or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is the correlation between the number of birdies and your handicap.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the correlation between the number of birdies and your handicap. - Page 4

post #55 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

 

 What's it to you if someone wants to keep his stats that way?

 

I doubt he's a moron who is unaware of this or is going to start sharing his awesome GIR and poor putting stats with everyone…

 

Is that comparison happening and I'm missing it?

 

 

Nothing to me at all.  I was just discussing basic statistical analysis......apparently not very effectively.

 

The comparison happens all the time.  We even do it on here pretty often.  Set a standard and then compare results against that standard.  How many keys vs handicap as one example recently.  If we didn't measure either attainment of the key itself or the hcp index the same for everyone, then the comparison means very little.

 

I compare my stats to where I want to be based on scoring/handicap/performance goals I set for myself.  I have a group of buddies that are several shots better than me.  If I'm averaging "x" GIR and they're averaging "y", I look at my own performance and it would be reasonable to set a goal to improve my own GIR to match theirs.  But if I'm not calculating GIR in the same manner they are, that comparison isn't valid.  In fact, as I look at my stats compared to theirs, it's likely that since I'm also counting putts that they're not, my putts will seem much higher and again, could lead me to think that I really need to be working on putting, rather than focusing on ways to hit more greens.

 

 I sure don't think that sacm3bil is a moron!  The old saying is that responsibility for any poor communication lies with the one doing the communicating.   I've just failed in communicating my point about the basic statistical comparison effectively.  No big deal at all.  I'll quietly move on. 

post #56 of 71
Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

 

I have a group of buddies that are several shots better than me.  If I'm averaging "x" GIR and they're averaging "y", I look at my own performance and it would be reasonable to set a goal to improve my own GIR to match theirs.  But if I'm not calculating GIR in the same manner they are, that comparison isn't valid.

 

If you have a group like that and you're all playing the same greens, then that is a case where it *is* necessary for you all to use the same definition for what is a GIR. Obviously. But it is *extremely* rare to have a peer group like that where you're all playing the same course all the time AND also care about what your stats are relative to each other. In most other cases, if you are comparing your GIRs to some "standard", that standard is going to be based on a very wide variety of green sizes and shapes. So it doesn't matter if one's GIR stats are based on greens half a fringe wider than they really are.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


The old saying is that responsibility for any poor communication lies with the one doing the communicating.   I've just failed in communicating my point about the basic statistical comparison effectively.  No big deal at all.  I'll quietly move on. 

 

You have communicated your view well, IMO. You have just never addressed or refuted a couple points that have been made, such as the one summed up in my paragraph above, or the one about how it could be more helpful to a high handicapper to use the fringe as part of the green.

post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

 

EXACTLY!

 

If your only reason for keeping stats is to chart improvement in each, then you can define anything in any way you like.  BUT, if you're using your stats to identify the weaknesses in your game so you can attack those areas that present the greatest opportunities, you have to be careful.  As you said, if you include the fringe in GIR, your GIR is going to go up, as will your putts.  In comparing the 2, you may very well decide that your putting is worse than it is and spend time there when the real culprit is the approach shots.  That's my point.

Is it??  How big are the fringes on the courses you play?  Do you find it acceptable to 3 putt from 8" off the green?

 

Like I said before, I keep my stats "correctly" like you, however, they aren't really any more accurate in determining what I need to work on than if I did it tuffluck's way.  In both cases, you still have to analyze everything and since you are the only one keeping you're own stats, it shouldn't be that hard to do no matter how you define everything.

post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

If you have a group like that and you're all playing the same greens, then that is a case where it *is* necessary for you all to use the same definition for what is a GIR. Obviously. But it is *extremely* rare to have a peer group like that where you're all playing the same course all the time AND also care about what your stats are relative to each other. In most other cases, if you are comparing your GIRs to some "standard", that standard is going to be based on a very wide variety of green sizes and shapes. So it doesn't matter if one's GIR stats are based on greens half a fringe wider than they really are.

 

 

You have communicated your view well, IMO. You have just never addressed or refuted a couple points that have been made, such as the one summed up in my paragraph above, or the one about how it could be more helpful to a high handicapper to use the fringe as part of the green.

 

Nope.  It's very basic statistics.  You're smart enough to understand the math, so the failure to explain it is mine.  I'll own it and move on.

post #59 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Is it??  How big are the fringes on the courses you play?  Do you find it acceptable to 3 putt from 8" off the green?

 

No.  I would expect to one putt from 8 inches off the green most times.  Because the first stroke isn't a putt.

 

if you're counting it as a putt, then your putts are going to appear higher than those who don't count it as a putt.  That could lead you to the wrong conclusion.

 

It's worth noting that tracking putts per GIR helps solve the problem though.  A much better stat too, IMHO.

post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

No.  I would expect to one putt from 8 inches off the green most times.  Because the first stroke isn't a putt.

 

if you're counting it as a putt, then your putts are going to appear higher than those who don't count it as a putt.  That could lead you to the wrong conclusion.

 

It's worth noting that tracking putts per GIR helps solve the problem though.  A much better stat too, IMHO.

Yes, but you are the one keeping the stats, right?  Are you saying that you will randomly space out and forget who you track them?  I mean, you know for 100% sure that you're not counting those fringes as GIR.  You haven't magically forgotten since your last few rounds, so why would he forget that he WAS counting them as GIR?

post #61 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

If you have a group like that and you're all playing the same greens, then that is a case where it *is* necessary for you all to use the same definition for what is a GIR. Obviously. But it is *extremely* rare to have a peer group like that where you're all playing the same course all the time AND also care about what your stats are relative to each other. In most other cases, if you are comparing your GIRs to some "standard", that standard is going to be based on a very wide variety of green sizes and shapes. So it doesn't matter if one's GIR stats are based on greens half a fringe wider than they really are.

 

 

You have communicated your view well, IMO. You have just never addressed or refuted a couple points that have been made, such as the one summed up in my paragraph above, or the one about how it could be more helpful to a high handicapper to use the fringe as part of the green.

 

Nope.  It's very basic statistics.  You're smart enough to understand the math, so the failure to explain it is mine.  I'll own it and move on.

 

Wow. Ok then.

post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

Wow. Ok then.

 

If that came across snarky, I apologize.  It wasn't meant to be.  I meant what I said.  For some reason I'm not explaining what I thought was a simple concept very well today. 

post #63 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

 

If that came across snarky, I apologize.  It wasn't meant to be.  I meant what I said.  For some reason I'm not explaining what I thought was a simple concept very well today. 

FWIW, I didn't read it as such ... but I could see how some might. :)

post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

Wow. Ok then.

 

If that came across snarky, I apologize.  It wasn't meant to be.  I meant what I said.  For some reason I'm not explaining what I thought was a simple concept very well today. 

 

My apologies as well. It just seemed that you're using "I didn't explain it well enough" as an out to not address or refute a couple points that have been made.

post #65 of 71

i still think it's like paying $10 less in gas than you expected and spending that $10 on a case of beer at the gas station while you waited for your car to fill up instead.  you know...six of one and half a dozen of the other sort of thing.  if i KNOW a shot is poor (and granted i'm a higher handicap than you fellas and i consider a fringe a good shot), then i count it as what it should be.  a fringe is a good approach shot.  a putt from the fringe (within reason) that goes sailing 30 feet past, is a poor shot.  it's simple.  the missed GIR is never the stroke that hurt my score on that hole.  of course if i had instead hit the approach shot within 3' that would not be the case, but that is introducing an entirely different discussion.  besides David in FL, who cares what the exact technical definition is?
 

post #66 of 71

I am a bit confused why you would redefine the basics of Fairways/Greens in Regulation and putting.  I am a high handicapper as well, but if I miss a green, I miss a green.  If I mark the fringe as a GIR then it inflates my %'s of greens hit.  Now I understand that the person keeping these marks will understand his own system, but how does it work when you reflect back on past rounds?

 

If I look at my score cards over the past year and I used this method,  I certainly don't remember if I truly hit the green or if I hit the fringe.  I understand that for us high handicappers us hitting the fringe is an improvement, but we are still not hitting the green, and thus it is an area we still need to work on.

 

A method I use for hitting fringes is to mark that I missed the green, but put an F beside my mark.  This informs me that although I missed the green I was at least on the fringe.  When I check how well I did putting on each hole I am able to tell if my putts were all on the green or if some were on the fringe. 
 

 

Just a thought.  Obviously, if you are able to use your own system of tracking shots to improve your game that is all that matters.

post #67 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

I am a bit confused why you would redefine the basics of Fairways/Greens in Regulation and putting.  I am a high handicapper as well, but if I miss a green, I miss a green.  If I mark the fringe as a GIR then it inflates my %'s of greens hit.  Now I understand that the person keeping these marks will understand his own system, but how does it work when you reflect back on past rounds?

 

If I look at my score cards over the past year and I used this method,  I certainly don't remember if I truly hit the green or if I hit the fringe.  I understand that for us high handicappers us hitting the fringe is an improvement, but we are still not hitting the green, and thus it is an area we still need to work on.

 

A method I use for hitting fringes is to mark that I missed the green, but put an F beside my mark.  This informs me that although I missed the green I was at least on the fringe.  When I check how well I did putting on each hole I am able to tell if my putts were all on the green or if some were on the fringe. 
 

 

Just a thought.  Obviously, if you are able to use your own system of tracking shots to improve your game that is all that matters.

That's actually pretty clever.  I use an iphone app (golfshot) that justs asks me to put in the score for the hole and the number of putts and it calculates whether or not its a GIR so I couldn't do it that way.

 

Nothing is foolproof.  Whatever method you use, its still up to you to analyze your own stats.

 

Here's another example:  Big green, slopes back to front, front pin.  Player A hits a solid shot that ends up below the hole, with a 20 foot straight uphill putt for birdie, but is 15" off the green on the fringe.  One putt onto the green, and then 2 putts from there for a bogey.  Player B thins his wedge but it has enough spin and the green has enough slope that he's just on the back of the green, 80 ft away, and 3 putts form there for a bogey as well.  Which player needs to work on his ballstriking and which needs to work on his putting?  Conventional stats say A needs more work on ballstriking, and B needs more work on putting.  Pretty sure everybody would agree that is backwards, no?

 

Stats alone - regardless how you define them - don't tell the whole story.

post #68 of 71
Proximity to hole on approach shot. That is the best way to judge approach shots. Of course the ShotLink guys don't follow me around and walking off each one would be a pain. Could always guesstimate and that would probably be good enough.

The previous scenario is a good example of why stats can't be applied to a specific instance. They only work on large sets an thus that scenario would not ultimately impact the stats unless you had an unusually high percentage of instances like that.

50% of marriages end in divorce but that does not mean I have a 50-50 chance of getting divorced.

It would seem to make more sense to track the stats in a way that is consistent with the golfing world at large. However one thing that makes golf great is that you do not need another living soul to play so do whatever you want. If you choose to track stats differently from the generally accepted method then you become a demographic of 1. Either way my life is not impacted :)
post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

That's actually pretty clever.  I use an iphone app (golfshot) that justs asks me to put in the score for the hole and the number of putts and it calculates whether or not its a GIR so I couldn't do it that way.

 

Nothing is foolproof.  Whatever method you use, its still up to you to analyze your own stats.

 

Here's another example:  Big green, slopes back to front, front pin.  Player A hits a solid shot that ends up below the hole, with a 20 foot straight uphill putt for birdie, but is 15" off the green on the fringe.  One putt onto the green, and then 2 putts from there for a bogey.  Player B thins his wedge but it has enough spin and the green has enough slope that he's just on the back of the green, 80 ft away, and 3 putts form there for a bogey as well.  Which player needs to work on his ballstriking and which needs to work on his putting?  Conventional stats say A needs more work on ballstriking, and B needs more work on putting.  Pretty sure everybody would agree that is backwards, no?

 

Stats alone - regardless how you define them - don't tell the whole story.

 

I agree to an extent.  Yes, in your example, player A had the better shot.  But this is why we measure in %'s.  There will always be exceptions to the rule but I don't think anyone can disagree that hitting more GIR's is better for your golf game.  But as has been said numerous times, whatever works for you.  If you are able to track your improvement and meet your goals, that is all that matters.  I certainly agree, that at my handicap, hitting the fringe consistently is an accomplishment.

post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Just as in the case I gave of someone who plays large greens having a higher GIR than someone else with the same game but who plays courses with small greens, two people with the same handicap and the same exact game may have different birdie stats if one of them plays shorter tees than the other.

 

A ha!  But if they played the same courses/tees, their stats would be directly comparative...unless they were re-defining what a green is.

 

FYI, I'm just arguing/debating/discussing for discussion's sake.  And because I have nothing better to do right now.

post #71 of 71

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." (Mark Twain).

 

There's a heck of a difference between a guy missing every fairway into the first cut and a guy ripping them off down into the woods or swamp, and a heck of a difference between missing a green by six inches and pull hooking it over into the next county.

 

I know a guy that just LOVES to talk about his "one putts" and/or "putts per round". Takes him four strokes to get up by the green and all he ever has to do is basically a "putt" with an iron that doesn't count as a putt.

 

I know another one that plays a lot on some of the Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail courses where the greens look like a 5 acre field and LOVES the GIR stat. Those 50 yard putts don't impress me much.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is the correlation between the number of birdies and your handicap.