2015 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am Discussion Thread

[Golfingdad]

Yeah its rare alright, USGA says its a 1 in 4467 odds, and 1 in 258 is reasonable. And the "easy" tees at these courses aren't that easy, they still have to hit the shots, putt the greens, play in front of people. This isn't an 8 handicap shooting par at City Park municipal on Saturday with his buddies, so that makes the odds even more remote. I haven't played Mont. Peninsula but Pebble and Spyglass are effing hard from the normal tees. They'd be unplayable for the amateurs from the back tees.

Hey Shorty, this would be like you shooting 6 under par gross from the member tees at Royal Melbourne. In a tournament.

So all you guys would play a match with this guy and give him an 8 handicap? Not me, in real life I bet he's a 2 or lower, maybe much lower.

Not like this tournament isn't a magnet for sandbagging over the years since Bing ran it. I still call bulls**t

And I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you about it being possible that the guy is a sandbagger - we're just saying that it's not a given like you are saying.  Look at these numbers:

27,27,25,23,21,21,18,18,18,18,17,15.

Those are the amount of shots that each of the top 12 teams gained from the amateur half of the pairing.  Those two 27's meant that the amateur partner helped the team by 6 or 7 shots each day.  I certainly don't find it hard to believe that a legit 8 handicap could par a couple of holes that his partner bogies and birdie a couple of holes on his own, and even birdie a hole he gets a stroke on to account for those 6 shots.  That all seems perfectly reasonable.  Unlikely, maybe, but there are several teams in the tournament so it makes sense that the ones winning are the ones that have the amateur partners that play well.  To cherry-pick the winner and exclaim that he has to be a cheater because he did so well would be like cherry-picking a lottery winner and saying something has to be fishy because the odds of winning the lottery are remote.

Oh, and the kicker is that the winner wasn't even one of the 27's I listed up above.  Those belonged to the 3rd place team (Patrick Reeds partner) and the 12th place team (Matt Cain).  So Lund's score doesn't even stand out amongst the group.

Also worth noting:  The tournament actually does take sandbagging seriously, it appears ... http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Pebble-organizers-wary-of-sandbaggers-3251517.php

---

Here's another article: http://www.myavidgolfer.com/blog/2014/2/10/another-sandbagger-accusation-at-att-pro-am.aspx and here's an excerpt:

According to the AT&T; website, he gets 11 strokes as an amateur.  His GHIN handicap index is a 9.2.  On day one of the tournament, Rory shoots a 67, but the team scores a net 61.  That puts the team 11 under. Rory is responsible for -5, which means the am had to shoot 6 under par net.  On day 2, the pair cards a net 59, with Rory shooting a 72. That means Mycoskie had to shoot net 11 UNDER.  What is going on here?  On day three, they net a 69. Rory shot a 77- five over!  That now means the amateur had to make up the net diff, which is a net 8 UNDER.  Hey, I'm a 3.8 and I do not think I could shoot that well on those courses even after playing them several times a week for a season. This kind of sandbagging is bad for golf and it makes the whole tradition of pro-am at Pebble a joke. - See more at: http://www.myavidgolfer.com/blog/2014/2/10/another-sandbagger-accusation-at-att-pro-am.aspx#sthash.vJtlsytx.dpuf

Just want to point out that the guy writing this story doesn't quite have the scoring down correctly.  The tournament format is 2-man better ball, so just because a player helps the team by 6 shots DOES NOT mean that he "shot 6-under per net."  Not remotely.  All it means is that he was able to shoot -6 for a stretch of holes that his pro partner didn't do well on.  On holes the pro parred or birdied, it's entirely possible for the am to have bogied or even worse (usually they just pick up when they know they're not helping tho).

In the case of Lund, they shot a -9 as a team on Sunday while Pat Perez shot a 68.  That DOES NOT mean that Lund shot a net 67.  It doesn't mean anything more than Lund helped the team by 5 strokes - who the hell knows what he did the rest of the time.

[MrFlipper]

And I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you about it being possible that the guy is a sandbagger - we're just saying that it's not a given like you are saying.  Look at these numbers:

27,27,25,23,21,21,18,18,18,18,17,15.

Those are the amount of shots that each of the top 12 teams gained from the amateur half of the pairing.  Those two 27's meant that the amateur partner helped the team by 6 or 7 shots each day.  I certainly don't find it hard to believe that a legit 8 handicap could par a couple of holes that his partner bogies and birdie a couple of holes on his own, and even birdie a hole he gets a stroke on to account for those 6 shots.  That all seems perfectly reasonable.  Unlikely, maybe, but there are several teams in the tournament so it makes sense that the ones winning are the ones that have the amateur partners that play well.  To cherry-pick the winner and exclaim that he has to be a cheater because he did so well would be like cherry-picking a lottery winner and saying something has to be fishy because the odds of winning the lottery are remote.

Oh, and the kicker is that the winner wasn't even one of the 27's I listed up above.  Those belonged to the 3rd place team (Patrick Reeds partner) and the 12th place team (Matt Cain).  So Lund's score doesn't even stand out amongst the group.

Also worth noting:  The tournament actually does take sandbagging seriously, it appears ... http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Pebble-organizers-wary-of-sandbaggers-3251517.php

Here's another article: http://www.myavidgolfer.com/blog/2014/2/10/another-sandbagger-accusation-at-att-pro-am.aspx and here's an excerpt:

Just want to point out that the guy writing this story doesn't quite have the scoring down correctly.  The tournament format is 2-man better ball, so just because a player helps the team by 6 shots DOES NOT mean that he "shot 6-under per net."  Not remotely.  All it means is that he was able to shoot -6 for a stretch of holes that his pro partner didn't do well on.  On holes the pro parred or birdied, it's entirely possible for the am to have bogied or even worse (usually they just pick up when they know they're not helping tho).

In the case of Lund, they shot a -9 as a team on Sunday while Pat Perez shot a 68.  That DOES NOT mean that Lund shot a net 67.  It doesn't mean anything more than Lund helped the team by 5 strokes - who the hell knows what he did the rest of the time.

I understand how it works. The guy who helped Reed is a 4 hdcp, that's a lot of shots to help but we don't know what he shot on his own ball. So it is unclear unless its real obvious like the guys who have won and gotten banned.

http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/pebble.html

And I know that Sunday Lund prob didn't shoot a 67 on his own ball Sunday. But Nantz said on air when he holed out on 18 he shot even par on his own ball at Monterey Peninsula. So that is pretty clear. I have no idea what anyone else shot on their own ball, the higher the handicap you'd think they would be picking up their ball a lot and wouldn't have any real score.

[newtogolf]

I understand how it works. The guy who helped Reed is a 4 hdcp, that's a lot of shots to help but we don't know what he shot on his own ball. So it is unclear unless its real obvious like the guys who have won and gotten banned.

http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/pebble.html

And I know that Sunday Lund prob didn't shoot a 67 on his own ball Sunday. But Nantz said on air when he holed out on 18 he shot even par on his own ball at Monterey Peninsula. So that is pretty clear. I have no idea what anyone else shot on their own ball, the higher the handicap you'd think they would be picking up their ball a lot and wouldn't have any real score.

I think you're really minimizing the impact of the professional golfers and caddies.  I would probably shave a few strokes off of my best score if I had a pro and two professional caddies giving me reads and lining up my shots.

[MrFlipper]

One more fun thing. Google "Michael Lund golf". This comes up

http://scores.golfweek.com/scores.asp?Action=Player&PlayerID;=41257

So in 2014 he went to US Open qualifying and shot 74-74 finishing 13th? Same guy? Looks like.

8 handicap huh? What do you have to be to go to local qualifying? Less than 3 at least I'm sure.

This just gets more bogus all the time.

[MrFlipper]

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/news/qualifying/

2014 U.S. Open Local Qualifying

Representing the start of an exciting and dramatic process in which thousands of golfers from around the world will pursue the chance to play in the U.S. Open Championship, local qualifying takes place this year at 111 sites across the country between May 2 and May 19. Each local qualifier consists of 18 holes, with several players, determined by the size of the field, advancing to sectional qualifying.

This is where the road to the U.S. Open begins for the vast majority of the professionals and amateurs with a Handicap Index of 1.4 or less who apply to play in the championship . As they do every year, a handful of entrants will navigate both stages of qualifying to earn spots in the 156-player field at Pinehurst No. 2. There, they will try to match the feats of two players – Ken Venturi in 1964 and Orville Moody in 1969 – who won the U.S. Open after surviving local and sectional qualifying.

The odds are long, but the qualifying process gives everyone with a dream a chance to play in the national championship.

So as of 2014 spring this guy was a 1.4 handicap or less, evidently. Wow his game sure fell off and got better quickly (less than a year)

[newtogolf]

So as of 2014 spring this guy was a 1.4 handicap or less, evidently. Wow his game sure fell off and got better quickly (less than a year)

I guess we'll consider Tiger a sandbagger too if he plays better this year.

[saevel25]

I guess we'll consider Tiger a sandbagger too if he plays better this year.

I don't think you can consider it sandbagging if handicaps are not used on the PGA Tour.

[Golfingdad]

One more fun thing. Google "Michael Lund golf". This comes up

http://scores.golfweek.com/scores.asp?Action=Player&PlayerID;=41257

So in 2014 he went to US Open qualifying and shot 74-74 finishing 13th? Same guy? Looks like.

8 handicap huh? What do you have to be to go to local qualifying? Less than 3 at least I'm sure.

This just gets more bogus all the time.

A couple of things:

You are misreading the lines ... local qualifying is 18 holes, so Michael Lund shot 74, not 74-74.  Secondly, the Michael Lund in this tournament was apparently the co-founder of Pandora Jewelry, which appears to be based in Maryland.  That qualifying score was in Omaha, Nebraska.  None of this means anything concrete, except without a little bit more proof, I'd be skeptical that it's the same Michael Lund.

And when you consider that to even sign up for US Open qualifying, you have to have an index of 1.4 or lower, and that was less than a year ago, I believe it's impossible that he'd be allowed to compete in such a big pro-am with a handicap of 8 if it were the same guy.  I'd bet it's not the same guy.

[newtogolf]

I don't think you can consider it sandbagging if handicaps are not used on the PGA Tour.

@MrFlipper hat because Lund (which we're not even sure it's the same one) had a low handicap that increased over the period of a year he must be a sandbagger.  I was using Tiger as an example that even pro golfers can be way off their game for a period of time and then return to form.

[Gunther]

I shot par once, on a par 70, my lowest score ever. Guess I was probably a 6 or 7 when I did it. Played the same course a week or so later and shot 84. Even if the dude did career it for a round, no way an 8 could sustain that 4 straight rounds, just not possible. Nor could they have ham and egged it for 4 rounds. Definite sand bagger, even if he isn't the Michael Lund of previous golf glory.

[Golfingdad]

I shot par once, on a par 70, my lowest score ever. Guess I was probably a 6 or 7 when I did it. Played the same course a week or so later and shot 84.

Even if the dude did career it for a round, no way an 8 could sustain that 4 straight rounds, just not possible. Nor could they have ham and egged it for 4 rounds. Definite sand bagger, even if he isn't the Michael Lund of previous golf glory.

It amazes me how definitive you guys like to get with so little in the way of actual facts to go off of, whether it's the downfall of the NBA, our imminent deaths from Ebola, Tom Brady's cheating, or this.  In this case, as far as I can tell, all we have is:

1. His team won the tournament by 2 shots, not some runaway landslide AND his pro did very well in the singles tournament, as well.
2. He helped his pro by LESS total shots than 2 of the other amateurs in the top 12, and several others were within a couple of shots as well.
3. Jim Nantz said that he shot even par on his own ball at MP.  Not impossible if Nantz was correct (I've shot UNDER par once in my life and I was a 10 or 11 at the time, and did not have a caddy or pro assisting me), nor is it impossible that Nantz was doing what the author of the article I posted earlier was doing, which was incorrect math by just subtracting the pros score from the team score to get the amateur score.

The big key here, though, is #2.  He doesn't even stand out at all amongst all of the other amateurs at the top of this tournament.  But even bigger than that is this:

Chris Berman - the one we all know and hate - is listed in this tournament as an 18 handicap.  I repeat, THIS GUY:

played this tournament as an 18 handicap.  And do you know how many strokes he provided for his team?  19.  NINETEEN.

Just as a reminder, Lund provided Perez with 25.  Now, what is so hard to believe about a guy with a legitimate 8 handicap helping out his partner by 1.5 more strokes per round than an "18 handicap" Chris Berman?

[Wally Fairway]

I will admit that I haven't read the entire thread, but I haven't seen anyone bring up the point that the amateur doesn't actually have to post a score at all. If the pro gets a birdie or par on the hole and the am is putting for his net par or bogey then he can pick up, and the team scores the birdie or par. The next hole the pro gets a par or bogey and the am gets a net birdie then the team picks up 1 or 2 strokes.

So if the am gets scores on the right holes and he can net birdie or eagle (wasn't that the deal on the last hole yesterday) then it isn't like a 8 handicap player has to post an even round to help the team by 8 strokes. He just has to help the team on the right holes; an 8 could get a couple of birdies or better and if those are on holes the pro bogeys then those 3 holes are worth 6 shots to the team.

[DeadMan]

I'd personally say the odds are that Nantz was wrong when he said the guy shot even par.

[MrFlipper]

It amazes me how definitive you guys like to get with so little in the way of actual facts to go off of, whether it's the downfall of the NBA, our imminent deaths from Ebola, Tom Brady's cheating, or this.  In this case, as far as I can tell, all we have is:

His team won the tournament by 2 shots, not some runaway landslide AND his pro did very well in the singles tournament, as well.

He helped his pro by LESS total shots than 2 of the other amateurs in the top 12, and several others were within a couple of shots as well.

Jim Nantz said that he shot even par on his own ball at MP.  Not impossible if Nantz was correct (I've shot UNDER par once in my life and I was a 10 or 11 at the time, and did not have a caddy or pro assisting me), nor is it impossible that Nantz was doing what the author of the article I posted earlier was doing, which was incorrect math by just subtracting the pros score from the team score to get the amateur score.

Yeah, sorry, local qualifying is only one round. And if that Lund is a different Lund from this Lund, my point is moot, but that's how the search came up. I can't believe that there are multiple good golfer Michael Lunds running around, though.

And if Nantz said what he said in error, then I have no beef. My original premise was that an 8 hdcp that shot par on a difficult course in a tournament setting is sandbagging. I still stand by that original assertion in general

[iacas]

Yeah, sorry, local qualifying is only one round. And if that Lund is a different Lund from this Lund, my point is moot, but that's how the search came up. I can't believe that there are multiple good golfer Michael Lunds running around, though. And if Nantz said what he said in error, then I have no beef. My original premise was that an 8 hdcp that shot par on a difficult course in a tournament setting is sandbagging. I still stand by that original assertion in general :-)

It's not particularly difficult from 6100 yards. I know a family of Lunds. Two are named Michael.

[MrFlipper]

It's not particularly difficult from 6100 yards.

I know a family of Lunds. Two are named Michael.

I'll play ask the pro!

Do you think an 8 handicap, esp in this tournament and setting, should be able to shoot even par? If you were running this tournament would you consider he's sandbagging?

[Golfingdad]

It's not particularly difficult from 6100 yards.

Also worth noting:

The Monterey Peninsula Country Club regular mens tees (the course where he shot the "objectionable" round, according to @flipper ) play to a total of 5987 yards (rating 69.8/126).  And, BTW, that includes par 5's of 490, 482 and 451.  (The pros played the first hole as a 482 yd par 4, not a 502 yard par 5, so I didn't include that one)

[iacas]

I'll play ask the pro!

Do you think an 8 handicap, esp in this tournament and setting, should be able to shoot even par? If you were running this tournament would you consider he's sandbagging?

Also worth noting:

The Monterey Peninsula Country Club regular mens tees (the course where he shot the "objectionable" round, according to @flipper) play to a total of 5987 yards (rating 69.8/126).  And, BTW, that includes par 5's of 490, 482 and 451.  (The pros played the first hole as a 482 yd par 4, not a 502 yard par 5, so I didn't include that one)

A) I doubt he holed out on every hole. So I doubt he truly "shot even par on his own ball." If your pro makes a birdie and you have a 30-footer for par, you pick it up and might very well take a "4" because, for the purpose of the tournament, it doesn't count for anything.

B) Shooting 72 on a 69.8/126 layout means that he played to about a 2. The odds of an 8 shooting six strokes less than his handicap are only about 500:1.

Given B's odds of 500:1, PLUS the fact that he probably didn't actually hole out every hole, I think that there's a pretty good chance he did.