What Ross Smith’s 73% Finishing Figure Actually Measures

Ross Smith’s reported 73% checkout rate came in his 8–2 win over Gary Anderson in the Hungarian Darts Trophy final on 30 August 2026. It means he converted roughly three-quarters of his attempts at a finishing double in that match—not three-quarters of all his darts, and not his season-long finishing rate. Eight successful finishes at a rounded 73% imply eight checkouts from 11 attempts. Sky Sports’ final report records the result and doubles percentage; the 11 attempts are reconstructed from those figures, not quoted from a dart-by-dart tally.

Enter successful finishes and total finishing attempts to calculate the rate; Smith’s reconstructed final figures are loaded.

Eight Finishes From 11 Attempts Explain The 73%

Smith won eight legs, so he made eight successful finishing darts. Dividing those eight successes by 11 attempts gives 72.73%, which rounds to 73% when reported as a whole percentage.

Final Statistic	Value	Evidence
Successful finishes	8	Eight legs won
Finishing attempts	11	Reconstructed
Missed finishing attempts	3	11 minus 8
Checkout rate	72.73%	8 divided by 11

The distinction between reported and reconstructed figures matters. The match result establishes eight successful finishes. The published percentage supplies the relationship between those finishes and the total attempts. Together, assuming ordinary rounding to the nearest whole percentage, they identify the denominator.

The official PDC Europe report also confirms the 8–2 result, a 101 average and a doubles rate just under 73%. That supports the interpretation of 73% as a rounded figure rather than an exact fraction.

With eight successes, the neighbouring possible attempt counts are easy to check. Eight from ten would be 80%; eight from 12 would be 66.67%. Neither rounds to 73%. Eleven is therefore not an arbitrary guess at how many doubles Smith threw: it is the whole-number attempt count that fits the reported result and rate.

There is still a limit to what that reconstruction establishes. It gives an implied total of three unsuccessful finishing attempts across the match. It does not identify which legs contained those misses, which doubles he missed, or whether any were thrown in legs Anderson eventually won. Those details require a leg-by-leg or dart-by-dart record that the supplied reports do not provide.

A Checkout Attempt Is A Dart That Can Finish The Leg

For the statistic discussed here, checkout percentage is successful finishing darts divided by total darts attempted at a finish, multiplied by 100.

The denominator includes successful attempts and unsuccessful attempts. It is not the number of visits in which a player had a finish available. Nor is it every dart thrown while the player was on a score that could be checked out.

Take the draft’s straightforward example: a player has 40 left, misses double 20 with the first two darts, then hits double 20 with the third. That is one completed checkout from three finishing attempts, producing 33.33%. The player won the leg, but two of the three darts aimed at ending it failed.

Now consider 60 left. A single 20 sets up double 20, and the next dart hits that double. Two darts were used to clear the score, but only one was an attempt to finish. The sequence contributes one successful checkout from one attempt, not one from two.

This is why the description “doubles percentage” is useful. It directs attention to conversion at the finishing target, rather than to the entire scoring route. A setup dart can be essential to the checkout without belonging in the finishing-attempt denominator.

The same separation applies to a missed setup dart. Failing to leave the intended double can spoil a visit, but it is not automatically a failed dart at a finishing double. You need to distinguish between a dart that prepares a finish and a dart that attempts to complete it.

For Smith’s final, the reconstructed 11 attempts therefore describe his opportunities at the finishing target. They do not imply that he used only 11 darts in all his checkout visits. The preceding scoring and setup darts sit outside that particular count.

His 80% Leg-Win Rate Is A Different Statistic

There were ten legs in the final. Smith won eight of them, so his leg-win rate was 80%: eight divided by ten.

That denominator answers a different question. It counts legs played, whereas checkout percentage counts darts attempted at a finish. A leg can contain several finishing attempts, or a player can lose it without getting an attempt at all.

Measure	Calculation	Result
Leg-win rate	8 wins ÷ 10 legs	80%
Checkout rate	8 finishes ÷ 11 attempts	72.73%

Both figures can be correct because they describe different parts of the same performance. The 8–2 score tells you how decisively Smith won the contest. The checkout percentage tells you how efficiently he converted his finishing attempts.

Neither number is a percentage of all darts thrown. That would require a completely different denominator, including scoring darts and setup darts. Substituting ten legs or total darts for the 11 finishing attempts would change the measure rather than clarify it.

There is also no contradiction between winning eight legs and missing three finishing darts. A missed double need not cost the leg: the player may finish with a later dart in the same visit or return to the board. Conversely, a miss may occur in a leg the opponent takes. The aggregate percentage alone cannot separate those situations.

This is the main reading error to avoid in the headline figure. “Smith finished at 73%” describes conversion of finishing attempts. “Smith won 80% of the legs” describes the match outcome. Neither can replace the other.

The Large Checkouts Add Context, Not Another Denominator

Smith’s finishing was not limited to clearing small remaining scores. According to Sporting News’ match report, he established a 2–1 lead with 103 and 124 checkouts and secured the title with an 11-dart break of throw.

Those details help describe the performance behind the percentage. The 103 and 124 were successful visits that cleared substantial remaining totals. The closing 11-dart leg shows that he finished the match with a quick break, rather than merely protecting an existing lead on his own throw.

But checkout size and checkout percentage remain separate measures. A successful 124 checkout contributes one successful finishing dart to the percentage, just as a successful double 20 does. The scoring darts used to reach the final double do not become extra finishing attempts simply because the starting score was higher.

The reports supplied here do not give the exact dart routes for those two checkouts. There is no need to invent them to explain the statistic. Their relevance is that Smith completed those finishes; their precise contribution to a dart-by-dart reconstruction would require the missing sequence information.

Likewise, an 11-dart leg is not the same as 11 checkout attempts. The first figure counts all darts needed to win that particular leg. The reconstructed 11-attempt denominator counts darts at a finish across the entire final. Their matching numbers are incidental, not evidence that they measure the same thing.

One Extra Miss Would Have Lowered The Rate To 66.67%

Eleven finishing attempts are a small denominator. Keeping Smith’s eight successes but adding one unsuccessful attempt changes the calculation to eight divided by 12, or 66.67%.

That is a hypothetical comparison, not an additional miss reported in the final. It shows how much movement one dart can create when a percentage comes from relatively few attempts.

Finishing Record	Rate	Interpretation
8 from 11	72.73%	Reconstructed final
8 from 12	66.67%	One extra miss

The additional miss would lower the rate by about 6.06 percentage points without changing the number of successful finishes. Smith would still have eight checkouts in this comparison; the denominator would simply contain one more failed attempt.

That sensitivity does not make the actual performance less efficient. Eight successes from 11 attempts is a strong conversion record for that match. It does mean that the headline percentage should stay attached to its sample: one final, with 11 implied attempts.

The supplied evidence gives no season-long numerator or denominator for Smith. It therefore cannot establish that he normally finishes at 73%, that this was his season average, or that the figure describes his career. Those claims would need counts from the relevant longer period.

Nor does this one match establish a universal professional benchmark. It is a specific player’s performance in a specific final. A long-run league record should not be treated as directly equivalent to a standout ten-leg match simply because both can be expressed as percentages.

The 101 Average Measures Scoring Across The Match

The PDC Europe report’s 101 three-dart average supplies another view of Smith’s final. The overall average measures points scored per three darts across the match, including finishing darts. Checkout percentage isolates whether attempts at the finish succeeded.

A missed double can affect both statistics, but in different ways. It contributes an unsuccessful finishing attempt to the checkout calculation. In the overall average, the dart is part of the broader accounting of points and darts thrown.

That overlap does not make the measures interchangeable. You cannot derive a 73% checkout rate from a 101 average, or a 101 average from eight finishes in 11 attempts. The scoring record needed for the average is not contained in the checkout fraction.

Read together, the reported figures describe a final in which Smith had a 101 overall average and converted nearly three-quarters of his finishing attempts. They do not tell you how every visit unfolded, or how his scoring before reaching a finish compared with his finishing itself.

Our guide to first-nine average versus checkout percentage explains that distinction more closely. First-nine average separates the opening scoring phase from the later finish; the overall match average does not isolate those phases in the same way.

Compare Your Finishing Using Pooled Attempt Counts

For a pub or league comparison, the useful record is not just “I won this many legs.” Record successful finishes and every unsuccessful finishing attempt, including attempts in legs you lose. Leaving out misses from lost legs would make the denominator incomplete and the rate look better than the recorded attempts justify.

Across several matches, add the successful finishes together, add the attempts together, then divide those totals. Do not simply average the displayed match percentages unless the attempt counts are equal.

The two records already used above illustrate the difference. Suppose one match produced eight finishes from 11 attempts and another produced eight from 12. This is an arithmetic example, not a claim about another Smith match. Together they produce 16 finishes from 23 attempts, or 69.57%.

A simple mean of 72.73% and 66.67% would instead give approximately 69.70%. It differs because it gives both matches equal weight even though the second contains more finishing attempts. Pooling the counts makes every attempt carry the same weight.

Keep the scope attached to your result: the competition, matches included and total attempts. Smith’s 73% is best read the same way—as a rounded description of eight successful finishes from an implied 11 attempts in the Hungarian Darts Trophy final, not a general statement about his finishing whenever he plays.