Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Can This Be True? Reaching a Par-5 in Two Shots!


Note: This thread is 1233 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Have You Ever Made An Eagle By Reaching A Par 5 In Two?  

65 members have voted

  1. 1. Have You Ever Made An Eagle By Reaching A Par 5 In Two Shots?

    • No, Never. And I suspect I never will reach a par 5 in two.
      4
    • Yes, I have reached a par 5 in two and converted the putt for eagle.
      46
    • Yes, I've reached par 5's in two, but haven't been able to convert by making the putt. ... yet.
      12
    • Never reached a par 5 green in 2, but I'm working on my length and suspect I will get some eagle putts on par 5's in the future.
      3


Recommended Posts

Posted
On 8/3/2022 at 9:36 AM, Troy Ocker said:

I'm in the 275-300 bracket, but I'm not hitting more than 40% fairways and even from the FW I don't hit more than maximum 10% of the greens from 225+. I'm not a scratch golfer, but I'm above average, and I don't think I have more than 1 putt for eagle every 10 rounds on my home course. 

Your course does seem to have slightly more difficult than average par 5s.  You do have 5 of them though where most courses would have 4 or less.  Most golfers are going to have a larger mix of golf courses that they play though, and will be bound to play more shorter par 5s in favorable conditions than you do.

I do get your point though.  I don't get many chances either.  I am only in the 250-275 bucket, and play 90% of my rounds at my home course.  In fact, the only times I have made an eagle at my home course (playing my own ball from one of the two sets of back tees) are from chip ins.  I've been a member there 17 years now.  We even have two reachable par 5s in the 490 yard range.  However, I have at least one made eagle putt at another course during that same time period.  I also have played in 3 scrambles at my home course over that time period where I have hit the first two shots and sunk the eagle putt.  The fact that I make them in scrambles tells me that I would make more if I were able to play more aggressively.

  • Like 1

John


Posted
2 hours ago, SG11118 said:

The fact that I make them in scrambles tells me that I would make more if I were able to play more aggressively.

Yes, but you'd probably also make a lot more high numbers.  The risk/reward for an aggressive shot is very different in a scramble, especially if someone on your team has already put the ball into play. 

-- Michael | My swing! 

"You think you're Jim Furyk. That's why your phone is never charged." - message from my mother

Driver:  Titleist 915D2.  4-wood:  Titleist 917F2.  Titleist TS2 19 degree hybrid.  Another hybrid in here too.  Irons 5-U, Ping G400.  Wedges negotiable (currently 54 degree Cleveland, 58 degree Titleist) Edel putter. 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, Shindig said:

Yes, but you'd probably also make a lot more high numbers.  The risk/reward for an aggressive shot is very different in a scramble, especially if someone on your team has already put the ball into play. 

Agreed.  I do usually play the holes the same way alone as I do in a scramble, but probably 3-5% less aggressively and 25% less freely.  I'm sort of postulating though that I have and make eagle putts at a higher percentage at other courses because I have less mental damage as to where I can get in trouble? 

John


  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Never managed it on my course, but although I am not a big hitter, managed it on another course last month

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1233 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.