What Would a PGA Tour Player Shoot at Your Home Course?

[MizunoPez]

Not too sure. Although my home course is in very good condition at the moment, there are places where the lies can be dodgy, slightly inconsistent greens etc etc. I think that would shave a few shots off a mid/low 60 quite easily. My course is also about placement, you have to be good off the tee otherwise you are blocked out very easily. Without any course knowledge, sure a pro would probably shoot under par but not much. Really is a difficult question to predict in general though.

[natureboy]

On 6/10/2016 at 8:47 PM, iacas said:

A few strokes here and there? Yes, absolutely. Putting alone might be two strokes, which when we're talking about a 64 that bumps up to a 66, becomes somewhat significant.

I meant short game as in around the green not short game plus putting. Pros will have better long game performance on average on an easier course due to the shorter length. They will likely face wider than tour average fairways. Doglegs that may present a strategic obstacle to a scratch player, they are likely to be able to carry on the fly. There is likely to be less trouble strategically positioned in their landing zones. Their fairway % and GIR % will increase so difficult lies off the fairway are less likely to even be encountered. Their up & down opportunities with short game skills will be from closer to the pin so their proximity from around the green will increase quite likely offsetting the 'bumpiness' issue you assert.

Par 4's and Par 5s decrease in proportion to total course length faster than Par 3's. Hitting closer on par 4's will increase birdie chances, and shorter par 5's mean more greens in 2 and closer up & down opportunities for a higher birdie conversion rate.

But is what you are saying is that putting maybe has a slightly greater influence on the performance for the particular day? That does make sense given the larger percent contribution to winning for putting and why some pros who already have good long games may focus a bit more intently on their putting (once they already have an excellent long foundation) to give them a more consistent winning edge.

On 6/10/2016 at 8:47 PM, iacas said:

Then you could easily find one other shot out there where the lie is bad, sitting in a small bare spot, or the rough is terrible, or it hits some hardpan and scoots… or whatever.

The pros experience even these types of lie from time to time. Hitting off the cart path and deep U.S. Open Rough and even bare lies are not unknown to them. They also play tracks that while likely better than our typical home courses on average are not kept in 'pristine' PGA tournament conditions day-in-day out.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by natureboy

[WUTiger]

I would say a tour pro could shoot somewhere between 65 and 70 at my home course, especially if one of the low-HDCP members accompanied the pro for advice. The course is somewhat long from the back tees (6,943 yds. / Par 72), but is not what I would call tour long. Rating 73.4, Slope 136.

It's a Nicklaus signature course, and runs through a residential development. Original play was to have a "Winged Foot West" so to speak, but lot sales were slow, and not everyone who bought was a golfer. The course is now upscale semi-private.

The course has several features which would influence scoring:

• Run-the-gauntlet tight. As the course runs through a residential development, it has 10 holes with OB left and natural-grass hazard right, four holes with OB left and lake right, two with double OB, one with OB over the green, and a safe (?) hole with a lake front left of green. About half the pros would have a ball OB, or in a hazard. Some pros would only hit the driver a few times.
• Three Par 4s are almost drivable. One at 368 yds. has a downslope about 100 yds. from green.  Two others, 323 and 344, have skimpy greens with deep bunkers. Could see two birdies and a bogie, or other combinations.
     Also, the tight uphill 511-yard par 5 could be reached with a 3 Wood + hybrid by most pros.
• Beware of "Johnny Miller" fairway bunkers. In his book Nicklaus by Design, Jack laments early easy fairway bunkers at his Muirfield Village course (p. 195). Johnny Miller and Jack were playing the Par 5 No. 7 during the course's grand opening. Nicklaus split the fairway with his drive and Johnny Miller put his tee shot into a shallow fairway bunker. Nicklaus laid up to the front fringe, thinking Miller would have to pitch out of the sand, and then watched in dismay as Miller splashed a 5 wood shot right up next to him. So, Jack decided that fairway bunkers should often be penal.
      We have Miller fairway bunkers on holes 8, 10 and 15. If you're anywhere near the shoulder high lip, you need to take a 9i out to the side to avoid a deflected shot to never-never-land. I seen even pros and good amateurs fall victim to the optical illusion of the banks.

It would be interesting to have two threesomes of tour pros play on the same day. If someone got hot, he could really go low. But, a couple of low-rotation, armsy drives could jack up someone's score.

[iacas]

On June 13, 2016 at 1:28 AM, natureboy said:

I meant short game as in around the green not short game plus putting. Pros will have better long game performance on average on an easier course due to the shorter length. They will likely face wider than tour average fairways. Doglegs that may present a strategic obstacle to a scratch player, they are likely to be able to carry on the fly. There is likely to be less trouble strategically positioned in their landing zones. Their fairway % and GIR % will increase so difficult lies off the fairway are less likely to even be encountered. Their up & down opportunities with short game skills will be from closer to the pin so their proximity from around the green will increase quite likely offsetting the 'bumpiness' issue you assert.

You seem to be over-rating how good the average PGA Tour player is. From 360 they average 3.92. From 380, 3.96. 18 such holes means a course yardages of 6480 or 6840. On the shorter course, that's shooting 70.56.

They likely won't face wider fairways. PGA Tour fairways are actually fairly wide, relatively. The fairways at Lake View, for example, are about 23 yards wide. The fairways at this week's U.S. Open are wider. The fairways at every course I play locally are narrower than they are at Muirfield Village. Double rows of sprinklers and irrigation on PGA Tour-worthy courses help that…

The rest of your post is just guessing, and I'm not really interested in discussing your guesswork.

On June 13, 2016 at 1:28 AM, natureboy said:

Par 4's and Par 5s decrease in proportion to total course length faster than Par 3's. Hitting closer on par 4's will increase birdie chances, and shorter par 5's mean more greens in 2 and closer up & down opportunities for a higher birdie conversion rate.

And yet, from only 360, they average 3.92. You've got a long way to go to get to 3.67, and even that is just a final score of 66.

On June 13, 2016 at 1:28 AM, natureboy said:

But is what you are saying is that putting maybe has a slightly greater influence on the performance for the particular day? That does make sense given the larger percent contribution to winning for putting and why some pros who already have good long games may focus a bit more intently on their putting (once they already have an excellent long foundation) to give them a more consistent winning edge.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

On June 13, 2016 at 1:28 AM, natureboy said:

The pros experience even these types of lie from time to time. Hitting off the cart path and deep U.S. Open Rough and even bare lies are not unknown to them. They also play tracks that while likely better than our typical home courses on average are not kept in 'pristine' PGA tournament conditions day-in-day out.

I didn't say they're unknown. But to pretend they don't affect scoring smells like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. As with your guesswork, I'm also not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

You seem to be over-rating how good the average PGA Tour player is. From 360 they average 3.92. From 380, 3.96. 18 such holes means a course yardages of 6480 or 6840. On the shorter course, that's shooting 70.56.

A course with all equal length holes does not reflect a 'typical' home course for any of us. Relatively shorter par 5s many of which will play at a similar length to tour length par 4s as the CR drops while being a stroke higher on par gives them an edge to go low with their superior and consistent long games.

The average is not the most likely score. Even on PGA courses the distribution is skewed right with a longer tail on the high side such that scores lower than the average have a higher frequency.

Also the SG table is distance only and distance is not the sole determinant of scoring. Accuracy and positioning also matter significantly to score. Fewer total penal hazards in their landing zones on the average golfer's home course makes the expected score to distance baseline on the PGA tour a bit less accurate. Pros play on courses with setups and hazard positioning geared around their average distances from each tee. The rough on the average player's home course is likely to be less thick and penal than the typical PGA setup, which would also lower the expected pro score off the tee. The expected score by tee distance of the SG baseline is also an average for the full field. The average value may be dragged down by significantly worse play by the bottom of the field relative to how a middle pack player would perform on their own.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

They likely won't face wider fairways. PGA Tour fairways are actually fairly wide, relatively. The fairways at Lake View, for example, are about 23 yards wide. The fairways at this week's U.S. Open are wider. The fairways at every course I play locally are narrower than they are at Muirfield Village.

That's the courses you play. My 'home course' fairways are wider than PGA tour average and I expect that's more typical of the home course for the average golfer.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I didn't say they're unknown. But to pretend they don't affect scoring smells like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Nope. I think you are exaggerating their significance relative to the expected fairway % and GIR improvement due to shorter course length.

Bunker conditions on the rarer missed green and chance of a lost balls on the rarer fairway miss due to no marshalls or spectators I would give more credence.

 

 

[saevel25]

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

 Relatively shorter par 5s many of which will play at a similar length to tour length par 4s as the CR drops while being a stroke higher on par gives them an edge to go low with their superior and consistent long games.

It doesn't matter as much as you think. Length is the primary driver of difficulty. There is a reason why courses have lengthened on the PGA Tour. The PGA Tour and the USGA know that length is the biggest reason for difficulty. 

PGA Tour players stay out of trouble that bothers bogey golfers. Fairway bunkers, Hazards, OB, are all pretty much trivial compared to distance. 

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

The average is not the most likely score. Even on PGA courses the distribution is skewed right with a longer tail on the high side such that scores lower than the average have a higher frequency.

It's close enough. At the Memorial the Mean was 71 and the Mode was 70. 

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

Also the SG table is distance only and distance is not the sole determinant of scoring. Accuracy and positioning also matter significantly to score. Fewer total penal hazards in their landing zones on the average golfer's home course makes the expected score to distance baseline on the PGA tour a bit less accurate.

Penalties are minimal on the PGA Tour compared to the total number of strokes they hit entire season. 

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

The expected score by tee distance of the SG baseline is also an average for the full field. The average value may be dragged down by significantly worse play by the bottom of the field relative to how a middle pack player would perform on their own.

It could be dragged upward by a few players who play exceptionally well.  

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

That's the courses you play. My 'home course' fairways are wider than PGA tour average and I expect that's more typical of the home course for the average golfer.

The fairways are not substantially narrower on the PGA Tour. I've been to a few events in person. The Memorial Tournament doesn't have any narrower fairways then what I play weekly. 

 

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, saevel25 said:

It doesn't matter as much as you think. Length is the primary driver of difficulty. There is a reason why courses have lengthened on the PGA Tour. The PGA Tour and the USGA know that length is the biggest reason for difficulty.

Distance is a bit more important, but it might be you who's overestimating its real-world contribution to scoring. Remember that there's a continuum where better players are both longer and more accurate than less skilled players.

Take the numbers from Broadie's table comparing the value of distance & accuracy and apply that to the amount of average improvement in distance and degrees offline seen between different handicap levels. It's eye-opening.

8 hours ago, saevel25 said:

PGA Tour players stay out of trouble that bothers bogey golfers. Fairway bunkers, Hazards, OB, are all pretty much trivial compared to distance. 

Penalties are minimal on the PGA Tour compared to the total number of strokes they hit entire season. 

In frequency of encountering them sure. But they still do on occasion and that affects the average score from the tee for the field. Some of these bunkers and rough locations create a 'recovery' lie situation which is very penal (as in costing extra strokes - not penalties). If the specific lie didn't matter to scoring outcome, why would Broadie have even bothered to include the lie as part of the simple SG chart? Just ignore whether it's fairway, rough, sand, or recovery and calculate based on the distance remaining to the hole because the lie doesn't matter, right?

The pros don't hit marked hazards or OB with a high frequency, but it does happen sometimes and it can be costly enough to affect the expected score at a given distance. The typical golfer's home course has far fewer of these hazards and if they do they are not likely to be located in the pro landing zone. The relative lack of these hazards may also affect the pro's strategic options, allowing them to take more aggressive swings or aiming lines that will increase potential reward with less likelihood of penalty.

Quote

It's close enough. At the Memorial the Mean was 71 and the Mode was 70. 

That's one course with a high rating and the full field - not the middle pack players. My point about distributions is that the skew indicates outcomes just below the mean are more frequent and expected than those just above.

Quote

It could be dragged upward by a few players who play exceptionally well.  

The exceptional performers are relatively rare, and given the skew evident in the scoring distribution I think that's less likely. I think accuracy / expected score at a given distance by rank is likely to be right skewed like the scoring itself. But I could be convinced by the numbers.

Quote

The fairways are not substantially narrower on the PGA Tour. I've been to a few events in person. The Memorial Tournament doesn't have any narrower fairways then what I play weekly. 

Compared to what? If it's your weekly fairways, what's the course rating of those? I imagine you don't play on a course most of us would consider 'average'.

Edited June 17, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

@natureboy, you're ignoring that the average was over 70 on a course consisting of 18 holes under 370 yards. Long way to go to shave five+ strokes.

And seriously, no shit they play different length holes. But they'll actually lose more strokes on longer holes and gain them back on the part threes. Just not in relation to par. But course ratings don't consider par.

I feel you're arguing just to argue at this point and reversing what you'd previously stated: 66-67.

P.S. PGA Tour courses have slightly wider fairways on average. A few yards. At least for the courses under our purview in my golf association (course ratings). You know not of what you speak. You're just guessing at what you think is true.

[natureboy]

On 6/17/2016 at 10:13 PM, iacas said:

But course ratings don't consider par.

I would agree that par likely creates some friction due to the difficulty of ultra low rounds, but CR seems to be correlated to pro scoring.

I feel you're reversing what you'd previously stated: 66-67.

No, just ask @RandallT. I agreed that number applies for courses like your home course and those above a CR of 72, but I stated that for my home course and others with a low rating of ~ 71 and below that 65 or lower could be the most frequent individual score. I think that low course ratings are more applicable to the 'average golfer's' home course than ones with high ratings.

P.S. PGA Tour courses have slightly wider fairways on average. A few yards. At least for the courses under our purview in my golf association (course ratings). You know not of what you speak. You're just guessing at what you think is true.

Not guessing. Your association courses may be narrower than average or may be strategically focused on 2nd shots like Muirfield Village and Augusta. The typical easy track in my area has wider than PGA standard fairway landing zones, which matches the architect's article snippet in the spoiler below. http://golftips.golfsmith.com/average-fairway-width-pga-tour-20729.html

Spoiler

 

‘What is the acceptable width for fairways?’
By: Jeffrey D. Brauer

Any width can be acceptable. Fairways generally range from narrow (25 yards) to wide (65 yards), with most being
medium width of 35 to 45 yards. The course's theme and intended audience are the starting points in determining
individual fairway width.

Major tournament courses, like those hosting the U.S. and British Opens, have always had narrow, demanding fairways –
traditionally less than 30 yards, and often only 24 yards wide. The PGA Tour typically maintains 30-to-32-yard fairway
widths.

Most courses need wider fairways. USGA Slope Rating Charts show scratch players and 20 handicappers needing 32-
and 40-yard fairways, respectively, to hit fairways with 66 percent of tee shots. Forty-yard-wide fairways seem about
standard, as they allow average players to play faster and better players to have strategic choices.

A site with heavy trees usually dictates a theme "narrow fairways," emulating Medinah or Olympic. The owner may desire
a difficult driving course because he's an accurate driver!* A "second-shot" themed course, like Augusta National <or Muirfield Village), and/or
public courses usually inspire wider fairways, even in heavy trees.

 

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I would agree that par likely creates some friction due to the difficulty of ultra low rounds, but CR seems to be correlated to pro scoring.

As I have said, I'm not talking about courses with weirdly low course ratings (they also tend to be very short courses). If you want to talk about some dinky 6400-yard 67.4 rated course, then I haven't ever said they might not shoot 63 or something there. But that's not the type of course I've been discussing.

15 minutes ago, natureboy said:

No, just ask @RandallT. I agreed that number applies for courses like your home course and those above a CR of 72, but I stated that for my home course and others with a low rating of ~ 71 and below that 65 or lower could be the most frequent individual score.

I don't care about courses rated below 70 or so.

15 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Not guessing.

You are. Until you've you've obtained actual measurements, you're guessing.

Again, courses that host PGA Tour events have all the irrigation and sprinkler heads they want. Double rows, etc. Most regular courses have single rows (or no rows). Maintaining and mowing the rough is easier than maintaining fairways. Average courses are about the same to slightly narrower than PGA Tour courses. Or so says a few thousand measurements. I'm not guessing. You are.

BTW, the shorter the yardages, the narrower the fairways. A quick R² value of a decent portion of the courses I have is 0.64.

I stand by the -5.5 (relative to course rating). It holds up to all the facts and figures I've got. It holds up to asking nearly 20 people on the PGA Tour for courses rated 70 or up from the back tees. If your dinky dinky course is rated 67.4, then you've got no argument from me about a 62. But I'm not interested in discussing the risky dink courses, as I said on the last page…

On June 5, 2016 at 9:37 AM, iacas said:

And, frankly, I don't really care about a course rated 70.6 from the back tees.

Still true.  So don't involve me in the conversation if you want to talk about a peashooter course.

[RickK]

One of the clubs I play out of rebuilt 1 of the 2 18hole courses and when it opened KJ Choi played it and shot 64.  It is par 71, 6931 yards and is rated at 74.3/140.

[Slice of Life]

Definitely under 60. 

 

I mean, they'd be on or near the green for a lot of the par 4s...and the par 5s are driver wedge for them lol

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Slice of Life said:

Definitely under 60. 

I mean, they'd be on or near the green for a lot of the par 4s...and the par 5s are driver wedge for them lol

Read the thread Ryan.

[Slice of Life]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Read the thread Ryan.

I read a portion.

 

I shot a 77 there, my answer stands lol

[natureboy]

Hey @RandallT, digging around I came across some info that confirmed that golf score distributions are only approximately normal (positively skewed) and experience the low side resistance leading to some pile-up of probability on that end vs. a less 'bounded' long tail on the high side.

Quote

The scores of individual golfers generally have a distribution that appears roughly normal, the only conspicuous discrepancy being a long tail of bad scores...the chi-square test...accepted normality with 97 percent confidence until the poorest scores were included, only 72 percent thereafter. A software package was also used which included a plot which was not linear as expected for normal data, the <observed> upward bend meaning skewness to the right. It also includes a test combining measures of skewness and kurtosis which firmly rejected normality. <tests were run for 15 and scratch HCP levels with very similar results> (FJ Scheid)

 

Quote

Research using more than 100,000 scores indicated that golfers' scores could be approximated by the normal model, but that the variability of scores, as measured by the standard deviation, varies widely between golfers and that scores are not symmetrically distributed. Poor scores range farther from the mean than good scores and this is generally more pronounced in less skilled golfers than highly skilled golfers.  (Knuth)

 

[scotth]

At my old home course outside of Austin, one of the Uresti brothers had the course record.  Omar, I think, while he was bumping between the mini tours and PGA tour shot an impressive 65 from the Challenge tees which were just a little over 7000 yards http://www.colovistagolf.com/golf/courseinformation

 

Since we have moved to New York have to think a PGA caliber player could shoot a really low score at my new home course.  From the back only 6600 yards and not many things that would worry a high level player very much.   

Edited July 19, 2017 by scotth

[drmevo]

I went with 65-70. I'm guessing maybe an average of 68 or 69? The course is rated 73.6/137 at 6825 yards. The greens have a lot of undulation and it's not uncommon for them to stimp in the 11-12 range (according to the course). There are thick woods lining every hole so you get a punch out at best if you end up in them. The low-handicapper I play with usually scores mid-70's.

[DeadMan]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 8:09 AM, DeadMan said:

I'd say between 65-70, probably around 68 the first time playing the course. My home course from the tips is 71.6/135.

The toughest holes would be the two long par 3s (around 200 and 240 yards, respectively) on the course. Probably bogey one of those two because of the length. We also have a lot of holes that punish wayward drives. I'd say that a wayward drive would also lead to a bogey at some point.

Other than that, I have a hard time seeing a pro making many bogeys on my course. Most of the holes are fairly straightforward if you can find your drive. I'd expect 12-16 GIR from a PGA Tour player on my course (median on PGA Tour is around 11.75 GIR, so bump that up a couple of notches because the course isn't all that difficult and quite a bit shorter than they play - 6800 yards at elevation). I'd be surprised if they had more than one 3 putt, because our greens are flat and easy. I'd also say that there's 2 or 3 driveable par 4s for the pros from the tips, plus 2 of the par 5s would be reachable for every PGA tour player, and the other one reachable for most of them. 2 or 3 birdies on those holes, plus a few random birdies scattered in on the other holes.  I think that would add up to around a 68 overall (~5 birdies, ~2 bogeys, par 72).

Second time around, though, once they get used to the green speed and lack of slope, and possibly more importantly, the distance difference from being at elevation, I would expect a lot of them to be knocking on 65 or less.

Interesting counterpoint to this. A golfer who missed out on a playoff by one stroke in US Open local qualifying came and played the back 9 of my course. It's rated 35.2/130. He shot a 32 (4 under par). Maybe a PGA Tour pro would be going closer to 60.