[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,


I agree with what you are saying, other than my "disconnect" because Jerry was specifically talking about tournament architecture, and how it didn't affect the two players who made the playoff last week, or perhaps the top 10 in the tournament.


I recall the book "Pro" where Frank Beard chronicled his year on tour in 1969 (and as it happened, I think he was the leading money winner that year, after being selected because he was a journeyman turned journal man, I guess.  But I digress, but do recall him saying the difference between a tour pro and a low handicap Am was basically as you say - The pro pulls the shot off 90% of the time, and the low handicapper pulls it off 70% of the time.  Even if the penalty is a "half shot" on average, 20% of 70 strokes is 14 more shots mishit, and perhaps the 7 extra strokes that make him a low handicapper rather than a tour pro.


For my actual design work, BTW, I use a similar shot pattern analysis as one basis for my fw width, corridor widths, OB, driving range width, etc., etc., etc.  The land swath required is much broader as the handicaps go from A to B to C to D.


But, back to the pro tour, one of my points was that their stats aren't as good as we "feel". Your 97% FW hit example would be off the charts good.  Even your guess at "average performance at 89% is too high.  Season long driving accuracy stats for FW's hit for a few big name players (rounded):


Brooks K - 56%
Phil - 52%
Rory - 53%
Speith - 54%
Dustin Johnson - 58%
Bubba Watson - 60%
Tops is Morikawa at nearly 70%.


(The week Phil won the PGA, he improved to almost 56%, which doesn't seem like a lot, but it is)
His driving distance was 302.6 vs 313 for the season. He seemed to back off the driver just slightly for accuracy (although course set up, weather, turf, etc. all play a part.  Kiawah is at sea level which shortens drives a bit.

BTW, backing up Jerry's point about Pete's angled fairways providing challenge, his average driving distance for the TPC was "only" 286.

Every time I look at pro tour stats, I believe most of us over rate just how good these guys are.  Maybe because there slogan has been "These guys are good" for so long?

[Kalen Braley]

Hey Jeff,

I was actually referring to what a player shoots in a round.  So in my example the 68 are the total strokes a player takes for the round and the assumption is perhaps they "missed" two or "left a couple out there". So the 66/68 reflects how many shots they hit as intended.

I did know many good players only hit about 50-60% of fairways, but I figure that is as intended too because that's a choice of taking distance over accuracy,  even if means "missing" in the rough or bunker.  I'd bet some of them would consider getting it in the fairway a bonus of sorts. 

I'd guess that if I shot say a 90, perhaps 23 (or 25%) may be as intended.  But that's not even as good as it seems as 18 of those will be the putt that actually drops, with a few other good shots sprinkled in.

P.S.  I still think they are that good because a local guy shooting 74 on his local course is an entirely different thing than a pro shooting a 74 from the tips with tucked pins and punishing rough on a Tour track.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,

Well, part of my analysis there was spurred by the discussion of the Fawcette method, with a bit of Dr. Mark Broadie stats thrown in. 

I guess we can't know how many of those missed fw's were either intentional or "who cares" type drives, and maybe that average 0.23 strokes per miss won't hurt them (or they don't believe it will when they hit the tee shot.)  Obviously, Fawcette has Keopka thinking any turf is good turf, so hit drive if the total play corridor is under 67 yards, so yes, the longest hitters probably feel that way. 

As you imply, the average of 0.23 strokes per missed fw over the year can certainly be made up of a few 0.0 lost strokes and another tournament with 2 or 3 lost strokes due to missed fw.  We know the winner is probably losing no more than 1 stroke per week to the rough, or he wouldn't be at the top of the leader board.

This still raises the question, do we design even tour courses for those at the very top of their game that week, just to keep scores high enough to satisfy ourselves that they faced a test of golf?  Do we design so that average PGA Tour performance would likely net par as a total score?  (I think the average score of all starters is still over par, or at least 70, and the average score of those who make the cut isn't that far under par at most events.)  Obviously, it varies with the course.

Speaking of which, Golf Digest analyzed where a Tour player who shot par every round would end up - 77th on the money list, making $1.3 million for that one year.  77th out of 200+ who try to make the tour is slightly above the average player..  The difference between a tour pro and scratch golfer is estimated at 5.5 strokes.  (wasted most of a friday afternoon once I got interested in this stuff, LOL)

So, anyway, think what you want.  IMHO, it is folly to design even tournament courses around the longest 10 drivers or to defeat the best players that week rather than let them just have a nice low winning score.  But, what do I know......I even wonder about designing every day courses.  If the tour pro averages 296 yards now, with possible drives up to 10-20% longer, and the average senior PGA player drives 276, what does a low handicapper at a club drive?  Or at least, what is the driving distance of the majority of low handicappers at a club?

And, back to the OP, yes, I still think Pete Dye was probably the best modern architect at making the pros uncomfortable.

[Kalen Braley]

Understood, but perhaps your beliefs are influenced by watching only the top players of that week (you specifically mentioned the playoff) and as we discussed on a recent thread, in any given week, 1-maybe 6 guys have their games at their peak with a real chance to win. 

Jeff,

I'm looking at the leaderboard this Sunday afternoon for this week's event and everyone has played at least 60 holes. There are  currently 30 guys within 4 shots of the lead who "could" win and it seems the difference between #1 and 30 is a very fine margin especially given they've all taken 200+ shots at this point.

But perhaps this week is an outlier, I admittedly don't usually pay close attention to how many can win on any given Sunday.  Or could it be the venue in Detroit where it seems there aren't many holes where blow-ups can occur (double or worse).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,


Well, it ended up at 13 players within 4 shots of the lead, i.e., a stroke a day.  No way to statistically track it, but I imagine the mental toughness to avoid mistakes on holes 60-72 is also a factor in scoring, regardless of design.


Even that 13 represents less than 10% of the field that started that probably walked away thinking they had a chance to win.  A bit higher than my proposition, but still in line.  It's not like there are just 5 every week, as some weeks have more, maybe some weeks only have one (usually Tiger in the last 2 decades) who are on their A game. 


The cut line was still even par. From 150-175 yards, the average approach distance was 25 feet, from rough it was 40.  Those 15 extra feet raised the one putt mhad to have an impact on the game, I presume, although


There were only 25 320+ drives.  FW hit accuracy was relatively high at 69.4% on average.


But, we can spin stats any way we want.  And, no one is going to change their minds. 


While our discussion focuses on the Tour (what else is new among golfers?) I am just looking at it from the perspective of how do we design a course for members that might host a tournament once a decade?  If only 5% of the tour drives are going over 320, what % at any given club would be hit that far?  Third? Half?   10%? Would there be a point in building them on nearly any course in America or would Fw bunkers at 320 would get raked more often than used? 


What is a representative distance of the 1% of low handicap players at the average course?  Tour average of 295 yards?  Senior Tour Average of 274 yards?  Something in between, i.e., 285 yards?


I suppose there is no right or wrong, but I suspect the average gca nerd would probably tend to over estimate how far the majority of American golfers drive the ball, and might overly design for shots that may never happen at that course.  Or, as I have said before, if I had a nickel for every conversation at a course about how the Tour pros would score if they played at Tiddly Lines, I would have retired years ago.......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()