20

[Dave242]

Apples and Oranges.
These are all great rounds, but debating about which is best is an argument that nobody wins.

I doubt most of us could shoot 39 at Putt-Putt, much less at any tournament-worthy venue.
Give it a rest.

No. Don't give it a rest.

If you've ever listened to sports radio much you will know full well that they bring up Top 10 lists all the time. ie. Best Quarterback ever.

It is indeed an endless debate - one that mixes stats, circumstance, home boy bias, etc all into a big controversy.....and that is a big part of being a fan of a sport and of its team and athletes.

 

[prerube]

So I'm wondering if every post of yours in this thread is gonna be some variation of "mcbeth's is rated higher" cuz that is gonna get old quick and misses the point that Dave is trying to make.

Pretty much because that is how "best round" is determined.
I understand the debate, high rated rounds have been shot at tougher courses that required more versitility in the thrower, but if a 39 was not so hot, then other players would have shot similar and the rating would not have been what it was. He dominated the round.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Why is the highest round ever automatically the highest rated round? How can you not argue that Kenny's perfect round in the semi finals in 2002 Houston worlds to seal his 11th world title is the best round ever? Why does this never get mentioned (well the answer is because it prior to ratings).

I just did the calculations and Kenny's 43 (R7 not semis) comes in around 1075. He would have needed a 38 to get close to McBeth's rating.

 

[wilsondl]

What difference does it make if it was 18 hyzers, 18 anhyzers, 18 straight drives, or any combination of the above? Paul executed the required shots that the course demanded nearly perfectly, regardless of what kind of shots they are.

:clap: Unfortunately not everyone shares this sentiment

 

[grodney]

One cool measure is to calculate the ratio of Score to SSA. In this case: 39/52.1 = 0.749. The lower the number, the better the round.

I don't have recent data, but some old hot rounds for comparison:
0.749 McBeth 39/52.1
0.755 Nikko 44/58.3 Round 1 Memorial this year (1118 rating)
0.764 Skinner 41/53.7 (1117 rating)
0.774 MJ 41/53 Worlds (1113 rating)
0.7886 Climo 49/62.1 (24 holes -- equivalent to 36.8/46.6) (1117 rating)
0.7891 Doss/Jenkins 55/69.7 (Winthrop 2008) (1084 rating)
0.796 Feldberg 46/57.8 (Memorial 2008) (1098 rating)

I'm not sure this has any statistical validity, but whatever.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Paul killed it with those 20 deadly hyzer shots and finished each hole off with a solid putt.

I'd love to see anyone on here *&#^$ing, throw 20 of the same hyzer shots in a field, let alone on a golf course...

"best" round ever is not really a good way to put any round, unless comparing to the same course, field and conditions at that time... From Paul's score and round rating I would say the definition of BEST fits pretty well-- Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent: the best performer; Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirable: Greatest; most: Most highly skilled: In a most excellent way; most creditably or advantageously. To the greatest degree or extent; One that surpasses all others. The supreme effort one can make: One's warmest wishes or regards:

 

[giles]

Completely ignoring the fact that being off line off the tee, an unlucky roll, a bad kick, and a missed putt all cost two strokes and possibly a lost disc on this course.

 

[The Hammer]

FYI...holes 7, 8, and 18 aren't just hyzers.

 

[_MTL_]

Avery Jenkins is on record saying MJ's round at Bradford during Worlds was simply him being dialed in and throwing the same shot over and over. Is there merit to his thoughts?

Let's think about what he likely did -

1 - straight shot
2 - straight power uphill shot, field 2nd shot (likely hyzer)
3 - slow turnover
4 - uphill hyzer
5 - straight shot, soft hyzer
6 - straight shot
7 - slow turnover
8 - soft hyzer, 2nd shot power hyzer over the trees
9 - straight shot
10 - slow up hill hyzer
11 - power hyzer over the trees
12 - straight shot the landing zone, 2nd shot likely a slow turnover
13 - straight to uphill hyzer
14 - straight
15 - slow turnover / sidearm
16 - straight shot
17 - slow turnover
18 - big uphill power hyzer, soft up shot

sure sounds like the same shot over and over.

end sarcasm

 

[tbird888]

Consider not only his score but the fact that the field was reduced during that round. He not only had that strong of a round, he did against a field where only the best of the event were out there competing. If it was that simple, how come no one else came close to that score?

How something was accomplished is less important than the fact that it WAS accomplished.

 

[Dave242]

plagiarism twist alert

One cool measure is to calculate the ratio of Roung Rating to SSA. In this case: 1126/52.1 = 21.6. The higher the number, the better the round.

I don't have recent data, but some old hot rounds for comparison:
24.0 - Climo 1117/46.6 (adjusted 24 holes - does this make it invalid?) (score 49/36.7)
21.6 - McBeth 1126/52.1 (score 39)
21.0 - MJ 1113/53 Worlds (score 41)
20.8 - Skinner 1117/53.7 (score 41)
19.2 - Nikko 1118/58.3 Round 1 Memorial this year (score 44)
19.0 - Feldberg 1098/57.8 (Memorial 2008) (score 46)
15.6 - Doss/Jenkins 1084/69.7 (Winthrop 2008) (score 55)


I'm not sure this has any statistical validity, but whatever.

 

[Will Burke]

I like to think of ratings as like a domination factor. So highest rated round equals most dominating performance.

 

[_MTL_]

I just did the calculations and Kenny's 43 (R7 not semis) comes in around 1075. He would have needed a 38 to get close to McBeth's rating.

You want to know why the highest rated round isn't garunteed to the best round ever?

Because Kenny shoots a perfect round and needed to shoot 5 strokes better to get near McBeths roudn.

 

[rd.bittle]

Wow. Isn't it interesting how quick we are to crown the "best ever."

And also how quickly the detracters start screaming "not the best, not the best."

Talk about it, praise it, critique it. If it is the best it will last. If not, it will fall.

All I know is that my grandma shot a better round in the back pasture. 27 under. Par 95.

 

[grodney]

One cool measure is to calculate the ratio of Roung Rating to SSA. In this case: 1126/52.1 = 21.6. The higher the number, the better the round.

21.0 - MJ 1113/53 Worlds (score 41)
20.8 - Skinner 1117/53.7 (score 41)

I'm not sure this has any statistical validity, but whatever.

So, a lower rating (1113) on an "easier" course (53.0) has a higher ratio, and is therefore better?

Pretty sure that answers your question about validity.

 

[Dave242]

One cool measure is to calculate the ratio of Score to SSA. In this case: 39/52.1 = 0.749. The lower the number, the better the round.

One cool measure is to calculate the ratio of Roung Rating to SSA. In this case: 1126/52.1 = 21.6. The higher the number, the better the round.

Using statistics in this line of thinking to define "best" I think somehow course length needs be factored in. I don't know exactly how, but it makes sense to me that the more obstacles to be successfully navigated the more impressive/better the round. The more obstacles per length make a course harder.

If an obstacle does not affect the score it is not really an obstacle....and if it affects the score it affects the SSA (WCP).

So, SSA is in a way a measure of obstacles. A length components is missing from your formulation of "best".

 

[bbutch]

Who cares if it was THE "best" round ever. It was definitely good enough to make you wanna debate whether it is or not.

 

[grodney]

You want to know why the highest rated round isn't garunteed to the best round ever?

Because Kenny shoots a perfect round and needed to shoot 5 strokes better to get near McBeths roudn.

If his 43 was "perfect", that means "par" was 61. So there were 7 par 4's (or a par 5 or two). Those par 4's were probably short/easy par 4's that lots of people birdied, thus suppressing the SSA, thus making it "impossible" to shoot higher than his 1075 without throwing in some fairway shots.

So if you think about it, his birdies on those 7 holes (or however many were short/easy par 4's) aren't really that impressive. Therefore, it can't be the best round ever.

 

[Dave242]

So, a lower rating (1113) on an "easier" course (53.0) has a higher ratio, and is therefore better?

Pretty sure that answers your question about validity.

I see that you have "easier" in quotes. Higher SSA does not automatically equate to more difficult.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You want to know why the highest rated round isn't garunteed to the best round ever?

Because Kenny shoots a perfect round and needed to shoot 5 strokes better to get near McBeths roudn.

Must not have been a perfect round if others can shoot better than 43 on an SSA 50 course (which is what the SSA that round was). The SSA tells how tough the course is for everyone and the great scores are shot in reference to that SSA. As I recall, that Tournament course was very similar to the memorial courses - pretty flat, pretty open, and several holes where OB came into play.