Par Breaker Roll Call

[jeffwarne]

Thomas,
Nobody argues that among equal quality ball strikers, the importance of distance is elevated...edit in...that's what makes the longer hitter better.
My question is, in a conversation about breaking par, why would you say it's unreasonable for a shorter hitter (yet high quality strike) to one putt on occasion to achieve par?

Because they are unlikely to do so with sufficient frequency and consultancy to make up for the bogies that will be on the card when they don't get up-n-down.
Atb

On a 6301 yard course, one does NOT have to be a long or even average length(amongst scratch players) player to break par.
I knew a 235 driver of the ball(back when such a thing existed) very well who used to play regularly on a 6300 yard course and shoot in the low 60's-as in 60, 61.He shot 62 en route to winning the Eastern Amateur as well. Wasn't a very good ball striker but a plus 10 on the greens

[JESII]

Thomas,
Nobody argues that among equal quality ball strikers, the importance of distance is elevated...edit in...that's what makes the longer hitter better.
My question is, in a conversation about breaking par, why would you say it's unreasonable for a shorter hitter (yet high quality strike) to one putt on occasion to achieve par?

Because they are unlikely to do so with sufficient frequency and consultancy to make up for the bogies that will be on the card when they don't get up-n-down.
Atb

Well then maybe we'll put that guy in the Breaking 80 thread.


Hit it short but straight and never get up and down...

[Kyle Harris]

It seems obvious to me that low scoring has a much greater correlation to length than it does to par.
That is why the course ratings are different from each tee. 

But I submit scoring is still more correlated with distance than it is to even course rating.

Take Heritage "links" in Georgia.   
The White tees:   Par 72      Rating 68.6    length 5750 yds
The Blue tees:     Par 72       Rating 74.3    length 6875 yds
Ratio:                     Par 1.00   Rating 108%  length 120%

Whether you take a 5 handicapper or a 15 handicapper, the ratio of their scores from the blue tees vs the white tees would be closer to 120% than 108%

Course "par" is meaningless.    Just tell me the length and the slope and I know how I will shoot.

Completely disagree, for a variety of reasons. But Let me ask you this: if we were playing a match, would you forego 6 shots to play from the white tees? Do you really think you'd be 6 shots better from the white tees than the blue?

Absolutely. Because the Slope is likely taking that difference down to 4 or 5 shots, and for this example to make sense my opponent would still be playing from the back.

That's a no brainer.

Here's the question: Would you take more shots to move a set back?

[Matthew Petersen]

One sub-70 round (69, 2-under) on a 6700 yard course.


Also a 70 (-1) on a 6900 yard course and a 71 (-1) on a 7,000 yard course.


In 24 rounds played this year.

[Josh Tarble]

It seems obvious to me that low scoring has a much greater correlation to length than it does to par.
That is why the course ratings are different from each tee. 

But I submit scoring is still more correlated with distance than it is to even course rating.

Take Heritage "links" in Georgia.   
The White tees:   Par 72      Rating 68.6    length 5750 yds
The Blue tees:     Par 72       Rating 74.3    length 6875 yds
Ratio:                     Par 1.00   Rating 108%  length 120%

Whether you take a 5 handicapper or a 15 handicapper, the ratio of their scores from the blue tees vs the white tees would be closer to 120% than 108%

Course "par" is meaningless.    Just tell me the length and the slope and I know how I will shoot.

Completely disagree, for a variety of reasons. But Let me ask you this: if we were playing a match, would you forego 6 shots to play from the white tees? Do you really think you'd be 6 shots better from the white tees than the blue?

Absolutely. Because the Slope is likely taking that difference down to 4 or 5 shots, and for this example to make sense my opponent would still be playing from the back.

That's a no brainer.

Here's the question: Would you take more shots to move a set back?

I believe I would because of the simple fact that you still have to hit the shots and make the putts.  To take advantage of the extra yardage you still have to hit driver (or comparable club) on the par 4s and 5s.  OTherwise you'll be hitting the same clubs into the greens to keep it in play.  I'd like to test this out, but I really don't think you're automatically 6 shots better by moving forward.

[Josh Tarble]

It seems obvious to me that low scoring has a much greater correlation to length than it does to par.
That is why the course ratings are different from each tee. 

But I submit scoring is still more correlated with distance than it is to even course rating.

Take Heritage "links" in Georgia.   
The White tees:   Par 72      Rating 68.6    length 5750 yds
The Blue tees:     Par 72       Rating 74.3    length 6875 yds
Ratio:                     Par 1.00   Rating 108%  length 120%

Whether you take a 5 handicapper or a 15 handicapper, the ratio of their scores from the blue tees vs the white tees would be closer to 120% than 108%

Course "par" is meaningless.    Just tell me the length and the slope and I know how I will shoot.

Completely disagree, for a variety of reasons. But Let me ask you this: if we were playing a match, would you forego 6 shots to play from the white tees? Do you really think you'd be 6 shots better from the white tees than the blue?

Absolutely. Because the Slope is likely taking that difference down to 4 or 5 shots, and for this example to make sense my opponent would still be playing from the back.

That's a no brainer.

Here's the question: Would you take more shots to move a set back?

Put it this way, we're both scratch.  I think I will shoot 74.  That means you would have to shoot 68 just to tie.  Even from 5800 68 is a really tough score to shoot.

[Kyle Harris]

It seems obvious to me that low scoring has a much greater correlation to length than it does to par.
That is why the course ratings are different from each tee. 

But I submit scoring is still more correlated with distance than it is to even course rating.

Take Heritage "links" in Georgia.   
The White tees:   Par 72      Rating 68.6    length 5750 yds
The Blue tees:     Par 72       Rating 74.3    length 6875 yds
Ratio:                     Par 1.00   Rating 108%  length 120%

Whether you take a 5 handicapper or a 15 handicapper, the ratio of their scores from the blue tees vs the white tees would be closer to 120% than 108%

Course "par" is meaningless.    Just tell me the length and the slope and I know how I will shoot.

Completely disagree, for a variety of reasons. But Let me ask you this: if we were playing a match, would you forego 6 shots to play from the white tees? Do you really think you'd be 6 shots better from the white tees than the blue?

Absolutely. Because the Slope is likely taking that difference down to 4 or 5 shots, and for this example to make sense my opponent would still be playing from the back.

That's a no brainer.

Here's the question: Would you take more shots to move a set back?

Put it this way, we're both scratch.  I think I will shoot 74.  That means you would have to shoot 68 just to tie.  Even from 5800 68 is a really tough score to shoot.

As a scratch, if you're shooting 74 from those tees you're having a 1 in 5 day. If I'm shooting 68 from the next set up, I'm having a 1 in 5 day.

I'll still take those odds.

[Peter Pallotta]

Having a little gentle fun with Bogey, I hope he doesn't mind:

He says: Par is irrelevant if you can't break it. 
I ask: Is Heaven irrelevant if you can't get there?

Aside from an other-worldly mystic (re Heaven) and, re: par, an other worldly golfer (Tiger Woods in his prime), both of whom have had an actual and continual *experience* of their goal, the rest of us are forced to live simply by *faith* -- and faith, in both cases, in an intangible, immaterial *concept* that we know only because some loving grown-ups (who likely hadn't experienced it either) told us about it when we were young. 

Let the concept be. It's not hurting anyone - and indeed, if the goal (par, or Heaven) helps us to strive to be better golfers and better human beings, it brings much good with it.

Sure, there are some sneaky architects and mean-spirited preachers who mess with our heads using these concepts, and there sure are some golfers and religious people who use them to look down their noses at others -- but that's because people can be sneaky and mean and prideful, not because there's anything wrong with the concepts themselves. 

Peter   

[Thomas Dai]

Hit it short but straight and never get up and down...

Jim,
It's not "...never get it up and down..", that's your interpretation wording, it's 'not get up-n-down with the frequency and consistancy to offset the bogies that will be made elsewhere'. There is a difference.


Jeff,
Ref 235 yds, I'm writing about less driver distance than this, see my initial post at the start of the thread.


Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

I did a quick survey of approximate 100 golfers I know personally and can beat 80% of all golfers who hit it further than me and 100% of golfers who hit it shorter than me.  Length as a barometer of skill is a senseless argument.

[Mike Hendren]

Having a little gentle fun with Bogey, I hope he doesn't mind:
He says: Par is irrelevant if you can't break it. 
I ask: Is Heaven irrelevant if you can't get there?

Excellent, Peter.  I'm not sure Heaven's a place - strongly suggest reading N. T. Wright's Surprised by Hope.   Regardless, heaven's a choice - breaking par?  I dunno.  That said, "going to Heaven" is far easier than breaking par in my book.  I'm guessing the data would support my contention, but in the words of C. S. Lewis "but how should I know?"

Cheers.

Mike

[Bill Raffo]

Two par rounds this year, never been under par.  Had a ball come off the right shelf of the 13th hole at Gullane 1 that kissed the stick and somehow didn't fall for an ace.  That would have gotten me under par if the final five holes were the same!


Both were four birdie rounds. My short game is terrible. I either hit 10 plus greens or shoot in the 80's.

[David Davis]

I just made it into this elite group for the first time two weeks ago.


69 :-) on Tobacco Road from 6550 yd tees. As it was my best ever score and first time breaking 70 I was very happy about it. Honestly, if I can pull that off with my swing and no talent whatsoever then anyone can clearly do it. Not to mention the fact that more than a few people have said that if there is a course that plays easier than it looks or the distance states and you could possibly shoot a low score at it's TR.


I was only under par one other time this year for what it's worth and that was at Cape Wickham, the only other time was at Sand HIlls. Perhaps another feel good course if the wind allows you to stand on your own two feet.


Still, I'll take these rounds and run and yes they are fun. So back to the original premise, part of me likes having par as something to shoot for. I guess that's the competitive part that still exists. The other part, that doesn't want golf to be about failing all the time, wouldn't care. This group would most likely be the only golf group that would ever bother discussing about par.


To me I'm still on the fence with these things. I know a lot of you love to go out and walk 3,6,9 or 12 holes. The sportsman that still exists in me hates this. To me it's like playing 1 set of tennis when I was younger. Hated that too.


In my head I'm programmed to believe golf is about 18 holes and the ultimate objective is to either have a fun matchplay game where par is irrelevant or play against the course and par always floats there seemingly unachievable except for those handful of times when the stars are in alignment.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

There is a potential flaw in the data Brodie uses if applied to all golfers--it is based upon PGA tour players.  Proximity to Hole for elite players is paramount, and this was not a surprise when he published his results.  The problem is that the worst putter on the PGA tour is better than the best putter on the mini tours, who is far better than the best club golfer. 

[Kalen Braley]

There is a potential flaw in the data Brodie uses if applied to all golfers--it is based upon PGA tour players.  Proximity to Hole for elite players is paramount, and this was not a surprise when he published his results.  The problem is that the worst putter on the PGA tour is better than the best putter on the mini tours, who is far better than the best club golfer.

Robert, I don't know if that's actually true.  I'm guessing there are a handful of guys on the web.com and other tours who are better putters than the worst ones on the PGA tour.  They probably only haven't made it to the big tour because they lack length or consistent ball striking...

[Garland Bayley]

There is a potential flaw in the data Brodie uses if applied to all golfers--it is based upon PGA tour players.  Proximity to Hole for elite players is paramount, and this was not a surprise when he published his results.  The problem is that the worst putter on the PGA tour is better than the best putter on the mini tours, who is far better than the best club golfer.

Robert, I don't know if that's actually true.  I'm guessing there are a handful of guys on the web.com and other tours who are better putters than the worst ones on the PGA tour.  They probably only haven't made it to the big tour because they lack length or consistent ball striking...

Exactly what data are you saying is flawed? Brodie has collected data on all types of golfers.

[A.G._Crockett]

There is a potential flaw in the data Brodie uses if applied to all golfers--it is based upon PGA tour players.  Proximity to Hole for elite players is paramount, and this was not a surprise when he published his results.  The problem is that the worst putter on the PGA tour is better than the best putter on the mini tours, who is far better than the best club golfer.

This is not correct.

"...the Golfmetrics database contained more than 100,000 shots from more than 200 golfers raning in age from eight to 70-plus years.  The golfers whose shots were recorded in the system included LPGA Tour pros, club pros, college golfers and male and female amateur golfers with scores ranging from the 60s to the 140s."  And all of that is IN ADDITION to the PGA Tour's Shotlink data, which is now nearly 15 years old.

The interesting thing, at least to me, about Broadie's analysis is that the trends and truths from the PGA Tour turn out to hold true at every level of golf.  The big separator at ANY level of golf is proximity of approach.  The importance of length can't be overstated.  The image of "long, but crooked" is mostly a myth.  Nobody is making lots of putts outside 20 feet.  Good putting is mostly three-putt avoidance.  And so on...

If you haven't read Broadie's book, I'd highly recommend it.  You might not agree with everything in it, but it is a remarkable and valuable piece of research, and unlike anything else that has been done in golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

AG - that reminded of what I once heard Johnny Miller say about Jack N. I can't do it justice, of course, but it went something like this:
Jack never got the putting yips because he never fired right at the pin and/or got it close enough to realistically expect to make the putt -- and so he rarely experienced *missing* putts he should've made and thus never lost his confidence or got the yips.
While Johnny (this still according to Johnny) always tried to knock the pins down, Jack tended to aim 20 feet away, to the safe/correct side. If he faded/drew it just right, he might have a ten footer; but usually the result was a 15-2O footer -- which meant that he consistently got two putt pars, rarely three putted, and still made enough birdies to win a heck of a lot of tournaments...all the while never stressing himself out.
JM on the other hand was such a good and confident iron player that he almost always had a make-able birdie putt...and so when he started *missing* one too many of them, he lost his confidence and got the yips!
A fascinating analysis -- of the kind that only Johnny Miller could or would come up with. But there does seem to be something to it...and your mention of good putting = not three putting brought it to mind.
Peter

[jeffwarne]

or johnny's yips stemmed from a pulled "patting" muscle.

[Peter Flory]

You can tell why he got the yips from listening to him announce.  He is a nervous wreck and the worst case scenario is always the first thing that enters his mind. 


Meanwhile Nicklaus was the type of guy who only worried about things that he could control. 

[Kalen Braley]

There is a potential flaw in the data Brodie uses if applied to all golfers--it is based upon PGA tour players.  Proximity to Hole for elite players is paramount, and this was not a surprise when he published his results.  The problem is that the worst putter on the PGA tour is better than the best putter on the mini tours, who is far better than the best club golfer.

Robert, I don't know if that's actually true.  I'm guessing there are a handful of guys on the web.com and other tours who are better putters than the worst ones on the PGA tour.  They probably only haven't made it to the big tour because they lack length or consistent ball striking...

Exactly what data are you saying is flawed? Brodie has collected data on all types of golfers.

Garland,


I was referring to his statement that all the best putters in the world are on the PGA Tour, which I have a hard time believing.
In comparing putting averages between PGA tour players and Web.com players, there are dozens of players who have far better averages/stats than the worst guys on tour.
Just like no one on Tour can compete with the best long drivers in the world,  I think its absurd to say the same about the best putters of the ball.  The guys on the PGA tour are not there by becoming elite specialists, but because they do all aspects of the game really really well.

[Garland Bayley]

There is a potential flaw in the data Brodie uses if applied to all golfers--it is based upon PGA tour players.  Proximity to Hole for elite players is paramount, and this was not a surprise when he published his results.  The problem is that the worst putter on the PGA tour is better than the best putter on the mini tours, who is far better than the best club golfer.

Robert, I don't know if that's actually true.  I'm guessing there are a handful of guys on the web.com and other tours who are better putters than the worst ones on the PGA tour.  They probably only haven't made it to the big tour because they lack length or consistent ball striking...

Exactly what data are you saying is flawed? Brodie has collected data on all types of golfers.

Garland,


I was referring to his statement that all the best putters in the world are on the PGA Tour, which I have a hard time believing.
In comparing putting averages between PGA tour players and Web.com players, there are dozens of players who have far better averages/stats than the worst guys on tour.
Just like no one on Tour can compete with the best long drivers in the world,  I think its absurd to say the same about the best putters of the ball.  The guys on the PGA tour are not there by becoming elite specialists, but because they do all aspects of the game really really well.

Didn't realize I was replying to you. I thought I was replying to Robert.

[Philippe Binette]

Twice
69 at my home course 6100 yards par 71 vercheres gc


69 out of nowhere in merritt gc 10 years later playing headphones on listening some bob marley

[Mike Treitler]

(-4)  69 at Garden City Men's Club from 6,900.   Only time breaking par so far this year.   Hopefully more to come!

[Ken Moum]

Jeff,
Ref 235 yds, I'm writing about less driver distance than this, see my initial post at the start of the thread.


Atb

FWIW, I'm in the group you mentioned.  As I'm less than 2 weeks from my 70th birthday, and have not worked on my game much in the last couple of years, my distance has become hopeless, down from simply pathetic 10-15 years ago.  I can usually hit my 5 hybrid more than 140 yards, but the driver simply doesn't go fast enough to hit it over 200 yards.


And my index has gone from ~10 to 17.2.  I have that short game that's several orders of magnitude better than my long game, and when I was hitting it 230 or so I could usually get around a 6500-yard course in 80 or less strokes. Because I was hitting a wedge most of the time on 340 yard holes. Today, it has to be under 300 yards to have that chance.


So, I agree with you completely.


And, so does Hank Haney.  In fact he expresses it in a way that's harder to dispute.


He says, "Length is the single most important factor in a players POTENTIAL scoring ability."


Calling it potential is the key.  It recognizes Kavanaugh's point that length in no way is a determiner of what a player will shoot, it's just a measure of potential.


Warne is right, 235 is plenty to be a single-digit handicapper. They're not into longer irons or fairway woods until the holes go past 400 yards.


K