Ivy POTY--->Stanford starter

[Golfquant]

https://gostanford.com/news/2024/2/12/mens-golf-stanford-welcomes-ma-for-2024-25-season.aspx

[golferdad8]

Apparently he & Columbia senior were both in transfer portal & planned for Pepperdine for their 5th year, but Stanford entered the conversation as a late add. 

Ironically, he had wanted Stanford golf originally but Conrad turned him down & ended up at Harvard. Looking at Stanford’’s roster & performance the past few years, it looks like Conrad finally realized he should have offered him a spot 5 years ago & better late than never 😂

[Tugu]

20 hours ago, Golfquant said:

https://gostanford.com/news/2024/2/12/mens-golf-stanford-welcomes-ma-for-2024-25-season.aspx

Senior year.

 

- T-5 at The Doc Gimmler at Bethpage Red  -5 (67, 69, 69).
- 2nd at the MacDonald Cup at Yale Golf Course  +1 (69, 74, 68).
- T-58 at the Hamptons Intercollegiate at the Maidstone Club +18 (79, 74 and 80)
- T-28 at the Alister Mackenzie Invitational at the Meadow Club -4 (72, 72, 65).

 

Under par in 6 of 12 rounds. The only newsworthy part of all this is that he is going to Stanford, who have a few seniors/grads that will likely leave the program.

 

I fail to see how Pepperdine were going to return to glory on the back of this golfer. Who by the way has next to zero recent(ish) non college amateur finishes to report whatsoever. Does he even play them?

 

If winning is not important in junior golf as a measure of success or quality, then surely it becomes important in college golf, no? 

[Tugu]

11 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Apparently he & Columbia senior were both in transfer portal & planned for Pepperdine for their 5th year, but Stanford entered the conversation as a late add. 

Ironically, he had wanted Stanford golf originally but Conrad turned him down & ended up at Harvard. Looking at Stanford’’s roster & performance the past few years, it looks like Conrad finally realized he should have offered him a spot 5 years ago & better late than never 😂

• Won the 2017 San Francisco City Golf Championship at age 16; 3rd youngest winner in 103-year tournament history
• 2nd in the 2017 AJGA Reno / Tahoe Junior at Arrowcreek
• 2nd in the 2018 AJGA ACDS Junior Championship at San Jose CC
• Eight Top-10 finishes in AJGA tournaments
• 2018 Western Catholic Athletic League Golfer of the Year
• 2018 Western Catholic Athletic League Tournament Medalist at 6 under 66
• Part of Archbishop Mitty High School’s state-winning team in 2017
• 11th ranked junior golfer in Class of 2019 -- Junior Golf Scoreboard

@golferdad8  Which part of this junior golf resume suggests to you that the player should be recruited at the same time as Thorbjorsen and Karl Villips? Or that he even belongs in the same stratosphere? The player had 2 wins when playing in the IVY league after 4 years. 3 wins if you count co medallist.

 

Interestingly the 11th ranked golfer on JGS for 2019. @wegobomber31

 

 

Edited February 14 by Tugu

[golferdad8]

Thorbjorsen and Karl Villips are good, but I don't think they were the same recruiting class as him. 

Besides, can't cherry pick the top 2 as most of the other players at Stanford have not been the consistent standouts of Alabama, UT, Oklahoma, ASU, etc...

Lastly, ,T & V were able to play golf 12 months a year the past 4 years.

My hunch is that they wouldn't do much better if they were playing in the Ivy golf (with inferior courses and 4 months of off season).

 

[Tugu]

19 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Thorbjorsen and Karl Villips are good, but I don't think they were the same recruiting class as him. 

Besides, can't cherry pick the top 2 as most of the other players at Stanford have not been the consistent standouts of Alabama, UT, Oklahoma, ASU, etc...

Lastly, ,T & V were able to play golf 12 months a year the past 4 years.

My hunch is that they wouldn't do much better if they were playing in the Ivy golf (with inferior courses and 4 months of off season).

 

I think they were one recruiting class after Ma, but all are seniors set to graduate. I agree I can't cherry pick, but he was the 11th best in the nation (supposedly). The 11th best should be measured against his peers.

 

What stood out to me in the concurrent junior career is that the player won ONCE! This trend carried on into college where he won TWICE in 4 years. Said player couldn't even beat other IVY kids, who are also focused on academics for the most part. 

 

As for competing against kids who are fully devoted to golf, it was a choice to focus on academics. Said player was not handicapped into playing against second rate fields on second rate tracks in second rate events. The 11th ranked kid for his year could have picked almost any school, but he went with arguably one of the most academically rigorous programs in the country. Can we not infer from this that pro golf was not on his radar?

 

Perhaps the other kids of the same recruiting class have not been the equivalent of the kids at golf powerhouse schools. But how many of them were the 11th ranked kid of their year, or near that?

 

I look at the data and I see one who virtually never won in junior golf, yet ranked extremely high, then goto a non entity in golf and continues the trend of not winning when playing against other non entities in golf. This apparently is the IVY player of the year!

 

In his senior year he is 6 rounds under par out of 12. How in the world is this guy supposed to be the savior of any program? How is a coach looking at his track record and thinking "damn I missed a Villips or Thorbjorsen? I should have known the 11th ranked guy would be this good." Does he even have a post junior golf amateur record to speak of? None that I could find.

 

At what point does shooting under par and winning define a player? Cause this kid is doing neither very well. If he transferred to a non entity school, we wouldn't even be having any kind of discussion about it.

 

Edited February 15 by Tugu

[Medson]

I thought winning POY in Ivy League is impressive. The drop-off from junior golfers to college golfers is pretty steep. Lots of golf kids simply "quit" in college.

 

Athletic development is never linear or even guaranteed to move forward. Take every 11th ranked high school football players, and see where they end up in 4 years. I'm sure they are all over the place. 

 

I did hear second handedly his parents "build and manage" the schedule really well. So kudos to them. 

[Tugu]

59 minutes ago, Medson said:

I thought winning POY in Ivy League is impressive. The drop-off from junior golfers to college golfers is pretty steep. Lots of golf kids simply "quit" in college.

 

Athletic development is never linear or even guaranteed to move forward. Take every 11th ranked high school football players, and see where they end up in 4 years. I'm sure they are all over the place. 

 

I did hear second handedly his parents "build and manage" the schedule really well. So kudos to them. 

I'm 100% in agreement regarding the drop off and uncertainty of high ranking players progressing.

 

My main point that if a guy is the best and he wins only twice in 4 years against other part timers, shouldn't we be seeing it for what it is? 

 

A "managed" junior golf schedule? Next to zero wins and yet the 11th best in the country... What a surprise to hear that? The guy seems to have zero positive post junior amateur golf results besides school related events.

 

Mutton dressed as lamb.

Edited February 15 by Tugu

[golferdad8]

POY was well-deserved. Everyone works hard juggling school & trying to stay sharp despite the tough winter climates...and he did it better than all the others and thus received unanimous votes. I'm rooting for him to do well.

 

I think given the nicer weather and Stanford's easier grading (vs Harvard, which is hard to do), he will be among the top 3 players & have a chance at going pro if he continues to improve. After all, there are many touring pros who did not win major college tournaments - and same for non-tournament winner who end up succeeding in the PGA. 

 

As for parents "build & manage" - let's be honest here as most parents do it (explaining why many top norcal players no longer play local & go down to socal  for junior golf tournaments.

 

The silver lining of major deflation in norcal is that when top 50 to 200 players compete in national AJGA-type tournaments (outside CA), they often beat many of the higher ranked players. My son was ranked 150-200 for his class & yet he got full exemption (top 2, top 4) in two AJGA tournaments outside CA by beating many top 20 ranked JGS and D1-college commits. Smart college coaches recognize this & have done well recruiting players with this "inside knowledge" in their back pocket. Subsequently to playing outside CA, he and many other norcal players vaulted to top 50 ranking. 

 

[Tugu]

1 hour ago, golferdad8 said:

POY was well-deserved. Everyone works hard juggling school & trying to stay sharp despite the tough winter climates...and he did it better than all the others and thus received unanimous votes. I'm rooting for him to do well.

 

I think given the nicer weather and Stanford's easier grading (vs Harvard, which is hard to do), he will be among the top 3 players & have a chance at going pro if he continues to improve. After all, there are many touring pros who did not win major college tournaments - and same for non-tournament winner who end up succeeding in the PGA. 

 

As for parents "build & manage" - let's be honest here as most parents do it (explaining why many top norcal players no longer play local & go down to socal  for junior golf tournaments.

 

The silver lining of major deflation in norcal is that when top 50 to 200 players compete in national AJGA-type tournaments (outside CA), they often beat many of the higher ranked players. My son was ranked 150-200 for his class & yet he got full exemption (top 2, top 4) in two AJGA tournaments outside CA by beating many top 20 ranked JGS and D1-college commits. Smart college coaches recognize this & have done well recruiting players with this "inside knowledge" in their back pocket. Subsequently to playing outside CA, he and many other norcal players vaulted to top 50 ranking. 

 

Player is not just NOT winning major college events. He's NOT winning weak college, junior or any events. He's under par in half his rounds. It's pretty hard to not improve from this if he is to call himself any kind of top level golfer.

 

The studying thing is a choice. So is not playing AM events after junior golf. Alot harder to stage manage amateur golf after juniors.

 

Managing schedules...hard to gain respect and belief in a player when that's the modus operandi. There's an epic data based thread over 40 odd players gaining entry into the US jnr via an unjust WAGR system. How is this any different?

 

I'd love to hear about the successful PGA tour pro that never won at any level before the tour.

 

Your son shot 62 in an AJGA and wins in Norcal when you let him off the leash.

 

Big difference. 

 

 

Edited February 15 by Tugu

[Tugu]

There's real golf. Then there's the I chased rankings to get recruited by a great school and now I study golf. One is 60 strokes ahead of the other after 2 rounds.

 

 

[Golfquant]

1 minute ago, Tugu said:

There's real golf. Then there's the I chased rankings to get recruited by a great school and now I study golf. One is 60 strokes ahead of the other after 2 rounds.

 

 

 

the avg Vanderbilt recruit is probably 6 strokes per round better than the typical Penn recruit - so 60 strokes (5 players x 2 rounds) is probably about right?

[Tugu]

1 minute ago, Golfquant said:

 

the avg Vanderbilt recruit is probably 6 strokes per round better than the typical Penn recruit - so 60 strokes (5 players x 2 rounds) is probably about right?

Lol! Yes.

 

I personally couldn't live with it. I'd either get better or quit and play for fun. To know that an average human being, not Tiger or some tour guy, is that much better than me at a competitive activity I've chosen to pursue...I don't know how they accept it.

[Golfquant]

 

otoh, Princeton is middle of the pack against a pretty strong field at The Prestige (@ PGA West)

 

These Ivy players haven't been practicing/playing outdoors all winter

[Tugu]

2 minutes ago, Golfquant said:

 

otoh, Princeton is middle of the pack against a pretty strong field at The Prestige (@ PGA West)

 

These Ivy players haven't been practicing/playing outdoors all winter

Lol! Here come the excuses and rationalisations. You do realize you are celebrating a mid table result as being a win right?

 

Come on, you are in the biz, deliver the outcome or get out of the seat. 

[Golfquant]

1 minute ago, Tugu said:

Lol! Here come the excuses and rationalisations. You do realize you are celebrating a mid table result as being a win right?

 

Come on, you are in the biz, deliver the outcome or get out of the seat. 

Ivy players aren't majoring in pro golf like the other top D1 programs!

[Tugu]

8 minutes ago, Golfquant said:

Ivy players aren't majoring in pro golf like the other top D1 programs!

So what becomes of those recent highly ranked recruits once they reach IVY? Do they revert of the IVY mean? Given that they don't major in pro golf.

[Golfquant]

2 minutes ago, Tugu said:

So what becomes of those recent highly ranked recruits once they reach IVY? Do they revert of the IVY mean? Given that they don't major in pro golf.

For many, getting into the school was the end game all along..."Mission Accomplished"

[Tugu]

@Golfquant You preaching the gospels today. Amen!

 

So the question that begs to be asked is why a coach would want that kid? It's not hard to spot in a resume. Or are they constrained by admissions?

[Golfquant]

2 minutes ago, Tugu said:

@Golfquant You preaching the gospels today. Amen!

 

So the question that begs to be asked is why a coach would want that kid? It's not hard to spot in a resume. Or are they constrained by admissions?

🤷‍♀️

[golfortennis]

47 minutes ago, Tugu said:

@Golfquant You preaching the gospels today. Amen!

 

So the question that begs to be asked is why a coach would want that kid? It's not hard to spot in a resume. Or are they constrained by admissions?

 

At the risk of turning this into something else, you mentioned somewhere about being in Asia.  A culture where a joke originated about the dad chastising his son for being diagnosed with hepatitis B instead of hepatitis A.  And frankly I am reading a lot of this in this thread.

 

How many tournaments do you think players win?  Golf squads would be pretty barren if only kids who have won as often as you seem to think they should.  There aren't that many who win that many tournaments.  And coaches have a team to think about.  Whether it's handled rightly or wrongly is a different discussion, but Patrick Reed was a guy who could win tournaments, and Georgia wanted no part of him.  There's more to it than simply wins.  And in case you hadn't noticed, there is this peculiar thing about golf where you can play the greatest golf you've ever played in your life, and it doesn't matter one iota to the other guys, and if someone plays better, there is nothing you can do about it.

 

Reading this thread gives off the impression you would have argued that the PGA Tour only consistent of Woods, Mickelson and maybe Singh back in the day, cause they were the only players winning "enough" to merit a spot. 

[Tugu]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

At the risk of turning this into something else, you mentioned somewhere about being in Asia.  A culture where a joke originated about the dad chastising his son for being diagnosed with hepatitis B instead of hepatitis A.  And frankly I am reading a lot of this in this thread.

 

How many tournaments do you think players win?  Golf squads would be pretty barren if only kids who have won as often as you seem to think they should.  There aren't that many who win that many tournaments.  And coaches have a team to think about.  Whether it's handled rightly or wrongly is a different discussion, but Patrick Reed was a guy who could win tournaments, and Georgia wanted no part of him.  There's more to it than simply wins.  And in case you hadn't noticed, there is this peculiar thing about golf where you can play the greatest golf you've ever played in your life, and it doesn't matter one iota to the other guys, and if someone plays better, there is nothing you can do about it.

 

Reading this thread gives off the impression you would have argued that the PGA Tour only consistent of Woods, Mickelson and maybe Singh back in the day, cause they were the only players winning "enough" to merit a spot. 

Fair golf comments to a certain degree. But do take a look at the schedules of those playing for rankings. No more local events because they are lowly rated and can only hurt the ranking. 

 

Some kids literally play nothing besides the few heavily weighted events they are invited to (where they average over par). There are endless opportunities to go low and win if one is not solely attempting to boost a ranking. Cant go low and/or win if one doesn't play.

 

Let me answer the question what it can look like to win. Dechambeau won north of 30 non weighted events in Norcal. In the JTNC events which all consultants advise kids to avoid for fear of being dragged down in the rankings, Thomas Hutchison won 9, Dumdumaya won 16, Justin Suh won 11, Asterisk Talley won over 25, Clark Van Gaalen won God knows how many...can add Michael Weaver, Peter Quest, Aidan Tran...these are just people I know, met or son has played with in a little area in Northern California. And the list does not include JGANC events, which apparently are to be avoided at all costs if the college consultants are to be followed.

 

Also I think you will find my comments are directed towards a IVY POTY. Yes in my mind, if you are listed as THE BEST, you better well have won something.

 

As for stereotyping people in Asia, its a big place with alot of people. Quite culturally diverse actually. But I guess if you preface your "joke" with "at the risk of", then you are free to do as you please.

Edited February 21 by Tugu

[Tugu]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

Reading this thread gives off the impression you would have argued that the PGA Tour only consistent of Woods, Mickelson and maybe Singh back in the day, cause they were the only players winning "enough" to merit a spot. 

Do take a look at how both LIV and the PGA tour are remunerating their playing members nowadays in the new world of professional golf. The players that win and move the needle are getting the lionshare of the remuneration. Same as in many other industries, be it in other sports, entertainment, finance, tech etc.

Edited February 21 by Tugu

[golfortennis]

7 hours ago, Tugu said:

Do take a look at how both LIV and the PGA tour are remunerating their playing members nowadays in the new world of professional golf. The players that win and move the needle are getting the lionshare of the remuneration. Same as in many other industries, be it in other sports, entertainment, finance, tech etc.

 

And the professional ranks should do exactly that.  Methinks you have a very misplaced view of what college golf is supposed to be.

[golfortennis]

7 hours ago, Tugu said:

Fair golf comments to a certain degree. But do take a look at the schedules of those playing for rankings. No more local events because they are lowly rated and can only hurt the ranking. 

 

Some kids literally play nothing besides the few heavily weighted events they are invited to (where they average over par). There are endless opportunities to go low and win if one is not solely attempting to boost a ranking. Cant go low and/or win if one doesn't play.

 

Let me answer the question what it can look like to win. Dechambeau won north of 30 non weighted events in Norcal. In the JTNC events which all consultants advise kids to avoid for fear of being dragged down in the rankings, Thomas Hutchison won 9, Dumdumaya won 16, Justin Suh won 11, Asterisk Talley won over 25, Clark Van Gaalen won God knows how many...can add Michael Weaver, Peter Quest, Aidan Tran...these are just people I know, met or son has played with in a little area in Northern California. And the list does not include JGANC events, which apparently are to be avoided at all costs if the college consultants are to be followed.

 

Also I think you will find my comments are directed towards a IVY POTY. Yes in my mind, if you are listed as THE BEST, you better well have won something.

 

As for stereotyping people in Asia, its a big place with alot of people. Quite culturally diverse actually. But I guess if you preface your "joke" with "at the risk of", then you are free to do as you please.

 

You've named a handful of kids, over a decade, and then you are asking why a particular coach, who is one of over 100 division coaches with a team of 5-8 players would want *one* particular guy.  College golf is a numbers game from a coach's perspective.  There was only one Dechambeau that year.  Should the rest of them have just shut down their programs when they didn't get him?

 

Seeings as I seem to have hit a nerve, it would appear I'm spot on my assessment.  You are essentially saying if the kid isn't Tiger Woods, they shouldn't bother recruiting any golfer.

[Tugu]

10 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

And the professional ranks should do exactly that.  Methinks you have a very misplaced view of what college golf is supposed to be.

I have no problems with two people disagreeing on any philosophical level.

Edited February 22 by Tugu

[Tugu]

6 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

You've named a handful of kids, over a decade, and then you are asking why a particular coach, who is one of over 100 division coaches with a team of 5-8 players would want *one* particular guy.  College golf is a numbers game from a coach's perspective.  There was only one Dechambeau that year.  Should the rest of them have just shut down their programs when they didn't get him?

 

Seeings as I seem to have hit a nerve, it would appear I'm spot on my assessment.  You are essentially saying if the kid isn't Tiger Woods, they shouldn't bother recruiting any golfer.

I just don't care enough to do a data dump like others have expertly done. Claiming another's evidence is insufficient whilst providing nothing beyond conjecture doesn't exactly advance the dialogue. It's just ego expressed in a online forum.

 

If you are enjoying your self congratulatory lap of honor, have at it. I concede, you can keep your undefeated keyboard warrior status.  But my words are clear and don't require a second rate re phrasing.

[kcap]

On 2/21/2024 at 8:05 AM, Tugu said:

Lol! Yes.

 

I personally couldn't live with it. I'd either get better or quit and play for fun. To know that an average human being, not Tiger or some tour guy, is that much better than me at a competitive activity I've chosen to pursue...I don't know how they accept it.

Why does every college golfer need to play only to go pro.  Most of those Penn kids are at Wharton, they play golf and don’t have  dreams of playing on the tour.  They have taken a skill that they are good at, converted into the one of the most sought after undergraduate programs - you are comparing apple and oranges.  And BTW, when those kids take their Wharton degree and golf game to Wall Street -  my guess is that they will be glad they chose to pursue golf 

[Tugu]

8 hours ago, kcap said:

Why does every college golfer need to play only to go pro.  Most of those Penn kids are at Wharton, they play golf and don’t have  dreams of playing on the tour.  They have taken a skill that they are good at, converted into the one of the most sought after undergraduate programs - you are comparing apple and oranges.  And BTW, when those kids take their Wharton degree and golf game to Wall Street -  my guess is that they will be glad they chose to pursue golf 

99.9% agree with everything you have just said. Only divergence may be to question what defines "good." 60+ strokes behind people who are actually good requires a different description for their skill level.

 

My comments are directed more against the idea that somehow the IVY kids are in the same ball park as players who have further aspirations in the game of golf. Like you said, its apples and oranges. If this were an academic forum and people attempted to compare the mathematical capabilities of say Gordon Sargent with a Putnam winner, they would be given short shrift. Similarly, in my estimation, a part time golfer does not belong on the same stage when the conversation turns to golf.

 

In other threads, I have been very complimentary of the IVY graduates that I have both hired and come across in my own Wall St career. The education clearly served them well. Perhaps if said players had chosen to focus on golf, they may also have been "good." But to put kids whose focus lie elsewhere from golf and insinuate that their skill level is comparable to "good" golfers is to detract from the achievements of those who've actually focused on golf.

 

I personally know a former quarterback for Stanford. Though not an IVY league school, the point is the same. If asked he clearly states that he never had either the game or the intention for a life in the NFL. That he valued the education and the doors Stanford could open for him. There is no pretense about his skills or goals like there seemingly is about these IVY golfers.

 

If apples are good at golf and oranges are not, but have used golf to further their chances at a different career, I'm on board. In the most inefficient and inane way possible, my older boy is doing the latter. But there's no attempt by any of us to represent him as anything beyond a social golfer. He has for all intents and purposes "quit" the pursuit of elite performance in golf and is henceforth not mentioned in the same same breadth as those who are actually "good" at golf.

 

Just on a philosophical level, I just believe that the purpose of keeping scores is to find out who are good and who are not. Otherwise let's all have a good time and enjoy (insert activity). The "IVY kids are just as good" in spite of the data saying otherwise is disrespectful to the kids who put their heart and soul into their craft. And yes, there's an undercurrent in the discussions about IVY players suggesting they are A/ good at golf but are hampered by schooling or weather and B/ their records are meaningful in a golf conversation. Both of which I would respectfully suggest is not supported by the data.

 

 

Edited February 24 by Tugu

[Golfquant]

8 hours ago, Tugu said:

Only divergence may be to question what defines "good." 60+ strokes behind people who are actually good requires a different description for their skill level.

It was 76 strokes