little to help me decide what is best for my game.

The knowledge that GIR have the highest correlation to score for most golfers does very little good if I'm already better than average with that skill (among my level) but poorer than average in others. I'm always going to suck at golf as long as I have some serious flaws in my game.

I think improvement and lower scores come from knowing your weaknesses and working on getting them closer to your strengths.

The bolded isn't true. Missing a five footer and leaving yourself another five footer costs you 1 stroke, while hitting it OB costs you 2.

Obviously every aspect of the game matters, but its been proven (yes proven) time and time again that on average long game matters more than short game.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

The bolded isn't true. Missing a five footer and leaving yourself another five footer costs you 1 stroke, while hitting it OB costs you 2.

Obviously every aspect of the game matters, but its been proven (yes proven) time and time again that on average long game matters more than short game.

You may indeed followed that missed 5-footer by another missed 5-footer and, who knows, maybe another missed 5-footer if you're truly a awful putter.

But I think we all know that tee shot jacked OB costs you two strokes and you may well hit the second tee shot OB again. And again even?

Maybe the guys saying 3-putts cost them more than bad tee shots are the same guys who hit one OB and drop it in the fairway...

 

[greenOak]

You may indeed followed that missed 5-footer by another missed 5-footer and, who knows, maybe another missed 5-footer if you're truly a awful putter.

But I think we all know that tee shot jacked OB costs you two strokes and you may well hit the second tee shot OB again. And again even?

Maybe the guys saying 3-putts cost them more than bad tee shots are the same guys who hit one OB and drop it in the fairway...

OB costs you two shots because you’re in the exact same position as before but lying two strokes more. Missing a five footer and leaving yourself another five footer costs you one stroke because you’re in the same(ish) situation but lying one stroke more. I put the (ish) qualifier because not all five footers are of equal difficulty but if you assume the putt you leave yourself coming back is on average the same difficulty as the original one, the logic holds.

 

[rollin]

I’m a very good ball striker and a below average putter for my index. I spend most of my practice working on my putting but IMO great putters are born not made. I just didn’t get the putting gene, lol. Yesterday I shot 3 over and had 4 three putts and two other holes where I chipped up inside of 5 feet and missed the par putts. To be fair, they rolled the greens and they were running 12+ on the stimp meter - too fast for how much slope they have. Two others in my group putted off the green at least once when faced with a downhill putt. I’d love to be a better putter but given the choice on one or the other I’d rather be a great ball striker.

I recall from other past threads where you mention things about your greens and or putting difficulties at your course. It seems to me with your ability (being one heck of a scratch or better player) that on many other courses where the greens are not as ridiculous hard (like most courses the rest of us play on) and you would simply be even that much better.

 

[DG_1234]

Obviously every aspect of the game matters, but its been proven (yes proven) time and time again that on average long game matters more than short game.

In what context ? Are you including beginner and, or, hackers who routinely duff shots ?

 

[greenOak]

In what context ? Are you including beginner and, or, hackers who routinely duff shots ?

From strokes gained stats. On the PGA tour the best players over the course of an entire season tend to be the best long game players. At the amateur level, what seperates 100-shooters from 90-shooters is about two-thirds long game and one-third short game. This ratio occurs at every level of play. Mark Broadie's book "Every Shot Counts" is a great read on the topic.

 

[rollin]

part of the problem with debating this topic is that the OP title mentions "Good players"
And while I am (especially for those who know me for years here) a huge advocate and debtor for implying in favor of that all parts of the game from tee till holed is of equal value,..........I will also say it is correct that short greenside game and putting being more important is indeed true for better and best players and or if one want to get to be one.

My whole argument for short game ( greenside game and putting ) being no more important than anything else was always based on the fact that its only true for those who already have little to no difficulty getting on or near most all greens regularly in GIR amount of strokes. Only when its a given that one can do that does the putting and or other greenside short stuff then become sort of more important. But thats not most folks. Many folks who play the game are mid and certainly most are high cappers and either of whom are not able to get on or near most greens in GIR amount of strokes. Mostly due to general ball striking issues and therefore those issues hold great value and everything is important equaly. Strokes are strokes regardless where they happened or came from.

But for those fortunate enough to be consistent enough at getting to and near greens in GIR amount of strokes on a regular basis where as its almost a given? Then they must treat the short stuff and putting with more value cause that is where they will have the most to gain. Also work on mid approach game too so they can hit more greens.

Its all important everywhere and it simply all depends just wherever it is the individual hurts himself the most which then imo should become the focal point of importance at that time.

 

[DG_1234]

At the amateur level, what seperates 100-shooters from 90-shooters is about two-thirds long game and one-third short game.

I can believe the ratio you state may be true when it comes to comparing a 100 shooter to a 90 shooter. The 100 shooter is duffing shots, which means he/she is often way out of position when playing a golf hole. Sure the duffer's ball is so far out of position that his deficient long game can absolutely be hurting his/her score.
But at a higher skill level, for example ones with scoring averages of 75 or better, every player in this group is within 10 yards of all 18 greens all day long everyday. So the scoring factor separating one player from another in this group is always chipping/pitching/bunker play and putting.
Nobody consistently hits 18 greens. No matter how good the player's swing technique may be , the weather conditions, bad lies, bad bounces etc... will always contribute to some missed greens. So the guy with the great looking swing, sweet impact sound, great looking ball flight etc.... ends up missing greens just like the guy whose swing and shots don't look so good but end up on or next to the greens all day long. And since tee to green here is not much different, the guy who makes putts is usually the guy who shoots the lowest score.

 

[J13*]

I still agree with that premise.
IF you can't putt then it doesn't matter how far you drive it.
If you 3 jack every green it's going to be hard to score well.

But you can be short and still score well with good scrambling ability.

Jmho

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The premise undervalues the importance of being in the fairway off the tee and is wrong. You can be the best putter on the planet but if you miss every fairway and you're playing from the tree's all day you won't score worth a crap. And last time I checked you can't hit one OB or in a hazard with a putter. It's a horrible saying but caught on because it rhymes and people are easily amused.

 

[JonMA1]

The bolded isn't true. Missing a five footer and leaving yourself another five footer costs you 1 stroke, while hitting it OB costs you 2.

Really? Because making the 5' putt coming back is guaranteed? Sorry if I'm missing something.

but its been proven (yes proven) time and time again that on average long game matters more than short game.

Where in my post did I say that wasn't true on average? My point is that individuals may be better served knowing what their weaknesses are instead of going by the average of a population. I believe I'm more familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of my game than Broadie. Of course, I can blindly go by what the statistics strongly indicate (not the same as proof by the way) and devote more time to hitting GIR. Maybe I'll get so good that I can hit my approach shots to within 3' on 12 of 18 holes laughing. That way, I don't have to worry about a crappy short game or putting.

Just so there's no confusion, I believe that Broadie's conclusions are accurate. I just get tired of people using those conclusions to argue against those who fall outside the norm as though the chances are remote.

 

[greenOak]

I can believe the ratio you state may be true when it comes to comparing a 100 shooter to a 90 shooter. The 100 shooter is duffing shots, which means he/she is often way out of position when playing a golf hole.
But at a higher skill level, for example ones with scoring averages of 75 or better, every player in this group is within 10 yards of all 18 greens all day long everyday. So the factor separating one player from another in this group is always chipping/pitching/bunker play and putting.
Nobody consistently hits 18 greens. No matter how good the player's swing technique may be , the weather conditions, bad lies, bad bounces etc... will always contribute to some missed greens. So the guy with the great looking swing, sweet impact sound, great looking ball flight etc.... ends up missing greens just like the guy whose swing and shots don't look so good but end up on or next to the greens all day long. And since tee to green here is not much different, the guy who makes putts is usually the guy who shoots the lowest score.

At elite levels ball-striking is less about how many greens you hit and more about proximity to the hole. Nobody on tour is missing that many greens from 175 and in, but certain players are definitely stuffing it to one-putt distance more often than others. Also, in this day and age its pretty obvious there's a huge advantage to hitting it 310 instead of 290. Check the profile of the top guys on tour on PGA.com's website - basically all of them are gaining more strokes driving + approach, then short game + putting.

 

[greenOak]

Really? Because making the 5' putt coming back is guaranteed? Sorry if I'm missing something.


Where in my post did I say that wasn't true on average? My point is that individuals may be better served knowing what their weaknesses are instead of going by the average of a population. I believe I'm more familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of my game than Broadie. Of course, I can blindly go by what the statistics strongly indicate (not the same as proof by the way) and devote more time to hitting GIR. Maybe I'll get so good that I can hit my approach shots to within 3' on 12 of 18 holes laughing. That way, I don't have to worry about a crappy short game or putting.

Just so there's no confusion, I believe that Broadie's conclusions are accurate. I just get tired of people using those conclusions to argue against those who fall outside the norm as though the chances are remote.

The long game > short game thing wasn't directed at you personally.

As for the 5' putt - sure you might miss the five footer coming back again, but you might also drill another ball OB after hitting your first ball OB as well. At the end of the day you're in the same situation you were in as before but lying one stroke more. Stroke + distance penalties put you in the same situation as before, but you are now lying two more strokes (ie. hitting 3 off the tee, instead of 1). It's the same reason why outright whiffing on a shot is better than hitting it OB.

 

[rollin]

I cant recall nor find who/where but someone mentioned "saving strokes" via making a putt. Sometimes folks will also mention "making up for a stroke"
I do not like either those terminologies. Imo there is no such thing. A stroke spent on any shot is spent and no matter what happens next is still a stroke spent.

I believe the idea comes from the stat "save%" or the general saying that we speak of when referring to saving par. We will say "nice save".
But honestly imo that is not at all really relevant to the idea that we somehow saved or made up for a lost stroke. The stroke we lost (or spent) wherever it was from is still lost. It still is a spent stroke and it still adds into the final score. Nothing can make up for it because It never disappears regardless.

Hypothetically we can hit a tee shot into the woods (lost ball S&D) and then green the next tee shot and one-putt from 30 feet for a par. We didn't make up for the shot into the woods nor the fact that it costed two strokes just because we hit a second great tee shot and then made a great putt. That was still a spent stroke (and in this case costed 2) that still counts and adds into the score.

This idea that somehow (via great putting or short game) that we can make up for already spent strokes is ridiculous. There really is no such thing.

 

[DG_1234]

I believe the idea comes from the stat "save%" or the general saying that we speak of when referring to saving par. We will say "nice save".
But honestly imo that is not at all really relevant to the idea that we somehow saved or made up for a lost stroke.

The expression "nice save" does not suggest the player had somewhere "lost a stroke".
The expression comes from the belief that the player would have lost a stroke had he/she not made the saving putt. For example, "nice save" is typically used when a player runs his birdie putt lag well by the hole, yet ends up "saving par" by making the long comeback putt.

 

[JonMA1]

The long game > short game thing wasn't directed at you personally.

I understand that you were not saying it's true for everyone. But you may (or may not depending on what other golf forums you belong to) be surprised how many arguments one will get into when they claim their putting or short game is worse than their full swing.

My post was not to argue against statistics - and I certainly don't buy into the Drive for show, putt for dough way of thinking. I was just trying to point out that we should know our own game. Not my intention to go off-topic, just adding another opinion to the whole argument. I've never read Every Stroke Counts, but I get the work put into it and some of the resulting conclusions. I just don't believe any part of the game is monumentally more important than any other. Maybe that's wrong when describing the general population.

You may indeed followed that missed 5-footer by another missed 5-footer and, who knows, maybe another missed 5-footer if you're truly a awful putter.

But I think we all know that tee shot jacked OB costs you two strokes and you may well hit the second tee shot OB again. And again even?

Maybe the guys saying 3-putts cost them more than bad tee shots are the same guys who hit one OB and drop it in the fairway...

I only drop for pace of play. And yes, my tee game is so bad I can hit two OB in row just as I can 3-jack a 5' putt. That said, I've had rounds without penalties and shot about the same high scores. All that indicates (to me) is that high cappers have weaknesses in every area.

GameGolf (the app) uses the strokes gained methodology to determine a players weaknesses against other levels of golfers. Against other high cappers, it indicates my short game as being the biggest weakness. I just don't see it.

 

[rollin]

The expression "nice save" does not suggest the player had somewhere "lost a stroke".
The expression comes from the belief that the player would have lost a stroke had he/she not made the saving putt. For example, "nice save" is typically used when a player runs his birdie putt lag well by the hole, yet ends up "saving par" by making the long comeback putt.

true it doesnt suggest we lost a stroke prior. But many folks don use the terminology when discussing importance of greenside game and putting and will often say its where we save or make up strokes for past lost/spent ones. And truth is there is no such thing.