Looking at my data and it's unclear...

[ChaosTheory]

Strokes gained would be a big help but I don't have any such data at this point.  So I took what stats I have entered in GHIN, and slammed the last 42 rounds, starting March 1st until yesteday, into a spreadsheet.   I'm trying to see where the improvement is coming from.  Below is a photo of the summary data by month.   My index is down almost 4 points over that span.  The scores reflect that.   The column for 95 - (2 x GIR) is the commonly accepted estimate of what you should shoot based on GIR.  The Variance next to it is what I actually did versus that projected score.  In my experience, if one goes low, that means a good short game.  And the opposite is true.  What do you see in the numbers?  I'll give my thoughts, feel free to disagree.

 

The GIR trend is slightly better, but not much?  Could almost be noise.  I'll be generous and say the trend is 0.5 improvement in GIR, which could be 1 stroke.

All putting numbers are slightly better, but they add up.  0.2 fewer putts per (times) 7 GIR would equal 1.4 strokes.  0.1 fewer putts times 11 missed GIR would be 1.1 strokes.  If so, that's 2.5 strokes from putting.

But some of the non-GIR putting numbers are coming from better chipping, I know that from my improvement in that area.   Maybe half a stroke. 

 

So the best guesses I can come up with:

Tee and approach:  1 stroke

Putting 2 strokes

Chipping 1/2 stroke

 

There is another 1/2 stroke buried in the noise.

 

Agree overall that putting was my big winner?  Or do you think otherwise?

 

edit: I see yesterday's round got included in the screenshot.  Oh well.  Also, the column ordering is a little goofy because I added some later in the process.

 

 

 

Edited July 16 by ChaosTheory

[iacas]

1 hour ago, ChaosTheory said:

In my experience, if one goes low, that means a good short game.

 

No. Truly low scores come from not needing to use your short game much. From hitting a lot of greens and hitting it close + a hot (randomness) day with the putter.

 

Beyond that, these are mostly counting stats (# of putts, # of greens), and they're of limited use. You seem to be gaining a little in all areas, but… it'd be silly to try to get any more granular than that.

[ChaosTheory]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

No. Truly low scores come from not needing to use your short game much. From hitting a lot of greens and hitting it close + a hot (randomness) day with the putter.

 

Beyond that, these are mostly counting stats (# of putts, # of greens), and they're of limited use. You seem to be gaining a little in all areas, but… it'd be silly to try to get any more granular than that.

I meant lower than the score predicted by the GIR formula.  ie Low relative to the GIRs.

Edited July 16 by ChaosTheory

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, ChaosTheory said:

I meant lower than the score predicted by the GIR formula.  ie Low relative to the GIRs.

 

If one goes low (er than predicted by that very basic formula), then I'd still say no. It may be the short game, or maybe you hit a lot of fringes or stuffed it on a few holes or had some two-putt birdies or rolled in an eagle or two. Still counts as one GIR, but are great scores.

 

Anyway, the main point is… you really should be tracking true stats. These counting stats are of very limited utility.

[larrybud]

At least write down your approach distances and first putt distances. As @iacas said, you are limited by the stats you're collecting. eg. I shot 37 on the back of my CC last week, hitting 7 girs. 17 putts. Did I putt bad? You might think so, until you see that 6 of those were 35+ feet, and I 2-putted each one. Quite the opposite, I putted great.