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

[ks8829]

I guess, it depend who you ask? the results changes if you ask a beginner vs a pro golfer.

[whetstone]

I've allllllmost (within 1 ft) aced twice, but I've never allllllmost broken par.

[youngskip40]

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.

Maddening, isn't it? I've since found that having no idea where I stand in relation to par gives me a much better chance at scoring well. The mental aspect stays out of it for longer.

There's certain situations in tournament or match play where you need to know "okay I need to birdie/par this one," but for the vast majority of rounds, NOT keeping a tally of how my round is going has helped me score better by keeping the "ahhhh nooo i blew it!" factor out of my head.

[Fourputt]

Maddening, isn't it? I've since found that having no idea where I stand in relation to par gives me a much better chance at scoring well. The mental aspect stays out of it for longer.

I agree in a way, but I do know in a general sense when I'm playing quite well or quite poorly. I do occasionally get surprised when I total it up and find that although it felt like a bad day, I actually didn't score that poorly.

The day I referred to above I didn't know exactly where I was when I hit my tee shot on 18, or I'd probably have played more conservatively. A bogey would have still bettered my lifetime best, and I can usually play that hole for a bogey and make it without any trouble. It's a tough hole when playing for par, but an easy hole when playing for bogey.

[CarlSpackler]

I've allllllmost (within 1 ft) aced twice, but I've never allllllmost broken par.

Any shot on a par 3 that hits the green could be a hole in one if they cut the hole in the right place..

[saltman]

Again, the answer becomes, "harder for whom"?

I hear what you are saying, we can come up with a million exceptions to the stats, its not flawless. But lets say your father started playing 35 years ago. Would you say then if he played for 35 years that he will have a hole in one before a sub par round?

If someone can tell me that of all the people that play golf, more will have a hole in one than a round under par, I am willing to eat my words. I don't think its true. You have your father as an example, I have myself. I have probably 100 or so rounds under par, but never an ace. I suspect I will never have an ace, but I will have several more rounds under par. I simply believe more people will improve to that level of the game than have an ace, despite the obvious luck involved. Most people are looking at the question this way, are the odds better of a 20 handicapper hitting one lucky shot that goes in the hole OR 71 lucky shots in a row? Well, thats pretty darn easy to answer. I don't think thats the proper way, I think the odds are better the 20 handicapper improves to a level in which he could produce 71 solid shots PRIOR to that same player making a hole in one. I think the history of the game PROVES that rule.

[saltman]

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.

I assume you were referring to my post and I would challenge you to point out where I said anyone. I said the ODDS are in favor of that person becoming good enough to break par. I assume to prove your point the person you are referring to has also had a hole in one, because if he hasn't you aren't proving anything.

[youngskip40]

If someone can tell me that of all the people that play golf, more will have a hole in one than a round under par, I am willing to eat my words. I don't think its true. You have your father as an example, I have myself. I have probably 100 or so rounds under par, but never an ace. I suspect I will never have an ace, but I will have several more rounds under par. I simply believe more people will improve to that level of the game than have an ace, despite the obvious luck involved.

I doubt there are any stats that actually say this, but if you think about the sheer numbers, I imagine that you could conclude that there are more people that have had hole in ones than have had a round under par. There are somewhere between 25 and 30 million people in the US alone that play golf.

How many of them are even capable, on their best day, of shooting a legitimate (by the rules) round of golf under par? Not many. But... regardless of how bad the worst of them are... ALL 30 million have at least the smallest chance of having that one fateful lucky bounce, lucky roll, lucky swing, lucky shot. So, if we're talking about the amount of people who have shot under par vs. the number of people who have had a hole in one... it's got to be very heavy on the side of people with a hole in one. If we're talking about the total number of rounds under par vs. the total number of hole-in-one's, then you're probably right, and it's probably the other way around.

[allin]

In 35 years of serious to semi-serious golf, I've had 2 aces, but never shot under par. Hitting a hole in one only takes one

Exactly I rarely break 80 but have had 3 aces, only one of which was actually an excptional shot. A good golfer can increase his odds of an ace, but skill is less of a factor than for total score for the round. Other sports have equivalents, 1/2 court shot basketball probably comes closest.

[allin]

I doubt there are any stats that actually say this, but if you think about the sheer numbers, I imagine that you could conclude that there are more people that have had hole in ones than have had a round under par. There are somewhere between 25 and 30 million people in the US alone that play golf.

This is probably because this is a poor comparison. It makes a false assumption that aces are the result of skill, not always so. This thread is comparing a nearly random event with a cumulative outcome. If you took a large sample of non golfers, after brief instruction, let them hit 72 shots on a short par 3, and then let a similar group play 18 holes I bet an ace is more likely than breaking par.

[saltman]

I doubt there are any stats that actually say this, but if you think about the sheer numbers, I imagine that you could conclude that there are more people that have had hole in ones than have had a round under par. There are somewhere between 25 and 30 million people in the US alone that play golf.

Of course if we ignore the possibility for player improvement in a lifetime you are correct. If every player that picks up the game never improves they are CLEARLY more likely to have a a hole in one than a round under par. The odds of the average golfer having a hole in one is estimated to be about 15,000 (swings) to 1. But we know that for every player that picks up the game 1 in100 (just guessing) attains a level in which they could break par any given day. The question is ridiculous if you don't factor in improvement. A bogey golfer hits say 50% quality shots. So the odds are the same as flipping a coin and recording heads 71 consecutive times. If that is how you want to think about, its a rather absurd question.

[Leftygolfer]

I picked an Ace as more difficult.

I have shot under par for 9 holes but never 18.

[TigerCurtis333]

This really depends on who you ask and what their handicap is.

For me, it's 1% plausible I could go out today, hit a perfect shot, get a lucky bounce and shoot an ace. It is 0% plausible I shoot under par.

[saltman]

This really depends on who you ask and what their handicap is.

LOL.....um its not even friggin close to 1%! I fail to see how this is so difficult to understand....so I will walk away.

1% though.....holy smokes.

[jns575]

LOL.....um its not even friggin close to 1%! I fail to see how this is so difficult to understand....so I will walk away.

I think what he is trying to say is there is a greater chance of him hitting puttin one in on a par 3 than shooting scratch, which I can agree with.

I think I have a better chance of hitting a hole in one than shooting par, although, for myself both precentages are way under 1%.

[youngskip40]

This is probably because this is a poor comparison. It makes a false assumption that aces are the result of skill, not always so.

Yeah, agreed. That's what I said.

[Fourputt]

LOL.....um its not even friggin close to 1%! I fail to see how this is so difficult to understand....so I will walk away.

Of course if we ignore the possibility for player improvement in a lifetime you are correct. If every player that picks up the game never improves they are CLEARLY more likely to have a a hole in one than a round under par. The odds of the average golfer having a hole in one is estimated to be about 15,000 (swings) to 1.

But you are saying that there is a 1% chance that I could shoot under par? Bad guess. That is quite ridiculous. I have shot one over par (20 years ago), but hell will definitely freeze solid before I ever shoot under par. Yet I could go out tomorrow and hit my 3rd Ace... that is just a random occurrence.

Most people either don't have the time to devote to perfecting this very difficult game, or they lack the inborn coordination to ever be consistent enough to shoot under par even once. Yet they all have a nearly equal chance to make an ace each time they play. When you put this question to the entire population of golfers, the ace wins hands down. It doesn't require the dedication of effort combined with natural ability that shooting at or under par does. All it requires is one right swing at the right moment.

[CarlSpackler]

I still blame the greens keeper for not putting the hole in the correct place when I hit a par 3 and it isn't an ace.