What does Furyk's 59 say about Conway's architecture?

[Terry Lavin]

Does such a low score diminish a course's design?  Since he was six shots better than his nearest competitor, does it prove the course's mettle?  Or is this just the latest expression of the oft-cited phrase that these guys simply play a different game than us mortals?

[RJ_Daley]

I just think he had the day of his career and would have had that kind of once in a career ball striking and putting day no matter what course.  The wind being quite a factor, didn't hamper JFs ability and luck to hit all the FWs and greens and make the putts.  Many players just missed putts that seemed obviously effected a bit by the wind.  But JF just had the right touch and feel yesterday.  I don't think it really said anything negative or positive about the architecture.  Without a doubt the tour players play a different game than mortals.  Conway seemed to have plenty of tough holes for mortals, set design aesthetics or principles aside for purpose of evaluating the course as it relates to how high or low pros can go on the track.  The course had enough design hazards and scoring resistance to keep the average score for the day up around 71 or par.  So, when a few in the field are on track to maybe take it to -16-20 winning score, I don't think it is a condemnation of design is too easy, soft, unimaginative, etc.  It just means those guys can go low any given toon-a-mint when they get hot... and we mortals can't.

[Jim Nugent]

Terry, how would the pro's do at CPC, in good conditions?  

How about Pacific Dunes?

NGLA?  

Whether or not any of them shoot 59, we'd see lots of real good scores.  I don't think ability of the world's top players to go low on a course by itself reflects on its architecture.    

[Mark Molyneux]

Furyk's 59 tells me about Furyk and not much about Conway's design. If seven guys shot 62, three more shot 61, another shot 60, AND Furyk shot 59, then I'd take a closer look at the design. If I shot 59 anywhere, then I'd have to look at the design. I'm in awe of the talent on tour.

[Andrew Buck]

Considering the course was about 6,800 yards when it first opened, I don't think it was designed with the intention of challenging tour pros.

That is fine, it's a fun course for members that provides a challenge but allows for a good round.

[Jud_T]

Nothing,  but apparently Medinah is the only track in town that can protect par against these freaks.  Time for one of the Butler members to take one for the team and get sausage reassignment surgery...

[Andrew Buck]

Nothing,  but apparently Medinah is the only track in town that can protect par against these freaks.  Time for one of the Butler members to take one for the team and get sausage reassignment surgery...

Olympia did reasonable once it dried out.

Not many good scores on the weekend, but yeah, they can pretty much abuse everything Chicago has to offer, except probably Butler (playing to 71 or 70), Medinah and Olympia.

Doesn't mean they aren't good courses.

[Garland Bayley]

Says no more than him being over par on the first day.
I.e., nothing.

[Tim_Cronin]

Matt Kuchar with a 61 this morning. So a 59, a 61, a 63, a 64 and two 65s since Thursday morning. It is indeed a good member's course, but  with shortish par 4s, these guys will go to town. Oddly, the average score was over par each of the first two days, but the low numbers are low.

[Terry Lavin]

Matt Kuchar with a 61 this morning. So a 59, a 61, a 63, a 64 and two 65s since Thursday morning. It is indeed a good member's course, but  with shortish par 4s, these guys will go to town. Oddly, the average score was over par each of the first two days, but the low numbers are low.

That's an incongruity I can't quite come to terms with. Maybe the field is taking more chances due to the elimination aspect of the tournament. The guys that get hot go low and the guys who fail to convert rack up some bad numbers.

[Tim_Cronin]

Matt Kuchar with a 61 this morning. So a 59, a 61, a 63, a 64 and two 65s since Thursday morning. It is indeed a good member's course, but  with shortish par 4s, these guys will go to town. Oddly, the average score was over par each of the first two days, but the low numbers are low.

That's an incongruity I can't quite come to terms with. Maybe the field is taking more chances due to the elimination aspect of the tournament. The guys that get hot go low and the guys who fail to convert rack up some bad numbers.

It's certainly a wide bell curve, but it might not happen today. Seven scores in the 60s from the first eight twosomes to finish, and only one over 75: Scott Piercy's 76. He's been off form all week.

[JMEvensky]

Does such a low score diminish a course's design?  

It does in the eyes of the membership.

[JLahrman]

Does Rory McIlroy and Charley Hoffman's 2 hour 35 minute round today say anything about the architecture?

[J_ Crisham]

Terry, My spin on the low scores is that it's all about the greens at Conway. There is almost no internal contouring in the greens. They are very mediocre when compared to Beverly. I have no doubt the pros could shot  64 or so but if you get our greens going 3 putts are going to happen. Hard to 3 putt at Conway. Additionally the par 3 s are easy there - that is where the tour players typically make bogies. Conway is a great members course but anyone who's played there know its not hard. I slapped it around there last August and shot 81. Would have been much higher if the greens were anything challenging.

[Tim_Cronin]

Bingo, Jack. And there's one other thing missing at Conway Farms. There's next to no rough. Might be an inch high. I've seen higher rough on LPGA setups. It was at least two inches on media day, and more than that for last year's U.S. Mid-Amateur.

[Matthew Rose]

Furyk shooting 59, without having seen a single shot of it myself, would tell me that the course is probably a complete and total wedge-fest.

[Charlie_Bell]

Nothing about Conway, everything about Furyk's round.  The field averaged  a fraction of a stroke over par.  Yes, Furyk played more than 12 strokes better than the average player in a field restricted to the best players of the year, playing at their best.

[J_ Crisham]

Nothing about Conway, everything about Furyk's round.  The field averaged  a fraction of a stroke over par.  Yes, Furyk played more than 12 strokes better than the average player in a field restricted to the best players of the year, playing at their best.

Charlie,    How many times have you played Conway?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Does such a low score diminish a course's design?  Since he was six shots better than his nearest competitor, does it prove the course's mettle?  Or is this just the latest expression of the oft-cited phrase that these guys simply play a different game than us mortals?

Terry Terry Terry,

For the millionth time, repeat after me: floggers play flog on flog courses. Whatever we learn will regard flog not golf.

[mike_beene]

It says the greens are smooth and not over the top because  no matter what course 59 is shot on a lot of putts are going in.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

When a pro or even a recreational golfer hits 14/14 fairways and 17/18 greens, then a low score usually follows. 

More internal contours would make a good members course somewhat more difficult.

[Charlie_Bell]

J. C.,

Unlike you, I have never played Conway.  (I would love to!) The question, though, pertained to Furyk's round, and I concluded that it was a stupendous achievement.  The combination of course and conditions not only made his score 6 strokes better than anyone else's on Friday;  his score was more than 12 strokes better than that of the average Still-alive-in-the-FedEx-Cup-playoffs PGA pro, an elite player by any criterion.

Given how extraordinary his round was -- even the other pros acknowledged it -- I don't think his 59 reveals much about Conway's architecture.  Scores on other days may have done so, and your knowledge of the course certainly gives you insight that I lack.  You yourself mention that a 64 wouldn't be hard, and the low scores on other days confirm your impression.   But Furyk's 59 on Friday was a singular achievement given the challenge that the wind and the layout presented to all the other players in the field.

[JR Potts]

It says nothing.

It says that the greens are rolling true.

It says that the fairways are huge.

It says that the greens are receptive.

It says that the PGA Tour emasculated the course by cutting doesn't the rough to 2 1/2 inches.

It says that the course isn't that long.

It says that these guys are awesome and Furyk was playing out of his mind as he beat the next best score by 6.

Conway is no architectural masterpiece, but Furyk's slaying of the course says a nothing about the architecture in my opinion.

[A.G._Crockett]

Not necessarily anything, any more than his +1 round on Thursday did.

Furyk was 6 shots clear of the next lowest rounds that day, which says a lot more about how he played than about the golf course.

That there have been other low scores there this week is hardly suprising; it is not only an elite field of 70, but the guys playing there are all riding hot streaks to some extent or they would have been eliminated already.  Great golfers shoot great scores...

[Tim_Cronin]

Yardages for the four rounds: 6,997 -- 6,989 -- 6,974 -- 6,931. Listed at 7,149 on the card, and never got close to it.

Best 70 on Tour on a sub-7,000 yard course? They'd better score well.

By the way, this is the shortest course for a Western Open (!) since Midlothian, 1973, which was 6,654 yards on the card.