Don't Understand Goydos 59 hype

[hos]

I think most of you are missing the mental aspect of 59. Knowing you 'may' go there is usually enough to start you going the other direction or at least stalling out. Definitely not birding out! Awesome accomplishment. Even most of the interviews yesterday hit on that mental part of a 59. So hard to do.

[mbshaf]

LCP absolutely created a bit of an asterik for this 59 as evidenced by the other scores shot that day. By comparison, when Duvall shot 59 in 1999 it was on a tough course with Sunday pins and the next best score was a 64, a full five strokes behind him (vs 1 shot behind in this one). It was definitely a performance that was elevated to a great degree above what his peers could accomplish at the time. That aside - it was still one of the better putting rounds of the year and hats off to him. Nice guy and great round of golf.

[MBA-J]

Just what does it take to impress some of you guys?

[pga43]

[quote name='mbshaf' date='10 July 2010 - 08:55 AM' timestamp='1278766541' post='2566588']
LCP absolutely created a bit of an asterik for this 59 as evidenced by the other scores shot that day. By comparison, when Duvall shot 59 in 1999 it was on a tough course with Sunday pins and the next best score was a 64, a full five strokes behind him (vs 1 shot behind in this one). It was definitely a performance that was elevated to a great degree above what his peers could accomplish at the time. That aside - it was still one of the better putting rounds of the year and hats off to him. Nice guy and great round of golf.
[/quote]


Not sure I buy into this theory as Al Geibeger shot 59 in the 1977 Danny Thomas Memphis Classic and they played lift, clean and place. The next best score was Ray Floyd's 65. The golf course that they used for the Bob Hope (PGA West Palmer) that Duval shot 59 has given up really low scores in other years (Pat Perez shot 61 there last year).

59 shots is still 59 shots no matter where, when or against whom and is a great score!


Greg

[juicyjuice]

[quote name='MBA-J' date='10 July 2010 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1278767532' post='2566612']
Just what does it take to impress some of you guys?
[/quote]


I don't think they understand...that was his 18 hole score not his 9 hole score like their use to!!! I am considering starting a GolfWRX tour for all our members....the PGA just don't seem to cut it around here!!!

[atomik]

I'm gonna say that 59 is still damn impressive in my books. Good job Paul!

[T-Gates]

YGBSM.

It's a friggin' 59 folks! Did any of you actually watch the footage of it? Who cares if they played the ball up? He wasn't hitting it stiff, he was making puts from everywhere.

He shot a 59 on a level that I would say 99% of the people on this website could only dream of playing on.

Lets take a poll of how many people who are belittling his accomplishment have had a 12 bidie, bogeyless round...and we're not talking a scramble.....

*crickets*

[beereye]

i wanna know how many par 70 and 71 courses were played with or without lift, clean and place over the 11 years since the duval shot 59. any time some shoots 59 it is an amazing feet considering lots of pros choke when in position to win a tournament. the fact that a 59 happens so infrequently, and it ties the lowest round in pga tour history, i think PG deserves a little credit.

[Bobbers]

If you've ever shot 59 (for 18 holes...) then I guess I'd understand an attempt to less than impressed with Goydos' score on Thursday.

I look at several things about his accomplishment:

1. The guy, by his own definition (and overall record) is a journeyman. Geiberger, Duval, and Beck as I recall were at/near the tops of their game when they accomplished their 59's.

2. The guy made (and some of our more detailed brethren can zero this in) something like 180 feet worth of putts on Thursday. Say what you want, that's as impressive as heck to my eye.

3. When you do something that's done once every 150,000+ tour rounds, well, by definition that makes you exceptional no matter what in my book.

Being from Wisconsin and a Stricker fan, I cannot wait for today's round, two truly nice guys playing for the win, perfecto!

[Rohlio]

What "par" is on a course is irrelevant. They change the "par" value on courses all the time for PGA events. Easy par 5's become long par 4's and such. Making a course a 71 while taking the most easily birdiable par 5 and making it a long par 4 has net zero effect on your final score. You can say "I made birdie" when you walk off the hole as a par 5 or you can say "I made a good par" when it is marked as a par 4, but when you add them all up a 4 is a 4.

It took him 59 strokes to finish all the holes on a PGA Tour course, four other people have done it. Playing the ball up diminishes it slightly, but certainly not the fact that it was a par 71 instead of a 72. Par is just an imaginary number, you are actually measured on Gross strokes against the field.

[yedi015]

A 59 is a 59 however this one to me is tarnished a bit due to the fact that it was lift clean and place number 1 and that a 60 was shot on the same day so was the course that easy. I mean their was a birdie frenzy going on that day. But congrats to Gyodos anyhow it still is a great accomplishment. Their is a reason its only been done 4 times

[golfing7861]

[quote name='OldSkoolTexan' date='10 July 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1278739950' post='2566366']

<br>@golfing -size S is too big for me- 892761,<br><br>Im taking his 59 away, just adding an asterisk. He shot another 5 today I believe so he's backing it up strong. Obviously PG is in a zone, especially for him. <br><br>Everyone talks about duval but noone mentions Harrison Frazar's 11 birdies & 1 eagle 59 in Q-School 2008. BARELY missing a birdie on 18 which would have been 58 (-14) and CRUSHING lil ryo's 58 on a par 70 track against the B-Squad.<br><br>[b]btw: Ive got golf shoes older than you so Im aware of how often a 59 is posted in official PGA Tour events.[/b]
[/quote]


What's that supposed to mean? And if you read through the forum, everyone is agreeing/ saying what I said. A 59 is great in it's own way, no one really cares if it's on a Par 71 or Par 72...

[OldSkoolTexan]

[quote name='golfing7861' date='10 July 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1278778512' post='2566883']



What's that supposed to mean? And if you read through the forum, everyone is agreeing/ saying what I said. A 59 is great in it's own way, no one really cares if it's on a Par 71 or Par 72...


[/quote]
<br>If you start at the beginning of the thread, you will see that the OP is agreeing with what I said. That's why I came to post my opinion in this thread in the firts place. I dont have to agree with "everyone/majority" to post. That's what a forum is about, ppl with diff opinions having discussions.<br><br>70, 71 or 72 does make a difference. -13 always beats -12 or -11....<br><br>For the record, Im a goydos fan of sorts. I dont think he's a killer on the course, but I do like his relaxed attitude. He just does his own thing without trying to keepup with what everyone else is doing.

[station2station]

Golf channel did a little thing on the score of 59.

As we know it's only been done 4 times in the history of the PGA. Based on the number of rounds played and number of card carrying players, that comes to something like a 59 score every 186,000 rounds of PGA Tournament Golf. Pretty insane accomplishment.

[longbal30]

To all of the people who think its not as good as if he was to shoot it on a par 72.......................you have to be the biggest haters on the planet, these guys are shooting scores you could only dream about. I dont care what you are saying, but I can tell you for a fact that if any of you were to shoot your career low round, and it was on a par 70, 71 or 72, that would not be what you would be telling others. You would simply state that you shot your low number. Stop hating and give the guy the respect he deserves.

[hogans71]

[quote name='MBA-J' date='10 July 2010 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1278767532' post='2566612']
Just what does it take to impress some of you guys?
[/quote]

No kidding...

I always forget that the talent level on here is beyond compare. Geez- could you imagine what the collective handicap on here would be if we played lift clean and place all the time?

[Dizz]

[quote name='OldSkoolTexan' date='10 July 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1278738846' post='2566339']
[quote name='Tighthead' date='10 July 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1278738416' post='2566333']
The bigger issue is that they played the ball up
[/quote]
<br><br>
+1, Exactly......<br><br><br>@golfing45678 and everyone else talking about the result and no pics on the scorecard: <br><br>
A -13 (59) beats a -12 (59) any day since everyone is concerned with just the final score and all.....
[/quote]

I disagree, 59 is 59...period. They could just as easily stretch one of those long par 4's and call it a par 5. Its more course dependent than it is par dependent...just my opinion. I would agree though that of the four 59's his is probably the "worst" if that makes sense simply because they played the ball up and someone else shot 60 the same day. But regardless, 59 is 59 I don't care what the par is...

Would you think a 59 at say Firestone South isn't as impressive as the 59 this week since its only -11? When clearly Firestone is much more difficult golf course where single digit under par wins that tournament and a guy is 19 under par through 2.5 rounds this week?

[big_mac]

A 59 is a 59 no matter what par is. Using TW's stats from last year where he averaged:

2.96 on the par 3s
3.97 on the par 4s
4.43 on the par 5s

On average TW will shoot:

Par 70 - 68.34 = 1.66 strokes below par
Par 71 - 68.8 = 2.2 strokes below par
Par 72 - 69.26 = 2.74 strokes below par

As I've always suspected, it's harder to shoot a low number on a par 70 course because there are two less par 5s. FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?

[golfortennis]

[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1278790786' post='2567176']
A 59 is a 59 no matter what par is. Using TW's stats from last year where he averaged:

2.96 on the par 3s
3.97 on the par 4s
4.43 on the par 5s

On average TW will shoot:

Par 70 - 68.34 = 1.66 strokes below par
Par 71 - 68.8 = 2.2 strokes below par
Par 72 - 69.26 = 2.74 strokes below par

As I've always suspected, it's harder to shoot a low number on a par 70 course because there are two less par 5s. FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?


[/quote]

How is it harder to shoot a low number on a par-70 when his scoring average is lower on the par-70 courses? Over/under par is only useful for television in the midst of a tournament to see where players who are at different points sit in relation to each other. When it's all done, though, it's 275 vs 277 vs 280. 271 is a lower number than 274, plain and simple, and the fact par was 284 instead of 280 is irrelevant.

[larrybud]

[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1278790786' post='2567176']
On average TW will shoot:

Par 70 - 68.34 = 1.66 strokes below par
Par 71 - 68.8 = 2.2 strokes below par
Par 72 - 69.26 = 2.74 strokes below par

As I've always suspected, it's harder to shoot a low number on a par 70 course because there are two less par 5s. FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?
[/quote]
It might be harder to shoot more UNDER PAR on a par 70, but by your own numbers the scoring average is lower on a par 70.

No asterisk for me here.

[feedlotdoc]

For all of you questioning the legitimacy of this feat, for what ever reason, next time you play 18 stop and look where you are at on the course when you hit your 59th shot. I bet most of us are between holes 11 and 15. If par is 72 and you shoot even, you will be on 15/16 when you hit your 59th shot. He did this in 18 holes!! Think about that and tell me it matters if par is 70, 71 or 72.

[big_mac]

[quote name='larrybud' date='10 July 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1278793293' post='2567241']
[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1278790786' post='2567176']
On average TW will shoot:

Par 70 - 68.34 = 1.66 strokes below par
Par 71 - 68.8 = 2.2 strokes below par
Par 72 - 69.26 = 2.74 strokes below par

As I've always suspected, it's harder to shoot a low number on a par 70 course because there are two less par 5s. FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?
[/quote]
It might be harder to shoot more UNDER PAR on a par 70, but by your own numbers the scoring average is lower on a par 70.

No asterisk for me here.
[/quote]

My bad. I should have said "shoot a low number relative to par"

[big_mac]

[quote name='Bluefan75' date='10 July 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1278791287' post='2567193']
[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1278790786' post='2567176']
A 59 is a 59 no matter what par is. Using TW's stats from last year where he averaged:

2.96 on the par 3s
3.97 on the par 4s
4.43 on the par 5s

On average TW will shoot:

Par 70 - 68.34 = 1.66 strokes below par
Par 71 - 68.8 = 2.2 strokes below par
Par 72 - 69.26 = 2.74 strokes below par

As I've always suspected, it's harder to shoot a low number on a par 70 course because there are two less par 5s. FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?


[/quote]

How is it harder to shoot a low number on a par-70 when his scoring average is lower on the par-70 courses? Over/under par is only useful for television in the midst of a tournament to see where players who are at different points sit in relation to each other. When it's all done, though, it's 275 vs 277 vs 280. 271 is a lower number than 274, plain and simple, and the fact par was 284 instead of 280 is irrelevant.
[/quote]
This post was for the benefit of people who think that shooting a 59 is harder on a par 72 than it is on a par 71 (ie -13 is somehow better than -12).

[ragin cajun]

[quote name='hoganfan924' date='10 July 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1278739073' post='2566346']
[quote name='Tighthead' date='10 July 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1278738416' post='2566333']
The bigger issue is that they played the ball up
[/quote]

[b]Preferred lies on a par 71 - will always have an asterisk in my book [/b]although 59 is 59 and a great accomplishment.

Not to mention Stricker shooting a 60 on the same day.
[/quote]


If that's the case you have to put an asterisk in for other reasons too:

Top 2 players not in the field
New groove rule in effect
ETC

[OldSkoolTexan]

[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1278794905' post='2567281']
[quote name='Bluefan75' date='10 July 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1278791287' post='2567193']
[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1278790786' post='2567176']
A 59 is a 59 no matter what par is. Using TW's stats from last year where he averaged:

2.96 on the par 3s
3.97 on the par 4s
4.43 on the par 5s

On average TW will shoot:

Par 70 - 68.34 = 1.66 strokes below par
Par 71 - 68.8 = 2.2 strokes below par
Par 72 - 69.26 = 2.74 strokes below par

As I've always suspected, it's harder to shoot a low number on a par 70 course because there are two less par 5s. FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?


[/quote]

How is it harder to shoot a low number on a par-70 when his scoring average is lower on the par-70 courses? Over/under par is only useful for television in the midst of a tournament to see where players who are at different points sit in relation to each other. When it's all done, though, it's 275 vs 277 vs 280. 271 is a lower number than 274, plain and simple, and the fact par was 284 instead of 280 is irrelevant.
[/quote]
[b]This post was for the benefit of people who think that shooting a 59 is harder on a par 72 than it is on a par 71 (ie -13 is somehow better than -12).[/b]
[/quote]

<br>As far as "relative to par", Im pretty sure -13 beats -12. Im not a fancy math expert but I do ok with basic addin & takeawayin.....

[pga43]

[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1278790786' post='2567176']
........[b] FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?[/b]
[/quote]



1999 at Pinehurst when Payne Stewart won.



Greg

[OldSkoolTexan]

[quote name='pga43' date='10 July 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1278796295' post='2567310']
[quote name='big_mac' date='10 July 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1278790786' post='2567176']
........[b] FWIW, can anyone tell me that last time the US Open was played at par 72?[/b]
[/quote]



1999 at Pinehurst when Payne Stewart won.



Greg
[/quote]
<br>Now THAT was some golfin! Wish P. Stewart was still around. He was MADE for the Champions Tour.

[tdk8180]

Par is relative. If you want to make 2 more Par 4's into Par 5's, and say Goydos made 2 eagles instead of 2 birdies, which then makes him (-14), on a Par 73 course, then does that make it the best 59 ever. No. It doesn't.

A birdie on a 457 yd par 4, is a lesser eagle if it's classified as a Par 5.

[OldSkoolTexan]

[quote name='tdk8180' date='10 July 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1278796783' post='2567321']
Par is relative. If you want to make 2 more Par 4's into Par 5's, and say Goydos made 2 eagles instead of 2 birdies, which then makes him (-14), on a Par 73 course, then does that make it the best 59 ever. No. It doesn't.

A birdie on a 457 yd par 4, is a lesser eagle if it's classified as a Par 5.
[/quote]

<br>Ok Glen Gary why WOULDNT the -14 be better? The score relative to par IS the point. If not, then let's call ryo's 58 the greatest professional round in the history of golf. <br><br>Even though this tourney is OBVIOUSLY some crazy birdie-fest, the course length is not the main issue. Most purists are having a problem with the lift clean place.

[Body_Visions]

[quote name='hoganfan924' date='10 July 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1278739073' post='2566346']
[quote name='Tighthead' date='10 July 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1278738416' post='2566333']
The bigger issue is that they played the ball up
[/quote]

[b]Preferred lies on a par 71[/b] - will always have an asterisk in my book although 59 is 59 and a great accomplishment.

Not to mention Stricker shooting a 60 on the same day.
[/quote]

This is somewhat true. I still think it is cool because sub 60 is obviously their choke factor. There has been tons of 60s but only four 59s. That says it all. And you never hear a guy say he started thinking about 60, it is always 59.

And what did Rymer say? It averages out to one in 650,000 rounds? [b]That[/b] is crazy!