or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Anyone ever think about this when talking about the "Magic 59" score?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone ever think about this when talking about the "Magic 59" score? - Page 2

post #19 of 27

I don't mind using it as a way to rate which round of 59 was better than the other. Juryk's 59 was on a par 71, so he was only 12 under. Even Ryo's 58 on the Japan golf tour was on a par 70 course. 

 

There has only been five -13 scores in a golf tour sanctioned event.

 

Al Geiberger (PGA Tour)

Chip Beck (PGA Tour)

Notah Begay III (Nike Tour)

David Duval (PGA Tour)

Annika Sorestam (LPGA)

 

So only 3 on PGA Tour. 

 

Honestly, I like looking at how many under they are at. Even Annika talked about the perfect round being 18 under par, hit every fairway, hit every green, make every one putt for birdie. Though she said that would give you a 54, well if you do that on a par 70, then your at a 52. Is 52 better than a 54, I wouldn't say so. It still is 18 under par. I think that makes it easier to compare 

post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 Is 52 better than a 54, I wouldn't say so.

Sure ... if the course is almost 2 shots harder, then scoring 2 shots better is monumentally more impressive.

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

But I see his point, too.  Even though courses have different ratings and conditions - I'd still think of a 'world record' or something similar as an under par score b/c of the different pars.  I'd find it slightly better than the raw 59.

Even in the specific example I gave?  David Duval played a course that was 337 yards SHORTER and had a rating of 1.7 (whoops, just realized my math mistake earlier, sorry about that) shots EASIER, albeit with a slightly higher slope.

 

This means that REGARDLESS of the par shown, experts believe that a scratch player would have a tougher time, by over 1.5 shots on average, on the par 70 course.

 

I guess you either don't understand the USGA rating system OR perhaps you just don't trust it.

 

No - I get you.  I understand the rating system and I trust it.

 

You have taken it to an even more precise level and I totally agree with you that taking as many conditions and ratings into account as possible would be best to determine which round is more impressive than another.  Appleby's is better.  And if all the par 70's have a higher rating than all of the par 72's where these 59's took place because of the par 5's becoming par 4's thing - then there is no validity to the original post.  

 

But it seems to me that most PGA events are 72's (not sure).  If half of the PGA 59's are on Par 70/71 courses, they are possibly over represented.  Maybe because it is easier to shoot 59 on a par 70?  It is a pretty small data set - so it could be a coincidence.

 

But without more knowledge, I would guess the methods to judge them is:

Least Accurate - Stroke Score without par or rating taken into account

Slightly More Accurate, but beginning to lose an audience because 13 isn't a round number - Under Par Score

Really accurate, but most people don't care to take it that far - The GoflingDad / Course Rating Analysis

 

Also, I might have transferred some of my own experience (the par 70 at my home course mentioned above) to these 59's these guys.  But I always feel I've left something out to say I shot 89 - when I wouldn't have broken 90 on a par 72.   I was kind of carrying this concept to these record rounds.  Maybe that is off topic.

 

FWIW - when talking to friends of mine that have and understand handicaps, we kind of talk in differentials, which is more or less the GoflingDad / Course Rating Analysis method.  When playing different courses, slopes, tees, etc - differentials is really the best way to convey how well we played.  And I prefer talking about it in those terms.  But so few people have handicaps really.

 

Full disclosure - it is possible I'm not totally following all the scenarios as close as I normally would.  I'm supposedly watching a pretty technical yet incredibly boring webinar on configuring our phone system.  I probably should have just stayed out of this.  This might be the worst post I've ever written.

post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

 

 

 

My view is, at least as far as the PGA tour goes, all 59's are basically equal.  Inasmuch as we don't split hairs over a guy who hits 50 home runs as a righty playing for the Red Sox versus a guy who hits 50 as a lefty playing for the Padres.  Even though, technically, 50 homers to right field in Petco Park is astronomically harder than 50 to left in Fenway, we don't account for that.  We simply count homers.

 

Same is true in golf.  Yes, perhaps if you want to really analyze it, the courses where the guys shoot 59 on a par 70 might have slightly lower ratings than the courses that are par 71 or 72 (I actually don't know ... maybe I'll try and go research it) but not enough to make it worth our while to care.

 

----------------------

 

 

 

Good analogy.

 

59 is just a number.  It does not really stand for how hard the accomplishment was.

post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 

 

Good analogy.

 

59 is just a number.  It does not really stand for how hard the accomplishment was.

Right ... it is what it is.  A milestone.  A potentially really, really, really impressive (or perhaps not) feat.

 

Other numbers can be a lot more impressive.  Say, a 63 in the final round of a US Open.  Although I'm not sure if anybody has ever done that.  You'd think if they have, they'd want to remind us of it, like a thousand times, but, well, anyways ... :-P

 

Certainly it can be argued that the 59's from yesterday were, due to the LCP, the least impressive of all, but whatever, they were still 59's.

post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

This is pretty small scale in the scheme of things, but I never understood why 59 was viewed as the "magic number" for golf when only 3 of the 6 PGA Tour 59 rounds were shot on par 72 courses. The difference between 11 under and 13 under is monumental. It's almost like giving an MLB pitcher the same credit for throwing a no-hitter through 8 innings and 9. I get it - writing a "5" as the first digit on your 18 hole tally is amazing, but when I run for president, I'm going to add "13 not 59" to my campaign platform, as in 13 under is what's more impressive, not 59. I don;t expect to get a kickstarter of the month award for this one, but I wondered who had thoughts on it.

 

59 is 59..

 

510 yard par 4...

 

504 yard par 5..

 

No, it isn't - not when you are comparing scoring accomplishments.  Your score's relationship to par is a more significant number.  I never heard of -11 beating -13 on the leaderboard.  59 will always be considered as a great round, but no matter how you view it, -13 rolls off the tongue better than -11.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

So you're saying the 510 yard par 4 13th at Bethpage Black is equal to the 510 yard par 5 I played at my local muni last week?

Basically, yes.  Or better yet ... the 515 yard par 4 sixth at Torrey Pines (during the US Open) is equal to the 515 yard par 5 sixth at my local muni.  (Hint:  The local muni I'm talking about IS Torrey Pines.)

 

Par is completely arbitrary.  If you watch a lot of golf on TV, try and think of how many times the announcers casually mention "this is played as a par 5 for the members," or something along those lines.

 

So a 59 during the US Open (lets ignore all of the other things they do to make the course more difficult that week, for the sake of simplicity) is not as good as a 59 during the Farmers Insurance Open because it's only -12, instead of -13?  Of course not.  That's ridiculous.

 

So, I agree with what @14ledo81 said ... a 59 in a 59 is a 59.

 

59 may be 59, but -13 isn't -11.  If you start rating by how difficult the par 4 or par 5 holes are, then you'll have to rewrite all of the record books according to what course, or what hole or what tournament or how the course was set up, or..... well you get my drift.  

 

It's too bad that, for the pros, true par 5 holes have become something of an endangered species.  It seems like there is no such thing any more unless they miss the fairway with the tee shot.

post #25 of 27
Thread Starter 

You all make good points. Thanks for the insight. When I shoot a 59 on a par 70 I'll come back here and crow about how it's just as impressive as a par 72 59. Guess I'd better turn on my XBox and fire up TW14. :-D

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

You all make good points. Thanks for the insight. When I shoot a 59 on a par 70 I'll come back here and crow about how it's just as impressive as a par 72 59. Guess I'd better turn on my XBox and fire up TW14. :-D

Haha!!!  I like the attitude!  It's all about confidence, right? :beer:

post #27 of 27

Check out this scorecard:

 

 

Notice that the black tees are 349 yards longer than the gold tees.  Also notice that the black tees are rated 1.5 strokes harder and 5 "slope" points higher than the gold tees.

 

Now ... look at the 17th hole.  Instead of being a 490-510 yard par 5, the tees are actually pushed up to match the blues and they call it a par 4.

 

Would anybody out there actually be more impressed by a -13 from the golds than a -12 from the blacks?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Anyone ever think about this when talking about the "Magic 59" score?