Do you think using stats and data studies really helps you get better?

Thing is..people DON't know. They THINK they know...but often not. My playing partner is a great example.

When it is time to chip, he loves, loves, loves his 4i. He is sure he is really good with it because he has hit 4 or 5 pretty good chips with it through the years. He has hit, and I am not exaggerating, HUNDREDS of bad chips with it. He tends to practice the stroke beautifully, step up, over-backswing, realize it on the downswing, try to slow his swing and hit it thin. Trying a 10 yard chip he picks his ball up from 30 yards the other side of the green. Again and again and again. Because he remembers the 1 good one a month and since we play mine on the rest, those don't matter and don't enter his mind.

I actually pointed this out to him, convinced him to try his pitching wedge and 9i a few times to get a little loft and less roll. He was overall far more accurate...most were on the green somewhere. But he hit one bad one and instantly went back to using his 4i because "I chip really well with this."

Objectively, demonstrably false. But he doesn't track and only remembers the good ones.


He is not an outlier. I see so many people that do this. I have to watch myself to make sure I am not getting trapped in that. Tracking puts it on paper, then I know what to work on.

Good points. We all know people like that (Some of us are that person). Although for someone like that the data wouldn't matter anyway. Oftentimes I know what the right play is; I just don't care. Now, in my case I don't have any illusions about my abilities, but the result is the same.
 
If there is improvement to be had. I think the stats and data will make it quicker to achieve.
Even if practice isn't productive, I think it adds to the mental aspect in golf.
 
All I wanted when I got my ShotScope was to find out what my actual average distance was with each club. So, that's really my only focus right now. I always knew I was a short hitter by the empirical evidence of, well, being short.

Now, at least, I'll be able to pick a more appropriate club for the shot distance.
 
All I wanted when I got my ShotScope was to find out what my actual average distance was with each club. So, that's really my only focus right now. I always knew I was a short hitter by the empirical evidence of, well, being short.

Now, at least, I'll be able to pick a more appropriate club for the shot distance.

With Arccos, I think that has been most beneficial. I don't know that all of the stats I get from the system really help me personally, but my average distance per club sure does. I was about 8 yards off on what I thought versus reality on most clubs. Some more, some less. I only have 9 rounds with Arccos to date.
 
This is the problem I had with cycling and jogging. All my garmin gear recorded all these metrics Heart Rate, Cadence, Vertical Oscillation, ground contact time, and so on.

While cool to look, that data didn't show me what action is needed to improve or change or what was in the correct range.
 
A gps has really helped me with club selection once I came to terms with how far I actually hit vs what my ego thought I did. All the other stats just tell me I suck at some stuff less than others so I don’t pay much attention to them.
 
For me personally it has helped me identify my weak spots and focus on them for improvement. I first thought of the whole idea as a bit of overkill, paralysis by analysis. However after using my system for over a year it made me realize that I don't hit the ball nearly as far as I thought, and I needed to check my ego at the door if I wanted to improve. Mid way through last year, when I started to actually look at the data I started playing better golf. More GIR's, more fairways and better scores were the result as well as an actual agenda when I went to the range. So for me yes I do feel like it's helped me improve my game, and help me play better golf.
 
I think statistics are only useful if people are going to use them to alter their approach. Personally my handicap has not really changed much over the last several years, despite having some physical issues. I was able to improve in other areas that have made up for my swing deteriorating. Now I am focusing on the swing and my physical fitness as I think that if I progress there I could see some serious gains.

I have mentioned it in other threads, but most humans tend to remember good shots more than they remember poor shots, I know I do. Before I got arccos to monitor all my shots, I would have told you that I hit each one of my clubs 10-20 yards longer than what I actually do.

So really, the statistics are only as good as what the individual will use them for.
 
One of the things that I felt about stats is this. Swing flaws are swing flaws and simply knowing stats in itself doesnt make the flaws go away. Even if stats made you aware of the area of play needing work, its still about practice and efforts that we "hope" makes us better.
 
Some stats are useful, some stats are useless.

FIR = useless. You hit a good drive that ends up in the first cut, it's a miss. You hit a short lousy drive that's dead center it's a hit.
GIR = useful.
Putts per round = by itself is useless. In combination with GIR is useful. If you have 14 GIR and 33 - 34 putts, that's not bad. You still need to delve deeper. From what distance was your first putt? Some greens are huge. I played a par 5 once where I sliced it into the far side of the adjacent fairway, then hit my second shot to 8 iron distance in my own; my 3rd shot barely made the green and left me a 80 footer. GIR? You betcha. I lagged to 6 feet and drained it. Next hole was the money hole. I needed a par to tie. Third shot was on in regulation to 7 feet. I DJ'd it. That's golf. If you have four GIR and 25 putts, that does not mean you're good with the short stick.
Do you keep a Scramble stat? i.e. did you miss GIR but still make par? Most of us won't hit this very often. We'll get bogey.
Then there's Sand Saves? Again... if we're in the bunker, most of us will end up with bogey.

I think the low - low mid handicapper all the stats are useful. For the mid to high handicapper, GIR, putting, and carry distance mean are useful if you know how to use the latter. The problem with the arccos and game golf distance statistic is that unless they've changed over the years that they include those outlier shots - the ones you really sucked on. The shots you hit heavy. The shots you hit pure. And treated them equally. You have to look at your shot dispersal pattern and where the vast majority of those are going and not the calculated number.

Also what if I use my 5 hybrid for bump and runs around the green? What if I use my 8 iron for 80 yd knockdown rescue shots from under trees? Those will screw up the shot distances for those clubs.

Arccos and Game Golf are course management tools. If you want to know how far you hit your clubs, schedule a session with a launch monitor of some sort, warm up, then hit ten shots with each club and throw out the two longest and two shortest with each. You may need two sessions.
 
Data can be incredibly useful if you are consistent because it can help you a ton with course management.

If you are not consistent it can help you find your problem areas and help you work on getting better.

With how easy it is to get data now I would really recommend it to any golfer. Even if it is just taking notes between shots.
 
I don’t like general data, but personal data while playing can be helpful. While I may remember that day or the next how many fairways and greens I hit in a round, if I am trying to track an average over say 10 rounds, it’s going to get pretty damn difficult to remember all of it.
 
I think they can be very helpful if you are focusing on the right things. I don't need 100% percent accurate statistics to know where I am weak or strong but I'm sure there is other data that would be really helpful to have.

Been thinking about this lately, kind of curious to know what my averages are when going for the green when I am out 220-250 or laying up and giving myself a wedge in. How often I turn an attempt for a low number into a big number when a par or bogey at worst could be pretty easy. That is the kind of info I would find useful.
 
I think it can in a way, but you have to be willing to use it all the time to really see how you performed, and can't just cherry pick your rounds or stop using it when you struggle after the first few holes. I can usually remember most of my shots a day or two after the round is over, but a week later probably not. If I notice I always missed right, or used too much club on the par 3s, that might stick for the next time I play there, but without seeing legit data, it won't be as accurate as possible.
 
Some stats are useful, some stats are useless.

FIR = useless. You hit a good drive that ends up in the first cut, it's a miss. You hit a short lousy drive that's dead center it's a hit.
GIR = useful.
Putts per round = by itself is useless. In combination with GIR is useful. If you have 14 GIR and 33 - 34 putts, that's not bad. You still need to delve deeper. From what distance was your first putt? Some greens are huge. I played a par 5 once where I sliced it into the far side of the adjacent fairway, then hit my second shot to 8 iron distance in my own; my 3rd shot barely made the green and left me a 80 footer. GIR? You betcha. I lagged to 6 feet and drained it. Next hole was the money hole. I needed a par to tie. Third shot was on in regulation to 7 feet. I DJ'd it. That's golf. If you have four GIR and 25 putts, that does not mean you're good with the short stick.
Do you keep a Scramble stat? i.e. did you miss GIR but still make par? Most of us won't hit this very often. We'll get bogey.
Then there's Sand Saves? Again... if we're in the bunker, most of us will end up with bogey.

I think the low - low mid handicapper all the stats are useful. For the mid to high handicapper, GIR, putting, and carry distance mean are useful if you know how to use the latter. The problem with the arccos and game golf distance statistic is that unless they've changed over the years that they include those outlier shots - the ones you really sucked on. The shots you hit heavy. The shots you hit pure. And treated them equally. You have to look at your shot dispersal pattern and where the vast majority of those are going and not the calculated number.

Also what if I use my 5 hybrid for bump and runs around the green? What if I use my 8 iron for 80 yd knockdown rescue shots from under trees? Those will screw up the shot distances for those clubs.

Arccos and Game Golf are course management tools. If you want to know how far you hit your clubs, schedule a session with a launch monitor of some sort, warm up, then hit ten shots with each club and throw out the two longest and two shortest with each. You may need two sessions.

You suggest GIR as "useful" but it(like most stats) depends what one is looking to obtain from it. GIR has its flaws too. If one (and many people do) use it to tell them how well they are hitting irons but the GIR stat also includes tee shots. One can actually play a good iron game yet be very low at GIR due to tee shots. So Gir doesnt always speak well for what one might want to use it for. Its similar to using up/dwn when wanting to know how well your chipping and putting. In order for stats to truly be telling they need to be further dissected and divided from thier basic states so that they will tell so much more of one specific thing. Without doing that division they are simply just too broad and too skewed. But doing this means one would now be in territory of keeping so much more than just basic stats. But very many do not do this of course. Many stat keepers do the basics only and many of them think they are getting very telling info about specifics but never realizing or giving thought to how misleading those basic stats can be.
 
You suggest GIR as "useful" but it(like most stats) depends what one is looking to obtain from it. GIR has its flaws too. If one (and many people do) use it to tell them how well they are hitting irons but the GIR stat also includes tee shots. One can actually play a good iron game yet be very low at GIR due to tee shots. So Gir doesnt always speak well for what one might want to use it for. Its similar to using up/dwn when wanting to know how well your chipping and putting. In order for stats to truly be telling they need to be further dissected and divided from thier basic states so that they will tell so much more of one specific thing. Without doing that division they are simply just too broad and too skewed. But doing this means one would now be in territory of keeping so much more than just basic stats. But very many do not do this of course. Many stat keepers do the basics only and many of them think they are getting very telling info about specifics but never realizing or giving thought to how misleading those basic stats can be.

But if you collect all of these data points, you can analyze them in a way that's useful for your game. For instance, if you see a high correlation with GIR and FIR, you know working on your iron game isn't going to give as much of a chance at improving your scores to par - you're probably looking at a bigger miss than the first cut example mentioned above. It's a multivariable analysis - there's not one single number you can look at. Same with the putts example - putts/hole and putts/GIR are useful to keep in terms of comparing lag putting with potentially short putts. And I think GIR is generally useful as a stat for your overall tee-to-green game for the reason you mention, it captures both the approach and tee shot.

Though as others have said, target distance with each club in the bag is probably one of the most useful things to capture if you can. I know Arccos does that, not sure game golf does. And a launch monitor is also useful for that, as mentioned above.
 
Some stats are useful, some stats are useless.

FIR = useless. You hit a good drive that ends up in the first cut, it's a miss. You hit a short lousy drive that's dead center it's a hit.
GIR = useful.
Putts per round = by itself is useless. In combination with GIR is useful. If you have 14 GIR and 33 - 34 putts, that's not bad. You still need to delve deeper. From what distance was your first putt? Some greens are huge. I played a par 5 once where I sliced it into the far side of the adjacent fairway, then hit my second shot to 8 iron distance in my own; my 3rd shot barely made the green and left me a 80 footer. GIR? You betcha. I lagged to 6 feet and drained it. Next hole was the money hole. I needed a par to tie. Third shot was on in regulation to 7 feet. I DJ'd it. That's golf. If you have four GIR and 25 putts, that does not mean you're good with the short stick.
Do you keep a Scramble stat? i.e. did you miss GIR but still make par? Most of us won't hit this very often. We'll get bogey.
Then there's Sand Saves? Again... if we're in the bunker, most of us will end up with bogey.

I think the low - low mid handicapper all the stats are useful. For the mid to high handicapper, GIR, putting, and carry distance mean are useful if you know how to use the latter. The problem with the arccos and game golf distance statistic is that unless they've changed over the years that they include those outlier shots - the ones you really sucked on. The shots you hit heavy. The shots you hit pure. And treated them equally. You have to look at your shot dispersal pattern and where the vast majority of those are going and not the calculated number.

Also what if I use my 5 hybrid for bump and runs around the green? What if I use my 8 iron for 80 yd knockdown rescue shots from under trees? Those will screw up the shot distances for those clubs.

Arccos and Game Golf are course management tools. If you want to know how far you hit your clubs, schedule a session with a launch monitor of some sort, warm up, then hit ten shots with each club and throw out the two longest and two shortest with each. You may need two sessions.

But if you collect all of these data points, you can analyze them in a way that's useful for your game. For instance, if you see a high correlation with GIR and FIR, you know working on your iron game isn't going to give as much of a chance at improving your scores to par - you're probably looking at a bigger miss than the first cut example mentioned above. It's a multivariable analysis - there's not one single number you can look at. Same with the putts example - putts/hole and putts/GIR are useful to keep in terms of comparing lag putting with potentially short putts. And I think GIR is generally useful as a stat for your overall tee-to-green game for the reason you mention, it captures both the approach and tee shot.

Though as others have said, target distance with each club in the bag is probably one of the most useful things to capture if you can. I know Arccos does that, not sure game golf does. And a launch monitor is also useful for that, as mentioned above.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

I provided my arccos data to my instructor and he tailored a lot of my lessons to information from what he was seeing in my rounds.

Data is extra important but not as important as utilizing correctly
 
Distance for club selection is the most useful stat I get from Arccos. It’s very interesting to watch it increase as the season progresses and the the weather warms. Total distance will peak during mid summer and start declining again after the the first rains of September soften fairways.
 
Last edited:
If used correctly I think it can yes. It won’t fix your swing but it can help identify what areas you need to work on.
 
Back
Top