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

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Not necessarily given @dove694 's original post. He didn't use the word 'normally'. So if we use the PGA adjusted scoring distribution as a model for the average player (who does not actually exist) and plunk that on any particular course on any particular day the score that they make should relate to that scoring distribution and the course rating.

However, all the likely scores within the probability distribution are in play until that single round is finished and a score is recorded. It's a little like the position of the electron. It has a probabilistic location and all possibilities are in play for the precise location until the wave function is collapsed with a measurement. Some individual outcomes are just more likely than others.

I would a argue that would should be changed to could. Could you change could to would or would to could? Would you change would to could if you could? Or could to would if you would?

[natureboy]

6 hours ago, dove694 said:

@natureboy

Here is probably the best clue as to how many Tour players own course records at their respective clubs. There are plenty of examples of low scores (60-65) shot in "noncompetitive" rounds by some familiar names. It's an interesting read - check it out!

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/100-greatest-course-records

That was an interesting read. I think it agrees roughly with what we were saying, though there don't seem to be many rounds on courses with low ratings.

Some of those scores were like 15 strokes under the course rating! Rich Harvest and French Lick sound like really hard courses with such high course records.

Quote

(PS. I hope the Natureboy moniker means you are actually Ric Flair enjoying retirement from wrestling by trolling golf forums on the internet! ?)

Hah, that was a funny read. Nope. I don't follow wrestling.

20 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I would a argue that would should be changed to could. Could you change could to would or would to could? Would you change would to could if you could? Or could to would if you would?

Chuck wood? 

Edited May 30, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

On 5/29/2016 at 2:52 AM, dove694 said:

And also, "speculation" is what the thread is all about!

Here's some more below about the lowest you might expect - even on an easy course.

On 5/27/2016 at 10:42 PM, RandallT said:

My gut still tells me that shooting that extremely low even on easy courses is very hard.

I think this is largely true, but pros don't tend to play a lot on 'easy' courses so there doesn't seem to be even much anecdotal stuff.

The quote below describes what's considered the 'perfect round'.

Quote

In golf, a perfect round is a round of eighteen holes where all holes were played on average at one under par (average of birdie on every hole) resulting in a score of 55 on a par 73 course, 54 on a par 72 course, 53 on a par 71 course, and 52 on a par 70 course. While the lowest possible score is 18, the term 'perfect round' is used for a 54 as the lowest score generally accepted as being in the realm of possibility among professional golfers on a par 72 course. This has remained the standard and has never been achieved by a professional golfer in a professional event.

I guess you could also consider a 'go-for-green' perfect round where you also hit all the par 5's in two and one-putted those for eagle for a 'go-for-green perfect' score of 50.

Obviously the likelihood of doing this in a single round defies the essence of golf, but it's a good a hard theoretical lower limit that probably depends more on the par than the course rating. Likely the odds grow exponentially as the percentage of birdied / eagled holes rises. I think we can discount albatrosses as a 'perfect round' option.

Most tournament pro scores don't get below 56 and 59 with about an 80/20 rule separating the more frequent 59s from the 58's.

That's 4-5 strokes (assuming par 72) over the 'perfect round' and 8-9 over the 'go-for-green perfect round', each of which represent grabbing about 75% and 61% respectively of the potential shots under par realistically available. I suppose a short par-4 would add another potential eagle opportunity, but we'll discount that as I'm not sure how universal they are.

The lowest tournament round was 55 (par of 71) by one single golfer out of how many total tournament rounds by pros and plus HCP amateurs over the years?

Quote

The lowest officially recorded score is 55 by Rhein Gibson and this score is recognized by the Guinness World Records. Four other rounds of 55 are documented, but these are commonly discounted due to the quality of the course or the nature of the round (e.g., a non-competitive round).

So while 55 is humanly achievable it's super rare and likely represents the lower limit of any possible likelihood. That would put the absolute lowest threshold around 17.8 below the course rating (72.8) and 16 below par. So there's a lot of room to go below even a low course rating or par of 70. I don't think the expected scores would get too squished and the distribution would still likely be normal in shape.

The thing that is probably unrealistic is how narrow the range of expected scores is. The field is extremely consistent, but I think a single individual player (whose average score is the same as the field) will have a score variance significantly larger than the field.

I think the mode likely stays the same while the distribution flattens / spreads out more into the tails with a little more probability to both go low and high and less certainty of shooting within a stroke or two of the mode / most likely score.

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by natureboy

[phan52]

We used to have a PGA Tour event at our club from 1963-1980 and three players set the course record at 63 (none in the tournament proper, all in the Pro-Am). Steve Wheatcroft, who has had a tour card on and off for the last ten years, visited a friend who is a member and tied the course record of 63 two years ago. The course is about 400 yards longer than it was in 1980 and it's a tough track with a 73.9 rating and a 142 slope from the tips, but the one shortcoming is the overall length. I fear, if those guys today got a couple of cracks at it and figured out the greens, that 60 would be in peril.

[colin007]

You guys are throwing out small sample size "data" from types of courses that I don't think many of us would call on the same level as the crap we play on. For instance, a muni in a small city like Albany N.Y. for instance. I'm talking about piss poor greens, sloped/crowned tee boxes, large swaths of dead fairway, bunkers filled with hard packed dirt and rocks the size of your fist, dense underbrush underneath trees (it kills me seeing on tv how the pros hit into the trees and the grass under the trees is perfectly manicured), green speeds that vary from hole to hole...I can't picture a pro EVER playing a course like I play on.

[Hardspoon]

8 minutes ago, colin007 said:

I'm talking about piss poor greens, sloped/crowned tee boxes, large swaths of dead fairway, bunkers filled with hard packed dirt and rocks the size of your fist, dense underbrush underneath trees (it kills me seeing on tv how the pros hit into the trees and the grass under the trees is perfectly manicured), green speeds that vary from hole to hole...

I can't picture a pro EVER playing a course like I play on.

I can't picture ANYONE playing a course like you play on!   Maybe Matt Damon in The Martian...

[phan52]

12 minutes ago, colin007 said:

You guys are throwing out small sample size "data" from types of courses that I don't think many of us would call on the same level as the crap we play on. For instance, a muni in a small city like Albany N.Y. for instance. I'm talking about piss poor greens, sloped/crowned tee boxes, large swaths of dead fairway, bunkers filled with hard packed dirt and rocks the size of your fist, dense underbrush underneath trees (it kills me seeing on tv how the pros hit into the trees and the grass under the trees is perfectly manicured), green speeds that vary from hole to hole...I can't picture a pro EVER playing a course like I play on.

Why do YOU play there? I know I wouldn't.

[No Mulligans]

26 minutes ago, colin007 said:

Y bunkers filled with hard packed dirt and rocks the size of your fist, dense underbrush underneath trees

Rocks the size of a fist in the bunkers.  For me that's an unplayable lie every time.  People actually play in those conditions?  And I thought my goat track was ragged.

Pass

[Lihu]

31 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Rocks the size of a fist in the bunkers.  For me that's an unplayable lie every time.  People actually play in those conditions?  And I thought my goat track was ragged.

Pass

You're allowed to remove rocks loose impediments from a bunker if there is a local rule permitting it. . .

http://www.usga.org/rulesfaq/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=91&Rule=23

http://www.usga.org/videos/2015/12/23/rules-of-golf-explained--loose-impediments-4673651606001.html

Edited May 31, 2016 by Lihu
Correction

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

You're allowed to remove loose impediments from a bunker. . .

http://www.usga.org/rulesfaq/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=91&Rule=23

http://www.usga.org/videos/2015/12/23/rules-of-golf-explained--loose-impediments-4673651606001.html

This is off-topic, but no, you are not. Stones can be removed only if specifically allowed by a local rule.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, phan52 said:

We used to have a PGA Tour event at our club from 1963-1980 and three players set the course record at 63 (none in the tournament proper, all in the Pro-Am). Steve Wheatcroft, who has had a tour card on and off for the last ten years, visited a friend who is a member and tied the course record of 63 two years ago. The course is about 400 yards longer than it was in 1980 and it's a tough track with a 73.9 rating and a 142 slope from the tips, but the one shortcoming is the overall length. I fear, if those guys today got a couple of cracks at it and figured out the greens, that 60 would be in peril.

I feel as though you didn't read many of the posts in the thread.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

You guys are throwing out small sample size "data" from types of courses that I don't think many of us would call on the same level as the crap we play on. For instance, a muni in a small city like Albany N.Y. for instance. I'm talking about piss poor greens, sloped/crowned tee boxes, large swaths of dead fairway, bunkers filled with hard packed dirt and rocks the size of your fist, dense underbrush underneath trees (it kills me seeing on tv how the pros hit into the trees and the grass under the trees is perfectly manicured), green speeds that vary from hole to hole...I can't picture a pro EVER playing a course like I play on.

I sure hope you're being hyperbolic here.  The shittiest of shitty courses I've ever played and complained about around here are jewels compared to what you're describing. 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

 bunkers filled with hard packed dirt

This I've encountered along with dog poop and a veritable snow angel worth of unraked footprints.

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

and rocks the size of your fist,

Never this, though. A few pebbles maybe.

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

dense underbrush underneath trees (it kills me seeing on tv how the pros hit into the trees and the grass under the trees is perfectly manicured), green speeds that vary from hole to hole.

Some PGA tracks have dense understory too. Remember Kevin Na.

[phan52]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I feel as though you didn't read many of the posts in the thread.

I read most. My course always has excellent conditions and the greens roll true with good speed. I did say "if they got a couple of cracks at it." There are a lot of birdies to be had if you know the greens. Wheatcroft never saw it before and shot 63, playing with a member and a very good caddie with local knowledge. I played with a 6 handicap yesterday who had 6 birdies. Yeah, he shot 76 but he made 6 birdies.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/30/2016 at 0:42 PM, natureboy said:

Not necessarily given @dove694 's original post. He didn't use the word 'normally'. So if we use the PGA adjusted scoring distribution as a model for the average player (who does not actually exist) and plunk that on any particular course on any particular day the score that they make should relate to that scoring distribution and the course rating.

However, all the likely scores within the probability distribution are in play until that single round is finished and a score is recorded. It's a little like the position of the electron. It has a probabilistic location and all possibilities are in play for the precise location until the wave function is collapsed with a measurement. Some individual outcomes are just more likely than others.

When I read the first sentence of the second paragraph I thought, "Damn! That sounds like a description of the Schrodinger Wave Equation!

I also tend to agree with the idea that if you took a pro to a really rotten course, Ponkaquogue if you will, that could really impact their game in a negative fashion. Pros are used to playing in pretty much pristine conditions.

I remember the first time I went to the WGC at Firestone in Akron. I arrived at the course well before the first tee times, so thought I would just walk the course to have a look at it. Eventually, I found myself at some remove from the clubhouse with absolutely no one around. I ducked under the ropes and walked out in the middle of a fairway. I was on my knees out there, running my hands over the turfgrass like some kind of maniac! It was incredible! As tight as beeswax!

Of course, the flip side of that coin is if you hit it in the rough at Firestone, you could be well and truly screwed. Whereas, on an unkempt muni, who knows? Unless they've gotten a lot of natural rain that year. I've never seen so many sprinkler heads in the rough as I have at Firestone.

[jsgolfer]

Springfield Golf & CC

Gold 71.4/131 6680 Yds

Our course record from the tips is 64, done by one of our Members who won the club championship 11 times and was the VA State Amateur winner in 1994.

Hal Sutton played at the course back in the mid 80's not long after he had won the PGA Championship and Shot 71. 

 

[colin007]

15 hours ago, natureboy said:

This I've encountered along with dog poop and a veritable snow angel worth of unraked footprints.

Never this, though. A few pebbles maybe.

 

16 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I sure hope you're being hyperbolic here.  The shittiest of shitty courses I've ever played and complained about around here are jewels compared to what you're describing. 

my home muni, Town of Colonie. the bunkers are hard packed dirt that is the consistency of cement. i can take pics of one of them next time i play.

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, colin007 said:

my home muni, Town of Colonie. the bunkers are hard packed dirt that is the consistency of cement. i can take pics of one of them next time i play.

Well that's good to know. Surprising since it's mostly on the Pine Barrens, yes?

I have also encountered the hard pan bunker on more than a few courses but never a fist-sized rock. Kids screwing around with golfers, or your playing partners?

 

@dove694 About what rank would you consider the average player on tour? In 2013 Kevin Chappel and Jason Kokrak had scoring averages around the tour mean for 180 players. Or were you thinking of a smaller 'field'?

Edited June 1, 2016 by natureboy