Don't Understand Goydos 59 hype

[pga43]

[quote name='MBA-J' date='11 July 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1278874554' post='2568798']
[quote name='pga43' date='11 July 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1278873560' post='2568774']
Here's a question -

I've seen golf courses where a par 4 for men is a par 5 for women. If you were playing a match with a women player and you made 4 and she made 5 would the hole be halved with pars or would your 4 beat her 5?


Greg
[/quote]

The hole is halved.
[/quote]


Your opinion? Or Fact? If fact, where is that fact stated? I've seen it argued/discussed both ways. I'd love to have a reference to go back to to settle the argument.


Greg

[HeadonaStick]

It's a 59, period.

Par is irrelevant, the score is how many strokes it takes to get around the course and has nothing to do with par.

[MBA-J]

[quote name='pga43' date='11 July 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1278875821' post='2568832']
[quote name='MBA-J' date='11 July 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1278874554' post='2568798']
[quote name='pga43' date='11 July 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1278873560' post='2568774']
Here's a question -

I've seen golf courses where a par 4 for men is a par 5 for women. If you were playing a match with a women player and you made 4 and she made 5 would the hole be halved with pars or would your 4 beat her 5?


Greg
[/quote]

The hole is halved.
[/quote]


Your opinion? Or Fact? If fact, where is that fact stated? I've seen it argued/discussed both ways. I'd love to have a reference to go back to to settle the argument.


Greg
[/quote]

Here's my stab at it:

USGA Decisions

2-1/2 Minus or Zero Net Score

Q. In a handicap match, a player entitled to two handicap strokes at a par-3 hole scores a 2 or a hole-in-one. What would be his net score in each case?

A. The player's net score would be zero (0) if he scored a 2 or minus one (-1) if he had a hole-in-one.

The same would be true in a four-ball stroke play or Stableford competition since scores are calculated on a hole-by-hole basis.



In your example, the hole is in essence "handicapped." The hole is halved.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='Reidman' date='11 July 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1278864493' post='2568570']
Well....I certainly have gained some insight from this post. I am certainly not a Goydos hater....

I really started the post to help evaluate my personal best....I shot a 68 on a Par 72 this year....and wondering if it was really better than a 68 I shot last year on a Par 71.

So my old best of (-3) on Par 71 is really better than my new best of (-4) on Par 72...because I had one less Par 5? Doesn't seem to add up.

Apples to apples....-4 just sounds like a better round than -3
[/quote]
You still don't get it... -3 and -4 [i]aren't your scores![/i]. Sixty eight is your score, and they are both the same. You score is not calculated by subtracting your stroke count from par.

Would your 68 be a "better" score if the par 72 course was suddenly played as a par 71 with no other changes (as often happens at pro venues)?

[tElihu]

"Don't understand the Goydos hype..."

It being on a par 71 vs 72 is not a good reason to not understand the hype. So removing a birdie hole negates his 59?

You'd have had a much better point of you'd pointed out they played lift clean and place. But even then, with only 4 EVER on the PGA tour, and a collective ZERO by the all time greats (Woods, Nicklaus, Jones, Hogan, etc...) you really need to understand the hype.

[tElihu]

[quote name='MBA-J' date='11 July 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1278874554' post='2568798']
[quote name='pga43' date='11 July 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1278873560' post='2568774']
Here's a question -

I've seen golf courses where a par 4 for men is a par 5 for women. If you were playing a match with a women player and you made 4 and she made 5 would the hole be halved with pars or would your 4 beat her 5?


Greg
[/quote]

The hole is halved.
[/quote]


Dead wrong:

9-4a/3. Result of a Hole if Men?s and Women?s Par is Different

Q: In a match-play competition, one hole is par four for men and par five for women. In a match between a man and a woman, if both score par, what is the result of the hole?
A: Par is irrelevant. The player who completes the hole in fewer strokes wins the hole.

[vjswing]

[quote name='HeadonaStick' date='12 July 2010 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1278937244' post='2570102']
[quote name='Reidman' date='11 July 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1278864493' post='2568570']
Well....I certainly have gained some insight from this post. I am certainly not a Goydos hater....

I really started the post to help evaluate my personal best....I shot a 68 on a Par 72 this year....and wondering if it was really better than a 68 I shot last year on a Par 71.

So my old best of (-3) on Par 71 is really better than my new best of (-4) on Par 72...because I had one less Par 5? Doesn't seem to add up.

Apples to apples....-4 just sounds like a better round than -3
[/quote]
You still don't get it... -3 and -4 [i]aren't your scores![/i]. Sixty eight is your score, and they are both the same. You score is not calculated by subtracting your stroke count from par.

Would your 68 be a "better" score if the par 72 course was suddenly played as a par 71 with no other changes (as often happens at pro venues)?
[/quote]

WORD. The par-4 9th at TPC Deere Run plays at 503. You don't have to go too far back to see par-5s played at that length on the PGA Tour!

[Eag1e]

I really agree with you, OP. In all fairness, a lot of 60's have been shot on par 72's that go without this huge recognition. And honestly, score-wise, 60/72 = 59/71. Of course, it kind of can be looked at in another way; 71 means either another par three or one less par five. I believe par threes have the highest score in relation to par on tour, meaning that an extra par three adds difficulty to score that low. One less par five removes an easy eagle/birdy. I don't know the course layout they played on but either way that is very relevant. Although, then again, I was just comparing 59/71 to 60/72. You know, I just lost myself there. I'm pretty sure I what I was getting at was more to do with why 60/72 doesn't get recognition since I am still steadfast in that 59/71 = 60/72 and 59/72 is what should really be savored.

Hell, I don't know. This is such an unfair area to compare. People can say that your score isn't calculated relative to par but by strokes made, and they're right, but if the course is designed to be played in less strokes anyhow then I think it makes it less impressive (although that's not saying much as a 60 is mindblowing to me). I mean, when guys get on par 70's they shoot low 60's every day.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='Eag1e' date='12 July 2010 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1278943833' post='2570248']
I really agree with you, OP. In all fairness, a lot of 60's have been shot on par 72's that go without this huge recognition. And honestly, score-wise, 60/72 = 59/71. Of course, it kind of can be looked at in another way; 71 means either another par three or one less par five. I believe par threes have the highest score in relation to par on tour, meaning that an extra par three adds difficulty to score that low. One less par five removes an easy eagle/birdy. I don't know the course layout they played on but either way that is very relevant. Although, then again, I was just comparing 59/71 to 60/72. You know, I just lost myself there. I'm pretty sure I what I was getting at was more to do with why 60/72 doesn't get recognition since I am still steadfast in that 59/71 = 60/72 and 59/72 is what should really be savored.

Hell, I don't know. This is such an unfair area to compare. People can say that your score isn't calculated relative to par but by strokes made, and they're right, but if the course is designed to be played in less strokes anyhow then I think it makes it less impressive (although that's not saying much as a 60 is mindblowing to me). [b]I mean, when guys get on par 70's they shoot low 60's every day.[/b]
[/quote]
And yet, no 59's. Hmm.

You know, scores were never reported in relation to par until recently, and then only to benefit viewers. The Master's started it.

Par is only a [i]suggestion[/i] anyway. There are par 4's that I play like short par 5's and par 5's that are easy birdie holes. You could get rid of par, and the game wouldn't change a bit.

[b.helts]

[quote name='Eag1e' date='12 July 2010 - 07:10 AM' timestamp='1278943833' post='2570248']
I really agree with you, OP. In all fairness, a lot of 60's have been shot on par 72's that go without this huge recognition. And honestly, score-wise, 60/72 = 59/71. Of course, it kind of can be looked at in another way; 71 means either another par three or one less par five. I believe par threes have the highest score in relation to par on tour, meaning that an extra par three adds difficulty to score that low. One less par five removes an easy eagle/birdy. I don't know the course layout they played on but either way that is very relevant. Although, then again, I was just comparing 59/71 to 60/72. You know, I just lost myself there. I'm pretty sure I what I was getting at was more to do with why 60/72 doesn't get recognition since I am still steadfast in that 59/71 = 60/72 and 59/72 is what should really be savored.

Hell, I don't know. This is such an unfair area to compare. People can say that your score isn't calculated relative to par but by strokes made, and they're right, but if the course is designed to be played in less strokes anyhow then I think it makes it less impressive (although that's not saying much as a 60 is mindblowing to me). I mean, when guys get on par 70's they shoot low 60's every day.
[/quote]


know your facts before you post something. only 21 rounds of 60 have ever been shot on the PGA Tour. so, "in all fairness" it's hard to take anything say seriously when you start with what is a demonstrably false premise.

BTW Factoid: zach johnson is the only guy in the history of the PGA Tour to shoot 60 twice

[Reidman]

Well....I was hoping Stricker would shoot a 58 yesterday...and I would shoot a 67...so all us posters could rest easier last night. No such luck.

So I guess what I have learned from this beating that Goydos score of 59 on a Par 71 = Duval's 59 on a 72 = Tiger's future 59 on a 70 at Augusta in 2020 after they take away a couple of par 5's.

What I have not gathered....which is the reason I started this post....is my personal best of 68 on a 72 this year really better than my 68 on a 71 last year?

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1278946235' post='2570317']
[...]
What I have not gathered....which is the reason I started this post....is my personal best of 68 on a 72 this year really better than my 68 on a 71 last year?
[/quote]
I'm not sure why one has to be better than the other, but in any case only you can determine that.

Which was more satisfying to you? Answer that and you will know which was "best."

[MBA-J]

[quote name='tElihu' date='12 July 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1278940929' post='2570184']
[quote name='MBA-J' date='11 July 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1278874554' post='2568798']
[quote name='pga43' date='11 July 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1278873560' post='2568774']
Here's a question -

I've seen golf courses where a par 4 for men is a par 5 for women. If you were playing a match with a women player and you made 4 and she made 5 would the hole be halved with pars or would your 4 beat her 5?


Greg
[/quote]

The hole is halved.
[/quote]


Dead wrong:

9-4a/3. Result of a Hole if Men?s and Women?s Par is Different

Q: In a match-play competition, one hole is par four for men and par five for women. In a match between a man and a woman, if both score par, what is the result of the hole?
A: Par is irrelevant. The player who completes the hole in fewer strokes wins the hole.
[/quote]

Good find. Thanks for being so diplomatic in the provision of your answer.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='one.fairway.over' date='12 July 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1278944744' post='2570270']
BTW Factoid: zach johnson is the only guy in the history of the PGA Tour to shoot 60 twice
[/quote]

Very COOL stat, I didn't know that and Zach is one of my favorite players. Thanks for posting that!

Kevin

[Reidman]

[quote name='HeadonaStick' date='12 July 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1278946488' post='2570325']
[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1278946235' post='2570317']
[...]
What I have not gathered....which is the reason I started this post....is my personal best of 68 on a 72 this year really better than my 68 on a 71 last year?
[/quote]
I'm not sure why one has to be better than the other, but in any case only you can determine that.

Which was more satisfying to you? Answer that and you will know which was "best."
[/quote]

I think after work I will go to the executive Par 3 where Par is 54, and shoot a 67. Then go around & tell everyone my new personal best is 67...and use the defense that the PGA Tour Best of 59 never takes into account the relation to par.

I think I need to take this up with Brandel Chamblee & let them discuss on Golf Central

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1278947696' post='2570372']
[quote name='HeadonaStick' date='12 July 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1278946488' post='2570325']
[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1278946235' post='2570317']
[...]
What I have not gathered....which is the reason I started this post....is my personal best of 68 on a 72 this year really better than my 68 on a 71 last year?
[/quote]
I'm not sure why one has to be better than the other, but in any case only you can determine that.

Which was more satisfying to you? Answer that and you will know which was "best."
[/quote]

I think after work I will go to the executive Par 3 where Par is 54, and shoot a 67. Then go around & tell everyone my new personal best is 67...and use the defense that the PGA Tour Best of 59 never takes into account the relation to par.

I think I need to take this up with Brandel Chamblee & let them discuss on Golf Central
[/quote]

Not even in the same ball park...

Kevin

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1278947696' post='2570372']
[quote name='HeadonaStick' date='12 July 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1278946488' post='2570325']
[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1278946235' post='2570317']
[...]
What I have not gathered....which is the reason I started this post....is my personal best of 68 on a 72 this year really better than my 68 on a 71 last year?
[/quote]
I'm not sure why one has to be better than the other, but in any case only you can determine that.

Which was more satisfying to you? Answer that and you will know which was "best."
[/quote]

I think after work I will go to the executive Par 3 where Par is 54, and shoot a 67. Then go around & tell everyone my new personal best is 67...and use the defense that the PGA Tour Best of 59 never takes into account the relation to par.
[/quote]
If that makes you feel good, knock yourself out. I would assume it would be no where near as satisfying as your 68 on a "real" course, but then again some people are obtuse.

In any case, you are correct, the PGA Tour Best does not take into account relation to par, because par is largely irrelevant at that level. They also don't play executive courses on the PGA Tour.

[pga43]

[quote name='tElihu' date='12 July 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1278940929' post='2570184']
[quote name='MBA-J' date='11 July 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1278874554' post='2568798']
[quote name='pga43' date='11 July 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1278873560' post='2568774']
Here's a question -

I've seen golf courses where a par 4 for men is a par 5 for women. If you were playing a match with a women player and you made 4 and she made 5 would the hole be halved with pars or would your 4 beat her 5?


Greg
[/quote]

The hole is halved.
[/quote]


Dead wrong:

9-4a/3. Result of a Hole if Men?s and Women?s Par is Different

Q: In a match-play competition, one hole is par four for men and par five for women. In a match between a man and a woman, if both score par, what is the result of the hole?
A: Par is irrelevant. The player who completes the hole in fewer strokes wins the hole.
[/quote]



Thanks. I thought that would be the answer but never took the time to look it up.


Greg

[HeadonaStick]

For what it is worth...

Through first ten events this year:

Par 73 Course: Winning Score: -22 Field Average: 69.88
Par 72 Course(s): Winning Score Average: -17.5 Field Average Average: 70.4125
Par 71 Course(s): Winning Score Average: -11.75 Field Average Average: 70.61
Par 70 Course(s): Winning Score Average: -14 Field Average Average: 70.73

One par 70 course plays at 7158 and is the 5th most difficult course on tour.

[Goopher]

The custom fitting center I work at is attached to a par 66 course ... and i'd still take 59 there any time :-)

[cpriceAP2]

astrick or no astrick...It's still a fricken 59

[golf_junkie27]

[quote name='MBA-J' date='10 July 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1278767532' post='2566612']
Just what does it take to impress some of you guys?
[/quote]


You need to be able to carry your tour issued shaft and head that you had built @ (insert club makers name) 290 yards with a slight cut into a hurricane.

You then have to hit your PW, the one with the custom stamping, paintfill and that special grind made up for the one specific course, 160 yards that you manage to pull back 12 feet instead of 20 feet. Damn those new groove rules!

All of this, of course, by someone who's a 12 handicap but would be closer to scratch if he.....could only putt. That, too, will change once the custom (insert putter maker) comes in the mail.

Of course, all of this equipment will be in the BST on Wednesday as things just "did not work out."

Back on Topic, it's a 59 for crying out loud at a PGA event. Had it been Tiger, Lefty, Easy E or one of the young, [i][b]POPULAR[/b][/i], guns, the applause would not stop. Instead, it's a vet with a self-deprecating sense of humor whose claim to fame, according to some, is his Long Beach baseball cap. He's a fine golfer with a career that most, if not all the people on this board, would trade their current jobs for.

[cbinder83]

Nice golf junkie, nice to see someone that agrees with me. There was talk some time ago of doing some regional GOLFWRX events, and I hope to god they have one someday. I would revel in the slaughtering of these floundering fools on a 7200 yrd. course with a 74 rating. Then maybe they would realize that all this time spent talking smack on a guy who could beat them with just one club wasnt worth the time or the effort. NUFF SAID!

[Mward2002]

I think it's more difficult to shoot lower on a par 70 or 71 track than it is a 72. One less par 5 to have a decent chance at birdie or better for the pros. For me, one less hole I can hit a bad drive and still be able to salvage par after a layup.

[mikpga]

[quote name='Reidman' date='09 July 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1278725328' post='2565937']
Am I the only one wondering about the hype of Goydos' 59 yesterday? Its really a (-12), which translates to a 60 on a par 72 course. And you don't see anyone on the PGA Tour writing 60 on their ball, and taking pictures....since its been done many times.

I'll have to research Duval's 59...but would bet par was 72 that day....which makes a (-13). Fairly certain Annika's was on a Par 72 course also.

What you guys think.....[b]am I in the minority?
[/b][/quote]

I would tend to think that you are in the minority!

Pete Rose holds the record for most hits, but he got a lot of easy pitchers...

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 08:14 AM' timestamp='1278947696' post='2570372']
[quote name='HeadonaStick' date='12 July 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1278946488' post='2570325']
[quote name='Reidman' date='12 July 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1278946235' post='2570317']
[...]
What I have not gathered....which is the reason I started this post....is my personal best of 68 on a 72 this year really better than my 68 on a 71 last year?
[/quote]
I'm not sure why one has to be better than the other, but in any case only you can determine that.

Which was more satisfying to you? Answer that and you will know which was "best."
[/quote]

I think after work I will go to the executive Par 3 where Par is 54, and shoot a 67. Then go around & tell everyone my new personal best is 67...and use the defense that the PGA Tour Best of 59 never takes into account the relation to par.
[/quote]

Like I said, you should compare your score to the course rating and slope to get a comparable measure. In fact, to settle this debate whether Goydos' 59 is comparable to the other 59's, it should be compared to the course ratings of the courses where these scores were shot. The problem is that the course setups the pros play typically isn't rated.

I occasionally play a course that is a PAR 73. My best score there is 75. I've shot 76 there two other times. Must be a hard course because it is a Par 73, right ?? Well, it is 6164 yards, 68.8/117 rating. (differential = 6.0)

I also once shot a 75 on a PAR 72 course. Not as good right? that's 3 over par, where the other 75 was 2 over par. Ok, this course is 6721 yards, 71.1/133 rating. (differential = 3.3)

Which 75 is the better round?

I'm just pointing this out to show that there is a basic fallacy in your understanding of PAR as a measure.

[golf_junkie27]

[/quote]

Like I said, you should compare your score to the course rating and slope to get a comparable measure. In fact, to settle this debate whether Goydos' 59 is comparable to the other 59's, it should be compared to the course ratings of the courses where these scores were shot. The problem is that the course setups the pros play typically isn't rated.

I occasionally play a course that is a PAR 73. My best score there is 75. I've shot 76 there two other times. Must be a hard course because it is a Par 73, right ?? Well, it is 6164 yards, 68.8/117 rating. (differential = 6.0)

I also once shot a 75 on a PAR 72 course. Not as good right? that's 3 over par, where the other 75 was 2 over par. Ok, this course is 6721 yards, 71.1/133 rating. (differential = 3.3)

Which 75 is the better round?

I'm just pointing this out to show that there is a basic fallacy in your understanding of PAR as a measure.
[/quote]

You would, agree, no, that it's more than just course rating, right? There are things such as condition of the course that don't come into play when measuring course rating. Was it wet? Hard fairways on that particular day? What about the weather? Altitude? There are so many variables that come into play.

Not saying, you, but why are so many discounting his 59? Has anyone on this board ever shot a 59? Has anyone ever played a PGA event where they can brag about their score and their placement?

If not, please, stop disparaging (again not you) his 59.

[mikpga]

It has only happened FOUR times in the history of the PGA Tour...

I can't imagine why there would be any hype around it?

And now the Ryo Ishikawa has scored a 58, who cares about those "mediocre" 59's anyways?

Sorry, I shall digress!

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='golf_junkie27' date='12 July 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1278958243' post='2570792']
[quote]

Like I said, you should compare your score to the course rating and slope to get a comparable measure. In fact, to settle this debate whether Goydos' 59 is comparable to the other 59's, it should be compared to the course ratings of the courses where these scores were shot. The problem is that the course setups the pros play typically isn't rated.

I occasionally play a course that is a PAR 73. My best score there is 75. I've shot 76 there two other times. Must be a hard course because it is a Par 73, right ?? Well, it is 6164 yards, 68.8/117 rating. (differential = 6.0)

I also once shot a 75 on a PAR 72 course. Not as good right? that's 3 over par, where the other 75 was 2 over par. Ok, this course is 6721 yards, 71.1/133 rating. (differential = 3.3)

Which 75 is the better round?

I'm just pointing this out to show that there is a basic fallacy in your understanding of PAR as a measure.
[/quote]

You would, agree, no, that it's more than just course rating, right? There are things such as condition of the course that don't come into play when measuring course rating. Was it wet? Hard fairways on that particular day? What about the weather? Altitude? There are so many variables that come into play.[/quote]

Which is why the question was asked. Par is one of those variables. So is lift, clean and place.

[quote]Not saying, you, but why are so many discounting his 59? Has anyone on this board ever shot a 59? Has anyone ever played a PGA event where they can brag about their score and their placement?[/quote]
Whether or not anyone here has shot a 59 is totally, totally irrelevant. We can still discuss it.

People are not disparaging anything! The question is whether a 59 on a par 71 is the same accomplishment as a 59 on a par 72 course. We all acknowledge that it is an amazing feat in any case... that isn't what is interesting here. You yourself mentioned a number of variables, all of which would be fair to question. The OP chose par.

Good grief you're acting as if someone kicked your dog in the jewels. Get a grip. Hell, even Goydos said lift, clean and place helped. Seems he wouldn't mind the discussion, why do you?

[quote]
If not, please, stop disparaging (again not you) his 59.
[/quote]

Asking a legitimate question is not disparaging anything.

[flaun]

All that I will say is that I was impressed with Goydos' feat. So many rounds have been played at par 71 courses that one would think that a 59 would come a little easier.....but it hasn't. Can't believe Stricker almost holed out on 18 twice this tourney!