Could a Scratch Golfer break 85 at Augusta?

[North Texas]

Is it possible?

 

Yes.

 

Even 90 percent of the people disagreeing have half said the same thing. "depends on the scratch" "only if he's a long hiter" etc.

 

Its possible though, most have admitted as much over the course of 880+ posts.

 

Its 85. Not 71. A scratch can smack his way around and make 12 bogeys or 14 bogeys and 3 birdies etc.

 

How many people are scratch playing a golf course in excess of 7,400 yards with undulating greens at least 14 on on the Stimpmeter? 10 foot putts with 5-6 feet of break. The reality is that most likely no scratch golfer plays in those conditions .... ever. Even Oakmont greens are not that severe for normal play, only the US Open. Any course making their greens like that everyday will find their greens dying due to stress pretty quick, especially during the summer months. This scenario is strictly based on the OP's criteria, which in its own part is ludicrous. Can a scratch golfer break 85 at ANGC from members tees with a caddie? Absolutely, and quite possibly break 80 or even 78. Can a scratch golfer break 85 from the Masters tees under normal conditions with a caddie? I would say yes on occasion. Can a scratch golfer break 85 strictly under the original criteria? I don't believe they could.

 

You do realize that the course rating system takes those factors into account, right? 7400 yards and fast greens is largely why Knuth estimated the rating at 78.1.

 

A rating of 78.1 means that a scratch player will shoot 78 on "a good day" (about 25% of the time), and his average score will be 81. On a very good day, he'll shoot a 76.

 

You and lowheel claim there is virtually no chance that a scratch player can break 85 under the OP's criteria. For that to be true, the "OP Criteria Course Rating" would have to be at least 86 - 8 strokes harder than Knuth's estimated rating. However, neither of you has put forward a credible explanation for that enormous gap.

 

Below are scoring averages for the last 2 years. Do you see any evidence that Sunday was significantly more difficult than Thursday?

The idea that the course is way harder Thursday morning than it was Wednesday afternoon makes no sense at all. Why would they have players practice under conditions radically different from what they would experience during the tournament?

 

 

2016:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 72.3

Sunday average: 72.7

 

2017:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74.97

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 73.83

Sunday average: 71.86

 

What cdnglf says makes sense to me.

 

If the 78.1 rating is accurate, then the average scratch golfer will most definitely break 85. And, most likely, I think something like 2 out of 3 scratch players would break 85. Again, assuming that the course rating is accurate.

[playa]

I think many people underestimate how good...good golfers are. A handicap index in my experience isn't a very accurate for most beyond their home course and the tees they routinely play. Also I think many people on here have a mindset that is limited because they haven't actually played with many good players......they simply don't have the frame of reference.

Home track specialists are definitely a factor in handicaps. In Sydney we have a major pennants season. These are played by the best players at each club. The amount of times I have seen scratch and plus golfers from visiting clubs get smoked by 3 and 4 caps at our club is amazing. Results overwhelmingly favor home sides, particularly on quirky golf courses like my home track. I have also seen plenty of low cap club players who can't get near their cap on longer courses.

 

My bigger point is that many who post here likely have not played with good golfers. They just don't have a decent frame of reference so they think its impossible. You'll read the same things in many of the distance related threads that appear here. They've never played with real long hitters so to them its unfathomable. For a truly good golfer I don't think the original challenge would be that difficult regardless of if their listed caps are +3 to 5 on paper. Guys who can really play will find their way around that course and will make plenty of pars and 85 would not be a difficult number. I don't put much stock in handicaps because I've seen too much BS with them. You know who the real players are when you play with them or wen you look at the guys at the top of the results in your regional golf association. These guys would have no problem with 85.

Agree with what you said but I thought the challenge was for a scratch handicap golfer to beat 85. If we interpret scratch golfers to be anyone who doesn't get handicap strokes then sure there are some seriously good ams around who could break 85 comfortably, but if we are talking garden variety 0 handicap golfers I don't see them breaking 90 on Sunday at Augusta.

[Bye]

Is it possible?

 

Yes.

 

Even 90 percent of the people disagreeing have half said the same thing. "depends on the scratch" "only if he's a long hiter" etc.

 

Its possible though, most have admitted as much over the course of 880+ posts.

 

Its 85. Not 71. A scratch can smack his way around and make 12 bogeys or 14 bogeys and 3 birdies etc.

 

How many people are scratch playing a golf course in excess of 7,400 yards with undulating greens at least 14 on on the Stimpmeter? 10 foot putts with 5-6 feet of break. The reality is that most likely no scratch golfer plays in those conditions .... ever. Even Oakmont greens are not that severe for normal play, only the US Open. Any course making their greens like that everyday will find their greens dying due to stress pretty quick, especially during the summer months. This scenario is strictly based on the OP's criteria, which in its own part is ludicrous. Can a scratch golfer break 85 at ANGC from members tees with a caddie? Absolutely, and quite possibly break 80 or even 78. Can a scratch golfer break 85 from the Masters tees under normal conditions with a caddie? I would say yes on occasion. Can a scratch golfer break 85 strictly under the original criteria? I don't believe they could.

 

You do realize that the course rating system takes those factors into account, right? 7400 yards and fast greens is largely why Knuth estimated the rating at 78.1.

 

A rating of 78.1 means that a scratch player will shoot 78 on "a good day" (about 25% of the time), and his average score will be 81. On a very good day, he'll shoot a 76.

 

You and lowheel claim there is virtually no chance that a scratch player can break 85 under the OP's criteria. For that to be true, the "OP Criteria Course Rating" would have to be at least 86 - 8 strokes harder than Knuth's estimated rating. However, neither of you has put forward a credible explanation for that enormous gap.

 

Below are scoring averages for the last 2 years. Do you see any evidence that Sunday was significantly more difficult than Thursday?

The idea that the course is way harder Thursday morning than it was Wednesday afternoon makes no sense at all. Why would they have players practice under conditions radically different from what they would experience during the tournament?

 

 

2016:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 72.3

Sunday average: 72.7

 

2017:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74.97

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 73.83

Sunday average: 71.86

 

There has been plenty of evidence put forward it has just been ignored. Knuth's assessment was take on the practice days 8 years ago. Greens at around 12, their guesstimate. So he says the average score for a scratch golfer would be 81. Again for the 3rd or 4th time Mr Shots gained Mark Brodie suggests adding 3-6 to someone's score for the first time someone plays there. So you add 2-3 feet on the stimp and firm the greens up and the assessment goes out of the window.

 

On certain courses local knowledge or previous knowledge of the course makes a massive difference never more so than a positional course which Augusta is. You only have to listen to the post round interviews of the players in the event that have shot high 70's. They will say how they got out of position too many times and they know where to avoid.

 

Guys like Adam Scott have been quoted as saying there is a disaster waiting on every shot.

 

Your stats are for the elite tour players, a handfull of elite amateurs and a few past champions. All well prepped. Bit different to a scratch golfer.

[tdk8180]

"Augusta is easy course...I play much harder course in backyard." - Kim Jong Un

[North Texas]

Okay, I hadn't really thought about taking it into consideration, but what the poster above says about Mark Brodie suggesting that you can add 3-6 shots to someone's score for the first time they play a course makes sense. That would put the average score in the 84-87 range.

 

So I'm revising my estimate that 2 out of 3 scratch golfers would break 85 down to 1 out 3.

[deadsolid...shank]

So what Mark Broadie says is taken as fact while Knuth’s is discarded? Just trying to stay on top of things here.

 

Both experts in their respective fields correct?

 

Also, I thought Augusta didn’t release stimp readings.

[cdnglf]

Is it possible?

 

Yes.

 

Even 90 percent of the people disagreeing have half said the same thing. "depends on the scratch" "only if he's a long hiter" etc.

 

Its possible though, most have admitted as much over the course of 880+ posts.

 

Its 85. Not 71. A scratch can smack his way around and make 12 bogeys or 14 bogeys and 3 birdies etc.

 

How many people are scratch playing a golf course in excess of 7,400 yards with undulating greens at least 14 on on the Stimpmeter? 10 foot putts with 5-6 feet of break. The reality is that most likely no scratch golfer plays in those conditions .... ever. Even Oakmont greens are not that severe for normal play, only the US Open. Any course making their greens like that everyday will find their greens dying due to stress pretty quick, especially during the summer months. This scenario is strictly based on the OP's criteria, which in its own part is ludicrous. Can a scratch golfer break 85 at ANGC from members tees with a caddie? Absolutely, and quite possibly break 80 or even 78. Can a scratch golfer break 85 from the Masters tees under normal conditions with a caddie? I would say yes on occasion. Can a scratch golfer break 85 strictly under the original criteria? I don't believe they could.

 

You do realize that the course rating system takes those factors into account, right? 7400 yards and fast greens is largely why Knuth estimated the rating at 78.1.

 

A rating of 78.1 means that a scratch player will shoot 78 on "a good day" (about 25% of the time), and his average score will be 81. On a very good day, he'll shoot a 76.

 

You and lowheel claim there is virtually no chance that a scratch player can break 85 under the OP's criteria. For that to be true, the "OP Criteria Course Rating" would have to be at least 86 - 8 strokes harder than Knuth's estimated rating. However, neither of you has put forward a credible explanation for that enormous gap.

 

Below are scoring averages for the last 2 years. Do you see any evidence that Sunday was significantly more difficult than Thursday?

The idea that the course is way harder Thursday morning than it was Wednesday afternoon makes no sense at all. Why would they have players practice under conditions radically different from what they would experience during the tournament?

 

 

2016:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 72.3

Sunday average: 72.7

 

2017:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74.97

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 73.83

Sunday average: 71.86

 

There has been plenty of evidence put forward it has just been ignored. Knuth's assessment was take on the practice days 8 years ago. Greens at around 12, their guesstimate. So he says the average score for a scratch golfer would be 81. Again for the 3rd or 4th time Mr Shots gained Mark Brodie suggests adding 3-6 to someone's score for the first time someone plays there. So you add 2-3 feet on the stimp and firm the greens up and the assessment goes out of the window.

 

On certain courses local knowledge or previous knowledge of the course makes a massive difference never more so than a positional course which Augusta is. You only have to listen to the post round interviews of the players in the event that have shot high 70's. They will say how they got out of position too many times and they know where to avoid.

 

Guys like Adam Scott have been quoted as saying there is a disaster waiting on every shot.

 

Your stats are for the elite tour players, a handfull of elite amateurs and a few past champions. All well prepped. Bit different to a scratch golfer.

 

Augusta hasn't changed significantly in the past 8 years. There is no quantitative evidence over the past 2 years that course difficulty increases dramatically during the week (but feel free to check other years). Whatever stimp changes there may be don't appear to result in material score changes.

 

Average score is 81, but scores as low as 76 are reasonably possible.

 

Broadie's numbers are interesting. Do you have a link? I'd like to see the details. But even if you add 3-6 strokes to the range of 76-81, sub-85 is well within the realm of possibility.

 

The anecdotes about course difficulty are fine, but I'm not sure what they add to the discussion. We already know it's a tough course.

 

The stats I provided were to show that players shoot about the same scores on Sunday as Thursday. I wasn't comparing them to scratch.

[Bye]

Is it possible?

 

Yes.

 

Even 90 percent of the people disagreeing have half said the same thing. "depends on the scratch" "only if he's a long hiter" etc.

 

Its possible though, most have admitted as much over the course of 880+ posts.

 

Its 85. Not 71. A scratch can smack his way around and make 12 bogeys or 14 bogeys and 3 birdies etc.

 

How many people are scratch playing a golf course in excess of 7,400 yards with undulating greens at least 14 on on the Stimpmeter? 10 foot putts with 5-6 feet of break. The reality is that most likely no scratch golfer plays in those conditions .... ever. Even Oakmont greens are not that severe for normal play, only the US Open. Any course making their greens like that everyday will find their greens dying due to stress pretty quick, especially during the summer months. This scenario is strictly based on the OP's criteria, which in its own part is ludicrous. Can a scratch golfer break 85 at ANGC from members tees with a caddie? Absolutely, and quite possibly break 80 or even 78. Can a scratch golfer break 85 from the Masters tees under normal conditions with a caddie? I would say yes on occasion. Can a scratch golfer break 85 strictly under the original criteria? I don't believe they could.

 

You do realize that the course rating system takes those factors into account, right? 7400 yards and fast greens is largely why Knuth estimated the rating at 78.1.

 

A rating of 78.1 means that a scratch player will shoot 78 on "a good day" (about 25% of the time), and his average score will be 81. On a very good day, he'll shoot a 76.

 

You and lowheel claim there is virtually no chance that a scratch player can break 85 under the OP's criteria. For that to be true, the "OP Criteria Course Rating" would have to be at least 86 - 8 strokes harder than Knuth's estimated rating. However, neither of you has put forward a credible explanation for that enormous gap.

 

Below are scoring averages for the last 2 years. Do you see any evidence that Sunday was significantly more difficult than Thursday?

The idea that the course is way harder Thursday morning than it was Wednesday afternoon makes no sense at all. Why would they have players practice under conditions radically different from what they would experience during the tournament?

 

 

2016:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 72.3

Sunday average: 72.7

 

2017:

Thursday average (including old champs and ams): 74.97

Thursday average of players who made the cut: 73.83

Sunday average: 71.86

 

There has been plenty of evidence put forward it has just been ignored. Knuth's assessment was take on the practice days 8 years ago. Greens at around 12, their guesstimate. So he says the average score for a scratch golfer would be 81. Again for the 3rd or 4th time Mr Shots gained Mark Brodie suggests adding 3-6 to someone's score for the first time someone plays there. So you add 2-3 feet on the stimp and firm the greens up and the assessment goes out of the window.

 

On certain courses local knowledge or previous knowledge of the course makes a massive difference never more so than a positional course which Augusta is. You only have to listen to the post round interviews of the players in the event that have shot high 70's. They will say how they got out of position too many times and they know where to avoid.

 

Guys like Adam Scott have been quoted as saying there is a disaster waiting on every shot.

 

Your stats are for the elite tour players, a handfull of elite amateurs and a few past champions. All well prepped. Bit different to a scratch golfer.

 

Augusta hasn't changed significantly in the past 8 years. There is no quantitative evidence over the past 2 years that course difficulty increases dramatically during the week (but feel free to check other years). Whatever stimp changes there may be don't appear to result in material score changes.

 

Average score is 81, but scores as low as 76 are reasonably possible.

 

Broadie's numbers are interesting. Do you have a link? I'd like to see the details. But even if you add 3-6 strokes to the range of 76-81, sub-85 is well within the realm of possibility.

 

The anecdotes about course difficulty are fine, but I'm not sure what they add to the discussion. We already know it's a tough course.

 

The stats I provided were to show that players shoot about the same scores on Sunday as Thursday. I wasn't comparing them to scratch.

 

Here you go, it's been posted several times. I've also done average driving, greens in reg etc.

 

https://Not allowed Per Todaysgolfer's UK request/news-and-events/general-news/2017/march/masters-2017-how-hard-is-augusta-national-/

 

I understand where you are coming from re the stats but you could argue that on Sunday there are only 40-50 guys playing who will be playing well and have been playing the course all week and will have a good feel for it.

 

 

[Bye]

So what Mark Broadie says is taken as fact while Knuth’s is discarded? Just trying to stay on top of things here.

 

Both experts in their respective fields correct?

 

Also, I thought Augusta didn’t release stimp readings.

 

I was combing both, granted one may cancel the other out but MB suggests 80 with 3-6 for a newbie.

 

None of the ratings are official, the estimated 12 when the unofficial rating was done walking the course on the practice days. They may have asked some of the players.

 

An extra 2 feet on the stimp on undulating greens is a big difference.

[RobotDoctor]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

[deadsolid...shank]

So what Mark Broadie says is taken as fact while Knuth’s is discarded? Just trying to stay on top of things here.

 

Both experts in their respective fields correct?

 

Also, I thought Augusta didn’t release stimp readings.

 

I was combing both, granted one may cancel the other out but MB suggests 80 with 3-6 for a newbie.

 

None of the ratings are official, the estimated 12 when the unofficial rating was done walking the course on the practice days. They may have asked some of the players.

 

An extra 2 feet on the stimp on undulating greens is a big difference.

 

Without a doubt Bye (on the extra two feet]. Amazing on truly fast greens how the ball just keeps trickling past the hole. I can’t remember, in the OP, does our scratch have access to, and time on the practice green? Which hopefully is going to be of similar speed to those on the course. Because someone good enough to get to a scratch level is going to do a respectable job of adjusting to the speed if they have time to get accustomed to it.

 

I’m just surprised that Knuth’s numbers are dismissed or disregarded so easily. It’s what he does, and apparently does it pretty well.

 

I’ve never been there so this is just conjecture, but I would think the pros would be decidedly unhappy if the greens were substantially faster on tournament day than they were for the practice round. If that were the case I would think we would have heard about it.

[Mcgeeno]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

The scoring average on Sunday is like 72 or 73.

 

The course rating is 78.

 

The numbers say a scratch has a legit chance at getting it done. He's trying to get to is 85 not 72 lol.

 

He can bogey 13 holes or make 3 doubles and roll in a couple birds. No real trouble off the tee.

 

I'd bet there are plenty of scratch golfers who could get it done. Not all obviously, but its possible for sure.

[cdnglf]

Here you go, it's been posted several times. I've also done average driving, greens in reg etc.

 

https://www.todaysgo...usta-national-/

 

I understand where you are coming from re the stats but you could argue that on Sunday there are only 40-50 guys playing who will be playing well and have been playing the course all week and will have a good feel for it.

 

Thanks. It would be interesting to see detail on how Broadie came up with that figure. 3 doesn't surprise me that much, but 6 is definitely more than I would have guessed.

 

Broadie's predicted score for a scratch is 80 (1 stroke easier than Knuth/golf digest), not counting the "first time playing" penalty. Add 4.5 (halfway between 3 and 6), and you're at 84.5. In other words, slightly more than half the time a scratch would shoot sub-85. That is _very_ different from RobotDoctor and lowheel's claim that it is virtually impossible.

 

If 80 is the predicted score for a scratch, then scores as low as 75 are reasonably possible. Add 3 or 4 for the first time playing penalty, and sub-80 is plausible.

[deadsolid...shank]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

If they’re scoring upper 70’s and low 80’s then they’re having really, really bad days. Because of how they’re playing. Someone out on there, on the exact same course, is shooting mid 60’s too.

 

You keep referring back to the exact criteria of the original post. I think the most important word in that original post and title is could.

[RobotDoctor]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

The scoring average on Sunday is like 72 or 73.

 

The course rating is 78.

 

The numbers say a scratch has a legit chance at getting it done. He's trying to get to is 85 not 72 lol.

 

He can bogey 13 holes or make 3 doubles and roll in a couple birds. No real trouble off the tee.

 

I'd bet there are plenty of scratch golfers who could get it done. Not all obviously, but its possible for sure.

 

I believe it was over 75 last year.

[deadsolid...shank]

being a stats guy:

 

if you put 100 scratch golfers on Augusta, what would the score distribution look like?

 

Some would break 80 and some wouldnt break 90.

 

Based on Sunday Masters tournament conditions?

 

Is there anything out there that verifies that Sunday conditions are different than the other days?

[cdnglf]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

The scoring average on Sunday is like 72 or 73.

 

The course rating is 78.

 

The numbers say a scratch has a legit chance at getting it done. He's trying to get to is 85 not 72 lol.

 

He can bogey 13 holes or make 3 doubles and roll in a couple birds. No real trouble off the tee.

 

I'd bet there are plenty of scratch golfers who could get it done. Not all obviously, but its possible for sure.

 

I believe it was over 75 last year.

 

Nope. I already posted it in this thread.

[RobotDoctor]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

If they’re scoring upper 70’s and low 80’s then they’re having really, really bad days. Because of how they’re playing. Someone out on there, on the exact same course, is shooting mid 60’s too.

 

You keep referring back to the exact criteria of the original post. I think the most important word in that original post and title is could.

 

The original post is quite specific regarding the criteria set forth. I'm not moving the goal posts here. For those not clear on the original criteria then please go back and read it. I'm not saying it's impossible outside the original criteria, although improbable at best.

 

"Stipulations are no caddie, no cart, no walking the course beforehand, and 1 hour warmup before the round. Sunday tournament conditions, from the back tees. "

 

That's a difficult criteria.

 

 

[North Texas]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

Well, it sure looks like that even the highest finishing tour pros are averaging well under 80 at Augusta regardless of where they finish or even if they don't make the cut.

 

https://www.pgatour....st-results.html

[cdnglf]

So what Mark Broadie says is taken as fact while Knuth’s is discarded? Just trying to stay on top of things here.

 

Both experts in their respective fields correct?

 

Also, I thought Augusta didn’t release stimp readings.

 

I was combing both, granted one may cancel the other out but MB suggests 80 with 3-6 for a newbie.

 

None of the ratings are official, the estimated 12 when the unofficial rating was done walking the course on the practice days. They may have asked some of the players.

 

An extra 2 feet on the stimp on undulating greens is a big difference.

 

Without a doubt Bye (on the extra two feet]. Amazing on truly fast greens how the ball just keeps trickling past the hole. I can’t remember, in the OP, does our scratch have access to, and time on the practice green? Which hopefully is going to be of similar speed to those on the course. Because someone good enough to get to a scratch level is going to do a respectable job of adjusting to the speed if they have time to get accustomed to it.

 

I’m just surprised that Knuth’s numbers are dismissed or disregarded so easily. It’s what he does, and apparently does it pretty well.

 

I’ve never been there so this is just conjecture, but I would think the pros would be decidedly unhappy if the greens were substantially faster on tournament day than they were for the practice round. If that were the case I would think we would have heard about it.

 

The criteria includes 1 hour of practice. If it was me, that would be 10 minutes on the tee and 50 minutes on and around the practice green ;)

 

Knuth/Golf Digest had an expected score of 81. Broadie's got an expected score of 80. But Broadie adds another 3-6 for first time playing the course, which Knuth doesn't address.

 

By Broadie's numbers, it's slightly more probable than not that a scratch would break 85, and it is reasonably possible that he would break 80.

[deadsolid...shank]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

If they’re scoring upper 70’s and low 80’s then they’re having really, really bad days. Because of how they’re playing. Someone out on there, on the exact same course, is shooting mid 60’s too.

 

You keep referring back to the exact criteria of the original post. I think the most important word in that original post and title is could.

 

The original post is quite specific regarding the criteria set forth. I'm not moving the goal posts here. For those not clear on the original criteria then please go back and read it. I'm not saying it's impossible outside the original criteria, although improbable at best.

 

"Stipulations are no caddie, no cart, no walking the course beforehand, and 1 hour warmup before the round. Sunday tournament conditions, from the back tees. "

 

That's a difficult criteria.

 

No doubt it’s difficult. Very difficult. So I did go back and read it again (just to make sure). The title is definitely “could”. Difficult is not impossible

[RobotDoctor]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

The scoring average on Sunday is like 72 or 73.

 

The course rating is 78.

 

The numbers say a scratch has a legit chance at getting it done. He's trying to get to is 85 not 72 lol.

 

He can bogey 13 holes or make 3 doubles and roll in a couple birds. No real trouble off the tee.

 

I'd bet there are plenty of scratch golfers who could get it done. Not all obviously, but its possible for sure.

 

I believe it was over 75 last year.

 

Nope. I already posted it in this thread.

 

You're right. It was 72.49.

[Bye]

So what Mark Broadie says is taken as fact while Knuth’s is discarded? Just trying to stay on top of things here.

 

Both experts in their respective fields correct?

 

Also, I thought Augusta didn’t release stimp readings.

 

I was combing both, granted one may cancel the other out but MB suggests 80 with 3-6 for a newbie.

 

None of the ratings are official, the estimated 12 when the unofficial rating was done walking the course on the practice days. They may have asked some of the players.

 

An extra 2 feet on the stimp on undulating greens is a big difference.

 

Without a doubt Bye (on the extra two feet]. Amazing on truly fast greens how the ball just keeps trickling past the hole. I can’t remember, in the OP, does our scratch have access to, and time on the practice green? Which hopefully is going to be of similar speed to those on the course. Because someone good enough to get to a scratch level is going to do a respectable job of adjusting to the speed if they have time to get accustomed to it.

 

I’m just surprised that Knuth’s numbers are dismissed or disregarded so easily. It’s what he does, and apparently does it pretty well.

 

I’ve never been there so this is just conjecture, but I would think the pros would be decidedly unhappy if the greens were substantially faster on tournament day than they were for the practice round. If that were the case I would think we would have heard about it.

 

An hour to warm up, so they would have a bit of time on the practice green.

 

 

[North Texas]

To follow up on my post above, in last year's Master's, in the final round there was exactly 9 touring pros who shot 75 or higher with 78 being the highest score.

 

Hell, in 2015, the highest final round score was 75 and there were only 3 of those.

[Bye]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

If they’re scoring upper 70’s and low 80’s then they’re having really, really bad days. Because of how they’re playing. Someone out on there, on the exact same course, is shooting mid 60’s too.

 

You keep referring back to the exact criteria of the original post. I think the most important word in that original post and title is could.

 

The original post is quite specific regarding the criteria set forth. I'm not moving the goal posts here. For those not clear on the original criteria then please go back and read it. I'm not saying it's impossible outside the original criteria, although improbable at best.

 

"Stipulations are no caddie, no cart, no walking the course beforehand, and 1 hour warmup before the round. Sunday tournament conditions, from the back tees. "

 

That's a difficult criteria.

 

No doubt it’s difficult. Very difficult. So I did go back and read it again (just to make sure). The title is definitely “could”. Difficult is not impossible

 

Not impossible, but very very unlikely in my book.

[BNGL]

Not sure if I have posted in here or not but it's an incredible golf course. Yes the greens are difficult, it's a hilly walk, but the thing that was vexing to me was the uneven lies, I seriously never had a level lie but maybe two times each round (excluding tee shots). For example number 9 is awkward, because I was on a downslope hitting to an elevated green with the flag in the front. As far as the premise of the OP I kinda doubt it under Sunday conditions in the masters. But any other time I wouldn't bet against it.

[deadsolid...shank]

This is GolfWRX where every scratch golfer is tour caliber.

 

Seriously, if tour pros and amateur championship winners are scoring in the upper 70s and low 80s on Sunday at the Masters who actually believes a scratch will fare close to that? People are saying no quantative data has been presented. I suggest a simple google search of Sunday finishes at the Masters in the past 10-15 years and ask if a scratch handicap (under the original criteria) could keep up with the highest finishing tour pro. This thread is about a specific criteria and nothin more.

 

If they’re scoring upper 70’s and low 80’s then they’re having really, really bad days. Because of how they’re playing. Someone out on there, on the exact same course, is shooting mid 60’s too.

 

You keep referring back to the exact criteria of the original post. I think the most important word in that original post and title is could.

 

The original post is quite specific regarding the criteria set forth. I'm not moving the goal posts here. For those not clear on the original criteria then please go back and read it. I'm not saying it's impossible outside the original criteria, although improbable at best.

 

"Stipulations are no caddie, no cart, no walking the course beforehand, and 1 hour warmup before the round. Sunday tournament conditions, from the back tees. "

 

That's a difficult criteria.

 

No doubt it’s difficult. Very difficult. So I did go back and read it again (just to make sure). The title is definitely “could”. Difficult is not impossible

 

Not impossible, but very very unlikely in my book.

 

That’s fair.

[bscinstnct]

To follow up on my post above, in last year's Master's, in the final round there was exactly 9 touring pros who shot 75 or higher with 78 being the highest score.

 

Hell, in 2015, the highest final round score was 75 and there were only 3 of those.

 

Yes, but if you look at the guys who did not make the cut in 2017

 

Lots and lots high scores including rounds of 78, 79, and 80 by

 

#16 owgr at the time Tyrell Hatton who shot 80, 78

 

#12 owgr at the time Alex Noren, 78

 

Si-Woo Kim, 81

 

Gary Woodland, 80

 

Bubba, 78

[deadsolid...shank]

To follow up on my post above, in last year's Master's, in the final round there was exactly 9 touring pros who shot 75 or higher with 78 being the highest score.

 

Hell, in 2015, the highest final round score was 75 and there were only 3 of those.

 

Yes, but if you look at the guys who did not make the cut in 2017

 

Lots and lots high scores including rounds of 78, 79, and 80 by

 

#16 owgr at the time Tyrell Hatton who shot 80, 78

 

#12 owgr at the time Alex Noren, 78

 

Si-Woo Kim, 81

 

Gary Woodland, 80

 

Bubba, 78

 

Hey BSC, what does Lee say about it!?

[bscinstnct]

To follow up on my post above, in last year's Master's, in the final round there was exactly 9 touring pros who shot 75 or higher with 78 being the highest score.

 

Hell, in 2015, the highest final round score was 75 and there were only 3 of those.

 

Yes, but if you look at the guys who did not make the cut in 2017

 

Lots and lots high scores including rounds of 78, 79, and 80 by

 

#16 owgr at the time Tyrell Hatton who shot 80, 78

 

#12 owgr at the time Alex Noren, 78

 

Si-Woo Kim, 81

 

Gary Woodland, 80

 

Bubba, 78

 

Hey BSC, what does Lee say about it!?��

 

Lee be like,

 

 

; )