Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Stats! What are they good for?

Published

on

For years the world of golf has attempted to quantify the game with the idea that data will somehow improve the experience and provide information as to what and how to improve performance. The various professional tours have invested millions of dollars in order to gather the data that can be boiled down into about 600 statistical categories. Those of us not affiliated with professional tours are encouraged to gather, record and keep our own stats so that we too can improve our golfing experience and provide a basis for improving our games.

And now, many years later we have Greens in Regulation, Driving Distance, Driving Accuracy, Putts Made from every conceivable distance, Proximity to the Hole from every conceivable distance and a whole range of analysis based upon the advanced notion of “Shots Gained.” Some of these stats have added to the experience, but none of them have actually helped most of us improve our games.

And why is that?

For example, if a player had 27 putts in a round, what did he/she shoot? Meanwhile, Phil Michelson shot a 59 to win the 2004 PGA Grand Slam of Golf hitting only three fairways. And, how is missing a fairway by inches automatically a negative while hitting a green leaving a 90-foot putt a good thing?

Instead of beating up on all of the unnecessary and unproductive stats and all of the data points necessary to base averages and the like, I will share with you the one single most useful and helpful stat that I have used and tested — and it only requires a binary response. A simple “Yes” or “No” to the question: “Did the shot produce the result that I tried to produce?”

  • For the beginning player, getting the ball off the ground and going generally in the right direction for some acceptable distance would be a “Yes” answer.
  • For the high-handicap player, getting the ball off the ground and going generally in the right direction for some acceptable distance without going out of bounds or into a hazard would be a “Yes” answer.
  • For the middle-handicap player, a shot that has the general appearance of correctness without going out of bounds or into a hazard would be a “Yes” answer.

For the low-handicap or professional player, more specific definitions or targets are necessary. Meaning, does the ball flight have the “General Appearance of Correctness” (GAC) and is the ball coming to rest within the intended target area. “GAC” refers to direction, trajectory, distance and curve. The better the player, the more exact would be the standard for GAC. For your general information, “targets” are stated objectives into which the player desires the ball to come to rest.

I define targets as:

  • Large Target: a “box” being 40 yards wide and as deep as desired (a rectangle, a parallelogram or a square)
  • Small Target: an area* having a radius of 10 yards or 30 feet
  • Scoring Target: an area having a radius of 10 feet
  • Short Game Scoring Target: an area having a radius of 3 feet

*Note: Areas are defined as having the shape of a circle, a semi-circle, a triangle or a fan

As a point of interest, it isn’t usually necessary or desirable to define targets in more definitive terms. You may have noticed that there wasn’t any references to the pin, the green, the fairway or the hole. They may or may not be considerations when targeting, and they may or may not be within the boundaries of the actual targets!

“Byron [Nelson] said that the secret to playing Augusta National was to play to the green, not the pins,” Ben Hogan said after his 1942 playoff loss to Nelson at the Masters.

I concede that there are a few major flaws to this system. First, the player is required to be honest. Second, the player is required to record all of the “No” answers onto a “scorecard” that then becomes a permanent record for that round. Third, the player must determine if the “No’s” were a result of bad decision making or substandard execution. Finally, the player must schedule and then do both the physical and mental practice that turns the “No’s” into “Yeses.”

So, what percentage of the time is a player in the right position for the shot about to be played, how is the right position determined, and how does being in the correct position actually effect scoring? A topic for another time.

Ready to get started? I will email you the scorecard I use by request. Contact me at edmyersgolf@gmail.com.

Ed Myers is the author of Hogan’s Ghost, Golf’s Scoring Secret and The Scoring Machine. He was the Director of Instruction at Memphis National Golf Club, and he is currently the scoring coach for players on all professional tours. "The Ultimate Scoring and Performance Experience" an all day program featuring on course private instruction and unlimited play with "Hogan's Ghost." is now available. More than a "golf school"and more than just short game. Individualized evaluation determines where to start the experience. Learn and work according to your goals, preferences and ability. All practice is supervised and structured to ensure maximum benefit and verifiable results. Program runs Monday -Friday from April through October, 2018. See you in Memphis, Tenn. "The Distance Coaching Program" is now available to all level of golfers worldwide. Thanks to modern technology everyone, everywhere, can train like a touring professional. Learn more about Ed at edmyersgolf.com. He can be reached at edmyersgolf@gmail.com.

9 Comments

9 Comments

  1. 3puttPar

    Jul 29, 2018 at 1:08 pm

    Stats! What are they good for? CONFUSING THE AVERAGE GOLFER leading them to poor practice routines, if they even practice.

  2. DaveyD

    Jul 29, 2018 at 9:39 am

    My goal to to make greens in regulation. This one stat means I’m staying out of trouble & avoiding penalty strokes. It’s giving me the best chance for a par or sub-par. I don’t track it, I simply know if I make it or I don’t and where the extra strokes came from.

  3. CrashTestDummy

    Jul 28, 2018 at 1:31 pm

    It is good to keep track of putts, gir, fairways hit, and proximity to the hole. However, at the end of the day the score is what counts. Most tour pros know and high level golfers where they are losing strokes.

  4. Adam

    Jul 28, 2018 at 11:55 am

    I agree with everything here but technically… turning “No’s into Yeses” requires some sort of stats, right? Maybe not actually tracking and analyzing numbers but to get better, you must eventually improve the areas of the game referred to as “stats.”

  5. Mike

    Jul 28, 2018 at 9:13 am

    I used to keep tons of stats (I work w/ # so it’s a habit). I ditched all that except for 1 stat…what did I shoot. # of putts is a fairly useless stat. If u hit every green in regulation & 2-putted each, you have 36 putts & shoot par. If you missed every green but got up & down every time, you shoot par w/ 18 putts. Which is better? At some point, after playing for a few years, you should know your game, meaning, where you s/b focusing on for improvement.

    • Blaise

      Jul 28, 2018 at 1:01 pm

      Still pretty useful, isn’t it?

      If you had 18 GIR and 36 putts you can be fairly sure that your game from the tee box is solid (hard to hit greens when behind the trees) and thus your wedge game and putting is where you should focus your efforts.

      Conversely if you get up and down that often you know it’s the longer clubs.

      But, I mostly agree. The stats aren’t always a perfect indicator as there is much nuance.

      • Frankie

        Jul 28, 2018 at 6:07 pm

        Why would you need to work on your wedge game if you are already hitting 18 GIR’s…? Strokes gained around the green offers the lowest strokes gained out of any strokes gained categories so therefore it is the most negligible part of the game to work on; not to mention the short game is so random on the course because they are a result of misses that there is no way to practice it off the course without making it block practice, which is the wrong way to practice such a random part of the game. Everyone is better off practicing from the driving range and putting green and then practice their short game creativity while playing on the course.

  6. Prime21

    Jul 27, 2018 at 11:54 pm

    Thanks for saying it again, not sure what would have happened w/o your approval.

  7. R k

    Jul 27, 2018 at 6:50 pm

    I will say it again.. Ed Myers produces the best golf improvement articles on this or any other golf outlet.

    While I have not used his scorecard(s) specifically, I have heeded only some of his advice on and off course and have had my best rounds ever this year, multiple rounds not just one.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

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!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

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

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“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.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending