Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'stat tracker'.
I've been doing some at-home analysis of my stats for the past 16 months and wanted to share in the hopes that you might be able to provide some ideas or insight into what else could be done with this information. After every round I input date, score, round index, number of: birdies, pars, bogeys, doubles, triples, putts, GIRs and fairway percentage into a google drive sheet. I then update scatter plots that show score vs.: birdies, pars, bogeys, double, triples, GIRs, putts and FIR and a separate set that shows round index vs each of those stats. My initial goal was to see how each of these stats correlated with my score/index and to see if I could use this information to improve my game. Here's a summary chart of my findings: I'm not a stats wiz per se, but did take a class in college and know my way around excel/google drive. For the uninitiated, the R-squared of a regression tells you how much the two variables correlate. The highest possible R-squared value, 1.0, would indicate that two variables correlate perfectly and the lowest possible value, 0.0, would indicate the two variables do not correlate at all. For the sake of simplifying the analysis I used a second degree polynomial regression and the following correlation ranges: 1.0-0.7 Strong, 0.7-0.4 Medium, 0.4-0.2 Small, 0.2-0.0 None. Some insights from the data: 1. First of all, I was surprised that none of the stat categories had a "strong" correlation to my score/index. This makes me wonder if there is something else that does correlate well or if the score/index is just influenced by too many different variables for one to really shine through. 2. I rarely make birdies (4 total over 30 rounds of golf) so it makes sense that they would have no correlation with my scores. 3. Because birdies are so rare, pars are essentially the lowest score I make on a hole. It therefore makes sense to me that these have the second highest correlation to my score/index. The highest correlation belongs to triples, likely because they represent the highest possible score on a give hole. Its not rocket science to know more of the lowest score and less of the highest score lowers your overall score/index but its good to see the data back it up. 4. There is hardly any correlation between score/index and bogeys or doubles. This is likely because it matters less how many of each I make as opposed to what they "would" have been. By that I mean on any given day I could score well with a lot of bogeys if they otherwise "would" have been doubles or I could score poorly with a lot of bogeys if they otherwise "would" have been pars. The same goes for doubles that "would" have been bogeys or triples. 5. All else being equal having less putts should mean a lower score but number of putts doesn't tell the story of how you got to the green. I am much more likely to three-putt after a GIR because I am typically starting farther from the hole. Likewise I am more likely to one-putt when I've chipped it close which usually means I missed the green so an extra stroke had to be taken. For this reason it makes sense to me that putts have a small correlation on score/index. However, I can't explain why the putts would better correlate to index (borderline medium correlation) compared to score. See below for more on this. 6. I would have expected GIR to correlate most with score/index and am surprised at how little it does. My only explanation here is that as with birdies, I don't have many GIRs overall so the impact they can have is limited. Similar to putts there is also a disparity between the correlation between score (borderline medium) and index (none) that I can't explain. I am also confused by why the disparity between the two stats is reversed from putts to GIR. The only semblance of explanation I can think of is that I was lucky enough to St. Andrews this past year and their oversized greens produced outlier numbers by increasing both my number of putts and GIRs. However, this was only two rounds out of 30 (both produced slightly better than average scores and indices), is the data that sensitive? 7. There is absolutely no correlation between FIR and score/index, this is the clearest answer of all the stats. This is backed up by recent Shot Scope data that farther is better than straighter (assuming both are in bounds). I think I'd be most curious to see if other people find similar correlation (or lack thereof) between their stats and score/index, what might change based on handicap, and what other analysis could be done with this or similar data?
Just wanted to share my experience with Arccos after making the switch from Game Golf Live. I'm sure there have been plenty of reviews for both systems, but I've seen some misinformation floating around on how the Game Golf system works, and a lot of the Arccos reviews I've read often leave me wanting to know more than the author provided. Here goesâ€¦ I've been a Game Golf user for a few years now starting with the original GG unit and then upgrading to GG Live once it was released. I've really enjoyed being able to get a more in-depth analysis of my game without having to take a bunch of notes. However, I've long envied the variety of stats offered by Arccos over GG and the only thing keeping me from making the switch was the need to carry my phone in my front pocket. Unlike what many reviews have suggested, GG Live does not require you to carry your phone on you. In fact, you don't even have to take your phone to the course if you don't want â€“ Live works exactly the same as the original device with its own built-in GPS module and NFC tagging, but includes Bluetooth technology to make phone synchronization possible. I usually keep my phone in the cart and tag my shots only going to the phone to make minor adjustments (such as adding penalty strokes) as needed. There are many times I won't look at my phone until after the round and make all my edits immediately prior to posting. A lot of people give GG flack for the tagging, but I've honestly found the tagging to be helpful in developing a solid pre-shot routine. Also, there's the added benefit of simply tagging a second time if you think you forgot to do it and GG has even developed some new algorithms to detect missed tags and plot them for you â€“ it's not perfect, but it's certainly a welcomed addition. Arccos of course is a different animal entirely â€“ even though it essentially performs the same functions as Game Golf. Right out of the gate I noticed a considerable difference in the tags and I'm not talking about size, weight, or color. With exception to the putter only, all Arccos tags are indistinguishable from each other whereas GG marks each tag Dr, 3W, H, 4I, 5I, 6I, etc. and even includes some extra tags should you lose one or have extra clubs â€“ here lately I've been using them to conduct club testing. This difference in approach isn't a huge deal as far as initial setup goes and both are fairly painless as long as you follow the instructions. Where I see this becoming an issue is when regripping clubs you would either have to handle one club at a time (start to finish) or re-pair all clubs once the job is done. My solution: I marked each tag with a Sharpie on the bottom (grip) side. This means when the tags are on they look just like they always have, but when I take them out I know which club they belong to. On the course, Arccos is easy to use, but does require some minor adjustments in the way clubs are handled. I plan to experiment and see how far I can push the limits with this, but the instructions say to carry clubs upside down from bag to ball and ball to bag. They also caution against excessive jarring of the clubs (dropping, bumping, or slamming down in frustration) to prevent an improperly tagged shot. I never experienced any problems with this, but I did have several missed tags including full shots and some putts (tap-ins mainly). I think the full shots may have been missed because some of the tags started to back out. However, these were fairly easy to correct on the fly as well as adjusting pin placement and adding penalty strokes, but I noticed I was looking at my phone quite a bit more than normal. As for the pone, I placed it in my front right pocket and moved my ball marker and repair tool to my left front pocket â€“ not a huge deal just a minor adjustment to get used to. Post round analysis is what I was really most anxious to see and it did not disappoint (much). I have listened to podcasts and read many magazine interviews with Arccos Founder and CEO Sal Syed. He often states his commitment to providing the amateur golfer with tour level statistics and the mobile app and website are proof of that. Upon review of round stats (using the app), I can see my handicap for Driving, Approach, Chipping, Sand, and Putting which are all derived from applying the strokes gained methodology. I also get a break down of scoring, and a detailed analysis of the five previously mentioned categories and even my pace of play. I could try to describe each screen and method of analysis available, but there are so many I could literally write a small book on it. I will say this much thoughâ€¦ My one and only disappointment with the stats provided is how Arccos incorporates strokes gained. They show you which areas need the most work which is great, but I like Game Golf's use of strokes gained just slightly better. Game Golf takes a more direct approach on strokes gained and will automatically display how your performance stacks up against the average scratch golfer. Moreover, Game Golf offers a filter through which you can compare your round to a variety of handicaps (5, 10, 15, 20, & 25 to be exact). You can even compare a recent round to your personal best or a collection of rounds to another group from a year ago if so desired. The ways you can group and filter data are seemingly limitless. Anyway, I think I've shared quite enough at this point. Like I said earlier, I know others have done extensive reviews of both systems, but just wanted to do a bit of a comparison and discuss what it's like to make the switch. Game Golf Live and Arccos 360 are both great systems and I'd recommend either of them to anyone based on how much they want to use their phone on the course and what kind of stats they want to see. Thanks for reading!!!