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

Hole-in-one or double eagle?


Note: This thread is 5925 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!

Recommended Posts

Posted
Double eagle, I have one hole-in-one, I have an eagle on a par 5 and a par 4 (both in the same round in a 3 hole stretch).

Craig 

Yeah, wanna make 14 dollars the hard way?


  • Moderator
Posted
Double eagle. I have also had a hole in one and a double eagle are harder to come by!

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Ill take a double eagle over a hole and one any time.
THE WEAPONS CACHE..

Titleist 909 D2 9.5 Degree Driver| Titleist 906f4 13.5 degree 3-Wood | Titleist 909 17 & 21 degree hybrid | Titleist AP2 irons
Titleist Vokey Wedges - 52 & 58 | Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport 2 Putter | ProV1 Ball

Posted
I have always wanted a hole in one so I would take that over a double eagle even though I know it's less under par. The closest I have been is two ball lengths away.

:cobra: Amp Driver 10.5*(R)
:tmade: Burner 3W 15*(R)
:tmade: Burner 2.0 Rescue 3-4
:titleist: 714 AP1 Irons 5-pw, gw(Steel XP95 R300)
:callaway: MD3 Wedges 56, 60
:nickent:Omen Long Putter(un-anchored)


Posted
False dilemma.

A guy I work with has done that before! It's on a blind tee shot too and he went for the green and went in. He had no clue it went in for about 10-15 minutes.

On topic though, I would much rather get a double eagle. Like people have stated, you need to make two good shots, and not just one.

In my Ozone:

Driver: S9-1 10.5*
Woods: 2007 Burner 3 Wood 15*
Hybrids 2009 3 Rescue 19*Irons: MX-200 4-PWWedges: 52, CG12 56Putter: White Hot XG 2-Ball Blade 35"


Posted
Having only gone for a par-5 in two three times in my life - and having only hit the green in two once - I can say I'd be very satisfied with a double eagle. Others have pointed out it knocks 3 off your score instead of 2 (relative to par at least), but people have left out another important reason.

I'm cheap, and if I make an ace, I need to buy drinks. I've never heard of the double-eagle man needing to buy drinks.

-- 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
Let's put it this way, if a non-golfer tries to engage you in conversation, how many of them will ask, "Have you ever made a double eagle?"

About the same number who will ask a horseman if he's ever won the Preakness. As opposed to the Kentucky Derby, the obvious question.

Give me the hole-in-one. I'd trade dozens of double eagles for a single hole in one. On a list of what I'd like to accomplish, that deuce has never entered the mental page.

Not that I've had a double eagle. Disgustingly, my closest misses in both categories were almost identical. In the '80s I hit a 4 wood to the dogleg par 5 #11 hole at Biltmore in Coral Gables, a Donald Ross design. I knew it was good but my friend insisted it was great. We got there and it didn't look possible, an inch and a half directly behind the hole, on a flat section of the green.

More than a decade later the same thing on a course in North Carolina. I hit an 8 iron on a downhill 163 yard par 3. It looked awesome from the outset but a trap fronted the green. I knew it had to be extremely close, and I walked with nervous anticipation to the green.

Again, an inch and a half smack behind the hole. At least this time it was a sensible path to end up there, a draw and the green had some slope in that direction.

Posted
I tried to make this a Poll, but I messed that up...

Me too....much harder to do.

909D Comp 9.5* (house MATRIX OZIK XCON-6)
Burner Superfast 3 & 5 woods (house MATRIX OZIK XCON-4.8)
G15 Hybrid 23* (AWT shaft)
G5 5 iron-PW-46*, UW-50*, SW-54 & LW-58 (AWT shaft)
Studio Select Newport 2 Mid SlantGrips: PING cords & Golf Pride New Decade Multi-Coumpound Bag: C-130...

Posted
There's no question that a double eagle is harder and I would have a lot personal satisfaction with one but a hole-in-one is widely thought of as the perfect golf hole and I think I'd rather have it on my bragging resume.
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I'd take either.... have been inches from both.
Many close calls on the ace... hit a few sticks and had a few where I could not understand the relationship between my ballmark, the hole, and my ball and it having not gone in.
The double eagle I have been inches twice... once I was about 8 inches after hitting a 3-hybrid, and once I was about 6 inches just short after hitting a 5-iron.

My Clubs: Callaway FT-i Tour LCG 9.5° w/ Matrix Ozik Xcon 6 stiff; Sonartec GS Tour 14° w/ Graphite Design Red Ice 70 stiff; Adams Idea Pro 2h(18°) & 3h(20°) w/ Aldila VS Proto 80 stiff; Adams Idea Pro Forged 4-PW w/ TT Black Gold stiff; Cleveland CG12 DSG RTG 52°-10° & 58°-10°; Odyssey...

Posted
The albatross (double eagle) is more rare than the hole-in-one, however, I would much rather have a hole-in-one. As good as a '2' would look on a par-5, a '1' on the card would look even better.

In my bag..

Driver: Mighty Big T3, 8°, Grafalloy Prolite 35
Fairway Wood: PT, 13°
Fairway Wood: Seville 15° (in my bag since 1987)Irons: T-Zoid Pro, 3-PWSW: MP-9, 56°LW: Tour Star, 64°Putter: Allied Professional (in my bag since 1989)Ball: ProV1xShoes:


Posted
I have 3 hole in ones and no double eagles, so I would trade two for one.

1W Cleveland LauncherComp 10.5, 3W Touredge Exotics 15 deg.,FY Wilson 19.5 degree
4 and 5H, 6I-GW Callaway Razr, SW, LW Cleveland Cg-14, Putter Taylor Made Suzuka, Ball, Srixon XV Yellow


Posted
Depends on the par three...it'd have to be a really hard one. I've always said I'd rather make the double eagle. I've come closer to making one than I have a hole in one.


 


Posted
double eagle anyday. consists of two good shots, or one great rescue shot. Making a hole in one on a par 3 is like making an eagle on a par 4. I think 3 under would be a tad bit sweeter than two under as well.

Posted
Ill take either or for me!

In my 2010 TMX Staff Bag
r9 SuperTri 9.5 Driver
r9 #3 Fairway Wood
r9 #5 Fairway wood
Burner Plus Irons (3-PW) w/ Graphite shafts 54*/60* Wedge Newport 2 Studio Select Pro V1s


Note: This thread is 5925 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.