Is driving or putting harder? The math...

[Louis_Posture]

Putting is way harder, much less tolerances for misses

This is true, but people do not realize it because a mishit putt is less obvious than a mishit tee shot.

 

[leftshot]

I don't believed there are as many variable or complexities as you suggest. For example, one common factor is that all players miss greens. If you understand that fact then it is easy to understand that what matters most to score is a player's chipping, pitching, bunker play skill.
I can guarantee you that whomever wins the Masters this week will consistently get the ball up and down when he has missed a green. And the same is true for the PGA Championship next month or the US Open in June or the July British Open. All very different courses but all requiring to win the tournament playing chips, pitches and bunker shots next to the hole.

Actually, you just added to the list of variables that have to be taken into account to evaluate which is harder driving or putting.

A player who misses the green on most approach shots and consistently chips it inside of a 3 foot circle may have the impression that putting is easier. But that is only because they are faced with easier putts then the player who consistently hits approach shots on the green but averages a proximity of 35 feet from the pin. The first and second player’s impression of which is harder is almost entirely divorced from their skill level. A classic example of what they feel not being real.

 

[Louis_Posture]

Actually, you just added to the list of variables that have to be taken into account to evaluate which is harder driving or putting.

A player who misses the green on most approach shots and consistently chips it inside of a 3 foot circle may have the impression that putting is easier. But that is only because they are faced with easier putts then the player who consistently hits approach shots on the green but averages a proximity of 35 feet from the pin. The first and second player’s impression of which is harder is almost entirely divorced from their skill level. A classic example of what they feel not being real.

I think we may be discussing two different subjects here. I replied to your statement that you were a "math nerd" who believed that there were "too many variables to make a valid mathematical analysis". And I wrote that missing greens is a constant, something literally every player does.

 

[JonMA1]

This is true, but people do not realize it because a mishit putt is less obvious than a mishit tee shot.

Not sure I’d agree. On a short, straight putt, or a mid length lag putt, I can usually tell right away when I put a poor stroke on the ball. And it’s every bit as disappointing as when I hit a drive that requires a punch out.

I think expectations play a role, however. I expect to sink 3’ and under putts and lag and 2-putt 20’ putts. Not 100% of the time, but a very high percentage of the time. Drives I expect to miss the fairway quite often but feel like I shouldn’t get as many penalties or cause as many punch-outs as I do.

In other words, it’s not my expectation to sink 20’ putts any more than than it is to make center of face contact and have the face perfectly square on every drive.

But with my game, the execution it takes to get a 20’ to within 2-3’ of the pin seems easier than the execution it takes to hit a drive that will provide a successful 2nd shot.

As for full swing approach shots, my expectation is to get close to the green - not always on the green and certainly not to leave a tap in putt. Those things will randomly happen but it isn’t always the plan or expectation.

With a partial wedge to the green I have much tighter goals and expectations… unreasonable expectations apparently.

But here’s the thing, my expectations, strengths, and weaknesses are not going to match someone else’s, even another high capper. And I think that’s what folks look for or try to convey in these types of threads. They’re fun to discuss but there usually is no cut and dried, right or wrong opinion.

 

[Louis_Posture]

Not sure I’d agree. On a short, straight putt, or a mid length lag putt, I can usually tell right away when I put a poor stroke on the ball.

My point is that the player and everybody in the group recognizes a sliced-into-the-trees tee shot, and the player is embarrassed.
However a mishit 10 foot putt is typically ignored. The player knows he is not "supposed to make a 10 footer" so he is not ashamed. And the other players in the group think he may have misread the putt rather than mishit it.
At the end of the day most players seem to consider themselves a "decent putter" or a "respectable putter", only because all skill level players miss putts. But slicing tee shots into the woods or duffing 7-iron shots 30 yards short of the green screams "hacker" , so the player tends to feel bad those full shot misses while ignoring mishit putts.

 

[collegefbfan]

The only courses I have ever played in my life are par 3's, and that was years ago. I never had a putt go into the water and never had a putt go OB. Wish I could say the same for out of the tee box.

 

[wadesworld]

All I know is I've never taken a penalty stroke as a result of a putt.

Never? Consider yourself elite. I've putted one off a green into a hazard, and just recently played the smart play with a putter from off the green that took the monster break and wouldn't stop as it rolled down lightning fast green, across the closely shaved bank into the water.

But yeah, certainly less likely.

 

[leftshot]

My point is that the player and everybody in the group recognizes a sliced-into-the-trees tee shot, and the player is embarrassed.
However a mishit 10 foot putt is typically ignored. The player knows he is not "supposed to make a 10 footer" so he is not ashamed. And the other players in the group think he may have misread the putt rather than mishit it.
At the end of the day most players seem to consider themselves a "decent putter" or a "respectable putter", only because all skill level players miss putts. But slicing tee shots into the woods or duffing 7-iron shots 30 yards short of the green screams "hacker" , so the player tends to feel bad those full shot misses while ignoring mishit putts.

I’d be interested in other’s experience, but in my experience this is generally true only when the other players in the group are also fairly poor putters.

Keeping in mind that all really good putters were once poor or inexperienced putters, they’ve made all the same mistakes. They just learned how to overcome them.

After seeing a player take a few strokes the good putter knows at the other player’s setup whether they have read the putt correctly or not. At the strike they immediately know if the other player struck it well, pushed it, pulled it, hit it too short or too hard.

This can reveal itself real fast in 4 player scrambles. Good groups learn to identify the skilled putters in their group early on (if they have one). They then have them read the putt and provide the line. The skilled putter also knows how to identify the tendencies of his playing partners. Who likes to die it in the hole. Who pulls every stroke. Which player strokes the ball differently every time, and so on.

They then use that information to order who putts first, second, third and last, and to help with setup and instructions to give each player the best chance.

 

[InTheRough]

You're playing against a pro. You're on a par 3 with a large green. It's 230 yds. You have a choice. You can play him on the green from 10', or from the tee box. I think this answers the question. You'll pick playing him on the green from 10'. You have a better chance of sinking that putt than you do landing on the green.

 

[Daddio]

You're playing against a pro. You're on a par 3 with a large green. It's 230 yds. You have a choice. You can play him on the green from 10', or from the tee box. I think this answers the question. You'll pick playing him on the green from 10'. You have a better chance of sinking that putt than you do landing on the green.

If forced to bet, we'd all pretty much opt for the 10 foot putt vs a 130 yard ... or 30 yard shot too though right? Pros do everything better.

 

[OldandStiff]

I've seen hundreds of players shoot a low score because they made lots of putts. I've never seen a player shoot a low score because he drove the ball great.

Right because putting is easier.

 

[leftshot]

You're playing against a pro. You're on a par 3 with a large green. It's 230 yds. You have a choice. You can play him on the green from 10', or from the tee box. I think this answers the question. You'll pick playing him on the green from 10'. You have a better chance of sinking that putt than you do landing on the green.

I like that you brought this into the discussion, but here are my questions. Why a pro? Why a par 3? Why 230 yards? Why a 10 foot putt? These all seem arbitrary criteria and don’t even match the original question.

The question was not which is more difficult to achieve pro-level performance? In the scenario you describe the pro isn’t going to even have a driver in his hand. He’s going to probably have a 4 or 5-iron. Are you really measuring which skill is more difficult to master or just which scenario you are less likely to be embarrassed?

 

[TxAggie2018]

My point is that the player and everybody in the group recognizes a sliced-into-the-trees tee shot, and the player is embarrassed.
However a mishit 10 foot putt is typically ignored. The player knows he is not "supposed to make a 10 footer" so he is not ashamed. And the other players in the group think he may have misread the putt rather than mishit it.
At the end of the day most players seem to consider themselves a "decent putter" or a "respectable putter", only because all skill level players miss putts. But slicing tee shots into the woods or duffing 7-iron shots 30 yards short of the green screams "hacker" , so the player tends to feel bad those full shot misses while ignoring mishit putts.

No golfer on Earth makes 10 footers consistently. Putting is too much of a crapshoot.

 

[InTheRough]

I like that you brought this into the discussion, but here are my questions. Why a pro? Why a par 3? Why 230 yards? Why a 10 foot putt? These all seem arbitrary criteria and don’t even match the original question.

The question was not which is more difficult to achieve pro-level performance? In the scenario you describe the pro isn’t going to even have a driver in his hand. He’s going to probably have a 4 or 5-iron. Are you really measuring which skill is more difficult to master or just which scenario you are less likely to be embarrassed?

To me it's obvious. Putting is much easier than driving. It requires far less athletic ability. Even on my worst ball striking days I can still putt well. As a rule, my worst putt will be better than even my best chip. It's about managing your expectations. Same with every shot on the course. I might miss that 10' - 20' putt, but the next putt will be almost automatic. Leaving myself in perfect position on the fairway with a driver is a lot more difficult. Aim with a driver? Yeah, maybe, but it's a crap shoot where the ball ends up.

 

[MacTourney]

Even on my worst ball striking days I can still putt well. As a rule, my worst putt will be better than even my best chip.

Pretty good rule.

 

[leftshot]

To go back to the original post, even though I think this is very difficult to reduce to mathematical analysis, if I were to try this is how I'd approach the problem.

1. Define the criteria for success and failure. The first thing you'd have to do is to create criteria that define in objective terms success and failure for any putt or any drive. While there are lots of studies that make up their own criteria (think of most of those "best of" or "worst of" lists) the fact is if you don't come up with criteria most people agree with few people are going to put any stock in your results.

2. Define who you are evaluating. Is this harder for the pro golfer? Harder for the mid-handicap player? Harder for beginners? Harder for the avid golfer? Harder for the typical golfer with a day job?

3. Determine a source or methodology for collecting data. Depending on how you define the criteria for success and failure and who you are evaluating, it's possible no known dataset exists. If that is the case, then you'd have to set up an experiment to collect the data that is extensive enough to pass statistical analysis resulting in a reasonable standard deviation.

You may also need a control group, an agreed-upon set of conditions for data collection. For example: wind, slope, temperature, and other factors can influence the results and must be controlled within reasonable and agreed-upon limits.

But this is enough to make the point. Without established criteria, we are left to create our own criteria, which in most posts is either unspoken, and/or undefined as in a dataset of one: 'to me X appears harder'.

 

[rollin]

I've seen hundreds of players shoot a low score because they made lots of putts. I've never seen a player shoot a low score because he drove the ball great.

But that low score also meant the player was not erratic (penal) nor poor enough to add strokes off the tee. Your forgetting that part. Low scores cant materialize unless tee shots are respectably in play and with respectable distance.

 

[Templet0n]

I will always contend that the driver is the most important club in the bag to get right..

 

[rollin]

I understand some people like to believe if they hit longer drives they will have shorter clubs into greens and have shorter birdie putts etc... But that is nonsense theory.
The reality is that no matter how long or how straight a player drives the ball he will average missing 5 or 6 greens per round. It should be obvious to anyone who plays golf or watches golf that the most important factor to scoring average is whether the player is able to get the ball up and down when he misses a green.
It's not rocket science. When Tiger was in his prime playing a chip shot or pitch shot or bunker shot he hit it next to the hole and made the putt. This is how he made 142 cuts in a row, a sensational record of consistent low scoring.
Anybody thinking they need to hit the tee shot longer to shoot lower scores should first ask themselves if they hit their chips, pitches, bunker shots next to the hole.

the issue here is that when this is discussed we must relate it only to a same person. In this sense any given player will be better off if that same player is longer and more consistent off the tee then he she was prior. Just the same way an given person will be better if he becomes better at chips. pitches, putting, or irons and approaches, .....he will also be better player with better tee shots. Anyone who plays should know the better they are off tees the better they will play. Any part of ones game that gets better will lead to better playing vs prior.

You mention pros. You know why short stuff becomes such a difference maker for pros? Its because they are among their peers where as they all are getting on or near greens in a regulation amount of strokes constantly. It is a given thier tee games are efficient enough and then so thats why the difference maker then can becomes the short and putting. Show me any pro who isnt getting on or near green in gir amount of strokes and you'll be showing me a person not on tour or who didnt make the cut.

We amateurs (most of us mid and higher cappers) usually have too many poorer and or outright failed tee shots.
I know for me as a mid/hihg cap (and many out there) we dont stand a chance of shooting sub 90 unless we are getting off the tees at least respectable enough majority of the time. Too many holes (from tee) causing any of possible dozen recovery or makeup shots or outright penal shots and its too much to overcome even if the putting and greenside game is good enough. The damage is already done as for scoring lower.

So imo you would be wrong. It would be factual that any player who gets better off tees (longer and or more consistent) will (just like any other area of play) be a better player because of it. It is not nonsense at all that if we consistently have a shorter approach into greens and also from more desirable lies and positioning it all will help us lower our scores.

 

[rollin]

I don't believed there are as many variable or complexities as you suggest. For example, one common factor is that all players miss greens. If you understand that fact then it is easy to understand that what matters most to score is a player's chipping, pitching, bunker play skill.
I can guarantee you that whomever wins the Masters this week will consistently get the ball up and down when he has missed a green.

but here again your comparing tour pros and also doing so vs each other where as its a given they are all consistently efficient at getting on or near enough greens within gir amount of strokes consistently. You think any player who has 2 penalty strokes as well as 4 more recovery strokes due to poor tee game is wining? And that would be an average and even better day for majority of us hackers out in the real world off the tees. bottom line is any player will be better if he improves at any part of the game including tees.

 

[Louis_Posture]

the issue here is that when this is discussed we must relate it only to a same person. In this sense any given player will be better off if that same player is longer and more consistent off the tee then he she was prior. Just the same way an given person will be better if he becomes better at chips. pitches, putting, or irons and approaches, .....he will also be better player with better tee shots. Anyone who plays should know the better they are off tees the better they will play. Any part of ones game that gets better will lead to better playing vs prior.

You mention pros. You know why short stuff becomes such a difference maker for pros? Its because they are among their peers where as they all are getting on or near greens in a regulation amount of strokes constantly. It is a given thier tee games are efficient enough and then so thats why the difference maker then can becomes the short and putting. Show me any pro who isnt getting on or near green in gir amount of strokes and you'll be showing me a person not on tour or who didnt make the cut.

We amateurs (most of us mid and higher cappers) usually have too many poorer and or outright failed tee shots.
I know for me as a mid/hihg cap (and many out there) we dont stand a chance of shooting sub 90 unless we are getting off the tees at least respectable enough majority of the time. Too many holes (from tee) causing any of possible dozen recovery or makeup shots or outright penal shots and its too much to overcome even if the putting and greenside game is good enough. The damage is already done as for scoring lower.

So imo you would be wrong. It would be factual that any player who gets better off tees (longer and or more consistent) will (just like any other area of play) be a better player because of it. It is not nonsense at all that if we consistently have a shorter approach into greens and also from more desirable lies and positioning it all will help us lower our scores.

My point is that no matter how good a player is from the tee boxes (or from the fairway playing approach shots) he will still miss greens. Every player misses greens, period.
Tiger Woods in his prime missed 4 to 5 greens every round he played. Missing greens in regulation is the one part of the game shared by players of all skill levels.
So, hitting long drives is overrated because the player will still miss greens. What matters for tee box play is that the player put his tee shot in position so that he can get his approach shot near the green. And for scoring what matters is that he leaves his chips-pitches-bunker shots near the hole for a 5 foot or less one putt.

 

[rollin]

My point is that no matter how good a player is from the tee boxes (or from the fairway playing approach shots) he will still miss greens. Every player misses greens, period.
Tiger Woods in his prime missed 4 to 5 greens every round he played. Missing greens in regulation is the one part of the game shared by players of all skill levels.
So,Michaela Conlin. And for scoring what matters is that he leaves his chips-pitches-bunker shots near the hole for a 5 foot or less one putt.

what you said when referencing hitting shorter approaches leading to more birdie opportunities was this...."Its nonsense theory" and that couldnt be more untrue. .
Most brids and even also pars are made by hitting greens, not by missing them and then holing out.

Te first thing one needs to do to score well is to put the ball at a respectable distance and position from the tees. One cannot score real well if his chip or pitch or putt is already his 4th shot. Not even to mention for so many amateurs the 5th or 6th etc. Getting closer and in better position more consistently from tees plays a big role towards hitting more greens as well as getting closer to them when missing them. That will have you putting (even if further out) more often vs chip/pitching or also result in shorter chip/pitches too when green is missed but closer. One will score better being longer , straighter off tees. Its not overrated nonsense at all. Its factual.

Your also stating..."hitting long drives is overrated because the player will still miss greens"
But then go on to say..."What matters for tee box play is that the player put his tee shot in position so that he can get his approach shot near the green"
Those are contradicting because longer (and straighter) (or in other words over all better) drives aids in ending up near more greens, In fact it aids in hitting more and missing closer to them when you do miss.

None of this dismisses the need to improve chips/pitches/putts and also approach shots mid/long. But it does dismiss the idea that driving better is overrated , or nonsense, or any less important. Its all related equally and its all very tied together equally. Each piece aids in better setting up the next piece.

If you played against yourself right now where as version B was longer and more consistent (improved) from the tees (all else being equal) , he would beat version A every time. Its no different than if your version B had improved at getting up/ and down. All else being equal again version B wins. Its the same thing, None of it is nonsense nor overrated nor somehow less important.

 

[MacTourney]

I haven't paid attention to math since high school, no need to start now.

Obviously driving and putting are two different games in a broad sense. While driving you're 'finding' a fairway but while putting you're on a green already found. In putting we're more intrinsically involved with distance but driving seems to be a pursuit tied more to direction, overall.

 

[tahoebum]

Two golfers of the same index will give you different answers on which is easier. I will always say driving the ball and hitting GIR is easier than putting but holing putts from 6-15 feet has always been a weakness for me even when I devote most of my practice time to it. It’s common for me to have 13+ birdie putts per round and only make one or two of them, but I have a buddy who is a 8 index who’s make percentage in that 6-15 foot range is double or triple what mine is. He drives the ball a lot worse than I do but holing those putts under 15 feet has always been easy for him.

Let’s take Scottie Scheffler who is 96th in stroke gained putting but 2nd on Tour in strokes gained off the tee. He is also 1st in strokes gained on approaches so he would likely tell you that putting is harder.

For the guys at the PGA Tour and lessor Tour level, I’d guess great putters are more rare than great ball strikers.

 

[rollin]

My point is that the player and everybody in the group recognizes a sliced-into-the-trees tee shot, and the player is embarrassed.
However a mishit 10 foot putt is typically ignored. The player knows he is not "supposed to make a 10 footer" so he is not ashamed. And the other players in the group think he may have misread the putt rather than mishit it.
At the end of the day most players seem to consider themselves a "decent putter" or a "respectable putter", only because all skill level players miss putts. But slicing tee shots into the woods or duffing 7-iron shots 30 yards short of the green screams "hacker" , so the player tends to feel bad those full shot misses while ignoring mishit putts.

That is some points I can agree with. The appearance of missing a 10 footer to the right side is much less noticeable (and more acceptable) thing in our minds than slicing one into the right woods. We may be disappointed we missed the 10 footer but we also know we got the second putt from (hopefully) much closer. But putting one into the woods is much more a noticeable offense and may very often be worth 2 strokes (due to stroke and distance) (not 1). But also it could result in more strokes than that because recovery shots (even smarter choice ones) can often now pose their own risks and compound the issue even further.

T