andrew morse

We know that the putting statistics, as currently kept, don't tell
us quite enough. We can't separate a good putter from an average putter
who hits excellent approach shots. The most direct way to measure pure
putting would be to breakout putting statistics by distance. I don't
think that there is a practical way to collect this data.

The next best option that I can think of would be to breakout
putting and greens-in-regulation statistics by club used to reach the
green (with sand shots and chips classified as their own categories). I
don't know that we can get all the way to pure putting ability from this
data, but I think that we could make some interesting inferences.

Here's an example. A player hits an average number of greens in
regulation using a 5-iron, but has an abnormally large number of putts
after a 5-iron approach; he/she hits an average number greens with the
9-iron, but has the average number of putts following a 9-iron approach.
Is it not fair to assume that this player is a poor putter?


-- Andrew

andrew morse

We know that the putting statistics, as currently kept, don't tell
us quite enough. We can't separate a good putter from an average putter
who hits excellent approach shots. The most direct way to measure pure
putting would be to breakout putting statistics by distance. I don't
think that there is a practical way to collect this data.

The next best option that I can think of would be to breakout
putting and greens-in-regulation statistics by club used to reach the
green (with sand shots and chips classified as their own categories). I
don't know that we can get all the way to pure putting ability from this
data, but I think that we could make some interesting inferences.

Here's an example. A player hits an average number of greens in
regulation using a 5-iron, but has an abnormally large number of putts
after a 5-iron approach; he/she hits an average number greens with the
9-iron, but has the average number of putts following a 9-iron approach.
Is it not fair to assume that this player is a poor putter?


-- Andrew

sfb

Too many variables especially for the average amateur who should know
without elaborate stats whether they are a decent putter.

Explain how hitting the green in regulation with a five iron and two putting
is better or worse than hitting the green in regulation plus one with a
nine iron and one putting.

sfb

Too many variables especially for the average amateur who should know
without elaborate stats whether they are a decent putter.

Explain how hitting the green in regulation with a five iron and two putting
is better or worse than hitting the green in regulation plus one with a
nine iron and one putting.

weather bookie

I've been using the same system since about 1977. It is extremely accurate
at guaging your true putting skill for that round.

WARNING...it is only useful if you can judge distances well, remember every
shot you hit, and can do basic math well.

Here's how it works....

Each time you reach the green, you assign "expected putts". At the end of
the round, you compare expected putts vs actual putts.

"Expected Putts" = EP = how many putts an average tour pro would take on an
average day from that distance.

Distance Expected putts
===== ==========
0-2 feet 1.0
3 feet 1.1
4 feet 1.2
5 feet 1.3
6 feet 1.4
7-8 feet 1.5
9-10 feet 1.6
11-14 feet 1.7
15-19 feet 1.8
20-24 feet 1.9
25-32 feet 2.0
33-42 feet 2.2
43-54 feet 2.2
longer 2.3 or higher

These figures have come from various studies of pros and how well they putt.

I "tweak" the numbers some depending on the difficulty of the putt. If I
have a super-fast 8 footer with 3 feet of break then instead of 1.5, then I
may assign it a value of 1.9.

Example....

#1 30 footer, EP = 2.0, actual putts (AP) = 2
#2 6 footer, EP = 1.4 AP =2
#3 50 footer EP = 2.2 AP = 2

In this case, your expected putts for the three holes is 5.6 and your actual
putts are 6 so your putting score is +.4. This means that the average tour
pro on the average day would take 0.4 putts less than you to that point.

My best round ever is a -4.5 and my worst day ever was +5.7.

I calcualted a 70 year old lady's scoe at -6.4 one day when we played...the
best putting round I've ever seen.

My best season ever, I averaged +0.4 per round. This year, I'm struggling
at +1.8.

Now that they are measuring distances that pros putt from on tour, my system
could become a reality in the tour stats.

weather bookie

I've been using the same system since about 1977. It is extremely accurate
at guaging your true putting skill for that round.

WARNING...it is only useful if you can judge distances well, remember every
shot you hit, and can do basic math well.

Here's how it works....

Each time you reach the green, you assign "expected putts". At the end of
the round, you compare expected putts vs actual putts.

"Expected Putts" = EP = how many putts an average tour pro would take on an
average day from that distance.

Distance Expected putts
===== ==========
0-2 feet 1.0
3 feet 1.1
4 feet 1.2
5 feet 1.3
6 feet 1.4
7-8 feet 1.5
9-10 feet 1.6
11-14 feet 1.7
15-19 feet 1.8
20-24 feet 1.9
25-32 feet 2.0
33-42 feet 2.2
43-54 feet 2.2
longer 2.3 or higher

These figures have come from various studies of pros and how well they putt.

I "tweak" the numbers some depending on the difficulty of the putt. If I
have a super-fast 8 footer with 3 feet of break then instead of 1.5, then I
may assign it a value of 1.9.

Example....

#1 30 footer, EP = 2.0, actual putts (AP) = 2
#2 6 footer, EP = 1.4 AP =2
#3 50 footer EP = 2.2 AP = 2

In this case, your expected putts for the three holes is 5.6 and your actual
putts are 6 so your putting score is +.4. This means that the average tour
pro on the average day would take 0.4 putts less than you to that point.

My best round ever is a -4.5 and my worst day ever was +5.7.

I calcualted a 70 year old lady's scoe at -6.4 one day when we played...the
best putting round I've ever seen.

My best season ever, I averaged +0.4 per round. This year, I'm struggling
at +1.8.

Now that they are measuring distances that pros putt from on tour, my system
could become a reality in the tour stats.

larrybud2002

If you look at one particular day, you're right, but over a period of
time those putts average out and you can get a trend line as far as
your putting improvement goes.

sandman

There's a better way.

Create a stat for "Total Distance of Putts Made."

weather bookie

Correct. However, I don't see a trend line in my putting scores...I see a
zig-zag :-)

dave lee

Re: Attached putting stat's/comments

It is interesting that I do almost exactly the same thing. About 20 rounds
back I started keeping a record of every putt on every hole. For example an
entry for a hole of "26-2" would indicate that I missed a 26 footer (first
putt) by two feet and then made that 2 footer (or else I would have had
another entry). This was a suggestion made by someone here on RSG. I also
keep a record of what I judge to be significant errors - L/R for Left/Right,
S/L' for short/long, Rdu/Rdo for under-read/over-read. I make a snap
judgment on every putt as to whether or not a 'error' was involved. An 8
footer left 2 feet short is obviously an error. A 65 footer left 2 feet
short is not an error (as an example). I carry a little 4 inch notepad and
record the data there. It takes almost no time and I am not a fanatic about
getting the distances exactly right.

My numbers are similar to yours, but I estimate putts in the range of 5 to
25 feet to be around .1 strokes higher than you on average (for example my
assigned average for a 19 footer is 1.9 vs. your 1.8), similar in the 25-45
foot range, and .1-.2 higher for putts over 55 feet. . But overall the
numbers are very similar. Unfortunately our putting results are not :-(

My best round (since starting with the stats 20 rounds back) is -2.5 and
worst is +6.2 with an average of +1.9. More work to do, I think. I generally
don't adjust putts for difficulty (breaks, up/downhill, etc). But I do feel
that this tool gives me a way to judge whether or not my putting is
improving.

I also found an interesting error pattern and that is that when I am putting
badly (+3 or worse) my L/R right putting errors are heavily biased left.
Otherwise they are more evenly split.

dave

system