|
By:
Nope, you'd get a lower average if you checked out the 81 in 3 darts rather than 2.
|
|
By:
No.
Total points scored divided by total number of darts thrown multiplied by three. 136.6 and 125.3 in your example. |
|
By:
Thanks for that, so like I suggested in the opening topic, rather than it being a 3 dart average (or visit average) its actually a one dart average multiplied by 3
|
|
By:
Splitting hairs imo.
|
|
By:
over the amount of legs/sets that they play then i'd probably agree, I just think that the terminology of '3 dart average' is misleading. if someone comes to the bad with three darts in there hand wanting 10 and they hit double 12 and bust with the first dart they've only threw one but wasted three
|
|
By:
All it is looking to do is to provide a rudimentary comparison measure for the benefit of tv, can't remember them talking about three dart averages when Jocky ruled the world.
|
|
By:
Very true.
If they come to the board with three darts in hand needing tops, and they get it first dart, that would theoretically average them 120 too. |
|
By:
The first nine dart average seemed to get used quite a lot back then, didn't it?
|
|
By:
a bit too young to remember the days of jockey Wilson, my first wold championship final viewing was taylor v manley. then a few years later I had £23 on whitlock at 120 and thought I was a genius. the 9 dart average that you refer to would be like a scoring average then I suppose
|
|
By:
From what I remember, they showed the overall average, plus their first nine dart average too. I suppose it was to make the scoring look even better.
|
|
By:
thanks for the help, enjoy the final!
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
correct ww
|