JohnnyDee
Tour Winner
This thread is interesting and has got me thinking.
I believe club players are deluding themselves if they reckon that keeping stats is particularly beneficial to their overall game. I'm with the OP that the really only important one is on the bottom right hand box of the scorecard.
Hypothetically, let's say, your stats tell you that you 3-putt a green once in every four. Surely you must already have an inkling that your putting is a bit iffy and so you work on that. The statistical number is fairly irrelevant (IMO).
Or your average on par 3s is 4.211117 recurring. Don't you know already that you're not making enough pars on these without that specific statistical number?
I really do wonder whether the Tour Pros bother with these numbers themselves. These stats are kept by bean counters on both tours and given (in my view) as background information for TV audiences and for nothing other than that.
Just like any savvy club player the Tour Pro knows their own deficiencies and works on those elements of their game.
Take me for example. My short chipping game is pure pants. I know this as an irrefutable fact. I have no supporting data whatsoever to corroborate it. I just know.
Like so many elements in golf, more so than many other sports, the amount of questionable science and statistical data is little more than mumbo jumbo.
Good luck to those who get a benefit from keeping stats. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't and if it works for you then fair play and carry on I say.
But in a similar vein to the cries of Aimpoint deniers on other threads (self included in this band) I believe these faux-scientific concepts foisted upon golf are on a par (sic) with dodgy large corporation management tools such as TQM and Lean Six Sigma. For both of these piles of expensive and highly questionable charlatanism simply read application of 'The bleeding obvious"
I believe club players are deluding themselves if they reckon that keeping stats is particularly beneficial to their overall game. I'm with the OP that the really only important one is on the bottom right hand box of the scorecard.
Hypothetically, let's say, your stats tell you that you 3-putt a green once in every four. Surely you must already have an inkling that your putting is a bit iffy and so you work on that. The statistical number is fairly irrelevant (IMO).
Or your average on par 3s is 4.211117 recurring. Don't you know already that you're not making enough pars on these without that specific statistical number?
I really do wonder whether the Tour Pros bother with these numbers themselves. These stats are kept by bean counters on both tours and given (in my view) as background information for TV audiences and for nothing other than that.
Just like any savvy club player the Tour Pro knows their own deficiencies and works on those elements of their game.
Take me for example. My short chipping game is pure pants. I know this as an irrefutable fact. I have no supporting data whatsoever to corroborate it. I just know.
Like so many elements in golf, more so than many other sports, the amount of questionable science and statistical data is little more than mumbo jumbo.
Good luck to those who get a benefit from keeping stats. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't and if it works for you then fair play and carry on I say.
But in a similar vein to the cries of Aimpoint deniers on other threads (self included in this band) I believe these faux-scientific concepts foisted upon golf are on a par (sic) with dodgy large corporation management tools such as TQM and Lean Six Sigma. For both of these piles of expensive and highly questionable charlatanism simply read application of 'The bleeding obvious"
!
) - enforced/restricted swing speed needs to be the new norm! Timing is everything - trouble is not sure I can understand how to do it - nailed a drive on Monday that was so much better than 99% of the rest of my efforts - trouble is, not sure how to do it again!!!!! AARRRGGGHHHHH
