[Erik J. Barzeski]

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I've played 16 of the 18 holes and probably shot 72 or so and I'm a 3 or 4 handicap.  I'm guessing Rory and Phil (both of whom I've played with) are at least 14 strokes better than I am.

You’re really bringing a pen knife to a modern-day war here. What you scored one time on 16 of 18 holes is completely irrelevant.

The data does not seem to support your claims at all.

[Edward Glidewell]

Is it your position that a scratch golfer would shoot on average only 0.1 or 0.2 shots more on a course set up for the pga tour with pins cut 3-4 yards from the edge of the greens, fairways narrowed and rough up? An interesting statement.

Except they don't always set up regular PGA events up that way. They do narrow the fairways (sometimes) and grow the rough, but the pin placements are often not difficult at a regular tour stop (i.e. not the flagship events) because the tour wants to encourage birdies. I know a member at a regular tour stop and the PGA regularly uses pins that are easier than what the members play; they actually measure out around each pin position to ensure it's flat within something like 3 feet on all sides in an attempt to limit potential 3 putts. They also don't actually play from the tips every day; there's one par 3 that they sometimes play from the senior tees.


The PGA Tour isn't trying to make the courses as difficult as possible at normal tour stops. They want players to make birdies and shoot lower scores. I assume they believe that will increase viewership/ticket sales, plus the players don't want to play brutal set ups. That doesn't mean the course overall isn't slightly harder than how the members play it (although it may not be depending on the pin positions), but either way it's not some huge, dramatic difference.

[AChao]

Hi Ben,


Thanks for the reply ...


Re 2011 vs 2000 ... right, prima facie it looks like Tiger's performance 30 stroke outperformance is way more impressive ... what caught my eye is the 0.3 std deviation difference that is smaller than expected relative to the 23 differential for Rory vs the 30 differential of Tiger.  If you adjust for this, Tiger is still more impressive, it's just he's not as much of an outlier.


For strength of field, I use something that runs players with the courses.  For most, if 1, 2, 3 ranked players played in one tournament and 4, 5, 6 played in another, most would say that the field in the first tournament obviously had a stronger field.  Mine would depend on how each fit the courses with aggregate data.  There's another level after that also. 


With Bryson, some of your holes are impervious, some aren't -- but with the ones that aren't I wonder if Bryson has only figured-out half of his potential (and others who will adjust to his model).  (I don't disagree in aggregate that if you took 100-150 tour pros that your holes are relatively impervious yardage wise -- for the winning score, I'm only looking at a subset -- and somewhat importantly, the holes you choose matter.  Two 400 yard par 4s can favor vastly different players -- one could favor Bryson and one could favor Kevin Na.)


I may have missed your part about average PGA Tournament with average field.  If that was stated early on, I apologise.  If it's average field, average set-up, average "participation" meaning some are treating the tournament like an ordinary tournament, then I'd bet my model would show -25 to -32 or something like that rather than -36 to -42.


I've been assuming ...
1)  Top players in field, 2) Top players doing "planning" to play these holes, 3) Top players trying to win (which has a bunch of derivative assumptions also).[size=78%]  [/size]




 

AC,

Thanks for the PM.

I will agree that under the AT&T setup a US Open Field would have a lower scoring average. But as I've stated before, that is not the condition that we're examining. We're looking at how a course could hold up under normal PGA Tour conditions and field strength. So using the US Open as a metric is like designing a neighborhood road to be used for a formula 1 race.


The STDEV for the 2011 US Open is not higher than it was for the 2000 US Open. Its not higher for one single round, nor is it higher for all rounds combined.

On Bryson, you're missing my point. Regardless of what Bryson does, these holes have shown that they are more impervious to a length advantage. Bryson and his followers will not play them any better because of their inherent design qualities.


I'd be curious to hear more about how you calculate the field of strength impact.

[AChao]

Hi Erik,


Earlier on a few comments were on triangulating our handicaps and pros and what they would shoot. 


I think there is some significance in the holes Ben chose.


My "knife" or my models (not sure what to call them) show -36 to -42.  I've built a few models in my life and I've reverse engineered a few also.  Also, I've assumed top player prepping to play and planning, etc.  I may have missed Ben's average tournament, average condition, average field, etc.


Ultimately, you may think I'm ignoring data when I'm modeling to create what I think data will be and yes it's not based on what people have done but rather what I think a sub-set of people will be able to do.


At the same time, unless you have tremendous amounts of data, I think there's a need for a lot of interpreting / understanding / assuming.  If you just rely on historical data, you get the +0.7 average for four rounds to +3 and Tiger's 30 shot differential performance which gets you to -27 or something like that as theoretical best possible performance.  I don’t think this number captures how good guys on your could be over one week.


A really peculiar example with data and the need for interpretation outside of golf is with respect to a country and its Covid situation.  What if I told you there was a country that didn't have a lockdown for it's citizens, had a big shortage of masks, and a big shortage of tests?  Most people would think this country would have a high case count and high deaths.  In fact, if you had 100 countries like this, most of us would be sure all (most likely) the countries had a high case count and high deaths.  There's a least one country that had no lockdown, not enough masks, and not enough tests and has only had 7 deaths out of a population of about 23 million.   

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I've played 16 of the 18 holes and probably shot 72 or so and I'm a 3 or 4 handicap.  I'm guessing Rory and Phil (both of whom I've played with) are at least 14 strokes better than I am.

You’re really bringing a pen knife to a modern-day war here. What you scored one time on 16 of 18 holes is completely irrelevant.

The data does not seem to support your claims at all.

[Rob Marshall]

What country would that be?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

[AChao]

Taiwan.  It’s not counted as a “country” by many.  Maybe I should have stated large mostly-autonomous country like area.

What country would that be?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

[Ben Hollerbach]

But it would be great TV viewing if they actually just tried it once so we could see the results instead of just picking random numbers in the dark trying to outguess each other.

It dawned on me that there is one tournament a year that does get relatively close to recreating the playing length we're talking about. When you factor in the high elevation in Mexico City, Club De Golf Chapultepec plays at a relative length below 6,700 yards. As a WGC event, is has one of the strongest fields in all of professional golf and yet the winning scores have not been super low. Only once in the past 4 years has the winning score been below 20 under par. Not nearly as short as the numbers I've been pushing, it does play as the shortest course on tour. At an adjusted length of 6,687 yards, it played almost 600 yards shorter than the tour average in 2020.

*Elevation Adjustment Factor comes from Titleist

[AChao]

The course you created Ben is both far superior and more gettable if you look on a hole by hole basis.  The Club de Golf is also effectively far more narrow than your course.

But it would be great TV viewing if they actually just tried it once so we could see the results instead of just picking random numbers in the dark trying to outguess each other.

It dawned on me that there is one tournament a year that does get relatively close to recreating the playing length we're talking about. When you factor in the high elevation in Mexico City, Club De Golf Chapultepec plays at a relative length below 6,700 yards. As a WGC event, is has one of the strongest fields in all of professional golf and yet the winning scores have not been super low. Only once in the past 4 years has the winning score been below 20 under par. Not nearly as short as the numbers I've been pushing, it does play as the shortest course on tour. At an adjusted length of 6,687 yards, it played almost 600 yards shorter than the tour average in 2020.

*Elevation Adjustment Factor comes from Titleist

[Ben Hollerbach]

The course you created Ben is both far superior and more gettable if you look on a hole by hole basis.  The Club de Golf is also effectively far more narrow than your course.

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad to hear you agree that it is possible to have a short course hold up against the pros.

While the routing I posted may be an improvement, Mexico City exists in a continuous routing and is played on an annual basis by the best in the world. So it is closest to fulfilling Tom's request to actually see the results of an experiment like this in real life.

Why does the playable narrowness of the course matter in this pursuit? One of the goals of this thread was to identify design characteristics of short holes that allow them to hold their own against the PGA Tour. Little discussion has actually focused in this area, but the top 3 features most commonly recognized have been small greens, wind, and water. If narrowness would help to control scoring, especially if it does it in an equitable way, why negate it?

[AChao]

I think it’s possible to create a course that is 6,400 yards that could contain scoring for an average, average, average PGA Tour field.


I don’t think it would be a good course.


I haven’t played the course in Mexico but talking to people who have and watching it on TV, it’s not what I’d call a good course in many ways; however, for scoring it has high resistance to scoring.


I should elaborate on narrow.  Fairways being narrow is part of it, but trees that are in play is a pretty big part of it also.


From the data I have trees would help contain scoring big time.  One other factor is certain length holes.  Average expected score is correlated with distance but there are steps.  So if you take small greens, wind, water and add trees, and certain length holes i think you could have a PGA Tour event that scores in the -20 to -25 range.  Maybe only -15.  But I would venture many would consider the course odd at best and fairly tricked up.

PS I don’t know if there’s an easy way of doing it, but it would be really interesting to see 1) how the scoring average on these holes were in previous years, and 2) based on previous years, which holes would come up.  And then maybe some patterns would emerge.

The course you created Ben is both far superior and more gettable if you look on a hole by hole basis.  The Club de Golf is also effectively far more narrow than your course.

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad to hear you agree that it is possible to have a short course hold up against the pros.

While the routing I posted may be an improvement, Mexico City exists in a continuous routing and is played on an annual basis by the best in the world. So it is closest to fulfilling Tom's request to actually see the results of an experiment like this in real life.

Why does the playable narrowness of the course matter in this pursuit? One of the goals of this thread was to identify design characteristics of short holes that allow them to hold their own against the PGA Tour. Little discussion has actually focused in this area, but the top 3 features most commonly recognized have been small greens, wind, and water. If narrowness would help to control scoring, especially if it does it in an equitable way, why negate it?

[Ben Hollerbach]

The 2013 US Open is often brought up as an example of why a distance adjustment is not needed in today's game. I'd propose that it's a perfect reason why courses could go even shorter and is worth every examination and emulation in setting up courses for tour play.



When you compare the member's tees at 6,579 to the US Open average of 6,917, that difference of 338 yards is evident in primarily 7 holes (3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 18). If those 7 holes played 1/2 stroke easier, with all else being equal the tournament course average of 74.55 would drop to 71. This is before taking into account the 6 holes that average shorter than the member's tees (1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17).

It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that the winning score on a 6,579 yard Merion would be between -13 and -16.

[David Ober]

The 2013 US Open is often brought up as an example of why a distance adjustment is not needed in today's game. I'd propose that it's a perfect reason why courses could go even shorter and is worth every examination and emulation in setting up courses for tour play.



When you compare the member's tees at 6,579 to the US Open average of 6,917, that difference of 338 yards is evident in primarily 7 holes (3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 18). If those 7 holes played 1/2 stroke easier, with all else being equal the tournament course average of 74.55 would drop to 71. This is before taking into account the 6 holes that average shorter than the member's tees (1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17).

It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that the winning score on a 6,579 yard Merion would be between -13 and -16.

In US Open condition/set-up? Sure. Seems reasonable.

[Ben Hollerbach]

It's reasonable under normal PGA Tour conditions. Take a look at the difference between Pebble Beach for the 2019 AT&T and the 2019 US Open. Very similar changes in the length of the course, when you account for the difference in conditioning vs. strength of field the scoring averages were nearly identical.

[David Ober]

It's reasonable under normal PGA Tour conditions. Take a look at the difference between Pebble Beach for the 2019 AT&T and the 2019 US Open. Very similar changes in the length of the course, when you account for the difference in conditioning vs. strength of field the scoring averages were nearly identical.

What were the conditions at the AT&T in 2019? Before I look, I would guess the U.S. Open had quite good weather and the AT&T had a standard mix of February Monterey weather -- which is to say "Not very good."


But who knows.... Down the rabbit hole I go!

[David Ober]

It's reasonable under normal PGA Tour conditions. Take a look at the difference between Pebble Beach for the 2019 AT&T and the 2019 US Open. Very similar changes in the length of the course, when you account for the difference in conditioning vs. strength of field the scoring averages were nearly identical.

What were the conditions at the AT&T in 2019? Before I look, I would guess the U.S. Open had quite good weather and the AT&T had a standard mix of February Monterey weather -- which is to say "Not very good."


But who knows.... Down the rabbit hole I go!

I barely stuck my head in the hole and this was the first thing I found ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoMHbi4ebG0


And this ....


https://www.pgatour.com/news/2019/02/07/prepare-bad-weather-forecast-weekend-at-t-pebble-beach-pro-am.html


And finally, this ....


Thursday: Mostly sunny. High of 54. Wind SW 8-12 mph. Friday: Mostly cloudy with afternoon showers. High of 54. Wind SSE 10-15 mph, with gusts to 20 mph. Play was suspended for the day at 2:11 p.m. PT due to heavy rain. Saturday: Second round resumed at 7:10 a.m. PT, with the third round beginning as scheduled at 8 a.m. PT. Mostly sunny in the morning with heavy afternoon showers. High of 48. Wind SSW 15-20 mph, with gusts to 25 mph. Sunday: Due to wet conditions, the start of the final round was delayed for one hour. Rain and hail forced a suspension of play from 10:53 a.m.-1 p.m. (a total of two hours and seven minutes). Play was suspended due to darkness at 5:55 p.m., with two players left on the course. Mostly cloudy. High of 54. Wind NW 15-20 mph, with gusts to 27 mph. Monday: Partly cloudy. High of 54. Wind W 5-10 mph.


And this, below, was the weather for the U.S. Open:

Thursday: Partly cloudy. High of 67. Wind W 11 mph. Friday: Mostly overcast. High of 61. Wind W 6-12 mph. Saturday: Overcast. High of 59. WNW wind 5-10 mph, with gusts to 15 mph. Sunday: Mostly cloudy. High of 61. Wind W 7-14 mph.

[Ben Hollerbach]

[David Ober]

Good stuff.


So taking just 2019, what do you think the effect of the weather was on the scores of the AT&T that year, versus the weather at the Open? Winter to summer weather conditions on scoring are significant, as they affect literally every part of the game. Those seem like 1.5 to 2.5 effects to me, for pros. But that's just a guess, of course. We know what temps in the 40's do to scores. It's not pretty. :-)


I think you have to quantify average conditions in Feb versus July. Somehow, right?

[AChao]

Yes ... Pacific Ocean courses play pretty differently in winter versus summer.   Torrey (3 rounds for Farmers) when it holds a US Open is interesting also.

[Ben Hollerbach]

The weather during the February slot is not typically a dramatic departure than what was experienced during the 2019 US Open. While the 2019 AT&T was the greatest outlier, both 2016 and 2018 were significantly similar in February to the US Open in June.



Comparing the scoring during those 3 events, we see first off that the course in 2016 played nearly as long as it did at the open in 2019, a mere 24 yards shorter, and played 0.145 strokes more challenging. What we can deduce from this is the course setup and field strength at those two events were in balance with each other.  The field during the AT&T is slightly below average for the PGA Tour and with the Amateurs playing in the event as well, the course setup is also slightly below PGA Tour average. Comparing then the course in 2018 with the US Open in 2019, we can see that a change in course length of 259 yards equated to a change in scoring average of just 0.331 strokes per round. This would be independent of both weather and field strength/course setup and reflects the impact of a change in length on scoring.



We've driven deeper and deeper into the weeds, remember that Pebble Beach was used as an example to showcase what's possible at Merion. As much as you've tried to refute Pebble Beach, you have not attacked Merion in the same way. Since you agree that Merion would hold up at 6,500 yards against a PGA Tour field, let's rather discuss why Merion would do so well...

[Ben Hollerbach]

What Makes Course Hard or Easy for the PGA Tour:

How to make a short course easy for the pros:

• Par 72
• 5 par fives with little risk for going for the green it two
• One or two drivable par fours with little risk of going for the green in two
• Mostly straight holes, with few doglegs.  Let them hit it as far as they want
• Large, flat greens
• No water
• Average to wide fairway width

The winner will be 40 under on this course.  As this course will play as a par 67-68 for them as the course only requires about 30 full shots for them.  The pros will have multiple 50 yard pitches and the field will average 6 under per round.

 

How to make a short course difficult for the pros:

• Par 70
• 2-3 par 5s.  All par 5’s must be difficult to reach in two, or have significant risk in doing so
• At most one drivable par 4, which has significant risk and difficulty getting up and down when missed
• Plenty of doglegs or fairways that discourage players using driver
• Small greens that penalize short sided misses
• Greens with slope in them
• Use of water both off of the tee and around the green, to require accuracy
• Average to narrow fairway width

The winner of this course will be in the mid teens as pro’s will be required to take a minimum of 31-32 full swings a round . They are not gifted easy birdies.  The approaches will still be full swings. The sloped greens ensure that a lack of spin control makes wedge play harder and putting harder. The presence of water or significant hazards ensures players can’t always take dead aim, or at least, must swing with a bit of fear in the back of their heads.  The pros will average even par on this course even though it’s short, and the winner will be about 15 under.

 

The biggest difference between these courses comes from frequent scoring chances in weak par 5's and weak short par 4's. If those holes are not pushovers and require taking on real risk to score, the course will not be destroyed.

[David Ober]

What Makes Course Hard or Easy for the PGA Tour:

How to make a short course easy for the pros:

• Par 72
• 5 par fives with little risk for going for the green it two
• One or two drivable par fours with little risk of going for the green in two
• Mostly straight holes, with few doglegs.  Let them hit it as far as they want
• Large, flat greens
• No water
• Average to wide fairway width

The winner will be 40 under on this course.  As this course will play as a par 67-68 for them as the course only requires about 30 full shots for them.  The pros will have multiple 50 yard pitches and the field will average 6 under per round.

How to make a short course difficult for the pros:

• Par 70
• 2-3 par 5s.  All par 5’s must be difficult to reach in two, or have significant risk in doing so
• At most one drivable par 4, which has significant risk and difficulty getting up and down when missed
• Plenty of doglegs or fairways that discourage players using driver
• Small greens that penalize short sided misses
• Greens with slope in them
• Use of water both off of the tee and around the green, to require accuracy
• Average to narrow fairway width

The winner of this course will be in the mid teens as pro’s will be required to take a minimum of 31-32 full swings a round . They are not gifted easy birdies.  The approaches will still be full swings. The sloped greens ensure that a lack of spin control makes wedge play harder and putting harder. The presence of water or significant hazards ensures players can’t always take dead aim, or at least, must swing with a bit of fear in the back of their heads.  The pros will average even par on this course even though it’s short, and the winner will be about 15 under.

The biggest difference between these courses comes from frequent scoring chances in weak par 5's and weak short par 4's. If those holes are not pushovers and require taking on real risk to score, the course will not be destroyed.

+1!!!


Don't think there's a single thing I disagree with there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()