What is the correlation between the number of birdies and your handicap. - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

What is "iron accuracy"?  How is that defined/tracked?

The article from which I clipped the table did not have an explanation.  My guess was that it is a measure of consistency in hitting within a set dispersion (possibly 5 yards long/short and/or left/right).  Someone who averages "71" hits within 5 yards of his/her target 80% of the time.  Someone averaging 85 does so 33% of the time.  Understand that is just a guess on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

I don't know the answer, but just from experience, I'm going to guess that your numbers are high.  Using myself as a baseline:  9 handicap who averages 1 birdie a round, I'm going to take a stab here (don't forget, these are guesses):

 

handicap        avg. birdies/round

tour pro                 4.6

scratch                 2.4

5                          1.8

10                        0.9

15                        0.3

20                        0.1

 

Again, wild guesses based only on myself and what I've observed.  Thought it'd be fun to put it out there and see what others think.

I'm a 12.6 and my avg birdies per round is 0.56.  By your chart I'd be something like 0.64.  Pretty good guess.

What are these "Birdies" you guys are talking about?

:)

:(

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayG 

Oh carp, I JUST read an article somewhere about this kind of thing. along the lines of an 18 hdcp hitting a GIR 4 times, a 12 might hit 8, etc... this would correlate with the OPPORTUNITY to make birdie. Personally, I might AVERAGE 2.5 birds a round with a 12. I certainly have the OPPORTUNITY for more- such as easy chips, makeable putts and the like. Some days I might have 4 or 5 and others I get squat.

You can pro rate the birdie pool and limit the number any ONE person can take based on Handicaps, or even limit the holes where a birdie takes a skin. The hardest holes would eliminate most high hdcp'rs, so maybe split the pool. top 9 hardest holes is a contest open to everyone, while the easiest 9 are ONLY open to the higher hdcprs.

My Dad played in a group with a Birdie Pool, and he never bothered to enter with his 32, since there were at least 3 former Club Champs and one former PGA Teacher in the group (about 30 guys). After awhile they restricted those guys to win only one per outing and it opened up for the others and made it more competitive for the rest of the guys.

i'm in the midst of my calculation, but so far at a 16.  i do not hit many GIR.  i hit 4 yesterday which is actually better than average (average maybe 2).  i make about 1 birdie every 3-4 rounds, although yesterday i had 7 birdie putts, 4 from GIR and 3 from just off the fringe.  fringe is a very popular spot for me, i wish it counted as a GIR or at least .5 GIR heh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuffluck 

... fringe is a very popular spot for me, i wish it counted as a GIR or at least .5 GIR heh.

You're only keeping stats for your own benefit, so I think you can really go either way with this.  Just keep in mind that your GIR numbers and your total putts go hand in hand.  You average 4 GIR and 32 putts now?  Switch to counting fringes and its going to be 7 GIR, but 35 total putts.

Kind of a 6/half dozen thing if you ask me.

EDIT:  A slightly OT general observation, but I find it odd how often somebody comes on here asking a question, then dissappears.  The OP still has not made a second post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

You're only keeping stats for your own benefit, so I think you can really go either way with this.  Just keep in mind that your GIR numbers and your total putts go hand in hand.  You average 4 GIR and 32 putts now?  Switch to counting fringes and its going to be 7 GIR, but 35 total putts.

 

Kind of a 6/half dozen thing if you ask me.

 

EDIT:  A slightly OT general observation, but I find it odd how often somebody comes on here asking a question, then dissappears.  The OP still has not made a second post.

that is true.  i would prefer to count the fringe as a putt if you use your putter, since it really isn't that much more difficult than a regular putt.  that puts me at 4 GIR and 40 putts, oh my.  can i blame the sandy greens again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuffluck 

that is true.  i would prefer to count the fringe as a putt if you use your putter, since it really isn't that much more difficult than a regular putt.  that puts me at 4 GIR and 40 putts, oh my.  can i blame the sandy greens again?

um, yes. :)  This time of year, I'm learning, is when everybody aerates and sands their greens.  So far I haven't had to play on any, but in the next week or so, I'm sure I will.  Yuck.

And just don't forget that you still have the draw the line somewhere.  It's not really accurate to call a putt from a collection area 10 yards off the green a putt, nor is it fair to call it a GIR.  But, yeah, counting fringes as GIR and putts seems fine to me.

If you want accurate stats, you need to count fringes as a missed green and not as a putt when you putt from the fringes.   Both the GIR and putting stats will be completely inaccurate if such liberties are taken.  Why damage the putting stats for the sake of artificial GIR stats?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckeyeNut 

If you want accurate stats, you need to count fringes as a missed green and not as a putt when you putt from the fringes.   Both the GIR and putting stats will be completely inaccurate if such liberties are taken.  Why damage the putting stats for the sake of artificial GIR stats?

i guess, i mean it just makes one look bad and the other look better in either scenario.  as golfingdad pointed out, it's all your stats so whatever you feel is more relevant.

yesterday i hit a 9i into a green where the pin was front left, maybe 6' from the fringe.  it landed on the left fringe and i had a 10' putt for birdie.  i could have gone for the middle of the green and had a 30 foot putt for birdie but that seemed less logical.  so, in that scenario saying GIR and calling the fringe putt a real putt seems a lot more realistic than calling a 30 foot putt a GIR and a putt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckeyeNut 

If you want accurate stats, you need to count fringes as a missed green and not as a putt when you putt from the fringes.   Both the GIR and putting stats will be completely inaccurate if such liberties are taken.  Why damage the putting stats for the sake of artificial GIR stats?

Accurate for whom?  Most of us are just keeping stats for the sake of our own knowledge and improvement, right?  He's keeping the stats, he knows how he's counting fringes, and so it really doesn't make any difference at all.

EDIT:  I keep stats like you ... if it's on the fringe, its not a GIR.  But I feel like I'm "cheating" and am "damaging the GIR stats for artificial putting stats" when I count putts from 6" off the green as a regular shot instead of a putt.

Like I said before ... 6 on one hand, half dozen on the other.

The topic of the last few posts reminds me of something I've always been curious about: how is proximity to the hole measured?  Is it only measured for GIR?  Obviously Proximity to the hole would be greatly affected by changing the stats in this case.

Anyway, I think I would side more toward's BuckeyeNut on this topic.  It's hard to know what you need to work on if you take even small liberties with the rules.  I sometimes have an internal struggle when I hit a laser of a drive that barely catches the first cut of rough maybe a couple feet off the fairway but with a prime attack angle to the pin still.  I want to check the "fairway hit" button on my scorecard/GPS app.  I don't, even though I feel I could.  At the of the day, I still missed my target.  If it just so happened there was a tree there, or a hazard, I wouldn't be counting it as a fairway hit.  Same goes for a green IMO.  A miss is a miss, even if you played for that specific miss.  Two years later, looking back at stats from that season, I think the stats would be more reliable if no liberties were taken.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter much, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

The topic of the last few posts reminds me of something I've always been curious about: how is proximity to the hole measured?  Is it only measured for GIR?  Obviously Proximity to the hole would be greatly affected by changing the stats in this case.

 

Anyway, I think I would side more toward's BuckeyeNut on this topic.  It's hard to know what you need to work on if you take even small liberties with the rules.  I sometimes have an internal struggle when I hit a laser of a drive that barely catches the first cut of rough maybe a couple feet off the fairway but with a prime attack angle to the pin still.  I want to check the "fairway hit" button on my scorecard/GPS app.  I don't, even though I feel I could.  At the of the day, I still missed my target.  If it just so happened there was a tree there, or a hazard, I wouldn't be counting it as a fairway hit.  Same goes for a green IMO.  A miss is a miss, even if you played for that specific miss.  Two years later, looking back at stats from that season, I think the stats would be more reliable if no liberties were taken.

 

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter much, I guess.

I do it the same as you and Buckeye too ... I'm just saying to each his own.  So he has slightly inflated GIR.  But he also has slightly inflated putting stats.  What's the difference?  I get it if somebody else was keeping his stats for him secretly and he had no idea that all of his fringes were being counted as GIR.  He'd think that he should work a lot more on putting than on ball striking.  But that's not the case.  He's writing it all down himself so he knows what he's doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

I do it the same as you and Buckeye too ... I'm just saying to each his own.  So he has slightly inflated GIR.  But he also has slightly inflated putting stats.  What's the difference?  I get it if somebody else was keeping his stats for him secretly and he had no idea that all of his fringes were being counted as GIR.  He'd think that he should work a lot more on putting than on ball striking.  But that's not the case.  He's writing it all down himself so he knows what he's doing.

For me it might make a difference.  I like to set my golf goals in terms of year-over-year improvement in certain areas.  Sometimes I go back a couple years to compare, and I'd forget that certain stats are inflated.  

Does it matter?  Not really.  I'm just sayin'.  Know what I'm sayin'?

If putting and GIR stats are wrong, it defeats the purpose of keeping stats.  The main purpose of keeping stats is game improvement and knowing your weaknesses/strengths.....................and these are 2 of the most important stats in the game.   GIR, Putting, and Scrambling are the most important stats to scoring.....so fudging them serves no purpose.  My 2 cents...

Someone who counts the fringe as GIR (as long as they also count shots from there as putts) is essentially just defining the greens to be a foot or so wider than they really are. Since green size is pretty variable and arbitrary, I can't see it making a bit of difference in tracking your stats. So I'd say do what you like - either way is just as useful. 

Plus, regardless of which method you use, as long as you're consistent you'll be able to see whether you're improving or not, which is all most people are trying to do with stats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

Someone who counts the fringe as GIR (as long as they also count shots from there as putts) is essentially just defining the greens to be a foot or so wider than they really are. Since green size is pretty variable and arbitrary, I can't see it making a bit of difference in tracking your stats. So I'd say do what you like - either way is just as useful. 

 

Plus, regardless of which method you use, as long as you're consistent you'll be able to see whether you're improving or not, which is all most people are trying to do with stats.

RIght ... it's completely arbitrary and 100% relative to you.  If he was counting fringes, yet NOT counting the next shot as a putt, then yeah, he's fooling himself and screwing up his stats.  But he's doing both so it makes little to no difference.

One thing that might be wise to keep track of that would sort of override the combination of those other two stats would be the length of the first putt.  If you go for a front pin and miss the green by 6" and you're 10 feet away you can be better off than if you play safe for the middle of the green and are 60 feet away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

RIght ... it's completely arbitrary and 100% relative to you.  If he was counting fringes, yet NOT counting the next shot as a putt, then yeah, he's fooling himself and screwing up his stats.  But he's doing both so it makes little to no difference.

 

One thing that might be wise to keep track of that would sort of override the combination of those other two stats would be the length of the first putt.  If you go for a front pin and miss the green by 6" and you're 10 feet away you can be better off than if you play safe for the middle of the green and are 60 feet away.

I'm gonna disagree a little bit.....

The purpose of tracking stats is to be able to identify those areas that are weak and therefore opportunities for improvement.  To argue that there are some times that you can miss the green and be closer to the hole than other times when you hit the green doesn't matter.  Statistically, an individual, unique circumstance is completely irrelevant.  There are times that you make a longer putt and times you miss a shorter putt.  That doesn't mean that it's not better to be closer to the hole when putting.  On the whole, it is better to hit greens in regulation than to miss them.   The green was missed, and if we're not counting it as such, then we're missing the opportunity to accurately identify the real opportunity.  In this case, the opportunity would lie in the approach shots, while the stats will be showing it to be in putting. 

I'll also argue that green size is not completely arbitrary.  The green, which is specifically defined by the rules, was specifically designed in that shape and size by the architect for a reason.  Nothing arbitrary at all.......