Putting from Fringe Scoring/Stats Question

[boogielicious]

@David in FL ,  I actually do similar to Maddog.  To answer your question, what I do is completely subjective.  If I am going for a back pin, fat the ball, and come up short on the fringe.  I would not count that as a GIR.  I guess I do not really have a clear cut designation.

Again, the reason I do this is not to inflate my GIR stats.  It is not to make my putting stats look better.

One issue with that is you are allowed to mark, lift and clean your ball when it is one the green.  You are not allowed to do this from the fringe.  That is why I think it is better to use the definitions defined by the RoG.  It is clearly defined there.

[Golfingdad]

I kinda like to keep track of shots that turn out how I imagine them. If its a push draw, and it turns out the way I want, I mark +1. If it isn't a push draw, but still ends up not hurting me, like still a GIR, then that is a 0. If its a total shit shot, -1.

Makes perfect sense to me.  They are your stats for your benefit and improvement.  All that matters is that you understand them and they mean something to you.

BTW, that's also a really good idea that I've never thought of before.  I'm stealing it. Can you elaborate on your method a little more?  Do you do it for every shot (including putts)?  If so, how do you weight them?  It's a lot easier to hit a putt how I want to then it is a drive.  Lastly, what are you looking for at the end?  Anything above zero is good?  +10?  +20?

[David in FL]

This makes sense to me.  I do something similar with FIR.  If I play a course I don't know and nail a perfect drive right where I'm aiming, yet it turns out that the fairway ends, or turns, such that I'm in the rough, I'll probably still call that a FIR.

Likewise, if I yank one OB that bounces off a roof back into the fairway, I'm not going to call that a FIR.

The reason being, I want to try and keep track of progress.  Luck is independent of progress.

Do you subjectively account for bad luck too?  If you nut one right down the middle and it somehow catches the 150 yardage pole and ends up DEEP in the junk, nearly OB (actually happened to me a couple of months ago ), do you call that a FIR, because it was just bad luck?  Luck happens and it's a part of the game.  There is absolutely no way to filter out all luck, so trying to filter out some will skew your root cause analysis.  When you call a ball in the rough a FIR, how does that affect the subsequent missed GIR?  At the end of the day/month/year, what was the real cause of that/those missed GIR(s), the drive(s) or the approach shot(s)?

Again, I REALLY don't care what anyone does, but I'm a numbers guy, hell, you're an engineer so I KNOW you are too, so you know that if statistical analysis is going to provide the maximum intended benefit, the parameters for deriving the data need to be applied consistently.

One issue with that is you are allowed to mark, lift and clean your ball when it is one the green.  You are not allowed to do this from the fringe.  That is why I think it is better to use the definitions defined by the RoG.  It is clearly defined there.

You're also allowed to leave the pin in from the fringe.  Something that @iacas tells us is a distinct advantage.....

[Golfingdad]

Do you subjectively ...

Yes.

Nah, if I ended up in the junk in such a way that my next shot would be really affected, then I'd reluctantly call it a missed fairway.  I usually only give myself credit for hit fairways when it's really close, it flew how I intended, and the rough is light (which it usually is out here).

On GIR's, I score those rigidly, and recognize that my putts/round stats, for the most part, are inflated (for the better) because I probably average 2 or 3 "two putts" from the fringe per round.  If it's really close - like "I can't quite tell if that's on the green or fringe close" - then I'll always call it a GIR.

[boil3rmak3r]

I don't track all my stats throughout the year like some guys do, but I do go through my round in my head afterwards to gauge how I did for the day. If I did track my numbers, I would have official GIR's and a separate stat that combines GIR + "fringe in regulation". That extra stat would give me more complete information as to the state of my ball striking. Heck, I'd probably even have stats titled "GIR when I had a clear shot at the green," "FIR", and "% of drives that left me with a clear shot to the green." Also, stats don't necessarily translate well among golfers who play totally different courses. My home course (which I play 95% of the time) has very small greens. Because of that, I think my GIR, u/d % and putting stats wouldn't compare well to someone at my skill level who routinely played courses with 6,000+ SF greens. When I play the Pete Dye course at Purdue, I am always amazed how big the greens are. If you aim for the center, you don't have to hit all that great of a shot to catch SOME part of the green. On the flip side, you can be faced with 100+ foot putts. I don't know if there's a single green at my home course where you could find more than a 50' putt...

[Maddog10]

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....

I'm going to try to address your questions in the order they were asked so even though it may come across kind of choppy, it should make sense looking back at the questions.

100% subjective, yes. If I miss the green, even by a quarter of an inch, with anything less than a 6 iron, it's always a missed GIR. 6 iron or above is dependant on the difficulty of the shot, and relation to the hole. If I miss a green by 2 inches but am only 10 feet from the hole and have a great look at birdie, I mark it as a GIR and am counting my putt. If I miss the green by a quarter of an inch, but am 60 feet from the flag, it's a missed GIR. That kind of leads me to the answer of your next question. There's no specified distance off the green, though I would say it always has to be within 3-4 inches for me to count it. Basically a ball that landed softly and just rolled a couple inches into the fringe is eligible to be a GIR depending on the yardage it was hit from and how similar it was to what I was trying to do. Putter must be used for me to count it as a GIR (because I would count the subsequent putt), and I would not use the putter on a shot that barely missed the green if there was no fringe, therefore it would be a missed GIR. My system does not vary day by day, but it does vary shot by shot.

I never boom drives 300+ yards unless there is a STRONG wind or a cartpath was involved, but any shot not hit from the fairway is always a missed FW. I go by the book on this one. It's either in the FW or it's not.

No worries about all the questions. I understand that deviating from the norm is going to be controversial, especially when it comes to something as black and white as keeping stats. I also agree that it makes sense to follow a structured system that has no room for error, and my system is not exactly that. There is some room left for interpretation. However, even though it seems quite complicated from my description, I feel that it is very consistent and serves me well. Not consistent in terms of comparing my stats to yours, even if you used a modified system like I do. I may count stats that you didn't, or vice versa. It is consistent in terms of me and me alone though... My system basically comes down to identifying problem areas, as it does with most people I'm sure. I used to keep stats the normal way, by the book. However, I felt that certain scenarios placed the the focus on the wrong part of my game, and although I'm sure it would average out in the long run, I feel that my system points out the problem areas more consistently. If I have a 10 foot putt from barely in the fringe, I expect no worse than a 2 putt for par. If I were to 3 putt and make bogey, looking at a traditional stat sheet it would say I missed the GIR and 2 putted for bogey. While that is essentially right, I would look back and think I made a poor approach shot when that isn't true. In fact, it opens a whole world of possibilities. I could have hit a ball in a hazard, then dropped, hit on the green, and 2 putted. I could have missed the green by 40 yards, 2 yards, 100 yards. Regardless, it appears that a poor approach shot was the culprit of the bogey. My way shifts the focus to the putting, which is where the real issue occured. Bottom line is I put myself in great position to make par and didn't execute with the flat stick. I want to know that when I look at my stat sheet. Any poor approach shot always gets accounted for. If it was a poor shot in my eyes and was not up to my expectations, it's always a miss, assuming it's not literally on the green. If it was a poor shot but still ended up on the green, I reluctantly count it as a GIR of course.

[Huddo]

I've had a read through of this thread and it appears there are varying opinions on counting putts. Therefore could someone advise the best course of action for me please? I'm a beginner with a high handicap. I currently only count GIR when the ball stops on the green and I count all putts even from the fringe or fairway if the putt looks a better option than a chip. This can often result in 3 putts to hole out and subsequently a high putts per hole ratio. Should I continue with this way or class the first putt from off the green as just another shot? Either way, I want to monitor my putting performance for progress. Thanks

[Golfingdad]

I've had a read through of this thread and it appears there are varying opinions on counting putts. Therefore could someone advise the best course of action for me please? I'm a beginner with a high handicap.

I currently only count GIR when the ball stops on the green and I count all putts even from the fringe or fairway if the putt looks a better option than a chip. This can often result in 3 putts to hole out and subsequently a high putts per hole ratio. Should I continue with this way or class the first putt from off the green as just another shot? Either way, I want to monitor my putting performance for progress.

Thanks

I think that there really isn't any wrong way to keep the stats, so long as you don't analyze them in a vacuum.

I have used some form of app or mechanical device for awhile now, and so I always count only putts that are from on the green and it back calculates GIR from that.  I don't just look at my putting stats and go "damn, I'm the best putter around" because I average 30 a round or whatever.  I know that it's actually more of a symptom of missing too many greens.

Likewise, if I counted putts from the fringe as putts, I wouldn't automatically think I'm a great ballstriker and poor putter because it tells me I hit 10 greens per round.

As long as you're taking into account how you're tracking the stats, then it doesn't really matter which way you do it. :)

[Huddo]

Thanks @Golfingdad , I tend to agree with your method. At least that way the putts per hole are always consistent. Currently my method means one day I might putt from the fringe and another day I might chip, so there is no continuity with the stats. If only my chipping was better!

[dkolo]

I think that there really isn't any wrong way to keep the stats, so long as you don't analyze them in a vacuum.

I have used some form of app or mechanical device for awhile now, and so I always count only putts that are from on the green and it back calculates GIR from that.  I don't just look at my putting stats and go "damn, I'm the best putter around" because I average 30 a round or whatever.  I know that it's actually more of a symptom of missing too many greens.

Likewise, if I counted putts from the fringe as putts, I wouldn't automatically think I'm a great ballstriker and poor putter because it tells me I hit 10 greens per round.

As long as you're taking into account how you're tracking the stats, then it doesn't really matter which way you do it. :)

That's really sound advice. Any of these stats are only useful if you understand fundamental assumptions they make and what blind spots they have. Personally, it wouldn't make a statistically significant difference for me because I will almost always chip from the fringe unless the pin is really close or the slope goes severely away from me, but that's just my own preference. I'd generally argue in favor of restricting putts to the green because it at least compares like to like in terms of being able to go through your routine of marking and aligning the ball on each shot.

[Patch]

I never count putts when using a putter from off the green. I heard a commentator, many years ago, say that using a putter from off the green is not counted as a putt, so I just took his word for it.  Although I don't count it as a putt, I do use it as part of my short game handicap when I miss the green in regulation.

[Grinde6]

There are a lot of varying opinions, but I always go by if its not on the green its not a GIR.  If I putt from off the green, its not actually a putt.  This gives me the most accurate stats I could possibly get.  There is a spot for notes in my app I use and this is where I put if my ball striking or putting killed me, what distance the approach/putt was so I can work on those next time I go to the range or putting green.  One of the posters said if they pured a 4 iron from 200+ yards out and it rolled by the pin and off the green they still count it as a GIR...how?  Maybe a 5 iron was the right club?  Maybe that person needs to go to the range and learn how work the ball and get different trajectories for those types of shots so the ball lands softer on the green and doesn't roll out.  Get an app that lets you put notes in and don't count it as a GIR and put in there the approach was from 200+ out and a 4 iron didn't hold the green so you can work on trajectory next range session.  I also keep notes on my phone in the notes section when playing and put things like "need to work on draw with driver"  "work on a 160 yard cut with 7 iron", etc so I know what to do next range session.  And a person should ALWAYS practice putting anyways.

I just don't understand people not wanting the most accurate stats possible.  Everyone wants the most accurate distances for their clubs and everything else, but doesn't care about their stats as long as they can interpret them...to each their own, but it doesn't make sense to me...

just my .02

[Huddo]

@Grinde6 which app do you use for notes? I use Golfshot for my stats but the notes page is a long winded process to sort during a round.

[Grinde6]

I use GolfShot pro or classic whichever you want to call it. I have used it for the past few years, so I am pretty fluid with getting to the notes section. And it isn't like I'm putting something in there every hole, it's just if I notice something I'm not doing well I go ahead and put it in there. Or if I hit a bad shot that causes a bogey then I put that in there so I can work on it at the range.

[Huddo]

Thanks, I will give the notes a try next time. Hopefully the app developers might add a notes section on the score input page in the future?!

[Golfingdad]

Everyone wants the most accurate distances for their clubs and everything else, but doesn't care about their stats as long as they can interpret them...to each their own, but it doesn't make sense to me...

You say it doesn't make sense to you, but you answered the question already anyway ... "as long as they can interpret them."  If they keep track of stats well enough to know what they need to work on, then that's the ballgame right there, is it not?  How does that not make sense to you?

[Grinde6]

You say it doesn't make sense to you, but you answered the question already anyway ... "as long as they can interpret them."  If they keep track of stats well enough to know what they need to work on, then that's the ballgame right there, is it not?  How does that not make sense to you?

No it's not the ballgame because the stats are wrong if they are doing it any way other than the correct way. It doesn't make sense to me that people don't want the most accurate stats as possible. Whether they can interpret the stats or not, they aren't correct unless they are recorded correctly.

[dkolo]

No it's not the ballgame because the stats are wrong if they are doing it any way other than the correct way. It doesn't make sense to me that people don't want the most accurate stats as possible. Whether they can interpret the stats or not, they aren't correct unless they are recorded correctly.

Look, there's tradeoffs with using the short grass of the green as a hard cutoff. Using "greens" literally will exclude from your putting stats putts that are probably, on average, on the long end since they're in the fringe, so it's increasing your putting stats by excluding those. I think your position is defensible, but it's not something that I'd get in a lather about if people do it differently, especially if they have a good reason for it. If a person is keeping their own stats, I suspect they're doing it to evaluate their game more honestly, and not to show off their stats. So I'd defer to them to make judgment calls like these on an ad hoc basis to make the stats as valid as possible in their minds. (I'm using the term "valid" there in the experimental sense of "making sure what you're measuring actually reflects what you're trying to measure")