Golf stats and correlation to average score vs. handicap

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureboy

Yes we were talking fairway %. It's in the title and subtitle, but they mislabeled the axis. The Grint's GIR range tracks much better with the stats I've seen.

Yes, fairway % is not well correlated to average score in terms of statistics sets, but with a clear disadvantage to hitting from the rough at a given distance I don't think it's irrelevant to tracking progress.

Possibly one reason is that many amateurs like the Grint population are emphasizing accuracy over distance and taking shorter clubs off the tee at the expense of potential distance / percent of hole length covered. Probably as is regularly pointed out on the site, their strategy is too conservative - providing there isn't a lot of trouble near their likely driver landing area. So statistically they would be hurting their scores and throwing off the correlations of fairways hit to scoring average handicap? They could also be playing very open courses - or a bit of both.

The graph says that the difference in fairways hit between a guy that shoots par and a guy that can't break 100 is only 2 fairways!! It's pretty clear from that that its a meaningless stat.

So true, it's something everyone discovers soon enough. . .

[natureboy]

The graph says that the difference in fairways hit between a guy that shoots par and a guy that can't break 100 is only 2 fairways!! It's pretty clear from that that its a meaningless stat.

I do see your and @iacas ' point. Other attempts to make statistical correlations of fwy% with scoring average have shown a steeper drop off with higher handicaps. Another graph The Grint publicized showed that a missed fairway hurt a bogey golfer's scoring average on a hole significantly more than a pro - but being in the rough hurt both. The proximity baselines for pros also show a significant impact on accuracy from the rough at all approach distances. That's why I say hitting the fairway is relevant, but it isn't everything since how far you hit it to get the hit fairway is statistically more important.

If those Grint Fwy% stats are accurate for a large number of high handicap golfers it is likely they are going against the good advice posted throughout the site that sacrificing a lot of distance for an artificially high Fwy% for your handicap is a tradeoff that will hurt your scoring...unless you play a really hard course with lots of stroke & distance junk tight to your 'landing zone' for driving clubs.

I would say the fairway stat as it's collected is flawed or too broad. A more enlightening stat would probably be % average distance to the pin - hit fairway / % average distance to the pin - missed fairway since both a longer approach and hitting from the rough will hurt your proximity to the hole and your expected score.

Well, that was reasonably unsuccessful as someone on here found my Gamegolf account and is following me already. And I thought I could stay anonymous but didn't figure on people's curiosity and I guess it's not hard to look over a few posts and work it out if you really want to.

The small club that I practice on a lot is called Pottergate Golf Club and the bigger one is called Blankney Golf Club, both in Lincolnshire in England. Talking fairways and greens as we are, my fairways at Blankney are actually a bit better than Pottergate (73.8 at Blankney vs 70.0% at Potter) but my greens in reg is higher at Potter - 64.4% vs 51.9% at Blankney by virtue of being that much closer to them. In reality Pottergate is an unusual course being that short but with some tricky shots whereas Blankney is a more sensible measure of my stats when it comes to fairways and greens.

The websites of both courses to save you looking them up:

http://www.pottergategolfclub.co.uk/home

http://www.blankneygolfclub.co.uk/

Blankney was one of my guesses being close to Woodhall. Wasn't me who followed you on Game Golf, though. Thanks for the distance and fairways info.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Well, that was reasonably unsuccessful as someone on here found my Gamegolf account and is following me already. And I thought I could stay anonymous but didn't figure on people's curiosity and I guess it's not hard to look over a few posts and work it out if you really want to.

The small club that I practice on a lot is called Pottergate Golf Club and the bigger one is called Blankney Golf Club, both in Lincolnshire in England. Talking fairways and greens as we are, my fairways at Blankney are actually a bit better than Pottergate (73.8 at Blankney vs 70.0% at Potter) but my greens in reg is higher at Potter - 64.4% vs 51.9% at Blankney by virtue of being that much closer to them. In reality Pottergate is an unusual course being that short but with some tricky shots whereas Blankney is a more sensible measure of my stats when it comes to fairways and greens.

The websites of both courses to save you looking them up:

http://www.pottergategolfclub.co.uk/home

http://www.blankneygolfclub.co.uk/

Blankney was one of my guesses being close to Woodhall. Wasn't me who followed you on Game Golf, though.  Thanks for the distance and fairways info.

I don't really mind, like I say I'm just quite a private person. I've seen where being in the spotlight has got Dan in that as things haven't gone so well he's put less info out there and been criticised for that - no one wants to admit when they aren't succeeding at something and I'm sure there'll be times when my game will all go a bit 'pear shaped'. When that happens I still want to be tracking it all but if you know that this round where you couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces, let alone a green, will be pulled apart as soon as you post it to gamegolf or golfshots the temptation will be there not to post it.

Take my match this last weekend - we lost 2 and 1 so not dreadful and it was a against a couple of guys who normally play Woodhall Spa as a home course which as you know is a very tough course (although they were playing for a different club). Had I been responsible for us being completely thrashed the reaction could well have been "oh well, the guy clearly can't play under pressure." and so the temptation would have been not to report it. I just thought without the added pressure of feeling like I only wanted to report good stuff I could avoid some of the pitfalls I think Dan has inadvertently fallen into.

Regarding fairways hit - I agree, I think what happens next is more important. I'm learning rapidly that the game of golf is played (ie your score is made) around the green. Unlike Dan though I'm going about my plan kind of in reverse in that I'm working on everything but the fact I started in the winter, coupled with the fact I have an indoor swing studio with launch monitor, has meant I started off concentrating on getting the ball in play off the tee. I've still concentrated on other things but this was aim number one the theory being I then need to build my game around being in a good spot off the tee. My fairway stats at Blankney of 73.8% hit rate are on 25 yard wide fairways and almost exclusively with driver and 5 wood, I've only hit an iron a few times on one of the par 4s when the wind was behind - hole 4 if you want to look it up - so that gives an idea of how I'm doing in that area. Task two is hitting more greens. I'll be learning how to actually score around the green and putting in effort in my short game but my next priority will be my approach play, it is as you said a weakness ( just kidding with you but it is when compared to my play off the tee.....).

I know it's a different approach to Dan's who started at the pin exclusively but while I'm trying to work on everything I've found that really focussing on one area has worked in getting me off to a good start - I'm only a couple of months into my 'plan' - and starting where I tee the ball up just made more sense to me added to which on a course like Blankney there's a big premium for hitting a fairway.

[natureboy]

I've been out on the course this morning thinking about how to respond to the request for more info about where I play etc and I'm a little reticent. I'm a pretty private person and my small club especially is pretty small. So much so that if I post where it is, in 5 minutes anyone reading this could go to the club's site, look at my handicap, look at the fixtures, and work out who I am. Not really a big deal but that would lead them to my Gamegolf account, my Golfshots account, my Facebook, my Twitter account, work out who the pros I play with are (we chat via Twitter now and then)...... even my address if they decided they wanted to know it. I really don't want what I'm doing to turn into a Dan Plan Mark 2 with people looking over my shoulder all the time. Maybe I'll feel differently in a year or so but for now, right at the start I'd like to stay a bit 'coy' about it if that's ok? Hope that doesn't disappoint you I'm just not really the sort of person who likes the attention and certainly don't want people discussing it every time I hit a shank off the first tee.

That said I'll try answer some questions you've asked and hopefully that'll be enough

That strategy for that par 3 is just a percentage play. The top section slopes down gently, the middle steeply and the bottom gently to flat. It you fire at the pin at the bottom and hit the middle of the green you're off the back and down into the trees and rough. If you go long you're off the back and into the trees and the rough. If you leak it a bit left you're out of bounds and if you're right the lie down there is a lottery. That said, into wind you may well take the flag on. Down wind though if you aim at that top left corner and hit anywhere on it with a fade the ball tends to collect down towards the bottom. miss left and you're short of the out of bounds, miss right and the bunker shot is a splash onto the down slope and the ball will roll down towards the pin. The play I've said, particularly out of wind, keeps the big numbers off the card but you're right - you're not really giving yourself a lot of shots at birdies on this hole.

Regarding the 2 course that I play the most, the bigger one is, like I said, a little over 6650 yards off the back so not massively long but the rough keeps you honest. I'm pretty straight with my driver and I find many holes are pretty generous though and the fairways are about 25 yards wide (measured just now :) ). The course rating under your system would probably be the region of 74.0 . The smaller course is a little 9 hole course so you go round the same 9 twice and is right near my house so I use it to practice quite a bit. It's a par 68 so has 6 par 3s and only 2 par 5s (3 and 1 each time) so you lose maybe 500 yards by by having 2 more par 3s and 2 less par 5s than normal. That said it's still very short and only plays about 5300 yards. Even with the right number of par 5s and shots it'd only be 5800 yards yet it's course rating would be about 68.0 under your system.

The fairways themselves are actually no narrower than the other course it just feels like it because you have to go round things. Obviously you've seen that par 3 that I described earlier and you play that twice. This is the tee off you have for both your par 5s:

Again you tee off from the blue X. Obviously any kind of duff or top and you're in the pond and teeing it up again. You can see from the shadows that the 2 red Xs are pretty big trees - they're actually mature Oaks and you need to get between them. White marks the Out of Bounds so you have to take this route. If you don't draw the ball you'll end up in the area of that red circle and you're blocked out by the trees in front of you and your next shot is back the way you came - you have to be left side of the fairway or lay back a bit. I'll take the ditch on now and then if the wind's right but it calls for a good 270 yard carry. I've seen visitors eventually resort to a 9 iron over the oak tree having hit one or other a few times. You obviously play this tee twice in your round.

That's why it's a fun course. It's like a golf course only smaller but calls for a bit of thought (and control over your ball flight). This hole calls for a draw and there's only really one option. The par 3 before is really a fade or you bring the out of bounds into play. There's a really short par 4 which has to be a draw, it's a sharp dogleg left with trees straight on and a longer par 4 playing 420ish which sweeps right, it also has out of bounds left and right which is downright unfair. Every par 4 but one and the par 5 have tree lined ditches right across the fairway that you have to go over. If you're a 'topper' you're going to struggle. The point is this course doesn't defend itself with length because it doesn't have any but I've been with visitors who walk off at the end shaking their heads having failed miserably to play to their handicap. It's a fun course to play but the length of it has nothing to do with how difficult or easy it is.

I thought a 270 carry was no sweat with your distance so should be doable with no headwind. Tight window, though.

If I were Bubba on the Par 3 before this, I would try a high draw into the upper part of the green about a third of the way in. It looks like there is a bit of contour around the upper bunker that would cant that part of the slope a bit more toward the tee. Even without you'd be quartering the slope with a draw which could help stop it by increasing the landing angle relative to the slope. The fade shape puts both the ball trajectory and the spin axis right along the main green slope so if it lands with a lot of spin it will enhance the downhill off the green effect, especially if the shot drifts away from the flatter landing area toward the center of the green.

The forced shot shapes doesn't strike me as typical golf - more like Pete Dye design sadism. You will play my course my way...and you will suffer!

I don't really mind, like I say I'm just quite a private person. I've seen where being in the spotlight has got Dan in that as things haven't gone so well he's put less info out there and been criticised for that - no one wants to admit when they aren't succeeding at something and I'm sure there'll be times when my game will all go a bit 'pear shaped'. When that happens I still want to be tracking it all but if you know that this round where you couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces, let alone a green, will be pulled apart as soon as you post it to gamegolf or golfshots the temptation will be there not to post it.

Take my match this last weekend - we lost 2 and 1 so not dreadful and it was a against a couple of guys who normally play Woodhall Spa as a home course which as you know is a very tough course (although they were playing for a different club). Had I been responsible for us being completely thrashed the reaction could well have been "oh well, the guy clearly can't play under pressure." and so the temptation would have been not to report it. I just thought without the added pressure of feeling like I only wanted to report good stuff I could avoid some of the pitfalls I think Dan has inadvertently fallen into.

Regarding fairways hit - I agree, I think what happens next is more important. I'm learning rapidly that the game of golf is played (ie your score is made) around the green. Unlike Dan though I'm going about my plan kind of in reverse in that I'm working on everything but the fact I started in the winter, coupled with the fact I have an indoor swing studio with launch monitor, has meant I started off concentrating on getting the ball in play off the tee. I've still concentrated on other things but this was aim number one the theory being I then need to build my game around being in a good spot off the tee. My fairway stats at Blankney of 73.8% hit rate are on 25 yard wide fairways and almost exclusively with driver and 5 wood, I've only hit an iron a few times on one of the par 4s when the wind was behind - hole 4 if you want to look it up - so that gives an idea of how I'm doing in that area. Task two is hitting more greens. I'll be learning how to actually score around the green and putting in effort in my short game but my next priority will be my approach play, it is as you said a weakness ( just kidding with you but it is when compared to my play off the tee.....).

I know it's a different approach to Dan's who started at the pin exclusively but while I'm trying to work on everything I've found that really focussing on one area has worked in getting me off to a good start - I'm only a couple of months into my 'plan' - and starting where I tee the ball up just made more sense to me added to which on a course like Blankney there's a big premium for hitting a fairway.

To be fair, I'd say the typical (mode) fairway width is about 26 yards on Blankney, but a few holes skew the average (mean) wider. There's one hole where it looks like you could carry the dogleg to a 50 yard landing area if the tees are up a bit (and there's no wind). Even so 75% on that course with driver & woods has to feel good and is a great foundation for your whole game. The greens are pretty tight in square footage too, which probably contributes to fewer greens hit and likely makes aiming for the middle a smarter strategy.

Are you saying you are only playing for a few months or only a few months into a general attack on your game?

[Nosevi]

I thought a 270 carry was no sweat with your distance so should be doable with no headwind. Tight window, though.

If I were Bubba on the Par 3 before this, I would try a high draw into the upper part of the green about a third of the way in. It looks like there is a bit of contour around the upper bunker that would cant that part of the slope a bit more toward the tee. Even without you'd be quartering the slope with a draw which could help stop it by increasing the landing angle relative to the slope. The fade shape puts both the ball trajectory and the spin axis right along the main green slope so if it lands with a lot of spin it will enhance the downhill off the green effect, especially if the shot drifts away from the flatter landing area toward the center of the green.

The forced shot shapes doesn't strike me as typical golf - more like Pete Dye design sadism. You will play my course my way...and you will suffer!

To be fair, I'd say the typical (mode) fairway width is about 26 yards on Blankney, but a few holes skew the average (mean) wider. There's one hole where it looks like you could carry the dogleg to a 50 yard landing area if the tees are up a bit (and there's no wind). Even so 75% on that course with driver & woods has to feel good and is a great foundation for your whole game. The greens are pretty tight in square footage too, which probably contributes to fewer greens hit and likely makes aiming for the middle a smarter strategy.

Are you saying you are only playing for a few months or only a few months into a general attack on your game?

Right, I'll try to answer a few more questions but stats wise, like I said I'm probably not the best test case Playing wise I'm only a few months into a general attack on my game. The long version is on the thread I started here:   http://thesandtrap.com/t/80287/petes-programme-single-digit-to-tour-player

Blankney fairways, yep, fair comment, on average they're wider than 25 yards as a couple have bigger landing areas if you can hit them but on most you're firing at a 25 yard wide fairway. Yes most of the the greens are pretty tight at Blankney and these stats have been taken over the winter and a few in some pretty blustery conditions (one round at Blankney it was hitting 45mph and was 5 degrees C - that one was fun!!). Anyway, hoping my greens hit will come up in the spring due to generally better playing conditions (and because I'll be working hard at improving them of course). In fact just got back from playing 9 at Potter and the basic stats were FIR 100%, GIR 67% Scrambling 67% ......... and I still dropped a flaming shot - daft game!!!!

Carrying the ditch on the par 5 - yep I often go for it in still air but remember here right now its been 5 degrees Centigrade or a little over (41 fahrenheit) and that makes a difference. Given that temp I'm happier with at least a slight breeze behind if I'm going for a fair sized carry that's going to cost me a shot if I come up a yard short. Much of the ditch is also tree lines so it's not a case of scraping over - you've got to clear it by a reasonable margin. If you do end up in the ditch you often have to come back a long way to then be able to clear the trees. So short is the percentage play quite often at the moment.

Ok, looking at that blasted par 3 as it seem to have got you interested As I said I've just been out, actually to get you a few pictures to try to put the flat images I posted before in context, but played 9 holes as I was there. Not much of a hardship, I was meant to be doing putting and chipping practice this morning and 'having' to get some pictures for you was all the excuse I needed to go play instead. Right, we're on the winter tee today as it's been frozen or close to it most mornings. This is the tee shot from there. You can just see the tip of the flag in line with the right hand edge of the front bunker. Trust me, today I was playing a fade in there. You're firing straight at the Out of Bounds and fading it in.

But I thought to myself "Perhaps Natureboy is right, maybe just fire at the flag rather than being a whimp and running the ball down the green....."

Ok, I got my par but after the ball went straight off the back, down into the trees and leaves and I was pitching back onto the green above me I was cursing your name Clearly I'm messing with you but that was the play I went for today and although it didn't cost me, the 'aim for the front and let gravity do the rest' just is the percentage play on this hole.

This is the par 5 tee off which you obviously do twice, this is the gap you're shooting at. If you have a particularly high ball flight you may clear the tree on the left with a 7 or more likely an 8 iron but then it's Out of Bounds all down the left hand side so if you pull it or draw it over there you're out of luck. In reality you're going for that gap with maybe a 5 wood to leave it short of the ditch or a driver to clear it. Left or right a tad and you're teeing it up again. And realistically you have to be drawing this one or you're in the trees right of the fairway which curves round to the left.

Last one, just to show another 'forced' shot. This is a par 4 (the 2nd and 11th) and the green is somewhere under the black arrow. Your second shot is uphill and you can see a line of yellow stakes the far side of the pond in front of you. This shot is a draw all day, especially when the wind comes down from the left. In a strongish wind, if you're playing with someone who can only fade the ball, you'll see it actually coming backwards into that ditch as the ball clears the trees, hits the wind and stalls. The shot is to hit the space right of the end tree with a fair amount of hook spin on the ball (a lot in a left to right wind) and turn the ball round the corner. I used a 6 iron today but even with that club the trees straight on are in play if you don't turn the ball round the corner.

So that gives an idea of 6 of the tee shots you'll hit on the small course where I live. As I say, it's a very short course but you have to go round things, think about where you want to play the next shot from, plot your way around the course a bit. In truth it's pretty fun to play and great for practice.

Anyway, hopefully that's satisfied some of your curiosity as the thread has turned into a bit of a look at my stats and where they come from rather than stats in general. Hope I answered all your questions though.

[natureboy]

Right, I'll try to answer a few more questions but stats wise, like I said I'm probably not the best test case   Playing wise I'm only a few months into a general attack on my game. The long version is on the thread I started here:   http://thesandtrap.com/t/80287/petes-programme-single-digit-to-tour-player

Blankney fairways, yep, fair comment, on average they're wider than 25 yards as a couple have bigger landing areas if you can hit them but on most you're firing at a 25 yard wide fairway. Yes most of the the greens are pretty tight at Blankney and these stats have been taken over the winter and a few in some pretty blustery conditions (one round at Blankney it was hitting 45mph and was 5 degrees C - that one was fun!!). Anyway, hoping my greens hit will come up in the spring due to generally better playing conditions (and because I'll be working hard at improving them of course). In fact just got back from playing 9 at Potter and the basic stats were FIR 100%, GIR 67% Scrambling 67% ......... and I still dropped a flaming shot - daft game!!!!

Carrying the ditch on the par 5 - yep I often go for it in still air but remember here right now its been 5 degrees Centigrade or a little over (41 fahrenheit) and that makes a difference. Given that temp I'm happier with at least a slight breeze behind if I'm going for a fair sized carry that's going to cost me a shot if I come up a yard short. Much of the ditch is also tree lines so it's not a case of scraping over - you've got to clear it by a reasonable margin. If you do end up in the ditch you often have to come back a long way to then be able to clear the trees. So short is the percentage play quite often at the moment.

Ok, looking at that blasted par 3 as it seem to have got you interested  As I said I've just been out, actually to get you a few pictures to try to put the flat images I posted before in context, but played 9 holes as I was there. Not much of a hardship, I was meant to be doing putting and chipping practice this morning and 'having' to get some pictures for you was all the excuse I needed to go play instead. Right, we're on the winter tee today as it's been frozen or close to it most mornings. This is the tee shot from there. You can just see the tip of the flag in line with the right hand edge of the front bunker. Trust me, today I was playing a fade in there. You're firing straight at the Out of Bounds and fading it in.

But I thought to myself "Perhaps Natureboy is right, maybe just fire at the flag rather than being a whimp and running the ball down the green....."

Ok, I got my par but after the ball went straight off the back, down into the trees and leaves and I was pitching back onto the green above me I was cursing your name  Clearly I'm messing with you but that was the play I went for today and although it didn't cost me, the 'aim for the front and let gravity do the rest' just is the percentage play on this hole.

This is the par 5 tee off which you obviously do twice, this is the gap you're shooting at. If you have a particularly high ball flight you may clear the tree on the left with a 7 or more likely an 8 iron but then it's Out of Bounds all down the left hand side so if you pull it or draw it over there you're out of luck. In reality you're going for that gap with maybe a 5 wood to leave it short of the ditch or a driver to clear it. Left or right a tad and you're teeing it up again. And realistically you have to be drawing this one or you're in the trees right of the fairway which curves round to the left.

Last one, just to show another 'forced' shot. This is a par 4 (the 2nd and 11th) and the green is somewhere under the black arrow. Your second shot is uphill and you can see a line of yellow stakes the far side of the pond in front of you. This shot is a draw all day, especially when the wind comes down from the left. In a strongish wind, if you're playing with someone who can only fade the ball, you'll see it actually coming backwards into that ditch as the ball clears the trees, hits the wind and stalls. The shot is to hit the space right of the end tree with a fair amount of hook spin on the ball (a lot in a left to right wind) and turn the ball round the corner. I used a 6 iron today but even with that club the trees straight on are in play if you don't turn the ball round the corner.

So that gives an idea of 6 of the tee shots you'll hit on the small course where I live. As I say, it's a very short course but you have to go round things, think about where you want to play the next shot from, plot your way around the course a bit. In truth it's pretty fun to play and great for practice.

Anyway, hopefully that's satisfied some of your curiosity as the thread has turned into a bit of a look at my stats and where they come from rather than stats in general. Hope I answered all your questions though.

Good point about the temps. Thought your info was from the prior season. That par 5 tee view is nasty . Looks like a fun course for someone who is much better than me.

Sorry about the par 3. I was offering an idea to play / experiment with if it was as I described. I was not advocating shooting for the pin, but a wider part of the green where I guessed there would be an opposing slope angle that would be good for the draw. Did you get what I meant? Apparently there is not as much contour around the bunker as I thought. I was saying you aim at the pin too much. I was thinking of a way you could aim more for the meat of the green yet still get it to stop - if there was enough counter-slope around the bunker.

Shoulda taken a picture of the green to show how wrong the blasted yank was. No skipping chipping practice again and blaming me, now. I can wait. I still think that the spin axis and the ball travel going with the downslope aids roll and momentum down the slope, but the fade probably is easier to hit high than the draw so you generally get a steeper landing angle with that shape on the flatter section. That hole sounds like a crap shoot anyhow. Pulling off a great tee shot only gives you a marginally better shot at birdie...& mostly up to luck even if you nail it. Pic below is more what I was thinking.

I don't have much expectation about what info I will get from the thread. I got some insight / perspective from your posts relative to the stats. Good luck with your project.

[Nosevi]

Good point about the temps. Thought your info was from the prior season. That par 5 tee view is nasty. Looks like a fun course for someone who is much better than me.

Sorry about the par 3. I was offering an idea to play / experiment with if it was as I described. I was not advocating shooting for the pin, but a wider part of the green where I guessed there would be an opposing slope angle that would be good for the draw. Did you get what I meant? Apparently there is not as much contour around the bunker as I thought. I was saying you aim at the pin too much. I was thinking of a way you could aim more for the meat of the green yet still get it to stop - if there was enough counter-slope around the bunker.

Shoulda taken a picture of the green to show how wrong the blasted yank was.   No skipping chipping practice again and blaming me, now. I can wait. I still think that the spin axis and the ball travel going with the downslope aids roll and momentum down the slope, but the fade probably is easier to hit high than the draw so you generally get a steeper landing angle with that shape on the flatter section. That hole sounds like a crap shoot anyhow. Pulling off a great tee shot only gives you a marginally better shot at birdie...& mostly up to luck even if you nail it. Pic below is more what I was thinking.

I don't have much expectation about what info I will get from the thread. I got some insight / perspective from your posts relative to the stats. Good luck with your project.

Re the par 3, yep see what you mean now but unfortunately there's no counter slope there, that's just the mown edge strip round the green, it's all downhill from there into the left hand bunker (which you hope you've caught if you're left of the green). The snag with a draw is that you're flirting with the trees on the right and if you draw it too much you're Out of Bounds. As long as you're happy that you can fade the ball when you want then it's probably the smart play. You're right on the shot - I play a high fade in with bags of spin. To be honest it's not the worst hole in the world as long as you can shape your shots. It's those that can't that struggle a bit on it. You're right about the expectation on the hole though - you're playing for a par, a birdie is a bonus.

That par 5 tee off is a hoot though. The old boys at my club have a rule - you hit one ball off the tee, if it's not through the gap you go drop a ball the other side. Seen stubborn players hit 3 or 4 balls into trees, hedge and pond :)

Regarding the project, many thanks - got one hell of a long way to go, I'm just starting out. One of the tour pros I practice with just came 8th in his first tournament of the year over in Europe shooting 68 then 64 on a Championship Course in his final 2 rounds. Lets hope some of that rubs off during our practice sessions/rounds!

Have enjoyed chatting on your thread. If you're ever over in the UK give me a shout, maybe go tee it up on that little course near me - it's a hoot :)

[natureboy]

Re the par 3, yep see what you mean now but unfortunately there's no counter slope there, that's just the mown edge strip round the green, it's all downhill from there into the left hand bunker (which you hope you've caught if you're left of the green). The snag with a draw is that you're flirting with the trees on the right and if you draw it too much you're Out of Bounds. As long as you're happy that you can fade the ball when you want then it's probably the smart play. You're right on the shot - I play a high fade in with bags of spin. To be honest it's not the worst hole in the world as long as you can shape your shots. It's those that can't that struggle a bit on it. You're right about the expectation on the hole though - you're playing for a par, a birdie is a bonus.

That par 5 tee off is a hoot though. The old boys at my club have a rule - you hit one ball off the tee, if it's not through the gap you go drop a ball the other side. Seen stubborn players hit 3 or 4 balls into trees, hedge and pond :)

Regarding the project, many thanks - got one hell of a long way to go, I'm just starting out. One of the tour pros I practice with just came 8th in his first tournament of the year over in Europe shooting 68 then 64 on a Championship Course in his final 2 rounds. Lets hope some of that rubs off during our practice sessions/rounds!

Have enjoyed chatting on your thread. If you're ever over in the UK give me a shout, maybe go tee it up on that little course near me - it's a hoot :)

I guess it's kind of an extra penal Redan hole - only inverse of the usual right to left orientation.

Not likely to get over there, but thanks for the invite.

[Lastpick]

As a mediocre golfer, the two most important stats for my scoring are quality tee shots and a good putting stroke.  Quality tee shots give me a good chance to hit greens in regulation.  A good putting stroke gives me an opportunity to go low by my standards.  Just because a putt goes in doesn't mean it was a good stroke.  I have quit using the long putter and am going through a bit of a struggle.

[natureboy]

Here's a metric I figure I could keep without too much trouble that would make the fairways stat more relevant: percent of hole covered on drives . It's related to Broadie's fractional remaining length idea. Would be just for driving holes like Fwy% - par 3s would be excluded.

For a hit fairway it's pretty straightforward = ( (distance of drive) / (length of hole from tees played) ) x 100.

For a missed fairway it would be more of an estimate. For pros in 2013 to have an equivalent proximity to the hole for an average fairway approach they would have had to be about 55 yards closer if hitting from the rough. Only about 25 yards closer on Par 5's. So approximately a weighted average 46 yard rough disadvantage. Amateurs suffer much less average proximity loss from the rough on a sliding scale in the (very rough) neighborhood of 7 to 3 yards (~ 16% to 6% of pro disadvantage per Broadie 2008). I think the range in 'penalty' numbers reflects both skill and average course difficulty (rough height and obstacles) so you might make an adjustment if your course conditions are harder or easier for your handicap.

So on a missed fairway you would subtract the appropriate 'rough penalty' for your skill range from your drive distance and run the same formula. I would personally just estimate it at a convenient estimator of ~ 10 yards. One of the failings of the regular missed fairway stat is that it doesn't account for the fact that the more offline you are, the farther from the hole you tend to be. This approach would better take that into account. It might even be simpler and more accurate in comparing between players to skip subtracting the 'rough penalty' and just use the percent of the hole covered since an offline shot will on average put you farther from the hole relative to a fairway hit.

Traditional hit / missed fairway percentage also doesn't account for drives where you are blocked out and have to hit a mostly sideways recovery. Here I would subtract the remaining approach shot distance (after reaching the fairway with a recovery) from the drive distance. Chipping out sideways really hurts you, but if you have a partial window and can halve the distance to the hole you take less off the initial drive distance. A lost ball or OB would be a zero tee distance for the hole. If you hit multiple lost / OB for the hole you could do negative distances (using the value of the final in play drive) for the hole. This would partly negate the coverage distance for good drives on other holes, reflecting the impact of the awful drives on your score for the round. Catching a water hazard would mean subtracting the remaining approach distance after the drop from the distance covered to the hazard so you could get a positive, negative, or a wash value for that drive depending on how much of the hole you covered before it splashed.

This way you can combine both hit fairways and missed fairways with one stat encompassing the whole round's driving. Advantage is it is a simple, 'positive' metric that captures distance, accuracy, and consistency (awful drives) and is intuitive in terms of what the drive is supposed to do - put you closer to the green so your average proximity to the pin will increase. It would also counter the misleading 'inflating' effect of increasing fairway % by using shorter clubs since the distance trade-off is reflected in the smaller percent of the hole length being covered. A really long but wild player would get a value for how much the good and bad balance out. Without statistical baselines and with potentially individual formulas, comparison would be most valid to your own starting point and progress, but I expect that there would still be decent correlation to handicap & scoring average.

It should work okay for normal stat recording during rounds since you are typically estimating your approach / layup distances anyway. I plan to give this a try in the summer.

[Lihu]

Here's a metric I figure I could keep without too much trouble that would make the fairways stat more relevant: percent of hole covered on drives. It's related to Broadie's fractional remaining length idea. Would be just for driving holes like Fwy% - par 3s would be excluded.

It should work okay for normal stat recording during rounds since you are typically estimating your approach / layup distances anyway. I plan to give this a try in the summer.

Makes some sense, but only if you are talking about a significant increase in drive distance.

However, I will say that my FW stats have gone down significantly while my GIR stats went up. This net effect improved my game. It seems like a longer iron game is more important to scoring than a stronger drive? Unless, there is a paradigm shift in my driving that increases it by 40 yards?

For instance, let's say your average drive is 220 yards and the average hole you shoot is 400 yards. Let's say that your 6i is your 160 yard club, then you would need to play 4i from your average approach, which is not all that reliable. Now, if you drive 240 yards you would still need a 6i for your approach.

Let's say that you drive 240 yards on average into an average hole length of 400 yards, but you can hit your 7i 160 yards. Being able to use your 7i rather than a 6i is going to increase your chances of sticking the green because of the increased spin and landing angle. So, statistically speaking you could hit maybe one more green from this distance?

Going back to the original average drive distance of 220 yards and let's say you hit your 7i 160 yards, your approach into the 400 yard hole would still be with a 5i which is your longest mid-iron rather than a long 4i.

From my example, it's still an advantage to have even a 1 club stronger approach game than a 2 club stronger drive?

[natureboy]

Makes some sense, but only if you are talking about a significant increase in drive distance.

However, I will say that my FW stats have gone down significantly while my GIR stats went up. This net effect improved my game. It seems like a longer iron game is more important to scoring than a stronger drive? Unless, there is a paradigm shift in my driving that increases it by 40 yards?

For instance, let's say your average drive is 220 yards and the average hole you shoot is 400 yards. Let's say that your 6i is your 160 yard club, then you would need to play 4i from your average approach, which is not all that reliable. Now, if you drive 240 yards you would still need a 6i for your approach.

Let's say that you drive 240 yards on average into an average hole length of 400 yards, but you can hit your 7i 160 yards. Being able to use your 7i rather than a 6i is going to increase your chances of sticking the green because of the increased spin and landing angle. So, statistically speaking you could hit maybe one more green from this distance?

Going back to the original average drive distance of 220 yards and let's say you hit your 7i 160 yards, your approach into the 400 yard hole would still be with a 5i which is your longest mid-iron rather than a long 4i.

From my example, it's still an advantage to have even a 1 club stronger approach game than a 2 club stronger drive?

Sorry, I am not quite following you. Where does the significant increase in drive distance come in? I would think the approach described would take a significant increase in drive distance into account and would show it as a gain in the average percent of driving holes covered. Strokes Gained Driving is also possible to roughly calculate based on initial distance to the pin and the resulting position after the drive. Maybe I will track both side by side.

Which fairway stats of yours have gone down (Fwy % or Drive Dist)? Fairway % has gone down while GIR has gone up probably because you aren't really deep in the rough much (blocked out / terrible lie), just that your average shot dispersion pattern has had more time to spread out a bit from the longer carry. Being closer is generally an overall gain so the substantial improvements on GIR from your longer shots that catch the fairway outweigh the marginal increase in your also longer shots to the rough. That's how I would see it. Is that what you meant?

[Lihu]

Sorry, I am not quite following you. Where does the significant increase in drive distance come in? I would think the approach described would take a significant increase in drive distance into account and would show it as a gain in the average percent of driving holes covered. Strokes Gained Driving is also possible to roughly calculate based on initial distance to the pin and the resulting position after the drive. Maybe I will track both side by side.

Which fairway stats of yours have gone down (Fwy % or Drive Dist)? Fairway % has gone down while GIR has gone up probably because you aren't really deep in the rough much (blocked out / terrible lie), just that your average shot dispersion pattern has had more time to spread out a bit from the longer carry. Being closer is generally an overall gain so the substantial improvements on GIR from your longer shots that catch the fairway outweigh the marginal increase in your also longer shots to the rough. That's how I would see it. Is that what you meant?

Well, what I am trying to say is that FW doesn't seem to have any bearing on my improvements. The main this that has improved my game is a longer iron game which helped my GIR statistics.

My fairways statistics have gone down from 75% reported in the 6 month average with a GIR of under 20% to a 2 month average fairway of 47% and a GIR average of just under 30% (equal to about 10 full rounds). My scoring average went from 87 down to 84 on the same course.

In roughly that same 2 month period, my irons increased by 20 yards.

[natureboy]

Well, what I am trying to say is that FW doesn't seem to have any bearing on my improvements. The main this that has improved my game is a longer iron game which helped my GIR statistics.

My fairways statistics have gone down from 75% reported in the 6 month average with a GIR of under 20% to a 2 month average fairway of 47% and a GIR average of just under 30% (equal to about 10 full rounds). My scoring average went from 87 down to 84 on the same course.

In roughly that same 2 month period, my irons increased by 20 yards.

Are you using driver or longer clubs from the tee more than you used to - are you covering more hole distance off the tee?

I agree that Fwy% by itself is misleading and weakly correlated to handicap. That's the whole reason I was exploring a more relevant / informative alternative. Hitting the fairway isn't completely irrelevant, just not worth sacrificing much distance to pump up as a stat - only to stay clear of bad trouble if the option isn't there to aim for the rough on the other side.

Being in the rough is less relevant to higher handicap players, because we generally don't play courses with really penal rough and our putting skills and short game ability is well behind the pros so the reduced accuracy from the rough doesn't cost us as many strokes.

[Lihu]

Are you using driver or longer clubs from the tee more than you used to - are you covering more hole distance off the tee? I agree that Fwy% by itself is misleading and weakly correlated to handicap. That's the whole reason I was exploring a more relevant / informative alternative. Hitting the fairway isn't completely irrelevant, just not worth sacrificing much distance to pump up as a stat - only to stay clear of bad trouble if the option isn't there to aim for the rough on the other side. Being in the rough is less relevant to higher handicap players, because we generally don't play courses with really penal rough and our putting skills and short game ability is well behind the pros so the reduced accuracy from the rough doesn't cost us as many strokes.

I'm pretty much slicing 1/3 of my shots the last two months. Not as much this last week, but lower fairways are linked to longer drives in my case.

[natureboy]

I'm pretty much slicing 1/3 of my shots the last two months. Not as much this last week, but lower fairways are linked to longer drives in my case.

Right so your hit fairways and missed fairways are both covering a larger percentage of the hole. While your misses may be a bit wider due to the added length, your approaches are all a bit closer to the hole and helping your GIR. The slight disadvantage for players of our skill for playing out of the rough is compensated for by the extra gain in proximity from the ones that hit. Like Broadie says, distance matters a bit more to the pros & even more to amateurs.

So I think a straight up percent of hole covered would be statistically significant and a 'adjusted' percent (for rough penalty) would be even more correlated to average score.

[natureboy]

Makes some sense, but only if you are talking about a significant increase in drive distance.

However, I will say that my FW stats have gone down significantly while my GIR stats went up. This net effect improved my game. It seems like a longer iron game is more important to scoring than a stronger drive? Unless, there is a paradigm shift in my driving that increases it by 40 yards?

For instance, let's say your average drive is 220 yards and the average hole you shoot is 400 yards. Let's say that your 6i is your 160 yard club, then you would need to play 4i from your average approach, which is not all that reliable. Now, if you drive 240 yards you would still need a 6i for your approach.

Let's say that you drive 240 yards on average into an average hole length of 400 yards, but you can hit your 7i 160 yards. Being able to use your 7i rather than a 6i is going to increase your chances of sticking the green because of the increased spin and landing angle. So, statistically speaking you could hit maybe one more green from this distance?

Going back to the original average drive distance of 220 yards and let's say you hit your 7i 160 yards, your approach into the 400 yard hole would still be with a 5i which is your longest mid-iron rather than a long 4i.

From my example, it's still an advantage to have even a 1 club stronger approach game than a 2 club stronger drive?

I think I misunderstood this post first time round. Were you talking about increased iron distance without an increase in driving distance? So you were missing more fairways without gaining in driving distance, but at the same time your GIR went up because you gained distance with irons? If this is the case then you were swinging one less club from the same distance off the tee, which is an advantage. Possibly your higher iron swing speed helped you launch & spin from the rough offsetting your slightly more frequent visits there?

Any distance gain is usually an advantage. IMO iron distance gains that come from better contact or swing speed that increase spin &/or landing angle are better for scoring (GIR) than gains that come only from lowering trajectory with the other things unchanged.

It would be surprising that you gained 20 yards with irons and not at least some with driver as well. Was this the case? If you gained distance with both irons and driver this is a clear GIR advantage if you maintain the same accuracy (in degrees offline / dispersion pattern - not FWY%). Being closer to the hole but still in play would offset the slightly higher rough % from the longer outlying shots in your scatter pattern.

I also do't understand your big distinction between 5i & 4i in your example when it's just one club step (3* and 1/2").

The advantage you state isn't apparent to me for iron distance gains being more advantageous than driving distance gains. If I'm not getting it, can you explain?

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/80313/golf-stats-and-correlation-to-average-score-vs-handicap/36#post_1120490"]   Makes some sense, but only if you are talking about a significant increase in drive distance. However, I will say that my FW stats have gone down significantly while my GIR stats went up. This net effect improved my game. It seems like a longer iron game is more important to scoring than a stronger drive? Unless, there is a paradigm shift in my driving that increases it by 40 yards? For instance, let's say your average drive is 220 yards and the average hole you shoot is 400 yards. Let's say that your 6i is your 160 yard club, then you would need to play 4i from your average approach, which is not all that reliable. Now, if you drive 240 yards you would still need a 6i for your approach. Let's say that you drive 240 yards on average into an average hole length of 400 yards, but you can hit your 7i 160 yards. Being able to use your 7i rather than a 6i is going to increase your chances of sticking the green because of the increased spin and landing angle. So, statistically speaking you could hit maybe one more green from this distance? Going back to the original average drive distance of 220 yards and let's say you hit your 7i 160 yards, your approach into the 400 yard hole would still be with a 5i which is your longest mid-iron rather than a long 4i. From my example, it's still an advantage to have even a 1 club stronger approach game than a 2 club stronger drive? [/QUOTE] I think I misunderstood this post first time round. Were you talking about increased iron distance without an increase in driving distance? So you were missing more fairways without gaining in driving distance, but at the same time your GIR went up because you gained distance with irons? If this is the case then you were swinging one less club from the same distance off the tee, which is an advantage. Possibly your higher iron swing speed helped you launch & spin from the rough offsetting your slightly more frequent visits there? Any distance gain is usually an advantage. IMO iron distance gains that come from better contact or swing speed that increase spin &/or landing angle are better for scoring (GIR) than gains that come only from lowering trajectory with the other things unchanged. It would be surprising that you gained 20 yards with irons and not at least some with driver as well. Was this the case? If you gained distance with both irons and driver this is a clear GIR advantage if you maintain the same accuracy (in degrees offline / dispersion pattern - not FWY%). Being closer to the hole but still in play would offset the slightly higher rough % from the longer outlying shots in your scatter pattern. I also do't understand your big distinction between 5i & 4i in your example when it's just one club step (3* and 1/2"). The advantage you state isn't apparent to me for iron distance gains being more advantageous than driving distance gains. If I'm not getting it, can you explain?

Yes, this is correct. Average shots with my woods are short compared to my irons, but the ones that don't go OB or hit something are commensurate distances relative to my irons given they are naturally shorter with the heavier steel shafts by 10 yards or so. The future plan is to replace the steel shaft woods and hybrids with graphite again, but equivalent swing weight and flex to the s300 shafts that I like in my MP-52 clubs. This will make the distances more consistent, and possibly skewed towards woods/hybrids being longer. Getting back to the general discussion, if you hit irons 20 yards longer without any gain in woods you still have an advantage, although it is a band aide to the actual problem.