59 on a par 71 vs. par 72

[Shorty]

Everybody knows that 59 on a par 71 course is a worthless achievement, only slightly better than 59 on even easier par 70 so called "golf courses" such as the 7426 yard Bethpage Black.
It must be very embarrassing for Goydos to have scored 59 on a course that isn't exactly what you'd call a "real" golf course.

[sean_miller]

Everybody knows that 59 on a par 71 course is a worthless achievement, only slightly better than 59 on even easier par 70 so called "golf courses" such as the 7426 yard Bethpage Black.

Would two 59s on a par 70 course even make the cut?

[MSchumacher]

A 59 on a pga course is nuts. These guys are too good.

[IcemanYVR]

a 59 is a 59 is a 59... it's a great score on a PGA Tour golf course. It's 59 strokes, it doesn't matter whether par is 70, 71, or 72, or even 73... it's 59 strokes. How much under par is irrelevant because par is just a number. If someone shot 59 in the 2000 US Open at Pebble at Par 72, and then someone shot 59 at this year's US Open with a Par 71 does it make it any better or worse... No, because it's the number of strokes taken...

... the other really important factor that's being overlooked is the psychological factor of shooting 59, I think that's a bigger hurdle to overcome than whatever "par" might happen to be set at.

[B-Con]

Like others have noted:

I can see why it would be easier to score better relative to par on a par-72 course. In general, if you are on average longer and better than the requirements in determining par for a hole, than the longer the course the more opportunities you have to beat par and look good. Conversely, if you are below that par-standard a shorter course will minimize the difference between you and par and make you look better.

But shooting a fixed score (like 59) has nothing to do with being relative to par. The easier the course the easier it is to shoot 59. Your final score has nothing to do with whether you got birdies, eagles, or pars, only your final score relative to par would.

[Titleist_ProV1x]

Everybody knows that 59 on a par 71 course is a worthless achievement, only slightly better than 59 on even easier par 70 so called "golf courses" such as the 7426 yard Bethpage Black.

WTF? that's the most idiotic statement I've seen on the forum yet.

a 59 is a 59 on the PGA tour, history was made, enjoy it!

[IcemanYVR]

Everybody knows that 59 on a par 71 course is a worthless achievement, only slightly better than 59 on even easier par 70 so called "golf courses" such as the 7426 yard Bethpage Black.

WTF? that's the most idiotic statement I've seen on the forum yet.

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious... at least I hope so

[Shorty]

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious... at least I hope so

You don't think that this part of what I wrote gives you a clue?:

"only slightly better than 59 on even easier par 70 so called "golf courses" such as the 7426 yard Bethpage Black" I think that unless it is a link to a manufacturer's site or an advertising slogan used as evidence of a product's quality, Titleist_proV1x is a little lost.

[MSchumacher]

WTF? that's the most idiotic statement I've seen on the forum yet.

Whats your address? I need to send you my sarcasm detector

[Shorty]

Whats your address? I need to send you my sarcasm detector

If it was branded Titleist and had the slogan "The number one sarcasm detector in golf" he'd buy it, don't worry.

[Titleist_ProV1x]

If it was branded Titleist and had the slogan "The number one sarcasm detector in golf" he'd buy it, don't worry.

rofl ....... I was being just as sarcastic, but I'll take the Titleist detector as long as shiping is free!

damn hard to believe Paul shot a 59, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

[Shorty]

damn hard to believe Paul shot a 59, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

You got that right.

[brgolf]

Like others have noted:

If I score 60 on par 71 and 60 on par 72 scoring better relative to par on the 72 is harder. 0.85 strokes/par vs 0.83 strokes per par assuming all GIR. If I got 60 on the par 71 and played equally well on the par 72, in theory I would take 60.95 strokes (0.85/par).

What if I reach the par 5s in 2. If I do that I'll get an extra birdie chance on the par 72 course which I would take 11/18 times (playing at the same standard as the 60 on par 71). So 11/18 times my card will show a stroke less and 7/18 times a stroke more average 0.39 strokes over many rounds= 60.39. A player who plays equally good rounds on a par 71 and par 72 course will shoot 60 vs 60.85 if he hits GIR and 60 vs 60.39 if he hits the par 5s in 2.

[Cornbread]

The people arguing that a 59 on a par 71 are internet message board losers who have nothing better to do than try and start controversy on a topic they'll never even come close to knowing anything about. I swear, some people need to hit their computer with a sledgehammer. A little sunlight and real-world interaction would be beneficial. The flourescent lighting in their parent's basement has gotten them quite delusional.

Your my kind of guy Harry S.

[goblue107501]

For me it depends on how the course was designed. If the course was designed as a par 72 (which I believe it was, but could be wrong), then a par 5 was taken away and made into a par 4, then this 59 holds as much weight as any other 59. I play on a course that was a designed par 71 with an extra par 3, but still has 4 par 5s. A 59 wouldn't hold as much weight there.

Regardless, still an amazing feat. I was telling someone the other day that I don't think my regular scramble group would shoot a 59 at that course. We can normally put up 57-58-59 anywhere, but the events are usually held on the easy tee boxes. Not from the tips with long rough and tough greens.

[B-Con]

If I score 60 on par 71 and 60 on par 72 scoring better relative to par on the 72 is harder. 0.85 strokes/par vs 0.83 strokes per par assuming all GIR. If I got 60 on the par 71 and played equally well on the par 72, in theory I would take 60.95 strokes (0.85/par).

Perhaps you misinterpretted my original statement. I meant "better relative to par" in the sense of "score is farther away from par", not in the sense that the higher pars would cause the scores to be lower relative to other scores on lower pars.

And that's what your math shows. A 60 score on a par 70 is -10. A 60.85 on a 71 is a -10.15, a 60.39 on a 71 is a -10.61, both better scores relative to par. Consider:

0.85 strokes/par vs 0.83 strokes per par assuming all GIR.

This is a poor comparison and what leads me to suspect that we are not on the same page. You need to compare strokes/par for 11 under for each couse to each other and for 12 under for each course to each other:

60/71 = .845 strokes/par, 59/71 = .831 strokes/par 61/72 = .847 strokes/par, 60/72 = .833 strokes/par The score of 60 is harder to get on the 72 than the 71 because it requires more strokes per par. But getting 12 under on a 71 requires fewer strokes per par than getting a 12 under on a 72, and that is the comparison I was talking about.

[brgolf]

Perhaps you misinterpretted my original statement. I meant "better relative to par" in the sense of "score is farther away from par", not in the sense that the higher pars would cause the scores to be lower relative to other scores on lower pars.

All roads lead to Rome!