59

[Hawk]

saying the course's par rating doesn't matter is kinda silly. That's like saying a 3 on a par 3, is the same as a 3 on a par 4 or par 5...which is to say, it's not even remotely.

What's the difference between a four on the 529 yard par 5 they made into a par 4 at Pinehurst? On the scorecard at leas.t It's still a four. I think a par 72 course just provides two extra birdie chances for players at that level.

 

[CharlieMoy]

What's the difference between a four on the 529 yard par 5 they made into a par 4 at Pinehurst? On the scorecard at leas.t It's still a four. I think a par 72 course just provides two extra birdie chances for players at that level.

This is an interesting catch because people are talking about course rating. If that par five is considered a Par four playing at the same distance, the rating of the golf course with Spike.


TTing

 

[Martsy]

What's the difference between a four on the 529 yard par 5 they made into a par 4 at Pinehurst? On the scorecard at leas.t It's still a four. I think a par 72 course just provides two extra birdie chances for players at that level.

because distance is an even worse determiner of course difficulty than a par rating. I mean really, if you want to be scientific about it, I think you'd take the average score of that round by everyone, and compare how much lower the 59 was from everyone else, and that would probably speak to the accomplishment even more so. I don't have that data though.

 

[Hawk]

Par is a made up number though. Distance at least is a real thing. I think course difficulty would trump everything obviously. I just don't see why two extra par 5's, which are typically the holes professionals score the lowest on (relative to par), would make a 59 any more difficult.

 

[Mulligan9111]

saying the course's par rating doesn't matter is kinda silly in my opinion. That's like saying a 3 on a par 3, is the same as a 3 on a par 4 or par 5...which is to say, it's not even remotely.

Par is a meaningless value. All "par" is really good for is giving golfers a better idea of where they stand compared to other golfers throughout the round. However at the end of the round, they still add up their total strokes and put that down for their score. They don't just put -13 down for their score, they put 59.

 

[coers]

So whats the diference on shooting a 59 on the PGA Tour,LPGA Tour, Web.com Tour/Nationwide Tour or Japan Tour? Thought a 59 is a 59. Plus Ryo Ishikawa Jason Bohn Shigeki Maruyama are the only ones to ever shoot a 58, guess they will have there own show and club.

 

[ATLGolfer]

What's the difference between a four on the 529 yard par 5 they made into a par 4 at Pinehurst? On the scorecard at leas.t It's still a four. I think a par 72 course just provides two extra birdie chances for players at that level.

Using a US Open course isn't really an accurate example. The USGA is notorious for forcing pros to play a Par 72 course as a Par 70 routinely. I actually don't like that practice at all.


As for the scoring topic, I'll likely never get anywhere close to a 59 (for 18 holes), but I think breaking 80 is a pretty similar experience for an amateur golfer. While I always take a sub-80 round, I always have a little mental asterisk for a round like that on a Par 70 course. I'm not necessarily as happy about a 79 on a Par 70.

 

[Hawk]

So whats the diference on shooting a 59 on the PGA Tour,LPGA Tour, Web.com Tour/Nationwide Tour or Japan Tour? Thought a 59 is a 59. Plus Ryo Ishikawa Jason Bohn Shigeki Maruyama are the only ones to ever shoot a 58, guess they will have there own show and club.

The criticism of Ryo's 58 was centered on it being a short course. I don't know specifics though.

Using a US Open course isn't really an accurate example. The USGA is notorious for forcing pros to play a Par 72 course as a Par 70 routinely. I actually don't like that practice at all.


As for the scoring topic, I'll likely never get anywhere close to a 59 (for 18 holes), but I think breaking 80 is a pretty similar experience for an amateur golfer. While I always take a sub-80 round, I always have a little mental asterisk for a round like that on a Par 70 course. I'm not necessarily as happy about a 79 on a Par 70.

PGA Tour does it pretty frequently in general I believe.

 

[Hawk]

I may be off base there though. No sources lol.

 

[Martsy]

Par is a made up number though. Distance at least is a real thing. I think course difficulty would trump everything obviously. I just don't see why two extra par 5's, which are typically the holes professionals score the lowest on (relative to par), would make a 59 any more difficult.

it's not a made up number though, it's what the course was designed to play as, which is supposed to take distance, terrain/elevation, hazards, and other intangibles into effect. I mean, there are so many nuances you could argue, was it windy that day, was it raining, was it extremely dry, what condition were the greens in, etc....The only way really determine the value of that 59 is what did everyone else shoot that day? And even that is skewed because weather conditions change over the course of the day, not to mention the PGA fields are different week to week, year to year.

So with basically in absence of any real way to determine the "greatness" of a round, I'll go with strokes under par and the least imperfect way to just to gauge. Just my opinion. I mean, it's really silly, since we're comparing Picasso to Van Gogh here...works of art that are beyond anything any of us can imagine.

 

[Hawk]

it's not a made up number though, it's what the course was designed to play as, which is supposed to take distance, terrain/elevation, hazards, and other intangibles into effect. I mean, there are so many nuances you could argue, was it windy that day, was it raining, was it extremely dry, what condition were the greens in, etc....The only way really determine the value of that 59 is what did everyone else shoot that day? And even that is skewed because weather conditions change, not to mention the PGA fields are different week to week, year to year.

So with basically in absence of any real way to determine the "greatness" of a round, I'll go with strokes under par and the least imperfect way to just to gauge. Just my opinion. I mean, it's really silly, since we're comparing Picasso to Van Gogh here...works of art that are beyond anything any of us can imagine.

Oh for sure. It's a good discussion though.

I actually got to meet Paul G the day before he shot his 59. I am a huge jinx, so he probably should have shot a 54. Poor guy.

 

[ATLGolfer]

I may be off base there though. No sources lol.

[post not intended to be factual] -- haha



There's a course near Atlanta that plays to Par 70 but it's over 6,900 from the tips. That one feels long all the way around. I've also played a couple Par 70 courses where there are seemingly endless, shortish Par 3s to accommodate four Par 5s. Courses like that just don't seem as difficult.

 

[Mulligan9111]

Using a US Open course isn't really an accurate example. The USGA is notorious for forcing pros to play a Par 72 course as a Par 70 routinely. I actually don't like that practice at all.


As for the scoring topic, I'll likely never get anywhere close to a 59 (for 18 holes), but I think breaking 80 is a pretty similar experience for an amateur golfer. While I always take a sub-80 round, I always have a little mental asterisk for a round like that on a Par 70 course. I'm not necessarily as happy about a 79 on a Par 70.

Question for you. Why is it that there are some Par 4's that are under 300 yards and some that are over 500 yards? They are both par 4's but one is significantly longer than the other.

My point is that there isn't a set guideline for assigning a Par value to holes. Their yardages and difficulties vary drastically. When players sign their scorecards and add up their scores for all 4 rounds, they don't put their relation to par, they put their total strokes taken.

 

[Hawk]

[post not intended to be factual] -- haha



There's a course near Atlanta that plays to Par 70 but it's over 6,900 from the tips. That one feels long all the way around. I've also played a couple Par 70 courses where there are seemingly endless, shortish Par 3s to accommodate four Par 5s. Courses like that just don't seem as difficult.

Yea, the first one you mentioned is always tougher for me. Fyre Lake is like that. Par 70 at 6600, but doesn't seem that short because only two par fives.

 

[ddec]

because I have no life. Here is the scoring average for the 59 round of Goydos and then Appleby.

69.532 - John Deere Classic Round 1
67.584 - Greenbier Classic Final Round

why numbers sometimes lie, 77 guys played in the Final Round of the GC. 155 tee it up in round 1 of the John Deere. Not impossible to believe that with double the field that the stroke average of the GC could have risen 2 those 2 strokes.

 

[Hawk]

because I have no life. Here is the scoring average for the 59 round of Goydos and then Appleby.

69.532 - John Deere Classic Round 1
67.584 - Greenbier Classic Final Round

why numbers sometimes lie, 77 guys played in the Final Round of the GC. 155 tee it up in round 1 of the John Deere. Not impossible to believe that with double the field that the stroke average of the GC could have risen 2 those 2 strokes.

I'm surprised Deere Run wasn't lower than that, though that's still quite low. That course was ripe for the picking that day.

 

[ATLGolfer]

Question for you. Why is it that there are some Par 4's that are under 300 yards and some that are over 500 yards? They are both par 4's but one is significantly longer than the other.

My point is that there isn't a set guideline for assigning a Par value to holes. Their yardages and difficulties vary drastically. When players sign their scorecards and add up their scores for all 4 rounds, they don't put their relation to par, they put their total strokes taken.

There is a general guideline for determining Par. You won't have a 500 yard Par 3 or a 150 yard Par 5, for example.

Are there some holes that could play as a short Par 5 or a long Par 4? Of course. I usually make that joke whenever I tee off on a 480+ Par 4.

Point being, though, to shoot a 59 on a Par 70 instead of a Par 72, you're still -11 instead of -13. Apart from the US Open course reference that Hawk mentioned, there is typically a difference between a Par 70 and 72 course.

You're correct that pros add up their scores to determine the winner of a tournament, but that doesn't matter with regards to a 59. No matter how you slice it, 59 on a Par 70 is still -11 while 59 on a Par 72 is still -13. There's a difference.

 

[coers]

But still why don't they look at the other 59's or 58's. Guess they only care about the PGA Tour and the LPGA Tour.

The criticism of Ryo's 58 was centered on it being a short course. I don't know specifics though.

 

[Hawk]

There is a general guideline for determining Par. You won't have a 500 yard Par 3 or a 150 yard Par 5, for example.

Are there some holes that could play as a short Par 5 or a long Par 4? Of course. I usually make that joke whenever I tee off on a 480+ Par 4.

Point being, though, to shoot a 59 on a Par 70 instead of a Par 72, you're still -11 instead of -13. Apart from the US Open course reference that Hawk mentioned, there is typically a difference between a Par 70 and 72 course.

You're correct that pros add up their scores to determine the winner of a tournament, but that doesn't matter with regards to a 59. No matter how you slice it, 59 on a Par 70 is still -11 while 59 on a Par 72 is still -13. There's a difference.

I just don't see it.

Toughest course on tour is PGA National. Plays at a par 72 for normal people and a par 70 for tour players. Same course, different par.

 

[Mulligan9111]

There is a general guideline for determining Par. You won't have a 500 yard Par 3 or a 150 yard Par 5, for example.

Are there some holes that could play as a short Par 5 or a long Par 4? Of course. I usually make that joke whenever I tee off on a 480+ Par 4.

Point being, though, to shoot a 59 on a Par 70 instead of a Par 72, you're still -11 instead of -13. Apart from the US Open course reference that Hawk mentioned, there is typically a difference between a Par 70 and 72 course.

You're correct that pros add up their scores to determine the winner of a tournament, but that doesn't matter with regards to a 59. No matter how you slice it, 59 on a Par 70 is still -11 while 59 on a Par 72 is still -13. There's a difference.

You're correct 59 on a par 70 is -11 and 59 on a par 72 is -13.

It's still a tie though as the only thing that matters is total strokes. It wouldn't change the results one bit if the PGA Tour went back and said "well after looking at the scoring averages, this 525 yard par 4 should have been a par 5" and changed the overall par to 71 after the fact. The person who shot a 59 still shot 59.

 

[jspangs]

There is a general guideline for determining Par. You won't have a 500 yard Par 3 or a 150 yard Par 5, for example.

Are there some holes that could play as a short Par 5 or a long Par 4? Of course. I usually make that joke whenever I tee off on a 480+ Par 4.

Point being, though, to shoot a 59 on a Par 70 instead of a Par 72, you're still -11 instead of -13. Apart from the US Open course reference that Hawk mentioned, there is typically a difference between a Par 70 and 72 course.

You're correct that pros add up their scores to determine the winner of a tournament, but that doesn't matter with regards to a 59. No matter how you slice it, 59 on a Par 70 is still -11 while 59 on a Par 72 is still -13. There's a difference.

Now I'm not 100% and I love the debate but a par 70 typically has 2 fewer par 5s correct? So with the PGA Tour par 5 scoring average lower with the relationship to par than the par 4s. Wouldn't the par 70 59 be a tougher feat?

 

[Mulligan9111]

Now I'm not 100% and I love the debate but a par 70 typically has 2 fewer par 5s correct? So with the PGA Tour par 5 scoring average lower with the relationship to par than the par 4s. Wouldn't the par 70 59 be a tougher feat?

I would say no. A score of -13 (57) would be a tougher feat because they didn't have the extra par 5's, however 59 strokes is 59 strokes. The par value doesn't mean anything.

 

[ATLGolfer]

Let me put it in these terms..


I shot 75 (+3) yesterday on a Par 72 course that was playing at about 6,550. If the course was a Par 70 playing at the same distance, I would be thinking I shot +5, not that I shot 75.

I guess if you're comparing the slopes of these courses it would be a more fair comparison. I certainly have played a Par 70 course with a slope over 72. (Can't recall playing a Par 72 with a 70-ish slope, though)

 

[jspangs]

I would say no. A score of -13 would be a tougher feat because they didn't have the extra par 5's, however 59 strokes is 59 strokes. The par value doesn't mean anything.

You keep saying -13 but then say par value doesn't mean anything. You are contradicting yourself with your argument as -13 is just a relationship to par.

 

[drp3434]

I think it depends on who you're talking about. If we're talking about pros, I think it could be more towards 59 is a 59. If we're talking about amateurs playing regular courses, I think it's more towards -11 vs -13 (although it would obviously probably not be that low).

And if pars mean nothing, why have them? Why not just have a hole with the yardage and that's it?