Driving distance aside, what is the single biggest difference between tour players and scratch/good golfers?

[Mr_Wolfe]

Us, as golfers, can be very delusional at times - especially on short game. Reminds me of a guy in my golf league last who played in my 4-some. He was a 12 handicapper and shot a cool 39 on the course for 9 holes. A pretty good round for him, but as I am listening to him tell everyone it could have easily been a 35 or 36 because he lipped a few putts, I wanted to remind him that he chipped one in from 15 yards off the green and also drained a 25 and 40 footer. That 39 was closer to a 42 than a 35/36. 🙂

 

Mr. Wolfe

[Obee]

These questions are never very interesting to me because "the average scratch golfer" isn't anybody I know.

 

Every scratch golfer is different. Some hit it 240. Some hit it 275. Some hit it 320. Some have tour-level wedge games. Some have horrible wedge games. Some have the yips and lose 2 - 3 strokes a round putting. Some have horrible, error-filled short games. Some are absolute mental midgets who can't get out of their own way. Some ...

 

I mean, what's the point of the question? Comparing an average to an average doesn't seem like it tells you much that is interesting. Now comparing an individual player's game to the tour guys? That's interesting to me.

 

The guy who averages 254 off the tee is giving up significant strokes in every round he plays, so in order for that guy to play at scratch or below, that means he's quite good in other areas. Probably a good to extremely good putter. Probably a very good wedge player. Probably makes very few big mistakes and has a reliable, if not tour-quality short game.

 

Then there's the scratch guy who hits it 310. He clearly has issues up and down the bag if he can hit it that far, but is only scratch.

 

Anywho. Carry on! 😉

 

 

[MK7Golf21]

6 minutes ago, Obee said:

These questions are never very interesting to me because "the average scratch golfer" isn't anybody I know.

 

Every scratch golfer is different. Some hit it 240. Some hit it 275. Some hit it 320. Some have tour-level wedge games. Some have horrible wedge games. Some have the yips and lose 2 - 3 strokes a round putting. Some have horrible, error-filled short games. Some are absolute mental midgets who can't get out of their own way. Some ...

 

I mean, what's the point of the question? Comparing an average to an average doesn't seem like it tells you much that is interesting. Now comparing an individual player's game to the tour guys? That's interesting to me.

 

The guy who averages 254 off the tee is giving up significant strokes in every round he plays, so in order for that guy to play at scratch or below, that means he's quite good in other areas. Probably a good to extremely good putter. Probably a very good wedge player. Probably makes very few big mistakes and has a reliable, if not tour-quality short game.

 

Then there's the scratch guy who hits it 310. He clearly has issues up and down the bag if he can hit it that far, but is only scratch.

 

Anywho. Carry on! 😉

 

 

Good post, it’s not that simple of an answer although some would like to believe it to be. 

[cgasucks]

18 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

Bank accounts.

 

Also, tour pros usually don't pay for their own clothes, shoes, balls, and clubs.

[Tpfol]

I thought making a list of things that good/scratch players are closest to tour level would be interesting.

So far I've got:

1. Making putts from 6 inches away

That's about it

[MonteScheinblum]

15 minutes ago, Obee said:

These questions are never very interesting to me because "the average scratch golfer" isn't anybody I know.

 

Every scratch golfer is different. Some hit it 240. Some hit it 275. Some hit it 320. Some have tour-level wedge games. Some have horrible wedge games. Some have the yips and lose 2 - 3 strokes a round putting. Some have horrible, error-filled short games. Some are absolute mental midgets who can't get out of their own way. Some ...

 

I mean, what's the point of the question? Comparing an average to an average doesn't seem like it tells you much that is interesting. Now comparing an individual player's game to the tour guys? That's interesting to me.

 

The guy who averages 254 off the tee is giving up significant strokes in every round he plays, so in order for that guy to play at scratch or below, that means he's quite good in other areas. Probably a good to extremely good putter. Probably a very good wedge player. Probably makes very few big mistakes and has a reliable, if not tour-quality short game.

 

Then there's the scratch guy who hits it 310. He clearly has issues up and down the bag if he can hit it that far, but is only scratch.

 

Anywho. Carry on! 😉

 

 

While I agree with your sentiment, every one of the discussions here is about all of us trying to get better.

 

This one is about how to get better.  The obvious answer is make everything better.  However, hitting it better is the fastest way to get to the next level….without neglecting other areas.  That’s the hard part.

[PJ1120]

41 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

In most debates in golf and life, you can always find data that supports both sides and you can present the data to fit your belief.  In this case, the short game rules all crowd has

 

I know you are, but what am I

Im rubber, you're glue

I don’t make trash I burn it

I just know

 

The only data I have ever seen that supports that short game is the separator, is once every couple of years, a guy blows it all over the map and makes everything and finishes 3rd.

 

Having a good short game to recover when you hit a bad shot is huge. No one debates that.  However, common sense dictates a guy hitting 12 greens is going to almost always beat a guy who hit 6.  Does the guy who hits 6 beat the guy that hits 12 occasionally?  Of course, but it’s not the norm.

 

People lose sense of this because they all remember the times the guy that chipped in twice and bombed in a bunch of 40 footers, beat the guy that was 12 feet all day and kept burning edges….by 1.

 

The issue is that’s a 1 out if 10.  9 times out of 10 there are no chip ins, no bombed in 40 footers and not all of those 12 footers burned the edge and the ball striker wins by 5-10.

 

Have there been mediocre ball strikers that won on tour….of course.  However, most of the all time greats were known as great strikers.  Nicklaus was well known for his average short game.  As was Hogan.  People bring up Tiger’s short game wizardry, but we would have never seen it, had he not been possibly the greatest iron player of all time.

What about Seve?

[MonteScheinblum]

5 minutes ago, PJ1120 said:

What about Seve?

What about him?

[PJ1120]

1 minute ago, MonteScheinblum said:

What about him?

Hit it crooked all day long but one of the greatest players ever.

[Obee]

22 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

While I agree with your sentiment, every one of the discussions here is about all of us trying to get better.

 

This one is about how to get better.  The obvious answer is make everything better.  However, hitting it better is the fastest way to get to the next level….without neglecting other areas.  That’s the hard part.

Oh I agree with you completely, Monte. For the most part, "hitting it better" is the ticket for the amalgamated scratch golfer.

 

My point, though, is that if someone has a glaring weakness in their game that is not ball-striking related, then that weakness needs as much work (sometimes more!) as their ball striking.
 

For those players, they don't just need to "not neglect," that other part of the game, they need to fix that glaring weakness as much as they need to improve their ball striking.

 

I think there are more players out there like this than we think. Especially at the club scratch level. They are definitely not the majority, though. The majority of "scratch golfers" would, indeed, Benefit most by improving the ball striking.

 

Is that fair to say?

Edited January 30, 2022 by Obee
Typo

[ezpz]

11 minutes ago, PJ1120 said:

Hit it crooked all day long but one of the greatest players ever.

That was his reputation and his shortgame was magic for sure. But unless you actualy have stats that show he was a sub par ballstriker wtih amazing shortgame I wouldnt read too much into it.

[Obee]

17 minutes ago, PJ1120 said:

Hit it crooked all day long but one of the greatest players ever.

yes, he seemed to make up for his less than perfect ballstrstriking with an amazing short game and timely putting. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But the fact remains, the best way for him to improve as a player would have been to improve his ball striking. He would've won even more, right? 🙂

[PJ1120]

9 minutes ago, Obee said:

yes, he seemed to make up for his less than perfect ballstrstriking with an amazing short game and timely putting. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But the fact remains, the best way for him to improve as a player would have been to improve his ball striking. He would've won even more, right? 🙂

Absolutely

[glk]

12 minutes ago, ezpz said:

That was his reputation and his shortgame was magic for sure. But unless you actualy have stats that show he was a sub par ballstriker wtih amazing shortgame I wouldnt read too much into it.

Quick look at his pga stats show that thru the 80s he hit 65% of fairways off tee (few times got up to 70% and low 60s)  But he started to lose it in the mid 90s - both accuracy and distance.   Euro tour only has stats for 99-01 (ditto Faldo so probably didn’t keep records or lost them) and it was 42%, 32%, 42%.   Pretty much coincides with his record where he only won three times after 92 and last win was in 95.

[Nels55]

31 minutes ago, PJ1120 said:

Hit it crooked all day long but one of the greatest players ever.

 

19 minutes ago, ezpz said:

That was his reputation and his shortgame was magic for sure. But unless you actualy have stats that show he was a sub par ballstriker wtih amazing shortgame I wouldnt read too much into it.

 

LOL I believe that Seve hit the ball pretty darn good in his prime but people have the idea that he hit it badly and recovered all the time.  No way he would have won like he did doing that!  Another example might be Arnold Palmer who was one of the best tee to green golfers who ever lived but a lot of folks seem to think that he was really wild I guess because of his go for broke recovery reputation.  

[Obee]

5 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

 

 

LOL I believe that Seve hit the ball pretty darn good in his prime but people have the idea that he hit it badly and recovered all the time.  No way he would have won like he did doing that!  Another example might be Arnold Palmer who was one of the best tee to green golfers who ever lived but a lot of folks seem to think that he was really wild I guess because of his go for broke recovery reputation.  

My guess is that, in general, when Seve was winning or contending, he was striking the ball very well those weeks with a few notable exceptions, of course. It's hard to be one of the greatest players ever and not be a great ball striker. I just don't think he was a consistently great ball striker. 

 

simply meaning that he probably had more off days than other elite golfers?

[Nels55]

2 minutes ago, Obee said:

My guess is that, in general, when Seve was winning or contending, he was striking the ball very well those weeks with a few notable exceptions, of course. It's hard to be one of the greatest players ever and not be a great ball striker. I just don't think he was a consistently great ball striker. 

 

simply meaning that he probably had more off days than other elite golfers?

I was kind of thinking the same thing.  I think it is safe to say that Seve could score well on the off days with his ability to recover and get up and down from anywhere which added to his reputation.  I do not believe that there is any doubt that he had an amazingly good ability to recover from poor shots.  That said obviously he did not win without having a lot of good looks at birdie!

[golfarb1]

9 hours ago, gentles said:

the comment about ingrained habits being hard to change - why would that not apply to short game shots? If short game was easier for anyone to improve why are there bad chippers and pitchers on tour?

It does , but shorter slower swings have fewer moving parts and are easier to change . 
I don’t have a good answer to your second question. Maybe it is boring and difficult for them to practice their weaknesses . 
 

 

[glk]

26 minutes ago, golfarb1 said:

It does , but shorter slower swings have fewer moving parts and are easier to change . 
I don’t have a good answer to your second question. Maybe it is boring and difficult for them to practice their weaknesses . 
 

 

I can’t answer for all of the guys with poorer short games relative to the tour but I have followed Scott stalling since he frequently plays at the club I’m a member of.   Scott really leans it - Scott Hamilton commented about getting him to have less shaft lean.   This bleeds into his short game and he is especially weak in bunkers.    As ridyard says he wants to match a players short game to his long game and sometime tHe long game dna doesn’t play nicely with the short game.   Ditto Matt Wolff - his short game takeaway mirrors his long game and going back shut faced is a hard thing to make work in chips and pitches.    Furyk and Floyd were two guys that had short game swings that looked very convention compared to their long games and little surprise that they are two of the guys with great short games.

Edited January 29, 2022 by glk

[Ty_Webb]

3 hours ago, Obee said:

These questions are never very interesting to me because "the average scratch golfer" isn't anybody I know.

 

Every scratch golfer is different. Some hit it 240. Some hit it 275. Some hit it 320. Some have tour-level wedge games. Some have horrible wedge games. Some have the yips and lose 2 - 3 strokes a round putting. Some have horrible, error-filled short games. Some are absolute mental midgets who can't get out of their own way. Some ...

 

I mean, what's the point of the question? Comparing an average to an average doesn't seem like it tells you much that is interesting. Now comparing an individual player's game to the tour guys? That's interesting to me.

 

The guy who averages 254 off the tee is giving up significant strokes in every round he plays, so in order for that guy to play at scratch or below, that means he's quite good in other areas. Probably a good to extremely good putter. Probably a very good wedge player. Probably makes very few big mistakes and has a reliable, if not tour-quality short game.

 

Then there's the scratch guy who hits it 310. He clearly has issues up and down the bag if he can hit it that far, but is only scratch.

 

Anywho. Carry on! 😉

 

 

I think it’s reasonable to say that there are some scratch golfers who have tour level short games. The list of scratch golfers with tour level long games is very short indeed. 
 

3 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

While I agree with your sentiment, every one of the discussions here is about all of us trying to get better.

 

This one is about how to get better.  The obvious answer is make everything better.  However, hitting it better is the fastest way to get to the next level….without neglecting other areas.  That’s the hard part.

 

It’s almost certainly true that the most capacity for improvement for almost everyone is in the long game. That doesn’t necessarily mean that long game will present the easiest opportunity to improve. You could have scope to improve your long game by 8 shots and your short game by 2. It’s quite plausible that 2 shots will come more easily from your short game than your long game. That depends on the player. If they gain those two strokes then they’re still way worse than a tour player because their long game is severely lacking (relatively)

[golfarb1]

39 minutes ago, glk said:

I can’t answer for all of the guys with poorer short games relative to the tour but I have followed Scott stalling since he frequently plays at the club I’m a member of.   Scott really leans it - Scott Hamilton commented about getting him to have less shaft lean.   This bleeds into his short game and he is especially weak in bunkers.    As ridyard says he wants to match a players short game to his long game and sometime tHe long game dna doesn’t play nicely with the short game.   Ditto Matt Wolff - his short game takeaway mirrors his long game and going back shut faced is a hard thing to make work in chips and pitches.    Furyk and Floyd were two guys that had short game swings that looked very convention compared to their long games and little surprise that they are two of the guys with great short games.

Thanks for pointing out Scott Stallings .

IT certainly looks like he is considerably above average in lag. With that amount of lag at that point in his swing , just changing ball position and the position of the hands might not be enough for bunker shots 

[glk]

1 minute ago, golfarb1 said:

Thanks for pointing out Scott Stallings .

IT certainly looks like he is considerably above average in lag. With that amount of lag at that point in his swing , just changing ball position and the position of the hands might not be enough for bunker shots 

Yeah the other guy that plays is Peter malnati.   180* difference in games.   Malnati poor long game but good short and putting and Scott pretty much the opposite.     Malnati has increased his length and accuracy a bit and is turning into less of a hang on to your card guy.   Scott is still in search of the magic of his first few years on tour when he won 3 times - health issues derailed him and he hasn’t been able to get back to where he once was.  

[tomba51]

On 1/28/2022 at 4:50 PM, glk said:

  Fleetwood played some british golf teacher (can't recall which one) and spotted him 10 strokes and they tied.    

The guy that Fleetwood played was Rick Shiels. 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by tomba51

[vman]

5 hours ago, PJ1120 said:

Hit it crooked all day long but one of the greatest players ever.

Seve's ball striking was unbelievably good and he didn't win 5 Majors and 50 European Tour events spraying it all over the place and just chipping and putting. He also won the very 1st PGA Tour event he played in, The Westchester Classic 1978. I followed Seve many times when he never missed a fairway and other times when there were miraculous escapes or up and downs. The golf he played with a wooden driver, wound balls and knife like blades was mostly sublime, although admittedly, as he was one of the longest hitters he did hit it offline occasionally, though it is way overblown that he was all over the place and certainly not in his prime.

[golfarb1]

Although being scratch is a dream of the vast majority of players , scratch players . older than college age , face some real issues if they want to compete on a state wide , regional or national level . My guess is that + 2 is the minimum required to successfully compete in some of the Northern climes while + 4 would be required in warmer large  states like Fla, Tx and Ca. 
Improving by two strokes is probably within the reach of many scratch players, while few will ever improve by 4 strokes .

 

The boils down to two questions  

First remember we are talking about a 2-4 stroke improvement off of an already elevated base . 

1 .what parts of his / her game needs improvement . some scratch players have crappy short games - some scratch golfers are inconsistent iron players - some get into trouble off of the tee . There is no blanket recommendation that fits all no matter what the stats from the tour indicate . 

2. what is the most time efficient way to improve - few have the resources and time to become “golf bums”

 

Any swing changes required to improve by 2-4 strokes  will not come easy for most scratch players. The reason is simple - ingrained swing errors . These can be overcome with time and repetition under a watchful eye , but it will not be easy for most scratch players

 

One additional influence which negatively affects all swings is lack of mobility and weaknesses in specific muscles groups . Some swing changes are impossible without correcting these underlying physical causes 

 

 

 

 

[tthomasgolfer605]

6 hours ago, Obee said:

yes, he seemed to make up for his less than perfect ballstrstriking with an amazing short game and timely putting. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But the fact remains, the best way for him to improve as a player would have been to improve his ball striking. He would've won even more, right? 🙂

Seve tried to improve his ball striking with numerous 'Top instructors' and got worse. 

[tomba51]

11 minutes ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

Seve tried to improve his ball striking with numerous 'Top instructors' and got worse. 

Yes, if I remember correctly, at the time it was said that, in an effort to improve, he saw many teachers. Apparently when he was at his best he was a "feel" player. When he saw all those teachers, he became very mechanically minded, which did not suit his personality or his style of play.

Edited January 30, 2022 by tomba51

[tthomasgolfer605]

1 minute ago, tomba51 said:

Yes, if I remember correctly, at the time it was said that, in an effort to improve, he saw many teachers. Apparently when he was at his best he was a "feel" player. When he saw all those teachers, he became very mechanically minded , which did not suit his style of play.

He badly wanted to win The US Open. If they had played courses like Erin Hills or Chambers Bay back then, he would have had a better chance. 

 

[MuniChampion]

Single Biggest - my guess is - the percentage of putts made from inside 8 feet.

 

here are others

• Trackman and professional fittings - they know exactly what their spin rates are, get fit for the exact ball, exact lie/loft adjusted each week.
• Equipment - pros get unlimited free equipment, play new wedges every 5-6 weeks, play prototype clubs and balls, have pro grade training aids,  2,3,4 sets of eyes, physio, trainers, etc..
• Professional Caddy - giving distances, raking bunkers, 2nd opinions on putts. emotional support
• Swing Coaches - How many scratch golfers have a regular swing coach to-go and review
• Additional - Data services/Green Reading
• Play 1-2 full rounds on a course, then play it  - see if you play it better or not.

 

 

 

 

 

[berndgeurts]

Biggest difference: time spent on golf?