[Erik J. Barzeski]

In case you're interested, Lou Stagner on Twitter has some interesting stats on PGA tour players' handicaps. Rickie Fowler had the lowest one time index with +8.4. There are a few who average around a +7.5 or so - they're the very best. Bear in mind those are regular course ratings, not adjusted for PGA tour set up, so if you're a +6 at your club, you're still nowhere close to them. And none of them are "regularly" shooting -7 on the par 5s for a round.

The ratings wouldn’t change much for a PGA Tour setup. People act like a 74.3 course would turn into a 78 course. It might go to 74.4 or 74.5 since a lot of the things don’t change - the fairway width, the length, the trees, the green targets (sizes, locations and depth of bunkers), the distance of the penalty areas from the landing zones, etc. If you adjusted the 250-yard tee shot some of those things might even decrease slightly as some things moved outside of the landing zone.

And, if the rating and slope are 74.5/144 or something on a par 72, then a +7 will average 65.5 8 times out of 20, with the other 12 rounds being higher.

The point of this thread to show that length isn't needed to challenge the best players in the world. Length shouldn't identify the best players in the world alone. Length is only a minor part of what challenges them in the first place. Holes that reward skills other than length should be cherished.

I’m glad you re-stated what I would agree is the main topic and point here. Thank you Ben.

[Rob Marshall]

While I agree with you that as you approach perfection each incremental stroke is more difficult, I think perfection is closer to -15 or -16 for that course.  For a long hitter, a good day on those four par 5s is probably -6 or -7.  After that, you only need 3 or 4 more to get to -10, and for four of the short par 4s a long hitter can easily be within 30 yards of the hole after the tee shot.  The even par average is very misleading as it is the whole field and it requires a bag that is used for the other holes and those courses.  Just preparing for Ben's course requires fewer clubs and changes to the bag.  For example, a pro may go 48 52 60, but if he were to play Ben's course, he may go 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 and drop other clubs he won't use.  A 200 yard shot for me is a four-iron that goes 192 in the air and then rolls to 200.  For the long hitters, it's a seven-iron that goes 200 in the air and stops in a yard or two.   


The top guys are too good.  I think most people underestimate their ability.  My friend who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly every round on a 7,300 course can't get his tour card.   


It would be great to see this for real.  I guess the closest we'll get to see is maybe the Walker Cup at Cypress Point.  I've gone through the holes with someone who has a shot at making the team and the course doesn't require much of his bag as it would mine.  In fact, my suggestion for him would be to go from 3 wedges to 5 wedges. 

Yes Jim ... I've played 16 of the 18 holes.  Absent a hurricane, I'm thinking a good four round total is -40.

I'm sorry but this is a silly estimate.  Once you start approaching perfection, it gets harder to reduce your score by another shot.  To shoot 60 on a shorter course is entirely possible, but to average 60 for four straight days is a very different matter.


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.

Please post this guys name. I would love to look at his scores in the GHIN system.

[Ben Hollerbach]

The most dominant performance we've seen in our lifetime was Tiger Woods at the 2000 US Open. His daily scoring average was 7.35 strokes better than the tournament average. If a tournament was played on the first course I posted, an equivalent performance of 7.35 strokes better than the course average of 72.73 would result in the winners daily average to be only be 65. The winning score would only be 20 under par, and this is with a historically dominant performance to accomplish that.


In comparison, Dustin Johnson's win in Boston this year, 30 under 254, he averaged 5.85 strokes better than the course average of 69.35 and won by 11.


For everyone that believes the winning score would be 30 under or 40 under, the data is simply not there to back it up. These players are good, but they are not that good for 4 straight days. Well designed golf courses do not have to be long to frustrate the worlds best players.

[Mark_Fine]

I have not checked out this thread for a while but see it keeps surfacing.  I proposed an idea for a 6400 yard course that I think would hold up.  A conventional one (unless very tricked up) would not but then again, it all depends on how you define hold up. 

[Michael Felton]

In case you're interested, Lou Stagner on Twitter has some interesting stats on PGA tour players' handicaps. Rickie Fowler had the lowest one time index with +8.4. There are a few who average around a +7.5 or so - they're the very best. Bear in mind those are regular course ratings, not adjusted for PGA tour set up, so if you're a +6 at your club, you're still nowhere close to them. And none of them are "regularly" shooting -7 on the par 5s for a round.

The ratings wouldn’t change much for a PGA Tour setup. People act like a 74.3 course would turn into a 78 course. It might go to 74.4 or 74.5 since a lot of the things don’t change - the fairway width, the length, the trees, the green targets (sizes, locations and depth of bunkers), the distance of the penalty areas from the landing zones, etc. If you adjusted the 250-yard tee shot some of those things might even decrease slightly as some things moved outside of the landing zone.

And, if the rating and slope are 74.5/144 or something on a par 72, then a +7 will average 65.5 8 times out of 20, with the other 12 rounds being higher.

The point of this thread to show that length isn't needed to challenge the best players in the world. Length shouldn't identify the best players in the world alone. Length is only a minor part of what challenges them in the first place. Holes that reward skills other than length should be cherished.

I’m glad you re-stated what I would agree is the main topic and point here. Thank you Ben.

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.

[Rob Marshall]

A scratch golfer’s average score is going to be 2 or 3 over par. You only play to your handicap what, 25% of the time?


I played with Matt Harmon a number of times. He played at Michigan State. Lost to Anthony Kim in I think the semi’s of the pub links. He was one of the longest players on the Web.com and missed his PGA card a couple of years by one or two shots. We played on a par 71, 6700 yard course. He shot 66 to 70 every time I played with him. Fun rounds, nothing he was grinding on. No one is going to shoot 40 under. No way the number one golfer in the world is averaging 61 over 4 rounds.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

Yes, I think the Tour setup bumps up the course rating a little more than what Eric said, but that is irrelevant to this discussion since we are assuming the 6400 yard course would be set up like any other Tour event.


The podcast I listened to yesterday about the datagolf guys [referred by another thread here] shed some light on this discussion.  It is clear from their research that the shorter courses on the PGA Tour reward long hitting LESS than the longer courses.  Bethpage Black rewarded long hitters the most; places like Waialae and Sedgefield and Harbour Town and Mayakoba reward them the least.  Some of that is probably because certain holes "take the driver out of their hands," but also, the data shows that shorter courses allow more players to compete.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

You seem to have made a fair number of assumptions there about what I was saying. I spoke only of how the course rating would change. The course rating doesn’t consider hole locations, for example.

Also, what Tom Doak just said.

[AChao]

Hogan shot 63 in 1956 at The Match I believe.  I don't know how much they've changed the course, but I'm guessing it is around 250 yards.  Equipment today is far superior than the 250 yards in distance and is far straighter.  I'm not saying everyone can shot -40, but a Ben Hogan could today with today's equipment. 


I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it's out there and it's soon to come.  Top golfers are figuring things out and moving away from how golf used to be played.  Some of us grew-up with laying up to 100 yards on Par 5s and we now know that's not the path to lower scores. 

It would be great to see this for real.  I guess the closest we'll get to see is maybe the Walker Cup at Cypress Point.  I've gone through the holes with someone who has a shot at making the team and the course doesn't require much of his bag as it would mine.  In fact, my suggestion for him would be to go from 3 wedges to 5 wedges. 

What did Bubba, Ricky, Nick Watney, and DLIII shoot at Cypress when they replayed "The Match"? My recollection is their scores were not as good as the players from the original match 60 years ago.

[AChao]

Hi Tom ... a few thoughts ...


I'm glad to hear we are only off by about a stroke a round.  I was going to say -36 to -40 at first, but I truly felt -40 (though mind-numbing) can be done ... and some of it involves the changing way top golf is played today.


With regard to Cypress Point, I'm pretty sure Ben Hogan shot -9 in 1956 at The Match.  I don't think the course has been lengthened a lot (250 yards or so I think), but if Ben Hogan had today's equipment, I think he would have shot better than -9 because today's equipment is much longer than the 250 yards and is much straighter.) 


With regard to your course at Houston, I haven't played it yet but I have played a fair number of your courses and one really good thing you do is make the course subtly more challenging for the better player while being more user friendly for the less skilled player.  So -40 is on Ben's course.  I don't see -40 happening on any of the courses of yours that I've played because your shorter courses strike me as quite a bit more interesting and difficult than Ben's.


Back to Ben' course.  I've played 16 of the 18 holes -- some multiple times.  I've probably averaged being a 3-4 handicap playing all the way back or almost all the way back and I'd say I've averaged +2 on Ben's course assuming I parred the 2 I haven't played.  If the average PGA Tour Pro is a +6 to +8, a good week for a top PGA Tour pro is back to -36 to -40. 


(One could trick-up Ben's course fairly easily ... e.g. soggy greens, put hole locations in the rear so shots spin back and it's very difficult to get near the hole for birdie, but I'm not assuming that.)


Big picture, I would agree the range is probably -34 to -42 for sure but I do see -40 because a lot of the top players are just figuring-out how to play golf with the new way they play.


Back to my friend, yes playing tournament golf is not real golf.  I'm "consulting" for him and we've figured something out so hopefully, we'll see him at more prominent golf tournaments. 


I do think there is quite a gap also between how a PGA Tour pro will just play versus how they play in a tournament.  For example, when I played with Rory on the front nine at Torrey South, he literally woke-up, ate breakfast, and walked to the first tee.  No range balls.  He had never played the front nine at Torrey South before.  (I asked him what he did before the round on the 2nd hole).  He shot -5 and missed two putts inside 8 feet just on the front 9.  In the real tournament rounds, he shot -1, -1, and -3.  (Hole locations and conditioning looked similar, maybe slightly easier when I played.)  Because Ben's course is so short, I think the gap between practice and tournament would be smaller.  Most importantly, I think the top hitters will figure-out how to score lower.  I think they are far from optimized.  I'm not saying a lot of pros have the ability to shoot -40, just that a few of the top ones definitely could.


There's a lot of factors that don't seem to be optimized in the professional game still.  For example, I know two top tour pros who are both known as great putters, except one putts great on fast, flat greens and one putts great on fast, slope-y greens.  The one who putts great on fast, flat greens doesn't putt well on fast, slope-y greens and vice versa for the other ones.  (Putting on a relative basis.) 

While I agree with you that as you approach perfection each incremental stroke is more difficult, I think perfection is closer to -15 or -16 for that course.  For a long hitter, a good day on those four par 5s is probably -6 or -7.  After that, you only need 3 or 4 more to get to -10, and for four of the short par 4s a long hitter can easily be within 30 yards of the hole after the tee shot.  The even par average is very misleading as it is the whole field and it requires a bag that is used for the other holes and those courses.  Just preparing for Ben's course requires fewer clubs and changes to the bag.  For example, a pro may go 48 52 60, but if he were to play Ben's course, he may go 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 and drop other clubs he won't use.  A 200 yard shot for me is a four-iron that goes 192 in the air and then rolls to 200.  For the long hitters, it's a seven-iron that goes 200 in the air and stops in a yard or two.   

The top guys are too good.  I think most people underestimate their ability.  My friend who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly every round on a 7,300 course can't get his tour card.   

It would be great to see this for real.  I guess the closest we'll get to see is maybe the Walker Cup at Cypress Point.  I've gone through the holes with someone who has a shot at making the team and the course doesn't require much of his bag as it would mine.  In fact, my suggestion for him would be to go from 3 wedges to 5 wedges. 

I just got to watch half the Tour play my course in Houston from close up, two weeks ago.  You don't have to tell me those guys are really good, but nobody came close to averaging -4 on the three par-5 holes each round.  Here's how the leaders fared on the par-5's:


Carlos Ortiz:  8 birdies, 4 pars
Hideki Matsuyama:  8 birdies, 4 pars
Dustin Johnson:  3 birdies, 8 pars, 1 bogey
Brooks Koepka:  6 birdies, 5 pars, 1 bogey


Making eagles is hard.  I think Augusta still gives out crystal to players for every eagle.  How many players have ever made three 3's on the par-5's there in one round, in 85 years of trying?  [I looked it up ... Dustin Johnson was the first ever to do it once, in 2015.  The most eagles in one tournament by a single player is four.]


It's just like your buddy who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly all the time.  He sure doesn't do that when he is trying to qualify for the PGA Tour, or he would be out there kicking everyone's asses.


Years ago GOLF DIGEST was computing handicaps for the PGA Tour players, and the best of them were a plus-6 or a plus-7 . . . for their best 10 rounds out of 20, against the course rating, not against par.  Let's say it's plus-8 now.  I don't know what the course rating would be for this imaginary 6400 yard course . . . Cypress Point's is 72.4.  I really have a hard time seeing a guy shooting four 62's there, he would have to be on a hell of a roll.  If you'd said 35-under, I wouldn't have objected.

[JESII]

There used to be a guy on here...quite prolific, and a good friend...that posited that a wide scoring spectrum was A sign of a great golf course. With the most recent course Ben hypothesized, featuring average scores around par; for a winner to shoot 40 under we would see one of the widest scoring spectrums of all time. By logic and reason, Ben has designed the greatest golf course of all time...without leaving his desk.


AC, very curious to see your ideas for how Tour level players can play better. It feels like your talking about strategy and decisions as opposed to technique. Is there any evidence that the strategy recent data analysis (Broadie - Every Shot Counts and Erik Barzeski etc...) has recommended has helped scoring?

[AChao]

Hi Jim,


Yes .. I agree a great course has potential for wide scoring swings.  Holes 12 through 16 at Augusta National strike me as having anything from -7 to +7 as possible. 


With respect to your second question, this is an interesting one.  My view is as follows.  In the finance world years ago, people would just guess at pricing stock options.  Black-Scholes came up with their option pricing model assuming a log-normal return at expiration.  They win a Nobel Prize and everyone uses their model ... kind-of ... the smarter money realized that the log-normal assumption may have issues.  For example, the conditional probability of a stock that started at 100 that is trading at 110 going to 120 may be significantly higher than implied by the model. 


Broadie and Decade (Scott Fawcett), in my view, are a bit like Black-Scholes.  We've come-out of the dark age of guessing on how to score better.  Just like how every option trader knows Black-Scholes as the "basics", every pro golfer, I'm guessing in the next few years, will know what Broadie and Fawcett would say.  Similar to option trades realizing differences between conditional probability distributions and log-normal ones, people are going to realize there's more to it than the simple (though elegant) strokes gained numbers and Fawcett ovals.


In addition, yes, strategy and decisions are far from optimized.  Much of what I'm getting at is highly customized, but one example for my friend is that on certain courses for shots from 160 to 210 yards, he needs to hit more shots below the hole with a skew to left to right flat to uphill putts to make more birdies (vs. being pin-high or past pin-high).  To do this, he only needs to focus on three shots with his 6, 7, and 8 irons (and not waste his time trying to hit all 9 with each club). 


I think Bryson DeChambeau may be on the cusp of something bigger than what we see with his 200 ball speed.  I haven't seen him make the adjustments/decision changes I would make it I could coach/consult with him.  I'd bet Rory is adapting based on what he's seeing with DeChambeau as are a lot of other players and most aspiring professionals.   

There used to be a guy on here...quite prolific, and a good friend...that posited that a wide scoring spectrum was A sign of a great golf course. With the most recent course Ben hypothesized, featuring average scores around par; for a winner to shoot 40 under we would see one of the widest scoring spectrums of all time. By logic and reason, Ben has designed the greatest golf course of all time...without leaving his desk.


AC, very curious to see your ideas for how Tour level players can play better. It feels like your talking about strategy and decisions as opposed to technique. Is there any evidence that the strategy recent data analysis (Broadie - Every Shot Counts and Erik Barzeski etc...) has recommended has helped scoring?

[JESII]

Thanks AC, interesting stuff.


The wide scoring spectrum can certainly be viewed, as you did, relating to parts of a course because that's the story but Tom Paul used to talk about courses that would allow a great player that really played well to shoot extremely low scores. At the same time, if they were off a bit they would have some challenging holes which would bring the total score back close to par and if you played poorly, you could go for a big number. Figuring out what characteristics that course had that triggered those results would reveal something valuable.


Ben's course(s) average about par, so that's about what the cut would be...but, your positing that the winning score would average 9 or 10 under per round. Based on the average, this also means someone (or several people) will be double digits over par, or close to it.


Let's assume both you and Ben are correct; what features does this course have that would be so extraordinary?


The low side may be as simple as you suggest; give a Tour player a wedge on every hole that he's not reaching in 1 less than regulation and he's going to shoot very low numbers. But what do these holes do to keep the average score at or over par?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

AC, very curious to see your ideas for how Tour level players can play better. It feels like your talking about strategy and decisions as opposed to technique. Is there any evidence that the strategy recent data analysis (Broadie - Every Shot Counts and Erik Barzeski etc...) has recommended has helped scoring?

BTW, a lot of Tour players and successful players already played the way I would tell them to, or Scott would tell them to, almost instinctively. The old timers often called these guys "aggressive" (in hitting driver or going for par fives), and would often call them somewhat conservative in their approach shots…

Look at how Tiger has always played. It's almost perfectly in line with what the stats would tell him these days. Fat sides of greens, driver all the time even if it's a little wild, and just give yourself a bunch of birdie putts. Very few green light holes, and sometimes you'll pull a ball you were aiming 20 feet right and knock it stiff. He generally missed in good spots, too.

AChao, you seem to be relying on a whole lot of "anecdata" here. The hole is still only 4.25" wide, and the gap in scoring between the top 100 guys on the Tour isn't too big, particularly over 4 rounds. 62s and 61s are possible, but it's so unlikely to be four times in a row…

[Michael Felton]

Holes 12 through 16 at Augusta National strike me as having anything from -7 to +7 as possible. 

For the record, of all the rounds played from 1983 to 2019, no one has shot better than -5 for that 5 hole stretch. Only three people have shot -5 for the middle three. Jack Renner in 1983 shot 3, 3, 3 for those three, but had 3s on 12 and 16. Phil and DJ have both gone 3, 2, 4 for the three holes. DJ in 09 and made 4 and 3 on 12 and 16 and Phil in '10 and made 3 and 3 on 12 and 16. A couple of people have gone 2, 4, 3, 4, 2. -7 is theoretically possible, but not realistic. It just doesn't happen. 37 years worth of tournaments and I guess roughly 300 rounds per tournament is north of 11,000 rounds and no one has shot -6. Only 13 times out of the 11,000 rounds has made eagles on both par 5s.


On the other end, it's harder to check, but Billy Casper for one shot +13 for the five hole stretch. 11 of those were on 16 (he made a 14 - no idea how).

[Rob Marshall]

I seem to remember Tiger winning the Open hitting one or two drivers the entire tournament.

[AChao]

Hi Jim ... I would think the distribution of scores would be pretty fat between +3 and -6 ish and then tail-off lower than -7 ish.  I doubt there would be a lot of scores of +5 or higher unless there was a hurricane or something similar.  There's a certain challenge to making a birdie, but for top pros it's quite hard to make a bogey (with a few exceptions.)


I do have some theories on why some holes have such high scoring averages.  For example, 7 at Pebble ... wind, poa greens, bumpy greens, weak pro field, lots of walking on greens, sometimes soggy greens ... very hard to get to rear hole locations.  Hard greens and front hole locations.  17 at TPC Sawgrass ... disaster avoidance, i.e. play the hole very differently if you are four shots inside the cut line on your second round versus being in second place two shots behind the leader on Sunday and four clear of third.

Thanks AC, interesting stuff.


The wide scoring spectrum can certainly be viewed, as you did, relating to parts of a course because that's the story but Tom Paul used to talk about courses that would allow a great player that really played well to shoot extremely low scores. At the same time, if they were off a bit they would have some challenging holes which would bring the total score back close to par and if you played poorly, you could go for a big number. Figuring out what characteristics that course had that triggered those results would reveal something valuable.


Ben's course(s) average about par, so that's about what the cut would be...but, your positing that the winning score would average 9 or 10 under per round. Based on the average, this also means someone (or several people) will be double digits over par, or close to it.


Let's assume both you and Ben are correct; what features does this course have that would be so extraordinary?


The low side may be as simple as you suggest; give a Tour player a wedge on every hole that he's not reaching in 1 less than regulation and he's going to shoot very low numbers. But what do these holes do to keep the average score at or over par?

[AChao]

I'm arguing there's a paradigm shift and it's just starting.  There is no confirming data.  Bryson de Chambeau is reinventing golf and he hasn't optimized his tool kit.   


The data that you (I assume) and Scott have (I've subscribed to Decade for a long time and play a lot of golf with my nephew, a top junior golfer, who used to subscribe to Decade religiously) is really interesting though rear-view, but it doesn't factor in many things.  Decade and Strokes Gained are like Black-Scholes ... took us out of the dark ages but has many issues like the log-normal assumption in Black-Scholes.


It's very interesting that you mention Tiger.  When Decade first came-out a tour pro I played with told me how he religiously follows the system and someone did a study of how Tiger played according to Decade.  While true in the rear-view mirror, I question whether if Tiger were 20 years old today if he would still play that way.  I'm thinking maybe not - in fact, probably not.


Also, the all else equal argument you are de facto implying with your "anecdata" comment ... I don't see as equal.


 

AC, very curious to see your ideas for how Tour level players can play better. It feels like your talking about strategy and decisions as opposed to technique. Is there any evidence that the strategy recent data analysis (Broadie - Every Shot Counts and Erik Barzeski etc...) has recommended has helped scoring?

BTW, a lot of Tour players and successful players already played the way I would tell them to, or Scott would tell them to, almost instinctively. The old timers often called these guys "aggressive" (in hitting driver or going for par fives), and would often call them somewhat conservative in their approach shots…

Look at how Tiger has always played. It's almost perfectly in line with what the stats would tell him these days. Fat sides of greens, driver all the time even if it's a little wild, and just give yourself a bunch of birdie putts. Very few green light holes, and sometimes you'll pull a ball you were aiming 20 feet right and knock it stiff. He generally missed in good spots, too.

AChao, you seem to be relying on a whole lot of "anecdata" here. The hole is still only 4.25" wide, and the gap in scoring between the top 100 guys on the Tour isn't too big, particularly over 4 rounds. 62s and 61s are possible, but it's so unlikely to be four times in a row…

[AChao]

For 2000 US Open, Tiger was actually around 31 for the four rounds if you calculate it round by round (I've manually calculated it years ago, it's like 10. something for the first round and then 6. or 7. something for each the next three rounds).  Adjust for strength of field versus Ben's course/numbers and you are at 32 to 34.  Adjust for changes in equipment, course set-up, Tiger trying to avoid bogeys, etc ... you are in the implied -34 to -38 range for Ben's course. 

The most dominant performance we've seen in our lifetime was Tiger Woods at the 2000 US Open. His daily scoring average was 7.35 strokes better than the tournament average. If a tournament was played on the first course I posted, an equivalent performance of 7.35 strokes better than the course average of 72.73 would result in the winners daily average to be only be 65. The winning score would only be 20 under par, and this is with a historically dominant performance to accomplish that.


In comparison, Dustin Johnson's win in Boston this year, 30 under 254, he averaged 5.85 strokes better than the course average of 69.35 and won by 11.


For everyone that believes the winning score would be 30 under or 40 under, the data is simply not there to back it up. These players are good, but they are not that good for 4 straight days. Well designed golf courses do not have to be long to frustrate the worlds best players.

[Jeff Schley]

Haven't read the entire thread at all, but I would discount tee to green and focus on size of the greens, severity of tilt (tough on small greens), and playing conditions would have to be hard, hard.
Small greens, borderline unfair pin positions probably, then the conditions would have to be dry where it would be tough to hold the greens.

[Ben Hollerbach]

For 2000 US Open, Tiger was actually around 31 for the four rounds if you calculate it round by round (I've manually calculated it years ago, it's like 10. something for the first round and then 6. or 7. something for each the next three rounds).  Adjust for strength of field versus Ben's course/numbers and you are at 32 to 34.  Adjust for changes in equipment, course set-up, Tiger trying to avoid bogeys, etc ... you are in the implied -34 to -38 range for Ben's course. 

Hmm... What is this strength of field and equipment adjustment you want to apply?



Here is the round by round data from the 2000 US Open and the application of Tigers performance to the round by round data of the 6,418 course from the 2020 season. Tiger was 29 strokes better than the field average in 2000, but the field was 17 strokes over par for the week. On the 6,418 course the field average was 11 strokes over par, netting Tiger a winning score of -18.

Remember this example is not average, it is one of the greatest performances of all time and should be viewed as an outlier of possible scoring.

What then you must be implying is the difference between the 2000 US Open field and todays average PGA Tour field + equipment updates over the last 20 years is worth an additional 16-20 strokes over one of, if not the most, dominant performances the game of golf has ever seen?!?!







For reference, below is the round by round scoring averages for the 6,418 routing from 2020








With the "start" of the 2021 season soon to kick off in January we can actually validate these discussions. I'm going to compose a test in which we can predict and analyze the PGA tour's performance across short courses they already play through the schedule. Keep an eye out for a new topic where I post the course and the test parameters.

[AChao]

Ben ...
Strength of field ... ATT Pebble Beach Pro-Am is 3 days of pros (before cut line) and field is weaker at ATT than US Open.  So even though they are playing the same course, an adjustment needs to be made.
Equipment advances have been asymmetric ... will help Bryson length players more than Kevin Na length players.

For 2000 US Open, I got 31 strokes better and you got 29 ... I think this is because the filed average number you cite includes Tiger Woods.  If you exclude Tiger Woods, it goes up.  There are also some issues on how to treat the people who withdrew mid-round who were on their way to shooting 80+ I believe.  I don't remember the exact number, but if you only count the people who made the cut, Tiger's performance is actually even more impressive (and more strokes).  There is an argument to reduce the number also because only Tiger played a superior ball. 

There are other cases of outperformance that maybe don't shine so bright.  Rory at Congressional is one.

You are correct that based on historical data, your course is +11, but there are many factors that I think need an adjustment.  First 8 of the holes are played during one tournament with a weak field and potentially strange weather.  (I mentally adjusted the average to be closer to even par.  As I mentioned earlier, I've played 16 of the holes and shot around +2 or +3 on them last time I played them and I'm a 3-4 handicap).  In fairness, if you had historical data for those holes for 3 or 4 years and they all came out to +11, then I should adjust down. 

(The 4th hole on the Plantation is a 420 yard par 4 I think). 

Perhaps more importantly, going forward, if Bryson is able to fine-tune part of 1 his experiment (and others as well), there's a part 2 which is where more gains will come.
Guessing the winning score for your course is a bit like valuing Tesla stock -- if you view it from old carmakers, Tesla should be trading around $6 and the winning score should be -20.  If you factor in all the permutations of Tesla's tech (Bryson's new model), then people are willing to pay up.  In golf, that number will go more under -- it's a question of accurately modeling the diminishing returns from incremental gains with the new rubric.  My sense is most people are only factoring in the distance gain whereas I think part 2 should be visible in the not too distant future.
It would be great if you create a new thread where we can all guess and estimate and see what happens.

For 2000 US Open, Tiger was actually around 31 for the four rounds if you calculate it round by round (I've manually calculated it years ago, it's like 10. something for the first round and then 6. or 7. something for each the next three rounds).  Adjust for strength of field versus Ben's course/numbers and you are at 32 to 34.  Adjust for changes in equipment, course set-up, Tiger trying to avoid bogeys, etc ... you are in the implied -34 to -38 range for Ben's course. 

Hmm... What is this strength of field and equipment adjustment you want to apply?



Here is the round by round data from the 2000 US Open and the application of Tigers performance to the round by round data of the 6,418 course from the 2020 season. Tiger was 29 strokes better than the field average in 2000, but the field was 17 strokes over par for the week. On the 6,418 course the field average was 11 strokes over par, netting Tiger a winning score of -18.

Remember this example is not average, it is one of the greatest performances of all time and should be viewed as an outlier of possible scoring.

What then you must be implying is the difference between the 2000 US Open field and todays average PGA Tour field + equipment updates over the last 20 years is worth an additional 16-20 strokes over one of, if not the most, dominant performances the game of golf has ever seen?!?!







For reference, below is the round by round scoring averages for the 6,418 routing from 2020








With the "start" of the 2021 season soon to kick off in January we can actually validate these discussions. I'm going to compose a test in which we can predict and analyze the PGA tour's performance across short courses they already play through the schedule. Keep an eye out for a new topic where I post the course and the test parameters.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Mr. Chao,

Field strength and historical data were discussed a few pages ago. Please reference those numbers to calculate your adjustment factor.

While the AT&T is a Pro Am and has an average level PGA tour field the course has to be set up for the Amateurs playing abilities, but yet still does not yield super low scores. In actuality the course setup is very good for the field strength, especially when compared to the 2019 US Open, the difference in scoring averages from the AT&T and the US Open were very minimal. But the intention of this exercise is not to make a short US Open course, rather a common PGA tour course, so comparing US Open field strength to a typical PGA tour field is moot.

I didn't include any players who were DQed or WDed from the even in my numbers, but as a player in the tournament Tiger should be included in the field numbers. I understand your point but even then extracting tiger adjust the numbers less than half a stroke over 4 days. Either way, Tiger at your number of 31 still does not get him anywhere close to the 34-38 under figure you'd expect. Rory in 2011 was nowhere close to Tiger, he was closer to 23 strokes better than the field.

You speak heavily of the future and what might be. I'm looking at the present and what is. Could Bryson change the game and turn every golf course in the world into a pitch and putt? Will the rest of the players on the PGA Tour follow? Unlikely to both. It is for this reason that Bryson's potential is not more important than what is actually happening today.

I look forward to your predictions in my upcoming scoring test.

P.S. The data for Kapalua is for the 11th, which matches my initial post, the 4th is a typo.

P.P.S. What is your first name?

[AChao]

Hi Ben,

I will PM you also.  A couple of notes ...

I have different field strength figures.  In my view, what is normally computed as an average is not as important as the outliers who have greater scoring abilities.

With regard to ATT, my point is that the pros playing it aren't as good as the pros who played the US Open, so your 72.5 or so expected score is high.  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.  (Maybe weather had to do with some of those high hole averages? or the holes just happen to not play that hard for me?)  With respect to Rory's US Open 2011, the strokes are fewer but the standard deviation separation is wider.  In other words, it's not as impressive as Tiger's 2000, but it's closer in range from a standard deviation perspective than what the stroke differential appears to be if I remember correctly.

Your next paragraph is critical.  I think what Bryson is doing will change things forever.  You don't.  (And I think Bryson will change it quickly -- as in the next year or so and not really far out in the future.)  Only time can tell.

Thanks for setting-up future tournament scoring threads ... I'll do my best to run my 3 models and post my estimates. 

Mr. Chao,

Field strength and historical data were discussed a few pages ago. Please reference those numbers to calculate your adjustment factor.

While the AT&T is a Pro Am and has an average level PGA tour field the course has to be set up for the Amateurs playing abilities, but yet still does not yield super low scores. In actuality the course setup is very good for the field strength, especially when compared to the 2019 US Open, the difference in scoring averages from the AT&T and the US Open were very minimal. But the intention of this exercise is not to make a short US Open course, rather a common PGA tour course, so comparing US Open field strength to a typical PGA tour field is moot.

I didn't include any players who were DQed or WDed from the even in my numbers, but as a player in the tournament Tiger should be included in the field numbers. I understand your point but even then extracting tiger adjust the numbers less than half a stroke over 4 days. Either way, Tiger at your number of 31 still does not get him anywhere close to the 34-38 under figure you'd expect. Rory in 2011 was nowhere close to Tiger, he was closer to 23 strokes better than the field.

You speak heavily of the future and what might be. I'm looking at the present and what is. Could Bryson change the game and turn every golf course in the world into a pitch and putt? Will the rest of the players on the PGA Tour follow? Unlikely to both. It is for this reason that Bryson's potential is not more important than what is actually happening today.

I look forward to your predictions in my upcoming scoring test.

P.S. The data for Kapalua is for the 11th, which matches my initial post, the 4th is a typo.

P.P.S. What is your first name?

[Ben Hollerbach]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()