Your Average vs. Best Possible Round

[EXTRAMONTANA]

I dont think i really understood the question. Voted anyway.

I thought:
my best round was -3, usually shoot a +3, so 6 difference. No one hits ALL their birdieables.

 

[Jimb]

I'm using the two courses that I've played the most... Knobley Mt. and Shawnee SP.

Both are 9 hole courses and I'm talking about the Red tees.
Both are par 27.
I've shot 21 on both as my best round.
I've birdied every hole at Knobley and all but one at Shawnee.
I average about 2.5 under par on each of the two courses (This includes all rounds from the time I started playing).
I used an 18 at Knobley and a 19 at Shawnee as my hypothetical best scores.
So I voted for 6 better per round.

The last time I played Shawnee I strung together a 21 and a 22. I was very happy with those rounds, back to back. It's probably the two most consistent rounds I've ever played back to back.

Very interesting thread. It might be neat if someone remembers to revive it in a year or two to see how people's opinions of their game have changed.

 

[DannyThunders]

Huntington beach best -4 , average +4

El dorado best -5 , average +1


Its tough being an inconsistent Lefty, if my Bh drives are on point and my putting is on point my sidearm is off. I rarely ever have all 3 working for me.

 

[Halcón]

I dont think i really understood the question. Voted anyway.

I thought:
my best round was -3, usually shoot a +3, so 6 difference. No one hits ALL their birdieables.

I think that the majority of players will shoot their best round ever, and then look back where they missed a putt, or hit a tree off the tee...or whatever. It's rare that your best round is a perfect round for your current ability. My best round is +4, but I know I can par the course. I'm just too inconsistent...like many of us.

I didn't think about aces either because counting those adds a lot of luck into the equation.

 

[scarpfish]

I normally shoot +3 to +5 on the home course, and I can definitely see me going -9 in an absolutely perfect scenario.

So 11 or more it is.

 

[teemkey]

Good thread, btw.

 

[Colonel]

I was thinking about the "perfect" game a few weeks ago...mine would be at Pohick Park in Northern Virginia. It's a short wooded course which I've played over a 1000 times. Since I've aced 16/18 holes and deuced the other 2 my score would be a 20 or 34 under par.

 

[DavidSauls]

Considering your best-ever score on each hole on a course brings you into astronomical odds for that hypothetical perfect round.

Imagine a hole that you "2" only 1% of the time---presumably with a 100' putt after a great drive. If there are 3 such holes on your course, the odds of getting all 3 of them are, what, a million-to-one? And that's before factoring in the other 15 holes.

It might be more practical---and eliminate the aces---to assign to each hole the best score you get, say, 10% or 20% of the time. This is where you walk off the course after your best-ever score and think, "I could have done even better if I'd just got #7 and #11, which I know I can do."

 

[1978]

With distance on a perfect throw of around 450' I haven't played a hole on 141 played courses that I didn't think I could birdie and there are few that I haven't in Charlotte. Of course you have to throw in the whole "what is par" discussion comes into play. I voted 9 because my goal on most Charlotte courses is -6 to -9 or better in any layout. I feel like i can birdie any par 3 (in the open that is 490 or less (throw plus 40' putt) and any wooded par 3 under 400'. Many holes I just play for par (to save strokes) so I never birdie because I didnt try.

Great point David...I didnt even take into consideration that technically I can ace every hole 400' or less....not 450 because the disc is too low at 450'. Oh well. score = 18 here I come.

 

[Grungedude42]

Considering your best-ever score on each hole on a course brings you into astronomical odds for that hypothetical perfect round.

Imagine a hole that you "2" only 1% of the time---presumably with a 100' putt after a great drive. If there are 3 such holes on your course, the odds of getting all 3 of them are, what, a million-to-one? And that's before factoring in the other 15 holes.

It might be more practical---and eliminate the aces---to assign to each hole the best score you get, say, 10% or 20% of the time. This is where you walk off the course after your best-ever score and think, "I could have done even better if I'd just got #7 and #11, which I know I can do."

Hitting three holes with a 1% success rate would be 1:100,000 odds. Just an extra zero difference .
But to answer the question: If I hit every single line I am reasonably within distance capabilities, on my home course, it would be feasible to throw a 44 from the back tees. I've seen 45 on the course, so I know it's possible. However, my average score from either tee is 65. So, yeah, gonna go cry in the corner now.

 

[Horsman]

Average for me on my home course is around a 56 (980) with my best being a 48 (1055) but if everything went perfect then I would shoot a 41(1130)

 

[Nemmers]

I must say I'm surprised at all the 11+ votes. If I had I known I would have made the poll a little different.

What would you have made different?

I voted "11 or more" because theoretically, if my focus improves then I won't miss as many putts, fairways off the tee, or misjudge so many upshots. There's a lot of room for improvement in my game. At my home course, the best I've ever shot is +4, and that was a birthday miracle that hasn't even been close to being repeated since. Usually I'm 12+ or more; yesterday I shot +9.

That's why I voted the way I did. I have legitimately that much improvement to work on. How would you have made the poll different?

 

[DavidSauls]

Hitting three holes with a 1% success rate would be 1:100,000 odds. Just an extra zero difference .

I hate to sidebar, but I never studied high enough math to calculate odds.....

If the odds of something happening are 1 in 100, aren't the odds of it happening 3 times in a row 1 in 100 x 100 x 100 ? (At any rate, that's where my "million" guess came in).

At any rate, even at 100,000:1 you'd have to play 2 rounds a day for 143 years to play that many rounds. No surprise that we rarely pull off the perfect round.

 

[reposado]

at my current local. my best is -7. my typical score is -1.

i have birdied all of the holes, but some of the pin locations are much easier than others. so on any given day, some holes are not in locations that i have birdied. so this is a terrible example.

What would you have made different?

How would you have made the poll different?

maybe, average score vs personal best score

 

[_MTL_]

I honestly don't think there is a course that I've played more than 10 times with a hole I haven't birdied.

 

[DavidSauls]

I honestly don't think there is a course that I've played more than 10 times with a hole I haven't birdied.

"Birdied" is dependent on how par is defined. I'll bet there are holes you haven't 2'd.

Which is why I used the example of a "2" only 1% of the time. I'm assuming a par-4 or par-5 hole.

But you could use that "2" as a sample in your "perfect round"---the best you've done on each hole on a course.

 

[mattc]

i also have birdied most of the holes on my home course
however i have a hard time stringing any of them together
and will often have a couple holes just blow up on me on a normal round
so i vote 11+

I didn't even consider the 8-10 holes I could ace instead of just park for a birdie.
Where's 20 option on the poll?

 

[DavidSauls]

I probably average 55 at Earlewood these days. My personal best is 48. But if I replicated my best-ever on each hole in a single round, I'd shoot 32. And faint.

 

[_MTL_]

"Birdied" is dependent on how par is defined. I'll bet there are holes you haven't 2'd.

Which is why I used the example of a "2" only 1% of the time. I'm assuming a par-4 or par-5 hole.

But you could use that "2" as a sample in your "perfect round"---the best you've done on each hole on a course.

Of course not. I haven't even 2d all the holes in the Raleigh area. I was simply stating what I could do if you take aces and throw ins out of the equation.

 

[JC17393]

My best score on my home course (regular configuration) is 45. Taking my best score on each hole and adding them up would give me a 33. A realistic "perfect" round where everything is clicking but I'm scoring no aces or wild fairway throw-ins is probably 40 or 41. Considering no one has ever shot better than a 42, that seems like a good blend of potentially attainable but highly unlikely ever to occur.