How Collegiate Golfers Played Pasatiempo

[rchesnut]

I know that many of you are familiar with Pasatiempo, and I often get questions on how collegiate golfers fare when they play the course in a tournament...One of the members did some math and came up with the following results from the recent 3 day tournament...it's an interesting study on how a relatively short (6500 Par 70) classic course holds up to today's modern big hitters, and it helps answer the debate on whether the front nine is as hard as the back nine.   If there's any interest, I will come back with the hole by hole averages.  But here are a few interesting results from his study:

-- All of the par 3 holes played more difficult for the collegians than their relative "normal" course handicap rankings.
 
--  4 of the 5 hardest holes for the collegians were on the back nine:  11, 16, 10, 18 and 14.
 
-- Par 3 # 3 played the most difficult, with an average score of 3.91 
 
-- Their length made numbers 1 and 14 play much easier that we play them...on day 1 many of the golfers went driver, sand wedge on #1.
 
-- Especially tough greens made for high scores (18, 2, 5, 16, 3, 10, 11)
 
-- Even with their length, they scored very poorly on #11 (no surprise to Pasatiempo regulars)

-- Overall, they averaged 3.16 over par on the front nine, 3.62 over on the back nine.  The par 3s averaged .48 over par, the par 4s .39, and the 5s .16 over par.

-- The winner, Diego Velasquez from Oregon State, shot even over the 3 days.  Defending medalist and US Amateur champion Jack Newman of Michigan State finished in second at 3 over.



 

[Jed Peters]

That is incredibly awesome that an "old classic" like Pasatiempo can hold up to scoring against some of the country's best players.

I had the chance to play in the collegiate/amateur part of this last year, and it was a great experience.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rob:

That is great stuff and much appreciated, as this is a subject often wondered about by us Pasatiempo-philes.

Intriguing to me is that one can go driver-SW on #1... especially since I assume they played the super-back tee roughly on top of the old cart barn?  That is length that makes the phrase "he plays a game with which I am unfamilar" somehow inadequate.  But again, doubting the length of today's strong collegiates is a fool's errand.  Amazed I am, that's all.

I believe the most telling information you gave, however, is this:

"-- Especially tough greens made for high scores (18, 2, 5, 16, 3, 10, 11)"

I have always made a pithy statement to the tune of "let me set the pins and I'd have Tiger come in over par."  Was some of that going on on these - or other - holes? That is, especially evil pins?  It doesn't take one of Pieracci's profession to imagine what one could do if allowed to set pins that were evil enough.

One other question:  in previous Intercollegiates the winners (and others) have indeed gone well under par, no?  So if not my evil pin theory above, what was it that kept the scores relatively high this time?  As I recall weather was fine... was their a lot of wind?

TH

[David_Elvins]

Rob,

I seem to recall reading that the 3rd hole average well over 4 strokes on one day. Any idea on the pin position?

[Anthony Fowler]

-- All of the par 3 holes played more difficult for the collegians than their relative "normal" course handicap rankings.

This is not surprising and would be true at almost any course.  The reason is that course handicap is not a measure of the difficulty of a hole relative to par.  Instead, it indicates which holes provide a bigger advantage to better players.  This means that par 3's, even though they can typically be the hardest holes relative to par for scratch golfers, will have low handicap ratings because they do not give scratch golfers as much of an advantage over higher handicappers.



Just a small note: Jack Newman is the US Am Pub Links Champion, not a US Am champ (still an incredible acomplishment).

[rchesnut]

Anthony, thanks for the correction on Jack Newman, you're absolutely right.

On the past scores, they bounce around in this tournament from year to year, sometimes the winner is a few under, sometimes even or a bit over.   The year Oberholser beat Tiger, Arron shot 64 on the last day.  But I can't say this year was that unusual, I believe winners in the past have been even or worse.

On the pins this year, they weren't that evil...there were some tough ones, to be sure (back left on 18 the last day), and the greens were quick but not silly.  There was a lot of wind on the second day, scores were up that day but Diego shot 66 that day, so it wasn't impossible.   The day that #3 played more than a full shot over par, it was windy and the pin was back. 

[K. Krahenbuhl]

Another interesting event will be held next week when the Big 12 Chanpionship is played at Prairie Dunes.

[Jim Nugent]

-- Overall, they averaged 3.16 over par on the front nine, 3.62 over on the back nine. 

Is the average golfer in this tournament at least a scratch? 

I ask because overall they averaged nearly 77 strokes per round.  That suggests a pretty high course rating.  Yet I saw CR listed at 72.6. 

Similar thing happened in the last U.S. Am at Merion.  Average scores were over 78.  Course rating was a number of strokes less.   They did not set up Merion hard, either.  Don't know about Pasa. 

Makes me think CR's may not always be real accurate.  On hard courses I think they often understate the real CR. 

[Jason McNamara]

Is the average golfer in this tournament at least a scratch?

I ask because overall they averaged nearly 77 strokes per round.  That suggests a pretty high course rating.  Yet I saw CR listed at 72.6. 

Jim, remember the average round is ~3 shots worse than the handicap.  Add an extra stroke and a half for that "T" next to those scores on the hcp card (nerves + course set-up), and that could be your answer

[Sean Leary]

Is the average golfer in this tournament at least a scratch?

I ask because overall they averaged nearly 77 strokes per round.  That suggests a pretty high course rating.  Yet I saw CR listed at 72.6. 

Jim, remember the average round is ~3 shots worse than the handicap.  Add an extra stroke and a half for that "T" next to those scores on the hcp card (nerves + course set-up), and that could be your answer

And that tournament golf is different that casual golf....

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim:

Jason and Sean nailed this.  Course rating would never equate to the average score of scratch golfers in tournament play...

[Anthony Fowler]

We should also add that course rating is not what the scratch golfer should shoot on average.  Instead, it's what he/she should average for the better half of his/her rounds. 

The field at the U.S. Amateur certainly has a better average handicap than 0.  I find it hard to believe that the USGA didn't toughen up the course a little bit for the players in 2005.

[JohnV]

At one time, the definition of Course Rating what the players at the US Amateur who made match play would average.  The USGA would send in their rating experts to rate the courses the Am was being played on to see how it came out.  For quite a few years it was dead on.  But, a few years ago, the players starting beating the average.   It was also recognized that most of them were plus handicaps.  So, the definition was changed to the more circular one that the Course Rating is what a scratch golfer should average on his 10 best of 20 rounds.

And yes, the course rating for a course when setup for the US Amateur would be quite a bit higher than during normal play.  Primarily due to higher rough and faster greens.  Of course, at Oakmont that isn't necessarily true.