tdogg21joshgianoHummm this is an interesting one. I agree it would be easier to hide a poor short game than a poor long game. If you're putting yourself into trouble off the tee, or relying on 5 irons into every green you will not score well. On the flip side, if you 3 putt every green it's all but impossible to make a birdie. I think putting is without a doubt the most important thing you can do. If it was all long game, Jamie Sadlowski would be leading the money list. If you play the course the way it's drawn up, putting is literally half your score.
I'm not a long hitter by any means, but I get it up and down, I rarely 3 putt, and I'll drop some birds when I hit the green. My short game always saves my terrible long game.
I agree that Molinari would SMOKE me off the tee and probably from the fairway. He's right, putting would be 90% of armatures only shot at beating him at golf; however, ask yourself this, would you rather be 30 yards longer off the tee, or 3 yards closer on every approach?
If you lead the field in GIR and Putting it's impossible to lose. Leading the field in strokes gained driving doesn't equal a big check...
i think they are lumping approach shots and tee shots together. so i guess the question would be, do you want to be deadly from 10-12 feet from the hole, but never get an approach shot that close or be average from 10 feet but have your approaches that close on almost every hole?
Neither! That would be terrible. You'd be like Sisyphus rolling that boulder. I think you can break the game down a gazillion ways, but lumping anything that isn't a full swing against full swings isn't a good analysis IMO. When I think long game I think woods and maybe 5 iron and up. Anything 200/175 yards and out is long game to me.