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

[flopdarock]

I'm sure that there are fewer holes in one than rounds under par. So, for a very good golfer (like scratch or better), a hole in one would probably be harder. For someone who doesn't have the capability (skill) to shoot under par for a round, then obviously the hole in one would be easier since you can just get really lucky once. It varies with skill level, but I think overall there are more rounds under par than holes in one.

this is my thoughts exactly...

altho i played a round with my gf and her 5th time ever stepping on a course she almost aced a par 3 108 from the front tees... this is a girl who cant carry 75yrds but manages to ground a ball all the way to the hole only to lip out a foot passed it... i know guys that are single digits... great target golfers... that have never had a hole in one but have chalked up rounds under par

[MPforthewin]

I shoot under par about 75% of the time and have never had an ace, so for me obviously the hole in one has proven to be more difficult. But in general I have seen a lot of "lucky" hole in ones along with skilled ones so on any given par three with the right bounce an ace is possible. That being said shooting under par requires a ton of skill and time spent blood, sweat, and tears.

So I guess I would say for a huge majority of the golfing world, an under par round would be tougher.

[billm408]

I've had many sub par rounds in my life. Never had an ace.

[ryohazuki222]

To me this question comes down to what's harder to do? Get lucky or get really good?

I completely agree..... but I'm on the other boat. As far as I understand it, a hole in one is random. Too many variables and impossible to do consistently.

Whereas shooting under par is based on skills and dedication. And each of those can also compensate for the other. In other words, you have control. My definition of harder = hole in one = zero control of a situation. Easier = shooting under par = I practice, I work towards it, and I'm shooting under par every now and then. I think it ultimately comes down to TIMEFRAME. If you're asking which is harder to do in a day/week/year of playing.... then obviously shooting under par. But I read the question as Which is harder given your golf lifetime.

[Fourputt]

One thing that needs to be clarified. I see some who say that they shot 35 and thus have shot under par. I only consider that to be half a round. In most circles a round of golf is 18 holes, and typically par 70 to par 72. I've shot a two under par 34 for 9 holes, and one under 35 several times, but never shot under par for 18 holes.

So what are we talking about as being a round? I think it has to be 18 holes to be legitimate.

[goblue107501]

One thing that needs to be clarified. I see some who say that they shot 35 and thus have shot under par. I only consider that to be half a round. In most circles a round of golf is 18 holes, and typically par 70 to par 72. I've shot a two under par 34 for 9 holes, and one under 35 several times, but never shot under par for 18 holes.

Agree, a round should be a full 18 holes.

[lumpuckeroo]

Mind you this is just a small sampling but on the Pro Tours, there numerous rounds shot under par, but very few holes in one. So I would say a hole in one is harder to achieve then a round under par.

[CarlSpackler]

I am going with the sub par round since an ace only takes one good stroke (which may be a stoke of luck) where sub par round takes a whole bunch of em.

[David in FL]

Harder for who?

For a tour pro, it's harder to get an ace.

For a high handicapper, they're far more likely to get that ace.

[David in FL]

One thing that needs to be clarified. I see some who say that they shot 35 and thus have shot under par. I only consider that to be half a round. In most circles a round of golf is 18 holes, and typically par 70 to par 72. I've shot a two under par 34 for 9 holes, and one under 35 several times, but never shot under par for 18 holes.

Yep. A round of golf is 18 holes.

I've been under on 9 more times than I can remember. Never closed the deal on a full 18 though. God, I hate this game......

[CarlSpackler]

Yep. A round of golf is 18 holes.

For some reason, I have a hard time believing that.

Does nine holes count if you take 2 shots (drink) per hole since the rumor (I believe this is folklore actually) is that there are 18 shots in a fifth of scotch?

[David in FL]

Does nine holes count if you take 2 shots (drink) per hole since the rumor (I believe this is folklore actually) is that there are 18 shots in a fifth of scotch?

I hadn't thought of that! There may be a way around this problem yet!

[saltman]

If you take a player that has never played golf before and have him play/practice everyday, work with a pro and get the proper equipment, etc. I am betting money all day EVERYDAY that the person will shoot under par before they have a hole in one.

I have played roughly 2000 rounds of golf in my life, and have played to a sub 3 handicap and have yet to have a hole in one. In fact I haven't even seen one! I have slam dunked two balls that popped out and shattered the pin/cup and left a handful hanging on the edge, but never an ace. Statistics don't lie, more people will have their first round under par today than their first ace.

Anybody know how many holes-in-one Tiger has? I am going to guess its probably 20 or so in and out of competition. Let's say Tiger has played 5,000 rounds of golf which is probably low and there are 4 par 3's in each round giving him 20,000 opportunities. This means the best player in the world has about a 1 in 1000 opportunity for a hole in one.

Many people are using flawed logic in this thread. The old adage its better to be lucky than good is simply ridiculous. Its easier to be good than lucky.

[David in FL]

If you take a player that has never played golf before and have him play/practice everyday, work with a pro and get the proper equipment, etc. I am betting money all day EVERYDAY that the person will shoot under par before they have a hole in one.

Again, the answer becomes, "harder for whom"? It doesn't matter how hard or long my 70 year-old dad practices, he's never gonna break par. He had an ace last year though. Some people, heck, the vast majority of golfers will simply never be that good. Many thousands every year will get that lucky though.

[CarlSpackler]

I assumed I was answering for me, not the masses, but I will say that less than 10% of the golfing population can break par in total over 18 holes given their current ability, but almost all of golfers "could" get a hole in one.

BTW - Does it count if I get one on the executive course at my facility?

[youngskip40]

One thing that needs to be clarified. I see some who say that they shot 35 and thus have shot under par. I only consider that to be half a round. In most circles a round of golf is 18 holes, and typically par 70 to par 72. I've shot a two under par 34 for 9 holes, and one under 35 several times, but never shot under par for 18 holes.

Agree. I once shot 4 under 32 on the front 9 of a tough course in competition and ended up even par 72 for the day. 9 holes under par is a milestone and it is something to be proud of, but it's not a true test of golf.

I don't know how many times I've stared at a scorecard like that and thought "if I could have just doubled my front nine score......" but that's not the way golf works. I realize that now, but dammit is it frustrating!

[youngskip40]

This thread poses and interesting question, and when I first read it I thought "duh, it's MUCH harder to shoot a round under par." Then I thought about it a little more, and it really is a sliding scale.

There are a lot of good players who have never had hole in ones, and there are a lot of good players who have had several. But more than likely, all of those good players have had a few rounds under par. There are feasibly players on the PGA Tour who have never had a hole in one, but you can bet they've shot more than their share of rounds under par.

That said, there are some terrible golfers who have had one or more hole in ones. More than likely, that will be the only hole under par for the day, let alone an entire round.

So... for very good players, it's clearly easier to shoot under par than to get a hole in one. For your average mid-high handicapper, it's definitely more likely that they will get a hole in one than shoot 18 holes under par.


I've had a hole in one on a par 4, 2 full rounds under par, and countless 9 hole rounds under par. For me at this point, it's kind of a wash. I'm just one good swing and/or one lucky bounce away from another hole-in-one, and I'm just one good round away from shooting under par again.

[Fourputt]

Agree. I once shot 4 under 32 on the front 9 of a tough course in competition and ended up even par 72 for the day. 9 holes under par is a milestone and it is something to be proud of, but it's not a true test of golf.

I once stood on the 18th tee at 1 under par..... couldn't close the deal. actually took a triple and didn't even match my lifetime best.

For the typical golfer it is going to be a near impossibility to ever shoot under par, while one accidental stroke can put him in the Ace club. To the guy who said that working with a pro every day would make anyone a sub par golfer... that's bunk. I know a number of guys who simply lack the athletic ability to ever hit a ball with that sort of consistency no matter how hard they work at it. I know one guy who has played for 25 years, taken hours of lessons, and still doesn't even break 100. He loves the game, but he is simply terrible at it, and he will never, ever break 80 (I doubt that he will ever break 90), much less break par.