Talk:Lowest rounds of golf

Comment[edit]

The perfect round is a common term in the golfing world and most assuredly deserves an ecyclopedia page as it will assist in informing those unfamiliar with the term and make wikipedia's golf index more complete. More evidence, i.e. quotes from noted professionals, documentation, etc. will be provided.

OK... i've expanded the article significantly and added numerous recognizable and respected sources. if the article still is lacking in some area it definitely is not credibility. other areas can be improved upon in the future.

I have removed the deletion tags. Incidentally, may I take it that you would regard the claim of President Kim , the leader of North Korea, to have only ever played one round of golf and to have gone round in a total of 25 as lacking verifiability? (I am joking, but the claim has been made).--Anthony.bradbury 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HA... maybe if the golf course was only two holes long... or, better yet... it doesn't matter what Kim shoots... he DICTATES his own score:) --Guitarmas5 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly matters?[edit]

Is it the score that matters, or specifically hitting 18 birdies? Would an -18 achieved by 16 birdies, a par and an eagle qualify as a perfect round?24.20.115.185 (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term really in the golf venacular?[edit]

(not sure how to "sign" this post - jsusky, 2015AUG20)

I've been trying to find (outside of Sorenstam, Ekelundh, and Pia Nilsson) a reference to a "perfect game" (references 29 and 30 are dead).

It is precious at best that the equivalent of the best player in high-school baseball would talk in public about 18 consecutive birdies in a single round. Those who have a vanishingly small chance to do it (top PGA players on a club course in a friendly yet verifiable game) are generally modest (or self-aware) enough to keep such implausibility’s to himself or strictly private.

Set an 18-under round as a benchmark. 18 birds is not the likely way to achieve it. Put a top pro on a course built for mere mortals on his best day. He’ll reach par fours from the tee and five’s with an second-shot iron – then one putt several of them. IF he matches those with pars, and birdies the rest, he walks away with an 18-under (and a slice of immortality).

Need it be mentioned that 18 birdies from anything less than the Pro tees is a smudgy version of “perfection”?

Q-school?[edit]

Should qualifying school be considered official or unofficial in the listing? There have been (at least) two 59s shot during Q school. It's hard to say. Is Q-school more or less official than US Open qualifying rounds? than Nike/Nationwide tour? Blokhead (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-Il[edit]

It is well known that Kim Jong-Il has done much better. Without much training, he has done a par-72 course in just 34 strokes; that is 38 under par. This is documented everywhere on the web. See for example Anyone for Tee - Greatest Round Ever. /129.142.71.166 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thescore.com/pga/news/1972845 Whoever was in charge of Kim's score marked down a "1" for every bogey that was made and a "2" for every double-bogey, the club manager of Pyongyang Golf Course told Sens. While it's not the conventional way to add up a score, this relative-to-par system does make sense.

However, once the scorecard fell into the hands of North Korean media, Kim's score drastically improved. According to Sens, the news agency reporting on the dictator's score read the five "1s" as hole-in-ones and the day's total as 34.

while its a fun story it was a simple mess up of the way to score was all. basically its on par (no pun intended) with a chuck norris fact for how accurate it really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Ishikawa 58[edit]

I'm not a golfer, so when I saw the news report that Ryo Ishikawa scored a 58, I turned to Wikipedia to see what the significance of this was. Should it be recorded here? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tewapack (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No references to the "generally accepted" claim?[edit]

It seems to me that for a PERFECT round, you would not just assume all biridies. Eagles on Par 5s are certainly not unobtainable. A significant potion of Par 5s,even on PGA courses are reachable in 2. It is just weird to see that sentence with no hint of a reference to back up what is supposedly "generally accepted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Events listed as PGA Tour that are not PGA Tour Events[edit]

In the unofficial tournaments or on minor tours: section the following are listed as PGA Tour events, but are not:

U.S. Open qualifying round : This major tournament is conducted by the USGA and is not associated with the PGA Tour.

PGA Grand Slam of Golf: This event is conducted by the PGA and is not associated with the PGA Tour.

X-15a2 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although not run by the PGA Tour, the U.S. Open is an official PGA Tour event and the PGA Grand Slam of Golf is recognized by the Tour (it usually appears on their schedule, but not in 2013 yet). Tewapack (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being recognized by is not the same as running the event. The PGA Tour recognizes that most of it's top players will be participating in the U.S. Open, so they include it on there schedule. However, you will note that, unlike the PGA Tour events, there is no link to the tournament on the PGA Tour Schedule page (http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments). It is inaccurate to list these events as belonging to the PGA Tour, when the PGA Tour has nothing to do with the (other than noting them on their schedule). The events belong to the USGA and the PGA and should be listed as such.X-15a2 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Perfect round. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

Seems to me that Perfect round is a terrible name for the article. Although it says above that "The perfect round is a common term", I'm not sure it is. To me the main interest here is in low rounds, particularly those under 60. I would think we could reorganise this page, putting perfect round in a small section. Currently we have redirects here from 58 (golf), 59 (golf), Perfect Round and Vision 54. A name like Lowest rounds or Lowest golf rounds or Lowest rounds of golf would surely be better. We could move Men's major golf championships#Single round records here too and any similar lists. Nigej (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to rename to Lowest rounds of golf unless anyone says otherwise. Seems very uncontroversial to me. Nigej (talk)

Yeah, that makes sense. I've never liked the current name. I'd also advocate removing the "comments and quotes" section. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jsusky (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WELL DONE to rename this entry.

Let others repeat the immodest, out-loud, ambitions of golfers who rank below #2000 (Sorenstam, Ekelundh, and Pia Nilsson).

Those who rank above #100 KNOW the notion of a "perfect game" might be thought about but to state it out loud (and to print such utterances) is, at best, bad form.