Stats (for those who are interested only)

I like stats but I’m a stuck record on this: The Arccos and ShotScope stats are not as reliable as they claim, especially not when it comes to putting.

I use ShotScope. It’s mostly fine tee to green but from then with a putter in hand it’s a work of fiction. I know I’m not the only person entering nonsense into their database.
Yep, GPS just isn't accurate enough for the putting. I edit mine after every round and I'm sad enough to have remembered the length of the putts since I also measured the length of my steps and I pace most putts out.

I guess if you want it to be super accurate and peeve off all your playing partners you could use the Measure app on an iPhone for each putt. :)
 
Golf stats have always been questionable.

Putts per green for example
You could be 4 yards from the pin sitting pretty on a short cut fringe or on a green 40 yards from a pin and due to the contours do not have the ability to get anywhere near the pin with a putter.
 
Golf stats have always been questionable.

Putts per green for example
You could be 4 yards from the pin sitting pretty on a short cut fringe or on a green 40 yards from a pin and due to the contours do not have the ability to get anywhere near the pin with a putter.
At least with Arcoss there is the option to mark the putt as a "chip" from the fringe so therefore not actually recorded as a putt as the ball wasn't on the green. I do agree that it is still skewed as you stick that 4 foot example to a foot an hole out it then feeds into scrambling instead
 
Do tell us about 20 handicappers that are good at hitting consistent controlled full shots! 👂
I got a friend off about 22/24 handicap to break 90 for the first time by clubing him on a friendly game.
His strongest shot by far was an 8 or 9 iron to the green.
I clubbed him so he played a lot of shots that length.
With two holes to play he was on the margin for breaking 80

BTW His weakest shot was always trying to murder a drive, so the driver stayed in the car boot.
 
I got a friend off about 22/24 handicap to break 90 for the first time by clubing him on a friendly game.
His strongest shot by far was an 8 or 9 iron to the green.
I clubbed him so he played a lot of shots that length.
With two holes to play he was on the margin for breaking 80

BTW His weakest shot was always trying to murder a drive, so the driver stayed in the car boot.
Boring though isn't it? We can talk stats all we want, but really it's meant to be fun, and driver is the funnest club.
 
I've always thought of the putter as the most fun.
As a 20-handicapper you can hole a 30-footer, then watch the +2 handicap person you are playing with miss an 8-footer.
And far less tiring to practice a lot.
 
Last edited:
Boring though isn't it? We can talk stats all we want, but really it's meant to be fun, and driver is the funnest club.
I don’t necessarily agree, I understand it but for me watch an iron stop and spin back is fun. Or hitting that get out of gaol hook or fade from under a tree ..the driver is just about getting it to a point where you don’t need to hit a big club .. I would sacrifice distance for a clean 7 iron shot than a poor lie 9 iron, even with f the stars suggest I will miss the 7 iron more .. they just have not accounted for lie or line
 
One of Stagner's recent stats is
Would you rather 150 yards from "traditional " rough - whatever the hell that is...
Or 180 from the fairway.
The answer, apparently, is 150 from the rough and it makes 1/10th of a shot difference to your score......
So.......they're, effectively, the same then......stats for the sake of stats.
 
One of Stagner's recent stats is
Would you rather 150 yards from "traditional " rough - whatever the hell that is...
Or 180 from the fairway.
The answer, apparently, is 150 from the rough and it makes 1/10th of a shot difference to your score......
So.......they're, effectively, the same then......stats for the sake of stats.
I‘d like to see that stat broken down by country. I am in Florida playing at the moment and I haven’t seen anything I would term as ‘traditional rough’ yet.
Having said that I played Torrey Pines a week or so after the Farmers Open about 5 years ago and if you were 150 yards from the green there in the rough a really good shot just about got you back onto the fairway with about still 130 yards to the green.
So as in all these things there are stats and stats.
 
One of Stagner's recent stats is
Would you rather 150 yards from "traditional " rough - whatever the hell that is...
Or 180 from the fairway.
The answer, apparently, is 150 from the rough and it makes 1/10th of a shot difference to your score......
So.......they're, effectively, the same then......stats for the sake of stats.
I would prefer the 150 yards from rough shot, just because 7 iron beats 7 wood really. I'm surprised the difference is that small though, I'd have expected it to be bigger.
 
One of Stagner's recent stats is
Would you rather 150 yards from "traditional " rough - whatever the hell that is...
Or 180 from the fairway.
The answer, apparently, is 150 from the rough and it makes 1/10th of a shot difference to your score......
So.......they're, effectively, the same then......stats for the sake of stats.
That’s the whole point of strokes gained though, it’s the little incremental improvements which over time add up to a lower handicap; it may be 1/10th on those shots, and a tenth or 2 on some other shots and the accumulation of all those 10ths here and there which equate to a shot or 2 in over time.
 
I would prefer the 150 yards from rough shot, just because 7 iron beats 7 wood really. I'm surprised the difference is that small though, I'd have expected it to be bigger.
From normal rough, on a typical British golf course set up for normal club golf.

You would pick the 150 yard shot almost every time. 30 yards closer is a significant advantage.

Being on the fairway 180 yards out is still a difficult shot fot the majority of handicap golfers. Some may benefit from being in the rough if their ball sits up a bit.
 
I must admit shots from the rough is another place where I am sceptical about the utility of generalisations from statistics.
Being in the rough on our course can result in anything from a decent lie (Relatively uncommon) to more often lost than found.
Using the average lie from a database of unknown provenance is unlikely to generate useful information about playing my own course.
 
I must admit shots from the rough is another place where I am sceptical about the utility of generalisations from statistics.
Being in the rough on our course can result in anything from a decent lie (Relatively uncommon) to more often lost than found.
Using the average lie from a database of unknown provenance is unlikely to generate useful information about playing my own course.
There are levels of rough.

Our first cut is fine. But in the summer if you go beyond that it’s 50/50 if you find your ball. And if you do, getting it back in play somewhere is a good result.

But we have no (one really) trees to worry about. Just gorse and chest deep rough.

Strokes gained accounts for that if you need to take a recovery shot.
 
There are levels of rough.

Our first cut is fine. But in the summer if you go beyond that it’s 50/50 if you find your ball. And if you do, getting it back in play somewhere is a good result.

But we have no (one really) trees to worry about. Just gorse and chest deep rough.

Strokes gained accounts for that if you need to take a recovery shot.
The thing is though the database comparator may still be different from your own course.
The golf metrics App for instance now apparently has a category of rough , deep rough and recovery , these are clearly somewhat subjective and other users concepts may be different from your own..
Lies on tees, fairways , greens, bunkers and first cut may be similar enough to be reasonably comparable lies in the rough would I think not be.
 
The thing is though the database comparator may still be different from your own course.
The golf metrics App for instance now apparently has a category of rough , deep rough and recovery , these are clearly somewhat subjective and other users concepts may be different from your own..
Lies on tees, fairways , greens, bunkers and first cut may be similar enough to be reasonably comparable lies in the rough would I think not be.
It’s not perfect. But it is useful. Unlike previous statistics of fairways, greens and number of putts which not.
 
Top