Jim Furyk Shoots 58 (Par 70)

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

It's an amazing accomplishment but I don't consider it any better than a 59 on a Par 72 course.  

Given his score vs field avg and par-5 lengths of ~ 560, 540, 540, 520 in the persimmon era, I'd call Geiberger's 59 stronger.

[Papa Steve 55]

I think to call it the greatest round ever is a stretch. Absolutely the lowest ever and a great accomplishment, but it has to be judged in the context it happened in. Duval's final round 59 was to win, Stenson's best ever 63 in the final of a major, IMHO, both surpass a 58 to tie for 5th.

Not trying to demean the accomplishment, Just my take on where it ranks.

[CarlSpackler]

It was a great round, but I equate it to shooting 60. I haven't claimed breaking 80 (yet), not because I haven't, but I haven't done it on a par 72 course. I have shot 79 on a par 71, but I'm counting that as an 80. A true "58" would have been 14 under, not 12. 

[skydog]

Impressive accomplishment for Jim.

I'm happy for him...that said, I hope this doesn't breathe life into his Ryder Cup pick chances. He simply isn't a good Ryder Cup competitor and I don't think he should have been on the team in 2014. I think DL3 needs to focus on youth and energy and break the status quo that hasn't been working.

[newtogolf]

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

Doesn't it depend on the course? TPC River Highlands has one par 5 that's a real 3-shotter in length and one that's reachable (possibly not for Furyk). Isn't it possible that there's a Par 72 where a 59 has been shot where all the par 5's were under 525 yards?

It does depend on the course but there was another thread here where we the OP felt his scores were being dismissed because they were achieved at a Par 65 course.  Most of us agreed that for clarification purposes one should report their score and course par when playing courses that are below the typical par 72 course.  

In Furyk's case it was a great round but most people talk about 59 on Par 72 courses, not Par 70, so 58 on a 70 would seem like a lesser achievement.  

[natureboy]

25 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It does depend on the course but there was another thread here where we the OP felt his scores were being dismissed because they were achieved at a Par 65 course.  Most of us agreed that for clarification purposes one should report their score and course par when playing courses that are below the typical par 72 course.  

In Furyk's case it was a great round but most people talk about 59 on Par 72 courses, not Par 70, so 58 on a 70 would seem like a lesser achievement.  

Did that par-65 have 18 greens?

I think par, course rating (incorporates total length), slope, length of par 5's, type of setup, field average (scoring conditions), are all relevant to the likelihood and therefore the relative difficulty of a low gross score. A 59 on a Par 72 with 3 par 5's of very reachable length (essentially very long par 4's) may well have been equivalent to Furyk's 58. I do think on average par 72's tend to be harder to go low on. yet the number of 59's on them is only ~ 10% less than you'd expect to see based solely on the frequency they are played on tour. So it doesn't seem to be an overwhelming effect. At least not enough to discount the 58 as completely equivalent to a 60 on a par 72.

60 is a very rare bird on the continuum of scores too, possibly a bit more prevalent because players are conscious of scores with a '5' in front as extra special and hard to achieve, a little like the 4 minute mile 'wall' used to be perceived. In 2015 There were 17 rounds at -9 RTP, 5 rounds at -10 RTP, 2 rounds at -11 RTP, and none lower (~8,500 total rounds). As there have been only 28 rounds with a '5' at the front in multiple hundreds of thousands of competitive rounds since ~ 1950 they are justifiably 'special'.

I think as long as there are 18 holes, decreasing par will increase the likelihood of a low gross score, but there's an inherent friction of having to hit it close enough to the pin and/or putt well enough or chip in to birdie or better ~ 2/3 of the time. This does create a bit of a real 'barrier' to going super-low if the course has a decent total length. What happens on the lower par / easier courses is that the somewhat frequent low 60's scores become more frequent and the very high scores RTP become less frequent (the std deviation or score spread for the field narrows / tightens up). But the really uncommon scores like 60 (or -12 RTP) go from like .001% to .002% (.0005% to .001% for 59 / -13 RTP), while a 64 might go from 2.5% to 5% in the expected score distribution for the field.

No matter which way you view it, though, the fact that Furyk took it that low relative to par and the field average twice in his career is what's I consider really special about his achievement.

[Dave2512]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

It does depend on the course but there was another thread here where we the OP felt his scores were being dismissed because they were achieved at a Par 65 course.  Most of us agreed that for clarification purposes one should report their score and course par when playing courses that are below the typical par 72 course.  

In Furyk's case it was a great round but most people talk about 59 on Par 72 courses, not Par 70, so 58 on a 70 would seem like a lesser achievement.  

A par 70 is a completely different thing than an exec course. It trades 2 par 5's, which pros and pretty much any decent golfer have a lower avg. relative to par than any other for 2 par 4's. I find par 71's to be the toughest of all if they have 5 par 3's.

Anyone remember the hypothetical all par 5 course thread? Most everyone said it'd be boring because it would be too easy.

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

A par 70 is a completely different thing than an exec course. It trades 2 par 5's, which pros and pretty much any decent golfer have a lower avg. relative to par than any other for 2 par 4's. I find par 71's to be the toughest of all if they have 5 par 3's.

Anyone remember the hypothetical all par 5 course thread? Most everyone said it'd be boring because it would be too easy.

Why is there a difference in the type of course, isn't the course par rated independently based on the individual holes it has?  If a course rates a 65 or a course rates a 70, it's below what most of us consider a typical course par, especially on the Tour.  

 

[Sidehatch]

I think what was cool is that he could have shot a 55/56 with a little luck, and nearly made the putt on 18 for 57. Also, watch the final group of the tournament play the 72nd hole - their drives are all over the place. Furyk's drive is right-center. The other guys on Sunday all left their uphill putts short, Furyk was the only guy to go a little long. All in all, one can easily say that he wasn't playing it safe on Sunday, and his execution was phenomenal. 

Also - 10 putts on the front nine? Yeesh.

[Gunther]

4 minutes ago, Sidehatch said:

 Also, watch the final group of the tournament play the 72nd hole - their drives are all over the place. Furyk's drive is right-center. The other guys on Sunday all left their uphill putts short, Furyk was the only guy to go a little long. All in all, one can easily say that he wasn't playing it safe on Sunday, and his execution was phenomenal. 

Also - 10 putts on the front nine? Yeesh.

Taking nothing away from Furyk but to be fair, he had no pressure, final group had plenty.  He played in benign conditions, final group played in wind.  He played on smooth greens, final group played after 70+ players had trampled the greens.

[Shindig]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

It does depend on the course but there was another thread here where we the OP felt his scores were being dismissed because they were achieved at a Par 65 course.  Most of us agreed that for clarification purposes one should report their score and course par when playing courses that are below the typical par 72 course.  

In Furyk's case it was a great round but most people talk about 59 on Par 72 courses, not Par 70, so 58 on a 70 would seem like a lesser achievement.  

Where in your view would someone shooting a 60 at Kapalua Plantation Course (par 73) rank?  The course record is 62 and has been achieved four times.  There are four par-5s and three par-3s if that affects your answer.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Where in your view would someone shooting a 60 at Kapalua Plantation Course (par 73) rank?  The course record is 62 and has been achieved four times.  There are four par-5s and three par-3s if that affects your answer.

I would consider that as good as a 59 on a Par 72 course, it should be the number of strokes below par, not the actual score that matters.  

[David in FL]

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I would consider that as good as a 59 on a Par 72 course, it should be the number of strokes below par, not the actual score that matters.  

If the pros play a course at par 70 and the members play the exact course/tees at par 72, a member's 66 is better than a pro's 65?  

Par is arbitrary.

 

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, David in FL said:

If the pros play a course at par 70 and the members play the exact course/tees at par 72, a member's 66 is better than a pro's 65?  

Par is arbitrary.

 

It's not exactly arbitrary, it's based on the rating from the USGA.  The achievement is relative to the course par, slope and score, i.e. the differential, which is how handicaps are calculated aren't they?    

I shot a 94 on a Par 68.1/129 and a 97 on a Par 70.7/131 and the differential was the same, 22.7.  

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I would consider that as good as a 59 on a Par 72 course, it should be the number of strokes below par, not the actual score that matters.  

Par doesn't tell the whole story, though.

Some par 72 are easier than others.

A course with 18 par threes would average a much higher score relative to par than a course of all par fives (assuming they're PGA Tour type holes, not all 700 yard par fives and 110 yard par threes).

[TourSpoon]

How did you shoot 58 Jim? Well, I missed a putt for 57.

Awesome to see history made and will greatly increase his chances to be in the GHOF! 

[Dave2512]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

It's not exactly arbitrary, it's based on the rating from the USGA.  The achievement is relative to the course par, slope and score, i.e. the differential, which is how handicaps are calculated aren't they?    

I shot a 94 on a Par 68.1/129 and a 97 on a Par 70.7/131 and the differential was the same, 22.7.  

I think you're talking about something else here. Safe to assume pros are playing courses that would be more difficult than their ratings when setup for the tournaments. The difference in 70-72 is the number of par 3's 4's 5's not the rating. Any course can be more or less difficult than par. But it's a fact those guys shred par 5's and in this case there were two less, 6800 + yards at par 70 is a tough walk.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I think you're talking about something else here. Safe to assume pros are playing courses that would be more difficult than their ratings when setup for the tournaments. The difference in 70-72 is the number of par 3's 4's 5's not the rating. Any course can be more or less difficult than par. But it's a fact those guys shred par 5's and in this case there were two less, 6800 + yards at par 70 is a tough walk.

It's possible I am not comparing apples to apples, but my understanding is that par for a hole is not based on distance alone but also the difficulty and layout of the hole.