A chip or pitch from anywhere around the green, onto the putting surface, and then a single putt, for any score.

Up and down, or up and in.
 
What if someone pulled a Sergio and put 4-5 balls in the water in a row, then lands the next on the green and one putts?

What about and island green par 3. Platter putts two or more balls in the water, then finally lands on the green and one putts?

Are those U&D?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

No, not in my view. Not for what I feel the stat itself can offer a player. I don't consider long approaches for up/down. If I chunk a 130 yrd approach and have to take a second from 120 and then one putt for the par I don't place that in up/down category. Imo up/down is about around the greens. Its about shorter pitches and chips because that's what imo the stat is best used for measuring ones success at. That's also why I consider them not just for par but any score. If I was sitting 4 greenside and I make the up/down for a double that is still telling me about my pitch/chipping/putting. If I don't count that then what good is the stat? or if a I do count one as I hit a 140 yrd approach (second attempt) and sink the putt, that too offers nothing as for how I pitched//chipped greenside and again skews the stat for that purpose.
 
No, not in my view. Not for what I feel the stat itself can offer a player. I don't consider long approaches for up/down. If I chunk a 130 yrd approach and have to take a second from 120 and then one putt for the par I don't place that in up/down category. Imo up/down is about around the greens. Its about shorter pitches and chips because that's what imo the stat is best used for measuring ones success at. That's also why I consider them not just for par but any score. If I was sitting 4 greenside and I make the up/down for a double that is still telling me about my pitch/chipping/putting. If I don't count that then what good is the stat? or if a I do count one as I hit a 140 yrd approach (second attempt) and sink the putt, that too offers nothing as for how I pitched//chipped greenside and again skews the stat for that purpose.

The problem is, "around the green", "long", and "short" are ambiguous.
 
The problem is, "around the green", "long", and "short" are ambiguous.

whie I don't have an exact yardage I do think if the stat is to be used for the reason of informing one how well or not they do at chipping/pitching then I feel it should pertain to only chipping/pitching. To me even a 70 yrd shot is not what id consider chipping/pitching even if done with a wedge. I consider around the greens to mean anything fairly short like perhaps 30 yrds and in though it would also be situation dependent and subjective. I genrally look at it as small stuff.
 
Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus I've decided to go with how my GHIN service defines it from now on. Missed GIR and make
par or better equals a successful U/D
 
Define...

Missed GIR and Make Par with 1 putt.

I don’t consider and a chip in or off green putt that goes in an “up and down”


Can we expand this conversation to the definition of a sand save? I hit a fairway bunker the other day, great shot out onto the green and 2 putted for par. My buddy said it wasn’t a sand save because it wasn’t “up and down” from the sand.

I was in the sand, I saved par! Therefore a Sand Save!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus I've decided to go with how my GHIN service defines it from now on. Missed GIR and make
par or better equals a successful U/D
There will never be a consensus.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Missed green.

up = shot onto the green
down = into the hole with next shot

This ^ for me, and it doesn't matter what the total number of shots is on the hole either
 
I think the stat that folks are insisting on the end score being par is scrambling percentage. Up and down is how you get there, scrambling is doing it for par.
 
I think the stat that folks are insisting on the end score being par is scrambling percentage. Up and down is how you get there, scrambling is doing it for par.

True...but many associate the two and fwiw so do the PGA tour stats for the most part.

I just think if one is going to use the stat to get something out of it then they need to be selective with it so that the info they seek about their own play is skewed least as possible.

If your looking to see how well your doing a combined chipping/pitching with putting around the greens, then it does the stat no good to include everything scrambled nor does it any good to exclude the greenside up/downs that were made (or not made) when for other than par.

I mean what good is using a stat for a specific purpose when too much of it is not reflective of that purpose. Hitting a second approach from 140 yrs because you chunked the first one from 150 and then sticking it close and one putting for the par,....tells you nothing about your greenside chip or pitch & putt combo. And if that's the main reason for utilizing the stat then one would be doing themselves an in justice by placing that play scenario into it. Its the same when excluding the chip or pitch & putt combo that got you in a hole but was for bogey or worse. Missing or making that (regardless for bogey or whatever) should be considered failed or success if your going to use the stat for that specific purpose. Otherwise the stat becomes almost meaningless.

Most good players will probably find most their scrambling to be from close since they are normally at the greens in two shots and normally doing it for par. But tons of mid and high cappers would find themselves many more times in the scenarios I mentioned much more often. So imo they have much more the need to tweak the stat to much better fit what it is they are looking to gain from it. They need to minimize the skewed results because they will have a much higher percentage of skewed results in their stat if they don't.

But again, this is only if ones reason to keep the stat is to gauge how well or not they chip or pitch & putt around the greens.
 
True...but many associate the two and fwiw so do the PGA tour stats for the most part.

I just think if one is going to use the stat to get something out of it then they need to be selective with it so that the info they seek about their own play is skewed least as possible.

If your looking to see how well your doing a combined chipping/pitching with putting around the greens, then it does the stat no good to include everything scrambled nor does it any good to exclude the greenside up/downs that were made (or not made) when for other than par.

I mean what good is using a stat for a specific purpose when too much of it is not reflective of that purpose. Hitting a second approach from 140 yrs because you chunked the first one from 150 and then sticking it close and one putting for the par,....tells you nothing about your greenside chip or pitch & putt combo. And if that's the main reason for utilizing the stat then one would be doing themselves an in justice by placing that play scenario into it. Its the same when excluding the chip or pitch & putt combo that got you in a hole but was for bogey or worse. Missing or making that (regardless for bogey or whatever) should be considered failed or success if your going to use the stat for that specific purpose. Otherwise the stat becomes almost meaningless.

Most good players will probably find most their scrambling to be from close since they are normally at the greens in two shots and normally doing it for par. But tons of mid and high cappers would find themselves many more times in the scenarios I mentioned much more often. So imo they have much more the need to tweak the stat to much better fit what it is they are looking to gain from it. They need to minimize the skewed results because they will have a much higher percentage of skewed results in their stat if they don't.

But again, this is only if ones reason to keep the stat is to gauge how well or not they chip or pitch & putt around the greens.

That's sort of what I was getting at with my original answer to this question. That "up and down" is always relative to a given position on a course at a time. As wade said, you can go up and down for bogey.

For that reason it's kind of hard to track as a stat in and of itself. You probably have to be honest with yourself and decide at which point you think you're really trying to get up and down. Is it greenside? It is from 50-60 yards out? As you said, I guess what's important to track depends on what you're trying to improve.
 
True...but many associate the two and fwiw so do the PGA tour stats for the most part.

I just think if one is going to use the stat to get something out of it then they need to be selective with it so that the info they seek about their own play is skewed least as possible.

If your looking to see how well your doing a combined chipping/pitching with putting around the greens, then it does the stat no good to include everything scrambled nor does it any good to exclude the greenside up/downs that were made (or not made) when for other than par.

I mean what good is using a stat for a specific purpose when too much of it is not reflective of that purpose. Hitting a second approach from 140 yrs because you chunked the first one from 150 and then sticking it close and one putting for the par,....tells you nothing about your greenside chip or pitch & putt combo. And if that's the main reason for utilizing the stat then one would be doing themselves an in justice by placing that play scenario into it. Its the same when excluding the chip or pitch & putt combo that got you in a hole but was for bogey or worse. Missing or making that (regardless for bogey or whatever) should be considered failed or success if your going to use the stat for that specific purpose. Otherwise the stat becomes almost meaningless.

Most good players will probably find most their scrambling to be from close since they are normally at the greens in two shots and normally doing it for par. But tons of mid and high cappers would find themselves many more times in the scenarios I mentioned much more often. So imo they have much more the need to tweak the stat to much better fit what it is they are looking to gain from it. They need to minimize the skewed results because they will have a much higher percentage of skewed results in their stat if they don't.

But again, this is only if ones reason to keep the stat is to gauge how well or not they chip or pitch & putt around the greens.

Great point made here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
My thought would be any wedge shot, pitch, chip, sand and a 1-putt.
Was gonna say any wedge that wasn't a full swing but flops and sand shots are a full swing in many cases.
 
Back
Top