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

[Bump-n-MI]

After pondering this for a while I'm leaning on a hole-in-one being harder to achieve (from a purly statistical standpoint). There is noting truly quantifiable about this so take it with a grain of salt:

1. There are roughly 52,000,000 golfers in the world (give or take a few ).
2. Less then 2% of the golfing population has a single digit handicap (roughly 1,040,000).
3. Out of those single digits only 20% (guestimate) will ever shoot under par (roughly 208,000)

Nothing scientific about this but my best guess would be 0.4% of the golfing community will shoot under par in their career. I may be way off with this but what the hell

I'd be willing to bet that the % of golfers that get a hole-in-one is quite a bit lower.

[iacas]

Who in the heck voted for "making a hole in one"? Did they do it as a joke?

A hole in one doesn't even require a decent swing. Look at how many hacks have aces? I read a story the other day of a woman who made an ace on the very first hole she ever played.

Shooting under par requires a good or great well-rounded golf game: off the tee, putting, short game, irons, everything.

It's not even close.

[saltman]

But you are saying that there is a 1% chance that I could shoot under par? Bad guess. That is quite ridiculous.

Yes and No. No you don't have a 1% chance of shooting under par tomorrow. Yes, you did just like everyone that picks up the game have a chance of of being part of that 1% of golfers that shoot an under par number at some point in their career. Actually, probably far more than 1% of the playing population achieves an under par round in their career. I have seen about 500 under par rounds in my lifetime inclusive of my own and still haven't seen a hole in one, live in person. How do you reconcile that a hole in one is easier to achieve? If it was TRULY easier (ie: more likely), then pros would have more holes in one than under par rounds! Something that is easier suggests it occurs at a higher rate. It is simply false, bogus, hogwash that it occurs at a higher rate.

With regards to holes in one, I offer this information from Golf Digest. "If you are a low-handicapper and play 1,000 rounds in your life, according to Scheid, you have a 20-percent chance of recording an ace. If you play 5,000 rounds, your odds are 1:1." This suggest that 20-50% of LOW handicappers record an ace in their career. Low handicappers being the very key point in this statement as they are also the same players more likely to shoot under par.

[saltman]

Who in the heck voted for "making a hole in one"? Did they do it as a joke?

Perfect, so how many sub-par rounds have you achieved? And how many holes-in one have you achieved? Which one happened first and which one do you think is more likely to happen again?

[youngskip40]

Yes and No. No you don't have a 1% chance of shooting under par tomorrow. Yes, you did just like everyone that picks up the game have a chance of of being part of that 1% of golfers that shoot an under par number at some point in their career. Actually, probably far more than 1% of the playing population achieves an under par round in their career. I have seen about 500 under par rounds in my lifetime inclusive of my own and still haven't seen a hole in one, live in person. How do you reconcile that a hole in one is easier to achieve? If it was TRULY easier (ie: more likely), then pros would have more holes in one than under par rounds! Something that is easier suggests it occurs at a higher rate. It is simply false, bogus, hogwash that it occurs at a higher rate.

What is easier and what is more likely are not the same thing. If the question here was "what is more likely" than this would be a much easier question, and the answer would simply be "it depends."

It's more likely that a pro or a top amateur will go out and shoot under par than it is that they'll get a hole in one. But it's more likely that a hack will go out and get a hole in one than shoot under par for the round.

[Alex B]

Pretty simple answer:

There are more golfers with an ace than with a round under par.

There are more rounds under par than with an ace.

The great majority of under-par rounds are shot by a very small minority of the golfing public who shoot such scores frequently. The distribution of holes-in-one is spread among all qualities of golfers; a great deal of frequent golfers get one at some point or another during their career, including many who couldn't sniff 90, much less a sub-par score.

Interesting (I think) side question:
What handicap of golfer is equally likely to have a hole-in-one or shoot under par on any given day? Obviously, a 3 handicap is way more likely to shoot under par (as he probably does several times a year), whereas a 20 handicap is way more likely to nab an ace. What's the middle point? (Maybe around a 10 handicap -- one or two magical days in his life, and one or two aces as well.)

[jorruss]

Perfect, so how many sub-par rounds have you achieved? And how many holes-in one have you achieved?

Well, I have had more under par rounds in the last 6 months than holes in one in my 20+ year golf career. I had my first ace in 2000, 10 years into my golf career. It was a mishit 6 iron that took a weird bounce off the fringe and went in. I've been a scratch or better since 1999, so it goes without saying that I will have more under par rounds, but the average player might have more aces in their life than under par rounds. Like Erik said, it takes many many good shots to shoot under par, and one swing to make an ace.

My question for the stats gurus out there is the odds of having eagles on consecutive par 4s? I holed wedges on consecutive holes once to start my round with 2 eagles. What are the odds of that happening again...

[iacas]

Perfect, so how many sub-par rounds have you achieved? And how many holes-in one have you achieved?

Perhaps y'all have a different definition of "hard" or "harder." You know, one that varies from what the vast majority of people understand it to be, and one that's different from what's in the dictionary.

I've shot under par at a reasonable course once. I have no holes in one. But so? That doesn't mean one is harder than the other. I know two guys who have never broken 80 and yet one has three holes in one and the other has four.

What is easier and what is more likely are not the same thing.

Exactly.

[saltman]

Well, I have had more under par rounds in the last 6 months than holes in one in my 20+ year golf career. I had my first ace in 2000, 10 years into my golf career. It was a mishit 6 iron that took a weird bounce off the fringe and went in. I've been a scratch or better since 1999, so it goes without saying that I will have more under par rounds, but the average player might have more aces in their life than under par rounds. Like Erik said, it takes many many good shots to shoot under par, and one swing to make an ace.

I know I have already mentioned in a previous post that its a ridiculous comparison to suggest that a 20 handicapper will hit 71 good shots in row vs. one really lucky shot. 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. Most people will not achieve either.

[youngskip40]

Who in the heck voted for "making a hole in one"? Did they do it as a joke?

Thank you. This might have actually been the perfect response to the question.

Perfect, so how many sub-par rounds have you achieved? And how many holes-in one have you achieved?

Now you're changing the question. Turning this into a chicken or the egg debate doesn't answer the question posed in the poll.

[mirv]

i went with shooting a round under par.

getting a hole in one takes one perfect shot (and/or one very lucky shot). getting a sub-par score requires approximately 70 good shots/putts.

[saltman]

Perhaps y'all have a different definition of "hard" or "harder." You know, one that varies from what the vast majority of people understand it to be, and one that's different from what's in the dictionary.

Well, I suppose its very easy to win the lottery as well. All you have to do is pay $1.

[youngskip40]

Well, I suppose its very easy to win the lottery as well. All you have to do is pay $1.

For some people, it would be more likely for them to win the lottery than shoot a round under par, that's for sure.

[Speedly]

I'm under par 60% of the time

Not what your handicap says! =P

[saltman]

For some people, it would be more likely for them to win the lottery than shoot a round under par, that's for sure.

forget it.

[youngskip40]

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. Most people will not achieve either.

But... but... but in reference to your opinion that a hole in one happens more frequently, you said:

Something that is easier suggests it occurs at a higher rate. It is simply false, bogus, hogwash that it occurs at a higher rate.

So if it's hogwash that something that happens at a higher rate is easier... how can it be a statistical fact that something that will happen more times is easier??

The other problem is... that's not a fact because there are no statistics to support it.

[saltman]

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

I have no idea what your are trying to catch me in here, you are not making much sense. I am saying its hogwash to suggest that holes in one occur at a higher rate than rounds under par.

St. Jude today, 36 players are under par. After reading this thread I expect to go home and watch highlights of the 40+ holes in one that occurred.

[MPforthewin]

Most of you are getting confused.....the question was which is EASIER not more or less frequent.

Much more skill is required to acheive an under par round which makes it much harder, hence not as easy as hitting a thin 8 iron that kicks off a mound and goes in the hole.

A Hole-in-one is EASIER.