Low scores and lower bounds - the beauty of golf and discrete scoring

[George Pazin]

I'm always amazed when someone throws out a statement like "Sure, they'd be shooting -30 at that yardage" or "You see lots of 61s and 62s". Usually these statements are made in defense of the continual stretching of golf courses, classic or new.

Said statements - and the fears of those in charge - fly in the face of most evidence in golf, to my (limited) knowledge anyway. The nature of golf is that even the short shots are tough to get meaningfully closer. If someone has 120 yards into the hole, versus someone else having 200 yards into the hole, the odds are neither golfer is going to consistently put it close enough to have a relatively sure shot at birdie.

I'd love to see the Tour pros play some really short courses. Sure they'd go low, but I doubt they'd all be shooting 60s. I'd bet against it, in fact, if I were to wager. They might, but it's far from certain - especially if the course were well-designed, imho.

You don't get half shots for hitting it to 12 feet and missing the birdie putt and leaving yourself with a tap in par (that's the discrete scoring part of the title). It's birdie or par or bogey or whatever. And a pro is highly unlikely to ace a hole because it's 110 yards, or eagle it because it's 340 (that's the lower bound part of the title).

What does all this have to do with architecture? Well, I'm glad you asked that. Fighting bombers with added length is a fools errand, and only encourages more bombing. Tough up and downs, whether it's from the fairway for birdie or from greenside for par/bogey, will do more to resist scoring than length. Imho.

Feel free to disagree, just explain why.

 

[Brent Hutto]

I agree with your overall sentiment but one downside comes to mind...the difficulty of providing flexibility at the "tough up and down" end.

I've played courses that are very resistant to scoring for even elite players when played at their maximum length of anywhere from 6,800 to 7,200 yards. Yet they can be made quite enjoyable for me by the simple expedient of putting a set of tees up somewhere between 6,000 and 6,400 yards.

I'm trying to imagine a course that is very difficult for elite player from something like 6,400 yards that is fun for me to play. Now I'm more accepting of "unfair" greens leading to 3-puts and 4-putts than most people and lord knows I'm not one of those folks who thinks I have a constitutional right to be able to stop at pitch shot close to the hole when I miss on the wrong side. But to make "up and downs" hard enough to assure scores of 67, 68, 69 from a field of world-class player when the course is playing a length that suits my anemic driving and iron game, that's gotta be some hella tough ups and downs.

[Jim Sherma]

I always wanted to see a tournament where the pros show up unannounced at some local muni and play it as is. It doesn't have to be a cow pasture but just a decent mid level public. I'd love to see what they would shoot, I think we would be amazed at how consistently low they would go.

[George Pazin]

Jim, someone posted an article a few years ago where a Maryland (?) sportswriter played his local muni with Steve Marino. Marino guessed he would shoot 60-61, he ended up shooting something like 67 or 69. Of course, a sample size of 1 doesn't teach us much (or at least it shouldn't!), but I think the combination of lower bounds and discrete scoring would end up surprising people.

Brent, I don't think they would have to be silly-tough, just a little tougher than normal.

[Peter Pallotta]

George - good post, and your 'discrete scoring' concept is particularly good. That there are no brownie points for tap-ins is one of the key charms and defining characteristics of the game. The ego that has underpinned much of the demand for/creation of length at high end courses and country clubs for a day flies right in the face of that vital charm and defining characteristic; but then ego is also what blinds those enamoured with the prestige of length from noticing that they (and the vast majority of golfers) are still getting their asses kicked on good 6800 yard courses, and that they aren't having any fun at all on courses over 7200.

Peter

[David Davis]

Totally agree George. Last month the National Open - for the best pros and amateurs was held at De Pan in Utrecht. Everyone always says the course is really easy because it's not long enough. I've been disagreeing for sometime. Turns out that out of 60 guys and perfect conditions on that lovely heathland course only 8 could break par over 4 rounds.

The course measures 6082 meters (6651 yds) from the back tees.

PS. Naturally in my head I was one of the top 60...but hcp kept me from playing. Ha ha...

[BCrosby]

George says:

"The nature of golf is that even the short shots are tough to get meaningfully closer. If someone has 120 yards into the hole, versus someone else having 200 yards into the hole, the odds are neither golfer is going to consistently put it close enough to have a relatively sure shot at birdie."

Dave Peltz has collected some data on that. Pros consistently hit shorter shots closer to pins. I would have been surprised with any other result. Combine that with the fact that pros sink a relatively high percentage of putts inside 10 feet, but that no one, not even pros, sink many putts outside 20 feet, and the advantages of hitting a 120 approach over a 200 approach becomes clear.

Indeed, the big irony of Peltz's books on the short game is that the best thing you can do to improve your game is to improve your length off the tee. So you'll have shorter approaches. So you'll hit it more often within 10 feet. The distance at which you have a reasonable chance at making the putt.

There are lots of tough short courses. Sounds like De Pan might be one of them. But apples to apples, pros will always score lower on the short course.

Bob

[George Pazin]

Dave Peltz has collected some data on that. Pros consistently hit shorter shots closer to pins. I would have been surprised with any other result. Combine that with the fact that pros sink a relatively high percentage of putts inside 10 feet, but that no one, not even pros, sink many putts outside 20 feet, and the advantages of hitting a 120 approach over a 200 approach becomes clear.

Certainly true, but under no circumstances is anyone hitting it routinely inside 10 feet. I forget what Pelz says is the magic number - 6 feet? - but when you see the stats for the pros, even the best guys average something like 15 feet from 100-125 yards. My point is merely that if a pro is 20 feet or 40 feet, the likelihood is he's 2 putting.

What seems to bother those running the tournaments is what club someone is hitting into the green, not what the result is. Over time, you would certainly see someone who has shorter approach clubs shooting better scores, but I don't believe the difference is significant enough to warrant the length added in recent years.

[Garland Bayley]

I always wanted to see a tournament where the pros show up unannounced at some local muni and play it as is. It doesn't have to be a cow pasture but just a decent mid level public. I'd love to see what they would shoot, I think we would be amazed at how consistently low they would go.

We might be amazed at how consistently high they would shoot. GD did an article one time on a tour pro playing a ratty muni. He couldn't score. Primary reason? Inconsistency in the greens.

[Garland Bayley]

There already is a lower bound on scores. It is the course rating. So if the course rating is 68, and the pros are +4 handicaps, you are going to see a bunch of 64s.

[Andrew Lewis]

Here's the article on Steve Marino.  He shot 68 on DC's (in)famous East Potomac Blue, aka Hains Point.

From my time living there in the early 2000's, I remember it more for its poor conditions and putting green hustlers than its architectural pedigree.  Perhaps if you drank a few cans of cheap domestic at the "clubhouse" and squinted hard enough, you could see the last vestiges of Travis clinging for dear life...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101221.html?sid=ST2009071701245

[Matthew Essig]

Totally agree George. Last month the National Open - for the best pros and amateurs was held at De Pan in Utrecht. Everyone always says the course is really easy because it's not long enough. I've been disagreeing for sometime. Turns out that out of 60 guys and perfect conditions on that lovely heathland course only 8 could break par over 4 rounds.

The course measures 6082 meters (6651 yds) from the back tees.

PS. Naturally in my head I was one of the top 60...but hcp kept me from playing. Ha ha...

Reminds me of the time Rope Rider held US AM qualifying (which you have to be a 2.4 or less to try) and the best round was an 85. Only around 7,000+ yards at 2,500 feet.

[Phil McDade]

I always wanted to see a tournament where the pros show up unannounced at some local muni and play it as is. It doesn't have to be a cow pasture but just a decent mid level public. I'd love to see what they would shoot, I think we would be amazed at how consistently low they would go.

That actually happened in 1987 at the Western Open. A gigantic flood wiped out 9 holes at Butler National, so at the last minute - with basically no chance to prepare the course - they played the other 9 at the Oak Brook muni next door.

As I recall, it's not as if we saw a bunch of 31s and 32s...

And don't forget Tim Herron at the Jans -- the muni of all muni's!

[Matthew Petersen]

Dave Peltz has collected some data on that. Pros consistently hit shorter shots closer to pins. I would have been surprised with any other result. Combine that with the fact that pros sink a relatively high percentage of putts inside 10 feet, but that no one, not even pros, sink many putts outside 20 feet, and the advantages of hitting a 120 approach over a 200 approach becomes clear.

Certainly true, but under no circumstances is anyone hitting it routinely inside 10 feet. I forget what Pelz says is the magic number - 6 feet? - but when you see the stats for the pros, even the best guys average something like 15 feet from 100-125 yards. My point is merely that if a pro is 20 feet or 40 feet, the likelihood is he's 2 putting.

What seems to bother those running the tournaments is what club someone is hitting into the green, not what the result is. Over time, you would certainly see someone who has shorter approach clubs shooting better scores, but I don't believe the difference is significant enough to warrant the length added in recent years.

Slate had a series a few years ago about improved golf statistics and the one that has always stuck in my head was that even on the PGA Tour, you have to be right at about 7 feet before you have a length of putt that the pros are expected to make (ie, they will make it more than half the time). Getting it inside 7 feet is a fine result from any distance!

[Tim Gavrich]

Harbour Town hosts the RBC Heritage and is about 7,000 yards. TPC Louisiana hosts the Zurich Classic and is about 7,400 yards.

Since 2005, the average winning score at Harbour Town has been two shots lower to par than at TPC Louisiana.

Will anyone deny that Harbour Town presents a better challenge to the Tour pros than TPC Louisiana at a length that is not crazy-long?

[JESII]

George,

I'm going to attack your "discrete scoring" concept...your interpretation of it at least.

No, you don't get half points for hitting 12 feet and missing when I hit it 20 feet and also miss...but if you hit it 12 feet 18 times and I hit it 20 feet 18 times who are you betting on shooting the lower score?

This really is the essence of golf strategy in my opinion...calculating those % of a shot difference between your available and realistic shot options.

You don't think distance makes much difference in score, at least noot enough to warrant the changes made to courses. I'll agree that many changes are unwarranted, but the scoring difference is undeniable and it's the discrete scoring that makes it so.

I took 2 stats from the PGA Tour guys. The #1, 50 and 125 in Putting from 20-25 feet and compared those same guys to their 10-15 foot stats.

#1 Stewart Cink makes 22% from 20-25 feet so 18 birdie putts of that length will result in 4 under par. From 10-15 feet he makes 35.8% for 6.5 under par. 2.5 shots per round better!
#50 Charlie Wi makes 13.5% from 20-25 feet for 2.5 under par. From 10-15 feet he makes 28.42% for 5.1 under par...again 2.5 per round better.
#125 Charles Howell III makes 10% from 20-25 feet for 1.8 under par. From 10-15 feet he makes 28.65% for 5.1 under par.

I picked those distance because it's really hard to hit it right next to the hole and if you're playing conservatively it's pretty easy to hit it 20-25 feet from the hole...nothing more scientific than that.

The shorter course makes it easier to have shorter birdie putts in two ways; shorter approach clubs or more accurate tee shots.