PGA Tour: The Desert Has Turned to Sea: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Sure enough, the Tour travels 350 miles West to San Diego, leaving all that Waste Management behind and running into a bunch of Farmers.
From breathless anticipation at Tiger's latest reincarnation to mortal dread at what he'll come up with in Southern California.
The weather should be spectacular, the only slight fly in the ointment being the seemingly ever-present risk of "marine layer", known elsewhere in the world as fog.

2).These next three weeks on the California coast offer terrific "host" courses, Torrey Pines South, Pebble Beach next week and finally Riviera; pretty much as strong a three week stretch as we see all year.
This week the field will play 18 holes apiece at Torrey Pines North and South, then 36 holes at the "South" - last year scoring was about 31/2 strokes easier at the "North", so don't despair if your favourite shoots a 74 at the "South", it's about par for the course.

3).Last week saw Tiger's comeback and Thursday will see the return of Dustin Johnson. It looks like his prediction that it would take him exactly six months to sort his life out was spot on, and expect him to be competitive straightaway. His last suspicious absence, in 2012, saw him earn a Top Twenty in his first tournament back, at Memorial, and win in Memphis the following week. Don't be surprised if it's the proverbial deja vu all over again, with a return to Pebble Beach next week where he's won twice and should've won McDowell's US Open.

4).And Brooks Koepka will be playing again, from his lofty world ranking of #19 and sure to go higher very quickly. There were stumbles and bumbles from his closest competitors in Phoenix but he kept hanging about until he drained that 50-foot snake and made solid pars the rest of the way. We'll just have to wait and see whether he'll continue to play in Europe, but I'd bet he'll first target a Presidents Cup berth.

5).Snedeker had a T10 finish in Phoenix, his third of the young season after such a disappointing year in 2014. Two or three of the more bizarre injuries have hampered him including knee damage falling off a Segway, plus various apparently congenital rib ailments. And his putter cooled down. That seems to be working better now and he goes to Torrey Pines having won here three years ago and with four top tens in his seven other visits. Then it's on to Pebble where he won in 2013. Sneds is still not in The Masters and it would devastate him to miss out. Worth a small punt each way, don't you think?

6).Another player with a truly eccentric history is Lucas Glover, a wonderful "ball striker", yet arguably the worst putter on any Tour anywhere - currently 211th in putting in a stat where there are usually only about 185 players. But he also has enjoyed some success in San Diego and could make a rare appearance on the leaderboard if he can just get to the weekend.

7).What of Tiger? He had planned to attend Sunday's Super Bowl but high-tailed it back to Florida following Friday's fiasco. He was last spotted following Lindsey at Beaver Creek. No, seriously, it's a ski resort. In Colorado. You couldn't make it up. Bad place to get the yips though. He has an early Pro-Am time Wednesday so hopefully TWA gets him there on time. It's assumed he won't play Pebble or Riviera so he needs a strong effort here and/or Honda to earn a place in the Cadillac field.

8).Phil was equally disappointing last week - he's playing San Diego but taking two weeks off, then is committed for Honda. All we've seen from Phil this year is hot air and you'd think he needs a result almost as badly as Tiger.

9).The field for the "Farmers Insurance Open" is strong, but not as deep as last week. Casey, Davis, Donald, Donaldson, Knox, Laird, Poulter, Rose, plus Harrington and Lowry are all on hand. Luke Donald has done well here in the past with two runner-up finishes, but he's off to an awful start to his season. I'm most interested in Shane who's playing Pebble Beach as well.
Aussies Jason Day and Marc Leishman have runnered up here, and both are overdue a win.

10).Finally, before any knee-jerk action is taken further to the recent remarks of HSBC exec Morgan about the road forward for golf, he and we might want to cast an eye on how Tim Finchem manages his PGA Tour fiefdom before knee-jerking too many changes into the sport. His Tour is stronger than ever, sponsors are extending contracts longer than ever, and the rest of the golfing world would do well to learn some lessons from Timmy. PGA Tour "title sponsorship" is in place for most tournaments for years to come, probably over-subscribed.
On the Champions Tour, his flagship sponsor has just re-upped for TWENTY years.
That may not be HSBC's demographic, but surely it's not beyond the wit of international golf's leadership to apply some of Finchem's approach to other parts of the world.
It's a great game, don't screw it up.

Desperado, take it to the OT board and we can discuss that.

I think to most people "I wouldn't be surprised if something happens" means "I consider this to be within the realm of possibilities" -- in other words "I believe the probability of it happening is greater than zero".  Not a high probability, but greater than zero.

MAc, what is wrong with you. Why are you trying to conflate two completely incomparable things.

Again, you are completely forgetting about the criteria which I set PRIOR. I'm talking about absolutely ideal conditions, something which to my knowledge hasn't happened in this major at this location, then I'm talking about a golfer on form, then I don't see why, on a course as straight forward, unchallenging and free from risk couldn't result in a combined score of 254. If there's one course in the world where you can miss every bunker with ease and hit every green with aplomb and have a bail out for almost every bad drive, it's TOC. Combine that with knocking in shots to 6 feet or so (holding a green not hard at st.andrews should it rain in the evening), holing putts and driving the short par fours and getting up in 2 on the par 5's again, not fraught with any danger then why not shoot 254?

If you look at "the evidence" then you wouldn't expect 4 rounds in the 60's at The Masters, but would you be surprised if someone did it?

plunky

I don't agree, saying you "wouldn't be surprised" is like saying Not surprised.

Where surprised means an unexpected occurrence. So super is saying NOT an unexpected occurrence, which is pretty much an expected occurrence. If I were to expect something to occur it would have to have a probability of >0.5.

McLaren wrote:plunky

I don't agree, saying you "wouldn't be surprised" is like saying Not surprised.

Where surprised means an unexpected occurrence.  So super is saying NOT an unexpected occurrence, which is pretty much an expected occurrence.  If I were to expect something to occur it would have to have a probability of >0.5.

Mac, again and again you gloss over the criteria by which I would "not be surprised".

Under normal Scottish conditions I'd be flabbergasted, but not by the conditions and criteria I laid out initially. Why can you not get that into your minute brain?

Why wouldn't it be possible in those conditions? What's so difficult about TOC in optimum conditions and a player on the money couldn't do it?

Do you think it's impossible from a golfing/mentality point of view, or do you think TOC is so tough it couldn't be done? Clearly it would have to be a golfing/mentality viewpoint as players have already shot 62 on it.

Super, you are missing that I accpet the conditions you propose but do not think it possible for those conditions to exist.

It boils down to this;

You are saying, 254 is possible if set of conditions X exist.

But set X is clearly impossible. So no matter how easy TOC is, the 254 will never happen.


To answer your last question

It is impossible because you are relying on so many conditions with such tiny probabilities to happen all at the same time.

There is also no evidence in the history of the game for the kind of scoring you seem to think possible. Why would I believe something to be possible if no evidence existed to support it?

Even if scoring 254 had a probability of happening you have no evidence with which to calculate that probability. Again I go back to the god debate because you are comfortable with the arguments involved. When theists say a god is more probable it makes no sense to say that because there is no evidence available from which a probability could be calculated.

Mac, so you never get 4 days of warm, calm weather in Scotland?

You say there is no evidence in history of it happening before, yet Stricker shot -33 and Els -31 in events before.

I never once put a figure on the probability or attempted to make a calculation.

Again, your comparison to  a god is ridiculous. A 62 has been shot on the opening day of a major championship at TOC, there is nothing comparable like that, or even an inkling of there being a god.

When theists make that argument, it's an argument from ignorance. However we know golfers can shoot 59,60,61,62, as we have evidence of them doing so,  so it would take the  right set of circumstances to do it 4 times. The fact it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it won't. Until it does, of course you don't have to believe it can be, but it certainly isn't outwith the realms of possibility, We have hundreds and thousands of examples of golfers shooting low 60's, we have precisely zero examples of god, or any evidence leading to god, so stop being so silly.

Of course you don't have to accept something without evidence, which is why I only suggested it as a hypothetical situation rather than one which is A) likely or b) certain.

There was a Rugby match the other day when the victors ran out 353-3 winners, prior to that match, you'd think that scoreline impossible. Yet, it happened.
Arbroath once beat Bon Accord 36-0. You'd think that was impossible prior to the match too. Basically you're saying that the lowest total score can never go lower than you personally can imagine or that the current low total will never be beaten.
Is 64,63,64,63 that improbable?

Exactly what tournament did Steve Stricker shoot 33 under?

It can't be a typo since you have posted it twice.

In a 90 hole tournament Stricker shot -33 for the first 72 holes (2009 Bob Hope). Els shot -31 in another.

Turns out Tommy Armour has shot 254 in 2003, also par 72. (64,62,63,65)

So there you go Mac, there is a precedent. The golfers can do it if conditions are right, so your entire argument comes down to Scottish weather.

http://golf.about.com/od/progolftours/qt/lowscore72hole.htm

I don't often contribute to a back-and-forth argument that goes on here, but I will this time. I'm on the side of s_r here. I believe one day, there will be a "perfect storm" of course+weather+form golfer to make an "unbelievable" score happen in a major. As s_r has played TOC and I have walked the course I believe he is right in his assertion, that if anywhere, that's where it will be.
Just like any other sporting endeavour records continually get broken.
Just like my pick of the best golf shot jokes Mac, you over analyse too much.

super

I posted that link in one of my first reply's to you on this topic. So its odd that you only just mention it.

If that is the extent of the evidence you require to believe something possibly I hope you do not consider yourself part of the skeptic community. How you came to not believe in god is a mystery to me as you seem to have such low regard for burden of proof.

Mac, I don't have a burden of proof, I haven't said that it's a certainty, I've said it's a possibility. That's not a positive claim.

We have evidence of a golfer shooting 254, we know it's possible, why couldn't that happen if conditions are right at St.Andrews?

You really think there hasn't been 4 calm days there? I grew up there, I remember 4 calm days in summer LAST YEAR. In any event, you don't even need 4 calm days, you need 4 days where the weather is good during your round.

How did you come to the conclusions there aren't leprechauns? I've no idea why you keep bringing something which has happened, a 255, 256 and 257 into something for which there has never been evidence of happening.

You really should try harder with your analogies.

Super

Do you watch the PGA tour? If so you will know that comparing a birdie fest like the bob hope, and the course set up that implies, with any major venue is absurd.

Tournaments like the bob hope are designed for very low scoring, and allow players to fire at every pin. Not even TOC allows players that type of target golf on the calmest and softest of days.

I hope you realize this is not just because it is TOC, I would expand 254 being impossible for almost all set ups now used on tour.

Mac, I know you love TOC, but have you ever actually played it in calm conditions? It is laughably easy, and when you say a course set up in a major, well, McIlroy shot 63 there last time. TOC has no defence without weather, same goes for Kingsbarns, or lots of other links.

Jimmy Walker shot 257 this year at the Sony. Mickelson and Henley 256 in 2013.

super_realist wrote:Mac, I know you love TOC, but have you ever actually played it in calm conditions? It is laughably easy, and when you say a course set up in a major, well, McIlroy shot 62 there last time. TOC has no defence without weather, same goes for Kingsbarns, or lots of other links.

Jimmy Walker shot 257 this year at the Sony.

Don't want to be pedantic but McIlroy (only) shot 63, no-one's ever shot 62 in the Open, or any major for that matter.

That said I agree with your basic premise!

ralphjohn69 wrote:

super_realist wrote:Mac, I know you love TOC, but have you ever actually played it in calm conditions? It is laughably easy, and when you say a course set up in a major, well, McIlroy shot 62 there last time. TOC has no defence without weather, same goes for Kingsbarns, or lots of other links.

Jimmy Walker shot 257 this year at the Sony.

Don't want to be pedantic but McIlroy (only) shot 63, no-one's ever shot 62 in the Open, or any major for that matter.

That said I agree with your basic premise!

Yeah, just corrected that.

Doesn't TOC also employ pretty heavy rough?

inco, not really compared to some of the US open courses. Links courses can have long rough but it tends to be of the wispy sort and not mega thick.

Although I am sure we have all had unplayables in links rough, just ask tiger.

incontinentia wrote:Doesn't TOC also employ pretty heavy rough?

Not really Inco, only at left of 17th fairway. You basically have two fairways to hit on every hole, most of the gorse cut out too.

In summary then, it is possible that 254 could win the Open at St Andrews, just very unlikely

Desperado

We have one score of 254 in the history of 72 hole professional golf.

Even if it was acceptable to use that as evidence for 254 being possible over TOC, that is a seriously weak argument.

Therefore, as there is no evidence to support the premise that 254 is possible at TOC i would reject that premise.

super_realist wrote:...Cabrera seems pretty laid back. If I said he was a fat bastard, he'd probably just go "yeah, fair enough, I am"

That's true. He'd probably have a good laugh. Then again, latin temperament maybe and a back-story of street fighting for money could add a bit of spice.

McLaren wrote:Given the lack of condemnation of super's (JAS and davie's) ridiculous assertion that 254 is a possible winning score for the open, can I assume 606 golf supports this and is no longer a credible source of golf discussion?

Are the rest of you really going to let the record contain this idiocy?  For kwini, gpb and robo to contribute ahead of the curve golfing analysis and then the rest of you fumble like morons over such a simple issue shows no one is really listening to what some of the great posters on here have to say.

Saying 254 is possible as a winning open score is like saying 20-0 is a possible score in a world cup final.

This is a shameful moment for 606 golf.

You really have lost it this time Mac .

McLaren wrote:Desperado

We have one score of 254 in the history of 72 hole professional golf.

Even if it was acceptable to use that as evidence for 254 being possible over TOC, that is a seriously weak argument.

Therefore, as there is no evidence to support the premise that 254 is possible at TOC i would reject that premise.

Sorry Mac. Count me in as another to support S_R's assertion as originally posited. Personally, I'd love it if someone shoots the lights out there - it's a rubbish course IMHO. Played it 3 times in total and it never fails to amaze me re. the unjustified hoopla that surrounds it. Take away the history and it's nothing.

navy

As originally posted by S_R

super_realist wrote:We could see a record 4 round total. -34 wouldn't be outside the realms of possibility

Are you sure want to support that?

Well, it isn't, we've shown that a 62 and 63 are possible on TOC, it only needs someone to put 4 together in the right conditions.

super, stop it. We all agree with you. Mac is beyond reach.

pedro wrote:super, stop it. We all agree with you. Mac is beyond reach.

He'd argue black was white if he could, but he might be misconstrued as racist, so he'd probably prefer to argue white was black so it would look like positive discrimination.

McLaren wrote:plunky

I don't agree, saying you "wouldn't be surprised" is like saying Not surprised.

Where surprised means an unexpected occurrence.  So super is saying NOT an unexpected occurrence, which is pretty much an expected occurrence.  If I were to expect something to occur it would have to have a probability of >0.5.

Mac, that's a very black and white way of looking at it !  I work all day with probability distributions, so look at it a bit differently.   If you constructed a distribution of  historical 4-round golf scores in the majors, it might look like a normal distribution.  The average would be in the middle -- that's the expected score.  A score in the tail of the distribution (far left or right) represents a surprise.   Everything else would be "not a surprise". When you look at it that way, "not surprised" and "expected" are  two very different things.

So the view of a member who plays the course (I imagine) on at least a semi regular basis Vs a misty eyed view based on a love of a courses history and place in the game and a love of Doak books.

We'll probably never get the chance to know for sure as the likelihood of 4 windless days in mid July in a year ending in  0 or 5 is quite unlikely but IF those conditions did happen and a handful of the game's top players rolled up carrying a bit of form then I think the likely result would be a record low score. You simply cannot get away from the basic assertion that TOC is the most defenceless course on the rota. It's that basic assertion that is so upsetting for poor Mac and driving him to make the most ridiculous arguments.

I've only played it once and it was blowing a proper hoolie. If I were to roll up on a flat calm day with a bit of form I'd be disappointed not shot my handicap or better.  It's not really comparable but the one rota course I've played enough times to have a view on the influence of the weather is Carnoustie. I've yet to break 80 in a medal round in 5 attempts (best 82 in a 2 club wind, worst 97 in a 4+ club wind), intact break 80 in 18 attempts overall. I haven't done it yet but In a flat calm I know I'd break 80, in a 3-4 club wind however I'd struggle to break 90. The other links I play semi-regularly is Saunton East. Again in benign conditions I can shoot mid 70's and have done n numerous practice rounds (Plunky has witnessed one). In medals over the last 5 years I've had it benign only twice and got cut both times. When it's blowing it's either a 0.1 up or reductions only. On that basis I reckon I have a pretty decent view of the effect weather can have on scoring ability on links courses. When I translate that to how the Pro's score and having seen TOC I really do think that given 4 benign days the Pro's would tear the old place to pieces. I would expect a winning score better than 264 (steady 66's), sub 260 possible, as low as 254? well that would be exceptional but not impossible.

Gentlemen, describe your emotions...

Tiger shoots 254 round TOC to win the Open.

I'd guess with the conflicting opinions on the player and the possibility of the score at that venue there would be 2 cases of spontaneous human combustion.

It'd be interesting to see how mac would react. Maybe he'd fellate himself jumping off a cliff.

Shock and awe roller

s_r would believe in a God.

PLunky

That is pretty much how I looked at it as well. I just assumed 254 was in the very extreme of the tail. So yes, in the tail = surprise, but super said he would not be surprised to see a score that we thought of as very unlikely (impossible), one in "the tail".

I was trying to elicit from super why he thought something which others view as very unlikely as "not surprising", did he have evidence to suggest it was more likely than the current evidence would suggest?

Jas

I agree, if the conditions were met a record low score for a major would be quite possible. Just not the numb skull prediction of 254, maybe -25.

Just out of interest what's SSS off the back pegs at TOC Super?

Think it's about 73 off the whites, not sure what the Tournament tees is as we never get to play them in competition. Only in gash games

McLaren wrote:navy

As originally posted by S_R

super_realist wrote:We could see a record 4 round total. -34 wouldn't be outside the realms of possibility

Are you sure want to support that?

Certainly....under the conditions as stipulated by S_R. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. I know you love TOC, but the truth is, eventually one of the Pros is going to murder it during an Open there.

Roller_Coaster wrote:Gentlemen, describe your emotions...

Tiger shoots 254 round TOC to win the Open.

I'd guess with the conflicting opinions on the player and the possibility of the score at that venue there would be 2 cases of spontaneous human combustion.

Despair....
Mac, on the other hand might have some trouble - rapture because 9C wins but utter despair because of the score. His head might explode...

McLaren wrote:PLunky

That is pretty much how I looked at it as well. I just assumed 254 was in the very extreme of the tail.  So yes, in the tail = surprise, but super said he would not be surprised to see a score that we thought of as very unlikely (impossible), one in "the tail".  

That, in a nutshell sums up why you are wrong

Anyone who understands statistics would know that it shouldn't be a surprise if something in the tail of the distribution turns up once in a blue moon. Statistics (or probability) shows that something is very unlikely, but the fact that it has a finite chance of happening indicates that it is possible - and therefore shouldn't be a surprise if it does happen

How would you feel if 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 came up in the national lottery numbers? Surprised? I wouldn't, as it has just as much chance as any other set of 6 numbers you might pick. Would it be unusual? Hell yes it would. Would it be surprising? No

Well said Davie !  

Davie

That is a terrible example, as clearly 123456 is just as likely as any other set of winning numbers. And why would it be unusual?

To be clear, I don't think 254 is possible in the open, it is not even on any distribution. Assuming it was well out on the tail was to make sense of what super was saying.


And yes, I would be surprised if something very unlikely happened, what with being human and all.

Some good golf in Thailand. A young Thai pro wins an on-course town house worth about £240,000 for a hole in one and Fattybarnrat seems to be coming back into form.

McLaren wrote:Davie

That is a terrible example, as clearly 123456 is just as likely as any other set of winning numbers. And why would it be unusual?

To be clear, I don't think 254 is possible in the open, it is not even on any distribution.  Assuming it was well out on the tail was to make sense of what super was saying.  


And yes, I would be surprised if something very unlikely happened, what with being human and all.  

Mac, it's not likely on the normal distribution because the normal distribution isn't taking into account a special set of conditions that were clearly and repeatedly pointed out, you are trying to compare something which has happened i.e the scores from previous tournaments, with something which is theoretically possible in a completely different circumstances which hasn't happened.
Of course the latter hasn't appeared on the bell curve, because we haven't seen such conditions for 4 straight days at a TOC event. It seems you have a real problem getting that in your pea sized brain.

Now please stop trying to counter this with your evident misunderstanding of the posited suggestion. No one agrees with you.

You still haven't answered why in 4 ideal conditions it is impossible for someone to shoot an average of 63.5 over four days. What is so hard about TOC (very little) or a major set up there, which could prevent it? We've seen 62's and 63's on TOC, and clearly there's a lot of birdie opportunities and a 59 is clearly attainable.
Do you think TOC is too hard? Do you think that the committee would "trick" it up? Do you think a player simply isn't capable of shooting the score consecutively? Or do you simply think 4 days of calm weather are impossible? It isn't.

Can someone shoot 254? Well, until the conditions are as prescribed in a TOC open, we'll never know will we?
Your dead horse is flogged.

Neigh it isn't.

If we assume that the Open championship will continue in its current format, and at the Old Course every 5 years til the sun burns out in 5 billion years, then the prospect of someone shooting 254 or better seems not only possible but probable, maybe even inevitable.

odds are if someone or multiple golfers shot a pair of 62s or 63s then the pins will be in most difficult spots possible over the weekend. i dont know how tricky the pin positions can be on TOC but its something that would need to be factored in when deciding how likely 254 is.

Of course, but given the greens at TOC are not that difficult, most are flat, and several holes are driveable and both par 5's are reachable in 2, no matter how "hard" the pins are, there are still birdie opportunities a plenty. There are basically no pin positions in which you can birdie proof the hole, and still be legal pins