Could a Scratch Golfer break 85 at Augusta?

[farmer]

If the scratch golfer aimed to just break 85, then maybe. Play very conservatively, take no risks, keep it in the fairway and under the hole, maybe. It is also possible that the greens and surrounds would be too hard for even an everyday good player to handle.

[The Pearl]

My question for those who think the scratch could not do it is what level of player they think could do it? Scoring average was 71.2 today. I think most would agree a scratch player is not 14 shots worse than a top professional. I think most would agree the average scratch player is about 8-10 or so shots worse than touring professionals, conservatively. Do you non-believers think there is some exponential quality to Augusta that widens the gulf between skill levels as one gets worse?

 

On a scale of:

Web.com player

Top ranked collegiate/amateur

Canadian tour player

USGA mid-amateur championship caliber

Good, but not elite college player (say #3 man on #25 ranked team, which is about 72.5 competitive scoring average)

Top ranked junior golfer

Average college player (#3 man on #75 ranked team, which is about 73ish competitive scoring average)

Below average college player (#5 man on #100 ranked team, about 75ish competitive scoring average)

Occasional traveler on a bad college team ( about 77-78ish competitive scoring average on limited sample on a team ranked above #125)

 

At this point we are getting very close in ability to your average Joe scratch golfer, if not already there. Your typical #6-8 man on a college team ranked around #120ish is going to be right around that 0 handicap region. Most people in this skill range (0 handicap/scratch) are competitive tournament players and have tournament experience, and probably fit/have fit in the past somewhere on this scale, or very close to it, so I think this is a pretty representative scale of general player ability. When you start talking about people better than average Joe scratch, these are the types of players you encounter. So, where do the naysayers find the cutoff line?

 

The current Mid Am Champ just posted a 79/81. That is with a caddy and practice rounds. Based on your tiered system above that is 5 to 6 levels above your average Joe Scratch.

 

So he was 2/2 with room to spare in a situation as close as we can possibly get to the OPs premise. Who do you think on this list could not do it? I'm virtually certain my "below average college player" could occasionally match the level of Parziale's play over a single round, could he do it?

 

Parziale's performance doesn't support your point, it refutes it unless you believe that the difference in skill level between the Mid Am Champ and Joe Scratch is only 5/6 strokes. I don't think any rational in this argument thinks there is only a 5/6 stroke difference between the Mid AM champ and Joe Scratch and certainly not at Augusta. What nobody is willing to do here is "invert" the problem. The current U.S. Amateur Champ posted 76/77. I don't think there is only 7 strokes difference between the US Amateur champion an Joe Scratch at Augusta. In fact it seems pretty absurd when framed in this manner.

[Vardon Grip]

If O'Meara has to be there, then I'll give O'Meara 2 on the front 9 and then adjust, but again, I can't do anything on 5 de Mayo.

[mjen43]

My question for those who think the scratch could not do it is what level of player they think could do it? Scoring average was 71.2 today. I think most would agree a scratch player is not 14 shots worse than a top professional. I think most would agree the average scratch player is about 8-10 or so shots worse than touring professionals, conservatively. Do you non-believers think there is some exponential quality to Augusta that widens the gulf between skill levels as one gets worse?

 

On a scale of:

Web.com player

Top ranked collegiate/amateur

Canadian tour player

USGA mid-amateur championship caliber

Good, but not elite college player (say #3 man on #25 ranked team, which is about 72.5 competitive scoring average)

Top ranked junior golfer

Average college player (#3 man on #75 ranked team, which is about 73ish competitive scoring average)

Below average college player (#5 man on #100 ranked team, about 75ish competitive scoring average)

Occasional traveler on a bad college team ( about 77-78ish competitive scoring average on limited sample on a team ranked above #125)

 

At this point we are getting very close in ability to your average Joe scratch golfer, if not already there. Your typical #6-8 man on a college team ranked around #120ish is going to be right around that 0 handicap region. Most people in this skill range (0 handicap/scratch) are competitive tournament players and have tournament experience, and probably fit/have fit in the past somewhere on this scale, or very close to it, so I think this is a pretty representative scale of general player ability. When you start talking about people better than average Joe scratch, these are the types of players you encounter. So, where do the naysayers find the cutoff line?

 

The current Mid Am Champ just posted a 79/81. That is with a caddy and practice rounds. Based on your tiered system above that is 5 to 6 levels above your average Joe Scratch.

 

So he was 2/2 with room to spare in a situation as close as we can possibly get to the OPs premise. Who do you think on this list could not do it? I'm virtually certain my "below average college player" could occasionally match the level of Parziale's play over a single round, could he do it?

 

Parziale is a +3.8 and Mid-Am Champion. How is that even remotely close to the OP's premise!?

 

The "below average college player" is not on Parziale's level whatsoever. They would have to absolutely career to play on his level.

 

Yea, see that’s where you’re wrong. Go look at Parziale’s recent tournament results on WAGR. In the Azalea invitational he was beaten over 3 days by players ranked 1486, 2359, 3204. In the Jones Cup he shot 77/75/82 and came in near last place to a field full of all different level college/amateur players. In the New England amateur he shot 80/69 and missed the cut. This is a D level quality field by WAGRs formula. He’s obviously a great player but tons of people can beat him or play to his ability any given day. Didn’t we learn that regular Joe golfer can beat a touring pro on any given day when Steph Curry did that in his Web.com event? We’re talking about just shooting 85 here, not making the cut. It isn’t that difficult of a challenge.

[The Pearl]

A whole boat load of touring pros having decent seasons shot high 70's and missed the cut.

[straightshot7]

My question for those who think the scratch could not do it is what level of player they think could do it? Scoring average was 71.2 today. I think most would agree a scratch player is not 14 shots worse than a top professional. I think most would agree the average scratch player is about 8-10 or so shots worse than touring professionals, conservatively. Do you non-believers think there is some exponential quality to Augusta that widens the gulf between skill levels as one gets worse?

 

On a scale of:

Web.com player

Top ranked collegiate/amateur

Canadian tour player

USGA mid-amateur championship caliber

Good, but not elite college player (say #3 man on #25 ranked team, which is about 72.5 competitive scoring average)

Top ranked junior golfer

Average college player (#3 man on #75 ranked team, which is about 73ish competitive scoring average)

Below average college player (#5 man on #100 ranked team, about 75ish competitive scoring average)

Occasional traveler on a bad college team ( about 77-78ish competitive scoring average on limited sample on a team ranked above #125)

 

At this point we are getting very close in ability to your average Joe scratch golfer, if not already there. Your typical #6-8 man on a college team ranked around #120ish is going to be right around that 0 handicap region. Most people in this skill range (0 handicap/scratch) are competitive tournament players and have tournament experience, and probably fit/have fit in the past somewhere on this scale, or very close to it, so I think this is a pretty representative scale of general player ability. When you start talking about people better than average Joe scratch, these are the types of players you encounter. So, where do the naysayers find the cutoff line?

 

The current Mid Am Champ just posted a 79/81. That is with a caddy and practice rounds. Based on your tiered system above that is 5 to 6 levels above your average Joe Scratch.

 

So he was 2/2 with room to spare in a situation as close as we can possibly get to the OPs premise. Who do you think on this list could not do it? I'm virtually certain my "below average college player" could occasionally match the level of Parziale's play over a single round, could he do it?

 

Parziale is a +3.8 and Mid-Am Champion. How is that even remotely close to the OP's premise!?

 

The "below average college player" is not on Parziale's level whatsoever. They would have to absolutely career to play on his level.

 

Yea, see that's where you're wrong. Go look at Parziale's recent tournament results on WAGR. In the Azalea invitational he was beaten over the whole event by players amateurs ranked 1486, 2359, 3204. In the Jones Cup he shot 77/75/82 and came in near last place to a field full of all different level college/amateur players. In the New England amateur he shot 80/69 and missed the cut. This is a D level quality field by WAGRs formula. He's obviously a great player but tons of people can beat him or play to his ability any given day.

 

I repeat---his handicap is +3.8 and he WON the Mid-Amateur Championship. How is that equatable with an average scratch?

 

I could pull up some PGA Tour results where Tour players had bad tournaments and shot in the high 70s and low 80s. That doesn't make them any less superior to your average scratch.

 

Now, you did bring up a good idea in defining different levels of near scratch players with your grading system (top amateurs, good college player, etc.)

 

I was thinking of OP's question as being a "scratch" player who mostly just plays their home course and little to no tournaments. I don't have a lot of respect for that player's game and their ability to break 85 at Augusta in tournament conditions.

 

BUT, if we're talking about a 4-5 man on a D1 college team, I would give them a decent chance at breaking 85.

 

So it depends how you define scratch.

[mjen43]

Yea, see that's where you're wrong. Go look at Parziale's recent tournament results on WAGR. In the Azalea invitational he was beaten over the whole event by players amateurs ranked 1486, 2359, 3204. In the Jones Cup he shot 77/75/82 and came in near last place to a field full of all different level college/amateur players. In the New England amateur he shot 80/69 and missed the cut. This is a D level quality field by WAGRs formula. He's obviously a great player but tons of people can beat him or play to his ability any given day.

 

I repeat---his handicap is +3.8 and he WON the Mid-Amateur Championship. How is that equatable with an average scratch?

 

I could pull up some PGA Tour results where Tour players had bad tournaments and shot in the high 70s and low 80s. That doesn't make them any less superior to your average scratch.

 

Now, you did bring up a good idea in defining different levels of near scratch players with your grading system (top amateurs, good college player, etc.)

 

I was thinking of OP's question as being a "scratch" player who mostly just plays their home course and little to no tournaments. I don't have a lot of respect for that player's game and their ability to break 85 at Augusta in tournament conditions.

 

BUT, if we're talking about a 4-5 man on a D1 college team, I would give them a decent chance at breaking 85.

 

So it depends how you define scratch.

 

It's not. That's because your average scratch can't play to that level over the span of a week. I don't think your average scratch could play to any of those rounds level over a day either because his play was so good that week. HOWEVER, Parziale's play during that event was superior to even his own typical play. The level of play required to win an event like that is every bit comparable to the typical level of the best golfers in the world. If he himself could repeat that level of play consistently, he wouldn't be a firefighter. I am virtually positive he played much better in that event than how he played this week, but it would be interesting to hear from him.

 

The point is that a lot of people can play really good golf over really small sample sizes. There has only been one round over 85 this entire event (by an excellent amateur) and when I've seen Steph Curry beat Aaron Wise over 1 round, Tony Romo match PGA Tour winners over one round, average college players win the US Am (Gunn Yang, ranked 1000 at the time), I'm going to go ahead and think an average scratch golfer, who is not good at all compared to actual competitive golfers, but pretty good in the grand scheme of things and should be relatively competent at most aspects of the game, who can certainly have a good round any given day, could shoot 85. We're not talking about making the cut here and he could accomplish the task without even approaching near the score of a single professional in this event.

[wmblake2000]

From Monte Scheinblun elsewhere.... the top 5 amateurs in the world averaged 79 over 2 days.

 

Ain’t no way scratch breaks 85 in Masters condition

[mjen43]

From Monte Scheinblun elsewhere.... the top 5 amateurs in the world averaged 79 over 2 days.

 

Ain’t no way scratch breaks 85 in Masters condition

 

They aren't the top 5 amateurs in the world.

 

Niemann is #1

Ghim is #5

Redman is #29

Ellis is #32

Lin is #156

Parziale is #228.

 

Parziale did it easily with room to spare under tournament pressure, which is not included in the premise, and was beaten by players ranked in the 3000s in recent events.

 

Monte said they wouldn't do it yesterday, but that was an atypically difficult day. Certainly not the average ANGC tournament conditions.

[kizell]

I agree with another poster that it depends on one's definition of scratch player. A player who claims scratch status but only plays at his punch and judy course would have a hard time breaking 100 much less 85.

 

But a scratch player with competitive tournament experience can definitely do it.

[lowheel]

What? Is ANGC the hardest course in the world or something? The leader is -14 after 3 rounds and there's lots of other courses don't yield scores that low, as in most US Open venues at USGA set up.

 

Long way of saying that a real scratch beats 85, you don't get to scratch without skills and a short game. As a matter of fact, I'm a 5 and I can post a sub 83 at ANGC, just send me the invite and I'll prove it.

 

I'm available most Saturdays, except this Cinco de Mayo.

 

[tannyhoban]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

[BNGL]

Next time I play there I'll periscope every shot

[deadsolid...shank]

I think a really big factor is this, are the “Sunday conditions” really like this year’s Friday or Saturday conditions?

 

Big difference there. It was the Friday conditions that originally made me change my mind, but apparently yesterday’s were little more benign.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

I'm a two/three handicap and shot 84 twice at Bethpage Black from the tips this summer, first time there. Google says the slope of Augusta is farrrrrr less than BBB. So there ya have it. A scratch golfer is much better than me, should be doable.

 

Slope is irrelevant for a scratch golfer. Course Rating is what matters.

[Roadking2003]

So it depends how you define scratch.

 

There is only one definition of scratch. It's a golfer whose average of his ten lowest out of his last 20 rounds is equal to the course rating.

[MtlJeff]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

[tannyhoban]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

Bingo.

[deadsolid...shank]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

Good point Jeff, since we have some who are holding so so close to the exact wording of the proposed scenario, could is probably the most important word.

 

The old phrase “never say never” seems appropriate here.

[MtlJeff]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

Good point Jeff, since we have some who are holding so so close to the exact wording of the proposed scenario, could is probably the most important word.

 

The old phrase “never say never” seems appropriate here.

 

One of my favorite sayings of all time , though it has different variants is (paraphrase) "given enough of a sample size, the improbable becomes probable".

 

I don't consider this occurrence all that improbable as i have posted. But it does seem relevant if you think it could never happen. Taleb has a couple of books called "the black swan" and "fooled by randomness" that deal with similar issues of unique or random events.

 

They are good books that make you think about everything going on around us.

[deadsolid...shank]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

Good point Jeff, since we have some who are holding so so close to the exact wording of the proposed scenario, could is probably the most important word.

 

The old phrase “never say never” seems appropriate here.

 

One of my favorite sayings of all time , though it has different variants is (paraphrase) "given enough of a sample size, the improbable becomes probable".

 

I don't consider this occurrence all that improbable as i have posted. But it does seem relevant if you think it could never happen. Taleb has a couple of books called "the black swan" and "fooled by randomness" that deal with similar issues of unique or random events.

 

They are good books that make you think about everything going on around us.

 

Those sound like books that would make you think. Thinking (or trying to) usually doesn’t work out well for me!

[The Pearl]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

I don't think anybody is missing the meaning of the word "could". You simply are using it to your advantage. Of course anything is possible in the literal sense so of course it could happen. Most are using could in terms of possibility of it happening. This is a probability bet of one single outcome, not a probability bet on the possibility of N >1.

[MtlJeff]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

I don't think anybody is missing the meaning of the word "could". You simply are using it to your advantage. Of course anything is possible in the literal sense so of course it could happen. Most are using could in terms of possibility of it happening. This is a probability bet of one single outcome, not a probability bet on the possibility of N >1.

 

I don't believe i am using it to my advantage necessarily, i am just answering the question. My posting has been fairly consistent.

 

If you wanted me to put money on a single occurrence, i would be on "no" and i would feel very confident.

 

If you wanted me to put money on the likelihood of it happening with 10 samples, it would be on "yes"

[deadsolid...shank]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

I don't think anybody is missing the meaning of the word "could". You simply are using it to your advantage. Of course anything is possible in the literal sense so of course it could happen. Most are using could in terms of possibility of it happening. This is a probability bet of one single outcome, not a probability bet on the possibility of N >1.

 

It’s really no different though than the factor of not having a caddy available which was the original criteria. Our Scratch not being able to take a caddie is just about as improbable as him breaking 85. All we can do is work with the scenario that is presented, and any available loop holes it presents.

[The Pearl]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

I don't think anybody is missing the meaning of the word "could". You simply are using it to your advantage. Of course anything is possible in the literal sense so of course it could happen. Most are using could in terms of possibility of it happening. This is a probability bet of one single outcome, not a probability bet on the possibility of N >1.

 

I don't believe i am using it to my advantage necessarily, i am just answering the question. My posting has been fairly consistent.

 

If you wanted me to put money on a single occurrence, i would be on "no" and i would feel very confident.

 

If you wanted me to put money on the likelihood of it happening with 10 samples, it would be on "yes"

 

The question at hand is of a single occurrence, not a sample. With the added criteria of no caddy and no practice round. Of course I agree with you that if somehow you brought every scratch hdcp to Augusta under the same conditions as possible than somebody would by the nature of random normal distribution break 85.

[MtlJeff]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

I don't think anybody is missing the meaning of the word "could". You simply are using it to your advantage. Of course anything is possible in the literal sense so of course it could happen. Most are using could in terms of possibility of it happening. This is a probability bet of one single outcome, not a probability bet on the possibility of N >1.

 

I don't believe i am using it to my advantage necessarily, i am just answering the question. My posting has been fairly consistent.

 

If you wanted me to put money on a single occurrence, i would be on "no" and i would feel very confident.

 

If you wanted me to put money on the likelihood of it happening with 10 samples, it would be on "yes"

 

The question at hand is of a single occurrence, not a sample. With the added criteria of no caddy and no practice round. Of course I agree with you that if somehow you brought every scratch hdcp to Augusta under the same conditions as possible than somebody would by the nature of random normal distribution break 85.

 

Well, and i understand how rare this is to say on an internet forum.... it sounds like we mostly agree

[nsxguy]

What a joke this thread has become. :taunt:

 

If any of you think it's "impossible" you're out of your collective minds. Improbable ? Maybe. Impossible ? Of course not.

 

 

Definition of can

past could play \kəd, ˈku̇d\; present singular & plural can

transitive verb

 

1obsolete : know, understand

: to be able to do, make, or accomplish

intransitive verb

: to have knowledge or skill

auxiliary verb1a : know how to

• She can read.
  

b : be physically or mentally able to

• He can lift 200 pounds.
  

c —used to indicate possibility

• Do you think he canstill be alive?
  

• Those things can happen.
  

—sometimes used interchangeably with mayd : be permitted by conscience or feeling to

• canhardly blame her
  

e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to

• he can hardly have meant that
  

f : be inherently able or designed to

• everything that money can buy
  

g : be logically or axiologically able to

• 2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1.
  

h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to

• Congress can declare war.
  

 

2: have permission to —used interchangeably with may

• You can go now if you like.
  

[cdnglf]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

I don't think anybody is missing the meaning of the word "could". You simply are using it to your advantage. Of course anything is possible in the literal sense so of course it could happen. Most are using could in terms of possibility of it happening. This is a probability bet of one single outcome, not a probability bet on the possibility of N >1.

 

A lot of posters are treating it as the latter... there are posts saying only 1 in 100 scratches might do it, or that the scratch isn't going to break 90 due to heartbreak or whatever, or "look at what [61 year old] Mark O'Meara shot [in the worst of his two rounds]". Which is silly. The numbers provided by the experts actually say that not only is it possible, it is actually probable. Broadie only slightly-so due to a huge "first-time effect" adjustment, but still.

 

I remember a post from this board (maybe even in thread) that I thought was pretty apt: essentially, it said that most people tend to badly overestimate the magnitude of difference between scratch and pro, and badly underestimate the difficulty in closing that gap.

[isaacbm]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

[challengers]

Could being the operative word here. Yes is the answer.

 

They could also shoot 95.

 

"Could" was always the operative word, i mean sometimes it's like, do people really not understand score variances?....like we've gotten to the point where guys are posting "Player X shot a 81 there and is on tour, so are you saying you are only 4 shots worse than player X?????.....

 

Tiger Woods shot a 81 early in his career at Royal County Down. SO NO ONE CAN EVER SHOOT BETTER THERE. THE COURSE RECORD MUST BE 81!!!!!!

 

Is anyone arguing that a scratch player will do it every time? I have not seen that. I certainly think they'd shoot 100 their share of times. But put 10 scratch players on the course and someone will do it, at least one person

 

I don't think anybody is missing the meaning of the word "could". You simply are using it to your advantage. Of course anything is possible in the literal sense so of course it could happen. Most are using could in terms of possibility of it happening. This is a probability bet of one single outcome, not a probability bet on the possibility of N >1.

 

I don't believe i am using it to my advantage necessarily, i am just answering the question. My posting has been fairly consistent.

 

If you wanted me to put money on a single occurrence, i would be on "no" and i would feel very confident.

 

If you wanted me to put money on the likelihood of it happening with 10 samples, it would be on "yes"

 

The question at hand is of a single occurrence, not a sample. With the added criteria of no caddy and no practice round. Of course I agree with you that if somehow you brought every scratch hdcp to Augusta under the same conditions as possible than somebody would by the nature of random normal distribution break 85.

 

Could implies a sample bigger than 1