Comments on: Par is a Good Score http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score Golf News, Reviews, and Commentary Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:22:24 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Agmines http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6197 Agmines Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:00:05 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6197 :mrgreen: You got it dead on right regarding a +5 and +6 US Open finish. Oakmont is the closest Golf Course in America to Saint Andrews. Everyone would have prefer that Tiger Woods would join Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus and Johnny Miller, but that is the breaks. In 2016, the US Open returns to Oakmont, Tiger will have another chance to play and win on the Toughest Course in America, bar none! :razz: [quote comment="6101"]That's interesting stuff. I would never have guessed that last year was the first since 1978 for an over-par winner. The course rating at Oakmont is 78.3, which I would think is higher than most US Opens, but I haven't checked. I'd guess the USGA would be happy with a score anywhere from par to +5 or +6. I just hope they haven't made it too difficult, with the guys struggling to have a decent round.[/quote] :mrgreen: You got it dead on right regarding a +5 and +6 US Open finish. Oakmont is the closest Golf Course in America to Saint Andrews. Everyone would have prefer that Tiger Woods would join Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus and Johnny Miller, but that is the breaks.

In 2016, the US Open returns to Oakmont, Tiger will have another chance to play and win on the Toughest Course in America, bar none! :razz:

will said on June 12, 2007:

That's interesting stuff. I would never have guessed that last year was the first since 1978 for an over-par winner.

The course rating at Oakmont is 78.3, which I would think is higher than most US Opens, but I haven't checked. I'd guess the USGA would be happy with a score anywhere from par to +5 or +6. I just hope they haven't made it too difficult, with the guys struggling to have a decent round.

]]> By: Harry Solomon http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6131 Harry Solomon Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:00:11 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6131 [quote comment="6103"]Great article, Harry. Have you thought of grouping the numbers for specific courses and seeing what the trend is there?[/quote] No I haven't looked at that yet. I'm going to take a quick look to see if it would be possible. Usually for any group of data under 8 data points its not very reliable and with Oakmont having it the most at 8 this year, I do not think it will yield any good results. JP Bouffard said on June 12, 2007:

Great article, Harry. Have you thought of grouping the numbers for specific courses and seeing what the trend is there?

No I haven't looked at that yet. I'm going to take a quick look to see if it would be possible. Usually for any group of data under 8 data points its not very reliable and with Oakmont having it the most at 8 this year, I do not think it will yield any good results.

]]> By: Cuneo http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6130 Cuneo Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:58:22 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6130 nice article, go VJ! nice article, go VJ!

]]> By: JP Bouffard http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6103 JP Bouffard Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:29:27 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6103 Great article, Harry. Have you thought of grouping the numbers for specific courses and seeing what the trend is there? It's difficult to compare apples to apples even this way, since they redesign the courses for the opens, but it could be revealing. I've done some similar looking at Masters scoring, which is a better study given that the course was relatively unchanged for several years. Great article, Harry. Have you thought of grouping the numbers for specific courses and seeing what the trend is there?

It's difficult to compare apples to apples even this way, since they redesign the courses for the opens, but it could be revealing. I've done some similar looking at Masters scoring, which is a better study given that the course was relatively unchanged for several years.

]]> By: will http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6101 will Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:29:19 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/par_is_a_good_score#comment-6101 That's interesting stuff. I would never have guessed that last year was the first since 1978 for an over-par winner. The course rating at Oakmont is 78.3, which I would think is higher than most US Opens, but I haven't checked. I'd guess the USGA would be happy with a score anywhere from par to +5 or +6. I just hope they haven't made it too difficult, with the guys struggling to have a decent round. That's interesting stuff. I would never have guessed that last year was the first since 1978 for an over-par winner.

The course rating at Oakmont is 78.3, which I would think is higher than most US Opens, but I haven't checked. I'd guess the USGA would be happy with a score anywhere from par to +5 or +6. I just hope they haven't made it too difficult, with the guys struggling to have a decent round.

]]>