Nobody shot better than 65 all week when Geiberger shot 59. Would be real tough to top this in terms of greatness, Furyk's is now probably a solid second.

BO

Other than the fact that Gieberger did it during a round where "lift, clean, and place" was in effect, which coincidentally the USGA doesn't even really admit exists.

If you really wanted to dig down, and im not sure the information is available, but it would be best to rate their rounds vs the field average for the day rather than just the next 2 lowest scores.

I've got the round-by-round of the top 10-15 players in that tournament from the 1978 Golf Digest Annual which has the leaderboard from every tournament over the past year. From what I remember, scores were pretty high and didn't he win with -13 or something?

Of course we have to wait for the final two rounds of this event to draw valid conclusions over the course of a tournament.

BO

All we need is the rest of the fields scores from that day to compare to furyk today. Judging someone's round by scores from a completely different day is absurd.

The Annual listed the top 13 players, the other 12 averaged 69.17 that day with a low of 67.

BO

Also worth noting when looking at Gieberger/Furyk vs the field for the day, Furyk's round undoubtedly came vs a significantly stronger field.

Seems like we would also need to know how the pin positions were set for both of the rounds. The pins for Geiberger's round had to be easier right?

No, all we're doing is comparing the 59's to the other scores of that day. Example, a 59 where the next best score was 65 is much better than a 59 where 5 other guys shot 61.

BO

There has to be some credence given to doing first imo. Kind of a silly argument anyway.

I think we can both agree we've seen much worse on this forum.

It's pretty obvious though that Al and Jim's are 1-2 in that order, Goydos certainly last behind Appleby.

BO

Its true that a 59 where the next best score is 65 is better than one where the next best is 61 relative to the field. But when comparing 59's I think strength of field comes into play and the level of play is much higher today than in the 70's.

How does strength of field have anything to do with an individuals score? Using the next best score as another way to judge the overall conditions of the round is useful. However, its still a field of the best players in the world on the PGA tour, the difference in quality of field is never substantial enough to devalue a 59. The next best scores of the day is just a representation of the difficulty of the course/conditions.

Weird first post.

I'm arguing that Furyk's 59 is better than Geiberger's 59. So if in both cases the next best score is 65 but the field this week was much stronger, then Furyk's 59 is better.

Yeah, agree with this. I'm buying the strength of field argument and putting Furyk #1 though I think.

Par 71 tho. Still think -13 is better than -12

lol go **** yourself

I got furyk's 59 coming in #1 as well. Major factors are scoring average yesterday and also bc this was the first time the tour has made a stop here.

Al having his hand on it all day discredits it a touch too.

Wow, didn't realize that when Goydos had a 59, someone else had a 60. Must of sucked for Stricker.

If someone actually cares about field average/yada yada and this isn't just meaningless Internet blathering,

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/leaderboard/1977/25

and they're all on there

Huh? I'd report this but I realized cwice doesn't ever punish anyone and Tuq only does so if you carry a 3-iron so no reason to even try to report such destructive posting.

I wasn't trying to be offensive - it sounds like something you read on twitter. If you came up with that I'm impressed.

Things to consider:

This field has only 70 players so looking at 2nd best score isn't great. If there were 110 players, someone may have shot 62 or whatever. Averages are better and lol @ wanting to compare it to other days in the tournament. That's absurd.

On the other hand, this is 70 of best players on Tour this year, and this tournament plays as "moving day" for the playoffs. 40 players are probably playing balls-out, being super aggro trying to get into the top 30. The top 30 know this and also have to play aggressive but smart. Anyone in the top 15 is probably playing super aggressive in order to control their destiny (top 5) for the $10 million prize. And nobody else went lower than 65.

Good find. Only those who made the cut are listed but it would make a decent comparison.

BO

Second round average of those who made the cut in 1977 = 70.32
Second round average of the top half of the field after round 2 in 2013 = 69.64
Second round average of all 70 players in 2013 = 71.26

BO

Al was lift clean and cheat, it doesn't even count for crying out loud. I get it, he was the first 59. But there is absolutely zero chance he shoots 59 without lift clean and place.

None. Zero. No chance. The fact it is even in the record books is a joke IMO. If a 36 hole event isn't an official victory how is his round considered official?

But in those days Geiberger had to play with a feathery ball and use a niblick.

Plus his name is Mr. 59 ffs


I bet Ship shot a course record somewhere under lift, clean and place and they wouldn't let him have the record. Lost in time like tears in rain.