2019 PGA Championship

[pganapathy]

Other than Brooks (-7) and Danny Lee (-6) everybody else has relatively struggled with a couple of guys at -3 and only 20 guys in total under par.  Is the course playing that hard, or is it just bad play/rust on the part of the others.  Obviously it will evolve over 4 days, but for now it looks like a 2 horse race.  And both of them have played amazing golf.  Something like +10 or +11.  WOW

[ChrisP]

6 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

Other than Brooks (-7) and Danny Lee (-6) everybody else has relatively struggled with a couple of guys at -3 and only 20 guys in total under par.  Is the course playing that hard, or is it just bad play/rust on the part of the others.  Obviously it will evolve over 4 days, but for now it looks like a 2 horse race.  And both of them have played amazing golf.  Something like +10 or +11.  WOW

It’s hitting in the rough that’s given these guys problems. Lot of gouging out today from what I’ve seen. Plus the course is long and there’s only two par-5s, one which isn’t reachable. Not an easy course even with it soft.

Edited May 16, 2019 by ChrisP

[onthehunt526]

12 minutes ago, famousdavis said:

One of my greatest attributes (and there are many) is that I have the ability to take the long view.  Whilst others on this and every other forum were quick to write Tiger off, I was sitting in my Harvey Livingston custom leather recliner with scotch in hand, patiently waiting for his predictable resurgence.  Sure enough, I was there to scoff at others in the men's grill as they were aghast, whilst watching Tiger prevail at the Masters.  

This Koepka fellow's game has it's flaws and I suspect these shall be revealed during tomorrow and Saturday's round.  I have my reservations about the bloke's deportment, in that his smuggy blandness can only be compared to that of an overdone filet.  

Mark my words, gents.  This battle is not over.  

Koepka is too aggressive at times. He gets away with it sometimes. Others he doesn't. His putting is the key. If he putts like today, he's nearly unbeatable. If he putts like the two putts on 17 and 18 at the Masters he's fallible.

10 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

Other than Brooks (-7) and Danny Lee (-6) everybody else has relatively struggled with a couple of guys at -3 and only 20 guys in total under par.  Is the course playing that hard, or is it just bad play/rust on the part of the others.  Obviously it will evolve over 4 days, but for now it looks like a 2 horse race.  And both of them have played amazing golf.  Something like +10 or +11.  WOW

Lee and Koepka can't keep this pace up. Bethpage will show it's teeth. Something in the 270s will win the PGA. That's a promise.

[leftybutnotPM]

35 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

Other than Brooks (-7) and Danny Lee (-6) everybody else has relatively struggled with a couple of guys at -3 and only 20 guys in total under par.  Is the course playing that hard, or is it just bad play/rust on the part of the others.  Obviously it will evolve over 4 days, but for now it looks like a 2 horse race.  And both of them have played amazing golf.  Something like +10 or +11.  WOW

Do you not know where they are playing/? Miss the fairway and you pretty much lose a shot.

2 horse race? Just wait for the dreaded 10 shot round 1 v round 2 differential to kick in.

Edited May 16, 2019 by leftybutnotPM

[ChrisP]

9 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

Do you not know where they are playing/? Miss the fairway and you pretty much lose a shot.

2 horse race? Just wait for the dreaded 10 shot round 1 v round 2 differential to kick in.

Lee maybe. Koepka? Have you seen what he’s done in majors over the last year? I wouldn’t count on it. But we’ll see.

[leftybutnotPM]

1 minute ago, ChrisP said:

Lee maybe. Koepka? Have you seen what he’s done in majors over the last year? I wouldn’t count on it. But we’ll see.

You can be pretty sure I'm not talking about Koepka. Lee is one of my favourite players, but it ain't no 2 horse race.

Edited May 16, 2019 by leftybutnotPM

[sofingaw]

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

Tiger will bounce back with a solid 67 or so tomorrow. Brooks is NOT shooting 63 again tomorrow.

I agree with this.

But remember of course, Brooks doesn’t have to shoot 63 tomorrow. Anything around, or especially anything under par keeps him in a great position. Brooks shoots 66-70, and he’s still likely pulling away from the field some.

Tiger is the one who needs the low round at some point. 

Heres to hoping he gets it! 🍺

[onthehunt526]

56 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

Other than Brooks (-7) and Danny Lee (-6) everybody else has relatively struggled with a couple of guys at -3 and only 20 guys in total under par.  Is the course playing that hard, or is it just bad play/rust on the part of the others.  Obviously it will evolve over 4 days, but for now it looks like a 2 horse race.  And both of them have played amazing golf.  Something like +10 or +11.  WOW

Lee and Koepka can't keep this pace up. Bethpage will show it's teeth. Something in the 270s will win the PGA. That's a promise.

[colin007]

The rough can't possibly be that thick on a normal week, can it?

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Big C said:

It really doesn’t though.

Yes it does. You're caught up in thinking that it crosses an axis at 0 or something, or in that it measures a round's "performance" or something.

Think about it this way.

Two players are ten shots apart with their handicap indeces. When they play a course that's slope 113, their course handicaps are ten apart. When they play a course that's 155 slope, their course handicaps are 14 (10*155/113) apart.

So say a course is rated 70.0 and the slope is 155. Two guys 10 handicap indeces apart should shoot 14 shots different.

63 (-7 * 113/155 = -5.1) versus 77 (7 * 113/155 = +5.1) = 10.2 (the 0.2 is because the 14 is actually 13.7). Both players played exactly to their index, and shot the scores they should have shot, and all the math works out just fine.

The math works the same if you take the numbers up to 73 and 87 (3*113/155 = 2.2, 14*113/155 = 10.2), because slope is a measure of how quickly the scores should diverge. Larger slopes mean the scores diverge more quickly. The way you're suggesting it be done (AFAICT), the 73/87 combo would work out just fine, but the 63/77 combo would be… -7*155/113 = -9.6 versus 5.1, or 14.7 handicap index points apart?). That doesn't make any sense. It gets even sillier when you consider a course rated 72.5 and two players shooting either 73 and 80 (0.5*113/155 = 0.4, 7.5*113/155 = 5.5, a difference of 5.1 and 72 versus 79 (-0.5*155/113 = -0.7, 6.5*113/155 = 4.7, a difference of 5.4).

Think about what slope measures - how quickly the scores of the higher handicapper rise relative to the lower handicapper. That math or logic doesn't change just because one person crosses through zero. It should help you to view this as a number line rather than on a graph with an origin at 0, 0.

Actually, if you want to think of it as a cartesian coordinate type graph, the origin would be at whatever someone shooting 18 would be on that course, because that's the lowest you can shoot.

5 hours ago, Big C said:

At its core, the calculation tells us that an excellent round shot on a very difficult course is less impressive than an identical round on a very easy course.

No, that's not what it does, because that's not what slope does. Slope measures the RELATIVE difficulty, not "the difficulty."

5 hours ago, Big C said:

Now I’m open to learning something I hadn’t thought about before and I did a google search in good faith on the topic. But I didn’t find anything that changed my mind. In fact, a few of the top hits were articles that criticized the USGA for this backwards calculation.

They're wrong.

5 hours ago, Big C said:

That said, if there is a specific article or link you are referring to, I would be open to reading it.

Just think about it. I saw some of those articles, and they're just as wrong about it as you are. The USGA hasn't been doing this for decades and getting it wrong the whole time.

5 hours ago, Big C said:

Really, slope shouldn't be factored in at all when you get below par, but it's OT for this thread.

Another way of pointing out that it should:

• Two players shoot 75/80 on a 70/155 course. They get differentials of 3.6 and 7.3, a difference of 3.7.
• Two other players shoot 60/65 on the same course. They get differentials of -7.3 and -3.6, a difference of 3.7.
• Two more players shoot 67/72 on the same course. They get differentials of -2.2 and 1.5, a difference of 3.7.

It works.

 

[Vinsk]

I get that the concern of having a -7 leader is that it’s Koepka. Obviously he played fantastic. But really that -7 had some pretty good luck as well. He made a 15’ for birdie, 16’ for birdie, 20’ for par and a 33’ for birdie. That’s unusually lucky. That’s 4 strokes that the odds really don’t favor. This is why I don’t see him going low like that again in this tournament.

[Herkimer]

It is my opinion that Koepka will be the dominant golfer for the next 5 to 10 years.  He'll be #1 in the world very soon and he'll hold that spot, too.  He had a lot of pressure on him today and his play was spectacular.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

It is my opinion that Koepka will be the dominant golfer for the next 5 to 10 years.  He'll be #1 in the world very soon and he'll hold that spot, too.  He had a lot of pressure on him today and his play was spectacular.

He hasn't won this event yet. It's one round.

[Vinsk]

3 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

It is my opinion that Koepka will be the dominant golfer for the next 5 to 10 years.  He'll be #1 in the world very soon and he'll hold that spot, too.  He had a lot of pressure on him today and his play was spectacular.

It was. But first, Lee is only one stroke back. And again, Koepka got 4 strokes outta good luck.

[Herkimer]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

He hasn't won this event yet. It's one round.

But what a round it was.  I'm also taking into account the majors he's won so quickly.  I'm also taking into account the pressure that was on him today to perform well.  I also just love his game and the way he plays, swings and strikes the ball.  So darned impressive.  He's got a good head on his shoulders, too.  Well, let's see how he fares tomorrow.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Herkimer said:

But what a round it was.  I'm also taking into account the majors he's won so quickly.  I'm also taking into account the pressure that was on him today to perform well.  I also just love his game and the way he plays, swings and strikes the ball.  So darned impressive.  He's got a good head on his shoulders, too.  Well, let's see how he fares tomorrow.

Spieth won some majors quickly. So did Rory. Padraig Harrington had a good run.

[Herkimer]

4 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

It was. But first, Lee is only one stroke back. And again, Koepka got 4 strokes outta good luck.

Some skill to his putting, too.  Let's see what happens tomorrow.

Just now, iacas said:

Spieth won some majors quickly. So did Rory. Padraig Harrington had a good run.

All great players.  Rory is a disappointment.  Spieth never had the power.  He had the putting.  I was very high on DeChambeau after he won the U.S. Amateur and was top College player in the same year.  I figured he'd be dominant.  That hasn't happened even though he's won a bunch quickly.  But now I see a difference with Koepka and he proved it to me today.  I could be jumping the gun, no question.

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

Some skill to his putting, too.  Let's see what happens tomorrow.

Oh absolutely. But as far as repeating a low round like that, it's not the same as sticking all your irons tight and making 7 birdies as to making four putts out of the range of 'usually make.' Brooks shot a solid and well earned -3. Skill of course is there but if you look at the percentages of putts made at 15', 16', 20' and 33'....there was a good share of luck.