Bogey Golfers Only (Index 16-22) / Breaking 90 Topic

[natureboy]

Driving distance versus score is definitely CR dependant. So, the chart needs to have a reference course rating.

In any case, nice find!

The effective driving distance is my own metric combining 2013 PGA driving distance and accuracy data. Basically it accounts for the accuracy penalty of being in the rough (or Fwy bunker / hazard) vs. fairway. It's a rough estimate of the minimum distance you theoretically 'should' be off the tee (in the fairway 100% of the time) to make the correlated score possible. The correlation coefficient between this measure and scoring for the pros was a pretty strong -.35.

The difference between measured driving distance and 'effective' distance was about 30 yards less for the pros who hit an average of 60% fairways (and few lost balls compared to me) on tough courses. I guesstimated about a 40-50 yard loss on my actual average distance. It is making me think about benching the driver and try for 80% fairways with the hybrid, but I mishit that too sometimes.

[Lihu]

The effective driving distance is my own metric combining 2013 PGA driving distance and accuracy data. Basically it accounts for the accuracy penalty of being in the rough (or Fwy bunker / hazard) vs. fairway. It's a rough estimate of the minimum distance you theoretically 'should' be off the tee (in the fairway 100% of the time) to make the correlated score possible. The correlation coefficient between this measure and scoring for the pros was a pretty strong -.35.

The difference between measured driving distance and 'effective' distance was about 30 yards less for the pros who hit an average of 60% fairways (and few lost balls compared to me) on tough courses. I guesstimated about a 40-50 yard loss on my actual average distance. It is making me think about benching the driver and try for 80% fairways with the hybrid, but I mishit that too sometimes.

Yeah, but the driving distance affects the difficulty of the course, so an easier CR is going to be much easier to score low on.

For example, we have a 271 yard par 4 which I almost drove today (lucky shot, and my longest drive in weeks), this could have been an easy birdie, if I had not bladed my lob wedge. On a more difficult course there would be no 271 yard par 4, it would be rated a par 3 and I would have made a bogey instead of a par. The course rating is 68.9/120.

This is why I'm not so sure a home brew method would work very well for the distance versus score aspect of your chart.

[rkim291968]

On a more difficult course there would be no 271 yard par 4

Not necessarily.   On my home course, there are couple of par 4s that are short.  But they are surrounded by danger.    If you miss green, you are likely in deep trouble.  Ditto for par 3 holes.   A good hard course will have no "easy" hole (for us bogey golfers that is) regardless of hole length.

[natureboy]

 

Not necessarily.   On my home course, there are couple of par 4s that are short.  But they are surrounded by danger.    If you miss green, you are likely in deep trouble.  Ditto for par 3 holes.   A good hard course will have no "easy" hole (for us bogey golfers that is) regardless of hole length.  

 

 

My course has a driveable par 4 too. Very tight fairway with lateral hazard down the whole right side, small elevated green surrounded by bunkers. No 200 yard par 3's though - only up to 179-180 from the whites.

Sob story for the day. Fairly on track to break 90. Long game a bit off, but decent pitch, chips, & putting keeping me in it. One hole I hit from the rough into greenside bunker. Long carry so I take the 50* wedge and give it some oomph. hits pin high, but edge of the green & rolls off into gnarly rough. Chip right under ball twice from rough (severe uphill lie). I had another triple on a later hole, but still shot 92. Those 3 awful shots there were my 89. ##$%#%!

@Lihu in lieu of multi quote>

Except the regression line for the 'effective' distance stat is derived from PGA pro performance. The 'effective' distance to make the score on an easier course than theirs would be shorter.

It's not an average driving distance measure, it's the distance you'd have to have with 100% fairways (no rough penalties). For scoring estimation It's a very rough yardstick and not nearly as good as GIR or GoFIR, but perhaps useful to see where your distance vs. accuracy tradeoff lies relative to other parts of the game. That's why I threw it in to the chart.

[natureboy]

Yeah, but the driving distance affects the difficulty of the course, so an easier CR is going to be much easier to score low on.

For example, we have a 271 yard par 4 which I almost drove today (lucky shot, and my longest drive in weeks), this could have been an easy birdie, if I had not bladed my lob wedge. On a more difficult course there would be no 271 yard par 4, it would be rated a par 3 and I would have made a bogey instead of a par. The course rating is 68.9/120.

This is why I'm not so sure a home brew method would work very well for the distance versus score aspect of your chart.

Below is part of the data that I derived my 'effective' driving distance measure from. Basically it's the same concept that Strokes Gained uses* in that a shot to the rough has an accuracy cost that will statistically increase the number of putts / expected strokes to go / strokes remaining. I added factors for players' distance from edge of fairway to account for different cuts of rough (primary rough = higher baseline curve / more 'effective' distance cost), fwy bunker %, and missed fwy - other (need better data for this) too.

I think getting a moderate correlation when distance and fwy% are independently weaker (drive dist correlation = -.11; fwy%  = -.28; 'effective' drive dist = -.35; GIR = -.46; GoFIR = -.60; SGP = -.43) with the source data limitations is pretty good. My approximation of Broadie's average degrees offline using the PGA's distance from edge of fwy stats was only a bit better (correlation = .46) so I think I'm in the right ballpark.

*But SG is much more statistically accurate because they don't lump shots into a 25-yard bucket and they use multiple years of data to derive the baseline curves.

[Lihu]

Below is part of the data that I derived my 'effective' driving distance measure from. Basically it's the same concept that Strokes Gained uses* in that a shot to the rough has an accuracy cost that will statistically increase the number of putts / expected strokes to go / strokes remaining. I added factors for players' distance from edge of fairway to account for different cuts of rough (primary rough = higher baseline curve / more 'effective' distance cost), fwy bunker %, and missed fwy - other (need better data for this) too. I think getting a moderate correlation when distance and fwy% are independently weaker (drive dist correlation = -.11; fwy%  = -.28; 'effective' drive dist = -.35; GIR = -.46; GoFIR = -.60; SGP = -.43) with the source data limitations is pretty good. My approximation of Broadie's average degrees offline using the PGA's distance from edge of fwy stats was only a bit better (correlation = .46) so I think I'm in the right ballpark. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/108336/] [/URL] *But SG is [U]much[/U] more statistically accurate because they don't lump shots into a 25-yard bucket and they use multiple years of data to derive the baseline curves.

Aha, I think I get it.

[rkim291968]

I had two rounds of golf on a new course in the last two days.

1st day - 71% fairway hit -> score 95.

2nd day- 40% fairway hit -> score 94.

The rest of stat were similar for the two rounds.

My experience has been that fairway hits percentage does not translate much to the final score as the example above.

[Lihu]

I had two rounds of golf on a new course in the last two days.

1st day - 71% fairway hit -> score 95.

2nd day- 40% fairway hit -> score 94.

The rest of stat were similar for the two rounds.

My experience has been that fairway hits percentage does not translate much to the final score as the example above.

Exactly, and that's actually described in great detail in LSW.

[billchao]

On a more difficult course there would be no 271 yard par 4, it would be rated a par 3 and I would have made a bogey instead of a par.

There are two par 4s at Whispering Woods that are ~280 yards from the blues, 72/141. Even shorter from the whites, 70.4/134. I didn't think you found that course easy ;-) I think USGA rating guidelines say that par 3s should be less than 250 yards, as the scratch golfer is defined to drive the ball 250 yards, or something like that.

[Lihu]

There are two par 4s at Whispering Woods that are ~280 yards from the blues, 72/141. Even shorter from the whites, 70.4/134. I didn't think you found that course easy

I think USGA rating guidelines say that par 3s should be less than 250 yards, as the scratch golfer is defined to drive the ball 250 yards, or something like that.

Yeah, I hit into the water off the tee, because I decided to try for more distance with my 3W off the tee. Of course, I can just chalk it up to being careless after getting that net eagle!

[rkim291968]

I played with a former +2 handicapper for two straight rounds.  He was over 60 years old, and have an abbreviated back swing which he was forced to develop as he aged.   To make a long story short, my full swing < his abbreviated swing in both distance & accuracy.   I took a serious note to develop an effective abbreviated swing.  I have it in my arsenal but don't practice or use it very often.   I think I am getting to the age where my backswing simply cannot turn fully, especially, when I am not fully warmed up.

BTW, on the 2nd day, the man shot 73 on a course that senior  PGA tour tournaments were held 3 times.

[natureboy]

I had two rounds of golf on a new course in the last two days.

1st day - 71% fairway hit -> score 95.

2nd day- 40% fairway hit -> score 94.

The rest of stat were similar for the two rounds.

My experience has been that fairway hits percentage does not translate much to the final score as the example above.

Yeah, I think the statistician who came up with the fairway % relation to score was not using the best data (pre-shotlink era) for one. Fwy% is always a statistic that correlates poorly to scoring. Distance is more strongly correlated, but what happens is that when you hit into the rough even if it's the same distance drive, you cost yourself a certain amount of 'effective distance' due to lower accuracy. It also often matters by how far you miss the fairway and where.

The rest of your game can always undermine good performance in one area. I've hit 40% fairways with good distance and failed to break 100, because my approaches & short game shots were so poor. The number of awful shots per round is probably more relevant to our games than the pros, because we are so much less consistent in every part of the game and less able to make up for a bad shot.

How far did you drive it on average on the two days? Same or more on day 2? How close to the fairway where those misses on day 2? Did you have any big miss(es) or flubs on day 1 vs day 2 that cost you a lot of extra strokes?

For the pros it seems that about a gain in about 12% fairway accuracy or 16 yards of distance sets up a potential for shaving 5 strokes off their average score - IF the rest of their game is identical. Even the pros don't fire on all cylinders every round.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

I had two rounds of golf on a new course in the last two days.

1st day - 71% fairway hit -> score 95.

2nd day- 40% fairway hit -> score 94.

The rest of stat were similar for the two rounds.

My experience has been that fairway hits percentage does not translate much to the final score as the example above.

How far did you drive it on average on the two days? Same or more on day 2? How close to the fairway where those misses on day 2? Did you have any big miss(es) or flubs on day 1 vs day 2 that cost you a lot of extra strokes?

One day one, I've had 10 fairway hits, all with driver.  They landed mostly in the middle, about 200 (no roll) - 260 yards (lots of rolls).    One missed drive ended up inside a bush which I have to take a penalty drop.   I had a lot of poor 2nd shots which wasted my good drives.

On day two, I had less accuracy but drives were still playable.  I had similar distance as day one.   One lost drive (blind tee shot) caused a two stroke penalty.   2nd shots were better which balanced out the poor drives.

[jetsknicks1]

Played pretty well today, shot a 91. 6151 yds, 70.1/127 I had 3 doubles but no blow up holes. 8 FWs, 3 GIR. 34 putts. Just a good day all around and I even played the hole round with one ball. :-D

[Lihu]

Played pretty well today, shot a 91. 6151 yds, 70.1/127 I had 3 doubles but no blow up holes. 8 FWs, 3 GIR. 34 putts. Just a good day all around and I even played the hole round with one ball. :-D

Nice way to start your golf season!

[natureboy]

Played pretty well today, shot a 91.

6151 yds, 70.1/127

I had 3 doubles but no blow up holes. 8 FWs, 3 GIR. 34 putts. Just a good day all around and I even played the hole round with one ball.

Nice! I aspire to not losing any!

@rkim291968 : How long was the course from the tees you played?

[jetsknicks1]

Nice! I aspire to not losing any! @rkim291968 : How long was the course from the tees you played?

Believe me, it's a very rare thing when it happens lol.

[rkim291968]

@rkim291968: How long was the course from the tees you played?

6300 yards, par 72, but it played shorter b/c of all the rolls & high elevation (4400 ft).