[Ben Hollerbach]

They do not play the listed yardages, Ben. Ever -- that I'm aware of. They move multiple holes around on each day, but the "listed yardage" stays the same for the day, whether or not they change it.

The yardages are adjusted daily on the PGA Tour's Shot Tracker. Some events only adjust for tee selection measured to the middle of the green. For both the Farmers and AT&T, those distances reflect both tee selection and pin placement for each day. They are true yardage played.

For an understanding of what actually happens at a Tour event regarding yardages, this is a good article:

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2002/02/26/usga-shortens-torreys-14th-for-open/

I fail to grasp how this 18 year old article is relevant today?

[David Ober]

They do not play the listed yardages, Ben. Ever -- that I'm aware of. They move multiple holes around on each day, but the "listed yardage" stays the same for the day, whether or not they change it.

The yardages are adjusted daily on the PGA Tour's Shot Tracker. Some events only adjust for tee selection measured to the middle of the green. For both the Farmers and AT&T, those distances reflect both tee selection and pin placement for each day. They are true yardage played.

For an understanding of what actually happens at a Tour event regarding yardages, this is a good article:

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2002/02/26/usga-shortens-torreys-14th-for-open/

I fail to grasp how this 18 year old article is relevant today?

Honestly, Ben, it may no longer be. The last time I was at the Farmers was probably 2010? I remember two things from the yardages that day, distinctly:


There was a par 3 that was listed as 195(?) on the "official yardage that they played at 135(?) -- but the yardage for the day still had it listed as 195ish), and there was a par 4 where it was listed at 490(?) and they had the tee easily up 40 yards from the back of the tee box - again, with the "official yardage of the day" listing the hole playing the full length. Since then I have paid a bit of attention to course set-ups, but not enough to argue about it anymore. It may now be that we have the exact yardage on every hole correct due to ShotLink.

[Ben Hollerbach]

http://www.owgr.com/about?tabID=%7BA01A4052-F0DF-4DDE-9BE2-940A54F2CA50%7D




Based on the SoF points chart, the 2019 and 2020 TP events had about twice as many Top 200 player points allocated.

Jim,


How can we use that to determine some sort of scoring performance adjustment? I think that is what Data Golf is trying to do.


It's probably better to look at the 2019 AT&T vs. the 2019 US Open. The scoring rating of those two event were very similar, 72.43 vs. 72.35. Its fair to say that the field quality for the AT&T was less than the US Open, yet the course was setup in a proportional way to match the field quality for both events. Beyond the obvious; +200 yards in length, higher rough, faster greens; how was the course adjusted from the AT&T to the US Open that would have equalized scoring? Or what inherent design quality of Pebble Beach is good a controlling scoring in a multitude of tournament states?

[Tom_Doak]

Or what inherent design quality of Pebble Beach is good a controlling scoring in a multitude of tournament states?

Tiny greens are the equalizer regardless of other conditions.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It isn't 6400 yards but the windy 6800 yard site in Bermuda is holding up fairly well.

[Philippe Binette]

There's a big issue that is missed here...


The shorter par 3, par 4 and par 5's are part of a course...
As much as the players say they are playing "shot by shot", the presence of a shorter hole among longer holes affects their mindset and strategy.


when you have a sequence of holes like : 450y par 4, 385y par 4, 495y par 4, 220 par 3... the shorter hole sticks out which:
- put pressure on the player, feeling he has to make birdie on the short hole.
- the player might play the short hole more agressively, trying to hit a 290y driver to have a 95y approach... when a 255 3-wood with a 130y approach would be much easier
- the player might try too hard on their 10 footer for birdie...


If you line up 3 or 4 holes in a row between 340y and 400y, the "pressure" effect of making birdie is lost... players will adapt, play a bit safer of the tee and bet on the quantity... knowing hybrid - wedge will give them 4 legitimate birdie chances.
They will only be aggressive on the "no risk" tee shots..
If they miss the birdie on the first short hole, they'll say:  naaa I can birdie the next...


So that "short course" of 6400y will resist a bit, you'll scores around par and over par, but you'll see a lot of low scores in easy conditions


It's that exact reason why Augusta National is so great for tournaments, if the tee shot at 12 lands on the green, players are going... OK, 13, 14, 15, 16 are "relatively" birdie holes... they can "breathe" a bit (a little) even if they don't birdie 13...




a golf course is more than 18 separate holes

[Michael Felton]

I haven't actually seen it and I don't know anything about it, but the today 389 yard 13th hole at Memorial Park with six groups having played it has yielded a double, a triple and a 10. The 10 was greenside in 2. The triple was also greenside in 2 and included holing a 13 foot putt.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Philippe,

Are you suggesting that when a player has only a handful of short holes on the whole course they'll play aggressively on them, but when they have a collection of short holes together they'll play conservatively on them?

At what level are you relating short to easy? When faces with a string of short holes I believe players should have to play strategically to ensure they make a par and playing brilliantly will be needed to attempt to get a birdie. Short holes should be more difficult yard for yard than any other holes.

One of best parts of Augusta's routing is the spacing of the par 4's. The only times you'll play consecutive par 4's is 9-11 and 17-18. The front nine's spacing is just brilliant with its 4-5-4-3-4-3-4-5-4 setup. Using the par 3's and 5's to separate the 4's limits the potential for the string of hole you spoke of. Changing the players perspective.

Think about your Augusta example, the player just walked off the 11th after playing 3 straight par 4's, hit the green on 12 and now is thinking they have 2 par 5's, 1 par 4, and 1 par 3 coming up. With the fourteenth being their worst birdie chance. They just hit a short iron into 12, will be able to reach both 13 and 15 in two and will most likely have a short iron into 16. While 14th may be their worst opportunity at birdie, it also the hole they virtually can't blow up on. the polarization of holes like 13, 15, and 16 when played aggressively is perfect.

Maybe the best example of a string of shorter holes that play brilliantly is the 4th-8th at Pebble. The 6th is by far the easiest of the bunch, The 4th and 7th average a fraction just under par and the 5th & 8th average more than a quarter stroke over par each. All but the 5th would be considered short in length, yet their cumulative scoring average is 1/10th of a stroke under par.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

I've enjoyed reading your well-formed points, pretty spot on in my opinion. 

Just wanted to chime in briefly on PB#8.  Its a short hole on paper only as these guys are forced to layup with a lot less club.  However, I fired up Google Earth and measured the carry to the 2nd fairway, and its "only" 325.  For guys like BDC, with a bit of tailwind, seems very doable...almost too easy! 

Carry on!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tom, how about this… is this green this tough to hit?

• Shot 10 in the hole
• Shot 9 putt 17 ft 1 in., 14 in. to hole
• Shot 8 53 ft 11 in. to green, 15 ft 7 in. to hole
• Shot 7 21 in. to right fairway, 38 ft 2 in. to hole
• Shot 6 97 ft 9 in. to right fairway, 39 ft 6 in. to hole
• Shot 5 97 ft 2 in. to left intermediate, 58 ft 7 in. to hole
• Shot 4 5 ft 10 in. to right fairway, 38 ft 10 in. to hole
• Shot 3 12 ft 1 in. to right fairway, 38 ft 10 in. to hole
• Shot 2 82 yds to right fairway, 42 ft 9 in. to hole
• Shot 1 312 yds to right fairway, 79 yds to hole

[JESII]

Phillipe, I would love that post to trigger some conversation. Looks like it may. I could see it following Ben's track of routing and sequencing or Erik's wheelhouse with data and statistics and best score opportunities.


My initial reaction is to confirm that when I was competing frequently, I would essentially establish a "par" for each hole and therefor the course to manage my expectations. As you know, the short holes weren't always the ones you can take advantage of, but when charting out a course, they certainly give you the chance to feel a little relief. You could play them conservatively and hopefully make an easy par which can be it's own confidence builder. Having the mental image that a very difficult hole can be bogeyed without damaging your round can also help to keep confidence up.


In the several conversations I've had with Erik around the topic of data and strategic playing decisions based on the data has always left me feeling as though the data folks are missing a key component...the mental roller coaster a round of golf is. Perhaps with a deeper understanding of what he (they) espouse, I'll see that the data driven approach eliminates the ups and downs...but I'm not convinced yet.

[JMEvensky]

Sully, isn't the point of data driven analytics to remove the emotion, the mental roller coaster, from the decision?

[JESII]

Maybe...probably.


I think that's flawed.


Maybe it gives a baseline that you build a game plan from and then adjust as the day is going...but that really negates the game plan, doesn't it.


To me, the data is incredibly valuable at providing deep insight to strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sold on the strategic advice that comes out of it.

[JMEvensky]

Probably a lot of Tampa Bay Rays fans agree with your last sentence.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In the several conversations I've had with Erik around the topic of data and strategic playing decisions based on the data has always left me feeling as though the data folks are missing a key component...the mental roller coaster a round of golf is. Perhaps with a deeper understanding of what he (they) espouse, I'll see that the data driven approach eliminates the ups and downs...but I'm not convinced yet.

There isn't any "emotion" in generalities because generalities aren't about individuals.

Individuals have a bunch of emotion. They also have to make less than "data optimal" choices sometimes because it's optimal for them in that moment. If someone fears a certain shot, even though the "data" can say they should hit it, they're often best hitting something different. If someone is feeling "good" about a certain kind of shot, maybe they can take on a flag the data says they wouldn't.

You're possibly making the mistake of taking what I have to say about generalities and the data and assuming that I don't consider the emotion, the individual, etc. That's not the case, and anyone can understand the data pretty simply. It takes an hour to learn that stuff. The skill here is applying the data to the individual, and for the individual to understand how it applies in that instant.

Maybe it gives a baseline that you build a game plan from and then adjust as the day is going...but that really negates the game plan, doesn't it.

No, it doesn't. A good game plan can do two things in such a case:

• It can serve to ground a player, to let him return to center.
• It can be flexible enough to let the player know when to take on a bit more risk if needed, or when to play safer when that's prudent.

Game plans aren't inflexible, because the game is played in the moment and in changing conditions, changing emotions, changing competitive situations.

To me, the data is incredibly valuable at providing deep insight to strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sold on the strategic advice that comes out of it.

Then… perhaps you don't understand the data and how it's applied well enough?

Look, I'm not saying that players and caddies are out there doing calculus. The game is still played on the ground and in the moment. But a good and well prepared player knows where to miss shots, where to take on risk, where to play with the game plan a little bit. They don't always get those things right, and sometimes they get it wrong and it pays off anyway, and while the generalities don't apply to individuals, the individual strategies can and do work really well for the individuals.

Bryson won the U.S. Open by six, no? He still had to execute, but he had a game plan, and enough knowledge to be a bit flexible with it when required.

Probably a lot of Tampa Bay Rays fans agree with your last sentence.

You've gotta live in the moment, too. Statistics are the past, they're not entirely predictive, and they're rarely predictive at all in the short term.

[Philippe Binette]

I'm not saying they are going to play the holes with a completely different strategy if they have 3 or 4 shorter holes in a row, I'm saying that they aren't going to feel the "inner pressure" to make a birdie which often leads to trying a little too hard.. ever so slightly.. compare to when they have a short hole follwed by long hard holes...


When tour players can have a wedge in their hands, there is no overly hard holes... that said, that doesn't mean they can make a mistake...


And that was the difference at Houston, they had wedge in their hands, but the penalty for missing the green AND TRYING TO MAKE PAR was severe compare to a standard bunker... which led to double bogeys and worse.


I'm pretty sure if the players took their medicine after missing the green and said: OK, I made my mistake, I'm going to play away from the flag on my chip shot, get it to 15-20 feet and try to make it and at worse make bogey... it would have been easy to do so...
but good old temptation was there...

[Kevin Pallier]

Depending on where they put the tees Kingston Heath, Australia can play at about 6,400 yds or so and yes it could hold up to the PGA Tour

[Carl Nichols]

What's the hardest par-72, 6400-yard course in the world?

[Duncan Cheslett]

What's the hardest par-72, 6400-yard course in the world?

Why par 72?


Par 5s are the easiest holes for very good players. A par 72 course will generally four of them.


The easiest and first way to toughen up a 6400 yard course is to reduce the number of par 5 holes and have a par 68 or 69 course.


There is no long standing tradition or norm in having a par 72 course. It is entirely a recent (and American) phenomenon.

[Sean_A]

What's the hardest par-72, 6400-yard course in the world?

Why par 72?

Par 5s are the easiest holes for very good players. A par 72 course will generally four of them.

The easiest and first way to toughen up a 6400 yard course is to reduce the number of par 5 holes and have a par 68 or 69 course.

There is no long standing tradition or norm in having a par 72 course. It is entirely a recent (and American) phenomenon.

Duncan

I agree with you and have argued this for over 20 years. However, lowering par doesn't make a course tougher, it only changes the par. This also makes it clear that par is not inherently important. The importance of par is solely down to how golfers choose to perceive it.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

Sean,


Of course you are quite correct. Reducing the par to 68 doesn’t make the course any tougher - just tougher in relation to par.


However, in the context of the pro game par is important. With a field of over 100 players all starting a different times it is useful to have a yardstick of how each competitor is faring at any stage of the day. That is the function which “par” fulfills.


It is difficult to see how a televised pro tournament could function as well if there was no par yardstick against which to measure each player’s performance.


In the amateur game of course, Stableford scoring depends absolutely on the existence of par.


Par is going nowhere.

[Thomas Dai]

'Par' or a similar benchmark/target can have quite an effect in the area between a players ears.
A player failing to make 'par' or better on a hole the player perceives they ought to score 'par' or better on may well effect their play on the next few holes or even the rest of a tournament.
Thrill too. The smile on the face of a player who didn't consider they could achieve a 'par' or better on a certain hole but has.
There is also an ego/vanity element with the likes of temptation and expectations involved.
Golfers may play against 'Old Man Par' but 'Old Man Par' plays against golfers too.
atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

What's the hardest par-72, 6400-yard course in the world?

Pine Valley Regular tees are 6,557 73.6/153
Pine Valley Senior tees are 6,174 71.9/150


A combo set at 6,400 would probably be around 72.8/152


TPC Sawgrass Blue/White Blended are 6,396 71.9/147


while a par 71, for comparison Oakmont Blue tees are 6,436 74.0/134

[Ben Hollerbach]

Why par 72?


Par 5s are the easiest holes for very good players. A par 72 course will generally four of them.


The easiest and first way to toughen up a 6400 yard course is to reduce the number of par 5 holes and have a par 68 or 69 course.


There is no long standing tradition or norm in having a par 72 course. It is entirely a recent (and American) phenomenon.

The tradition of par 72 may not be longstanding or worldwide, but a par 72 course is still the most common. Under the context of the PGA tour, there isn't a course used on tour that is less than par 70. It's already far fetched to believe the PGA Tour would play on a course as short as 6,400 yards, playing a par less than 70 seems downright impossible.

[Duncan Cheslett]

On the contrary.


If the PGA was enlightened enough to utilise a 6400 yard course, it is far more likely that it would be sub 70 par.


There is not a single valid reason why the pros shouldn’t play over a par 68 course, and be thoroughly tested.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()