Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Performance Stats

  • 19-03-2021 5:26pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,134 ✭✭✭ blue note


    I flicked onto Mark Crossfield on instagram and he posts up stats across handicap ranges from time to time. There are some interesting stats in there, such as the one he put up yesterday.

    Fairways hit by handicap
    0 - 50%
    5 - 48%
    10 - 49%
    15 - 48%
    20 - 46%
    25 - 46%

    I'd have expected a much steeper decline from the scratch to the 25 than that.

    Greens in regulation
    0 - 61%
    5 - 44%
    10 - 36%
    15 - 24%
    20 - 17%
    25 - 10%

    They're probably in line with what I'd have expected

    % of approaches going long
    0 - 6%
    5 - 6%
    10 - 5%
    15 - 6%
    20 - 4%
    25 - 5%

    This tells me I go long a lot more than average! But it's probably not all that surprising that the numbers aren't all that high. Most golfers will be aiming for roughly the middle of the green with their approaches. So if they catch it particularly well there's a good chance they'll still be on the green. You need to combine that exceptional connection with misjudging the distance to be shorter than it is to go long. Whereas mi****s are far more likely to leave you short.

    Shots to finish 40 yards vs 100 yards
    0 - 2.54 vs 2.95
    5 - 2.77 vs 3.07
    10 - 2.87 vs 3.14
    15 - 2.95 vs 3.57
    20 - 2.94 vs 3.52
    25 - 3.1 vs 3.69

    The thing that jumps out at me here is the "play safe - lay-up" advice that in particular a lot of lower handicap golfers pass on to higher handicap ones. When they suggest laying up on a long par 4, it's usually on the assumption that the golfer will have little trouble hitting the green and two putting. Whereas this is clearly not the case. For the 15, 20 and 25 handicapper, if they lay up to 100 yards they're more likely to double bogey the hole than to bogey it. That's not to say that there are not times when it's still the best play, but the idea that you lay up and take double bogey out of play is rubbish.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭ willabur


    blue note wrote: »
    I flicked onto Mark Crossfield on instagram and he posts up stats across handicap ranges from time to time. There are some interesting stats in there, such as the one he put up yesterday.

    Fairways hit by handicap
    0 - 50%
    5 - 48%
    10 - 49%
    15 - 48%
    20 - 46%
    25 - 46%

    I'd have expected a much steeper decline from the scratch to the 25 than that.

    Greens in regulation
    0 - 61%
    5 - 44%
    10 - 36%
    15 - 24%
    20 - 17%
    25 - 10%

    They're probably in line with what I'd have expected

    % of approaches going long
    0 - 6%
    5 - 6%
    10 - 5%
    15 - 6%
    20 - 4%
    25 - 5%

    This tells me I go long a lot more than average! But it's probably not all that surprising that the numbers aren't all that high. Most golfers will be aiming for roughly the middle of the green with their approaches. So if they catch it particularly well there's a good chance they'll still be on the green. You need to combine that exceptional connection with misjudging the distance to be shorter than it is to go long. Whereas mi****s are far more likely to leave you short.

    Shots to finish 40 yards vs 100 yards
    0 - 2.54 vs 2.95
    5 - 2.77 vs 3.07
    10 - 2.87 vs 3.14
    15 - 2.95 vs 3.57
    20 - 2.94 vs 3.52
    25 - 3.1 vs 3.69

    The thing that jumps out at me here is the "play safe - lay-up" advice that in particular a lot of lower handicap golfers pass on to higher handicap ones. When they suggest laying up on a long par 4, it's usually on the assumption that the golfer will have little trouble hitting the green and two putting. Whereas this is clearly not the case. For the 15, 20 and 25 handicapper, if they lay up to 100 yards they're more likely to double bogey the hole than to bogey it. That's not to say that there are not times when it's still the best play, but the idea that you lay up and take double bogey out of play is rubbish.

    safe play isn't always laying up. For me it is not taking tiger line aiming for the fat piece of the fairway or the fat piece of the green or the side of the green which gives you the best chance of getting up and down.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,926 ✭✭✭ spacecoyote


    Been a while since I've played (obviously :rolleyes:) but working by my GameGolf numbes (as much as possible) this is where I compare. Handicap index of 9.1

    Fairways hit by handicap
    0 - 50%
    5 - 48%
    10 - 49%
    15 - 48%
    20 - 46%
    25 - 46%


    For me its 49%, so I'm pretty much on the money there

    Greens in regulation
    0 - 61%
    5 - 44%
    10 - 36%
    15 - 24%
    20 - 17%
    25 - 10%


    I'm at 31% here, so need a bit of an improvement

    % of approaches going long
    0 - 6%
    5 - 6%
    10 - 5%
    15 - 6%
    20 - 4%
    25 - 5%


    I can't geet a proper overall number, but breakdown by distances, I'm:
    Inside 100yrds - 11% Long
    101-150yrds - 16% Long
    Outside 150yrds - 18% Long

    This makes sense to me, in relative terms as I generally, particularly when I'm outside about 8i range take my distance to the back of the green when determining my club choices

    Shots to finish 40 yards vs 100 yards
    0 - 2.54 vs 2.95
    5 - 2.77 vs 3.07
    10 - 2.87 vs 3.14
    15 - 2.95 vs 3.57
    20 - 2.94 vs 3.52
    25 - 3.1 vs 3.69


    This is not an available statistic currently on there. Might message them and see could they add it to their UI. I could run through my rounds on there & figure it out, but don't have the time, or motivation to do that right now :D

    Is interesting to look at though. Maybe I've gone a bit too far with picking my back of the green target sometimes, given my "long" stats, but generally, on my home course, you tend to be safer to miss long on most holes


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭ slave1


    blue note wrote: »
    % of approaches going long
    0 - 6%
    5 - 6%
    10 - 5%
    15 - 6%
    20 - 4%
    25 - 5%

    This is something my GameGolf told me, I rarely go long (a lot higher percentage "short") and now I can see that most others don't either.
    Message is club up!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭ willabur


    Shotscope numbers for me

    54% FIR - short course, lot of irons off the tee
    42% GIR
    15% long


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭ redzerdrog


    I only have a few rounds logged and struggled in each of them so interesting to see where I compare. Current hcap is 14 but like any 14 hcap i think I can get lower :-)

    Fairways hit by handicap
    0 - 50%
    5 - 48%
    10 - 49%
    15 - 48%
    20 - 46%
    25 - 46%

    Firstly fairways hit already shows a massive issue at 35%!! I used to only ever miss a fairway to the right but some swing changes have brought in a two way miss 29% left and 36% right. Funny and driving would always have been the strongest part of my game.

    When I remove other clubs and isolate driver only it's still 34% of fairways so no huge difference there.

    Greens in regulation
    0 - 61%
    5 - 44%
    10 - 36%
    15 - 24%
    20 - 17%
    25 - 10%

    I fair out a bit better here at 37% GIR. Probably due to the length of the approach shots I have in.

    % of approaches going long
    0 - 6%
    5 - 6%
    10 - 5%
    15 - 6%
    20 - 4%
    25 - 5%

    I am at 10% here. Might be related to missing more fairways and catching flyers out of the rough. Also firm links greens might play a part

    Shots to finish 40 yards vs 100 yards
    0 - 2.54 vs 2.95
    5 - 2.77 vs 3.07
    10 - 2.87 vs 3.14
    15 - 2.95 vs 3.57
    20 - 2.94 vs 3.52
    25 - 3.1 vs 3.69

    Cant find the above info on the Garmin app. I am hoping that with the new release of 3 new golf watches they might upgrade to add to give better info


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭ RoadRunner


    blue note wrote: »
    Whereas mi****s are far more likely to leave you short.

    4245c131fcf238589e4ab38842d1a74b.jpg

    I'm often left in the wedge range on my course. I have to admit mi$hits (thin) would be the reason for my approaches going long.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,832 ✭✭✭ DuckSlice


    Garmin Golf telling me the following (HC 9) -
    FIR - 50%
    GIR - 36%
    % of shots going long - 3%, 35% going short and 26% front of green :O
    Potential for up and down witin 50 yards - 31%
    Putts - 1.8ph avg.

    the message for me is also club up.

    I also done an analysis of all my scorecards for the year on my home course, and i play the par 3's at an average of +1 to par. So really need to work on the par3's


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭ The Big Easy


    I'd say I almost never go long, probably only par threes from an elevated tee occasionally. This is something I've thought about before and always tell myself to take an extra club than I think I need.

    The stats play out what I've always thought is one of the big amateur errors - club selection. I take my distance to the middle and pull the club that my absolute best shot would go that distance. Then I'm always stepping on it trying to get the maximum out of it.

    It's pure stupidity, but I really struggle to train myself out of it. Think my handicap would start coming down again if I did. Anyway that's the swing thought here on the couch, club more 3/4 swing.

    Can't wait to put it into practice! :D


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Anyone using Garmin ct10 for stat tracking, have a Garmin running watch that is compatible with them and thinking big picking them up. Are they any good worth the money?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭ redzerdrog


    ronnoco13 wrote: »
    Anyone using Garmin ct10 for stat tracking, have a Garmin running watch that is compatible with them and thinking big picking them up. Are they any good worth the money?

    I have the approach s62 watch so the watch captures when you make a swing. Does the Garmin watch you have do this?

    If so then all you really need is the trackers on your wedges and putter to catch those shorter swings that the watch struggles to capture


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    I have the approach s62 watch so the watch captures when you make a swing. Does the Garmin watch you have do this?

    If so then all you really need is the trackers on your wedges and putter to catch those shorter swings that the watch struggles to capture

    Yes it has the autoshot feature, thanks that's made the choice to buy a bit simpler and much cheaper


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭ redzerdrog


    Yeh think they come in a pack of 3 or else the full set. Would definitely recommend the 3 as its handy in the shorter shots.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭ MarcusP12


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Yeh think they come in a pack of 3 or else the full set. Would definitely recommend the 3 as its handy in the shorter shots.

    I'd second that....i have the S60 and invested in the 3 CT10 pack separately as i was keen to capture the short game in the stats.....

    Since its a thread on stats, does anyone know how the Garmin app presents the stats. What i mean is does it only take say the last 10 rounds. I'm looking at my stats for say driving and it doesn't seem to capture as far back as when i would have used a different couple of drivers.....bit frustrating as i would like to compare my stats for say my current bagged driver against my back ups to see which is giving the better consistency......


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭ redzerdrog


    You should be able to single out your old driver only for stats and your new driver only for stats provided you have named them separately when you changed


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭ MarcusP12


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    You should be able to single out your old driver only for stats and your new driver only for stats provided you have named them separately when you changed

    Checked again and if you click on help for the performance stats for driving, approach etc, it says it based the driving on the last 10 rounds.....will hold the average and max drives alright but seems the FIR is last 10 rounds only, which I suspected based on the clubs it was showing....


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭ redzerdrog


    MarcusP12 wrote: »
    Checked again and if you click on help for the performance stats for driving, approach etc, it says it based the driving on the last 10 rounds.....will hold the average and max drives alright but seems the FIR is last 10 rounds only, which I suspected based on the clubs it was showing....

    Never realised that.

    I think the Garmin app has a lot of room for improvement. It ain't the most user friendly and think some of the data could be presented in a better/clearer manner


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭ MarcusP12


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Never realised that.

    I think the Garmin app has a lot of room for improvement. It ain't the most user friendly and think some of the data could be presented in a better/clearer manner

    Yeah I’d agree with that alright....take for example the stats around approach....it’ll tell you % short, long, left and right and then on the green % short, med and long from the home. You can filter by club.....all of which is useful enough but where I think it falls down a bit for me is that for the approach distance it gives you a breakdown of the % times a club was used but only whether your GIR range is above or below average (for my handicap I assume)....Id prefer to know that from 150 yds I hit whatever % GIR and decide myself if I need to improve...that’s just my own preference of course....I know a lot of people will judge the need for improvement on what is average for for their handicap but I think hey could include a bit more detail....

    I’d be curious to see how shotscope works compared to garmin....however i think the garmin is super in many ways and is a nice everyday watch by sport smart watch standards so I’m not sure I’d choose a different watch just because their app was a little better......garmin might include more features and stats in time hopefully...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,832 ✭✭✭ DuckSlice


    Definitely room for improvement in the App, compared to shotscope its well behind from what i have read. But i couldnt see myself wearing the Shotscope watch everyday where as i never take my Garmin off. Great for tracking fitness activities too.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    etxp wrote: »
    Definitely room for improvement in the App, compared to shotscope its well behind from what i have read. But i couldnt see myself wearing the Shotscope watch everyday where as i never take my Garmin off. Great for tracking fitness activities too.

    I think that's it, Garmin watches look good and they are great for for general fitness, running/cycling and other sports they've been tracking for years. Hopefully over time they can improve their golf app. Came across this looks like you can give feedback on different products etc https://www.garmin.com/en-US/forms/ideas/


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭ redzerdrog


    etxp wrote: »
    Definitely room for improvement in the App, compared to shotscope its well behind from what i have read. But i couldnt see myself wearing the Shotscope watch everyday where as i never take my Garmin off. Great for tracking fitness activities too.

    Yeh agree the shotscope watch would be golf only wear as the Garmin is just a quality all round watch.

    Garmin have introduced 3 new golf watches over the past couple of weeks so hopefully it an indication they might do something with app


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭ willabur


    I have both and a game golf

    Garmin is the best on course. Much higher build quality and has more features than shotscope. Main thing on the course that shotscope has is that it knows what club you have hit so after the round it is alot easier to edit your round.
    Shotscope build quality is poor. It feels alot cheaper than garmin. The strap is cheap and doesn't stay secure. Have to pin it back in several times per round

    Post round
    Shotscope is alot better. it gives you more stats and more options to view your stats. Garmin is very high level over view. I think Game Golf is better than both in the post round department. I like to compare myself vs other golfers or averages of handicaps to see where I am dropping shots. SS has started to bring in these features but GG has had them for years. I find it more engagign as a post round experience


  • Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭ Gipo3


    If you login to the site connect.garmin.com you can get more details on some things. Such as your best and average scores, fairway %, gir, putts, etc. on each hole of a course


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,563 ✭✭✭✭ Rikand


    As a 7 handicap my fairways hit percentage would be >80% - I hit the ball very straight but not very long so my GIR would be around 40% as expected as on a lot of par 4's, I'd be hitting a long iron or a wood into them or if I do miss the fairway, then making the green is more or less impossible. I just dont generate enough speed.

    I'd say I'm really losing ground on the 40 yard - 100 yard gains. My short game is nowhere near what it used to be. I'd say my up and down % is dreadful compared to others in my handicap range


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,832 ✭✭✭ DuckSlice


    ronnoco13 wrote: »
    I think that's it, Garmin watches look good and they are great for for general fitness, running/cycling and other sports they've been tracking for years. Hopefully over time they can improve their golf app. Came across this looks like you can give feedback on different products etc https://www.garmin.com/en-US/forms/ideas/

    They are very good if details are wrong on a course too. i played old head and bunkers werent mapped right on it and they replied back to me fairly quickly. dont know did they ever sort it though as havent played there since.

    Must check out the website see what extra is on there.
    edit - first look it seems to have all the same data as the app.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,832 ✭✭✭ DuckSlice


    willabur wrote: »
    I have both and a game golf

    Garmin is the best on course. Much higher build quality and has more features than shotscope. Main thing on the course that shotscope has is that it knows what club you have hit so after the round it is alot easier to edit your round.
    Shotscope build quality is poor. It feels alot cheaper than garmin. The strap is cheap and doesn't stay secure. Have to pin it back in several times per round

    Post round
    Shotscope is alot better. it gives you more stats and more options to view your stats. Garmin is very high level over view. I think Game Golf is better than both in the post round department. I like to compare myself vs other golfers or averages of handicaps to see where I am dropping shots. SS has started to bring in these features but GG has had them for years. I find it more engagign as a post round experience

    If you set up the garmin to have club prompt on it will come up on the watch asking what club you hit, its usually has the right club selected for the distance, but you just tap on it to confirm.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭ willabur


    etxp wrote: »
    If you set up the garmin to have club prompt on it will come up on the watch asking what club you hit, its usually has the right club selected for the distance, but you just tap on it to confirm.

    Are you allowed to use that feature in competition? As far as I know any kind of prompt or feedback on how far you have hit a club is not allowed. You can only view distance to flag and to hazards

    If its a case of you just telling the watch which club you hit then I think that is fine


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,832 ✭✭✭ DuckSlice


    willabur wrote: »
    Are you allowed to use that feature in competition? As far as I know any kind of prompt or feedback on how far you have hit a club is not allowed. You can only view distance to flag and to hazards

    If its a case of you just telling the watch which club you hit then I think that is fine

    I meant after the shot, so you hit and it brings up a screen to select which club you have hit. but rather than having to scroll down through the list all the time to select the one you have hit, it will bring up a guess at which club you hit based on the yardage. If that makes sense?

    But there is nothing wrong with the watch telling you how far you hit a club before a shot, the issue is if it is suggesting you to take a certain club.

    for example, i have the tags on my wedges, so when i pull out my 50 degree it will come up on the watch that my average for this is 110yards. Thats perfectly ok, but if it suggests to me to use my 50deg then thats against the rules.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,563 ✭✭✭✭ Rikand


    etxp wrote: »


    I meant after the shot, so you hit and it brings up a screen to select which club you have hit. but rather than having to scroll down through the list all the time to select the one you have hit, it will bring up a guess at which club you hit based on the yardage. If that makes sense?

    But there is nothing wrong with the watch telling you how far you hit a club before a shot, the issue is if it is suggesting you to take a certain club.

    for example, i have the tags on my wedges, so when i pull out my 50 degree it will come up on the watch that my average for this is 110yards. Thats perfectly ok, but if it suggests to me to use my 50deg then thats against the rules.

    That sounds fair enough. It would be the same thing as keeping a notebook in your back pocket with the distances written down on them that you hit a standard club for your own reference


Advertisement