What's harder to do?? A Hole in One or...

[iacas]

What I have steadfastly been trying to point out is that more people will achieve an under par round in their career than a hole in one, which means that achieving an under par round is in FACT statistically easier than achieving a hole in one over time.

Do you have that statistic somewhere or are you just making it up? Because I don't believe it.

1) Virtually every pro player has a hole in one. Most have several. They've also shot under par, so they're a wash: 1 to 1. 2) There are very, very few single-digit handicappers out there, and only a small portion of those will ever log a round under par. Some of them will have holes in one. This is about 20% of golfers with handicaps . 3) The vast majority of golfers, however, will never shoot under par. But a good chunk of them will have a hole in one (or more). This is 80% of golfers with handicaps and virtually 100% of golfers without handicaps. I'd venture to guess that the group 3 to group 2 ratio is much bigger than the group 2(UP) to group 2 (HIO) ratio, and given that group 1 is a wash, well, that flies in the face of the statistic you seem to have made up. ----------- And all of that talk is beside the point. The question was not "which is more likely?" (And heck, that varies by skill level - a duffer's more likely to get an ace, a pro is more likely to shoot under par). The question is which is more difficult, which is "harder." The answer's simple. And if you think it's getting a hole in one, please put down the crack pipe.

[MPforthewin]

reading > me

[Shorty]

If you took a million players who had never played golf and put them on a course you would not bet your life that one of them would not get an ace. You do hear stories of first time golfers getting aces.
On the other hand, you would bet your own life and that of every person you love that none of them would break par. You will never hear of a beginner breaking par.
You can't play 18 holes without skill and break par. You can, however, skull one along the ground for an ace.
Ridiculous poll.

[saltman]

If you took a million players who had never played golf and put them on a course you would not bet your life that one of them would not get an ace. You do hear stories of first time golfers getting aces.

Agreed and what if those same 1 million players played and improved for 20 years?

[youngskip40]

I never said holes in one occurred more frequently unless it was a typo.

Then that's my goof, I misinterpreted your previous post.

Yeah. You definitely haven't been paying attention to what people have been saying here. Of course it's more likely for a tournament full of the best players in the world to result in several rounds under par. The problem is, the players there are among the top 1% of the top 1% of all golfers. The ONLY POINT I am trying to make... is that if you take the bottom 1% of the bottom 1% of all golfers in the world, players who do not practice, will not practice, and possibly only play once or twice a year, they STILL have a chance for that one hole of dumb luck. I can't believe almost 40% of people that have voted think it's harder to get a hole in one than to shoot under par. To be clear, we're talking about Gross scores here people. Net birdies don't count.

[sp33d]

I picked hole in 1, because Ive golfed for 14 years and never had one while I have shot 1 over par. Plus hitting a hole in one does require alot of skill but its mostly luck.

[yellowvette]

I know several people (average to below average golfers) who have made holes in one that have never even come close to breaking par. I also know 2 scratch golfers that have never made holes in one. The lowest my handicap has ever been is 6 and I have made a hole in one with a best round of 75 (par 72). I shot an 82 when I got my hole in one. Getting a hole in one is a great feeling, but the first time I break par I think it will be much more satisfying. So I must go with breaking par on this one.

[Shorty]

I can't believe almost 40% of people that have voted think it's harder to get a hole in one than to shoot under par.

Neither can I. Says a lot.

A young guy at my club breaks par about once every six or seven rounds. As far as I know he has not ever had an ace. It means nothing. I have never had an ace and although I would like to get one, I would really only be interested in it in the context of my score for the day. Say - a 1 on 16 to save a round. A hole in one is not siomething I strive for or even think about. If I had the choice between a round with 6 birdies and one with an ace and no birdies, I'd take the birdies, because it means I'm playing well. A hole in one in a round of nett 75 would do nothing for me. People who know nothing about golf ask if you've ever had a hole in one and beginners say they "almost" had one because they hit a par three in regulation.

[Elvisliveson]

I picked hole in 1, because Ive golfed for 14 years and never had one while I have shot 1 over par. Plus hitting a hole in one does require alot of skill but its mostly luck.

As stated before in this thread, getting a hole doesn't really require much skill at all. I was playing in Mexico with my father-in-law, who got a hole in one. But he shot a 116 and I beat him by 38 strokes!

I have been playing for 30+ years, including college golf and have never broken par on a legitimate course.

[youngskip40]

Agreed and what if those same 1 million players played and improved for 20 years?

Then a greater majority would come back to their 20 year reunion with stories of a hole in one than stories of the time they shot 1 under par.

The point is, all 1 million have the chance, whether they played and improved for 20 years or whether they never played again, to score a hole in one. Actually forget the practicing. We can agree that it's possible that just ONE of those million players could get a hole in one in their first round of golf, and the fact that it's even possible... vs. the astounding improbability that any of them would shoot in the 80's, let alone shoot under par... well, it just shows in itself that if someone with no skill or experience can do one and not the other, than one must be more difficult than the other.

[youngskip40]

This is so off topic, but I'm curious because I really don't know.

If a 30 handicap scores a hole in one and gets 2 strokes on that hole... do they write down a net -1??

[saltman]

Then that's my goof, I misinterpreted your previous post.

I have clearly on at least 2 occassions pointed out that your average 20 handicapper has a zero % chance at breaking par on any given day. If that is the premise of the question there is absolutely NO point in having this discussion. As I mentioned if the average player hits 50% quality shots the odds of him hitting 71 straight quality shots is .5 x .5 x .5 x .5, on and on and on 71 times. Basic math and YES that number is way way lower than the reported 1 in 15,000 odds of an average player achieving a hole in one on any given shot. BUT...its totally false that most people will have hole in one. Of the hundreds of people I have played with in my life I have met about 10 people with holes in one. Of that same pool of people, far far more have gone under par. I played in a group once where all 4 of us went under par. Nobody in that group at the time had ever recorded an ace and to my knowledge still haven't. In my 25 years of being around the game, I have not witnessed an ace in person, I can't even count how many rounds under par I have seen. I saw a person with a 10 handicap shoot 71, so it can come together sometimes for a weekend warrior. My first round under par, I was a 6 handicap, but I would be willing to bet today as 13 I have a better chance than scoring a hole in one. I just don't understand what is so complicated about understanding this. I agree, its virtually impossible for a 20 handicapper to shoot under par, assuming that person has never been better than a 20. But the odds of a 20 handicapper having a hole in one is incredibly low as well and yes I believe its more likely that the person will improve to a level where he/she could shoot under par than ever have a hole in one! No not everyone will improve, but some will.

[saltman]

Do you have that statistic somewhere or are you just making it up? Because I don't believe it.

USGA publishes statistics on handicap indexes. About 3% of Men in this country are a 3 handicap or better. Of that 3% is it more likely they have a round in the 60s or a hole in one? How about for the 20% below 10 handicap? I'll take that pool of players and let them play 100 rounds. There will CERTAINLY be more rounds under par than holes in one. No doubt about. Yes, at a certain point on that scale it becomes more likely for the player to record a hole in one than shoot under par on any given day. But if holes in one were truly EASIER than going under par that suggests a pro would have more holes in one than rounds under par.

FACT - People improve in this game more often than not FACT - Even for Tiger, a hole in one requires a huge amount of luck. CONCLUSION - I bet money on improvement over luck.

[iacas]

I have clearly on at least 2 occassions pointed out that your average 20 handicapper has a zero % chance at breaking par on any given day. If that is the premise of the question there is absolutely NO point in having this discussion. As I mentioned if the average player hits 50% quality shots the odds of him hitting 71 straight quality shots is .5 x .5 x .5 x .5, on and on and on 71 times. Basic math and YES that number is way way lower than the reported 1 in 15,000 odds of an average player achieving a hole in one on any given shot.

Uhm...

Not only is 1 in 15,000 wrong (IIRC), but let's call it one in a million to get a hole in one. That's 1 x 10^-6. The odds, based on your calculation, of shooting under par is 4.235164736272 x 10^-22. That's a much smaller number. Thus, shooting under par is much, much, much harder. If you want to use your formula. I wouldn't, because I think it's silly and ineffective to assign "odds" to the chances of hitting a good shot. You can make birdie after hitting a bad shot, or bogey after hitting a good one.

BUT...its totally false that most people will have hole in one.

Based on what? Oh, wait, you tell us:

Of the hundreds of people I have played with in my life I have met about 10 people with holes in one. Of that same pool of people, far far more have gone under par.

Three problems with this line of analysis:

1) It's highly unlikely you've asked everyone whether they've ever shot under par or had a HIO. 2) It's highly unlikely you've played with a representative sample of all golfers. 3) Frequency of Occurrence is not the same thing as "difficulty" or how "hard or easy" something is. It's very simple. Once again, a different way: A player who never practices has a chance to get a hole in one. A player who never practices has basically NO CHANCE of breaking par. Frequency of occurrence != "hard/easy."

I just don't understand what is so complicated about understanding this.

We all feel the same way about the fact that you can't get the simple inequality I've posted above.

Just give up. It's not even your thread.

[HSip]

Man, you guys sure know how to ruin my plan. I was going to play tomorrow - shoot under par and have a couple of holes in one. Now I know it might not happen
P.S. - Still goin' to play though

[Fourputt]

I never said holes in one occurred more frequently unless it was a typo.

And this weekend my Men's Club will be having a 2 day tournament. I can guarantee you that among the 120 or so players participating, there will be zero rounds under par. And I can also guarantee you that this proves absolutely nothing in relation to the question asked in this poll.

I picked hole in 1, because Ive golfed for 14 years and never had one while I have shot 1 over par. Plus hitting a hole in one does require alot of skill but its mostly luck.

So you have never broken par, but you still think that you are more likely to do that than make an Ace? I've shot 1 over par too.... never better than that, but I've had 2 aces. Where does that put your logic?

I have clearly on at least 2 occassions pointed out that your average 20 handicapper has a zero % chance at breaking par on any given day. If that is the premise of the question there is absolutely NO point in having this discussion. As I mentioned if the average player hits 50% quality shots the odds of him hitting 71 straight quality shots is .5 x .5 x .5 x .5, on and on and on 71 times. Basic math and YES that number is way way lower than the reported 1 in 15,000 odds of an average player achieving a hole in one on any given shot.

You agree that it's impossible for a 20 handicapper to play a round under par. I contend that it's virtually unheard of for a 10 handicapper to shoot under par. That would mean that some 75% of all players will never shoot under par. Yet a fair number of those players will make at least one ace in their lives, and many will make more than one.

[whip_it_out]

I put hole in one because they're 90% luck.
And I've come reasonably close to under par rounds lately. This question completely depends on your scoring capabilities.

[flopdarock]

i think the question should be changed to which would you rather have...
most weekend warriors would rather have that big fish story with a hole in one...
and guys that are pretty dedicated to the game would rather have a round under par...
i could go my whole life without an ace... give me a bunch of rounds under par and id be happy... maybe ill change my mind when im crusty... but right now i dont even think of aces... ill take one if i can get one... but gimme a string of birdies anyday