[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, et.al.,

Hartman stated to me, in front of Parnevik and others that Parnevik was ten shots per round better than Hartman, when playing in a Major tournament.

It would be difficult to find five (5) players in the GAP area equal to Hartman.  I believe Hartman recently shot a final round 62 to win the Met Open at The Creek, amongst his many other titles.

Hartman is clearly better, by five shots per round, in tournaments, than the average player in the 2002 GAP tournament, composed of 45 pros and 15 amateurs.

Parnevik was ranked 12-15 in the WORLD prior to the Ryder Cup.

Do the MATH.

Parnevik is 10 shots better than Hartman
Hartman is 5 shots better than the average player in the GAP
2002 championsip.

Looks like 15 shots to me.

I cite for you, that some of the best local pros in the area qualify for the PGA and USGA Open.  After rounds of between 78-86 on a par 70 they are gone for the weekend,
twenty to thirty shots behind the leaders.

TEPaul,

If the USOPEN field descended on Pine Valley, and the greens weren't ridiculous, the numbers that they would shoot would be eye opening.

If Bob Lewis, a very good amateur could shoot 64, what do you think the best players in THE WORLD would shoot ?

Those guys are really, really good.  Make that GREAT.

[Kevin Reilly]

Patrick Mucci.

Do you think Hartman was exagerating a bit (especially since he said this in JP's presence)?  Could Hartman shoot in the upper 70's in a major (forcing JP to shoot in the upper 60's)?  Based on his record as you related it, you'd have to believe so, wouldn't you?

On a side note, a fellow member of your club (initials BK) told me that he could beat Phil Mickelson at the club if Mickelson gave him 10 strokes.  In fact he said there were a handful of players at the club that could do the same.  What do you think about that?

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci:

Forget about the math (which is all based on your ridiculous assumption)! Do you know what specious means? Do you know what reasoning means? Put those two words together--"specious reasoning"--that's what you're doing! That's what Hartman's doing too!

#1, you don't know what Pine Valley was set up like on Monday! #2, the tour pros are good but they're not that good and they wouldn't be THAT good at Pine Valley under those particular conditions.

They would all be generally better than the GAP players sure, probably a lot better--+4 over 36 holes ain't all that hard to beat for a world class player but you can't shoot those numbers generally you're talking about at Pine Valley. Thinking you can analogize to Lewis in his qualifying round of the Crump Cup just doesn't work--it was a course record and you know little or nothing about it.

To assume that tour players today are all so good they could generally all shoot Pine Valley course record scores is even more ludicrous than you're first exaggerated egregious statement about the 10-15 shots!

For Christ sakes Pat, try not to lose all your credibility in one evening!

[JSlonis]

TEPaul,

Happily married yes...but NO nice young children as of yet.(much to the dismay of my mother, but much to the benefit of my golf game)

As for our wager...

IDENTICAL TWIN SISTER to Tiger's girlfriend...I'm not going there..."roads lead to many places, and this one would certainly lead to trouble."

[TEPaul]

Depends how you define "trouble".

Maybe we should ask Pat Mucci how to define "trouble", he's been into some pretty interesting "definitions" on this thread already!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin Reilly,

Rick Hartman was beating Jesper when I made the initial comment that he could "play with him".

Teeing it up when it counts in a Major tournament is quite a different environment than a friendly afternoon match.
If you've ever played in one of the USGA amateur events,  you can notice the difference immediately.  
Intense scrutiny in a highly competitive atmosphere, where you don't want to embarrass yourself, adds intense pressure.

Making a 3 footer to win or lose in match play is different than making a 3 footer that could miss/or spin out leaving you a five footer, with the meter running, and the world watching.

If Hartman, who was a European tour player, one of the Premier players in the MET area and a player who has played in several Majors makes that statement, it carries far more credibility than any conjecture on the part of you fellows.

But,  I'll still take Mickelson plus ten for all the tea in china, or better yet, Let's say for $ 500,000.  Do you think BK will have a little trouble with his tempo and putting stroke ?  

TEPaul,

You know, they could probably put the pins in the bunkers at Pine Valley to make it really difficult to score.

I love Pine Valley as much as you do, but I recognize that these fellows, today, are different by multiples, and courses and obstacles that you and I may view as difficult, are overwhelmed by the talent these fellows possess.

[Matt_Ward]

George Pazin:

The issue of the 15th at BB versus 1 and 2 at PV started from a simple question I asked of Mike Cirba if he believed #1 and #2 at PV were more difficult than #15 at BB? Mike claimed higher scores would be more prevalent at #1 and #2 at PV than #15 at BB. I disagreed for a host of reasons already covered.

I never raised the issue about the type of players in the GAP Open. My point is that Mike inferred from just seeing the hole averages from the players in the GAP that HIGHER SCORES would occur with greater frequency than the 15th. My point was that you can't jump to that sort of conclusion given the types of players who play in the Open and the archictectural  
qualities that exist at the 15th at BB were vastly underrated.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Hope this helps ...

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm sorry to tell you that you're making an assumption about Pine Valley with a really good tournament setup like last Monday and tour pros that just is not particularly supportable in reality.

You may think it is by juggling all these statements and numbers concerning Hartman and Parnevik but you just aren't correct in your logic.

Pine Valley wouldn't have to "put the pins in the bunkers" to defend the place against tour pros--they wouldn't have to trick the course or the greens up either--they could use the pins they had on Monday (maybe set #6 more difficult) and that would work fine. Obviously they would tip it out too as they did on Monday.

Pine Valley has a far far far wider spectrum to set the course in a really difficult tournament setup against normal play(without doing anything tricky or over the top) than obviously you're aware of.

The way the course plays normally compared to the Crump Cup set up is very very different (as to scoring) to start with but even the Crump doesn't tip the course out like the Open did and the pins I think may have been generally more difficult for the Open than the Crump but maybe not.

The differences in setup would result in a difference in many many shots for most players. I played there the four days before the Open and we were actually playing the back tees but they were set a couple hundred yards less at least than for the Open. The pins were not difficult at all (for Pine Valley) either.

I played really well for me for four rounds and didn't shoot a score over 75 but if I had to play the course with the Philly Open setup and I played twice as good as I did those four days I absolutely KNOW I would probably not be able to break 80 in any round!

And also there have been plenty of touring pros that have played Pine Valley on normal day setup and have not sniffed the scores you're suggesting a Parnevik would. I'm talking about tour players like Watson, Crenshaw and Nicklaus in their primes!

So your logic is just way off! You obviously just don't understand some of the fineline things about that course and what can happen there to any player--even the tour player.

I have no doubt many tour players could and would shoot under par on most rounds when the course is set up like it was on Monday but you're suggesting they (a Parnevik) would be somewhere around the course record!

That's just not supportable in reality Pat--no matter how you cut it or try to explain it!

Not unless Jack, Tom and Ben would have to get about 5-6 shots a round from Jesper! Do you want to try to make that case too?

[Competitive Edge]

Shivas and Tom Paul,

Have you ever played in a US-AM or MID-AM ?

What happens to the scores of the field when the best Amateur players in the country have to requalify on site ?
Do you see players shooting fifteen over par per round ?
Do you see other players shooting under par ?
Do you see a substantial scoring difference between the really better players, the good players and the rest of the field ?
What was the cut at the last three US opens ?
What were the scores that didn't make the cut ?
Were they ten shots per round higher then the lower scores ?
Were the golfers who didn't make the cut in the usopen, better than the average player in the philadelphia open ?

Tom Paul, are you saying that the average player in the Philadelphia championship, which you indicated was 45 pros and 15 amateurs, could shoot within ten shots per round of the best players in the world in a major ?

Hell, some of the best tour pros in the world can't even do that.

[Ken_Cotner]

Against my better judgment, I'll jump into this silly issue.

Shivas is right.  You either compare the "average" pro in a major against the "average" amateur in the same event; or the leaders versus the leading amateur.  No way it's 20 strokes for 2 rounds -- that would mean the best amateur misses the cut and that ain't happening often.

KC, proud 7-handicapper

[Tom_Egan]

To: Tom Paul

Tom, here's some information you might want to pass along to "The Man Who Knows Everything and Is Embarrasingly AnxiousTo Admit It".  I'd communicate with him directly, but I don't want to get on his wrong side; you're already over there, so you're more acustomed to the punishment.  Also, you'll probably want to get him stopped on this "some players are 15 strokes better than other players" rant before the Katzmeister comes after him with a net and a rubber suit.

"TMWKEAIEATAI" reports that Rick Hartman said, at a time when Jesper Parnevik was ranked 12-15 in the world, "When it comes to tournaments, Parnevik is TEN (10) shots per round better than he is."  (the "he" presumably referring to Hartman)

"TMWKEAIEATAI" then opines in the next sentence that, "When one of the BEST five players in the MET says that some of these guys are TEN (10) shots per round better, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that they're probably 15 shots per round better than the average player in the GAP Championship."

Note the sandcastle of reasoning:  1) A top club pro and an excellent regional player says that Jesper Parnevik is 10 shots per round better than he is in tournaments.  (Unstated is the "caliber" of the tournament being referenced.  US Open? Monday Pro-Am?  Something in between?  Was Hartman serious?  Was he massaging Parnevik if he was within hearing range?  Was he being naturally self-effacing?  Was he just talking to keep the conversation going?)  2) In the paragraph following the initial assertion, "TMWKEAIEATAI" changes the premise from "Jesper Parnevik is 10 shots better" to "some of these guys are 10 shots better".  (Which is it?  Jesper or "some of these guys"?)  3) Next, he projects that this makes either Jesper or some of these guys 15 shots per round better than the average player in the GAPC.

Are you with me so far?

Then, in a subsequent post apparently in response to requests for facts to support his position, he simply reiterates the initial on-course comment plus his various assumptions and says, "Do the MATH".  The implication is that math based almost solely on his own assumptions becomes, ipso facto, fact.  We report; you decide.

While everyone who knows enough about golf to stumble onto this website would agree that top world tour players are much better than very good local and regional pros and amateurs, any quantification of the difference is subject to disagreement on the basis of the data base chosen and the method of analysis.  To base numbers on a combination of casual conversation and top-of-the-head assumptions, however, is both foolish and unworthy of "TMWKEAIEATAI", whose basic argumentation kit is heavy on "support your argument with facts".

While a million nits can be picked with the following analysis, it about as close as I can come to rebutting the assertions of "TMWKEAIEATAI".

According to "The Golf Journal" there were 21 players in the most recent US Open who qualified through both Local and Sectional qualifying rounds --  no exemptions at any level.  The average per round score of these 21 players in the first two rounds of the Open was 77.5.  The only names I recognized on this list of 21 were Andy Miller, Spike McRoy, Lucas Glover, Darrell Kestner and Jerry Haas.  

The Top 21 players from the World Golf Ranking list (from Tiger Woods at # 1 through Scott Verplank at # 21) averaged 73.8 in the first two rounds of the Open.

The difference between the two groups was 3.7 strokes.

I can agree that the 21 qualifiers in the Open field are better than the average player in the GAP Championship.

11.3 shots per round better?  DUH!!!!!  I don't THINK so!

Tom, do with this information what you will.  Please don't let "TMWKEAIEATAI" that I'm the source.  I'm getting up in years and I'm not sure I can stand the aggrivation.

    

[TEPaul]

CE:

All I'm saying here is the statement that Pat Mucci made is BS. He appears to be saying that he believes as Hartman has stated that he (Hartman) isn't capable of scoring within 10 shots in any round in a major tournament (whatever he thinks that is) of Jesper Parvenik!

I said that sounds like BS to me. Of course it's possible to find that any player may not have scored within 10 shots of Parvenik in some major tournament in some round but why don't we look at those who did? That proves to me Pat's statement is BS!

I'll let someone else look it up but what did Parvenik do in the Open at Bethpage? Then let's look to see who was within 10 shots of him in any round! Remember that 16 or 17 year old high school kid who did OK at Bethpage? What about him? What about a lot of other guys?

They aren't any different than many of the competitors from the GAP Philly Open and the GAP section many of whom have played in US Opens. Did they all fail to shoot within 10 shots of Parvenik in every round? Of course not!

Lots of questions there CE but yes I did qualify for the US Am and the Mid Am but I never made it to match play. That level was a bit above mine--I understand it and I accept it!  

Generally and over time the cream generally rises to the top at every level--both pro and good amateur--but 10-15 shots every round? No way!

Pat and Hartman must think that in every major tournament players like those in the GAP section shoot somewhere around 80 and Jesper shoots between 65-70!

It really wouldn't take anyone long to figure out that's BS!

[TEPaul]

Tom Egan:

That's a beautiful post! As for me, I'd just reiterate that I think what Pat said is total BS! And you're also right that Katz just might have to swing into action here with Pat Mucci!

The first thing Katz will need to remind Pat Mucci of is Lincoln's great quotation:

"You can fool some of the people all the time; you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time!"

With this particular statement I really don't think Pat Mucci is fooling anyone for a single second!

His statement is total BS but I can hardly wait to see what he's going to say next!

[archie struthers]

OK, gotta jump in on this one, as I am quite sure that I have seen Pine Valley at its most ferocious. In the 1983 Crump Cup.
A fair amateur named Jay Sigel, if memory serves me, shot 77 to be the low qualifier for match play. The caddies around here always called it Bators' revenge. He was still steaming from Bob Lewis shooting 64 the year before on a very benign golf course. 85 made the championship flight, with a very strong amateur field. I had been caddying there for 5 years and when I saw the tee, pin and first putt on #1 I knew it was going to be a horrible war of attrition, no matter who it was.

Pushing the tees back on number 1 makes it infinitely more difficult, as even the best players in the world don't want more than a short iron to this green. As far as two, be sure that it is one of the hardest greens on the planet.

I have been assured by many of the contestants, golf professionals and caddies that it was a normal Crump set-up, hard but fair.Greens were not icy!  A few commented that the tees were pretty much tipped out, which does not always happen at the Crump Qualifier. That the course was so resistant to scoring is a testimony to the difficulty of playing this course, under pressure, at stroke play. Remember, one wayward drive is bogey, double or worse!!!!!

I still contend, as Tom Paul eluded to , that it is the greatest home court advantage in golf for someone who really knows the greens and course. Mere yardage and eyeballing is not enough to get you around. And, because of the waste areas curtailing mega length, you can't overpower it!

[TEPaul]

"OK,Ok, enough beating on Patrick over statistics and numbers".

Are you NUTS, Shivas? Statistics and numbers are FACTS aren't they? This is the man who won't let anyone say BOOO without screaming about producing FACTS! This man is dangerous and must be pummeled into submission at any opportunity! He's a menace to all earnest men in search of true knowledge on golf and its architecture!

You really expect me to stop beating on him over BS statistics and numbers? No way! As Churchill said early in the WW2; "This is not the end, it's not even the beginning of the end although it may be the end of the beginning!"

[Charles_P.]

Here's a little article on the tournament -- maybe it will help change the subject

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golfonline/columns/presspass/2002/mackin0717/

[TEPaul]

Wow, Pine Valley opens up its doors to the Philly Open a few months after opening up its doors to raise money for the victims of the Twin Towers and the theme of the article is basically how private it is.

You just can't win for losing I guess. Maybe when next time rolls around they just won't bother!

[MikeClayton]

The last time Hartmann played the same major as Jesper ,Hartmann shot a final 76 to finish 45th at Pebble -2000-
Jesper missed the cut.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Clayton, Shivas, Ken Cotner, TEPaul,

Ken,

When JP was specifically used for comparison purposes,
you don't conveniently take the average pro, you take JP.
Who, at the time the statement was made was ranked 12th in the WORLD.  Not NY, Not Pa, not the US, but the WORLD.

When was the last time the best Amateurs in the world made the cut at AUGUSTA ?  Look at their scores compared to the players ranked in the top 12 in the WORLD.  A ten shot difference per round, or more like 15.  Look at the top 12, look at all those that missed the cut, and tell me what the shot differential is.

If you fellows think that the average player in the GAP could come within 10-15 shots per round in a major tournament, when competing against the top 12 players in the world, then you should immediately modify or cease whatever strange substance you're eating, drinking, smoking or inhaling, because you are clearly hallucinating.

Do you have any idea of how hard those golf courses play ?

TEPaul,

With all due respect to Pine Valley, If the USOPEN field or the Masters field played the golf course, without gimmickerie, the lowest 12 scores would boggle your mind.

Now the real question is.  If instead of Hartman, I told you that Crenshaw made the statement, what kind of dilema would that present to you ?  

I'll get back to you after dinner

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick Mucci

Do you have any idea of how good a player Mike Clayton is?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Just more wordy diversions from you--completely unsupportable assumptions that you think are supportable but aren't even close. On second thought, you couldn't possibly think they're supportable, you're too smart for that--now all you're being is stubborn or incapable of admitting yours was a totally BS statement!

We don't need to worry about what this site would think of the statement you made if Crenshaw made it because he would never make a statement like that!

The only mind that PV would boggle if what you suggest could take place would be yours! And it would not need to be gimmicky--I'll guarantee you that!

Did you read what Mike Clayton posted about Hartman vs Parvenik at Pebble? You said Hartman couldn't come within 10 shots in any round in a major tournament vs Parvenik! Is the US Open major enough for you?

You're the one who keeps insisting on FACTS! Is that a FACT or isn't it a FACT? And what does it say about your statement?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The FACTS do support my agreement with Hartman's statement.

But before I get to the FACTS,
ONCE AGAIN, you've misquoted me.  
I never said that Hartman couldn't come within ten strokes of Parnevik in a tournament.  Hartman stated that Parnevik was ten shots per round better.
There is a material difference in what I said and what you misquoted, and you always seem to conveniently make that same mistake.

Now, for the FACTS.
Just get out today's paper, look at the scores of the top 12 players at the BC open, then look at the scores of the bottom five players.  You will note a 10-11-12 shot difference per round between the two.  

Now look at the British open scores of the low 12 players, then look at the scores of the bottom five players and you will see a 12-13-17 stroke difference per round.

Now ask yourself, is the average competitor who played in the GAP Open as good as the tour players in the BC Open or British Open ?  

Would you concede that perhaps those playing in the British Open and BC open are at least five shots better than the AVERAGE player in the GAP Open ?  Or do you still cling to the notion that they are equal or better than the tour pros ?

 Paul Turner,

Is or has Mike Clayton been ranked 12th in the WORLD ?
Parnevik's and Hartman's competitive records speak for themselves.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Egan,

How do you know the statement was made in casual conversation and not in a serious discussion ?

Or, are you the man who knows everything and is  embarrassingly anxious to admit it.

If I'm wrong on this issue or any others, disprove me with FACTS and LOGIC.

I don't find the need to make disparaging wise guy remarks about you, but perhaps we have different inadequacies.

Would you equate the pressures, quality of the field and competitive conditions experienced at the Golf Association of Philadelphia Open with the US OPEN ?  The Masters ?   The British Open ?  The PGA ?

IF the best PGA TOUR pros beat the lower finishing PGA TOUR
pros by 10-15 shots per round, why is it such a stretch that they would beat local pros and amateurs by a wider margin ?

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

Mike Clayton was a successful player on the European tour for well over a decade (80s and 90s).  Which would likely translate to a stroke average of about 1 strokes per round worse than a world top 12 player.  The margin is very slim at that level.  

Anyway, I believe Mike would certainly be familiar with the toughest major conditions that you are specifying.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Mike Clayton has made no statements on the issue other than to recap the finish of the two players at the 2002 US OPEN.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()