What Does the Average Weekend Golfer Shoot?

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Interesting article.  I would only caution that correlation and causality are not the same thing.  I would also say that while you can always calculate an average of some characteristic (like number of putts per round) of a group there may not be a single sample in the group that looks like (in this case plays like) the average.

I thought the same thing until I looked at my stats. The 85 golfer is pretty much me over the last 20 rounds; 5.5 (30.9%) GIR-9 (50.5%) FIR-33.4 putts and 6.6 pars on the nail.

[iacas]

"A radio station."

[Lihu]

"A radio station."

88 to 108 seems a little low, unless you mean on any course.

[rkim291968]

Originally Posted by Pushy

I guy I play with used to play with an "8 is the limit for a hole" rule.  Some perversion of ESC I guess.

When my brother took me to field in my beginning days of golf , he used no more than double par rule (6 on par 3, 8 on par 4, 10 on par 5).   It took me a while to figure out that this was his (and others)  arbitrary rule and I started using ESC for handicap calculation.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Originally Posted by mdl

Maybe you're exaggerating for effect.  But when I play it's almost always with at least 2 randoms.  I don't think I've ever seen someone shoot a 114 and claim an 89.  Every so often I'll play with someone who'll use a foot wedge or two, but I very rarely see people take mulligans.  Sure people take some gimmes and maybe just ignore (score wise) a ball lost off the tee, but among the golfers who are scoring themselves better than they really played the average has to be more in the 2-6 strokes better range, not the 20-30 strokes range!

I never meant to imply that folks shooting 114 were claiming 89.  I guess I can see how you extrapolated that, but the numbers you pulled were from two separate points I was making.  I apologize for the confusion. I definitely do not see any golfers reducing their score by 25 strokes as those numbers show. I doubt many 114 golfers are really tallying the score at the end of the round at all.

But I stand by my central point from the post, "Most are not breaking 100 - even though they play from the blues.  But if you look at the card at the end of the round - high 80's / low 90's."  Almost everyone I play with reports a score in the 80's or 90's - assuming I heard them say something out loud.  Some of them really did break 100 (or shot the actual 82 they reported), but many did not.  Maybe he shot 98 and reported 88.  Or shot 100 and reported 93.

I very rarely hear someone report that they shot a 103 - or anything over 100.  Maybe the implication of 10 strokes on average is a little overstated, but something like 7 is not.  Not for the golfers I see on the weekend.  A majority of the ones I play with take mulligans or "hit another one". Lots of lie fluffing, foot wedges from behind trees, lost balls treated as laterals, long gimmies, etc.  Over 18 holes, these efforts can add up fast.  The point I was trying to make was that the concept of par, and what we see guys shoot on tv, and what others claim to shoot can influence folks talking about sub-100 scores they didn't shoot.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Originally Posted by mdl

Maybe you're exaggerating for effect.  But when I play it's almost always with at least 2 randoms.  I don't think I've ever seen someone shoot a 114 and claim an 89.  Every so often I'll play with someone who'll use a foot wedge or two, but I very rarely see people take mulligans.  Sure people take some gimmes and maybe just ignore (score wise) a ball lost off the tee, but among the golfers who are scoring themselves better than they really played the average has to be more in the 2-6 strokes better range, not the 20-30 strokes range!

And maybe a little off point, but I'd say that ignoring a lost ball off the tee and taking a mulligan are basically the same thing.  It amounts to the same amount of uncounted strokes anyway - 2 per occurrence.  Combine this with the footwedge or two and gimmies you speak of and I think we're in the same ballpark.

[rkim291968]

Golf scores and drive distance average are two things that weekend warriors will mislead others.    Case in point, Tiger's drive distance is about 300 yard and he is one of the longest in PGA tour.   And yet, this forum is full of golfer who "averages" on or over 300 yards drive average - see the "distance" thread in this forum.   It's a bit fishy to me .

[Lihu]

Golf scores and drive distance average are two things that weekend warriors will mislead others.    Case in point, Tiger's drive distance is about 300 yard and he is one of the longest in PGA tour.   And yet, this forum is full of golfer who "averages" on or over 300 yards drive average - see the "distance" thread in this forum.   It's a bit fishy to me ;-) .

My Internet driving distance is 302 yards carry. :-P Look up the formula in the "20+ handicappers...(mild rant)". You just need to adjust yours appropriately.;-)

[Strandly]

I almost always book rounds solo and get paired with randoms and it's funny watching how they record their scores.  I don't see a lot of foot wedging or lie fluffing going on but bad tee shots are commonly a do-over.  I can see fudging my scores backfiring and making me an even worse player so I'm pretty hard on myself when it comes to that but I do hit extra balls on tee boxes sometimes if nobody is behind me (always play the first).

[Hacker James]

If I am by myself, I sometimes just keep score in my head as + / - (par for each hole). If I end up with a Plus 8 and the nine hole par is 36, then I know I shot a 44 . Since I am not turning a card in to any committee it makes no difference. I can still calculate my index and differential after the round.  If I want a truly analytical round, I will record each score, each ESC, track GIR, Fairways hit, total putts, e.t.c.   but usually I don't bother.  (same process as counting cards in single deck black jack).  I "win" at black jack frequently. although in real life, the longer you play, the house will always win.

[Wisguy]

Nonsense. What's hard to buy about this? Almost every single high handicapper would score better if he played only a pair of 7-irons on his first two shots on par-4s or would use a 5W/hybrid, followed by a 7-iron and use a 7-iron to wedge for the third shot on par-5s. If I played ultra-careful, completely uneventful golf, I'm sure it would take 3-5 strokes off my average round. A stroke or two a round can make the difference between subsistence living and being a millionaire on the pro tour, but for a high handicapper, the benefit in scoring lower wouldn't be worth the cost in occasional really satisfying shots. I'd save 10 strokes on some rounds if I left my driver and 3W at home, but it's worth the cost to me to be able to have a round when I've got my swing working and be able to draw a drive 260+ yards down the fairway a few times a round. There's a course I play on vacation that has a signature hole, a 285 yard par-4 with at least a 100' vertical elevation on the tee box. I don't remember the 6-irons I hit to the fairway or the many strokes I've lost slicing or hooking my 3W into the woods. I do remember the 3W I hit that bounced off and over the green and the other one that landed a few feet short of it that I chipped to tap-in distance. I don't play golf to methodically move a small spherical object around an outdoor setting in the fewest possible numbers of physical contacts with the face of my elongated playing instrument . I suspect that a lot of other people feel the same way.

[rkim291968]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

Nonsense. What's hard to buy about this? Almost every single high handicapper would score better if he played only a pair of 7-irons on his first two shots on par-4s or would use a 5W/hybrid, followed by a 7-iron and use a 7-iron to wedge for the third shot on par-5s. If I played ultra-careful, completely uneventful golf, I'm sure it would take 3-5 strokes off my average round. A stroke or two a round can make the difference between subsistence living and being a millionaire on the pro tour, but for a high handicapper, the benefit in scoring lower wouldn't be worth the cost in occasional really satisfying shots. I'd save 10 strokes on some rounds if I left my driver and 3W at home, but it's worth the cost to me to be able to have a round when I've got my swing working and be able to draw a drive 260+ yards down the fairway a few times a round. There's a course I play on vacation that has a signature hole, a 285 yard par-4 with at least a 100' vertical elevation on the tee box. I don't remember the 6-irons I hit to the fairway or the many strokes I've lost slicing or hooking my 3W into the woods. I do remember the 3W I hit that bounced off and over the green and the other one that landed a few feet short of it that I chipped to tap-in distance. I don't play golf to methodically move a small spherical object around an outdoor setting in the fewest possible numbers of physical contacts with the face of my elongated playing instrument . I suspect that a lot of other people feel the same way.

I think average weekend warrior plays risky golf, getting back to the topic somewhat.

Taking risk out of golf would be like playing blackjack at casino by counting cards.   For those who played blackjack by counting, it is less fun, is it?

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Lihu

My Internet driving distance is 302 yards carry.

Look up the formula in the "20+ handicappers...(mild rant)".

You just need to adjust yours appropriately.

Check the sig. Figured I'd make it easy for people...

[rkim291968]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Check the sig. Figured I'd make it easy for people...

I see a major flaw in your formula.   As with "caught" fish size, EPS is something that golfers will likely exaggerate.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by rkim291968

I see a major flaw in your formula.   As with "caught" fish size, EPS is something that golfers will likely exaggerate.

EPS IS exaggerated, and its exaggeration is proportional to driver distance exaggeration. That's why it's in the formula.

It's also a good way to take people's "average e-drives", and figure out what they ACTUALLY are. Estimate their EPS (easy to do by reading two-three sentences), and from there, a little algebra gives you their actual driving distance.

[rkim291968]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

EPS IS exaggerated, and its exaggeration is proportional to driver distance exaggeration. That's why it's in the formula.

It's also a good way to take people's "average e-drives", and figure out what they ACTUALLY are. Estimate their EPS (easy to do by reading two-three sentences), and from there, a little algebra gives you their actual driving distance.

Chuckle.   I got it right after I posted an earlier response.   It's Tuesday (1st work day this week) and I didn't have my 3rd cup of coffee yet.

[golferbabu]

Originally Posted by Old Tom

I would source this if I could remember where I read it, but the average score for male golfers is 97, the average mens' handicap is 15, but only around 20% of players actually maintain a legal U.S.G.A. handicap.

Not sure how you mean legal, I am a legit 22 handicap because I count every single stroke I take and assess any penalty(s) where applicable. I have played with golfers who are allegedly much better handicaps than me, but I can consistently beat them week over week. One thing I love about golf is you can fool yourself if you want to and "claim" to be a 15, but you might never putt out and take a couple of mulligans per round. I think if I was as lenient with myself my index would be about a 12 right now!

[Jeremie Boop]

Kind of strange that the average score for a male golfer is 97 but the average handicap is 15.... That's not exactly what you'd expect to see.