or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What would you shoot at Augusta on Sunday?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What would you shoot at Augusta on Sunday? - Page 4

post #55 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran123 View Post
 

 

The slope rating came from the guy who invented the Slope rating ( Dean Knuth ) - so I don't know what to tell you

 

This is what he took into account:

 

RATING AUGUSTA NATIONAL
Following the USGA formula for rating courses, I graded each hole at Augusta National for 10 obstacle factors on a scale of 0 to 10. The rating criteria:
1. Topography. Difficulty of stance in the landing area and the vertical angle of shots to the green from the landing area. The par-4 11th, with a downhill stance and long downhill second shot, gets the highest rating, a 7.
2. Fairway. The effective target size of the landing area with the hole length factored. The 465-yard 18th, with a full dogleg right that squeezes the landing area between large fairway bunkers to the left and trees to the right, also gets a 7 rating.
3. Recoverability and rough. The par-3 12th rates highest with a 6. No U.S. Open rough at Augusta National keeps this rating category from being in the Open range of 7s to 9s.
4. Out-of-bounds. Out-of-bounds or extreme rough near the landing area and green. Nothing higher than a 2.
5. Water hazards. Difficulty of this hazard as it comes into play. The par-5 13th is an 8 with water running along the left, forcing drives toward the right trees. For those going for the green in two, there is a very difficult crossing stream that catches shots coming up short, and the green slopes toward the water and is squeezed by bunkers in the back.
6. Trees. Strategic location of trees, size and height, and their effect on drives and approach shots. The 18th leads with a 7.
7. Bunkers. Location, size, depth of bunkers relative to landing area and green target difficulty. The 18th again rates highest with a 7. The fairway bunkers on the left are forced into play by the dogleg and right-side trees. The approach from the deep fairway bunkers is a very difficult uphill shot, and the greenside bunkers are deep and strategically placed.
8. Green target. Getting onto greens in regulation, affected by the size, firmness and shape of a green in relation to the length of the approach shot. A tie with 8s for the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 18th holes. The greens have multiple small target areas depending on the hole placement, with difficult approach shots.
9. Green surface. The slope, contour and speed of the green. This is one of the most notable features of the course during the Masters. Holes 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 all qualify as 9s with difficult hole placements, high contours and swift Stimpmeter speeds.
10. Psychological. The mental effect on score created by very difficult obstacles near the target areas. Holes 1 and 18 are both 8s. The starting hole and the finishing hole always qualify for some values, but both of these par 4s have a collection of highly rated obstacles, giving an overall mental impact.

 

I know who Knuth is......and I'm no Dean Knuth, but 137 just feels awfully low to me.  What's not factored in is how much more difficult that course is from the courses that most of us play and establish our handicaps on.  The 10 hcp that plays Bethpage Black as his home course is likely to score a lot better than the 10 hcp that plays his local 69.2 / 118 muni all the time......

post #56 of 229
Quote:
 Just including effective playing length from elevation, doglegs and roll, I estimated the yardage rating before last year's tournament at 74.7. All obstacle ratings of 0 to 10 go into a USGA formula that becomes a "scratch obstacle stroke value." In Augusta National's case, that produces a whopping 3.4 additional strokes, for an unofficial rating of 78.1 -- up from 76.2 in 1990 and still among the top 10 in the country.

 

78.1 is a very high rating. Plays a good 6.1 strokes harder than par. By USGA definition that means a scratch golfer would shoot around a 78. 

 

Given I am a 7 handicap (rounding up, sandbagging), With a slope of 137 my handicap for the course would be at 8. So I would get 8+6 = 14 strokes more, so around an 86. I put down 88, not a bad guess.  (At least I think I am doing the math right on that, looks good to me)

post #57 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

I don't know that I believe it.  137 slope with the tournament setup strikes me as awfully low......  The speed and contour of the greens, the elevation changes......I think it's harder than that for the mid-higher hcp player.  Is green speed factored into slope computation?  I really don't even think that I'd break 90 on average.  Then again, for most of us schlubs, the back tees are going to take a lot of the trouble off the tee out of play.....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran123 View Post
 

 

The slope rating came from the guy who invented the Slope rating ( Dean Knuth ) - so I don't know what to tell you

 

This is what he took into account:

 

RATING AUGUSTA NATIONAL
Following the USGA formula for rating courses, I graded each hole at Augusta National for 10 obstacle factors on a scale of 0 to 10. The rating criteria:
1. Topography. Difficulty of stance in the landing area and the vertical angle of shots to the green from the landing area. The par-4 11th, with a downhill stance and long downhill second shot, gets the highest rating, a 7.
2. Fairway. The effective target size of the landing area with the hole length factored. The 465-yard 18th, with a full dogleg right that squeezes the landing area between large fairway bunkers to the left and trees to the right, also gets a 7 rating.
3. Recoverability and rough. The par-3 12th rates highest with a 6. No U.S. Open rough at Augusta National keeps this rating category from being in the Open range of 7s to 9s.
4. Out-of-bounds. Out-of-bounds or extreme rough near the landing area and green. Nothing higher than a 2.
5. Water hazards. Difficulty of this hazard as it comes into play. The par-5 13th is an 8 with water running along the left, forcing drives toward the right trees. For those going for the green in two, there is a very difficult crossing stream that catches shots coming up short, and the green slopes toward the water and is squeezed by bunkers in the back.
6. Trees. Strategic location of trees, size and height, and their effect on drives and approach shots. The 18th leads with a 7.
7. Bunkers. Location, size, depth of bunkers relative to landing area and green target difficulty. The 18th again rates highest with a 7. The fairway bunkers on the left are forced into play by the dogleg and right-side trees. The approach from the deep fairway bunkers is a very difficult uphill shot, and the greenside bunkers are deep and strategically placed.
8. Green target. Getting onto greens in regulation, affected by the size, firmness and shape of a green in relation to the length of the approach shot. A tie with 8s for the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 18th holes. The greens have multiple small target areas depending on the hole placement, with difficult approach shots.
9. Green surface. The slope, contour and speed of the green. This is one of the most notable features of the course during the Masters. Holes 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 all qualify as 9s with difficult hole placements, high contours and swift Stimpmeter speeds.
10. Psychological. The mental effect on score created by very difficult obstacles near the target areas. Holes 1 and 18 are both 8s. The starting hole and the finishing hole always qualify for some values, but both of these par 4s have a collection of highly rated obstacles, giving an overall mental impact.

I'm with you.  I don't buy it.  I see how it was calculated, but I don't feel it would reflect the real scores out there.  

 

There are PGA players that shoot in the 80's every year on Sunday there.  That's another reason I don't buy the math.  And they aren't guys in contention usually, so they aren't feeling much pressure.  I find it hard to believe that a lot of guys here would shoot better than that.  

 

Here's a list of guys that didn't break 80 during at least 1 round, just in the last few years. I only picked the more prominent guys. There are tons more:

 

Zach Johnson  (eh hmm)

Stewart Cink

Miguel Jimenez

Sabbatini

Darren Clarke

Tim Clark

Gary Woodland

Henrik Stenson

Matsuyama

 

And these are guys that had played the course many times, previously. You would be teeing it up with no local knowledge or experience on the course.  That's not getting factored in here.  I'm gonna stand behind my comment that this chart is bologna. I think for anyone on this forum to break 90, would be amazing.  


Edited by albatross - 4/9/14 at 11:41am
post #58 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

I know who Knuth is......and I'm no Dean Knuth, but 137 just feels awfully low to me.  What's not factored in is how much more difficult that course is from the courses that most of us play and establish our handicaps on.

 

That's exactly what's factored in. That's what the entire handicap system is based on.

 

You want to argue with the guy that invented it, go ahead. Also, the course has changed a bit since 2001 or whenever that thing is from. But it's probably a lot closer to 137 or whatever than you're imagining. Pine straw is about the worst thing you can find except for a few bits of water.

 

Perhaps you're not giving enough weight to the 78.1. Remember, that's the starting point from which slope is based. A 69.4/137 course is much easier - even for the 18 handicapper - than a 78.1/137 course.

 

I think that's probably what isn't quite connecting for you at the moment.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

The 10 hcp that plays Bethpage Black as his home course is likely to score a lot better than the 10 hcp that plays his local 69.2 / 118 muni all the time......

 

If the handicap system is set up correctly, you're precisely wrong there. A 10 is a 10 is a 10.

 

And of course I'm talking about indexes, not course handicaps, but I know you well enough to know that you are too.

 


 

You can't talk about PGA Tour players either. Remember your handicap is your potential. A 0.0 would only need to shoot 78 half the time.

 

PGA Tour players who occasionally fail to break 80 do so… only occasionally. It's rare. It usually involves making a mess of a hole or two.

 

John Daly just shot 90 somewhere, IIRC. DOesn't mean the course rating for that course should be 94 because PGA Tour players are +4s and John Daly shot 90…

post #59 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by albatross View Post
 

 

I'm with you.  I don't buy it.  I see how it was calculated, but I don't feel it would reflect the real scores out there.  

 

There are PGA players that shoot in the 80's every year on Sunday there.  That's another reason I don't buy the math.  And they aren't guys in contention usually, so they aren't feeling much pressure.  I find it hard to believe that a lot of guys here would shoot better than that.  

 

Here's a list of guys that didn't break 80 during at least 1 round, just in the last few years. I only picked the more prominent guys. There are tons more:

 

Zach Johnson  (eh hmm)

Stewart Cink

Miguel Jimenez

Sabbatini

Darren Clarke

Tim Clark

Gary Woodland

Henrik Stenson

Matsuyama

 

And these are guys that had played the course many times, previously. You would be teeing it up with no local knowledge or experience on the course.  That's not getting factored in here.  I'm gonna stand behind my comment that this chart is bologna. I think for anyone on this forum to break 90, would be amazing.  

 

 

So what? Just because those players had a bad day doesn't mean the course is extremely tough. There are players who shoot in the mid to upper 70's all the the time on tour. Golf is a game of diminishing returns. There is just so low you can shoot. Its really really EASY to shoot a high score. 

 

Guess what, St. Andrews slope and rating is around a 73 / 130

 

Pro golfers play like shit over there all the time. Get over it, these golfers are good, but they can all have their bad days. 

post #60 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

You want to argue with the guy that invented it, go ahead. Also, the course has changed a bit since 2001 or whenever that thing is from. But it's probably a lot closer to 137 or whatever than you're imagining. Pine straw is about the worst thing you can find except for a few bits of water.

 

Perhaps you're not giving enough weight to the 78.1. Remember, that's the starting point from which slope is based. A 69.4/137 course is much easier - even for the 18 handicapper - than a 78.1/137 course.

 

I understand that......really. You know that I'm the world's biggest fan and supporter of the handicap system, but at some point, the disparity in course difficulty between what an individual normally plays and a level they may have never experienced (especially on the greens) seems to transcend the numbers.....and the higher the index, the more so. My current 20 round scoring average is 80.7. I'd like to believe that my average score at Augusta, from more than 800 yds longer than I generally play and greens set up for Masters Sunday would be within 8 strokes of that, but I don't think so.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

If the handicap system is set up correctly, you're precisely wrong there. A 10 is a 10 is a 10.

 

And of course I'm talking about indexes, not course handicaps, but I know you well enough to know that you are too.

 

I know, but the 10 hcp (index) who's never seen a green stimp over 9, and seldom plays where there's any elevation change or much contour on the greens, let alone through-the-green is going to be more impacted by those factors than someone used to them.  And they're both playing off the same CH.

 

At Augusta, for just one round played out of the trunk of the car and the 2 playing straight up, my money goes on the dude who plays out of Bethpage, not the guy who plays out of the local wide-open, flat, slow muni.

post #61 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

I understand that......really. You know that I'm the world's biggest fan and supporter of the handicap system, but at some point, the disparity in course difficulty between what an individual normally plays and a level they may have never experienced (especially on the greens) seems to transcend the numbers.....and the higher the index, the more so. My current 20 round scoring average is 80.7. I'd like to believe that my average score at Augusta, from more than 800 yds longer than I generally play and greens set up for Masters Sunday would be within 8 strokes of that, but I don't think so.

 

 

I know, but the 10 hcp (index) who's never seen a green stimp over 9, and seldom plays where there's any elevation change or much contour on the greens, let alone through-the-green is going to be more impacted by those factors than someone used to them.  And they're both playing off the same CH.

 

At Augusta, for just one round played out of the trunk of the car and the 2 playing straight up, my money goes on the dude who plays out of Bethpage, not the guy who plays out of the local wide-open, flat, slow muni.

 

 

Note, a study was done that shown that amateurs putt better on faster greens. It doesn't take much to learn green speed. Maybe 20 minutes on the practice green. 

Yea of course if you just take the guy who's played Bethpage, and go from car to tee, he's going to have an advantage at first. If you get two equally handicapped golfers, allow them to hit range balls, use the practice green, get use to the speed. I think they would very much even. 

post #62 of 229

No I disagree with that, that amateurs putt better on faster greens.

 

I've played in tournaments where we played at high end country clubs, with very fast greens. And everybody, including me, had a difficult time on the greens. I must have 3 putted at least 6-8 times. Its very difficult, if your used to public courses with slow greens.

post #63 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran123 View Post

 

 

Giant graphic (Click to show)
knuth

 

 

So I was pretty close.  Good driver day with a decent number of short-mid iron approaches on the long par 4s and not too many wild shots lost or in horrible jail, I could shoot low 90s.  More of a wild driver day and I either shoot 100+ still trying to get GIR or maybe shoot mid-high 90s playing a lot of the par 4s as 3-shot holes.

post #64 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motley01 View Post
 

No I disagree with that, that amateurs putt better on faster greens.

 

I've played in tournaments where we played at high end country clubs, with very fast greens. And everybody, including me, had a difficult time on the greens. I must have 3 putted at least 6-8 times. Its very difficult, if your used to public courses with slow greens.

 

Well then learn how to adapt your putting to different green speeds. Heck I went from greens around Stimp 9, to about Stimp 11 with in a week span and it took me 15-20 minutes on the practice green to get dialed in. It is not that hard. Sounds to me you might need to practice this a bit. 

post #65 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motley01 View Post
 

No I disagree with that, that amateurs putt better on faster greens.

 

Disagree all you want - they've done tests and studies. Given time to acclimate, golfers of a wide variety of skill levels putts better on faster greens.

 

The strokes are smaller and putts hold their lines better because greens are smoother, which is particularly important on shorter putts (10 feet and in).

post #66 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motley01 View Post
 

No I disagree with that, that amateurs putt better on faster greens.

 

I've played in tournaments where we played at high end country clubs, with very fast greens. And everybody, including me, had a difficult time on the greens. I must have 3 putted at least 6-8 times. Its very difficult, if your used to public courses with slow greens.

 

I don't know about amateurs in general, but I much prefer fast greens.  I usually play fairly slow muni greens, and on the occasions when I've played nicer courses that have very fast greens I'll usually roll a few downhillers or steep breakers well past the hole to start.  But once I get used to it I much prefer fast greens.  Obviously it places a premium on not ending up above the hole, and steep downhillers are much harder than on slow greens since it's so easy to roll it way past the hole and have an 8 or 10 footer for par.  But in general I find it's easier to start putts on line when you only have to softly touch them, and it's not that hard to adjust your starting speed.

post #67 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Disagree all you want - they've done tests and studies. Given time to acclimate, golfers of a wide variety of skill levels putts better on faster greens.

The strokes are smaller and putts hold their lines better because greens are smoother, which is particularly important on shorter putts (10 feet and in).

Is like to think I can play the course under 144

Also on another note I played a course with much much faster greens that I'm used to and yes I had more issues with tee to green than putting.. Actually got some long ones to fall.. Still shot a 99 oooops
post #68 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Disagree all you want - they've done tests and studies. Given time to acclimate, golfers of a wide variety of skill levels putts better on faster greens.

 

The strokes are smaller and putts hold their lines better because greens are smoother, which is particularly important on shorter putts (10 feet and in).

 

Didn't know there'd been studies to back it up.  That's interesting.  And yeah, I forgot to mention that not only is it easier to start putts on line but they hold the line better for sure.  Nothing so frustrating as a slow green with wobbles where you hit a good 10 foot putt that would easily drop on a fast true green and it wobbles a few times and ends up just off the edge.

post #69 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Well then learn how to adapt your putting to different green speeds. Heck I went from greens around Stimp 9, to about Stimp 11 with in a week span and it took me 15-20 minutes on the practice green to get dialed in. It is not that hard. Sounds to me you might need to practice this a bit. 


My guess is that what most of us would shoot would depend way more on our chipping/pitching ability than our putting.

 

Most of us would miss a lot of greens (may even have to play some par 4s as three shot holes?) and that would actually help our putting in a backhanded sort of way.

 

The better ball strikers would probably end up with more really tough putts.

post #70 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

 

So what? Just because those players had a bad day doesn't mean the course is extremely tough. There are players who shoot in the mid to upper 70's all the the time on tour. Golf is a game of diminishing returns. There is just so low you can shoot. Its really really EASY to shoot a high score. 

 

Guess what, St. Andrews slope and rating is around a 73 / 130

 

Pro golfers play like shit over there all the time. Get over it, these golfers are good, but they can all have their bad days. 

That's exactly my point.  Pro golfers DO have bad days, and I don't think most amateurs are better even on their good days.  If you think you could drive down Magnolia Lane, grab your clubs and play this course with it's Sunday setup and shoot better than let's say Zach Johnson has some rounds, a man that's won the Green Jacket, I think you're delusional.  

 

I don't care what the slope says, it's not a perfect system.  Remember, you're playing the course for the FIRST TIME.  I heard 10 interviews yesterday with guys saying you don't realize how difficult this course is until you get here. Tons of local knowledge.  Have you actually walked Augusta National?  TV doesn't do the undulations justice.  The number of uneven lies in those fairways is unbelievable.  

 

I see your handicap, and you're obviously a solid player, but I don't think a true 6 hcp would ever break 90 the first time playing this course.  

post #71 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

I know who Knuth is......and I'm no Dean Knuth, but 137 just feels awfully low to me.  What's not factored in is how much more difficult that course is from the courses that most of us play and establish our handicaps on.  The 10 hcp that plays Bethpage Black as his home course is likely to score a lot better than the 10 hcp that plays his local 69.2 / 118 muni all the time......

I was about to agree with you because I know, for example, that Torrey Pines has a similar rating on their card to Augusta for everyday play from the tournament tees.  However, I also know that the course is set up tougher for the Farmers than it is the rest of the year, and even harder than that for the US Open, so the ratings/slope for each of those tournament setups should be higher than what's on their scorecard, I would think.

 

However, it says that Knuth did his estimate "in the days leading up to the Masters" so that would lead me to believe that, like Erik said, he already factored all of the "tournament setup" information into the equation.

 

And, let's not forget that although Augusta is hallowed ground and its a major, comparitively, it's not exactly a super hard course.  Throw out Zach Johnson's abberation in 2007 (+1), and the winning score hasn't been worse than -7 since 1989.  And in those 24 years, the winner has been double digits under par 15 times.  5 of the last 11 stroke play tournaments this season have been won by a single digit under par score.

post #72 of 229

I played at Spyglass golf course a few weeks ago.  I overheard one of the marshals saying that the course will play at least 6 strokes higher than what you expect.  Played at Spanish Bay for a tournament and vast majority of players played 6 - 12 strokes higher than their handicap.   It was a casual tournament, most playing the course for the 1st time.   I can see how it can be worse at Augusta on Sunday, if not "a lot" more worse.  So, I ignored the chart and guessed that I will go at least 130 or higher.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What would you shoot at Augusta on Sunday?