Ha Na Jang makes first LPGA albatross

[nevets88]

It's only 218 and she hit 3W, but no one's ever done it before and it looks to be a little windy. Would be interested in the scattershot chart for the hole to see how the other players drove it, but an albatross is an albatross. Congratulations!

 

 

 

 

[SavvySwede]

218 is really borderline for the par 3/4 distinction, even the shortest hitter on the LPGA averaged 225 last year.

[rkim291968]

Hole in one with 3W is still good whether the hole is too short for par 4 or not.  Nice job!

 

[DrvFrShow]

Hole in one from 218 is damned good. She couldn't hold on to win.

Back nine for the final round of the tournament took 2 hrs. And Stacy Lewis hit 17 GIR in the final round.

[Shindig]

1 hour ago, SavvySwede said:

218 is really borderline for the par 3/4 distinction, even the shortest hitter on the LPGA averaged 225 last year.

Borderline, maybe, but the PGA Tour -- heck, even majors -- have had par-4s that are shorter than the median player's driving distance.  I haven't checked compared to the bottom of the tour.  

2 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Hole in one from 218 is damned good. She couldn't hold on to win.

Back nine for the final round of the tournament took 2 hrs. And Stacy Lewis hit 17 GIR in the final round.

Two hours is an amazing completion time.  Maybe the PGA Tour could take notice... 

[rkim291968]

I feel sorry for Lewis who again finished second.   It's 8 runner up finishes without a win.   I have a feeling that once she breaks the 2nd place jinx, the wins will come more easily.  

[DrvFrShow]

I figure it took about 4:15 - 4:30 at most for the entire round and in tournament conditions, if you include a potty break at the turn. I didn't really see any wasted time on the course. There were a couple of slower players, mostly the newest ones who don't know their way around yet. A lot of fun watching Lewis, Hull, and Nordqvist. Hyo Joo Kim was amazing.

[SavvySwede]

19 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Borderline, maybe, but the PGA Tour -- heck, even majors -- have had par-4s that are shorter than the median player's driving distance.  I haven't checked compared to the bottom of the tour.  

Two hours is an amazing completion time.  Maybe the PGA Tour could take notice... 

I think the Tours have been afraid of long par 3's lately, they want to show more birdies to the viewers on TV.

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/golf-us-open/2007/05/21/U-S-Open-The-288-yard-Eighth-Hole-at-Oakmont-already-causing-a-stir/stories/200705210169

Quote

Davis noted that the eighth hole played at 252 yards even in the 1927 U.S. Open at Oakmont. Previously, the longest par 3 in U.S. Open history was the 17th hole at Interlachen Country Club in Edina, Minn., which played 262 yards in 1930.

"You go back and look at the golden age of architecture and how many par 3s in the 1920s were designed to be long par 3s with drivers in your hands," Davis said. "You won't believe how many courses have 250-yard par 3s back in the 1920s when they were playing with hickories."

 

[DrvFrShow]

@SavvySwede Of course you have to remember that the maximum length for a par 3 for women is 211 yds. under USGA rules. I assume this distance is pretty standand globally. Men's distances are longer. 

[SavvySwede]

24 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

@SavvySwede Of course you have to remember that the maximum length for a par 3 for women is 211 yds. under USGA rules. I assume this distance is pretty standand globally. Men's distances are longer. 

I don't think it's and actual rule though, only a guideline for creating representative course ratings, and slope. The guideline I saw for men was 250, but they had a 262y par 3 back in 1930 and 288y in 2007, so those guidelines seem less meaningful at the pro level. 218 for a par 4 isn't much of a challenge for an LPGA pro. Perhaps if the hole wasn't so open in front and forced a longer carry with some risk, a par of 4 might be more applicable. 

[David in FL]

Sorry, but this is exactly why I don't even watch the LPGA.

[rkim291968]

5 hours ago, David in FL said:

Sorry, but this is exactly why I don't even watch the LPGA.

Sorry, I don't get that.    Men watch Little League Baseball, women's tennis, women's soccer, etc..   B/c one LPGA tournament has a 220 yard part 4 hole, you don't watch LPGA?  I've seen PGA with 300 yard par 4 hole where they were grabbing 3W to reach the green in one.  I don't think that was manly but I will watch it for my musing and don't think twice about it.

And ... if you are not fan of LPGA, you really don't need to post or reply on LPGA related threads.   I don't understand your need to read posts on LPGA and only to demean it?    Perhaps, you should leave the LPGA threads to those  who appreciate it. 

[David in FL]

4 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

Sorry, I don't get that.    Men watch Little League Baseball, women's tennis, women's soccer, etc..   B/c one LPGA tournament has a 220 yard part 4 hole, you don't watch LPGA?  I've seen PGA with 300 yard par 4 hole where they were grabbing 3W to reach the green in one.  I don't think that was manly but I will watch it for my musing and don't think twice about it.

And ... if you are not fan of LPGA, you really don't need to post or reply on LPGA related threads.   I don't understand your need to read posts on LPGA and only to demean it?    Perhaps, you should leave the LPGA threads to those  who appreciate it. 

You'll note that I very seldom post in LPGA threads.  

My point here was simply that an "albatross" on a hole that many, if not most, male bogey golfers can reach simply isn't all that interesting....even though any hole out from 218 is obviously a great shot.  I probably should have explained it better.

[iacas]

16 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

@SavvySwede Of course you have to remember that the maximum length for a par 3 for women is 211 yds. under USGA rules. I assume this distance is pretty standand globally. Men's distances are longer. 

That's not entirely accurate. That's just used for course ratings/slope.

Just the same way they will tell you anything over 470 yards for men should be a par four… but that too is not accurate.

[MSchott]

5 hours ago, David in FL said:

You'll note that I very seldom post in LPGA threads.  

My point here was simply that an "albatross" on a hole that many, if not most, male bogey golfers can reach simply isn't all that interesting....even though any hole out from 218 is obviously a great shot.  I probably should have explained it better.

It's a moot point that it's a shorter hole for a man. I'm not sure why they played this hole that short as it can stretch to 310 but even when I was a bogey golfer 218 was a good 3 wood for me.

[Golfingdad]

10 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

Sorry, I don't get that.    Men watch Little League Baseball, women's tennis, women's soccer, etc..   B/c one LPGA tournament has a 220 yard part 4 hole, you don't watch LPGA?  I've seen PGA with 300 yard par 4 hole where they were grabbing 3W to reach the green in one.  I don't think that was manly but I will watch it for my musing and don't think twice about it.

And ... if you are not fan of LPGA, you really don't need to post or reply on LPGA related threads.   I don't understand your need to read posts on LPGA and only to demean it?    Perhaps, you should leave the LPGA threads to those  who appreciate it. 

Agreed.

[Shindig]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not entirely accurate. That's just used for course ratings/slope.

Just the same way they will tell you anything over 470 yards for men should be a par four… but that too is not accurate.

Assuming you mean par five, yes.   But there's no way most 475 yard holes should be a par five on Tour.

[iacas]

Just now, Shindig said:

Assuming you mean par five, yes.   But there's no way most 475 yard holes should be a par five on Tour.

Yes, I did mean a par five.

I voted that this was a nice hole in one.