Some interesting statistics

[bjwestner]

I like to see various charts/stats on how golf score correlates to various things (i.e. putts per round, GIR, FIR, etc.).  I stumbled on this site: http://www.probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news09-07-04.htm

What I found the most interesting was this chart:

	AVERAGE SCORE									Relationship
CATEGORY	71	75	79	81	85	89	91	95	99
GIR	12	10	8	7	5	3	2	0	0	Strong
% Fairways	81	71	61	56	46	36	31	21	11	Weak
Iron Accuracy	80	68	53	47	33	20	13	0	0	Good
Putts per Round	29.0	30.3	31.7	32.3	33.7	35.0	35.7	37.0	38.3	Weak
Pitch/Chip/Sand	5.1	7.4	9.8	10.9	13.3	15.6	16.8	19.2	21.5	Strong
Birdies	3.2	2.4	1.8	1.5	0.8	0.1	0	0	0	Strong
Pars	11.8	10.3	8.8	8.1	6.6	5.1	4.3	2.8	1.3	Strong

I average just 4 GIR per round and based on another thread on this website, I was under the impression that this was actually kind of low versus my handicap.  According to this chart the GIR seems a bit low.  Until last month or so when I really started analyzing these stats, I thought then that putting was way more important than it actually is.  Not saying that putting is of no importance but it is of less importance the higher your score/hc is it seems.  Anyways, just thought that the site/chart was interesting so I shared it.

For what's it's worth I see a striking resemblance between pars per round on the chart compared to my own scores and how many pars per round I had.

[Beachcomber]

The chart is interesting... One thing I think is misleading is the Fairway %.  70 to 80% to be a sub 5 handicap golfer?  I think that is drastically exaggerated?  That is in fact, a very high number and anyone that is that accurate off the tee - I'm betting they don't hit the ball very far.

Also, I don't agree with the putts per round numbers.... The more GIR you hit, the more times you'll be putting.  Having less than 30 putts when hitting 12 GIR?  That means you are getting up and down on every missed green.... With zero three putts.  I mean you could throw a few birdies (they are saying 3) - which brings the up and down requirement down to say 50%.  But that still is zero 3 putts.  I think 30 putts is a tough number to hit.  At least it is for me at the moment.

Maybe that is why they have Fairway % and GIR as 'Weak' in the Relationship column?

Here are my stats for comparison sake.... My current index is 4.8.  And my last 20 rounds I've had a lot of swing mods I'm working on so my handicap hasn't been trending down - but actually up.

[Golfingdad]

Interesting find.  Some of that info relates directly to other stuff posted recently (like the GIR --> HDCP) but it's nice to see more thorough info like that.

Do you know, specifically, what the "iron accuracy" numbers are?  Is it a percentage, perhaps a percentage of how frequently you hit your target with irons?  The chart doesn't really specify.

And, I kind of disagree with you on the putting aspect of it.  I don't think the chart says that it's not that important, but it is just not a very good indicator of anything.  It's easy to say "oh, the difference between a 91 and a 75 is only 5 putts, so obviously putting importance diminishes" however that doesn't take into account GIR.  The 91 shooter is chipping onto the green prior to his first putt 16 times a round, whereas the 75 shooter is only doing that 8 times a round.

He's missing 8 greens and only averaging 3 over par, so he's getting up and down about half the time (figuring in that birdie or two).  Even if you are good with your wedges, up and downs involve a lot of 5,6,7 foot putts you have to occasionally make.

91 guy is basically 2-putting every green even though he's chipping onto most of them.

putts/GIR would be a much better way to compare the importance of putting, I think.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bjwestner

I like to see various charts/stats on how golf score correlates to various things (i.e. putts per round, GIR, FIR, etc.).  I stumbled on this site:  http://www.probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news09-07-04.htm

What I found the most interesting was this chart:

AVERAGE SCORE

Relationship

CATEGORY

71

75

79

81

85

89

91

95

99

GIR

12

10

8

7

5

3

2

0

0

Strong

% Fairways

81

71

61

56

46

36

31

21

11

Weak

Iron Accuracy

80

68

53

47

33

20

13

0

0

Good

Putts per Round

29.0

30.3

31.7

32.3

33.7

35.0

35.7

37.0

38.3

Weak

Pitch/Chip/Sand

5.1

7.4

9.8

10.9

13.3

15.6

16.8

19.2

21.5

Strong

Birdies

3.2

2.4

1.8

1.5

0.8

0.1

0

0

0

Strong

Pars

11.8

10.3

8.8

8.1

6.6

5.1

4.3

2.8

1.3

Strong

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Here are my stats for comparison sake.... My current index is 4.8.  And my last 20 rounds I've had a lot of swing mods I'm working on so my handicap hasn't been trending down - but actually up.

I don't know Beach, I think you might be a poster boy for the validity of this chart.  Fair to assume that the "average" score for a 5 handicap is closest to 79?

Your GIR is 9.8 (vs. 8), fairways hit is 61% (vs. 61%), putts 32.4 (vs. 31.7), birdies 1.9 (vs. 1.8) and pars 8.8 (vs. 8.8) :)

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

And, I kind of disagree with you on the putting aspect of it.  I don't think the chart says that it's not that important, but it is just not a very good indicator of anything.  It's easy to say "oh, the difference between a 91 and a 75 is only 5 putts, so obviously putting importance diminishes" however that doesn't take into account GIR.  The 91 shooter is chipping onto the green prior to his first putt 16 times a round, whereas the 75 shooter is only doing that 8 times a round.

He's missing 8 greens and only averaging 3 over par, so he's getting up and down about half the time (figuring in that birdie or two).  Even if you are good with your wedges, up and downs involve a lot of 5,6,7 foot putts you have to occasionally make.

91 guy is basically 2-putting every green even though he's chipping onto most of them.

The difference between a 91 and 75 is only 5 putts?  I'm confused with your example you laid out.

Obviously the more greens you miss - the more chances you are going to have to try and get up and down.  All I know is I'm averaging 32.4 putts (edit) a round and need to find a way to cut another 2 or 3 putts off to get to where I want to be.  I know I can do it once I fix my lag putting issue that creeps into the mix.

Looks like I really need to work on my chipping - I mean they are showing that I need to get up and down nearly 50% of the time - if not more to get down to where I want to be.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Do you know, specifically, what the "iron accuracy" numbers are?  Is it a percentage, perhaps a percentage of how frequently you hit your target with irons?  The chart doesn't really specify.

Good question.  I wasn't clear on what that is.... I'm guessing dispersion?  Or where you miss/curve the ball?  Left/Right %'s??

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

The difference between a 91 and 75 is only 5 putts?  I'm confused with your example you laid out.

Obviously the more greens you miss - the more chances you are going to have to try and get up and down.  All I know is I'm averaging 34 putts a round and need to find a way to cut another 2 or 3 putts off to get to where I want to be.  I know I can do it once I fix my lag putting issue that creeps into the mix.

Looks like I really need to work on my chipping - I mean they are showing that I need to get up and down nearly 50% of the time - if not more to get down to where I want to be.

LOL.  I thought I was going to be the first responder so I didn't bother to quote the OP, then you snuck in before me, so maybe it appeared as though I was disagreeing with you.  In actuality, I was saying the exact same thing you said, but in a more convoluted and confusing way. :)  The difference is technically 5 putts, but not relaly even close to that due to the large discrepancy in GIR.  Take me and you right now for example.  You say you are averaging 34 putts per round ... Well I'm averaging between 31 and 32.  Conclusion:  I am an awesome putter, and you suck! ;)  Reality:  You hit 4 or 5 more greens than me and if I did that, I'd likely be hitting AT LEAST 34 putts per round, maybe more. :)

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

LOL.  I thought I was going to be the first responder so I didn't bother to quote the OP, then you snuck in before me, so maybe it appeared as though I was disagreeing with you.  In actuality, I was saying the exact same thing you said, but in a more convoluted and confusing way. :)  The difference is technically 5 putts, but not relaly even close to that due to the large discrepancy in GIR.  Take me and you right now for example.  You say you are averaging 34 putts per round ... Well I'm averaging between 31 and 32.  Conclusion:  I am an awesome putter, and you suck! ;)  Reality:  You hit 4 or 5 more greens than me and if I did that, I'd likely be hitting AT LEAST 34 putts per round, maybe more. :)

Except I had fat fingers and didn't key it in correctly.  I'm averaging 32.4 putts.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Except I had fat fingers and didn't key it in correctly.  I'm averaging 32.4 putts.

Nope, sorry.  You said 34, can't take it back now!  You suck at putting!

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Nope, sorry.  You said 34, can't take it back now!  You suck at putting!

[bjwestner]

I read somewhere recently that the difference between a 20hc and a single digit hc is only about 5 putts per round.  According to what I read it said something along the lines of a single hc averaging around 32 putts per round while a 20hc averages about 37.

I'm realizing that putts per round is so misleading.  Some of my highest putting rounds have actually been rounds when I had quite a few GIR.  In those cases I just was not close to the hole and thus even though I had a GIR, I was further away and thus had more putts because of it.  A perfect example is how I played last week, 29 putts but I shot 90 and had just 1 GIR!  I was chipping and pitching everything close so my putting numbers by themselves looked great.

The more I learn the more I realize that for me to get better there is just one main statistic to improve on; GIR.  The more GIR I hit, the lower my hc will drop.....

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bjwestner

I read somewhere recently that the difference between a 20hc and a single digit hc is only about 5 putts per round.  According to what I read it said something along the lines of a single hc averaging around 32 putts per round while a 20hc averages about 37.

I'm realizing that putts per round is so misleading.  Some of my highest putting rounds have actually been rounds when I had quite a few GIR.  In those cases I just was not close to the hole and thus even though I had a GIR, I was further away and thus had more putts because of it.  A perfect example is how I played last week, 29 putts but I shot 90 and had just 1 GIR!  I was chipping and pitching everything close so my putting numbers by themselves looked great.

The more I learn the more I realize that for me to get better there is just one main statistic to improve on; GIR.  The more GIR I hit, the lower my hc will drop.....

Exactly.  But be careful though because it's not just GIR's that matter.  If your putting isn't that good, as those GIR's start to creep up, so will the 3 putts.

[birlyshirly]

I like the Riccio stuff you can find on the web - basically summed up in the equation Score = 95 - (GIR x 2). From there, and your own figures, you can draw a few conclusions about putting, short game and relative strengths and weaknesses.

[Harmonious]

I don't know, but I'm thinking iron accuracy is the percentage of hit greens when you have an iron in your hand. On long par 3's, for example, I may hit a hybrid and not get a GIR. But my iron accuracy would generally be better because I am hitting approach shots from shorter distances.

[mmoan2]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

The chart is interesting... One thing I think is misleading is the Fairway %.  70 to 80% to be a sub 5 handicap golfer?  I think that is drastically exaggerated?  That is in fact, a very high number and anyone that is that accurate off the tee - I'm betting they don't hit the ball very far.

Also, I don't agree with the putts per round numbers.... The more GIR you hit, the more times you'll be putting.  Having less than 30 putts when hitting 12 GIR?  That means you are getting up and down on every missed green.... With zero three putts.  I mean you could throw a few birdies (they are saying 3) - which brings the up and down requirement down to say 50%.  But that still is zero 3 putts.  I think 30 putts is a tough number to hit.  At least it is for me at the moment.

Maybe that is why they have Fairway % and GIR as 'Weak' in the Relationship column?

Here are my stats for comparison sake.... My current index is 4.8.  And my last 20 rounds I've had a lot of swing mods I'm working on so my handicap hasn't been trending down - but actually up.

I know Hank Haney is kinda a pariah around this forum, but something he said in this most recent Golf Digest supports what you say. The question was posed - "Why don't more pros hit 3 wood from the tee if the accuracy rate is so much higher?" He answered that fairways hit% really isn't that important; what is more important is WHICH fairways you hit - par 5s that are reachable in 2, long par 4s, etc. He said that with Tiger, when he could barely hit 50% of fairways, he still needed his driver because to concede a 3 wood on every tee would be giving up like 500 yards a round to most top pros- too much of a hurdle to overcome. Also, the chart does say that the correlation between fairway% and score is weak. I agree. I can't tell you how many times it has amazed me to take a quick look at some tournament stats while at work, see that a guy like Charles Howell, or Garrigus, etc. is at 4 under for the round, yet their fairway% is like 25% through 14 holes. I've unofficially decided that long off the tee and fairly accurate is better than deadly precision and 250 with the wind behind you. Approach shots, IMHO, are much more important for scoring if you are a long and passably accurate driver of the ball. Especially long-mid irons. That's where I get killed. Anyone can put a 110 yard shot on the green, even if they have to use a putter, but the difference between hooking a 200 yard 4 or 5 iron 40 yards from the pin or putting it on the green is immense.

[VegasRenegade]

Got to agree. I hit almost. Zer gir but moss close. So many times have under 28 puts by I make up for it. Ob off. The tee

[Hollister]

I did the math today - PGA tour green approach stats

If the rough is manageable, you do not have to worry too much about off-fairway hits. Pro tournament roughs really suck - last time I tried them. Stats show that, too.

Distance to the flag on the green is a really important: the further away, the lower the chance to hole out. Iron accuracy should have a big influence on the putting stats. The tables show that, too.

Again, the old mantra: Hit long, hit fairways, up the GIRs, no 3-puts. Amen. Fix that swing, not the clubs... :D

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Hollister

I did the math today - PGA tour green approach stats

If the rough is manageable, you do not have to worry too much about off-fairway hits. Pro tournament roughs really suck - last time I tried them. Stats show that, too.

Distance to the flag on the green is a really important: the further away, the lower the chance to hole out. Iron accuracy should have a big influence on the putting stats. The tables show that, too.

Again, the old mantra: Hit long, hit fairways, up the GIRs, no 3-puts. Amen. Fix that swing, not the clubs... :D

The challenge with looking at PGA Tour statistics in this current era of professional golf, and comparing them to mine or your stats, or any other amatuer golfer; is looking at how different the courses that the pros are playing, compared to the typical muni that you and I are playing (Sorry, I don't know you - so if you belong to a Country Club, please don't take offense).

1.) On the tour, they are putting on greens which are perfectly manicured - and typically stimping at 12+.

2.) They are hitting out of well manicured bunkers - without footprints or rocks - and not the occasional bunker that will have 2ft of sand - then the next with 2" of sand before hard pan.

3.) The fairways are mowed low - and are kept dry - so they can get roll0ut - firm and fast.... Some muni's I play around here are like soup bowls and the fairways are way over watered - or have poor drainage and run-off.

4.) The rough - at least when I was at Torrey a few weeks back - was mowed pretty short and it was kept dry - so it wasn't terribly difficult to hit out of if you missed the fairway... Whereas some of the munis I play - they water the course so much it is wet and shaggy which is silly because it punishes any player of any quality... Then others where they just let it die and isn't very well manicured and your lie could be death.  I don't see these type of inconsistencies on tour.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying the Tour is playing courses which are setup and manicured better, so I could play better golf on said tour courses... Because the courses I play are much, much shorter tracks than the PGA Tour is playing (typically 6,500 to 6,800 vs. 7,200+)... But the pros are playing on some of the best manicured courses in the world.  So their stats are going to be optimized in some sense because of the ideal conditions and courses they are playing. Granted, it doesn't hurt that these guys are off the charts good either...

[Hollister]

Ah, no worries.

I deleted a sentence like "as a higher handicapper (me), you have to choose the right tees to have a chance to play well". My official handicap is 28, I play between 18 and 28 - no time and no lust for tourneys.

I am over in Europe and played a PGA tour prepared course once. I never ever had so much roll. And I never had to hit it three times out of the rough to get closer to the 30 feet away flag. Remember Phils "wrist-gate". Or those carpet like greens.

Course conditions matter, right. Just take my 70+ year old uncle. Distance off the tee sucks - but the course is not that long and has a few shortcuts and overrated holes. But he hits it straight, gets to the greens and boy does he know every hump on that stimp 10 greens. And no, no bunckers for him, no water hazards, no bio hazards - but easy to manage rough. And yes, it has to be dry for him to play his best golf. No roll in the off-season.

Point is, our day-to-day courses might be a little easier to play - stimp 10, less roll, and what not. But you can play a decent round and go low, because you know where you are.

Looking at putting, thats an area where everybody can be excellent. Around the green maybe, too. Iron play is a little harder to get very good at. Distance and accuracy off the tee (yes, both), might be the hardest to get for 10+ handicappers.

Looking at: Again, the old mantra: Hit long, hit fairways, up the GIRs, no 3-puts.

I do not get much over 210 yards off the tee, hence I have a longer iron or hybrid to get to the green, which equals less proximity to the flag. Same as the pros. Hitting the rough off the tee makes that task impossible - GIR go down. The vicious cycle everybody knows. So the mantra for me is: hit fairways, up the GIRs - the rest will follow.

Since your handicap was much better than mine (time before it said bad), I am only wondering if that darn mantra is the same for 10+ handicaps like you?