Stats - There is only 1 that matters.

[JohnnyDee]

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"

 

[PNWokingham]

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"

Well summed up Johnny - I would have said similar things but you have put it better - so back to the wine and listening to why there is no more Top gear !

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Well summed up Johnny - I would have said similar things but you have put it better - so back to the wine and listening to why there is no more Top gear !

The only important stat to you is the swing speed of your practice swing

 

[PNWokingham]

The only important stat to you is the swing speed of your practice swing

I am feeling old Gordon (not in the Smiffy/Richard context but old enough ) - 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

 

[richart]

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

Blind squirrel finding a nut.

 

[JezzE]

Never ever kept a stat in my life. Talk about sucking the enjoyment out of the game. If you can't tell the weaknesses in your game there must be something wrong with you.

Would have agreed with this until recently as I feel I pretty much know where my game is at - driving pretty good, putting and chipping usually decent, don't hit enough greens with my irons, and certainly don't hit my wedges close enough.

However, when I did the Dave Pelz interview which we ran a couple of months ago he cited cases of two tour pros who came to him moaning that their putting was lousy. When he checked them out, he concluded that their putting was fine, but their wedge games were weak, hence their scoring issues.

So if even tour pros don't really know where they're going wrong, then it's highly likely that many of us will be barking up the wrong tree from time to time.

I might be wrong about my game too (I don't think so, though!) but as others have said, until I have time to ever have lessons or practise (which seems pretty unlikely), then knowing where I'm poor isn't going to help much if I haven't got time to address it

 

[JohnnyDee]

- so back to the wine and listening to why there is no more Top gear !

I think it's beacause Jezza's boorish self-importance oaf stat was running at 5.456. However when the Beeb focus-grouped it the preferred mean average should've been 3.65 and thus despite him working on it in the rehearsal studio his inability to reduce the numbers meant his exit was inevitable in the end

 

[JezzE]

I think it's beacause Jezza's boorish self-importance oaf stat was running at 5.456

Thought this was a little harsh at first glance, until I read on a little further...

 

[JezzE]

I really do wonder whether the Tour Pros bother with these numbers themselves.

Yes they do, in vast numbers...

 

[Region3]

Totally agree with you Rich. The only stat I ever keep on golf course is how many different types of wild bird or flower I see during a round and I do this less often these days and certainly don't write it down.

Completely agree with D4S too. All this about collecting meaningful data is fine if it is what floats your boat but what do you do with it? Change your practice routine? Big deal. If it doesn't change the only stat that matters (gross score) then it is a waste of time and effort aside from the enjoyment that some derive from stat collection of course.

But then what do I know? Not much as my brain is slightly carbonated from drinking a bottle of Bollinger with my wife tonight.....that I won in a scratch competition (admittedly with a +7 round! ) at St Georges Hill last week when I managed only five birdies in the round!

I won the bubbly by the way, not the wife....

Am thinking of writing a book - "New Golf Drinking."

Or to give it its full title....

New Golf Drinking (all for the price of 2 books).

 

[richart]

Yes they do, in vast numbers...

If it was my living I am sure I would too.

I know when I am chipping badly as the ball tends to be still looking at me, with a great big divot beside it. When I am driving badly I am hacking out of the trees, heather, or playing three off the tee. I personally don't need stats to confirm that for me. I suppose at my ability it is pretty obvious where my weaknesses are, where as for a much better player it will not be so noticeable.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If it was my living I am sure I would too.

I know when I am chipping badly as the ball tends to be still looking at me, with a great big divot beside it. When I am driving badly I am hacking out of the trees, heather, or playing three off the tee. I personally don't need stats to confirm that for me. I suppose at my ability it is pretty obvious where my weaknesses are, where as for a much better player it will not be so noticeable.

But all this is in isolation of a single round, If I have the round of my life, I won't think I've cracked it , just as one bad drive won't make you start logging stats, it's using them and seeing results, totally agree there's no point collecting them to do nothing with them.

 

[bluewolf]

People are still considering this as an "Either/Or" situation. It isn't. The stats collected are only useful when they are considered alongside anecdotal evidence.
It isn't really overly scientific. It's just an easy way to confirm or deny what you're already thinking. I do appreciate that some on here are sharp enough to always be right. I prefer to consider the possibility that occasionally I'm wrong..

 

[Hobbit]

I've kept stats for a few years but don't use them as a focus for practicing as I don't practice. However, they have been useful in giving me confidence in a part of my game that I'd thought was weak. This in itself has led to better scoring as it has taken pressure off that part of my game.

As for the only relevant stat being the score at the end of the round.. but if you improve the other stats, the score will improve, not the other way round.

 

[MendieGK]

Yes they do, in vast numbers...

I was about to reply with a similar quote. To think Pros aren't focussed on stats is delusional!!!

 

[MendieGK]

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'm sorry but this post is crazy and it lost all merit in my mind when you suggested pros dont keep stats or analyse them.

You make points around knowing that you don't make enough pars on par 3s or that you 3 putt too often, to know that over any significant period of time you must surely have to record the outcomes? taking one/two or even three rounds in isolation is frankly not enough thats not a trend.

You say that your short game is 'pure pants', in comparison to other peers playing around your handicap you may actually find that its not. You may actually find its better than your handicap 'requirement', but that it is in fact your GIRs that are not very good?

This is no different to the point Jezz made about Dave Pelz and the tour pros.

Without stats you are unable to know that for certain without making an assumption.

so 'The Bleeding Obvious' most likely isnt quite what it seems.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

An easy and useful stat for aspiring middle handicappers is to count the number of shots hit with a 5 iron to wedge that finish past the pin.

Prepare for a shock to start with.

 

[turkish]

An easy and useful stat for aspiring middle handicappers is to count the number of shots hit with a 5 iron to wedge that finish past the pin.

Prepare for a shock to start with.

I would actually be really interested in this as I find that I am usually short of the pin more than past... so much so i'm using back of green and middle instead of just middle when judging distance to hit

 

[bluewolf]

An easy and useful stat for aspiring middle handicappers is to count the number of shots hit with a 5 iron to wedge that finish past the pin.

Prepare for a shock to start with.

Now this is one of the things that I picked up on quite quickly. After only 5 rounds with GG, I noticed that approximately 75% of my approach shots were finishing short of the pin. Further investigation revealed that I was about 5-8 yards out on all my yardages. I now take an extra club on most occasions. Obviously, as the weather improves, I may start throttling back to where I started.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

An easy and useful stat for aspiring middle handicappers is to count the number of shots hit with a 5 iron to wedge that finish past the pin.

Prepare for a shock to start with.

Not for me it won't be. Any of those that went to the New Golf Thinking workshop at The Grove (irrespective of the actual mental side of it all) had the issue of being short with approaches, chips and putts banged in to them on a regular basis throughout the day and it was an area we had to look at in particular when we went out to play the course that afternoon.

Very revealing what taking one more club will do on longer shots and how regularly even a mediocre strike will still get within a 20 foot radius and still give an outside birdie chance. Similarly I've been surprised what a difference being confident enough to get chips and putts running at the hole has made and again, surprised, (certainly initially) at how I had simpler tap ins from closer than leaving it 3-4 feet away with the first effort