Oh come on, you're not going to let me include tap-ins? Geesh, what kind of friends....(oh, this is golf, strictly business
).
There must some kinds of way to combine putts & GIR & Fairways hit into some kind of number stat as an indication of how one is doing relative to another round.
Relative Stat Factor = [(2x GIR + 2x FWY's)/#putts] x 56.25 = 100
= [(2x18 + 2x14)/36] x56.25 = 100
I used "56.25" multiplier to make the 'factor' come out to 100, which is what you'd get if you hit all fairways, all GIR's, and 2-putted every hole. My course has 4 par-3's, so I used "14" for the possible number of fairways hit.
Better putting decreases the denominator, making the factor larger.
But in all likelihood, most people would be less than "all GIRs/all FWY's", so their base/average number would establish their base factor. Better GIR's & FWY's than their base average shows up as a larger nominator, giving a larger factor number, better putting decreases the denominator, giving a larger factor number. Bad putting, bad GIR, and bad FWY's will all work to decrease the factor significantly, so each of these 3 has input into the factor
.
Hmm...maybe adding ["# of 3-putts" + #putts] to compensate for what could be deceptively masked by 36 putts if 2-putted every green, or 36 putts if 1-putted 6 of them, 3-putted 6, and 2-putted the rest of the greens)....should be something to take the 3-putts into account, so adding an additional "# of 3 putts" to the putting total?, or make it punitive by adding + (2x #3-putts) to the putting total?
....assuming 2 3-putts and using a new 'fudge factor' to get to 100:
[(2xGIRs + 2xFWYs)/(#putts + 2x#3-putts)] x 62.5 =
[(2x18 + 2x14)/(36 + 4)] x 62.5 = 100
Good putting will increase the factor,
Minimal 3-putts will increase the factor,
Better GIR's will increase the factor,
Better FWY's will increase the factor.
Your best game factor will be obtained when you do all of these the best that you can.
........can easily set up an excel spreadsheet to include the formula's so you just have to plug the numbers in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigvivec
If you include tap ins you're bound to have gaudy numbers...  |