Old Course playing stats reveal 2015 Open field produce the lowest average score

[Scott Macpherson]

Despite the challenging weather, the statistics from the 144th Open Championship show that Old Course played the easiest for the field that it has ever done when the Open Championship has been held on the Old Course.


With the course measuring 7,297 yards, the average score for all players over the 4 rounds was 71.77. In 2010, when the weather was not to disimilar, this figure was 73.07.


The only other time the field has produced an average score in the 71s at St Andrews, was in 1990 when the weather for the week was good, and course length was 6933 yards. That year the average score for the field over the week was 71.95.


What do you think the reasons are for the exceptional scoring?


As for Holes 2, 4, 9 and 11, the changes produced very little change in the scoring average on these holes. In the last 3 Open Championships, the Rank for the 2nd hole has been 4,6 & 7. Over the same Opens', the 11th hole has ranked: 5, 5 & 5.


Scott

[Niall C]

Scott


A couple of thoughts. Clearly the rough wasn't really that penal with the lack of growth recently. From what I can see it didn't seem to inhibit them much.


Secondly, the softer conditions meant the ball wasn't running quite as far as normal and therefore perhaps a bit easier to control the ball and avoid bunkers, and lastly the dampness of the greens made it easier to putt I would have thought, and certainly I've never seen so much back spin on approach shots at the Open as this year. I'm tempted to say that the conditions were perfect for Johnston with his outstanding wedge play.


Niall

[JLahrman]

They cancelled play on the windiest day. If the conclusions on this board are to be believed, they would have been playing on Saturday in any other Open at TOC.

[Ryan Coles]

It was calm the entire time they were on course.


I'm surprised no one shot 63 or lower.

[MCirba]

All comments spot on.

[Brent Hutto]

It was calm the entire time they were on course.


I'm surprised no one shot 63 or lower.

Agreed. A small number of golfers had a handful or fewer holes hugely affected by the worst winds. But a single digit number of wind related bogeys (at most) has no discernible effect on average scores for the full field.


Conversely there were hours and hours of play in moderate winds on a softened course, as well as a good few hours each on Thursday and Sunday with no wind at all.

[Tony_Muldoon]

and certainly I've never seen so much back spin on approach shots at the Open as this year. I'm tempted to say that the conditions were perfect for Johnston with his outstanding wedge play.


Niall

...that was my thinking as I watched.  He was just about long enough to compete and didn't put a foot wrong.
 
Congratulations Zac you are the "Champion Golfer of the Year". Apart from Helena Christensen calling me "lover", it's hard to think of anything I'd rather be called.

[Wade Whitehead]

Was driving distance the same, generally?

I wonder if players were hitting shorter approach shots, even with the softer conditions.

WW

[John Connolly]

My guess is there was a significant differential in scoring average relative to par when comparing outward and inward nines. I'm not sure I've witnessed such a disparity in a professional event previously. Wonder if the statistics support such a hunch.

[John Connolly]

My guess is there was a significant differential in scoring average relative to par when comparing outward and inward nines. I'm not sure I've witnessed such a disparity in a professional event previously. Wonder if the statistics support such a hunch.

Quick calculation yields:


Outward nine - average score per hole relative to par: -0.179
Inward nine - average score per hole relative to par: +0.116
Differential stroke average of 0.295 higher per hole coming back in

[jeffwarne]

It was calm the entire time they were on course.


I'm surprised no one shot 63 or lower.
[/quote)

It was blowing 10 ish in the am and 15-20 in the pm on Thursday-and cold as hell.
Friday it blew a bit as well
cant speak for Sunday Monday as I wasn't there and only saw the playoff.

light rough/softer (than usual) fairways and greens.
Scores were lower because of the rain leading up the event and the TORRENTIAL rain Friday.

As already stated, the windiest day, most didn't play much golf.(not a judgement just saying the windiest day wasn't fully utilized so on average it would appear to not be THAT windy of an event)
Though other years recently the  weather has been pretty good there as well in July.

[cary lichtenstein]

It's a relatively easy golf course to score on. I shot 35-41+76 on my first round without knowing anything. Lots of driver/wedge. Without a serious wind, it is defense less. It reared it's tough side on Saturday, but they called a timeout.

[Jeff Bergeron]

TOC produced drama at the highest order in the 2015 Open. The leaderboard was tremendously compelling.The champion is most worthy. What more needs to be said?

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

I agree with Niall!


Unless you went into the gorse bushes you were presented with a playable lie in the rough.


St. Andrews thrills me as a beautiful piece of links land, but really it isn't that tough a course with many ho-hum holes among the greats.


Still, it can produce great drama! Perhaps the USGA could learn a lesson there in their course selection.






















 

[Niall C]

It was calm the entire time they were on course.


I'm surprised no one shot 63 or lower.

Ryan,


Can you please use a smiley emoticon when you crack a joke like that. I very nearly posted a withering response.


Niall

[Jason Topp]

I watched a portion of the replay of the final round in 95 and it is pretty easy to understand why the scores were lower this year.  The weather for that final round was brutal and putts were so severely impacted by the wind it must have hovered on the edge of unplayable. 
This year, I thought the course provided a compelling test regardless of the scoring average.  It seemed that nearly all shots in the player's arsenal were tested. 

[George Pazin]

I guess in this case the lowest average score translates to a highly compelling event.

Curious...

[Jim Hoak]

I don't know why no one gives the most logical response--that these golfers are just better than those in the past.  Better athletes, better conditioned, better trained, etc.  Why should that be surprising?  Don't records get better in most sports?  Take track and field--don't times keep coming down for the mile or the 100 meters; don't high jumpers and pole vaulters jump higher; etc.?  Why shouldn't we expect golf scores to keep improving?

[Brent Hutto]

I don't know why no one gives the most logical response--that these golfers are just better than those in the past.  Better athletes, better conditioned, better trained, etc.  Why should that be surprising?  Don't records get better in most sports?  Take track and field--don't times keep coming down for the mile or the 100 meters; don't high jumpers and pole vaulters jump higher; etc.?  Why shouldn't be expect golf scores to keep improving?

I used to bring up that point all the time but I gave up. I guess some folks want golf defined as a non-athletic endeavor where mere strength, clubhead speed, technique and physical fitness do not show up in the form of lower scores.

[David_Tepper]

"How Much Have Golfers Improved?"

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21657815-comparing-modern-golfers-champions-old-trickier-escaping-pot-bunker

[jeffwarne]

I don't know why no one gives the most logical response--that these golfers are just better than those in the past.  Better athletes, better conditioned, better trained, etc.  Why should that be surprising?  Don't records get better in most sports?  Take track and field--don't times keep coming down for the mile or the 100 meters; don't high jumpers and pole vaulters jump higher; etc.?  Why shouldn't we expect golf scores to keep improving?

all true and very valid points-BUT the course was softer than usual due to previous rain and torrential rain on Friday-and I think that was a MUCH bigger factor this year.Several scary holes just weren't scary.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a great event-it was.
 Many pins were on ridges and balls backed up consistently to reach them - significantly easier than allowing for a bounce, precisely judged release then a roll to get close on firmer surfaces

[Brent Hutto]

I thought the way the ball reacted once on the greens was more reminiscent of the Masters than I've noticed in the past. Maybe some of the high points they used for hole locations were based on a similar setup strategy typical at Augusta.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't know why no one gives the most logical response--that these golfers are just better than those in the past.  Better athletes, better conditioned, better trained, etc.  Why should that be surprising?  Don't records get better in most sports?  Take track and field--don't times keep coming down for the mile or the 100 meters; don't high jumpers and pole vaulters jump higher; etc.?  Why shouldn't we expect golf scores to keep improving?

Somehow 60 year old Tom Watson came within an inch or so of winning the world's most prestigious golf tournament in 2009.  That says to me that athleticism doesn't matter much in golf.  Can you imagine how the world's top 60 year olds would do against Usain Bolt?  I can tell you: world record for 60 year olds is 11.70.  Over two seconds slower.  That would not win most junior high meets.  Yet in golf a 60-year-old kicked the ass of all the world's top golfers for 71 holes.   

According to PGA tour driving stats, pro golfers are nearly 10% longer now on average than they were in 1990.  To keep TOC on an even keel, it would need to measure around 7,625 yards.  i.e. the course plays shorter now, relative to how far they hit the ball, than it did in 1990.  Maybe this is one reason scores are a bit lower now than then.   

btw, the high jump record was set in 1993.  The long jump record in 1991.  Triple jump, 1995.  Shot put, 1990.  Discus and hammer, 1986.  Only one field record has been set this century: pole vault, and that was last year, and was by less than one inch.  Every other men's field record was set in 1990s or earlier.  So it's not true that performances keep improving in athletics. 

[George Pazin]

Nice post, Jim.

I wll say, regarding track and field, performances are improving in virtually everything. But so is testing, so the results aren't showing. If you doubt my reasoning, check out the women's records in track for the 400 and 800.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Only one field record has been set this century: pole vault, and that was last year, and was by less than one inch.  Every other men's field record was set in 1990s or earlier.  So it's not true that performances keep improving in athletics.

Cough, cough - steroids.