Why isn't there a stronger correlation between fairways hit and GIR?

[delmer]

2018 Stenson nr 1 on both lists but I dont think there is really any point to look for corrolation between the two lists it just leaves way to many factors out

 

Stenson is a good example. He's got a 3 wood that he hits 295 and never misses a fairway and he might be the best mid and long iron player in the game. The two aren't relating because some guys are good iron players and some guys are good off the tee. Beyond that there are guys who hit driver at all costs to get closer to the green without worrying about playing from the rough.

[Golfnutgalen]

It's been mentioned already, but according to Mark Broadie's datapoints you are equally well off being 180 in the fairway as compared to 120 in the rough (3.08 expected strokes), so hitting fairways is still very important on the PGA Tour setups for the average player. The problem is guys like Tiger and DJ are elite from any location on the golf course which makes us think it's so much easier than it really is. More to the point of the actual topic, the most and least accurate drivers are only ~4 fairways per round apart (10 fairways per round vs 6) which means even the most accurate drivers are missing fairways losing major strokes on those holes. They lose out to the long hitter in strokes gained almost every time.

[OutBackHack]

More or less the same reason why Europe walked away with the Ryder Cup ;)

 

Je suis d’accord

 

May I have a Honda?

[delmer]

It's been mentioned already, but according to Mark Broadie's datapoints you are equally well off being 180 in the fairway as compared to 120 in the rough (3.08 expected strokes), so hitting fairways is still very important on the PGA Tour setups for the average player. The problem is guys like Tiger and DJ are elite from any location on the golf course which makes us think it's so much easier than it really is. More to the point of the actual topic, the most and least accurate drivers are only ~4 fairways per round apart (10 fairways per round vs 6) which means even the most accurate drivers are missing fairways losing major strokes on those holes. They lose out to the long hitter in strokes gained almost every time.

 

There are too many variables to make that statement unless you're talking broad broad broad picture.

 

If I had firm fast greens with a back pin and average length rough I'll take 120 from the rough all day long because 120 from the rough to back pins for me is easier than 120 from the fairway.

 

If you're talking about Ryder Cup rough then I'd probably rather have 200 from the fairway than 100 from the rough.

 

At Harbor Town if you're in the rough you're probably going to have to go around trees so that's another situational decision.

 

To say someone is going to take 3.08 strokes from the rough at 120 and 3.08 strokes from the fairway at 180 isn't realistic.

[SNIPERBBB]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

[delmer]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

 

Even talking about pros it's just too big of a generalization and there are way too many variables at play. Even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

[McCann1]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

 

Even talking about pros it's just too big of a generalization and there are way too many variables at play. Even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

why don’t you believe numbers? Do you think all these players transitioning to the bomb and gauge method are doing it because their buddies are? No. They’re doing it because it translates. It translates to closer proximity on average, more birdies on average, lower scores on average, and most importantly more money in the piggy bank. It’s not difficult to comprehend. Many on here need to realize that these guys are good, like really good. The average fan that plays on the weekend may freak out when they miss a fairway but it’s really not as big of an issue anymore if you hit it long enough. Also strokes gained statistics almost eliminate the “too many variables” argument because the amount of data to compare against is so large it accounts for everything. Bad lies vs good lies, firm greens vs soft greens, etc and comes up with the AVERAGE amount of strokes needed to get in the hole from each position

[pinhigh27]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

 

Even talking about pros it's just too big of a generalization and there are way too many variables at play. Even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

 

do you understand what averages mean

[delmer]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

 

Even talking about pros it's just too big of a generalization and there are way too many variables at play. Even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

 

do you understand what averages mean

 

Yes and as I said even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

[McCann1]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

 

Even talking about pros it's just too big of a generalization and there are way too many variables at play. Even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

 

do you understand what averages mean

 

Yes and as I said even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

do you believe the Earth is flat? Because we proved this wrong as well but some still believe

[Johnnypenso]

It's been mentioned already, but according to Mark Broadie's datapoints you are equally well off being 180 in the fairway as compared to 120 in the rough (3.08 expected strokes), so hitting fairways is still very important on the PGA Tour setups for the average player. The problem is guys like Tiger and DJ are elite from any location on the golf course which makes us think it's so much easier than it really is. More to the point of the actual topic, the most and least accurate drivers are only ~4 fairways per round apart (10 fairways per round vs 6) which means even the most accurate drivers are missing fairways losing major strokes on those holes. They lose out to the long hitter in strokes gained almost every time.

Exactly. So this driving in the rough but long vs. driving in the fairway but short only comes in to play on 4/14 holes on average. On the other 14 holes the longer hitter is ahead and they are both in the same part of the course, rough or fairway, on average. So even if being on the fairway was a decent advantage vs. being in the rough, you'd only have that advantage on 4/14 holes, again, on average, making it awfully tough statistically to overcome the longer hitters' advantage on the other 14 holes.

 

Distance wins again :superman:

[bladehunter]

More or less the same reason why Europe walked away with the Ryder Cup ;)

 

Shorter more accurate hitters ?

[imakaveli]

More or less the same reason why Europe walked away with the Ryder Cup ;)

 

Shorter more accurate hitters ?

 

Shorter :D

[Golfjack]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

 

Even talking about pros it's just too big of a generalization and there are way too many variables at play. Even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

 

do you understand what averages mean

 

Yes and as I said even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

 

Yeah that's less of an advantage that I thought. So basically 170 from the FW is better than 120 from the rough? Why isn't Stenson winning more? Yeah I know his putting sucks but he's gaining a lot of SG. He's only 18th SG off the tee at 74.79% FWY hit, 291 yards. So I guess Cameron Champ hitting it 350 (ok just checked it's 328 now) would only need to hit the fairway 25 pct of the time to best his SG right? Not exact math but that makes more sense now. So there you go. Too bad Stenson can't hit his driver reliably.

[Ty_Webb]

I would not say that, unless we are talking about pro's.

 

3.08 means you making par at best and making one or two boogies than birdies from those positions.

 

Even talking about pros it's just too big of a generalization and there are way too many variables at play. Even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

 

do you understand what averages mean

 

Yes and as I said even if we are talking about tour pros playing under average conditions I just have a hard time believing that 180 from the FW is equal to 120 from the rough.

 

Yeah that's less of an advantage that I thought. So basically 170 from the FW is better than 120 from the rough? Why isn't Stenson winning more? Yeah I know his putting sucks but he's gaining a lot of SG. He's only 18th SG off the tee at 74.79% FWY hit, 291 yards. So I guess Cameron Champ hitting it 350 (ok just checked it's 328 now) would only need to hit the fairway 25 pct of the time to best his SG right? Not exact math but that makes more sense now. So there you go. Too bad Stenson can't hit his driver reliably.

 

It's not quite that simple. Someone hitting only 25% of fairways is very likely to wind up with a lot more "penalty" and "recovery" shots in their strokes gained stats. It's going to be hard to compete hitting only 25% of fairways even if you're Tim Burke or Jamie Sadlowski long. Cameron Champ hitting it as far as he does still has to keep it on the golf course.

[McCann1]

Also a lot of posters here are getting caught up in “well sure 120 in from the rough might be okay but it’s the same as 180 in the fairway and fairways are most important” need to realize just because the long hitters hit it far doesn’t mean they’re going to miss every fairway.

 

For example

 

When DJ is hitting fairways and let’s Brian Gay is hitting fairways..my money is on DJ

 

When DJ isn’t hitting fairways and Brian Gay is..the advantage is lowered but it probably still favors DJ

 

What about when both aren’t hitting fairways? Now DJ has 120 in the rough but oh no so does Brian Gay from 180. Brian is really screwed now!

 

That’s why you see guys banging driver.

[Roadking2003]

Drivers ideally hit slightly on the upswing, irons are normally leaned and hit down on... Just a thought. I'm a good driver of the golf ball who doesn't hit the irons particularly well from a GIR perspective.

 

I understand the mechanical differences between a driver and iron swing. For me, the more fairways I hit, the easier it is for me to hit greens. Maybe I should start keeping a better record of my fairway/GIR ratio.

 

To me this argument when it pops up is about terminology. "Fairways Hit" is the wrong terminology. It doesn't capture drives that are off the fairway that play as if they were still on the fairway. Simple as that. It's all about playable drives vs not playable. has nothing to do with the "fairway" and it should be a combined stat that includes includes distance left to the green somehow.

 

That's why when I keep my stats I count good drives that have a very playable second shot as FIR. Our rough is not very deep, so unless I'm hitting a180+ shot it is not penal. Especially in the winter when the bermuda grass is dormant.

 

So for me, there is a strong correlation between "good drives" and "greens hit".

[Roadking2003]

You don't get it. It has been proven closer in the rough is similar if not better than further away in the fairway.

 

huh? I don't think you're talking about what I am. I'm saying the stats aren't comparable if you aren't playing on similar courses. you said you're on canadian tour so I said those stats are probably more closely comparable to pga tour. however someone who plays at a wide open muni, their stats are not well comparable to the pga tour.

 

It's not so much the course as it is the skill level of the golfer. The PGA Tour strokes gained stats are developed from millions of shots by tour level players over the past decade. Those numbers are meaningless for a 12 capper regardless of what course he plays.

[bladehunter]

Also a lot of posters here are getting caught up in "well sure 120 in from the rough might be okay but it's the same as 180 in the fairway and fairways are most important" need to realize just because the long hitters hit it far doesn't mean they're going to miss every fairway.

 

For example

 

When DJ is hitting fairways and let's Brian Gay is hitting fairways..my money is on DJ

 

When DJ isn't hitting fairways and Brian Gay is..the advantage is lowered but it probably still favors DJ

 

What about when both aren't hitting fairways? Now DJ has 120 in the rough but oh no so does Brian Gay from 180. Brian is really screwed now!

 

That's why you see guys banging driver.

 

agree...bottom line is , if youre a guy pounding driver 290-320 plus , theres only 2-3 courses on earth with enough rough to truly bother you from 120 out... Its just not a big deal. not as far as GIR goes... 120 at most is a pw , for most its a gap or 100% sand wedge.

[Roadking2003]

It's been mentioned already, but according to Mark Broadie's datapoints you are equally well off being 180 in the fairway as compared to 120 in the rough (3.08 expected strokes), so hitting fairways is still very important on the PGA Tour setups for the average player.

 

While that data is factual, it may be misleading. I think "rough" includes everything not fairway. So that would include shots from the woods and knee high rough. Those are totally different from a ball in 1.5 inch rough.

 

So when comparing fairway to short rough, the difference is probably much smaller.