Very interesting stats

[Steve]

Well I think they are

32384

[AndyP]

I can't read that image, Steve.

[Captain Nemo]

Post a link Steve....

[Steve57]

Different Steve but here is the link!
http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00016881-source.pdf

[hippo10]

That is interesting. I was initially surprised to see such a dropoff in averages for the higher handicaps but it probably just represents the greater inconsistency. Would love to see the 5th/95th percentile numbers.

[ZENNON]

Yeah that is interesting

Thanks #TeamSteve

[AndyP]

I find it amusing that people play to their daily handicap more often playing par format than stableford, yet people always sook about par being unfair.

My "32 points is a good round" philosophy is backed up by those stats.

[coalesce]

I wonder if jumbuck will see this thread? :)

[Dotty]

I find it amusing that people play to their daily handicap more often playing par format than stableford, yet people always sook about par being unfair.

My "32 points is a good round" philosophy is backed up by those stats.
You can only go backwards one shot per hole in par events.

My infamous Lynwood par round of -12 was recorded in golflink the same as 24 stableford points. (It didn't feel that good. Mid-teens at best))
My infamous Liverpool stableford round of 19 points, would have been a -12 in a par event.

Most players have more wipes than 4 pointers in stableford.

[Steve]

Thanks for the assist Steve

[3Puttpete]

You can only go backwards one shot per hole in par events.

My infamous Lynwood par round of -12 was recorded in golflink the same as 24 stableford points. (It didn't feel that good. Mid-teens at best))
My infamous Liverpool stableford round of 19 points, would have been a -12 in a par event.

Most players have more wipes than 4 pointers in stableford.

This intrigued me so I looked at Sunday's score. 36 points would have been +2.

More Par events!

[coalesce]

So for par to stableford they assume that a - was 1 point?

How can you convert stableford to par? 202020202020202020 ( -9 ) is very different from 111111111111111111 ( -18 )

[AndyP]

Don't be logical, Dotty. Golfers are meant to bleat about not getting their four pointers.

[3Puttpete]

So for par to stableford they assume that a - was 1 point?

How can you convert stableford to par? 202020202020202020 ( -9 ) is very different from 111111111111111111 ( -18 )

Obviously assumptions are made to convert to stableford but I don't reckon it works all the time converting from stableford.

313131313131313131 gives the same par result as your first example for double the stableford score

[jimandr]

OK guys, here is the challenge.

Go to your golflink readout, ask it for your last 12 months, and work out the number of times you broke. Then compare it to the list.

Mine is 8 of 46, and the chart tells me I should be breaking 17.6%.

So, I am depressingly right on average.

I didn't bother doing the stableford average, but I suspect I'd be fairly close.

What would be interesting would be to see the results for individual courses. I suspect hard courses would give different results to easy ones because there would be more really low scores, but it would be good to know for sure.

[Dotty]

Jim, what are we looking for?

In 100 rounds, I matched or beat 36 points 15.5 times, my 'played to' was less than my 'daily handicap' 26 times and my 'played to' was less than my GA 12 times. (The extra .5 is having a 20 point nine hole comp score waiting for another 9 hole comp round.)

That second result was due to a dozen 34-35 point rounds.

Of the 98 scoring rounds (1 NCR and 9 hole) the average was 31.6.

[coalesce]

Obviously assumptions are made to convert to stableford but I don't reckon it works all the time converting from stableford.

313131313131313131 gives the same par result as your first example for double the stableford score

No it doesn't - it would give a par result of 0.


OK guys, here is the challenge.

Go to your golflink readout, ask it for your last 12 months, and work out the number of times you broke. Then compare it to the list.

Mine is 8 of 46, and the chart tells me I should be breaking 17.6%.

So, I am depressingly right on average.

I didn't bother doing the stableford average, but I suspect I'd be fairly close.

What would be interesting would be to see the results for individual courses. I suspect hard courses would give different results to easy ones because there would be more really low scores, but it would be good to know for sure.

My played to is less than my daily handicap for 2 of my 3 rounds. I'm ahead of the curve! :)

[Buzz]

Intriguing data. This makes me feel much, much better about my golf. I can't deny that even knowing how the system works I still fall into the trap of using 36 as the yardstick. Basically going to work on realigning to 30 is pass mark and 32+ is a good day.

Awesome, I feel better already :)

[3Puttpete]

No it doesn't - it would give a par result of 0.


Correct. My bad.

Dunno why I thought that. Brain fart

[highballin]

OK guys, here is the challenge.

Go to your golflink readout, ask it for your last 12 months, and work out the number of times you broke. Then compare it to the list.

Mine is 8 of 46, and the chart tells me I should be breaking 17.6%.

So, I am depressingly right on average.

I didn't bother doing the stableford average, but I suspect I'd be fairly close.

What would be interesting would be to see the results for individual courses. I suspect hard courses would give different results to easy ones because there would be more really low scores, but it would be good to know for sure.

Ok I give in where is my golflink read out ?

[highballin]

Ok I give in where is my golflink read out ?

Stop lookin I found it.

39 games broke handicap 8 times

[Daves]

19/95 = 20%

[oldracer]

19/95 = 20%Only very new to this competition thingy however we played against another club last time out and one of the guys was playing off 9, to my surprise his aim that day was to have at least 30 points, to him that was the "Mendoza Line" i.e acceptable, interesting, BTW he was the Club President

[highballin]

Only very new to this competition thingy however we played against another club last time out and one of the guys was playing off 9, to my surprise his aim that day was to have at least 30 points, to him that was the "Mendoza Line" i.e acceptable, interesting, BTW he was the Club President

Yeah I think the lower your handicap gets the more acceptable 30points is.

[jumbuck]

I wonder if jumbuck will see this thread? :)
Sure have. The stats are from the Golf Australia website that I have looked at extensively in the forlorn hope of finding something I can use that will convince the golfing world to storm GA like the French peasants did in on Bastille day!
I got stats that reveal that 55% of my golf is rubbish 85+ and 18% of that is complete rubbish 90+. This for a hotshot who has played off 6/7 for 3 months - now thankfully 9 and once I recover from my torn plantar fascia and rolled ankle (incurred on Sunday after swimming at the local beach in freezing water to show Lefty I'm no "buttercup" ) hopefully will roll out to 10.
I'm sure some of you will be quite pleased I've injured myself funnily enough it has been a relief not to play!
PS Lefty was right I'm as weak as water and soft as butter! I admit it I'm pathetic but it's not going to stop me in my quest!

[jumbuck]

I just sent another reply but it seems to have vanished. Any idea where it could be? I 'm sure I pressed reply with quote

[Buzz]

No offense Jumbuck but these stats make me want to email GAand ask them to please keep the new system, much better than he old one.

[Buzz]

OK guys, here is the challenge.Go to your golflink readout, ask it for your last 12 months, and work out the number of times you broke. Then compare it to the list.Mine is 8 of 46, and the chart tells me I should be breaking 17.6%. So, I am depressingly right on average.I didn't bother doing the stableford average, but I suspect I'd be fairly close.What would be interesting would be to see the results for individual courses. I suspect hard courses would give different results to easy ones because there would be more really low scores, but it would be good to know for sure.Hmmm interesting. Cap or better 4/32, but 20/32 is 30 points or better. Interestingly with that range my GA has not moved more than 1.0 since the start of the new system.

[Matt1979]

good stats - have only played 12 rounds this year - have played to cap or better 7 times

[benno_r]

good stats - have only played 12 rounds this year - have played to cap or better 7 times

Burglar!!

9/38 for me. 23.6%

I am above average! Yay!

[Buzz]

Interesting ... Can those with above average "cap breaks" report the volatility of their handicap? I suspect it is much higher than my 1.0 variance.

[3Puttpete]

16/61

[mrbluu]

Of 67 comp rounds last year I played to my handicap which stretched from 9 (8.3) to 3.3 (4). I was considered to play to my handicap or better 16 times or 23.88% which I think puts me above ave. (yay, first time ever!!!)

For me the interesting things are that my course went through a stage were it was consistently rating 74-76 (par 70) so even 29 point rounds were almost breaking and I think bring everyone's handicap down. Of my 16 rounds, I had 3 x 31points and 1 x 33 points. I only had 7 rounds were I shot 36 or better with the best being of 41 (twice).

Also of the rounds that I didn't play to my handicap, there was 10 rounds that were 33 better. ( 4 x 33, 3 x 34, 1 x 35 and 2 x 36).

The rounds of 31 that broke and 33 that didn't all were at my home track....does this mean the DSR is working or not working???

[3Puttpete]

Interesting ... Can those with above average "cap breaks" report the volatility of their handicap? I suspect it is much higher than my 1.0 variance.

Down 5.4, back up 2.7 to be down 2.7 from where it started

[benno_r]

Started @ 16.9, down to 14.6, back up to 14.7. So 2.3 variance.

[mrbluu]

Started at 8.3 down to 3.3 back up to 4.4.

[Steve57]

Started 7.0, went up to 7.7, now 4.5. This is since the new system came in on 24/1.
Last 12 months is started 5.4, went out to 7.7, now 4.5.

[Daves]

For the 12 months I started at 12.3, blew out to 13.3. Then back into 11, then out to 13.9, and back into 11 again.

[Buzz]

Wow I am relatively stable ... 17.3 is my low and I think 18.3 the high but the vast majority of the time I have been between 17.4 and 17.7.... So much for high handicappers are more volatile !! I'm just consistently crap :p

[3Puttpete]

Wow I am relatively stable ... 17.3 is my low and I think 18.3 the high but the vast majority of the time I have been between 17.4 and 17.7.... So much for high handicappers are more volatile !! I'm just consistently crap :p

How many rounds?

[Buzz]

Actually it's 17.3 to 18.0 ... My browser won't let me select more than last 20 ... My estimate would be between 20-25

[3Puttpete]

There's a drop menu on golfljnk's site. It shouldn't be a browser thing

[hippo10]

Does anyone have a nice way of exporting their golflink history to excel? Every time I use that site my appreciation for how much of a piece of crap it is increases.

[3Puttpete]

Does anyone have a nice way of exporting their golflink history to excel? Every time I use that site my appreciation for how much of a piece of crap it is increases.

This.

I tried earlier and no luck

[coalesce]

The table of data has some pretty nasty HTML which when you try and paste it into excel it converts it to columns.

I've got this to work:

1) Copy and paste into a text editor like notepad++
2) Search and replace the new line out of "your club name + (format) + cr lf (the new line) + Par whatever"

For example, I have "The Vines-Reynella (Stableford)Par 71" which I want to replace to end up with "The Vines-Reynella (Stableford) Par 71" all on one line

3) Save as a text file and then open the text file in Excel telling it to use tabs as the delimiters

There may be some other patterns that need similar cleaning, e.g. I have artificially generated scores with dates in my history, but it gets you there...

[Buzz]

There's a drop menu on golfljnk's site. It shouldn't be a browser thing

Yeah I know the drop down was showing but wouldn't let me click on anything it hi kisumu an old browser issue

[hippo10]

The table of data has some pretty nasty HTML which when you try and paste it into excel it converts it to columns.I've got this to work:1) Copy and paste into a text editor like notepad++2) Search and replace the new line out of "your club name + (format) + cr lf (the new line) + Par whatever"For example, I have "The Vines-Reynella (Stableford)Par 71" which I want to replace to end up with "The Vines-Reynella (Stableford) Par 71" all on one line3) Save as a text file and then open the text file in Excel telling it to use tabs as the delimitersThere may be some other patterns that need similar cleaning, e.g. I have artificially generated scores with dates in my history, but it gets you there... Thanks Coalesce. The HTML is pretty shocking....

[hippo10]

Bloody 9 hole scores mess it up as well....

[Hatchman]

Bloody 9 hole scores mess it up as well....

I've played three 27 hole Opens in the Country this year and not one of the 9 holes has been entered into Golf Link.

[gameboy]

i imagine you will be above or below average for games above/below handicap if your handicap is on the way up or down.

[LeftyHoges]

"Broke" handicap 8/30 (16 stableford, 14 stroke, no par), so 26.67% of times.

Started 2.5, down to 2.4, got out to 3.9, now down to 2.4 again. So 1.5 variance over 12 months.

Interesting that I "broke handicap" well above average (20.6% for my 'cap range) yet spent the majority of the 12 months higher than what I started and finished.

[G.K]

For the last 12 months, keeping in mind it is almost exactly 12 months since I first got an official cap. This is probably them main reason for the big fluctuation in my cap.

Better than cap 10/32 or 31.25%
30 points or better 16 times
Cap has gone from 18.6 down to 12.3 and now back out to 14.

[Progolfgear]

What is up with the +5 to 0 category, the played to or better stat is worse for par competitions than stableford competitions.

The only logial way to explain that is that golfers in the category have more eagles than doubles?


On to the stats: played 44 comp rounds, played to or better my daily handicap 10 times (22.73%), in the +5-0 category that is pretty close to average.

[990B Luva]

Played to or broken my handicap 8/19 rounds in the last 12 months. Spread is from 9.5 (starting at this) to 7.1 (currently GA handicap)

[Buzz]

I guess the variance would be better expressed in % terms. Lefty's 1.5 variance is more significant than my 0.7 given the relative handicaps

[gameboy]

broke handicap 5 of 15 (33%) - handicap has come down from 24 to 19

[LeftyHoges]

I guess the variance would be better expressed in % terms. Lefty's 1.5 variance is more significant than my 0.7 given the relative handicaps

So 2.4 divide 3.9 means my handicap increased 62% at its peak. Disturbing.

[markTHEblake]

since 01/01/13 I play to or lower than my handicap 25% of the time. Considering my handicaps lower then ever before and therefore false and phoney, I guess I realistically play better than my real handicap at least 50% of the time.

Thats pretty unfair.

[GuyIncognito]

Last 76 rounds at home track: 19 breaks (25%), 9 played to's (11.84%), 48 didn't make its (63.16%)

[jumbuck]

"Broke" handicap 8/30 (16 stableford, 14 stroke, no par), so 26.67% of times.

Started 2.5, down to 2.4, got out to 3.9, now down to 2.4 again. So 1.5 variance over 12 months.

Interesting that I "broke handicap" well above average (20.6% for my 'cap range) yet spent the majority of the 12 months higher than what I started and finished.
He says it with such confused innocence how could anybody suspect something was not quite what it seems!
Who was the most vociferous opponent of my brilliant first post condemning the new handicap system.
Who defended Simon Magdulski like a Knight of the Crusades defended Christianity.
Who awarded Simon a token MBE for his astonishing contribution to golf.
As Inspector Pierot would say " Mr Lefty Hoges has his imprints all over this!"
So the connection ; Old school chums from Geelong Grammar or an illicit affair with ones sisters cousins aunties step-daughter or perhaps a chance meeting in Bali (What really happens in Bali? - well you may ask - I think we now have an idea!)
So how is it possible that Mr LeftyHoges has some odd benefits under the new system? Friends in high places that make slight alterations to his played to scores. Of course this goes undetected as not many of the poor souls subject to this system have any idea how to make the calculations required to make sense of it - n'est pas.
I now feel vindicated to write a follow up post to my first.

[jumbuck]

since 01/01/13 I play to or lower than my handicap 25% of the time. Considering my handicaps lower then ever before and therefore false and phoney, I guess I realistically play better than my real handicap at least 50% of the time.

Thats pretty unfair.
Will you admit to having a personal relationship with Simon Magdulski who facilitates this obvious fraudulence!

[Charger]

Math hurts my head

[markTHEblake]

Greg Normal.

[jumbuck]

Greg Normal.
Can't you think of any reason why you and Lefty are the only 2 golfers in the the universe that Simon favours. A surge in talent. Blind luck - perhaps a computer hiccup -favouritism - wash my mouth boy.
There is a reason for every purpose under heaven - a reason to born a reason to support a defected handicap system - slowly but surely step by step inch by inch the truth will emerge!

[markTHEblake]

No, because we are not.

[LeftyHoges]

He says it with such confused innocence how could anybody suspect something was not quite what it seems!
Who was the most vociferous opponent of my brilliant first post condemning the new handicap system.
Who defended Simon Magdulski like a Knight of the Crusades defended Christianity.
Who awarded Simon a token MBE for his astonishing contribution to golf.
As Inspector Pierot would say " Mr Lefty Hoges has his imprints all over this!"
So the connection ; Old school chums from Geelong Grammar or an illicit affair with ones sisters cousins aunties step-daughter or perhaps a chance meeting in Bali (What really happens in Bali? - well you may ask - I think we now have an idea!)
So how is it possible that Mr LeftyHoges has some odd benefits under the new system? Friends in high places that make slight alterations to his played to scores. Of course this goes undetected as not many of the poor souls subject to this system have any idea how to make the calculations required to make sense of it - n'est pas.
I now feel vindicated to write a follow up post to my first.

Can't figure out at all what you're trying to say here but I'll reply with this:

My handicap moved all of 3.0 shots (1.5 up and 1.5 down) in 30 rounds under the new system. Which is pretty much about what it would have moved under the old system there or thereabouts. Over the whole thing I gained 1 shot. That's such a massive advantage, I'm surprised my home club didn't investigate me for sandbagging!

I could tell from the dirty looks I was given that the majority of people I played against thought I was a dirty rotten cheat as they handed over their $2 after my nett 72 beat their nett 78. "Bloody burglar, if he'd have been off 3 instead of 4 like he is I'd have only lost by 5 instead of 6" I heard them mutter under their breath as they stormed away in a huff.

But they had a secret plan, you see. They knew to beat me they'd have to gain at least 5 shots. Which they wouldn't bother to do under the old system as it would literally take them 50 rounds to do so. But now the dirty filthy jumbucking scum can do it in 20 rounds.

And as for conspiracy theories, I wouldn't know Simon Magdulski if I fell over him, and I sure as shit don't know his wife, but I get the distinct feeling that he did something with yours.

[jumbuck]

Can't figure out at all what you're trying to say here but I'll reply with this:

My handicap moved all of 3.0 shots (1.5 up and 1.5 down) in 30 rounds under the new system. Which is pretty much about what it would have moved under the old system there or thereabouts. Over the whole thing I gained 1 shot. That's such a massive advantage, I'm surprised my home club didn't investigate me for sandbagging!

I could tell from the dirty looks I was given that the majority of people I played against thought I was a dirty rotten cheat as they handed over their $2 after my nett 72 beat their nett 78. "Bloody burglar, if he'd have been off 3 instead of 4 like he is I'd have only lost by 5 instead of 6" I heard them mutter under their breath as they stormed away in a huff.

But they had a secret plan, you see. They knew to beat me they'd have to gain at least 5 shots. Which they wouldn't bother to do under the old system as it would literally take them 50 rounds to do so. But now the dirty filthy jumbucking scum can do it in 20 rounds.

And as for conspiracy theories, I wouldn't know Simon Magdulski if I fell over him, and I sure as shit don't know his wife, but I get the distinct feeling that he did something with yours.
I think it's called clutching at straws!
I must admit that I get tremendous enjoyment from your sarcastic and very humorous replies.
You do have a talent for this style of writing!
Your last post partly explains why good golfers (like yourself) haven't been impacted much handicap wise whereas hackers like myself have been.
More investigation required.
I"ll be back with a complete review of the responses to first post.
Try not to get too excited!

[mike]

fmd

[jumbuck]

fmd
It's a conspiracy I tell you. Am I the only one who can see it!
I wonder when those nice men in white coats are coming back to pick me up!:roll:

[Shortylook]

I think it's called clutching at straws!
I must admit that I get tremendous enjoyment from your sarcastic and very humorous replies.
You do have a talent for this style of writing!
Your last post partly explains why good golfers (like yourself) haven't been impacted much handicap wise whereas hackers like myself have been.
More investigation required.
I"ll be back with a complete review of the responses to first post.
Try not to get too excited!
Hey mate is this stuff for real or is a big piss take. From what I gather jumbuck is calling you a cheat cause your a good, hang on great golfer and because you hit the low 70's more often than not your a friend of some golf australia guy. I must of missed something I guess

[jumbuck]

Hey mate is this stuff for real or is a big piss take. From what I gather jumbuck is calling you a cheat cause your a good, hang on great golfer and because you hit the low 70's more often than not your a friend of some golf australia guy. I must of missed something I guess
Where in the hell have you been - you have missed everything.
LeftyHoges has not been labelled anything except a pretty good (very good) golfer on a relatively easy course (PORTLAND GC) slope off the white is 113 of the blue 120. I have been arguing that the new handicap system is stuffing up the enjoyment of golf as it is too penalising (ie lowering handicaps ) by the ridiculous formula they have come up with.
Please don't take my posts as too serious as I am not the slightest bit serious about much at all. (except for this new stupid handicap system)
I've got to an age where when you see bullshit you say that's bullshit. That's all - if anyone is offended (LEFTY isn't) stiff.

[LeftyHoges]

Where in the hell have you been - you have missed everything.
LeftyHoges has not been labelled anything except a pretty good (very good) golfer on a relatively easy course (PORTLAND GC) slope off the white is 113 of the blue 120. I have been arguing that the new handicap system is stuffing up the enjoyment of golf as it is too penalising (ie lowering handicaps ) by the ridiculous formula they have come up with.
Please don't take my posts as too serious as I am not the slightest bit serious about much at all. (except for this new stupid handicap system)
I've got to an age where when you see bullshit you say that's bullshit. That's all - if anyone is offended (LEFTY isn't) stiff.

Just as an aside, we don't have white tees. I don't know where that rating comes from. And slope means nothing to me as slope affects higher handicappers, not lower markers. I'm all about the ACR baby!

[oldracer]

Just as an aside, we don't have white tees. I don't know where that rating comes from. And slope means nothing to me as slope affects higher handicappers, not lower markers. I'm all about the ACR baby!is that why I'm crap, I can't read the slope!!!!!!!

[dunteachin]

I think the stats are interesting even if the thread has become less so. I need some clarification. One of the blokes I play with is off 19 (one round off 20). In his current 20 rounds he has scored 36 points only once. He has lost 0.7 off his GA handicap. In those 20 rounds he has played better than his GA handicap 5 times. Which statistic do we use, 5% or 25%?

[jimandr]

It is a bit confusing isn't it.

I used the DSR as the base, so if the DSR was 72, I needed 36 to equal, but if it was 71, I needed 37. What I did not do was to take into account the fractions of a shot, or the number of times my handicap reduced after a game.

My Wednesday game is a perfect example of the various possibilities. I had 37 points on a DSR of 71, so I considered that to be equalling the handicap. The actual played to figure showed me as playing to 8.8, even though my actual is 8.5, so by that measure I didn't equal. But I actually lost 0.3 off my handicap as a result of the round.

Of course, none of this really matters when we are talking about small sample sizes. I'd say a comparison over 200 rounds might mean something, but for most of us that is a four year period (or more). So many things can change over such a long period of time that trying to measure yourself against the national average means nothing.

So in dunteachin's example, it sounds like his course rates over par quite a bit, otherwise he wouldn't be losing shots. I'd vote for 25%.

What does matter is whether I'm enjoying my golf under this system. Jumbuck is not, but I am.

I just wish I could play a bit better.

[mike]

Here's what I do.


I play golf and work out my nett score or stableford score based on my handicap that day.



The end.

[mrbluu]

Here's what I do.


I play golf and work out my nett score or stableford score based on my handicap that day.



The end.

Slow down Mike, u are losing me :D