Equipment and the U.S.Open golf

[chefjeff]

I'm guessing he is going to say fans...

Atta boy...go to the front of the class! I was hoping someone would figure it out. Gold star for little Dicky!

When the Senior (now, Champions Tour) Open was in Des Moines in '99, I happened to frequent the trailer several months before the event that the USGA set up at the country club.

In this trailer were a few people whose full-time job it was to make the event happen. The work these people did was phenomenal...and most of it involved marketing. I wish I didn't have to reveal the truth of it, again, but marketing is THE answer to getting the money. There is NO other way.

A small example of marketing is the simple change of name from "Senior" to "Champion." But it goes much deeper than that. The mailings, the calls, the attracting of sponsors, sales to corporations of tent space, donations for equipment from corps., TV of course, car dealers lending cars for free and on and on it went, non-stop. The product merchandising was amazing and must've made 'em a fortune. None of this just happens. It seems that way when you watch it on TV, but every dollar gotten required a bunch of effort beforehand. That effort is called marketing.

Btw, this Open was the most successful Champion's Open I think they've ever had. The place was crawling with tens of thousands of people all week long. I attended all seven days and brought a lot of people with me (hint).

Marketing is the kind of work that most chose not to do. Yet, it yields the highest value for time invested. It is the multiplier for the product. Without it, the product just sits on a shelf and is enjoyed by few. Pool better get its product off the shelf and start marketing itself. No customers are currently coming in to the store to buy...we gotta hit the streets...that's where the money is....the real money.

Jeff Livingston

 

[JustPlay]

It sometimes seems like a minor miracle to find 156 pool players with 500 dollars. If players were made to qualify on their merit we might have a shorter event field. If not for the cash from these people that might not qualify the payout would suffer. And in the end, we would have the Chesapeake Classic instead of the U.S. Open.

Perfect point! The state of mens pro pool is in the dumps and it doesn't seem to getting better anytime soon. The sporting public hasn't taken any interest in mens or womens professional pool. When was the last time Cold Pizza (espn) or any other sports channel had in interview with a world champion like Strickland, Sigel, Archer or Pagulayan and asked them, what it was like to win the US Open or the WPC? Never ever happened in the past and never has happen today neither. Any game winning highlights on espn- nope, never seen them either. So, until that happens, the US open doesn't need to qualify its players. Qualifling is left upto most UPA events and the WPCs.

As far as Grady's original thread- everyone is for smaller pockets. DCC has great tables with appropriate pockets. Grady getting involved with junk that is distracting you from playing your game. Just go out and win. Stop crying about the pockets, cloths, the rules, etc....

 

[JPB]

I can't think of ONE person that has actually been able to make it to the big dance by artificially lowering their handicapp to get in...

If someone were actually able to make it to the second level...they probably are a 1.5 handicap...

QUOTE]




Just remember, a person who is a 1.5 has no real shot of qualifying and absolutely no shot in the championship if they make it. My guess is the average handicap on the Nationwide Tour would be about +5. It might be better. Handicaps are hard to figure for the best players because the courses are so tough, and the formula breaks down for great players. Tiger in 2000 probably would have been a +10 or +11 from what I have read. I think the tour players are probably around +6, +7 something like that. I was just talking to a guy who has been as good as +2 and usually is right around scratch. He laughed at the prospect of playing with tour pros, knowing he has no shot. Sure he can beat one on a given day if he plays well and the pro doesn't, but to get through a field of them...

 

[drivermaker]

My whole point was that IF you made it past the qualifier stages to get to the US Open...you were at least a 1.5 handicapp...(even if you fudged your handicap to get into the first qualifier) ....and the US 9-ball open should use the same type of qualifer

I don't know who, in their right mind, would want to attempt qualifying for the US Open in golf just to put yourself through the torture of playing on the courses the way they're set up. It's not only torture, it's humiliation for the whole world to see even if you DID get lucky enough to get through qualification after you shot a hack score...and YOU WOULD! If the greatest in the world are hacking it into the 80's, Joe Schmo local pro or amateur has NO HOPE. They're better off trying to qualify for one of many mini-tour events.

As far as pockets in pool being set up to US Open golf standards for tournaments in pool, that only happens ONE TIME during the year in golf, not for EVERY tournament out there. So, maybe the pocket tightening should only happen for one or two pool tournaments as well...not all of them.

 

[JAM]

Perfect point! The state of mens pro pool is in the dumps and it doesn't seem to getting better anytime soon. The sporting public hasn't taken any interest in mens or womens professional pool. When was the last time Cold Pizza (espn) or any other sports channel had in interview with a world champion like Strickland, Sigel, Archer or Pagulayan and asked them, what it was like to win the US Open or the WPC? Never ever happened in the past and never has happen today neither....

JustPlay, on May 14th, there was about a 7- or 8-minute segment on "Cold Pizza" of Tony Robles, who was the reigning [2004] BCA Open Champion in the men's division.

Main Forum thread: http://azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=12883&highlight=Tony+Robles

Jennifer Baretta has recently been on ESPN radio.

Currently, the way most pool competitions are shown on TV, they still lack luster. Interviews, such as the above-referenced, do boost the exposure of pool in the States.

Jeanette Lee played hostess on a celebrity game show about pool not so long ago. Melissa Herndon is on Court TV tomorrow night at 10:30 p.m. on the "Takedown" series. Ewa Mataya is going to be a celebrity guest on an upcoming pool game show, and then there is the "Ballbreakers" show which is on the horizon.

Until pool gets a personality, it will remain in the duldrums. Any exposure on TV is great. Seeing competitions on TV, though, is quite boring if you don't have knowledge of the game and all of its quirky rules which change periodically due to the venue or competition being broadcast.

I have seen so-called "professional players" who stated their desire was to get on ESPN, hoping exposure may benefit them down the road. However, when I saw them make it on camera for a brief interview with Hopkins or Lawrence, they never cracked a smile and seemed almost lethargic about the whole affair. JMHO, FWIW!

It does seem that some experienced players do think that the playing conditions in certain venues would be better if they did have smaller pockets as well as tables that rolled evenly. Several high-profile events in recent times have had shoddy equipment or maybe I should say improperly installed equipment, causing bad rolls and scratches when lagging.

JAM

 

[JPB]

I think +5 may be a little steep for a average Nationwide player......and Tiger is NOT a +11.....no one averages 11 under the (course rating)....He may average 11 under par on his non PGA set up home course, but the course rating is probably 69 or 70...That means he would be shooting a 59 or 58 every time out...

My whole point was that IF you made it past the qualifier stages to get to the US Open...you were at least a 1.5 handicapp...(even if you fudged your handicap to get into the first qualifier) ....and the US 9-ball open should use the same type of qualifer.....Thats all I was trying to say...

+10 doesn't mean you shoot 10 under the rating every time. I agree with your point about pool, but you are really underestimating how good the golfers out there on tour are. Arnold Palmer's grandson said he was a +4 at Bay Hill. he is like 16 and is not ready for the nationwide tour let alone the PGA Tour. The nationwide tour is full of young players and players who have won on the tour. The +2 from your home course has absoloutely no shot. Seriously, Tiger in 2000 was probably right around +10. That was the best year ever for anybody tho.

 

[Paul8ball]

I agree with you completely Grady. Pro pool tournaments should be played on equipment with standards that are strict but fair. Diamond Pro Cut pockets are compatible with that philosophy, tight but fair.

In pool, the 7 foot table should be like playing golf from the white tees. In other words, I should be able to play the same golf course as the pros. Amateur pool leagues are the foundation of an infrastructure for pool. As such, we should endeavor to improve the conditions of play for the leagues (ie 7 foot coin operated tables).

 

[gromulan]

You left out a "minor" detail, SJM, in golf's successful formula : The USGA makes most of their annual income from the US Open because __________.

Jeff Livingston

....NBC pays them millions.

 

[JPB]

What does it mean then???? What kind of scores do you think these guys shoot on a normal 7000 yard non PGA course....on average????

Well, your handicap measures your potential and is based on better scores in your history and I think there is an adjustment of some kind in there. It isn't a straight scoring average. So when Tiger was chewing up Pebble beach and winning by 12 over everybody his handicap was way low. I mean Pebble should have been rated like 80. Probably wasn't. But let's say it was rated 76. Were Tiger's best scores like 67? Oh yeah. His scoring average on Tour that year was lower than 70 right? Lets say 69. A lot of those scores were on very tough courses with ratings that should be over par. In fact, in the real tough conditions the rankings get twisted.


I think at an average but reasonable golf course the tour pros would average less than 65 now. I say this because if it is par 72 they can reach all of the par 5's. They will have lob wedges into a lot of par 4's. With the pins set up for members, they would shoot in the 50's sometimes. Nationwide player played our local muni with borrowed clubs and shot 10 under from what I understand. I think if they staged a PGA event at a 7000 yard par 72 straightforward course with pins and rough designed for members where the greens were smooth but not mowed for the once a year tournament you would see a few rounds in the 50's and a winning score of 35 under for 72 holes. Here's one more anecdote. Talked to a good local am who played 72 holes one weekend on courses like you describe. He played with a guy who tried to make the senior tour. Am was 5 under for 72 holes, playing good. Guy who has not and will not make it on the senior tour shot 20 under. Put a full field of tour pros on a regular course and the results will be brutal.

 

[Williebetmore]

Just to simplify the handicap system for the non-golfers and non-statisticians. A player will statistically, on average, shoot a round approximately 3 strokes above his handicap (if he posts ALL scores, and plays his rounds by the strict rules of golf). Therefore a player with a 4 handicap can expect to on average shoot 7 strokes over par (course rating being the "par"). Just an oversimplification, but any player consistently shooting better than his handicap is probably doing something wrong, or else he is improving. The handicap system TOTALLY fails if the the player is rapidly improving (or rapidly getting worse) - ask Andy Garcia. The system also penalizes the players who are very erratic (capable of both very good and very bad rounds) and rewards the very consistent player. The system also fails to take weather into account (just assuming that players will play so frequently that this will average out). In my opinion, the USGA handicap system from the 1960's was much better, and the new system sucks - I have no idea why they felt compelled to change it.

 

[JustPlay]

JustPlay, on May 14th, there was about a 7- or 8-minute segment on "Cold Pizza" of Tony Robles, who was the reigning [2004] BCA Open Champion in the men's division.

Main Forum thread: http://azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=12883&highlight=Tony+Robles

Jennifer Baretta has recently been on ESPN radio.

Currently, the way most pool competitions are shown on TV, they still lack luster. Interviews, such as the above-referenced, do boost the exposure of pool in the States.

Jeanette Lee played hostess on a celebrity game show about pool not so long ago. Melissa Herndon is on Court TV tomorrow night at 10:30 p.m. on the "Takedown" series. Ewa Mataya is going to be a celebrity guest on an upcoming pool game show, and then there is the "Ballbreakers" show which is on the horizon.

..........
..........

...It does seem that some experienced players do think that the playing conditions in certain venues would be better if they did have smaller pockets as well as tables that rolled evenly. Several high-profile events in recent times have had shoddy equipment or maybe I should say improperly installed equipment, causing bad rolls and scratches when lagging.

JAM

JAM,

You are definitly correct on that. However, they make them do trick shots like a monkey in a circus. I can't stand it. The only reason for J. Baretta on tv is because she is very attactive first and plays good pool second.

How about "Beyond the Glory" (if any of you have ever seen on fox sports) with Earl Strickland, Grady Mathews or Buddy Hall, Archer? Thats what will help mens pro pool, at least a little.

All I ask is a half hour to see the life of a champion pool player. If guys like Archer, Reyes, Sigel, Hall and Strickland are not house hold names (at least to some significant degree) like Mosconi and Fats at this point in time, then does anyone involved in pool really see a future for professional pool? Most only reconize the women and only the attactive ones at that.

The bigger picture is not smaller pockets and slower cloth or a different game (although, 8-ball, which is played by most would be interesting to see on TV) its the growth and reconition of pro pool that will bring in the sponsors, tv and some movies.

Has anyone made a movie based on a real pool player? Hopefully, Basavich will get one.

Players have been crying for smaller pockets for years and they still get mixed results. So what else is new.

Thanks for reading....

 

[JPB]

"Tiger was actually reported as a +9 at his "home course"....two strokes may seem like very little..."


Well, there you go. Tiger's home course is tougher than the average. And in 2000 he was the best ever on the toughest courses. No stretch to think he might have come out to +10 or +11. I know 2 shots is a lot, but let's just agree that at his best Tiger could be a +10. Now how do you like your local 1.4?;-)

 

[sixpack]

I can't think of ONE person that has actually been able to make it to the big dance by artificially lowering their handicapp to get in...

If someone were actually able to make it to the second level...they probably are a 1.5 handicap...

QUOTE]




Just remember, a person who is a 1.5 has no real shot of qualifying and absolutely no shot in the championship if they make it. My guess is the average handicap on the Nationwide Tour would be about +5. It might be better. Handicaps are hard to figure for the best players because the courses are so tough, and the formula breaks down for great players. Tiger in 2000 probably would have been a +10 or +11 from what I have read. I think the tour players are probably around +6, +7 something like that. I was just talking to a guy who has been as good as +2 and usually is right around scratch. He laughed at the prospect of playing with tour pros, knowing he has no shot. Sure he can beat one on a given day if he plays well and the pro doesn't, but to get through a field of them...

You are right on. I have a good friend who is a pro and he is a +6, and he's struggling to get on a tour and has not made it through the US Open qualifying. Once you get to that level it's as much about learning to compete under pressure as it is about your ability to hit a golf ball. Very similar to pool.

Regas

 

[sixpack]

+10 doesn't mean you shoot 10 under the rating every time. I agree with your point about pool, but you are really underestimating how good the golfers out there on tour are. Arnold Palmer's grandson said he was a +4 at Bay Hill. he is like 16 and is not ready for the nationwide tour let alone the PGA Tour. The nationwide tour is full of young players and players who have won on the tour. The +2 from your home course has absoloutely no shot. Seriously, Tiger in 2000 was probably right around +10. That was the best year ever for anybody tho.

Tiger's USGA card from 10/23/2000 has him at a +8.1 at Isleworth Country Club. His counted rounds were 65, 64, 65, 67, 67, 61, 64, 67, 67, 66. His not counted scores were 72, 70, 68, 67, 70, 70, 72, 70, 69, 70. Handicaps are calculated by using the best 10 out of your last 20 scores and then adjusted for course difficulty.

It's always seemed odd to me that the winning score for PGA tour events, Nationwide events and mini-tour events are usually very similar. What I mean is that the winner usually needs to average in the mid-upper sixties every day to win, no matter which tour they're on.

Cheers,
Regas

 

[chefjeff]

....NBC pays them millions.

NBC pays them millions (your #, not mine) because _________?

Jeff Livingston

 

[JustPlay]

I think this thread should be posted on a golf forum...

 

[ScottR]

Everyone is close, but forgot about the Slope rating in the calculation. This gives the differential, which is then converted for the course rating and slope rating of the course you are playing on to determine your actual handicap for that round. All of this depends also on which set of tees you use. It's soooooo simple really . . . . .

a. Plus Handicap Differential

When the adjusted gross score is higher than the USGA Course Rating, the handicap differential is a positive number. Following is an example for determining a differential using an adjusted gross score of 95 made on a course with a USGA Course Rating of 71.5 and a USGA Slope Rating of 125:

Adjusted Gross Score - USGA Course Rating: 95 - 71.5 = 23.5
Difference x Standard Slope: 23.5 x 113 = 2655.5
Result / USGA Slope Rating: 2655.5 / 125 = 21.24
Handicap Differential (rounded): 21.2

b. Minus Handicap Differential

When the adjusted gross score is lower than the USGA Course Rating, the handicap differential is a negative number. Following is an example for determining a differential using an adjusted gross score of 69 made on a course with a USGA Course Rating of 71.5 and a USGA Slope Rating of 125:

Adjusted Gross Score - USGA Course Rating: 69 - 71.5 = -2.5
Difference x Standard Slope: -2.5 x 113 = -282.5
Result / USGA Slope Rating: -282.5 / 125 = -2.26
Handicap Differential (rounded): -2.3

Back to pool!!!

Shim those pockets and maintain a standard tighter size.

 

[ScottR]

I was just trying to keep it simple so I left that part out...You might as well throw in that the final number is actually only a "index" number...your actual course handicap will change from course to course based on the course rating......factoring in the slope changes the index so little I did not feel it was necessary to "confuse" anyone...

I agree back to pool....... How about this CRAZY STUPID idea.... Have a qualified "peer group" put together that would include people like Grady....that can come up with a "table rating" system based on pocket size / rail speed / cloth speed and action / and then devise a universal handicapp system based on the "table rating" ....It would have to be done so that Efren comes out as a +11 so we keep JLW happy.......

I was trying to bore the shit out of everyone so we could get back to pool and standardized equipment.

One more golf comparison/thought. Even though the courses are rated differently for all the variables mentioned previously in the thread, the DAMN HOLE that is the object of the game is ALWAYS the same size. For everyone.

Lessee . . . .
tennis; object is to get it over the net into a specified area - net height and area . . . always the same

football; object is to advance the football a specified distance - distance and goal height/width . . . . . always the same

basketball; object is to get the ball into the hoop - height . . . .

You get the idea.

 

[ScottR]

Sort of....no....

Pool - Pocket size
Golf - Fairway width

Pool - cloth speed
Golf - green speed

Pool - cushion rebound
Golf - Green Firmness

Amazing how they actually do compare if you think about it....

My obviously opaque point was that the hole size should be uniform. All the other variables cannot be controlled to that degree, so let's set the ones that we can - hole and ball size.

Jeez. You are such a Dick . . . . oh, yeah, nevermind. j/k

 

[DaveK]

Sort of....no....

Pool - Pocket size
Golf - Fairway width

Pool - cloth speed
Golf - green speed

Pool - cushion rebound
Golf - Green Firmness

Amazing how they actually do compare if you think about it....

My table has some rolls that make Pinehurst #2 greens look flat

Dave, practicing on a damned tough table !