GIR's and putting stats

[deadsolid...shank]

Just a question I was wondering about.

 

I know officially a ball on the fringe is not a GIR and thus the next strike isn't a putt.

 

But when you're doing your own stats how do you classify it. Typically for me, if my ball is just a short distance on the fringe and use the putter for the next shot I'll count it as a GIR and a putt. For me anyway I feel it better represents my actual round.

 

How about you?

[BrianL99]

They're your stats and you can do it however you wish.

 

Just understand that when "comparing" or analyzing vs someone else's, yours may be skewed.

 

What I generally do, is ...

 

If I miss a green on the short side by a foot or two and it was a good shot but I was "pin hunting" ... and I have a fairly short putt from the fringe, I count that as a GIR & a Putt.

 

If I miss green anywhere else, I count it as a "missed green" & a chip.

[deadsolid...shank]

Makes sense Brian. I don't actually compare with anyone else, just casually tabulate them post round for my own evaluation.

 

I just feel for me I get a more accurate assessment of my round that way. A simple 15' shot from a foot into the fringe feels to me more accurate as two putt then an up and down.

[BrianL99]

Makes sense Brian. I don't actually compare with anyone else, just casually tabulate them post round for my own evaluation.

 

I just feel for me I get a more accurate assessment of my round that way. A simple 15' shot from a foot into the fringe feels to me more accurate as two putt then an up and down.

 

Just be careful if you ever discuss your "statistics" on here. I'm still getting beat up 2 years later, for saying my putting stats are skewed, because there are some conceded putts in there. What the hell, 90% of the time the typical golfers is playing "Match Play" ... that usually means we're not putting everything in the hole.

[TCMuc]

Like Brian said, you can keep your stats any way you like, as long as they help you keep track of, and hopefully improve your game.

 

The only problems may occur when you compare your stats to others'. In your case, you'll probably have more GIR (since you include shots that end up on the fringe) and more putts (since your putting stats will include shots from off the green, that will be included in other people's short game stats).

 

 

As long as you're aware of these restrictions, you're free to define your stats however you like.

[pinhigh27]

who said you can only putt from on the green? heck I putted from the rough in a tournament once. got up and down

 

I'd rather skew my stats towards an under-representation of my ability than an over.

 

so I'd call it missing the green, but still a putt.

 

any shot you hit with a putter is a putt in my book

[Wedgefromhere]

While my home course has small greens, I still don't count ending up on the fringe as a GIR and I don't count putts from the fringe as a putt. I do keep track of putts from the fringe separately, so I have a "Putts" stat and a "Total Putts" stat that I track.

[RichieHunt]

I classify it as a GIR if it's an honest to goodness putt that no reasonable golfer would chip or doesn't have a lot of non-green terrain to go thru. However, GIR is a metric that is very low on my ladder of importance. It means very little to me and my performance and serves more or less as a baseline metric than anything. So counting a shot that is on the fringe as a GIR is not a big deal to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[pearsonified]

A ball that is not on the putting surface is not a GIR. Any ball struck from off the green—regardless of the club used—is not a putt. By the same token, a wedge from the front of Riviera's 10th green to the back is indeed a putt.

 

The thing about stats is that in order for them to have meaning, you cannot deviate from rules-based designations such as these.

[pinhigh27]

A ball that is not on the putting surface is not a GIR. Any ball struck from off the green—regardless of the club used—is not a putt. By the same token, a wedge from the front of Riviera's 10th green to the back is indeed a putt.

 

The thing about stats is that in order for them to have meaning, you cannot deviate from rules-based designations such as these.

 

lol

 

show me where a putt is defined in the rules of golf

[Matt J]

I don't see a problem in keeping your stats however you like. I agree with Brian and some of the other posters that it's important to understand how you may or may not skew the data.

 

I for one, fight the temptation, and keep them as ^^^^^^ stated in the last post. As far as whether "putt" is defined. That's easy enough. Are you allowed by the rules to mark and clean your ball?

 

Ultimately, I don't think it makes that big of a difference if you're looking at a big enough sample size. Although, I do think it would be awesome if the technology was good enough to track your movements and keep up with your putts from different distances to the hole, where you missed, number of bunkers, etc. - it's not impossible, but would be pretty sophisticated.

 

Edited to add: After a little research it appears that Taylormade and Microsoft are getting pretty close with their "band."

[Matt J]

A ball that is not on the putting surface is not a GIR. Any ball struck from off the green—regardless of the club used—is not a putt. By the same token, a wedge from the front of Riviera's 10th green to the back is indeed a putt.

 

The thing about stats is that in order for them to have meaning, you cannot deviate from rules-based designations such as these.

 

lol

 

show me where a putt is defined in the rules of golf

 

"Putting green" is well defined and most of us can then extrapolate "putt."

 

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!definitions

[RichieHunt]

The thing about stats is that in order for them to have meaning, you cannot deviate from rules-based designations such as these.

 

It depends on the context of them being used.

 

If he is looking to compare himself with other players, for instance the PGA Tour players, he needs to be in line with how they keep GIR.

 

But, if he's recording GIR to see how *he* performs over a period of time, he can utilize whatever definition of GIR he pleases and they will still have merit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[alfriday]

The thing about stats is that in order for them to have meaning, you cannot deviate from rules-based designations such as these.

 

It depends on the context of them being used.

 

If he is looking to compare himself with other players, for instance the PGA Tour players, he needs to be in line with how they keep GIR.

 

But, if he's recording GIR to see how *he* performs over a period of time, he can utilize whatever definition of GIR he pleases and they will still have merit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

You can do both by keeping track of GIR and NGIR, "Near Green in Regulation." The shots that you would count as a GIR but are just off the putting surface would be a NGIR. Same with Putts and Putts Near Green.

 

Still, if the golfer isn't going to compare stats with others, it's just an extra step that's not really needed.

[BrianL99]

The thing about stats is that in order for them to have meaning, you cannot deviate from rules-based designations such as these.

 

It depends on the context of them being used.

 

If he is looking to compare himself with other players, for instance the PGA Tour players, he needs to be in line with how they keep GIR.

 

But, if he's recording GIR to see how *he* performs over a period of time, he can utilize whatever definition of GIR he pleases and they will still have merit.

 

 

 

RH

 

I love when an expert agrees with me :)

[cwglum]

If I'm putting from the immediate fringe (collar of the green), I'm going to consider a 3-putt if I don't get down in two. So GIR in my book.

[deadsolid...shank]

The thing about stats is that in order for them to have meaning, you cannot deviate from rules-based designations such as these.

 

It depends on the context of them being used.

 

If he is looking to compare himself with other players, for instance the PGA Tour players, he needs to be in line with how they keep GIR.

 

But, if he's recording GIR to see how *he* performs over a period of time, he can utilize whatever definition of GIR he pleases and they will still have merit.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Screwed up the quote feature again. Finally somethin I'm good at!

 

That's really all it is. Just for my own use or analysis. Not to compare with anyone else, I know the technicality of the stat, and that the fringe is not actually a GIR. The number of greens I hit (or in reality the number of "makable" birdie putts I have) usually is very indicative of my score. Because our greens are small, a ball just in the fringe often results in a legimate chance. Another course in our area, a ball on the fring could result in a 20-30 yard shot. I wouldn't consider that a GIR for me.

 

It just works for me when I'm thinking back over the round because that shot that is 10" on the fringe but is 12' from the cup is (strictly for me) a better indication of the approach shot as opposed to the one putt (because I'll still likely miss). This works for me in my convoluted mind, I just wondered if anyone else skewed theirs in a similar way.