Originally Posted by Maddog10
I understand the people saying that they need to be kept by the rules in order to be most comparable to other people's stats. However, these same people are also claiming they are meaningless if everyone doesn't keep them the same way. I would argue that while they may be meaningless in terms of comparing your stats to my stats, which I care nothing about mind you, they are far from meaningless when it comes to evaluating my own game.
If I pure a 4 iron from 200+ yards right at the pin, it rolls within a few feet of hitting the flag and then drifts to the back of the green where it stops about an inch into the fringe, I'm counting that as a GIR and I am also counting the subsequent putt. Maybe my stats are meaningless to you, but that tells me I hit a nice iron into the green and should be able to make par with 2 putts. If I record a bogey on that hole, I want to know it was due to poor putting and not a poor approach shot. Like I said earlier, when the PGA comes knocking down my door asking for my official stats, I will adapt to their standards. Until then, I'm going to keep them in a way that best summarizes my game.
So whether you hit the green or miss it is completely subjective? I'm curious, how far do you have to miss a green by in order for you to consider yourself as having "missed" the green? 6 inches? 1 foot? 3 feet? Anything on the fringe? What if there's no fringe? Is it only a GIR/putt if you actually use the putter, and the exact same approach becomes a missed GIR if you opt to chip? Is an approach that ends up on the fringe but 100 feet from the hole treated the same as one on the fringe but 20 feet from the hole? 80 feet versus 30 feet? 60 versus 40? Or does it all vary day by day, shot by shot?
If you boom a drive 300+ yards but miss the fairway by 6 inches, do you count that as a fairway hit too, because it was still be a damn good drive?
I'm really not trying to be a pain in the ass here. I'm genuinely trying to understand. If the purpose of keeping stats is to gain a better understanding of our game, it seems to me that the criteria for each stat should be well defined, objective, and consistently applied. Otherwise the stats themselves are less reflective of what actually happened and more about the subjective context of the entire shot. Since that subjectivity is going to vary without well-defined parameters, analysis of the statistics themselves is going to be far less precise. That's not opinion, it's just math....