Jump to content
IGNORED

Honest Opinions on Stat Software


Stacey_E
Note: This thread is 5714 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Hey folks, thanks in advance for the input. I'm looking for opinions on the best, readily available and poplular software for tracking stats in a windows based OS. I'm not really interested in downloadable software or internet based tracking. My reasons are due to the fact that my rural area is still on dial up, save the few dsl lines that have yet to be perfected. I want something I can buy in a cd format, install and not have to worry about my sketchy internet. I'm only looking to track the basic 10 or 12 stats. $20-$30 or less price range. Less would be better. I could go with some spreadsheet programming, but there is no way I'll ever follow through with that! Thanks again for the advice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Look under my post. See the banner? Click it. Download once. Buy a license. Burn the download and a copy of the license to a CD...

Just a tip.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Is there an update coming out soon? Is there a limited time that the software is good for, like for example the way Norton or SpySweeper programs work? Thanks for the advice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've been using Scorecard without a license for the past month, and I would recommend using the trial period before comitting to it. It's pretty good, but it is certainly leaves some things to be desired.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't calculate full stats for individual rounds, for example, except for the most recent round. For me, I frequently want to compare two rounds (usually one that I felt went well and another that didn't, and see how the stats compare.) Also, it doesn't conveniently calculate full stats for front and back nine within the same round. There are also some conditional stats that I would like to see that it doesn't provide.

I suppose it depends how much stress you place on statistics as a measurement of performance; personally, I have spent too much time in science and business metrics to not believe you can learn a lot about your performance by keeping more comprehensive stats. One glaring omission for someone of my skill level, for example, is scrambling. Tracking sand saves and up and downs is great, but what I need to know is how many strokes I'm losing inside 100 yards. Statistically, my iron play is much stronger than it shows in Scorecard because I have huge problems getting on the green from inside 100 yards.

I've often thought about building a more complete tool using Excel, but I'm not really sure how I would want to go about it from a design standpoint. If I had one or two people with experience in Excel, program design, and statistics, I'm sure I could produce a more precise product within a week or two.

I threw my clubs into the lake so it's time to start over...

Driver: Great Big Bertha II 10°, Callaway System 60 Firm
Woods: Tour 2400 Plus 3
Hybrid: 19.0° 503 H, Adila NV 85 SIrons: X20 4-GWPutter: Studio Select Newport 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Let me also clarify that I think Scorecard is an excellent, efficient tool for lower handicappers. A lower handicap player probably isn't using his time effectively if he's worrying about a myriad of stats. For a higher handicap player, though, the more complete information you have, the better you can evaluate the round.

The important statistics really do change with your handicap, so evaluate which you think are important to your game, as well. A higher handicap needs to worry about scrambling, putting, and accuracy far more than a lower handicap who can focus on greens, distance, and control.

I threw my clubs into the lake so it's time to start over...

Driver: Great Big Bertha II 10°, Callaway System 60 Firm
Woods: Tour 2400 Plus 3
Hybrid: 19.0° 503 H, Adila NV 85 SIrons: X20 4-GWPutter: Studio Select Newport 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Im a big fan of the software. Been using it for some time. There are no complaints with the software itself, and the customer service is great.

However, i believe that this doesnt give you an actual handicap index that is recognized by the USGA that you can use in tournament play. (is that true?)

TMX Carry Bag
Tour Burner 9.5*
Burner 3W 15*
Burner Rescue Hybrid 19*
r7 TP 4i-SW Dynamic Gold S300s 60* CG-14 Circa 62 #2 & Studio Stainless Newport 2 Pro V1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites


However, i believe that this doesnt give you an actual handicap index that is recognized by the USGA that you can use in tournament play. (is that true?)

This is true. I don't know of any software that does give a USGA handicap.

I threw my clubs into the lake so it's time to start over...

Driver: Great Big Bertha II 10°, Callaway System 60 Firm
Woods: Tour 2400 Plus 3
Hybrid: 19.0° 503 H, Adila NV 85 SIrons: X20 4-GWPutter: Studio Select Newport 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm evaluating the software right now too.
I'll probably buy it, it tracks everything I want to know and then some. The only thing missing is graphs, and these are on tap for version 2.0 next year.

BTW, Scrambling percentage is in Scorecard, although I'm not sure if this is a true scrambling stat as defined by the PGA, or a simple combination of U&D; and Sand Save stats. As a high handicapper, I use the more common definition of U&D; as getting into the hole in 2 strokes when starting off the green, regardless of score for the hole (similar to Sand Saves).

--------------------------
"There are only 3 kinds of people in this world -- Those who can count, and those who can't."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
Is there an update coming out soon? Is there a limited time that the software is good for? Thanks for the advice.

Download it and give it a try. You can use it fully for, what, five rounds? Beyond that you need a license, I believe.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't calculate full stats for individual rounds, for example, except for the most recent round.

Define "full stats"? You can open any round at any time later and check out your entire round. Additionally, you can select any round in the main window and several stats (score, putts, 1st putt, penalties, fairways, GIRs, U&Ds;, and Sand Saves,

all Out/In/Total) are shown in the little info window (or a drawer on Mac OS X). What "stats" are you looking for?
There are also some conditional stats that I would like to see that it doesn't provide.

Like...? Not trying to be antagonistic, but have you ever written to us to mention these sorts of things?

A lower handicap player probably isn't using his time effectively if he's worrying about a myriad of stats. For a higher handicap player, though, the more complete information you have, the better you can evaluate the round.

And I think the opposite is true: high handicappers can't obsess about stats, but low handicappers are to the point where a small difference can drop their handicap 10%, 20%, or more.

High handicappers, I can tell them what they need to work on right now. The lower your handicap, the more statistics matter.
This is true. I don't know of any software that does give a USGA handicap.

Scorecard - and all other types of software like it - give you an official handicap NUMBER, but the handicap index itself isn't "official." The official system must be available for peer review, for example, among other things.

BTW, Scrambling percentage is in Scorecard, although I'm not sure if this is a true scrambling stat as defined by the PGA, or a simple combination of U&D; and Sand Save stats. As a high handicapper, I use the more common definition of U&D; as getting into the hole in 2 strokes when starting off the green, regardless of score for the hole (similar to Sand Saves).

As you've demonstrated, it is whatever you make it. If you want to use it as "get up and down from inside of 100 yards," you're free to.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to be overly critical or antagonistic here, either. I think Scorecard is a good product for some players, but not a perfect product for me.

Define "full stats"? You can open any round at any time later and check out your entire round. Additionally, you can select any round in the main window and several stats (score, putts, 1st putt, penalties, fairways, GIRs, U&Ds;, and Sand Saves,

By full stats, I mean most of the stats on the "Statistics" page. There are several stats available, yes, but you can't get your scoring averages, for example, from a single round unless it was your last round. You can't get a 1 putt, 2 putt, 3 putt count for a single round. At least, not any way that I've been able to find.

Like...? Not trying to be antagonistic, but have you ever written to us to mention these sorts of things?

Consistency stats, for example. If I make a par on this hole, what am I likely to make on the next hole? I've never written because I'm not a customer.

And I think the opposite is true: high handicappers can't obsess about stats, but low handicappers are to the point where a small difference can drop their handicap 10%, 20%, or more.

Perhaps, but a higher handicap requires more stats to get an accurate picture of the round. If I miss GIR, it might be because I shanked a shot in the fairway. It might be because I had good contact but just didn't have the length, or had poor club selection. If I miss an Up & Down, it might be because I missed a putt. It might be because I chipped over the fairway. Same goes for sand saves.

While some of these might apply to a lower handicap, the odds of these scenarios occurring multiple times in a round are significantly lower than they are for a higher handicap. As a high handicapper, I might have a regular issue with sending my chips off the green. I would want to note this, so I can work on it. If a lower handicap sends a lot of chips off the green, he isn't a low handicap any more. When you have fewer errors in a round, you need fewer stats to keep track of them. When you have 70 strokes in a round, 40 of which are iron shots, and 18 of which are tee shots, there's a lot less mystery in those remaining 22 shots than when you have 90 strokes in a round, 55 iron shots, and 37 that weren't off a tee.

I threw my clubs into the lake so it's time to start over...

Driver: Great Big Bertha II 10°, Callaway System 60 Firm
Woods: Tour 2400 Plus 3
Hybrid: 19.0° 503 H, Adila NV 85 SIrons: X20 4-GWPutter: Studio Select Newport 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have used the scorecard software for a while now and I think its very solid. It gives me a very good overall look at my golf game. I definately practice much smarter than I did before. I recommend it highly to anyone.

Danny    In my :ping: Hoofer Tour golf bag on my :clicgear: 8.0 Cart

Driver:   :pxg: 0311 Gen 5  X-Stiff.                        Irons:  :callaway: 4-PW APEX TCB Irons 
3 Wood: :callaway: Mavrik SZ Rogue X-Stiff                            Nippon Pro Modus 130 X-Stiff
3 Hybrid: :callaway: Mavrik Pro KBS Tour Proto X   Wedges: :vokey:  50°, 54°, 60° 
Putter: :odyssey:  2-Ball Ten Arm Lock        Ball: :titleist: ProV 1

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

First off let me say again I hope this doesn't come off as overly "competitive" or whatever. I enjoy debates of this nature because I like to think about how to help people with their golf game, how stats can help, and so on. That's what led me to create Scorecard - not the other way around (i.e. I don't care only because I have software - I made the software because I care).

So I appreciate this little debate and, again, hope you don't take anything as personally offensive. It's clear you have a strong opinion of how stats relate to a person's golf game, and I find it interesting that you disagree with me, as I too have a strong opinion of how stats relate to a person's golf game.
By full stats, I mean most of the stats on the "Statistics" page. There are several stats available, yes, but you can't get your scoring averages

Your scoring average is the score you shot. Probably not what you meant to say, but...

You can't get a 1 putt, 2 putt, 3 putt count for a single round. At least, not any way that I've been able to find.

You can look at the round in its entirety by double-clicking the round. You don't see total tallies, but as an added bonus, you see everything in context.

Consistency stats, for example. If I make a par on this hole, what am I likely to make on the next hole?

They don't even really keep those stats on the PGA Tour. Why? Because it varies too much. There's no such thing as "consistency" even at the PGA Tour level - it depends on the weather, the wind, the course, hole location... all sorts of things. Something as arbitrary as the order of holes (does a tough one follow an easy one, or is there another tough one afterwards?) and raw luck would kill this stat pretty quick. Add in the fact that the average golfer is about a billion times less "consistent" and you've got the makings of a pretty useless stat. We've tried to limit what we feel are useless stats.

The PGA Tour has the bounce-back stat, but that's about it, and we've discussed adding something like that, but how do you define "bounce back" for a 22 handicapper? For a 14? A birdie following a bogey barely even works for 5 handicap golfer.
Perhaps, but a higher handicap requires more stats to get an accurate picture of the round. If I miss GIR, it might be because I shanked a shot in the fairway. It might be because I had good contact but just didn't have the length, or had poor club selection. If I miss an Up & Down, it might be because I missed a putt. It might be because I chipped over the fairway. Same goes for sand saves.

And you're missing my point: those stats are pretty useless for a high handicapper. All stats are pretty useless for a high handicapper.

Though I just got done saying there's no consistency in the average golfer, what you will see are trends in some rough statistical areas. Golf Digest recently did it with their long game and short game handicaps, and those areas are even rougher than the stats in Scorecard. We could track everything under the sun - number of shanks per round, number of duffed chips, number of times you missed a putt (and why: too hard, too soft, bad read, pulled it, pushed it, spike mark, partner talked when you hit, ball had mud on it, whatever), and I don't think you'd get meaningful statistics. Again, I can tell you right now why most high handicappers are bad: because all facets of their game are pretty bad. They don't need stats to tell them that and, quite frankly, stats can't really help them. What fun is it to see that they hit 5.6% GIR or whatever? That's pretty meaningless. Is 40 putts when you're shooting 108 good or bad? It's bad, but since it's 42% of your total shots, that's not bad - 37% (better than someone putting 29 times and shooting 76). The mid- and low-handicappers, they can see the trends in Scorecard. To get back to what you were saying. If you hit 20% GIR and 30% fairways, then perhaps you need to work on driving the ball better so you're not hitting your approach shots from behind trees. If you hit 20% GIR and 70% fairways, your iron game sucks - does it really matter whether it's because you shank the ball 11% of the time, fat it 22%, blade it 37%, under- or over-estimate the wind or elevation 8.3%, and so on? No - at that point, Scorecard shows your iron game needs work. Good contact is good contact, and I'm willing to bet to high heavens that if you're driving the ball well but not hitting many GIRs, you're probably not hitting the ball well with the irons. And that segues into my next point ...
As a high handicapper, I might have a regular issue with sending my chips off the green. I would want to note this, so I can work on it.

Scorecard can't replace your eyes. Scorecard can't replace your brain. If your chipping game sucks, you'll se a lower up and down percentage. You'll see more two-putts after missing greens because you're not as close as you should be.

But you'll also have seen all of this on the golf course, too. When I say Scorecard can't replace your brain, I mean that if you're regularly sending your chips off the green, you should know that. Again, Scorecard can help (especially once you're a mid handicapper) if you're obtuse, but you've got to be a little aware of your tendencies, too. If you blade your chips, work on your chipping. To extend the analogy to lower handicappers, say their up and down percentage is high, but they have a problem with downhill chip shots. It may not show up in the stats because, as a low handicapper, they've learned to keep their ball below the hole (and have the distance control to do it usually). But the player in this case still has to take some responsibility for understanding their own game. They have to know they have trouble with a certain kind of shot (in this case, within one statistical category or even within one type of shot - "short game" or "scrambling" or "chipping"). Just as the high handicapper has to know they have trouble with certain aspects of the game in general. And as I've said in other threads, we could track EVERY stat and every permutation known to man, but then NOBODY would use the software because entering your round would take as long as it does to play it.
When you have fewer errors in a round, you need fewer stats to keep track of them.

I don't see statistics as "keeping track of errors." Statistics keep track of your tendencies - measurable items. Stats don't have a "good" or "bad" component - they just are what they are.

Or, put another way, "when you have fewer good things in a round, you need fewer stats to keep track of them." And getting back to my idea of consistency, if it does exist, it exists more for the lower handicapper. The lower the handicap, the more consistent they will be. Their anti-handicaps are closer. They don't have 23 putts in one round and 43 the next.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So I appreciate this little debate and, again, hope you don't take anything as personally offensive. It's clear you have a strong opinion of how stats relate to a person's golf game, and I find it interesting that you disagree with me, as I too have a strong opinion of how stats relate to a person's golf game.

Ditto.

Your scoring average is the score you shot. Probably not what you meant to say, but...

Actually, I pulled that term directly from the header on the Statistics sheet from Scorecard. It actually represents your scoring averages on a per-hole basis based on FIR, missed Left, missed Right, GIR, missed GIR as the difference from par.

You can look at the round in its entirety by double-clicking the round. You don't see total tallies, but as an added bonus, you see everything in context.

But that doesn't allow for a round-to-round comparison of many of the meaningful calculations provided on the Statistics page. As it stands, you can only compare your last round to your average over X rounds. What if I want to compare my last round to my round 2 weeks ago? It may be impractical for a side-by-side comparison like the Statistics page, but having the calculations available from data that's already collected (and was at one time already calculated) doesn't seem like a stretch.

They don't even really keep those stats on the PGA Tour. Why? Because it varies too much. There's no such thing as "consistency" even at the PGA Tour level - it depends on the weather, the wind, the course, hole location... all sorts of things. Something as arbitrary as the order of holes (does a tough one follow an easy one, or is there another tough one afterwards?) and raw luck would kill this stat pretty quick. Add in the fact that the average golfer is about a billion times less "consistent" and you've got the makings of a pretty useless stat. We've tried to limit what we feel are useless stats.

It's useless on tour because players will play a course, at most, three times over the course of the year (if, for example, they play a Nationwide event, a Tour event, and a Major on the same course.) That's 12 rounds of golf, assuming they make all three cuts (which I think it's safe to say, players who play Nationwide events aren't making all three cuts.) So you're probably looking at a

maximum of 8 rounds on any one course, over 2 distinct time periods. This means that extraneous effects such as weather, wind, personal issues, etc. have a maximum impact on these statistics. However, for a player who plays the same course 4-8 times a month who uses Scorecard for 3-4 months (12 to 32 rounds over a longer time period), you begin to get a sample set that can generate a reasonable picture of performance. It's perfectly possible some players won't find any significant relationship (just as some players have no association between fairway accuracy and tour wins a la Sergio or Tiger.) It's not unreasonable to compare performance in relation to the previous hole with the overall average on that hole, if your sample set is large enough . I almost hate to use this example because it doesn't directly apply here, but consider Bill James' changes to stat-keeping in baseball. Just because it isn't being tracked professionally doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
The PGA Tour has the bounce-back stat, but that's about it, and we've discussed adding something like that, but how do you define "bounce back" for a 22 handicapper? For a 14? A birdie following a bogey barely even works for 5 handicap golfer.

Well, first you'd need to look for a statistically significant correlation for that golfer. I think you would find that most high handicappers don't have any correlation. If there is a correlation in bounceback, then you would look at the player's own average bounceback compared to this specific performance. I'm under the impression that the PGA Tour evaluates bounceback based on a predetermined expectation they determine is "standard" for the tour, and measures players against a yardstick. This looks good for TV, but doesn't tell the player specifically about his own performance.

And you're missing my point: those stats are pretty useless for a high handicapper. All stats are pretty useless for a high handicapper.

Obviously I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I whole-heartedly disagree. Keeping detailed statistics for myself, even since I picked golf up again and decided to get serious in June, has provided a lot of insights into my game. Probably the simplest example is in my putts. Simply keeping track of these on the card revealed that I am not as good a putter as I thought. When I started tracking how I missed my putts (which is relatively simple because it's either the speed/distance, the read, or both) I was able to better identify what I need to work on for putting. Just because high handicappers haven't been taught how to use their statistics doesn't mean they aren't valuable. The relevant statistics

must change as your skill level changes. Little league pitchers worry about their speed. Major league pitchers worry about their pitch placement.
Though I just got done saying there's no consistency in the average golfer, what you will see are trends in some rough statistical areas. Golf Digest recently did it with their long game and short game handicaps, and those areas are even rougher than the stats in Scorecard.

I'm not familiar with those, but I'll look into them. I've actually been thinking about that myself, I'm glad someone has already done the work.

We could track everything under the sun - number of shanks per round, number of duffed chips, number of times you missed a putt (and why: too hard, too soft, bad read, pulled it, pushed it, spike mark, partner talked when you hit, ball had mud on it, whatever), and I don't think you'd get meaningful statistics.

I disagree. Golf is fairly unique to professional sports in that players consider very, very few statistics when judging their overall performance. Consider a batter in baseball, and how many stats go into his performance. How many hours of tape get analyzed over the course of a season to prepare a single batter for a single pitcher? I realize that none of us is a professional golfer, but simply tracking the easiest numbers, or the ones that everyone else tracks, doesn't mean we're getting the best results. As I mentioned, I track missed putts as a function of stroke or read and

do generate useful statistics. I bet Sergio wishes he had done the same.

I threw my clubs into the lake so it's time to start over...

Driver: Great Big Bertha II 10°, Callaway System 60 Firm
Woods: Tour 2400 Plus 3
Hybrid: 19.0° 503 H, Adila NV 85 SIrons: X20 4-GWPutter: Studio Select Newport 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Again, I can tell you right now why most high handicappers are bad: because all facets of their game are pretty bad. They don't need stats to tell them that and, quite frankly, stats can't really help them. What fun is it to see that they hit 5.6% GIR or whatever? That's pretty meaningless. Is 40 putts when you're shooting 108 good or bad? It's bad, but since it's 42% of your total shots, that's not bad - 37% (better than someone putting 29 times and shooting 76).

Because while I might be bad at everything right now, at some point I'll get better. And I'll want to track those changes. I want to know if I get worse. If my chipping is getting better but another part of my game is dropping, I want to know. Because if I compare my current performance to my historical performance I can evaluate the effectiveness of my training, warmups, coaching, etc. Good and bad include shades of grey, and while I might not be up to Tour standards, I would like to know if I'm improving based on my own bad standards.

The mid- and low-handicappers, they can see the trends in Scorecard. To get back to what you were saying. If you hit 20% GIR and 30% fairways, then perhaps you need to work on driving the ball better so you're not hitting your approach shots from behind trees. If you hit 20% GIR and 70% fairways, your iron game sucks - does it really matter whether it's because you shank the ball 11% of the time, fat it 22%, blade it 37%, under- or over-estimate the wind or elevation 8.3%, and so on? No - at that point, Scorecard shows your iron game needs work. Good contact is good contact, and I'm willing to bet to high heavens that if you're driving the ball well but not hitting many GIRs, you're probably not hitting the ball well with the irons. And that segues into my next point ...

But there-in lies the problem. If you hit 20% GIR and 30% fairways, you don't

know that the problem lies on the tee. What if your irons are the problem, but it's masked by the fact that you never take fairway shots? This is a common argument with Sergio, for example; while he leads in accuracy and GIR, his putting is well below expectation. I'm not trying to say his putting isn't the problem, but if you weren't able to compare his putting when making GIR to his putting when missing GIR, you might attribute his putting to the fact that he has longer putts because he makes GIR so often. I know Sergio misses putts from 10 feet as often as he misses them from 40, so it's not a perfect example, but my point is the same: you need controls in order to evaluate performance. You can't generate them very well if you are keeping the minimal number of stats, or using the minimal number of calculations.
Scorecard can't replace your eyes. Scorecard can't replace your brain. If your chipping game sucks, you'll se a lower up and down percentage. You'll see more two-putts after missing greens because you're not as close as you should be.

Unfortunately, intuition isn't scientific enough for some players. To generate the most accurate picture of

your game, you need as much factual information as possible. You can't reasonably track everything, but the more you have, the better you can use it.
But you'll also have

Again, the common example for seeing and knowing: track your putts. Most people find when they actually track their putting for the first time, they have more 3 putts and fewer 1 putts than they thought. That's because we put the bad shots behind us and keep the good ones close in mind. I don't want my happy stats, because that doesn't tell me anything except my delusions of grandeur. I want objective stats.

To extend the analogy to lower handicappers, say their up and down percentage is high, but they have a problem with downhill chip shots. It may not show up in the stats because, as a low handicapper, they've learned to keep their ball below the hole (and have the distance control to do it usually). But the player in this case still has to take some responsibility for understanding their own game. They have to know they have trouble with a certain kind of shot (in this case, within one statistical category or even within one type of shot - "short game" or "scrambling" or "chipping").

I have to ask: how do you know you have a problem with downhill chip shots unless you have information to compare it to non-downhill chip shots? This is the importance of controlling variables. I don't trust perception.

And as I've said in other threads, we could track EVERY stat and every permutation known to man, but then NOBODY would use the software because entering your round would take as long as it does to play it.

And here-in lies my next suggestion: optional stats! Having them available doesn't mean you have to track them. I'm not in charge of the business model here, so I don't know how feasible it is, but if I were to have my druthers, I would be able to choose exactly which stats Scorecard includes, which calculations it provides, and (in the future) which stats are on which axis of graphs.

I don't see statistics as "keeping track of errors." Statistics keep track of your tendencies - measurable items. Stats don't have a "good" or "bad" component - they just are what they are.

That's absolutely true... if we could learn as effectively from what we do right as what we do wrong. Most players train by minimizing the things they do wrong. I don't know which way is the better way to go about it, but I imagine if focusing on all the right things works for you, you could adopt a number of statistics to track it effectively from that angle. They wouldn't be the same, though they would represent the same player.

And getting back to my idea of consistency, if it does exist, it exists more for the lower handicapper. The lower the handicap, the more consistent they will be. Their anti-handicaps are closer. They don't have 23 putts in one round and 43 the next.

I'm under the impression this is actually incorrect. Let's say a good putter has 30 putts in a round, and a bad player has 60. If a good player is likely to take between 25 and 30 putts in a round, and a bad player between 50 and 70, then they are statistically equal in their variation.

I'll use myself as an example. I average 41 putts per round. My best round is 38 putts and my worst is 43. For simplicity, let's say I'm +/- 3 putts. What do you think the variation would be for a good player? Probably about the same, except that he is putting between 22 and 28 putts a round. His variation is a larger % of his average; mine is more consistant(ly bad.)

I threw my clubs into the lake so it's time to start over...

Driver: Great Big Bertha II 10°, Callaway System 60 Firm
Woods: Tour 2400 Plus 3
Hybrid: 19.0° 503 H, Adila NV 85 SIrons: X20 4-GWPutter: Studio Select Newport 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites


would like there to be a demo version. try before buying it is nice.

MacTec 460 Draw Driver
V-Foil M565 Irons
MT 3 Wood
GigaGolf 52deg gap wedge
Wilson 55deg sand wedge MT Don White 60deg Lob wedgeknockoff 2-ball putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
But that doesn't allow for a round-to-round comparison of many of the meaningful calculations provided on the Statistics page.

Quite frankly, I don't think that comparing the stats of two rounds is really very relevant. I see no point in it. If you really want, you can look at the rounds individually, which also contains a bit more info than you'd get from raw statistics. For example, it's pretty easy to compare

here and here . As long as we've had this software on the market, this is the first I've heard of a request or a "want" for this feature, and I've never wanted it despite using the software for 3+ years.
having the calculations available from data that's already collected (and was at one time already calculated) doesn't seem like a stretch.

It'd be very easy to generate the statistics. But there are at least three reasons why we've not done so:

a) nobody wants it (and it's fairly pointless). b) you still have to figure out what a good UI would be. c) time spent writing/testing this feature would take time away from writing/testing other features people want and which serve a better purpose. Not to mention other things like differences in weather, pin positions, etc. that can affect your stats. Furthermore, now that I think about it, this feature IS available. Disable all the rounds except for one. Print or copy your statistics. Disable that round and enable the other. Print or copy your statistics. Voila.
This means that extraneous effects such as weather, wind, personal issues, etc. have a maximum impact on these statistics.

As they do day to day for the average golfer, and again, the average golfer is nowhere near as consistent as a professional.

It's not unreasonable to compare performance in relation to the previous hole with the overall average on that hole,

The differences between professional baseball players and average golfers are far and away larger than you seem to believe.

In other words, it IS unreasonable. All those statistics will tell you is which holes golfers have problems with, NOT whether they're more or less likely to follow up a birdie on the 4th hole with a par or bogey on the 5th.
I'm under the impression that the PGA Tour evaluates bounceback based on a predetermined expectation they determine is "standard" for the tour, and measures players against a yardstick.

The PGA Tour definition of bounce-back is pretty easy: an over-par hole followed by an under-par hole. And no, there's no statistically relevant way to really track it for an average golfer. You'd have to get down to the single digits to have anything relevant, and mid- to high-handicappers should worry about things other than their ability to rebound from a triple bogey with a bogey or better.

Obviously I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I whole-heartedly disagree.

Sorry, but I'm not budging. Sucky golfers suck at everything. You aren't going to find many 24-handicappers who take only 27 putts per round and get up and down 60% of the time. And if they do, then they don't need stats to tell them that it's not their short game holding them back.

Simply keeping track of these on the card revealed that I am not as good a putter as I thought.

No high handicapper is a good putter. So I'll say again: statistics are wasted on the high handicapper. They need to improve virtually everywhere. I've never met a high handicapper that had one "good to great" portion of their game.

When I started tracking how I missed my putts (which is relatively simple because it's either the speed/distance, the read, or both) I was able to better identify what I need to work on for putting.

And what about if you pushed or pulled it? And did you under-read or over-read it? Hit it too hard or too soft?

See what I'm getting at? You've got to cut things off at a reasonable point. More statistics aren't always a good thing, and because they reduce your sample size, they quite often can be a bad thing. Do you tend to pull putts after you push the last one or do you get in a rut where you push or pull all your putts? Or is it random? And in the end, what does that knowledge really help? How about you just try to make a better stroke and you'll see it show up as a lower putts per round average?
Just because high handicappers haven't been taught how to use their statistics doesn't mean they aren't valuable. The relevant statistics

And high handicappers should focus on making solid contact. When their skill level improves, then they'll start to get into the range where stats can highlight certain areas. But they have to improve beyond "high handicapper" or "sucks at all aspects" before they can really worry about the stats.

Now you may be an exception, but I'm a guy selling stats software telling people who are high handicappers that they shouldn't buy my software. It's wasted time and effort - time and effort better spent on getting into their handicaps into the teens.
I bet Sergio wishes he had done the same.

I bet Sergio has spent a lot of time getting less statistical and mechanical with his putting and going back to feel, so no, I don't bet he wishes he'd done so.

But there-in lies the problem. If you hit 20% GIR and 30% fairways, you don't

No, I said "perhaps" and followed it up with another example. If you're hitting 20% GIR and 30% fairways, you probably know which is the bigger problem: driving or your iron game. Again, your brain has to play a role, too. Statistics will never give you the complete picture - they can just hint at areas you should look at more closely, and they can only do that when you aren't a golfer who sucks at just about every aspect of the game.

This is a common argument with Sergio, for example; while he leads in accuracy and GIR, his putting is well below expectation.

Sergio rarely leads in accuracy or GIR. He's got a reputation as a great ballstriker, but his stats don't bear that out. Not a good example.

I know Sergio misses putts from 10 feet as often as he misses them from 40, so it's not a perfect example, but my point is the same: you need controls in order to evaluate performance. You can't generate them very well if you are keeping the minimal number of stats, or using the minimal number of calculations.

He doesn't. He makes about 3-5x as many from 10 feet as from 40.

We believe we've achieved a good balance in Scorecard. If you'd like to spend an hour writing down all the stats you generated in your latest round of 108, more power to you. I just think that if you spent that time practicing instead, you would actually get into a range where statistics were meaningful.
To generate the most accurate picture of

And "paralysis by analysis" is a very real thing. At a 28.3 index, you likely need to spend more time improving and less time worrying about your improvement. You don't need to worry about "factual information" or statistics - you need to get better at everything. Screw the stats - go practice. Get better and get yourself into a realm in which statistics begin to matter.

I want objective stats.

You're the one that put a name on stats - "tracking how often I mess up" or whatever you said.

I have to ask: how do you know you have a problem with downhill chip shots unless you have information to compare it to non-downhill chip shots?

Because better players know.

And here-in lies my next suggestion: optional stats!

That's not going to happen, and I take it you've never been involved in software development.

I'm under the impression this is actually incorrect.

It's not. And I'm not going to debate whether it is or isn't based on made up statistics. Nobody takes 70 putts per round. Nor am I going to debate it using your (one person's) stats.

And that's about all I have to say to that. Our software's not for you or, dare I say it, for anyone with a 20+ handicap or thereabouts. I remain resolute in suggesting that people with 20+ indeces are in need of improvement in all areas of the game and time spent worrying about stats at that point is time wasted. Good luck with your self-made statistics package.
would like there to be a demo version. try before buying it is nice.

Download it. That's the demo.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

No offense to the main guys here, just realize as I stated in my original post, I am on dial up. I down loaded the software but there is a need for .NET Framework 2.0 (x86) which is like 22 MB and would take me longer to download than is feasible. Is there not another software out there? I would have thought someone would have suggested at least one other program.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Not sure if you're Microsoft Office literate but you can write you own stat tracking stuff using an Excel spread sheet. It's not as easy as using Scorecard or others like it but it can be done (but who wants to take all that time). Frankly, you should figure out a way to get Erik's program and use it. It truly keeps track of the most relevant stats. All the other debate on tracking stats is wasted energy. Things like trends......you should be able to figure out what your trends are. If you don't have any then you're probably a high handicapper with no consistency. I like using scorecard. Could I get by with out it? Yeah, but I like using it. It's good.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 5714 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Day 514, March 28, 2024 Quick ten minutes while waiting for the wife to come home for our trip.
    • Day 262: did a stack session. Worked on rehearsal swings during rest breaks. 
    • It's been a little more than a year since I can last remember hitting golf balls and today I just got my second cortisone injection in 11 months. I thought maybe shortly after the first injection I was going to be able to start playing again with therapy but the pain while doing my backswing past halfway just didn't subside like just lifting my hands up in the air did. So today the Orthopedic surgeon put more in the backside of the shoulder than before to address the tendon more. I'm going to try therapy for another 3 months and if I  can't swing the club without pain then I think surgery is going to be my next option.
    • I was just down visiting family in southern California and we played a couple rounds of golf. I hit my ball into the deep rough near some tree's and my cousin's husband offered me his Sim 2 Rescue Hybrid to try out. And I felt the same way, wow! I loved it, it also had a Pure DTX grip on it which I loved. As soon as I got back home, I ended up buying two used Calloway Rogue X hybrids, 3 and 5. So far I've only tested them out at the range, but I love them. They're much more forgiving than irons for me.
    • Wordle 1,014 3/6 ⬛⬛🟩🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Bravo!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...