There's a lot to like about Mark Ellis' system, but it would be nice to do something more objective, which would allow you to compare with others, and also give you a way to measure your progress over time.
Just for the sake of discussion, consider the complete data set for a round (if you were to record all of it), which would consist of a list of every throw you made, and its distance from the pin. (Define zero distance=in the basket/holed-out.) The tee shot entry will be the same regardless of what happens, so it's a given. If you get a deuce, you'll only need to actually record the distance for a single entry in the list. The quality of a shot can be judged by looking at the subsequent entry or entries...if you holed out on a throw, then there is no next entry (that hole was finished). If you had a long next shot, with little change in distance from the previous shot, then your previous shot was either poor or you had to pitch out of the shule from the shot before that (either way, the badness shows up in the list).
If you were to record all this, then you can judge the quality of any shot by taking the distance entry, subtracting the distance listed in the next shot (or use zero if you holed out), and then dividing again by the entry itself...multiply by 100, and you have the percent ground covered between you and the basket (this is 100% when you put it in the basket). I think this is a useful measure...I'm going to call it the "Q" of the shot.
If you were to make a plot of Q vs. distance for all your shots (sorting them from closest to furthest), then you would be able to see how your ability to cover ground tails off as distance increases. At closer ranges, this would represent putting. You would see Q=100% at close range, and tailing off to Q<100% at further ranges. Inside your "magic circle" everything holes out...you could obtain the magic circle of your round from the list, as being the largest distance below which everything is Q=100%.
Depending on the number of holes, you can count the fraction of made putts in various distance ranges, say 0-10', 10'-20', 20'-30', 30'-40', 40'-50', and so on until you no longer have Q=100%. Then make a list. So, say you made 8/8 putts at 0-10', 9/10 putts at 10'-20', 4/7 putts 20'-30', 1/12 at 30'-40', 0/15 at 40'-50', 1/6 at 50'-60', and none beyond 60'. So you would report 100-90-57-8-0-17.
Anyways, I could go on and on, and this would be about analyzing all the data. But we're instead interested in trying to get something useful and objective without writing all this down and doing a sophisticated analysis...
...will be thinking about this, Steve. Fun stuff.
Drivers: Starlite Wraith (158g), Gummy Champion Leopard (150g), 1st Run Z-Talon (150g)
Mid-Range: Star Classic Roc (146g), R-Pro Roc (157g)
Putt/Approach: Legacy Protege Clozer (158g), Glow DX Aviar (150g)