Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
phillyk

40 Putts per Round, Average of 96 (Dave Pelz)?

Note: This thread is 955 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

112 posts / 12192 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, gmc1950s said:

He's also a Rocket Scientist and they deal in numbers. Are you saying all his years at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center mean nothing to him and that he's going to "self promote" so as to sell you a book. From what I read (and remember ?) he spent all his retirement money (over 100,000 ?), refinanced his house and basically went broke bringing us this information. I am sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that someone with that training would risk his reputation to sell something.

I had 42 putts on Monday and shot 44. That's admittedly worse than usual (putts)......but not much!!  Also I count strokes just off the green when using a putter, and a couple of putts were hap hazard at best. Also have been working on my turn and basically haven't looked at any short game clubs in 2 years and I go most every day.

I'm not sure what that means or what typo you made there: 22 putts and shot 44, 42 putts and shot 84… I don't know.

But… Dave Pez routinely over-states the importance of the short game because it's what he teaches. We know a lot about how people score in golf, and generally speaking, putting and the short game are not where you lose the most strokes. It's the full swing.

If you took 42 putts and shot 84 (or 22 and shot 44), you however have a glaring weakness, and should really work on your putting, unless you played a course with massive greens or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

44 minutes ago, gmc1950s said:

He's also a Rocket Scientist and they deal in numbers. Are you saying all his years at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center mean nothing to him and that he's going to "self promote" so as to sell you a book. From what I read (and remember ?) he spent all his retirement money (over 100,000 ?), refinanced his house and basically went broke bringing us this information. I am sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that someone with that training would risk his reputation to sell something.

My Dad's also a retired Space Scientist from Goddard, and can’t even properly assemble a 3D printer. His reputation was shot by his wife and kids who outscored him on numerous IQ tests. :-D Reputation is not really as important once you retire anyway.

Also, if he’s my Dad’s age he probably has close to his full inflation adjusted salary in a pension. He doesn’t have to worry about money.

What’s relevant is if Pelz understands scoring well. The models can’t be that exact at this point. There are so many variables to Golf both in terms of the mechanical aspects of scoring and variability in every player. It’s really hard to give any “unified theory” of low scoring. I’d say the best thing is to use whatever data you have like LSW

Edited by Lihu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, gmc1950s said:

He's also a Rocket Scientist and they deal in numbers. Are you saying all his years at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center mean nothing to him and that he's going to "self promote" so as to sell you a book. From what I read (and remember ?) he spent all his retirement money (over 100,000 ?), refinanced his house and basically went broke bringing us this information.

 If anything, that makes me more skeptical of his motives if his personal finances are dependent on the success of this venture.

1 hour ago, gmc1950s said:

I am sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that someone with that training would risk his reputation to sell something.

I'm not sure what his reputation from his previous career has to do with his current one. If he fails as a golf guru (which he won't and it has little to do with the merit of his information), it doesn't reflect on his NASA experience. We're talking about putting here and putting is not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

My Dad's also a retired Space Scientist from Goddard, and can’t even properly assemble a 3D printer. His reputation was shot by his wife and kids who outscored him on numerous IQ tests. :-D Reputation is not really as important once you retire anyway.

Also, if he’s my Dad’s age he probably has close to his full inflation adjusted salary in a pension. He doesn’t have to worry about money.

What’s relevant is if Pelz understands scoring well. The models can’t be that exact at this point. There are so many variables to Golf both in terms of the mechanical aspects of scoring and variability in every player. It’s really hard to give any “unified theory” of low scoring. I’d say the best thing is to use whatever data you have like LSW

 

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

My Dad's also a retired Space Scientist from Goddard, and can’t even properly assemble a 3D printer. His reputation was shot by his wife and kids who outscored him on numerous IQ tests. :-D Reputation is not really as important once you retire anyway.

Also, if he’s my Dad’s age he probably has close to his full inflation adjusted salary in a pension. He doesn’t have to worry about money.

What’s relevant is if Pelz understands scoring well. The models can’t be that exact at this point. There are so many variables to Golf both in terms of the mechanical aspects of scoring and variability in every player. It’s really hard to give any “unified theory” of low scoring. I’d say the best thing is to use whatever data you have like LSW

Lihu

If you read my reply, please note I did not insinuate that he was a genius only that his profession deals in numbers. I didn't say he worried about money only that he spent everything he had to understand and bring us his findings on scoring.

2 hours ago, billchao said:

 If anything, that makes me more skeptical of his motives if his personal finances are dependent on the success of this venture.

I'm not sure what his reputation from his previous career has to do with his current one. If he fails as a golf guru (which he won't and it has little to do with the merit of his information), it doesn't reflect on his NASA experience. We're talking about putting here and putting is not rocket science.

billchao       I respect your opinion. I have read all (?) of his stuff and I never got the feeling that he did it for any other reason than the love of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gmc1950s said:

If you read my reply, please note I did not insinuate that he was a genius only that his profession deals in numbers. I didn't say he worried about money only that he spent everything he had to understand and bring us his findings on scoring.

None of that means he's right.

And the "40 putts out of 96 shots" is not something he went broke to bring us. This is a recent number, and he's pretty well off right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm not sure what that means or what typo you made there: 22 putts and shot 44, 42 putts and shot 84… I don't know.

But… Dave Pez routinely over-states the importance of the short game because it's what he teaches. We know a lot about how people score in golf, and generally speaking, putting and the short game are not where you lose the most strokes. It's the full swing.

If you took 42 putts and shot 84 (or 22 and shot 44), you however have a glaring weakness, and should really work on your putting, unless you played a course with massive greens or something.

It was a typo, you are correct 22 putts, score 44. Hit 5 or 6 greens missed a couple by only a few (5 ?) yds. Also one topped fairway shot resulting in a bogey. If you recall my goal was to make a correct turn, and like I said, I barely looked at the short game clubs. I did not care about scoring (just that one day) only about the turn. You make it sound like 22-44 is not believable, but to tell you the truth my numbers have been closer to 18-40, or 36-80 if you will for over 40 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 putts per round is only 2.2 putts per hole. A 40 putt average, from all amateur golfers, does not seem that far fetched. 

I personally know a person who can hit 300+ yard drives in the fairway, and playable 250+ yard 3 woods with relative ease. If it's a full swing, he's pretty darn good. However, he can't putt to save his lunch. 5 putts from 30' is his norm. 

He's my oldest Grandson. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

17 minutes ago, Patch said:

40 putts per round is only 2.2 putts per hole. A 40 putt average, from all amateur golfers, does not seem that far fetched. 

I personally know a person who can hit 300+ yard drives in the fairway, and playable 250+ yard 3 woods with relative ease. If it's a full swing, he's pretty darn good. However, he can't putt to save his lunch. 5 putts from 30' is his norm. 

He's my oldest Grandson. :whistle:

OK Patch I'm wantin a game with him!! That is if doesn't mind waitin around till I get to the green!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gmc1950s said:

If you read my reply, please note I did not insinuate that he was a genius only that his profession deals in numbers. I didn't say he worried about money only that he spent everything he had to understand and bring us his findings on scoring.

Yes, I get that he deals with numbers. Many professions deal with numbers including mine, but how to process those numbers is an entirely different issue. I'd trust a good golf professional to be able to interpret a golfers statistics better than a Space Scientist primarily because it's his vocation and he's more familiar with the meaning behind those numbers.

 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

None of that means he's right.

And the "40 putts out of 96 shots" is not something he went broke to bring us. This is a recent number, and he's pretty well off right now.

It's just plain arrogant of Pelz's supporters claiming that "He's a Rocket Scientist, so he can take the golfing community by storm with his wisdom." like everyone else is stupid and clueless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 minutes ago, Lihu said:

It's just plain arrogant of Pelz's supporters claiming that "He's a Rocket Scientist, so he can take the golfing community by storm with his wisdom." like everyone else is stupid and clueless. 

@Lihu, Pelz has been in the golf market longer than he was ever in the space program.

Can we get back to the original topic now please? Should we need a reminder, it's:

On 10/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, phillyk said:

I saw a quick introduction to wedge week from Dave Pelz.  He started with saying the average score is 96 and then moved to saying the average golfer takes 40 putts per round.... WHAT! The AVERAGE is 40?! Where'd he get that number from?  That means some golfers are taking like 45 putts.  That seems ridiculous.  Then he said there are 19 wedges, 14 irons, 21 drivers or woods, and 2 random shots.  The first search result online is from March 2017, a golf digest article saying GameGolf calculated the average putts per round at 34 from its users.  That's more believable for putting.  I'm not sure where he got the stats on the other shots, but I'm pretty sure they're off a bit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

40 putts for a 96, though it doesn't seem far fetched... Seems a little bit high... That means you're three-putting 4 times a round... I could see 36 or 37... Maybe he's counting fringe putts which don't count anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2015 Golf mag showing Mr. Pelz charging $20-30,000 a day. Damn, thats pretty darn good. If I'm charging that, I'm gonna have whatever facts I need to support that. 

Couple of days a month-I could survive on that. Get my putts down below 40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 hours ago, gmc1950s said:

It was a typo, you are correct 22 putts, score 44. Hit 5 or 6 greens missed a couple by only a few (5 ?) yds. Also one topped fairway shot resulting in a bogey. If you recall my goal was to make a correct turn, and like I said, I barely looked at the short game clubs. I did not care about scoring (just that one day) only about the turn. You make it sound like 22-44 is not believable, but to tell you the truth my numbers have been closer to 18-40, or 36-80 if you will for over 40 years. 

22 putts for 9 holes is really poor, but if you count putts taken from off the green, you should not, even if you use the putter. So, it could have been 18 or 19 really and that is still not great, but much better! :beer:

ETA: I had an 18 holes round this year where I took 24 putts (yes, for all 18 holes). It helped that I was off the green a lot, but that's nearly half as many as you claim, per hole... You can do much better.

Edited by sjduffers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Seriously, I average 35.5 putts per round, and I am a terrible putter.   awful.  nobody that is only counting putts on the green and has any ability at all is averaging 40-45 putts.  Just isn't happening. 

Edited by lastings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

19 minutes ago, lastings said:

Seriously, I average 35.5 putts per round, and I am a terrible putter.   awful.  nobody that is only counting putts on the green and has any ability at all is averaging 40-45 putts.  Just isn't happening. 

I don't actually consider myself a terrible putter, but still manage 36 putts on average for 18.

40 putts per round is totally possible if everyone actually counts every single putt.

image.thumb.png.ed7c98e69ee7f83a252af1249319b4dc.png

I did have a few rounds over 2 putts per hole though. . .

image.thumb.png.801fe2c9d10ca2ee6fc49730c2b11ac2.png

Edited by Lihu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

you're still averaging 4 less putts per round than what the OP suggests is the average.   

If you average 4 putts less per round, you are a wayy better putter than they are.   you said "I don't actually consider myself a terrible putter".   Those don't exactly sound like the words of someone that is wayy better than average.    Actually kind of sounds like the words of someone that feels like they are an average putter.  

 

Edited by lastings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 955 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...