Identifying the best player

[BCrosby]

The standard theory is that hard courses identify the best golfer. They say that's why you make them hard.

There are lots of problems with the standard theory. One is that the the best players win on all sorts of courses. They win on hard courses, easy courses and middling courses.  Better players win more often everywhere and under all conditions of play.

One of the historic justifications for the standard theory is that hard courses will spread final scores. The gap between the men and the boys will be wider. Differences in skill levels will become more apparent. Seems like plausible in theory on the surface. But is it true?

Do harder courses - in fact - spread scores?

Below is a random sampling of scoring spreads (the difference between the winning score and the last place score) from seven tournaments this year.

Pebble - 20
Riviera - 25
Doral - 20
TPC - 32
Masters - 19
Memorial - 26
US Open - 20

I don't see a pattern. I certainly don't see any correlation between the difficulty of the course and the range of final scores.

Let me ask again - why do major championship courses need to be set up to be so hard? What exactly is the USGA and the PGA trying to accomplish?

Bob

[George Pazin]

Bob, I thought I answered this question the other day, but I guess you didn't like it.

I was not formerly a big fan of making a course extremely hard, but I have come around somewhat to a position closer to that of the USGA. My main difference with them is the implementation, not the goal.

This is why I think it's necessary to take things to the max: for the simple reason that, without going to extremes, the game reverts to a simple matter of aerial drop and stop, "what's my yardage?" golf. This tyle is not just boring to watch for me, I believe it is also not effective in determining a true and worthy champion.

It is really only when things get extreme - bone dry like Shinnecock, firm like TOC or Sandwich, etc. - that you honestly see the best golfers really stop and think about how they are best going to minimize their scores.

It might be somewhat due to the, well, let's say less than effective policies with regard to equipment, as Dave M argues on the other thread. I'd say that's a factor.

But I also think the the simple evolution of the game - better players, better techniques, better knowledge, combined with more forgiving agronomy - has led us to this position.

It might be possible that firm and fast conditions on the right course would be enough. I, for one, think that Oakmont, with it's topography and greens, could defend itself quite well with virtually no rough. But the firm and fast component would have to be Shinnecock hard, so the course would stil be hard, just a different kind of hard.

Does that make any sense to you?

 

[BCrosby]

George -

Agreed about "drop and top" thing, but WF last week was not the only the alternative.

MacK and Jones used to say that if good players playing well don't go low, there is something wrong with the course (or its set up). I think that's right.

The WF greens are extremely challenging. Incredible. Only the best players in the world could attack them, even if the rough was minimal. As it was, the rough was overkill.

An Open set up with minimal rough would have been glorious. It would have more effectively spread the field. There would have been charges and counter charges involving things like birdies. (Remember those?) Someone might have charged from the pack with birdie runs following great shot after great shot. And, given the WF greens, they would have to be truly great shots.

Why none of that happened is because the powers that be did not want a winner under par. I have never understood that goal. Especially on great courses like WF. Especially when the price you pay for that goal is taking away from great players the kinds of things that make them great players.

Mine is not a nutty idea. In fact its not even mine. It's basically the R&A's. We've seen them put it into practice, and it works. I'm just suprised more people on this side of the pond haven't noticed.

Bob  

[Craig Sweet]

Is Winged Foot normally maintained firm and fast with minimal rough?

[TEPaul]

"Do harder courses - in fact - spread scores?"

Bob;

They probably do, although that phrase ("Identifying the best player) is seemingly one the USGA came up with at some point for their Open and it's obviously not an exact science. I think in modern times there's little question a particular type of "good" player excels generally at a US Open. Straightness and control are obviously the hallmarks for success at US Opens and Mickelson's stats yesterday (and basically throughout the US Open) is probably testimony to just how good he really is at recovery.

"Below is a random sampling of scoring spreads (the difference between the winning score and the last place score) from seven tournaments this year."

I bet your stats are for the last two rounds after the 36 hole cuts. I'd think a more interesting, and probably more meaningful stat for a "scoring spread" comparison may be to do an analysis of the score of the 36 hole leader and the last ten or so places before a cut. That's where you might see some real "scoring spread" significance on a very hard course as US Open "set-ups" obviously are.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I think we can also tell from the comments of the US Open competitors just how different the mind-set needs to be for a US Open. There's no question at all that US Opens are the ultimate survival tests.

So many of those players remarked that its so easy to get upset and down on yourself with what can happen to you at any time during US Opens (in comparison to regular tour events) but that any competitor must remember in relation to par the same thing is generally happening to everyone else too (unless you get some complete breakaway as Woods pulled off a few time in 2000 and Nicklaus and Watson pulled of in that incredible head to head dual they had in that British Open when the two of them totally buried the rest of the field).

[BCrosby]

TEP -

The scoring spreads I provided were for all four days for the players that made the cut. Using scoring spreads for the whole field as of the 36 hole mark would be skewed by all the dogs and cats that get special invites to various tournaments and end up shooting a pair of 86's.

The usual rationale for difficult course set ups like WF is that only hard courses will separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats.  

There is another buried premise. It is the reverse of the one above: Easier courses will not separate out the men from the boys and you are more likely to end up with bunched scores and champions who are not the best golfers.

As far as I can tell both of those rationales for WF type set ups are empirically false. Neither has a basis in any facts I have been able to find.

I'm not the only one perplexed by the American addiction to hard courses. The R&A is way ahead of us on this issue. It is well past time that we dim Americans figure it out too. Because what happened at WF last week was not a glorious moment for golf. It was a train wreck.  

Bob    

[JohnV]

Bob,

The US Open is cut to the low 60 and ties (63 this year), while most tour stops cut to the low 70 and ties, so you have 10 more guys who can go south at a normal tour stop.  

Pebble has a smaller cut (67 played Sunday) because of the Pro-Am teams that keep playing.  It also has a larger starting field (180 I believe).  And there is only one round after the cut.  I think that all these should make the spread less.

The Masters cuts to the low 45 and ties with 47 making it this year and a smaller field to start.

The others you mentioned had the following players on the weekend:

Riviera - 81
Doral - 72
TPC - 74
Memorial - 74 (and only 106 players start the week)

Given the various variables, it doesn't seem like you can put all those tournaments in the same comparison.

[BCrosby]

John -

You are perhaps a better mathmatician than I (it wouldn't take much), but even if you do some quick back of the envelope adjustments for the sampling sizes (i.e. number of players that made the cut) I don't see any material difference between scoring spreads at WF and an ordinary PGA event. (in fact, WF spreads might be slightly below the average of regular events. But I'm not sure.)

But looking at things that way is looking at them upside down. You have the burden of proof reversed.

The justification for putting players through torture chambers like WF is that it will be a more effective sieve. The pain is worth it, they say, because set ups like WF will function as a better filtering mechanism.

That's an empirical claim that we can test. Like anyone making an empirical claim, the burden is on the proponent of that claim to prove it is true against the facts. I don't see that proof. I don't see any clear affirmation that the theory is true. What I see in the scoring spreads of various tournaments (even after your adjustments) is no discernable correlation between scoring spreads v. course difficulty.

If that is the case, if the justification for set ups like WF rests on empirical claims that don't appear to be true, then sanctioning bodies ought to (a) find another justification or (b) stop putting players through what I believe is unnecessary pain.

Bob

[tlavin]

I know that "identifying the best player" is the mantra of the US Open, but, to me, it is more a case of identifying the "luckiest" or "pluckiest" player.  The set-up is so over-the-top hard and so unforgiving and so unrelenting that it rewards the lucky or the player who fugues into the four day stretch of mental indominatability.  I don't know if that's good or bad, but I don't think that a Kafka-esque set-up really does identify the best player.

[George Pazin]

There is another buried premise. It is the reverse of the one above: Easier courses will not separate out the men from the boys and you are more likely to end up with bunched scores and champions who are not the best golfers.

How do you explain the fact that there are a lot more, shall we say, less than great winners in the regular Tour events, as opposed to the majors? I think difficulty has a lot to do with it. The added difficulty at major events results in a premium on thinking and executing, imho.

I'm not the only one perplexed by the American addiction to hard courses. The R&A is way ahead of us on this issue. It is well past time that we dim Americans figure it out too. Because what happened at WF last week was not a glorious moment for golf. It was a train wreck.

I think you are being a little unfair to our friends at the USGA and too easy on our friends at the R&A. The R&A did have the Carnoustie train wreck, and many - though most definitely not me! - didn't care for the recent setup at Sandwich, either. Similarly, the setup at Pinehurst was praised for the most part, as was the setup at Pebble in 2000.

In general, though, I agree with your point. I'd prefer the USGA focus a little less on rough and a little more on firm and fast, but that might be considered nitpicking by most. If I had to parse a difference between the R&A setup and the USGA setup, I'd say that the USGA seems slightly more focused on score, while the R&A seems more concerned with a challenging but fair test.

I'd still like to see a US Open that relied a little more on F&F and a lot less on rough, but, if I had to guess, I'd say that the rough is a more predictable variable, due to the fact that a little rain can wipe out F&F, so the USGA prefers to have that as a backup.

The funny thing is, the one US Open in recent memory where the rough wasn't as brutal, at least for the first 2 days, was Olympia Fields, and everyone jumped on the USGA for not keeping the rough up! Then the course firmed up over the weekend and everyone saw why the USGA didn't make the rough as brutal.

Damned if you do....

[tlavin]

There is another buried premise. It is the reverse of the one above: Easier courses will not separate out the men from the boys and you are more likely to end up with bunched scores and champions who are not the best golfers.

How do you explain the fact that there are a lot more, shall we say, less than great winners in the regular Tour events, as opposed to the majors? I think difficulty has a lot to do with it. The added difficulty at major events results in a premium on thinking and executing, imho.

I'm not the only one perplexed by the American addiction to hard courses. The R&A is way ahead of us on this issue. It is well past time that we dim Americans figure it out too. Because what happened at WF last week was not a glorious moment for golf. It was a train wreck.

I think you are being a little unfair to our friends at the USGA and too easy on our friends at the R&A. The R&A did have the Carnoustie train wreck, and many - though most definitely not me! - didn't care for the recent setup at Sandwich, either. Similarly, the setup at Pinehurst was praised for the most part, as was the setup at Pebble in 2000.

In general, though, I agree with your point. I'd prefer the USGA focus a little less on rough and a little more on firm and fast, but that might be considered nitpicking by most. If I had to parse a difference between the R&A setup and the USGA setup, I'd say that the USGA seems slightly more focused on score, while the R&A seems more concerned with a challenging but fair test.

I'd still like to see a US Open that relied a little more on F&F and a lot less on rough, but, if I had to guess, I'd say that the rough is a more predictable variable, due to the fact that a little rain can wipe out F&F, so the USGA prefers to have that as a backup.

The funny thing is, the one US Open in recent memory where the rough wasn't as brutal, at least for the first 2 days, was Olympia Fields, and everyone jumped on the USGA for not keeping the rough up! Then the course firmed up over the weekend and everyone saw why the USGA didn't make the rough as brutal.

Damned if you do....

I was literally "there" when the decision to cut the rough at Olympia was made.  We had grown the rough, per USGA instructions, to more than 8 inches.  They had already made a decision, in the competition committee, to cut the rough to 3 1/2 inches, in order to encourage more risky shots to the greens, assuming that they couldn't hold the greens and would be pitching from behind to back-to-front tilted greens.  

Not bad logic, if you really think about it.  The members, of course, wanted to see some hacking-from-the-heather.  Unfortunately, the course was very soft from rain and we begged the USGA to not cut the rough at all.  It would have been murder.  And, in hindsight, murderously unfair.  In the end, they decided to cut it to five inches, which is pretty close to the deep cut at WFW.

After a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion (contrary to my initial belief) that the rough cut was not the reason that the scores were so low on the first two days.  The real reason was the absence of any wind and the fact that the greens were soft and receptive.  The USGA can control tee markers, hole locations and, to a certain extent,  green speeds.  It cannot control the weather.  Last weekend in Chicago, we had a typical Father's Day treat of temperatures in the high '80's and low 90's, with winds averaging 15-25 mph.  If we had that weather, nobody would have broken par.  Nobody.

C'est la guerre!