What would a pro shoot on this course...

[bunkerputt]

It's a 3-hole par 3. Assume that 18 holes were played, each hole 6 times. The holes are the following:

#1 - 120 yards, 50 foot drop, long green left-to-right, but narrow front to back. Sometimes wind is a factor.
#2 - 115 yards, perfectly flat, humongous green, wind not so much a factor
#3 - 120 yards, 10 foot uphill, green is medium sized, wind a slight factor

All greens are relatively slow, but not of excellent quality, slightly better than most municipal courses.

What's your best, honest guess for what a pro would AVERAGE on this course? Is -12 a reasonable guess? That's a birdie on 2 out of 3.

[Scrape-o-TheClown]

Tough Question I was going to say 12 under as well. The greens may not be great but they will only be putting from a few feet most of the time.

[CG031]

yeah probably about 10 under. 40 under would probably win the event. lol.

[opie]

120 yd shots?? Talk about needing 2 clubs.. lol. I'd bet they would be within 15' 9/10 times. -12 doesn't seem unreasonable especially with getting to play the same hole 6 times in 1 round

[bunkerputt]

I was just curious because I shoot even to +4 on this exact course and setup. I figure that's around a 6-10 handicap performance. But it doesn't have a course rating, so I'm trying to intuit one.

[tjy355]

I was just curious because I shoot even to +4 on this exact course and setup. I figure that's around a 6-10 handicap performance. But it doesn't have a course rating, so I'm trying to intuit one.

I'm trying to figure out how guessing what a pro might shoot on a 3-hole par 9 course would help you estimate what your handicap might be.

[David in FL]

Ask yourself this......

......on average , how often does a pro get up and down from 120 yds?

I doubt that it's 50%, and that would be 9 under. Can he go lower? Of course, but on average? I don't think so.

Remember, the easier the course/hole, the less the relative performance between players of differing abilities.

[Jay-Bird]

Ask yourself this......

What?

50% on "Sand Saves" gets you 84th best on Tour 50% on "Scrambling gets you 184th best on Tour

[Draw Or Die]

I agree Probably around 6 to 9 under... If you think about it... Par 3's are almostnever consitered "scoring holes" I really doubt that they would consitanly shoot lower

[wedge player]

yeah probably about 10 under. 40 under would probably win the event. lol.

unless its tiger he would be even lol he hasnt birdied a par 3 in about 2 years

[David in FL]

What?

Yep, but neither has anything at all to do with getting up and down from 120 yds.......

Right place and time, a tour pro will certainly shoot lights out on something like that, but on average, I bet anything approaching 9 under would be a pretty darn good score. As a quick comparison, the par 3 contest at the Masters is usually won with 4 or 5 under for 9 holes. That 9 hole course measures 1,060 yds for an average of 117 yds per hole. Stretch it to 18 holes and the winner is shooting 8-9 under.....and that's the absolute best players in the world on an absolutely perfect course.

[tjy355]

unless its tiger he would be even lol he hasnt birdied a par 3 in about 2 years

So wrong...

[bogeyhitter25]

13 or 14 under.

[Shorty]

I agree Probably around 6 to 9 under... If you think about it... Par 3's are almostnever consitered "scoring holes" I really doubt that they would consitanly shoot lower

In the Master par 3 competition, 5 of the 9 holes are over 120 yards. 5 are 130 or more.

5 under is pretty much the winning score each year (with the odd 6 under or 4 under)

[Shorty]

I was just curious because I shoot even to +4 on this exact course and setup. I figure that's around a 6-10 handicap performance. But it doesn't have a course rating, so I'm trying to intuit one.

A score on this course is totally meaningless in terms of handicap.

[bunkerputt]

A score on this course is totally meaningless in terms of handicap.

That seems like perfectly unqualified nonsense. For example, what if I changed your comment to: "Scoring well from 120 yards and in is totally meaningless in terms of handicap." Would you agree with yourself? I should hope not.

One thing to keep clear... Because something is difficult to determine with exactness, it doesn't imply that it therefore doesn't exist or is completely meaningless. Otherwise one could argue that handicap as a measure of skill is completely irrelevant and meaningless.

[Shorty]

That seems like perfectly unqualified nonsense. For example, what if I changed your comment to: "Scoring well from 120 yards and in is totally meaningless in terms of handicap." Would you agree with yourself? I should hope not.

Of course I would if it meant that I didn't have to drive the ball in bounds or hit long irons.

My point is that if you played a par three course in even par it does not follow that you would play a proper course in even close to par figures. It would mean that you were a good 8, 9 iron and wedge player. Any person who thinks they can calculate a handicap on the basis of a course that isn't even 9 holes is having himself on. I'll tell you why. On Wednesday I had a stretch in the middle of my round where I was 1 under for 8 holes. I had 6 bogeys apart from that and I had 4 drives where I lost my ball. That gave me a nice solid 89. Take away the driving on four holes and you can see the difference.

[bunkerputt]

That seems fair.