How your course alters your stats

[OldandStiff]

Reviving an old-ish topic (thanks ntanygd760) because I'm curious what other people play on.

A friend and I were comparing FIR and GIR stats and he was surprised his GIR numbers were better than mine until I showed him that his home course greens are nearly twice the size of mine. Fairways are wider, too. My home course greens average 3,300 SF with a high of 4,361 and a low of 2,490. Fairway landing areas average 27 yds wide with a high of 35 and a low of 22. I play his home course a fair amount and my FIR and GIR are 16 and 15 percent higher when playing there. No small difference, and the threads about games that don't travel and such keep me thinking about variations in home courses.

So how big/small are your home course fairways and greens and how does that alter how you compare your raw stats (including total putts) to other golfers or notions of what fair, good, and great stats are for you as opposed to most?



** If you want to get a rough idea of your course numbers you can measure with various apps or Google Earth.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

You might want to consider using stats that directly incorporate your proximity to the hole, rather than being affected by things like width of fairways or size of greens. As your example points out, you can play exactly the same quality of shots and get very different "stats" depending on what course you play. That means the "stats" you're tracking are not specific enough to what you want to measure (your game) but are contaminated with artifacts of the course characteristics.

 

[-CRW-]

I don’t compare my stats with others.

My course is tight, with tree water lined penalty areas on either side of the majority of holes. The greens are mixed, with plenty that are large. However, the larger ones are usually more undulated and our greens are fast (private club).

I don’t mind it though because I know I’ll typically play the same or better than my index at any other course.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Even if comparing your stats to yourself over time, it isn't worth the trouble unless each stat relates as directly as possible to a specifically intended element of your game. Total putts is the most obviously useless stat. If your game today results in hitting 15% more greens than your game last year, then that alone will increase your number of total putts this year over last.

And total putts is just the most obvious, glaring failure. All of the stats mentioned suffer from similar, if more subtle, conflations of the thing meant to be measured with other unrelated aspects of the game.

 

[WMac19]

I don't compare myself to others so I'm not really motivated by that.

My course has generous fairways and greens (IMO) yet it plays pretty darn hard (74.1/143).

And that's because although some fairways seem large, it's imperative to good scoring for you to hit it to the correct side. Or proper distance to have reasonable hope for a precise approach.

Case in point, our #9 hole, the #2 handicap hole on the course. From the tee, fairway looks pretty darn wide and inviting. But the entire right 1/3 will leave your approach blocked by a large oak tree reaching up and across farther down.

So the center or center/left (even better) is ideal. However, the fairway slopes from right to left, there's a large bunker just off to the left but short and long of it, whatever the trap cannot collect, is a steep slope through light woods and trouble (small stream or water easement lined with large rocks). All combined, right trouble, left death, makes for the toughest driving hole (for me) on the course.

Same on 18 except it's the left side that invites danger. Hit to the left 1/4 of that fairway and far enough and another large oak tree blocks much of an approach to a front or middle pin. Play it shorter and the hole shows its teeth with a long, difficult uphill approach.

The back of the green is accessible but your lie from the left is usually below your feet with trouble right. Not easy to maneuver. If you manage to hit the back of the green, good luck with that putt to a front pin placement. It could be 60' or more with a large undulating swail between you and the hole.

#2 has large center/right fairway bunkering that takes maybe 220 to carry from the back tees. OB left, thick woods and red stakes right.

#4 is generous but only widens when you hammer one. Also OB is just a relatively thin swath of rough and then cart path away on the left side. Red stakes right as the Neuse River rushes by.

#5 is fair but too much club heading up the right 1/3 is red stakes and OB is again very close off the left side of the fairway.

#6 is wide and forgiving yet you can still technically "hit" the fairway (as its closely mown) by entering a challenging hollow to the right. Some funky lies and lots of divots to be had in there.

There's another one of those on #16.

#8 appears wide and forgiving and it is for anything hit center or right side of fairway. But even a well struck ball just tracking left of center may receive a hellacious bounce off the fairway or even OB left. Land your ball in 1/4 to 1/3 left side of the fairway with any steam on it at all, a kick left OB is nearly certain.

The back plays significantly harder.

...So much hidden challenge to the course that I best learned to navigate over scores of rounds there.

When I play area courses that are perhaps tighter off the tee and perhaps a bit smaller greens, yet are rated as easier, I will play better there on average compared to my own course. My fairways and greens stats remain about the same or maybe even improve and my scores are most often lower.

LOL, my very long winded response is that the stats don't tell everything. Not only do they not speak to the size of greens and fairways but they don't speak to the difficulty that a fairway hit may invite as to the ball's location.

I can hit tons of fairways, and usually do, but where they're hit can and will dramatically affect my greens hit, regardless of the greens' square footage.

 

[-CRW-]

Even if comparing your stats to yourself over time, it isn't worth the trouble unless each stat relates as directly as possible to a specifically intended element of your game. Total putts is the most obviously useless stat. If your game today results in hitting 15% more greens than your game last year, then that alone will increase your number of total putts this year over last.

And total putts is just the most obvious, glaring failure. All of the stats mentioned suffer from similar, if more subtle, conflations of the thing meant to be measured with other unrelated aspects of the game.

I agree. I'm sure I'll get some flack for this, but I'd rather compare myself to tour averages. Not that I expect to ever reach them, but it's a good barometer to indicate which areas of my game need the most work. I don't mind using season FIR/GIR averages for this purpose.

I do the same for my son, who's a much better player than me. He'll hit a shot and be frustrated with the result, but I'll show him the tour average and at times he's within or near that distance. It helps put things into perspective for him.

 

[OldandStiff]

@Et Tu Brute?
Yeah, I get all of that. You are aware they're the base stats the majority of golfers keep and can easily access. though, right? Whether it's on a cluttered card or a golf app, a lot of golfers know how many fairways, greens, and putts they hit any given round/year/etc. They're inherently flawed, and I'm talking about how two simple things relative to every course further flaws those stats from one person to the next. There are countless other factors that also flaw them. That's not really what I was asking though. We hear GIR and FIR in every golf broadcast, we all hear how certain course greens are small (Pebble blah blah blah), certain fairways are tight (Sahalee, etc, etc,). I'm just talking about how those two things at your home course alter those numbers compared to others or the preconceived standard.

@-CRW-

No flack from me. I compare myself to tour averages. Why not? Goals can come from anywhere. You seriously never end up in conversations about how many fairway or greens you hit though? You and your son obviously talk about stats a bit.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Yeah, I know. Of everyone I've ever explained this stuff to, I can count on the fingers of one hand with fingers left over the ones who were interested in doing anything other than the stuff they hear on TV. But I toss the info out there just in case ;-)

 

[gonyr]

My home course is mostly known for it's tiny greens. They are all about the same size - round and tilted back to front, and about 20 yards in diameter. That makes them about 2800 square feet. Greens in regulation are definitely harder to come by there than at most other places.

 

[Sox_Fan]

My home course has narrow fairways and small greens. Definitely hurts GIR and FIR %'s but helps number of putts per round.

 

[JonMA1]

The fairways are not necessarily narrow on my course, but when a drive does miss, there's little chance of having a shot out of the woods. Also, there is water to carry on 6 of the 9 holes if playing from the white, and 7 of 9 from the blues or blacks. There is some sort of marsh area on 8 of the 9 holes. So I get a few more penalties on my home course on average.

Most of the greens are smaller than average and none are extremely difficult (probably because I know them very well). My putting stats should be good, but there's that whole sucking at putting thing, so...

The stats that seemed to stand out when I kept track was that my club distances were consistently different between my home course and others. My driver distances were shorter than on other course, maybe the fairways are a bit softer on average??? But my irons distances were longer because I use those clubs on a higher percentage of tee shots on that course.