Luv2kruz

Again, I think that might work if you played the same course over and over. But if you play varied courses, like I do, that would not be statistically meaningful. For example, I play one course with lots of doglegs and I have to use varied clubs off the tee to position for the approach. On another course of similar length, its bombs away with driver on every hole. My average club coming into greens on the first course is longer because of the course design. So depending on the proportion of time I play each course, my average approach club would all over the map from week to week. So the cours

That might be useful if you play the same course and tees all the time, but if you play different courses, the average approach club would vary based on hole lengths, so not very useful IMO.

What does that tell you?

Thanks. Whereabouts in Mississauga? I'm about 5 min from Lakeview and play there all the time, along with Braeben.

Here ya go.

I just did a brief search on the book and some threads that discussed it and the concept of separation value. Looks like the book's philosophy goes beyond just stats, which obviously makes sense, since stats are simply indicators of other golfing skills like green reading, strategy, etc. etc. and There's obviously more to golf that just stats. Regarding seperation value, as I understand it, is basically saying the same things that I said regarding correlation to scoring. Higher separation value = higher correlation to scoring. If you're going to work on anything and have limited time, wh

My use of the chart was simply to illustrate that there are stats that have strong and weak correlations to scoring and I wasn't advocating to track birdies as a key stat. You already found out that collecting various stats had little impact on helping you improve your game and therefore were wasted effort because they likely had low correlation to scoring. Given that we all have less time to devote to collecting and analyzing stats than the pros, we have to be selective to and find ones that give us the biggest bang for our buck. I've found ones that work for me and explained why, which answe

There are lots of stats that have strong and poor correlation to scoring. Here's a table from one of the articles that I read on the subject that illustrates. FIR, for example, correlates poorly, while GIR has a strong correlation. Perhaps the 'minutia' you were tracking were stats that have a poor correlation and that's why they weren't useful too you. I am a firm believer in the value of detailed stats and their role in driving improvement in one's game. Their diagnostic and monitoring capabilities are invalulable throughout the season, not just for a year end review. If were as simple

SG is valuable, but as I said, its not granular enough for me. Same goes for GIR, many studies have shown that GIR does correlate to scoring. But again, it's too generic to help pinpoint specific problems, so it is deficient in that regard. So, in my opinion, it really depends on your desire to improve as to what stats are good enough. If you are recreational golfer who is more interested in fun and the social side of golf, looking at basic stats like FIR, GIR,etc may be good enough. But if you have a strong desire and intent to improve, detailed stats are a key element towards that effor

Thanks. I'll certainly take a look. I'm defintely a numbers guy:>

Just joined. Love golf (obviously), photography and classic cars (I own a '67 Chevelle). I'm basically retired and have been playing for 35+ years. My index hovers between 1 and 3. Hope to meet some new online friends. Cheers.

I agree with Brodie's comment to forget GIR, but not because of green size consistency. The weakness of the GIR stat is because it is a combination/hybrid stat that measures off the tee performance and approach performance together. If you have a low GIR%, you can't see whether it is because of poor tee shots or because of poor approach shots. Strokes gained is better because it separates the two and provides visibility of each area separately. But I also think SG has some weakness too becuase it doesn't provide enough granularity to pin point exactly where your problem lies. Its good for poin