We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Trying to Break 80 Club

posted an 81 at my home course. lipped out an eagle putt ans 3 birdie putts
 
since my 79 on 4/25, the next closest to 80 was 85 2 weeks ago....thats just sad. Hoping to get to mid 80's consistently real soon then work on hammering it down lower
 
Seems like I'm going the wrong direction lately Most of the year I was under 80 as much as over, but the last two months have found me mid to upper 80's consistently. It's all in my head at this point, chipping and putting. I started tough yesterday with 15 putts and a 42, respectable on this course, but the back was a different story 46 with 22 putts!! I was playing great, just kept running the ball 6 feet past the hole and missing the come back putt.

My game has always been strongest with a wedge and putter, not now it seems.
 
break 80

break 80

If I consitantly want to break 80, what "stats" should i aim for? like, i found someone posting that if you could reach FWH: 70%+, GIR: 65%+, putts:1,6-1,7 per GIR, under 28 putts per round, sand saves: 70%+ and up and down: 70%+, you would be a + handicaper.

So what stats would fit someones goal to reach HCP 5? Im kind of a stats freak, thats why i really want to have something like this as my goal.
 
Focus on # putts per round. For me, it has the highest correlation with my carded score.

The leader of the 2012 US Open at Round 1, Michael Thompson, carded a 4 under and had only 8 out of 14 Fairways in regulation and 8 out of 18 Greens in regulation, BUT he had only 26 putts for the round.
 
omega4 said:
Focus on # putts per round. For me, it has the highest correlation with my carded score.

The leader of the 2012 US Open at Round 1, Michael Thompson, carded a 4 under and had only 8 out of 14 Fairways in regulation and 8 out of 18 Greens in regulation, BUT he had only 26 putts for the round.
Click to expand...

okay, what should be the goal for a 5 HCP?
 
ulle73 said:
okay, what should be the goal for a 5 HCP?
Click to expand...

It'll differ from person to person, as it's a function of other factors.

My recommendation is to do a simple regression or even linear interpolation to see what it is for you (# putts v. carded score).

For me, I'll usually break 80 if I limit my number of putts to 31 or less.
 
I suggest playing an executive type course with a par of 54-62, that will make it much easier
 
ulle73 said:
could not find anything about the different percentage stats in that thread...
Click to expand...

Did you ask in the thread? Instead of starting a new thread, posing a question in a thread that already exist would probably get a quicker response.

I don't think that there is any set correlation between FIRs, GIRs, PPR, and handicap. Just get the ball into the hole as quick as possible. If you try to hit 70%+ of your FIRs you would be more accurate than 98% of the PGA Tour. If you hit 65% of your GIRs, you would be better than 65% of the PGA tour. Do your best to find where you are losing strokes and work it out.
 
omega4 said:
Focus on # putts per round. For me, it has the highest correlation with my carded score.

The leader of the 2012 US Open at Round 1, Michael Thompson, carded a 4 under and had only 8 out of 14 Fairways in regulation and 8 out of 18 Greens in regulation, BUT he had only 26 putts for the round.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. PPR a lot of times just shows you missed greens but chipped well. I think someone can have more putts (and hit greens) and be a better "putter" than someone who has a lot less putts but misses a lot of greens but chips well.

Maybe that round by Thompson is because he focused on his chipping, rather than on PPR.

Here is a good thread here: http://www.thehackersparadise.com/f...ound-Overrated-Number&daysprune=-1#post434020
 
I was discussing how the # of putts is correlated (at least for me) to carding a lower score, not who is a better putter.

As you said, a player could have a low # of putts because he's chipping well. It still leads to carding a lower score.

Smallville said:
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. PPR a lot of times just shows you missed greens but chipped well. I think someone can have more putts (and hit greens) and be a better "putter" than someone who has a lot less putts but misses a lot of greens but chips well.

Maybe that round by Thompson is because he focused on his chipping, rather than on PPR.

Here is a good thread here: http://www.thehackersparadise.com/f...ound-Overrated-Number&daysprune=-1#post434020
Click to expand...
 
omega4 said:
I was discussing how the # of putts is correlated (at least for me) to carding a lower score, not who is a better putter.

As you said, a player could have a low # of putts because he's chipping well. It still leads to carding a lower score.
Click to expand...

Sure. But maybe if he focuses on having a fewer number of shots to actually get to the green, that can lead to lower scores too. What I am saying is that in and of itself, PPR means nothing if you don't know how they came to be. You can have 25 putts because you can chip but do nothing else great but shoot 90. A low PPR didn't get that down to an 80.
 
Smallville said:
Sure. But maybe if he focuses on having a fewer number of shots to actually get to the green, that can lead to lower scores too. What I am saying is that in and of itself, PPR means nothing if you don't know how they came to be. You can have 25 putts because you can chip but do nothing else great but shoot 90. A low PPR didn't get that down to an 80.
Click to expand...

Correct. That's why I told him that the "ideal" # of putts needed to break 80 for me is not going to be the same for him. That metric is a function of other factors (chipping, ball striking, etc.), which will be accounted for when he does a simple regression or linear interpolation of that metric for himself (based on his data and no one elses).
 
omega4 said:
Correct. That's why I told him that the "ideal" # of putts needed to break 80 for me is not going to be the same for him. That metric is a function of other factors (chipping, ball striking, etc.), which will be accounted for when he does a simple regression or linear interpolation of that metric for himself (based on his data and no one elses).
Click to expand...

Silly made up math words.
 
omega4 said:
Correct. That's why I told him that the "ideal" # of putts needed to break 80 for me is not going to be the same for him. That metric is a function of other factors (chipping, ball striking, etc.), which will be accounted for when he does a simple regression or linear interpolation of that metric for himself (based on his data and no one elses).
Click to expand...

When I shot an 81, this is what held me back from an 80 or 79. I cursed it for days.
 
On one of Haney's shows (I think the Ray Romano series) he said to break 80 a golfer must focus on having a round with no penalty shots, no 3 putts, and no more than 1 chip/pitch/approach shot into the greens per hole.
The few times I have broken 80 have resulted from those wise words...
 
omega4 said:
Correct. That's why I told him that the "ideal" # of putts needed to break 80 for me is not going to be the same for him. That metric is a function of other factors (chipping, ball striking, etc.), which will be accounted for when he does a simple regression or linear interpolation of that metric for himself (based on his data and no one elses).
Click to expand...

But the more greens you hit, on average, the more putts you are going to have because you will likely get your first shot onto the green closer to the hole if you are chipping it on from 10 yards (or whatever) than if you are taking a full shot from 160 yards. You might chip it to 10 feet and make the putt for a 4 but you might be 30 feet away on a GIR and two putt for a 4. Same score, double the putts. (Making a 10 footer is a pretty good putt, so substitute chipping it to 3 feet and it comes out the same)

(Or, you could miss the green on your approach by a foot and be on the fringe, and whether you putt or chip from there, it's not an official putt. Your buddy is two feet closer but on the green in regulation. He two putts but you chip on and one putt. What does PPR mean there? He has 2 and you have 1, but you still got the same score.)

You can have the last word. Reply to this if you want, but I am done either way.
 
Again, every person's aggregate playing style is accounted for when you calculate (simple regression or linear interpolation) the # of putts needed to break 80 on average based on their own data respectively.

I can't explain it to you it any simpler than that.

Smallville said:
But the more greens you hit, on average, the more putts you are going to have because you will likely get your first shot onto the green closer to the hole if you are chipping it on from 10 yards (or whatever) than if you are taking a full shot from 160 yards. You might chip it to 10 feet and make the putt for a 4 but you might be 30 feet away on a GIR and two putt for a 4. Same score, double the putts. (Making a 10 footer is a pretty good putt, so substitute chipping it to 3 feet and it comes out the same)

(Or, you could miss the green on your approach by a foot and be on the fringe, and whether you putt or chip from there, it's not an official putt. Your buddy is two feet closer but on the green in regulation. He two putts but you chip on and one putt. What does PPR mean there? He has 2 and you have 1, but you still got the same score.)

You can have the last word. Reply to this if you want, but I am done either way.
Click to expand...
 
If a player can hit the ball well enough to shoot 90 - bogey golf - the difference between 90 and breaking 80 is mostly mental.
 
pjcedog said:
If a player can hit the ball well enough to shoot 90 - bogey golf - the difference between 90 and breaking 80 is mostly mental.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I'd say the difference is the bogey player doesn't have sufficient short game skills to save par on a majority of holes.
 
blugold said:
Did you ask in the thread? Instead of starting a new thread, posing a question in a thread that already exist would probably get a quicker response.

I don't think that there is any set correlation between FIRs, GIRs, PPR, and handicap. Just get the ball into the hole as quick as possible. If you try to hit 70%+ of your FIRs you would be more accurate than 98% of the PGA Tour. If you hit 65% of your GIRs, you would be better than 65% of the PGA tour. Do your best to find where you are losing strokes and work it out.
Click to expand...

well, thats not entire true, since their courses are longer, smaller fairways, thicker rough, quicker greens and everything. I know where im losing strokes, but its easier for me if i have a clear goal, and a proof of statisics of my improvment. Thats why i wanted those numbers.
 
ulle73 said:
well, thats not entire true, since their courses are longer, smaller fairways, thicker rough, quicker greens and everything. I know where im losing strokes, but its easier for me if i have a clear goal, and a proof of statisics of my improvment. Thats why i wanted those numbers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. To your point and mine, static metrics are useless given the variability of the used parameters. It's a concept that is not surprisingly lost on many, given its esotericness.

Any calculation of targets and goals is mainly useful for the person whose data was used.
 
omega4 said:
Exactly. To your point and mine, static metrics are useless given the variability of the used parameters. It's a concept that is not surprisingly lost on many, given its esotericness.

Any calculation of targets and goals is mainly useful for the person whose data was used.
Click to expand...

do you have any clear "numbers" that you are trying to acheieve? To get down to a certain HCP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top