Jim Furyk Shoots 58 (Par 70)

[Sidehatch]

3 hours ago, Gunther said:

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.

To say "he had no pressure" indicates that you weren't watching Furyk's last few holes. The pressure on 17 was self-imposed, but it was there nonetheless when he clearly overshot the pin with his approach shot, and then left his birdie putt short in an effort to try and avoid the possibility of leaving it long. The result? A 5 foot par putt that was by no means a gimme. He was absolutely relieved when he made that putt, and even did a fist pump to show it.

To say "he had no pressure" is like saying that a starting pitcher with a perfect game has "no pressure" going into the 9th inning. Good luck telling David Wells that. 

[Gunther]

21 minutes ago, Sidehatch said:

To say "he had no pressure" indicates that you weren't watching Furyk's last few holes. The pressure on 17 was self-imposed, but it was there nonetheless when he clearly overshot the pin with his approach shot, and then left his birdie putt short in an effort to try and avoid the possibility of leaving it long. The result? A 5 foot par putt that was by no means a gimme. He was absolutely relieved when he made that putt, and even did a fist pump to show it.

To say "he had no pressure" is like saying that a starting pitcher with a perfect game has "no pressure" going into the 9th inning. Good luck telling David Wells that. 

It's all relative.  The point is, he went out loosey-goosey, nothing to lose, no chance to win even if he shot the lowest score ever recorded.  

So maybe he had self-imposed pressure to break 60 on the back 9, but that's different from the pressure of being in contention at a PGA Tour event from hole 1, such as the final group faced.

[Dave2512]

Yeah I don't know about that knowing you could shoot the lowest round in tour history is probably intense. I imagine anyone with a chance to better their PB is nervy regardless of the stakes.

[David in FL]

3 hours 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.  

Par is arbitrary, especially on tour, as evidenced by the fact that members often play the same hole/course as a different par than the pros do.  In that case, even though par changes, the course rating remains the same, as does any given differential.

So back to my question.  If the members play par 72, and the pros play at par 70, on the exact same course, who had the better round...the member who shot 6 under par 66, or the pro who shot 5 under 65?

The greatest round of all time, I don't think so, and we can calculate differentials for every tournament played and argue whether someone's gross score was actually 3/10's better than someone else's, but the bottom line here is that no one in the history of the PGA Tour has ever carded a 58 before, regardless of par, or relative difficulty of any course.  It's unique, and historic.

 

 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Par is arbitrary, especially on tour, as evidenced by the fact that members often play the same hole/course as a different par than the pros do.  In that case, even though par changes, the course rating remains the same, as does any given differential.

So back to my question.  If the members play par 72, and the pros play at par 70, on the exact same course, who had the better round...the member who shot 6 under par 66, or the pro who shot 5 under 65?

The greatest round of all time, I don't think so, and we can calculate differentials for every tournament played and argue whether someone's gross score was actually 3/10's better than someone else's, but the bottom line here is that no one in the history of the PGA Tour has ever carded a 58 before, regardless of par, or relative difficulty of any course.  It's unique, and historic.

The better round by score only, the pro.  The better round in terms of accomplishment, the member.  

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Par is arbitrary, especially on tour, as evidenced by the fact that members often play the same hole/course as a different par than the pros do.  In that case, even though par changes, the course rating remains the same, as does any given differential.

So back to my question.  If the members play par 72, and the pros play at par 70, on the exact same course, who had the better round...the member who shot 6 under par 66, or the pro who shot 5 under 65?

The greatest round of all time, I don't think so, and we can calculate differentials for every tournament played and argue whether someone's gross score was actually 3/10's better than someone else's, but the bottom line here is that no one in the history of the PGA Tour has ever carded a 58 before, regardless of par, or relative difficulty of any course.  It's unique, and historic.

Agree completely.  Another example would be when they play a US Open at a course they play another time of the year.  Two examples are 2008 Torrey Pines and 2010 Pebble Beach.  In both cases, the course is par 72 for the regular event and par 71 for the US Open.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that a -6 66 in the Farmers or AT&T is a better round than a -5 66 in the US Open.  Heck, I don't think anybody would even legitimately argue that a 66 in February was better than a 68 or even 69 on Father's Day Weekend at that same course.

Par is very arbitrary and really only there for one reason: so those of us watching can keep track of where everybody stands relative to the field during the middle of rounds.

[newtogolf]

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Agree completely.  Another example would be when they play a US Open at a course they play another time of the year.  Two examples are 2008 Torrey Pines and 2010 Pebble Beach.  In both cases, the course is par 72 for the regular event and par 71 for the US Open.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that a -6 66 in the Farmers or AT&T is a better round than a -5 66 in the US Open.  Heck, I don't think anybody would even legitimately argue that a 66 in February was better than a 68 or even 69 on Father's Day Weekend at that same course.

Par is very arbitrary and really only there for one reason: so those of us watching can keep track of where everybody stands relative to the field during the middle of rounds.

I agree with that, but there are others factors in the US Open to consider compared to a normal tournament setup.  

[Golfingdad]

44 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I agree with that, but there are others factors in the US Open to consider compared to a normal tournament setup.  

Certainly.  But that's part of the point.  There are other factors to consider in the setup for a regular PGA tournament as well.  I will concede, though, that 72.7/131 6841 yards is on the very easy/short end of the spectrum for a PGA Tour course.

Regardless .... it's a fifty-eight! 

[nevets88]

Longest birdie putt, 24 feet.

 

[natureboy]

22 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Longest birdie putt, 24 feet.

 

Average proximity on these holes of 9.6 feet.

[Sidehatch]

5 hours ago, Gunther said:

It's all relative.  The point is, he went out loosey-goosey, nothing to lose, no chance to win even if he shot the lowest score ever recorded.  

So maybe he had self-imposed pressure to break 60 on the back 9, but that's different from the pressure of being in contention at a PGA Tour event from hole 1, such as the final group faced.

Not trying to be an argumentative jerk, but he did have a chance to win. At the time he finished, he was only two shots in back of the lead. If he makes the putt on 18, and gets one more birdie on the back 9 he's there. Point is that he was close, and he knew he was running way up that leaderboard. If he shot a 55, he would've had to compete in a playoff after putting up the lowest number in PGA history. That would have been some great television! 

[disco111]

Whoop de do..........a 58..........I've shot 58's a number of times...........................Just didn't play the back 9......

[Golfingdad]

13 hours ago, Sidehatch said:

Not trying to be an argumentative jerk, but he did have a chance to win. At the time he finished, he was only two shots in back of the lead. If he makes the putt on 18, and gets one more birdie on the back 9 he's there. Point is that he was close, and he knew he was running way up that leaderboard. If he shot a 55, he would've had to compete in a playoff after putting up the lowest number in PGA history. That would have been some great television! 

@Gunther's point is that when he started the day, he was relaxed and had nothing to lose because he was not in contention.  It's also a safe bet that any pressure he started feeling near the end of the round had nothing to do with him getting close to contending, and only to do with the historic round he was in the process of shooting.  That would have still held true if he made a couple more birdies.  The tournament playoff or trophy would have just been icing.

[turtleback]

I don't understand the need some have to denigrate a great accomplishment because it wasn't some other accomplishment.  No one claimed it was the best round ever, the claim is that it is the lowest round ever.  A pretty simple distinction, one would think, but one which escapes some folks apparently.

PGA Tour payers have played hundreds of thousands of rounds of golf on par 70 courses and this is the first time anyone ever registered a 58.  Yet all some can do is criticize it.  Sheesh - talk about sucking the joy out of life.

[Missouri Swede]

23 hours ago, newtogolf said:

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.  

From the USGA handicap manual:

Quote

Section 16 PAR COMPUTATION

Definitions

Within each section, all defined terms are in italics and are listed alphabetically in Section 2 - Definitions.

Yardages for guidance in computing par are given below. The effective playing length of a hole for the scratch golfer determines par. (See Section 13-3b.) These yardages may not be applied arbitrarily; the configuration of the ground and the severity of the obstacles should be taken into consideration.

Authorized golf associations are empowered to adjudicate questions of hole par. (See Decision 16/1.)

 

[Shindig]

Huh, the USGA considers a 2000 yard hole to be a par-6.  That's interesting

Also, that chart isn't used on the PGA Tour -- there are definitely par-4s over 471 yards that they play.  I'm sure even the U.S. Open has had a long par-4 that is within that chart's threshold.

But then again, the folks on the PGA Tour are well beyond scratch.

[Aflighter]

The argument that he had no pressure is bunch of bologna.How many others in history of golf that were so far behind have shot 58? Thats right nobody.

[natureboy]

7 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

@Gunther's point is that when he started the day, he was relaxed and had nothing to lose because he was not in contention.  It's also a safe bet that any pressure he started feeling near the end of the round had nothing to do with him getting close to contending, and only to do with the historic round he was in the process of shooting.  That would have still held true if he made a couple more birdies.  The tournament playoff or trophy would have just been icing.

That's true that he didn't 'sleep on the lead', which is different kind of pressure. But also think about what kind of pressure you've felt when you knew you were approaching a 'best round' or breaking 90, 80, or par let a lone a score that almost no one has shot in their lifetime.

Edited August 9, 2016 by natureboy