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.
blue note wrote: » % of approaches going long 0 - 6% 5 - 6% 10 - 5% 15 - 6% 20 - 4% 25 - 5%
blue note wrote: » Whereas mi****s are far more likely to leave you short.
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?
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
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.
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
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....
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
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.
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/
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
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.
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
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbfc3ba7e856a475fc69f60b15fc4745.svg)
