Is there a correlation between a poor full swing takeaway and being trash in short game?

[betarhoalphadelta]

So... Indulge me on a little bit of a theory. 

 

People who have seen my swing improvement thread know I'm currently working on improving my takeaway. It's a lot of arms / little chest, rolling the forearms, late wrist hinge, club coming inside/flat... It's terrible. 

 

That said, my overall full swing isn't THAT bad. I've had an instructor tell me my full swing looks like that of easily a low teen or better index, not my current 22. I feel like all those moves tend to keep my backswing shallow, which I fight a steepening move in transition--but I've learned over decades to reroute back on plane. I'm trying to fix it because I'd rather not need compensations for a poor pattern, but at least at the moment I do have compensations that work... Most of the time. 

 

However, if people see my full swing and think I'm a lot better than I am, I think people observing my short game probably think I'm a 35+ index! Problems with thins and chunks, problems with distance control, problems with, well, everything. The level of anxiety I get being 20 yards from the pin with a wedge in my hand is almost paralyzing. I've got some things (from same instructor) that I'm working on that are helping, but I wonder if the problem is deeper. 

 

I recall an AMG video where they were talking about takeaway and backswing, saying that pretty much anywhere on your backswing, you should be able to reverse it and hit the ball from there. I think most of the places I get in my backswing, I could NOT simply reverse it and hit the ball properly. 

 

So here's my theory: I can be mostly competent in the full swing because with a longer swing, I've got the time to make the compensations I need for the poor takeaway, and the experience from grooving those compensations over a long period of time. And I'm utter trash in the short game because my poor takeaway puts me in a position that I just cannot reliably make compensations to get back to the ball from the bad positions I'm in. So if I fix the takeaway, it might actually show tremendous benefit to my short game?

 

Does that make sense? Is one of the side effects of a terrible takeaway/backswing a terrible short game? 

[TheDeanAbides]

Short answer: yes. 

[TheDeanAbides]

There was going to be a long answer too, but I got distracted. 

Edited February 1 by TheDeanAbides

[vegasandre]

I wonder if someone could do a study how much the takeaway affects the overall swing and results of the swing... 80%+ ish maybe?
Of course- I found this out a little late.. just this past year and still working on it hard myself. (better late than never)
As far as the short game:  
I really love the Dan Grieves 3 release approach. It's not for everyone - but in many ways it could help everyone...if you know what I mean. 
Longer takeaways and "better misses" etc...

 

Edited February 1 by vegasandre

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

So... Indulge me on a little bit of a theory. 

 

People who have seen my swing improvement thread know I'm currently working on improving my takeaway. It's a lot of arms / little chest, rolling the forearms, late wrist hinge, club coming inside/flat... It's terrible. 

 

That said, my overall full swing isn't THAT bad. I've had an instructor tell me my full swing looks like that of easily a low teen or better index, not my current 22. I feel like all those moves tend to keep my backswing shallow, which I fight a steepening move in transition--but I've learned over decades to reroute back on plane. I'm trying to fix it because I'd rather not need compensations for a poor pattern, but at least at the moment I do have compensations that work... Most of the time. 

 

However, if people see my full swing and think I'm a lot better than I am, I think people observing my short game probably think I'm a 35+ index! Problems with thins and chunks, problems with distance control, problems with, well, everything. The level of anxiety I get being 20 yards from the pin with a wedge in my hand is almost paralyzing. I've got some things (from same instructor) that I'm working on that are helping, but I wonder if the problem is deeper. 

 

I recall an AMG video where they were talking about takeaway and backswing, saying that pretty much anywhere on your backswing, you should be able to reverse it and hit the ball from there. I think most of the places I get in my backswing, I could NOT simply reverse it and hit the ball properly. 

 

So here's my theory: I can be mostly competent in the full swing because with a longer swing, I've got the time to make the compensations I need for the poor takeaway, and the experience from grooving those compensations over a long period of time. And I'm utter trash in the short game because my poor takeaway puts me in a position that I just cannot reliably make compensations to get back to the ball from the bad positions I'm in. So if I fix the takeaway, it might actually show tremendous benefit to my short game?

 

Does that make sense? Is one of the side effects of a terrible takeaway/backswing a terrible short game? 

 

Are you hitting and setting up for shots 20 yards from the pin like your full swing game? I'd say the answer is a "maybe" -- your full swing prescription for the takeaway may not be what you need for shots around the green.

[BlueDragonKorea]

The way I feel is that on a short game shot (chips, pitches, partial wedges), you get less time and momentum to get back on plane compared to a full swing. You get to have more time and more force on a full swing and there's just not enough time to do the same on these smaller swings. So I would agree that a better takeaway that helps keep you on plane would lead to an improvement in the short game. But I wouldn't count out some setup changes as well, including more weight forward, paying attention to spine angle, stance, etc. There are plenty of good players (not saying I've seen an elite player with a poor takeaway, but definitely som single digit handicappers) with bad takeaways that "make it work" even if they're far from optimal, so I think there's something there as well.

[Cwebb]

It's really hard to chip and pitch well, with a bad (off plane) takeaway

[Hawkeye77]

25 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Are you hitting and setting up for shots 20 yards from the pin like your full swing game? I'd say the answer is a "maybe" -- your full swing prescription for the takeaway may not be what you need for shots around the green.

 

Maybe work the other way - get your takeaway and setup on shots around the green sorted, see if that helps with feels and what you need (even if a little different) for your full swing.  Kind of related, but not an Rx - my best warmup before playing is hitting random shots from 40 and in to the hole, some relates to full swing ideas, some purely short game.  

[chinaski]

7 minutes ago, Cwebb said:

It's really hard to chip and pitch well, with a bad (off plane) takeaway

 

I think with short game there are more paths to good results than with a full swing. I have a solid short game. I fluctuate between 4-6, but around the green I can hold my own with a lot of players better than me. I have had best results with an inside take away for most chips and pitches. I will also use an outside in path(with outside takeaway) for high lofted  toe down chips or flops. I almost never take it straight back/on plane with a shot under 60 yards. I also tend to have a slightly inside takeaway, flatter full swing. But I'm not going to recommend that, haha.

[Cirta69]

Yes, a perfect positive correlation of 1: The operator of the golf club. 😂😂😂

[iacas]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

That said, my overall full swing isn't THAT bad. I've had an instructor tell me my full swing looks like that of easily a low teen or better index, not my current 22. I feel like all those moves tend to keep my backswing shallow, which I fight a steepening move in transition--but I've learned over decades to reroute back on plane. I'm trying to fix it because I'd rather not need compensations for a poor pattern, but at least at the moment I do have compensations that work... Most of the time. 

 

However, if people see my full swing and think I'm a lot better than I am, I think people observing my short game probably think I'm a 35+ index! Problems with thins and chunks, problems with distance control, problems with, well, everything. The level of anxiety I get being 20 yards from the pin with a wedge in my hand is almost paralyzing. I've got some things (from same instructor) that I'm working on that are helping, but I wonder if the problem is deeper.

 

What do the stats tell you? This stuff is so easy these days to see whether you're actually gaining or losing as many strokes as you think in the different areas of your game (note: a 3-stroke loss in the short game is way worse than a 3-stroke loss on approach shots).

 

But, to the OP's actual point… and as others have said… yes.

[Cwebb]

33 minutes ago, chinaski said:

 

I think with short game there are more paths to good results than with a full swing. I have a solid short game. I fluctuate between 4-6, but around the green I can hold my own with a lot of players better than me. I have had best results with an inside take away for most chips and pitches. I will also use an outside in path(with outside takeaway) for high lofted  toe down chips or flops. I almost never take it straight back/on plane with a shot under 60 yards. I also tend to have a slightly inside takeaway, flatter full swing. But I'm not going to recommend that, haha.

 

Certainly possible,....but not likely to be a teaching point

[Valtiel]

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

rolling the forearms, late wrist hinge, club coming inside/flat...

 

Problems with thins and chunks, problems with distance control, problems with, well, everything.

I recall an AMG video where they were talking about takeaway and backswing, saying that pretty much anywhere on your backswing, you should be able to reverse it and hit the ball from there. I think most of the places I get in my backswing, I could NOT simply reverse it and hit the ball properly. 

 

1 hour ago, Cwebb said:

It's really hard to chip and pitch well, with a bad (off plane) takeaway

I wanted to isolate those quote above @betarhoalphadelta and add to what @Cwebb said here with a note about the hands/wrist set. 

There is definitely a strong correlation between late/improper/bad wrist set and poor short game for reasons that are pretty black and white. With minimal exceptions, you need good use of the wrists/hands *early* to have good short game control, and if you're a bad/late wrist setter then it stands to reason you don't have that. When you rely on the time it takes to make a full swing to unwind a bunch of things you're doing wrong then obviously that time disappears with short swings. It's why I constantly advocate for the Padraig Wrist Drill stuff and learning how to make P3 left arm parallel "full" swings from a power standpoint, because you *have* to get the hands/wrists involved to do that whereas most people don't even start setting anything until after P3. And if you don't set your wrists until then, when are you setting them with chips and pitches? The answer is probably somewhere between "badly" to "not at all", and that is basically the engine of the short game. 

As @Cwebb said path is important too, but more often than not the path issues are caused by wrist issues. When you get flat and inside there is virtually always a wrist set issue contributing, if not outright causing that, and from there you can't do much short game wise. Therefore i'd almost argue flipping "So if I fix the takeaway, it might actually show tremendous benefit to my short game?"  to "If I learn to fix my takeaway with short game drills it stands to help my full swing".

[Ross_Albatross]

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

"If I learn to fix my takeaway with short game drills it stands to help my full swing".

Interesting discussion and it leads to a question I had/have for a few years with respect to shorter swing drills to help full swing. Thanks OP!
 

For instance, (and trying to simplify here for the sake of the discussion) with Slicefixer’s famous 9-3 drill, to stop at P3 and reverse action to ingrain a pivot driven swing, would that imply that you ‘preset’ P5 with your takeaway? While it seems that in full swings P3 and P5 are different positions (in the context of dynamic motions).

Same interrogation with P2-P6 in ‘short game’ drills. Seems like we are looking for different positions in the full swing (club outside hands at P2 and not so much at P6 and wrists extension-flexion differences, for example), so geniously curious as how one helps the other (?).

 

Best counter argument to this interrogation might be me though as some of my best ball striking games have come from rehearsing half swings at the range and even shorter ones in the chipping area 🙃

 

 

Edit to add; that it seems that a lot of bad backswing moves come from the notion of players trying to ‘preset’ the equivalent downswing position - inside takeaway to have a laid off top position and to be able to come in shallow for instance

Edited February 2 by DwayneGretzky

[PedronNiall]

One other tidbit to keep in mind is on top of having more time to save it in the full swing, you also have more speed coming into the ball to get away with things. A poor strike angle/orientation that results in getting caught in the grass before the ball on a 20 yard pitch and produces a flub could be salvaged in a full swing that gets through the turf and gets the ball up despite not being ball-first as it should. 

 

Everyone's had full swings they know they got away with as they watch the ball somehow sail the full distance like they've put a great strike on it; even happens with the pros often enough that we've all seen it. The short game can be unintuitively less forgiving in many regards, and it's's what usually keeps people from progressing any further in lowering their handicaps, not their full swing. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

17 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Are you hitting and setting up for shots 20 yards from the pin like your full swing game? I'd say the answer is a "maybe" -- your full swing prescription for the takeaway may not be what you need for shots around the green.

 

No, I've changed quite a lot already based on both of Monte's UTB series and based on a lesson with him. And I'm still working that stuff. 

 

Part of the question was somewhat precipitated by the fact that even though I know I've got a good setup and good intents with what I'm doing, it's still trash... So I was worried that my takeaway meant that my ceiling for consistency was much lower than it should be. 

 

16 hours ago, iacas said:

 

What do the stats tell you? This stuff is so easy these days to see whether you're actually gaining or losing as many strokes as you think in the different areas of your game (note: a 3-stroke loss in the short game is way worse than a 3-stroke loss on approach shots).

 

But, to the OP's actual point… and as others have said… yes.

 

I haven't dug into the stats with Arccos-level precision, but I know my game well enough to say that yeah, it's that bad 😉

 

16 hours ago, Valtiel said:

 

I wanted to isolate those quote above @betarhoalphadelta and add to what @Cwebb said here with a note about the hands/wrist set. 

There is definitely a strong correlation between late/improper/bad wrist set and poor short game for reasons that are pretty black and white. With minimal exceptions, you need good use of the wrists/hands *early* to have good short game control, and if you're a bad/late wrist setter then it stands to reason you don't have that. When you rely on the time it takes to make a full swing to unwind a bunch of things you're doing wrong then obviously that time disappears with short swings. It's why I constantly advocate for the Padraig Wrist Drill stuff and learning how to make P3 left arm parallel "full" swings from a power standpoint, because you *have* to get the hands/wrists involved to do that whereas most people don't even start setting anything until after P3. And if you don't set your wrists until then, when are you setting them with chips and pitches? The answer is probably somewhere between "badly" to "not at all", and that is basically the engine of the short game. 

As @Cwebb said path is important too, but more often than not the path issues are caused by wrist issues. When you get flat and inside there is virtually always a wrist set issue contributing, if not outright causing that, and from there you can't do much short game wise. Therefore i'd almost argue flipping "So if I fix the takeaway, it might actually show tremendous benefit to my short game?"  to "If I learn to fix my takeaway with short game drills it stands to help my full swing".

 

Thanks for focusing on the wrist set. It's not the entirety of my takeaway problems, but it's a big part. And I can understand why getting it wrong in takeaway would basically make it very difficult to compensate for in short game. 

[TheDeanAbides]

38 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

No, I've changed quite a lot already based on both of Monte's UTB series and based on a lesson with him. And I'm still working that stuff. 

 

Part of the question was somewhat precipitated by the fact that even though I know I've got a good setup and good intents with what I'm doing, it's still trash... So I was worried that my takeaway meant that my ceiling for consistency was much lower than it should be. 

 

 

I haven't dug into the stats with Arccos-level precision, but I know my game well enough to say that yeah, it's that bad 😉

 

 

Thanks for focusing on the wrist set. It's not the entirety of my takeaway problems, but it's a big part. And I can understand why getting it wrong in takeaway would basically make it very difficult to compensate for in short game. 

Your takeaway is 100% a ceiling for consistency. for what it's worth, dragging the club inside on short game shots is one of the most common issues, and it screws with low point control. When you get it on plane at first it looks insane out of the corner of the eye because we're often setup a little open. It'll look like you've taken it WAAAY outside. 

Edited February 2 by TheDeanAbides

[iacas]

48 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I haven't dug into the stats with Arccos-level precision, but I know my game well enough to say that yeah, it's that bad 😉

People are often surprised.

[Albatross Dreamer]

On 2/2/2025 at 12:02 AM, PedronNiall said:

One other tidbit to keep in mind is on top of having more time to save it in the full swing, you also have more speed coming into the ball to get away with things. A poor strike angle/orientation that results in getting caught in the grass before the ball on a 20 yard pitch and produces a flub could be salvaged in a full swing that gets through the turf and gets the ball up despite not being ball-first as it should. 

 

Everyone's had full swings they know they got away with as they watch the ball somehow sail the full distance like they've put a great strike on it; even happens with the pros often enough that we've all seen it. The short game can be unintuitively less forgiving in many regards, and it's's what usually keeps people from progressing any further in lowering their handicaps, not their full swing. 

I disagree in that I see speed magnifying poor habits not helping. From a biomechanics perspective the speed makes it harder to recover and compensate not easier. The length of the swing also means more things can go wrong.

 

In the short game someone with great fee/hands/whatever can get away with less ideal technique more easily. As we get to driver technique and sequencing grows in importance.

 

Now of course having better technique is going to help with all clubs so I’d always encourage someone to work on their swing in all facets of the game

[virtuoso]

I can make a pretty goofy backswing on purpose with a full swing and still hit a pretty decent shot. I can not do that with a 30 yard pitch.....so take that for what its worth.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

I disagree in that I see speed magnifying poor habits not helping. From a biomechanics perspective the speed makes it harder to recover and compensate not easier. The length of the swing also means more things can go wrong.

 

In the short game someone with great fee/hands/whatever can get away with less ideal technique more easily. As we get to driver technique and sequencing grows in importance.

 

Now of course having better technique is going to help with all clubs so I’d always encourage someone to work on their swing in all facets of the game

 

IMHO the difference between a full-speed full-length swing is not as much about avoiding the effect of hitting it fat, but can see his point. At full speed a shot struck fat often might fly 75-85% of intended distance, which means you've missed the green but you're a lot closer to it. Whereas laying the sod over a 25y pitch it might fly dribble 20% of intended distance, i.e. 5 yards, which means you've effectively done nothing but waste a stroke as you now have a 20y pitch remaining. 

 

That said, I think IMHO the main advantage to full-speed full-length swings is that they DON'T require feel. It's more of a rote movement where you've ingrained whatever compensations you need to hit the ball. Whereas trying to figure out exactly HOW MUCH of a compensating movement you need for poor mechanics on a 10 yard chip vs a 25 yard pitch vs a 45 yard partial swing wedge is a crapshoot, because unless you play a TON you're never going to get enough reps to develop that. Whereas by beating balls at the range you can ingrain a compensation for your full swing movement, and it becomes your "stock shot" however flawed. 

 

[RayPlan]

48 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

I can make a pretty goofy backswing on purpose with a full swing and still hit a pretty decent shot. I can not do that with a 30 yard pitch.....so take that for what its worth.

I'd have to see that goofy backswing to believe it

[bortass]

On 2/2/2025 at 11:00 AM, iacas said:

People are often surprised.

I agree with this.
 

@betarhoalphadelta Have you used Arccos? I recall you had the sensors but don’t recall you mentioning using them.

 

I mention it because I have considered my short game to be trash as well. Arccos showed it is the best aspect of my game. It’s actually better than my current index even though I struggle at times. Maybe this just shows how bad short games are overall because if I look at my last 50 rounds, my short game is on par with an 11 H.I.

 

It was a bit eye opening, so maybe your short game isn’t as bad as you think. 

Edited February 4 by bortass

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, bortass said:

I agree with this. Have you used Arccos? I recall you had the sensors but don’t recall you mentioning using them.

 

I work with ShotScope, and have students using all of the major stats tracking platforms.

[bortass]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I work with ShotScope, and have students using all of the major stats tracking platforms.

My bad, I was talking to @betarhoalphadelta and see I did it poorly!

 

Fixed my post to reflect my intent.

Edited February 4 by bortass

[virtuoso]

34 minutes ago, RayPlan said:

I'd have to see that goofy backswing to believe it

I pmd you a vid. I’ll get reported if I post it here.

[Albatross Dreamer]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

IMHO the difference between a full-speed full-length swing is not as much about avoiding the effect of hitting it fat, but can see his point. At full speed a shot struck fat often might fly 75-85% of intended distance, which means you've missed the green but you're a lot closer to it. Whereas laying the sod over a 25y pitch it might fly dribble 20% of intended distance, i.e. 5 yards, which means you've effectively done nothing but waste a stroke as you now have a 20y pitch remaining. 

 

That said, I think IMHO the main advantage to full-speed full-length swings is that they DON'T require feel. It's more of a rote movement where you've ingrained whatever compensations you need to hit the ball. Whereas trying to figure out exactly HOW MUCH of a compensating movement you need for poor mechanics on a 10 yard chip vs a 25 yard pitch vs a 45 yard partial swing wedge is a crapshoot, because unless you play a TON you're never going to get enough reps to develop that. Whereas by beating balls at the range you can ingrain a compensation for your full swing movement, and it becomes your "stock shot" however flawed. 

 

I guess both could be right depending on the perspective and what exactly is being talked about. 
 

Im not sure you example works perfectly as the situation would probably determine which one is more costly. I can buy that a full shot may be easier to get away with a poor shot. On the flip side Theres also more potential negatives too.

 

The reason I was thinking of it as well is that I tend to have an inside takeaway then OTT (though is getting better) that makes longer clubs inconsistent. Yet short game is less of an issue. Anecdotes are obviously n=1 so not basing all thought off that.

 

But at the end of the day I guess it could be an individual thing and not worth splitting hairs over.

[betarhoalphadelta]

13 hours ago, bortass said:

I agree with this.
 

@betarhoalphadelta Have you used Arccos? I recall you had the sensors but don’t recall you mentioning using them.

 

I mention it because I have considered my short game to be trash as well. Arccos showed it is the best aspect of my game. It’s actually better than my current index even though I struggle at times. Maybe this just shows how bad short games are overall because if I look at my last 50 rounds, my short game is on par with an 11 H.I.

 

It was a bit eye opening, so maybe your short game isn’t as bad as you think. 

 

I have the sensors, and never got around to installing them or signing up. Don't tell my wife; it was a Christmas present a few years ago lol 😉 

 

To an extent, I never really was as motivated as I thought I was, because IMHO I'm essentially needing to improve everything on the golf course. So assigning specific numbers to which areas I was most terrible didn't really seem tremendously important. 

 

12 hours ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

I guess both could be right depending on the perspective and what exactly is being talked about. 
 

Im not sure you example works perfectly as the situation would probably determine which one is more costly. I can buy that a full shot may be easier to get away with a poor shot. On the flip side Theres also more potential negatives too.

 

The reason I was thinking of it as well is that I tend to have an inside takeaway then OTT (though is getting better) that makes longer clubs inconsistent. Yet short game is less of an issue. Anecdotes are obviously n=1 so not basing all thought off that.

 

But at the end of the day I guess it could be an individual thing and not worth splitting hairs over.

 

Yeah, I just wanted to point out that I saw some validity in both statements. There are a lot more potential negatives. My short game is terrible, but I've never hooked the ball 50 yards OB chipping it 😉

 

But from the "individual" aspect, I have that inside takeaway but have learned how to compensate and reroute so I don't go OTT. I think the natural pattern from an inside takeaway is to then come OTT, and you have to have the strength and ability to fight that and get back on plane. To an extent I think it's what @GoGoErky often talks about where juniors and women are forced into efficient swing patterns whereas adult men are strong enough to simply overpower it--until they become seniors and can't. I want to fix my takeaway so that at some point in the future when I naturally start becoming weaker, I don't have to try to overpower the bad movements; I'll just make better ones. 

[bilbry57]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I work with ShotScope, and have students using all of the major stats tracking platforms.

I know you have posted about ShotScope before which of their products  would you recommend to use for stats.

 

 

[onehopstopt]

Yeah absolutely there is a correlation, and it's for two reasons.

 

Firstly, a lot of people with questionable takeaways are able to route the club to a decent enough place at the top. There's really quite a lot of variety in what the club does in the first 2 feet of takeaway among tour pros, but they (almost) all end up getting somewhere decent by the time their transition really begins. But that first 2 feet is your entire backswing for a chip, so even if you get to a good place in your full swing eventually, you won't get there with a chip.

 

Second, you just don't have the space and time to make corrections. If you're a golfer who doesn't get to a great place at the top, there's still usually some time in transition to sort things out before your downswing really picks up steam. Think like Viktor Hovland getting the club back from across the line, or Scotty's little slide he does. But there just isn't time to do that in a chip. If your club head is way inside, then it's just going to come from the inside. You can't fix that over such a short distance in a swing that basically doesn't have a transition.

 

All that said, your short game swing shouldn't really have that much in common with your full swing. You should think of the takeaway for a chip or pitch as being a different technique. For most golfers it's going to feel much more outside, more armsy, and probably have an earlier hinge.