How important is the Full Swing in Scoring Low?
 

Full Swing? 20%? 40%? 60%?

Yogi-ish
 

I wanted to let it go, but I just couldn't.
It's 100% important depending on how you look at it.
It's all about samenesses and differences.
The players who score low have the imperatives, the essentials, the functions and great short games!
100 % of it's mental.
100 % of it's physical.
Now, get out there and give 110%!

Hmmm....
 

Well, if your full swing puts you in the trees, creeks, lakes, and deep stuff, then I'd say it's the most important item!

The saying "drive for show, putt for dough" to me is a little bit misleading. If you can't get off the tee you can't play the game.

I'm right there with ya Trig. I always thought they needed to change that saying to "Drive for dough, Putt for dough". I've seen plenty of guys who could scramble like heck and keep their score in the satisfactory range by putting well, but it's hard to take it deep if you don't give yourself reasonable birdie chances by hitting fairways and greens. (Of course there's nothing worse than getting beat by one of those guys when you're hitting 13 fairways, 15 greens and then putting it 36 times or so!) :mad:

I really think it depends upon the level you are playing at.

My accuracy off the tee is normally very good, if I miss a fairway we are talking about inches and feet normally. Problem is once the course distance goes past a certain length or it has all par 4's of 420 plus, then my scoring hurts. I am not a long hitter. The full swing for the second shots are critical if I am going to score well, else I am going to be scrambling all day for pars with no opportunities for any birdies.

It IMO is really a balance and it is dependent upon the golfer skills, physical capabilities and mental abilities.

I think the real answer lies on the score card. If you are carding anything more than a bogey, I beleive you need to rethink your choices. If everytime you miss a fairway and have to chip out, then I believe you need to rethink your choices. Long and lost or Long and a penalty stroke doesn't make for low scores.

It all counts on the score card...

I believe the importance of the long game is determined by

1) Short game ability and
2) Objectives in the game (single figure, scratch, tour etc)

scoring
 

Statistically speaking, the ONLY factor that determines your place on the money list is how well you scramble. BUT, as others have said "long and wrong" don't ring the gong. I think accuracy off the tee is probably more important than raw distance. But, if you are a shorter hitter, you had better have a very accurate fairway game with the longer clubs. Paul Runyon (Little Poison) springs to mind. ;)

Merry xmas,
Fred

That is true for Tour Professionals. For the average guy, short game is a way to easily improve. BUT, short game is useless for any competitive golf if you are hitting 3 from the tee a lot.

Even Pelz admitted there are ball striking minimums. He said that the tour guys average 7% error on full shots. The best players were lower and there were players that were higher. IIRC 10% error on full shots was the minimum for "tour" performance. If you couldn't manage 10% error on full shots, you weren't going to be on tour to have your scrambling measured.

The scrambling correalation isn't exactly true for the current top 5 money winners.
1. Tiger 1st in GIR, 10th scrambling
2.Furyk 5th in GIR, 4th scrambling
3. Mickelson 14th in GIR, 128th in scrambling
4. Ogilvie 144th in GIR, 50th in scrambling
5.Vijay 26th in GIR, 45th in scrambling

Looking at Tiger and Furyk, I think the GIR and Scrambling are linked. They aren't missing many greens, and I would bet that when they do, it isn't by much, leaving easier shortgame shots.

My $0.02


Spalding

Extremely important.... I don't think you can put a %age on it. But ultimately golf is a game of inches and feet....drive it in the rough and you don't control the approach as well, have trouble from 200 yds and you miss a couple of greens etc and people with major flaws hit it all over the place ...you don't get up and down from water...You just can't make many 15+ foot putts. And if you hit it too crooked you can't get yourself in positions to hit chips and pitches inside 6 or 7 ft. Clearly birdies come from good approaches or rare (at least for me rare)on the green in 2 par 5's ... you aren't on in 2 on a par 5 if you haven't hit it solid on your intended line.

Another related point... it is hard (not impossible, just hard)to have a good short game if your full swing isn't good. You can putt good with a poor full swing, but generally shots inside 100yds are mildly effected by the same issues that cause your full swing to suffer.

The first 6 months of this year I believed I had a real breakthrough... I'll spare you the details but I had a number of firsts and got my index down to .8.... but this is what I've found... I am hitting the ball straighter and more solidly than I've ever hit it... however, if I can't hit it further I'm not getting any better. I can't hit 175yd+ shots inside 15 ft. very often, so I may hit 14 gir... but if I'm not close enough it doesn't mean birdies.

I think high hc's can impact their score more quickly with short game... then, full swing is more important from say 12-13hc up to fairly high levels of amateurs... then pretty much everyone has a good full swing and short game becomes more and more important right thru to the pros, but you aren't going to chip in much and you don't make a lot of long putts so if you are going to win, you gotta control your golf ball.

Check out the PGA stats for par 5 birdies.
Seems to be the most revelant stat other than scoring average.
Long and straight off the tee and fairway seems to rule.