Opinion & Analysis
A simple scoring system to record statistics
I frequently get asked the question, “What statistics can I use to measure my entire game?”
The issue is that while there are many advanced methods of statistics to use, they are often very cumbersome and golfers tend to forget to record their score, take too long to record the metrics, or end up inaccurately recording their metrics. That leads to a skewed analysis of their game.
I’ve done countless hours of research on the game, and usually have a pretty good idea on how I performed in each area after a round, but I still use certain metrics to assist with that analysis so I can schedule my practice accordingly.
One of the main scores I like to keep is a metric I created in the 2013 Pro Golf Synopsis called the 15/5 Score. The scoring system goes like this:
- Give yourself +1 point if your par save is within 5 feet of the hole.
- Give yourself +2 points if you have a birdie opportunity inside 15 feet of the hole.
- Give yourself +3 points if you have an eagle opportunity inside 15 feet of the hole.
- Take away -3 points if your par save is not within 5 feet of the hole.
For bogey shooters, you can alter this score by giving yourself +1 point if your bogey putt is within 5 feet of the hole and use that as the baseline.
I also only give one set of points for each hole. If I have a 12-foot birdie putt and hit the putt 6-feet past the cup, I only give myself +2 points for the birdie putt inside 15 feet. This is important to note because we can better decipher our putting skill using this methodology. I will go into that later in this article.
Another thing I like to keep track of is what I call “impedes.” These are any of the following:
- Ball goes O.B.
- Ball goes into the water
- Ball goes into a fairway bunker
- Ball goes into the tall rough
- Ball goes into the trees
- Anytime I have to hit above, below or around a tree
- Ball ends up in a divot
- Ball is plugged in a greenside bunker
- Ball goes into the greenside bunker on a par-3
I call them impedes because these are all shots where advancing the ball is impeded. Even if I’m behind a tree and can fairly easily clear the tree and put the ball on the green, I consider that an impede because that tree is still obstructing my advancement of the ball to the hole.
As far as the ball going into a divot, it is about things that impede your advancement to the hole, not about what is fair. You will find that when you can limit your impedes, you will often shoot a much better score than you typically would performing the same way from tee to green.
The other metrics I keep are:
- Fairway Hit
- Green In Regulation Hit
- Scramble
- Putts on the Hole
I am NOT a big fan of those metrics because they are woefully incomplete and misleading. But, combined with your total score, impedes and the 15/5 Score, we can better deduct how well we performed in certain parts of the game. These aren’t time consuming or cumbersome, but they can be very helpful metrics to record.
Here is an analysis of the points system of a recent round I completed. I will give my analysis of each round as well:
Click the table to enlarge.
With the 15/5 Score, typically +10 will equate to around even par. This in part makes the analytics fairly easy; if the 15/5 score is at +10 and I shot above par, then we know that it was likely due to short game and putting miscues. Conversely, if I shoot even par and have a 15/5 score of less than +10, then we know that I was likely getting hot with the putter.
If I were to make a 25-foot putt for birdie, my 15/5 score would only be +1, but I still made the birdie. On the flip side, if I hit a chip shot to 3 feet and miss the putt and make bogey, my 15/5 score is still +1 and hence it helps dictate how well we are striking the ball versus how well we are putting.
In the scenario above, it is a little less clear since I shot 73 (2-over par), but had a 15/5 score of +6. This would indicate that my ball striking and short game/putting were in balance. Given that I shot a score of 2-over, my 15/5 score should have been around +6.
My total score was 2-over, so in order to improve upon that it usually means that the ball striking has to improve. When looking at the driving, I hit 9 out of 14 fairways which is not bad. More importantly, I only had two impeded shots. Upon further inspection, I played those holes where I had an impeded shot at -1-under. Therefore, the impeded shots were not overly damaging and I think it is safe to say that my driving was fine for this round, or at least not the reason why I did not break par.
We can then get a better idea of the iron play by looking at the Greens In Regulation (GIR). Since I was hitting the driver fairly well, I should have a good amount of GIR — and I did end up hitting 11 out of 18 Greens. But just as important, we need to look at the corresponding 15/5 scores per hole because hitting it close is more important than finding the green.
I hit a nice streak of hitting shots close on Nos. 8, 9 and 10 as I hit each shot inside 15 feet and converted the birdie try. Also, notice on the front nine that I had only 13 putts, which would be considered very good, but I had 19 putts on the back nine. That’s considered poor. However, I also hit 7 greens in regulation on the back nine. Furthermore, after the 10th hole, 5 out of the 6 GIR resulted in scores of +1 according to the 15/5 score, which means that I was hitting greens, but not hitting shots very close.
This gives an indication that my putting can stand room for improvement, but I had bigger issues with my performance with the irons. It was a bit windy that day, which makes it difficult to get approach shots close to the hole. But based on this round, I would say that iron play and putting should be given more focus.
Here’s a round from European Tour player Jamie Donaldson at the South Course at Torrey Pines:
Click the table to enlarge.
We can see that Donaldson’s 15/5 Score was -1, while he shot even par for the round. Again, since his 15/5 score was low for his score, that indicates that his short game shots around the green and/or his putting was likely very good. And we can see that was clearly the case as Donaldson only hit 5/14 fairways, 10/18 Greens in Regulation and had two impeded shots.
On the flip side, he only had 27 putts and was 7 of 8 in scramble opportunities. We also see that Donaldson did not strike it well on the front nine, as his 15/5 Score was -10. On the back nine, however, he was far better as his 15/5 score was +9.
While I think there is the potential to have more accurate ways to analyze your entire game, I find the method I use to be very simple and practical. For bogey shooters, they can use the same type of 15/5 score, but they may want to alter the scoring system by 1 stroke (i.e. +2 points for a par putt inside 15 feet, +1 point for bogey putt inside 5 feet, etc). This still allows for the bogey golfer to accurately analyze their game, but also stresses the main point of the 15/5 Score — getting the ball closer to the hole.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Gus
Mar 25, 2015 at 3:39 pm
Stats keeping should be at a minimum during a round. All I keep is Score / GIR or Score / Putts then after the round I can interpret the results.
If my score is 5 on a par 5 with 3 putts then I know I reached the green in 2 and 3-putter for par. The good – I can teach a par 5 in 2 with 2 good shots. The bad – 3 putt. It doesn’t matter if I 3-putter within 15 feet or 25 feet – putting is putting and we should always 2-putt to finish.
If my score was 1 putt on any given hole, then it’s a positive stat regardless if I was putting for a birdie or putting to save triple bogey.
If I wanted to assign a scoring system for these results, it should be applied after the round, not during!
Drew
Mar 24, 2015 at 9:35 pm
Good stuff. Not too complicated (despite what others are saying), and gives some good analysis. People could modify this to fit their game as well. Thanks Rich!
Murph
Mar 23, 2015 at 3:21 pm
I am not entirely sold on how these statistics help an average golfer. I am not hitting it within 15 feet 90% of the time and I am happy to just be on the green or around the green close enough for a chip. I don’t need involved stats to tell me I need to drive the ball in the fairway or avoid penalty strokes. While I appreciate the benefit of stats for a more accomplished player, I just don’t get what they do for a bogey golfer or even a 10 handicap.
Jeremy
Mar 23, 2015 at 8:25 pm
With all due respect, not every article or tip is for every golfer. Golf goes to great lengths to quantify (to several decimal places) how good you are at hitting a little white ball around a park, and for some people it’s really fun to look at the statistics from a new angle. If you’re not that interested, perhaps you’ll never be all that good, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Most of us probably fall into that category. It’s all about enjoying yourself, in the end.
That’s why lot of this has to do with being less hard on yourself as well. It enables you to say “shoot, if only that one aspect of my game hadn’t been off I’d have shot my best round ever.” Makes it easier to swallow that three putt on 18 when you feel like, overall, you’re pretty good at hitting that ball. Maybe then instead of going to the range and pounding balls one night next week you’ll just hit some putts instead, and next weekend it’ll all come together.
Jafar
Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 am
This isn’t bad. A good starting point for others to build off of.
Thanks for sharing this. I will attempt to make my own scoring system to help analyze and tune parts of my game.
dapadre
Mar 23, 2015 at 6:00 am
This to me is analysis paralysis. This may be of great help to that borderline pro or aspiring pro, but the golf enthusiast I doubt. To be honest i have found GIR, Fairways hit, No. putts of greater importance and assistance. Also I used a new device from a friend that charted my shots and after a while I could see which shots were impeding my score of which I needed to work on.
Also its says simple, Im sorry but I didnt find it simple.
Sean
Mar 22, 2015 at 6:48 pm
I used to keep statistics, but found it really didn’t make a difference one way or the other. Now, I only keep my score. It also takes the pressure off if I miss a fairway, green or whatever. I don’t get caught up in my statistics and just play golf.
Connor
Mar 23, 2015 at 1:13 am
Word.
Murph
Mar 23, 2015 at 3:24 pm
I agree with you. I think keeping involved stats like this force your mind to focus on the negative things that can happen related to the shot you are about to hit. I do believe in FIR and GIR to a certain extent only because the higher those two numbers…..especially GIR…..the lower my score is.
OG
Mar 21, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Good information, but it’s not too hard too figure out if I shoot 80 and hit 12 greens that my putter was off or didn’t get up and down well that round.
JT
Mar 21, 2015 at 4:21 pm
Here is my simple system: score goes in the box for the hole, and then, in this same single box, I mark the following
– check (hit), x (missed), or “OB” in top left for fairway
– check, x, or OB in top right for green
– number of putts in bottom right
This gives new the most relevant stats, and it’s really fast so it keeps me focused on play – not stats or mechanics in round.
ShakeNBake
Mar 21, 2015 at 1:25 pm
My last round, I shot even with a 15/5 score of -15 and 7 impediments. Does this mean I am secretly terrible?
Jake Anderson
Mar 21, 2015 at 10:15 am
i am sorry, but this system is too complicated.
i think it would suffice to keep, GIR, and O.B. (which type of shot went O.B.).
RG
Mar 21, 2015 at 5:16 am
Check mark=fairway hit
X= GIR
U= Up and down
F= Putt from fringe if holed
B= Bunker shot holed
Number of putts and distance
Score on hole
It will all fit in the boxes below your score
Tom D
Mar 21, 2015 at 12:21 am
I don’t find counting putts very helpful. If I’m chipping onto the green and chipping well, I’ll get the ball close enough to make a 1-putt likely. However, if I’m getting on a lot of greens in regulation, I’m probably landing pretty far from the hole. This means that a 1-putt is very unlikely. In either case, the number of putts says more about my ball-striking than about my putting.
To give me some real feedback on how I’m putting, I use a variation of “strokes gained – putting”. If my first putt is within 6ft of the hole, a 1-putt is zero strokes gained, a 2-putt is one stroke lost and a 3-putt is two strokes lost. If my first putt is over 6ft from the hole, a 1-putt is one stroke gained, a 2-putt is zero strokes gained and a 3-putt is one stroke lost. Add up all strokes gained and subtract all strokes lost. The total is how well I putted. A positive number is good, a negative number, not so good.
As you get better, change the dividing line from 6ft to 10ft!
chris franklin
Mar 20, 2015 at 5:08 pm
I wish my club had “cartboys”
I’m tired of seeing those floozies
Brutus
Mar 20, 2015 at 2:22 pm
I keep 2 stats the work for me. When they’re used in combo with the score I card for a hole, it tells me enough that when I look back a year later I can pretty much know exactly how I did. And it’s all estimating as I don’t want to get too anal for exact distances. First is how long the shot that found the green was. The second is the length of my first 2 putts and underline a putt that goes in.
Say if the distance is 150, I can easily figure out if it was a GIR or had major problems just getting to 150 to hit the green. If it’s 5 yards from off the green I know if my approach(es) sucked. (Used with the putting numbers, I can tell how I’m chipping too.) I can tell all I need by the length of my first 2 putts and if I made one of them. If I 3 putt, I don’t really give a flip about how I “nailed that 3rd stroke from 2-1/2 feet”… since the first 2 tell where the problems of the 3 putt sin lies.
I don’t see the need to “record” if my drives or approaches go right, left, or worse. Odds are most players know their general tendencies and to work to get accurate stats on that is a waste of time merely to confirm it. And if I don’t see many approaches written down from say outside 120 yards, then I know about where I’m beginning struggling with my irons.
It shouldn’t hold up the game as it takes me less time to enter up to 3 numbers than for just 1 person in my group to tee off on the next tee… and I can still spot their drive.
Rich Hunt
Mar 20, 2015 at 3:38 pm
I don’t think it is too hard to figure out the distances of 15 feet and 5 feet. If you’re at 5-feet 4-inches and record it as 5-feet, I don’t see it as a travesty of inaccuracy. I think it is easy to record on the course and easy to remember if you’re recording it after the round.
John
Mar 20, 2015 at 2:20 pm
I personally think stats tracking isn’t a reason for slow play. Most GPS apps can keep stats and inserting them takes about a minute, or about the time it takes to cart over from the previous green to the next tee. Slow play is because most people (and I’m guilty of this at times as well) think they’re better than they actually might be, and so each shot matters a bit more than it should. Tourney/professional play, I understand. But there’s absolutely no reason, unless you’re playing for your life, that you should take more than 30 seconds to read a simple putt. Especially when you’re just gonna blow it by 5 feet anyways.
birdeez
Mar 20, 2015 at 1:49 pm
i really don’t see whats not simple about this.
the explanation is long and involved, but the actual scoring of 15/5 system is as simple as it gets…..unless you were brought up on Common Core math, then you might have some trouble.
i’ll be giving this a shot
Mat
Mar 20, 2015 at 12:21 pm
Get GameGolf or Arccos and move on from 20th century stats.
Rich Hunt
Mar 20, 2015 at 12:36 pm
I don’t think the 15/5 Score is a ’20th century stat.’ Neither do I think impedes are ’20th century stats.’ I’m not a fan of GIR or even fairways hit. And I feel that with the 15/5 score and your actual score you can get a pretty good idea whether your ballstriking or putting/short game is the issue. But, if you are looking for more detail, then you can use impedes, fwys and GIR to get a better idea of how you performed in driving vs. iron play vs. short game shots around the green vs. putting.
AGF
Mar 20, 2015 at 11:47 am
This is why it takes 4.5 hours+ to play golf: guys keeping ‘stats’ on the course. Please. If you have to do this, do it at home; it’s not hard to remember later and the other members of your foursome won’t think you’re a nut…
me
Mar 20, 2015 at 12:25 pm
No I think the guys that keep stats are the more serious golfers who are very self aware of their pace of play. The reason you get rounds that take 4.5+ hours is due to the people who don’t understand “ready golf” and stand there at the tee waiting for the guy who parred the last hole, but he’s too busy checking his cell phone. Or the guys who stop the cart girl and take 5 min to get beers. Or the ones who absolutely won’t hit until someone who is 1 yard further hits (even if on the opposite side of the fairway). Or the guys who take 10 minutes at the turn. Or the guy who shanks the ball, and then takes 3 or 4 “post shank” practice swings to diagnose what happened, and then spends all day looking for the ball he shanked.
I see this stuff every weekend when I’m out with my friends and I find myself constantly saying, just go ahead and hit man. It’s super annoying. And then their excuse is that the people in front of them are slow so they can’t go anywhere.
Rich Hunt
Mar 20, 2015 at 12:33 pm
I agree with ‘me.’ Recently I had to play a 5-hour 45-minute round and we waited every shot. The guys I were paired up with only played golf about once a year. They certainly weren’t keeping their stats and we were waiting every shot anyway.
I think the issue is people don’t understand the pace of play and how important it is to let faster players play thru. I think that is the very basic, rudimentary problem to the entire issue. The other big issues I see is that golf balls are expensive and courses are more designed to lose golf balls and people end up searching for them which takes time.
Mark Reischer
Mar 20, 2015 at 5:23 pm
There is a very good book written about pace of play. There are many factors that contribute to slow play and only 1 of them is the actual golfer. (I think it’s called the Pace of Play Bible, but I don’t remember 100%)
Other factors include: tee time spacing, location of bathrooms/water stations, cart path routes, is there a beverage cart?, does the beverage cart drive around?, etc, etc
Usually yes, people play slow but if all other issues were fixed at every single course, even the slow players wouldn’t be holding anybody up
rymail00
Mar 21, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Though I can’t see myself doing this every round, I can’t see how this would add extra time to around. Your marking 6-7 numbers on a scorecard along with your score. If your on the green putting you know if your 5 feet from the hole or outside of it. You don’t have to actually measure or anything that would add extra time. Your either inside the 5 or 15 or not.
Its to bad. It just seems every article written brings WAAAAAAY more negative posts then then 90% of the threads on WRX. I wonder if it’s because people can use names different from their screen name. This is just a general statement and a response to the post I’m replying to.
Roody
Mar 20, 2015 at 11:38 am
I think it’s simpler to, and prefer only tracking fairways (hit, left, right, miss), and number of putts. Any more than that and I feel it would take too long, and be more information than most of us would need anyways.
Philip
Mar 20, 2015 at 11:15 am
I have no issue with stats as long as it takes no thought process to log and works against me staying in the zone. I’ll first add impedes and once I have incorporated that stat, I’ll work on adding the 15/5 or a my own take on it.
Simple to see how you have down after a round.
Like it, thanks
Ryan O.
Mar 20, 2015 at 11:05 am
May be to complicated for most. I use the strokes gained system. Easy with this website http://www.strokesgainedgolf.com/?logged_in=Yes
Rich Hunt
Mar 20, 2015 at 12:44 pm
There is a multitude of issues with the ‘strokes gained’ formula as the shot gets further from the hole. I had this verified from a PhD in Economics, a PhD in Mathematics and an Ivy League statistics graduate. All of them liked the strokes gained metric for putting, but as the shot is further from the hole, there are too many unaccounted variables that can greatly offset the accuracy of the measurement. For instance, a shot from 100 yards from the rough on 1 hole may be greatly different in terms of difficulty than a shot from 100 yards on another hole. Or that roughly 25% of the par-4’s on Tour have no real benefit to hitting the ball further off the tee because of penalties (hazards, trees, bunkers, etc) that are easier to hit as the ball is hit further off the tee. Also, the conditions of the courses play a large factor as studies done by David Orr show, faster greens generally yield higher make percentages on the green which would greatly alter ‘strokes gained – putting’ from the average amateur that usually plays slower greens. I would imagine the same goes for other conditions as a round recorded by Steve Marino at a local muni course showed where Marino ‘only’ shot 68 (-4) and said (paraphrasing) ‘I would likely never go real low at a muni course because the conditions make the course too unpredictable.’
Ryan S.
Mar 20, 2015 at 10:33 am
This is simple!?
me
Mar 20, 2015 at 12:12 pm
The scoring itself is pretty simple and shouldn’t hinder your round while playing. The analysis takes some brain power. But seems worth it if you really want to understand what’s going on with your game. I may give it a try for a few rounds