59 for Stuart Appleby

Dear lord, this is making my head hurt. How can someone be competent enough to turn on a computer and log on to a message board, but be so wrong about this? And more than one person, apparently.

 

Let's go easy on the Bob Hope references, shall we?

As we've seen here and at the John Deere last month -- not to mention the Texas Open off the top of my head -- there are plenty of other tournaments where the pros recreate Sherman going through Georgia.

Seriously.... a hell of a round from a hell of a nice guy. He had eight 3s on his card on the front nine and went birdie-birdie-birdie over 16-18 to post the 59. Poor Overton looked like he'd been hit by a 2-by-4 between the eyes.

 

Ding Ding!

That's why I included the disclaimer than X-under par on a par 72 is easier than X-under on a Par 70, but we're not talking about two scores that are the same relative to par.

We're talking about 11-under vs. 13-under.

Sheesh.

 

Tour pros attack par-5s with greater impunity than par-4s. Indeed, there are many, many, many occasions at a Tour even where the field average for a par-5 is actually lower than the field average on 2-3 of the more difficult par-4s. Plus, you can hit one lousy shot on a par-5 and still make a birdie. One lousy shot on a par-4 usually won't yield a bird.

I get it about the basic math. But it's not that simple in reality.

At the highest levels of golf, shooting a 59 is easier the more par-5s you have on a course.

That said, 59 is pretty freaking good regardless of par-70, 71 or 72.

 

Okay, so you get a birdie on the par 5 and a par on the par 4. Which one added more to your 59?

 

Did you see Overton's putt on 17?

 

Did the putt really move that much? I couldn't tell. He also needed to put it behind him before the tee shot on 18.

 

My god Hondo, you really can't be this stunned.

It is easier to go under par the more par 5's there are, it is not easier to shoot 59 the more par 5's there are.

 

Well, you're entitled to your wrong opinion. And what the hell do you mean by "stunned" in this context?
Also, remember this: par-5 holes are not only birdie holes but the pros consider them eagle holes. Lot easier to putt for eagle four times in one round (as can happen on a par-72) than twice (on a par-70).

You keep getting hung up on the math. I know 13-under is better than 11-under, theoretically. But from a tactical standpoint, easier for a 59 on a par-72. Think outside the box, will you?

 

Hondo, we get that it's easier to make a 3 on a par 5 than a 2 on a par 4. No one disagrees with that. If you're saying that somewhere in the world there are par 5s where it's easier to make a 3 than it is to make a 3 on some par 4s, I think that's probably also true.

But there is no way that you can say, on average, a PGA player has a better chance of making a 3 on a par 5 than a 3 on a par 4.

Here are the leaders for Par 4 scoring, and here are the leaders for Par 5 scoring.

I took the averages from all that group (spreadsheet here), and the average score on all par 4s was 4.05, and the average on all par 5s was 4.69.

4.05 < 4.69

[/thread]

 

You are so wrong it's laughable. I guess we'd be seeing a lot more 59's if it was par 90, you know, more par 5's and all.

What is the average score on a par 5 and the average score on a par 4? There's the flippin answer.