Ha Na Jang makes first LPGA albatross

[DrvFrShow]

I guess they just wanted to make sure there was a driveable par 4 on the course. And it was a nice hole in one. 

 

[Wally Fairway]

54 minutes ago, iacas said:

I voted that this was a nice hole in one.

I agree with this comment 100%.

Heck I would be jumping up and down and acting like a fool (maybe not acting) as I have exactly ZERO aces in my career - hell I've played courses with shorty par 3's, used to play in a league that had a 100 yarder (apparently they had a property issue and had to shrink a couple of holes) and though I would fairly regularly hit the green I never aced that one. She aced on at over 200 yards, good for her and too bad for the haters.

[Golfingdad]

I don't really understand the poll question.  It's a Par 4.  Of course it's a short par 4, but it's still a par 4.  If a PGA pro aces #7 at Pebble this week, do we start a thread asking whether or not it should be a par 2 because it's only 100 yards long?  Do we try and diminish the accomplishment of Louis Oosthuizen at the Masters a few years ago because all he needed was to hit a 4 iron to the front middle of the green and allow the slope to track it all the way from there directly to the hole?

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't really understand the poll question.  It's a Par 4.  Of course it's a short par 4, but it's still a par 4.  If a PGA pro aces #7 at Pebble this week, do we start a thread asking whether or not it should be a par 2 because it's only 100 yards long?  Do we try and diminish the accomplishment of Louis Oosthuizen at the Masters a few years ago because all he needed was to hit a 4 iron to the front middle of the green and allow the slope to track it all the way from there directly to the hole?

Isn't 17 reachable with a 3 wood at the Waste Management Open? Guess that's a Par 3 as well.

[SavvySwede]

32 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't really understand the poll question.  It's a Par 4.  Of course it's a short par 4, but it's still a par 4.  If a PGA pro aces #7 at Pebble this week, do we start a thread asking whether or not it should be a par 2 because it's only 100 yards long?  Do we try and diminish the accomplishment of Louis Oosthuizen at the Masters a few years ago because all he needed was to hit a 4 iron to the front middle of the green and allow the slope to track it all the way from there directly to the hole?

Just because the tournament officials called it a par 4 doesn't make that status immutable. If they had originally ruled it a par 3, would you argue they change the card to say par 4?

[No Mulligans]

42 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

Just because the tournament officials called it a par 4 doesn't make that status immutable. If they had originally ruled it a par 3, would you argue they change the card to say par 4?

Nope, just as I wouldn't argue that this par 4 should be changed to a par 3.

If the lpga tournament officials call it a par 4 then it's a par 4 and the status is fixed and has been determined for that tournament.  Could be changed for a future round and I wouldn't argue it either way.

[DrvFrShow]

Well at the US Open last year, in round 2 simply by changing the tee location they made hole 1 a par 5 and hole 18 a par 4, then reversed it for round 3. And the par 4 12th hole was only 270 yds in round 4. I didn't hear anyone complaining that the par 4 hole was too short. 

I think the point is moot. Haters gonna hate.

[Golfingdad]

54 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

Just because the tournament officials called it a par 4 doesn't make that status immutable. If they had originally ruled it a par 3, would you argue they change the card to say par 4?

No, of course I wouldn't.  It's not my place to do so, just as it isn't with 7 at Pebble, 2 at Augusta, 17 at Pheonix, or any other of a number of holes that are what they are.  We harp on this website day in and day out that we play the course as we find it.  Why should that not include what the tournament officials choose to call par for each hole?

 

9 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Nope, just as I wouldn't argue that this par 4 should be changed to a par 3.

If the lpga tournament officials call it a par 4 then it's a par 4 and the status is fixed and has been determined for that tournament.  Could be changed for a future round and I wouldn't argue it either way.

Bingo.

Look, if people want to diminish what somebody else accomplished, then I'm not going to stop them from doing so ... but they're not going to make me understand why.

[SavvySwede]

3 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Well at the US Open last year, in round 2 simply by changing the tee location they made hole 1 a par 5 and hole 18 a par 4, then reversed it for round 3. And the par 4 12th hole was only 270 yds in round 4. I didn't hear anyone complaining that the par 4 hole was too short. 

I think the point is moot. Haters gonna hate.

I would say the 12th a Chambers Bay should have been a par 3 at 270yds. IMO a short par 4 has to have some sort of risk reward element. If going for the green is the only smart play and it's well within reach I'm going to call it a par 3. It's not like we saw anybody laying back to hit 75y wedge second shot.

Also, not sure how having an opinion on the 3/4 distinction makes me a "hater".

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Look, if people want to diminish what somebody else accomplished, then I'm not going to stop them from doing so ...

I guess the 3/4 thing needs a separate thread or something because diminishing accomplishments has nothing to do with my opinion.

[rolopolo]

17 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. 

Thought this was the whole idea of a forum - to discuss, debate, and get different views from different people 

[Golfingdad]

23 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

I guess the 3/4 thing needs a separate thread or something because diminishing accomplishments has nothing to do with my opinion.

Fair point.  If we're just talking independently of what we think the fair cutoff is between what is a par 3 and what is a par 4, then we probably all have opinions and they should be considered non-judgmental.  But in this case, because of the nature of the thread, it's directly tied to whether or not we think this girl should get credit for an albatross.

I guess the follow-up question for me (to those who voted par 3), would be what do you think should be the cutoff from 3 to 4?  For men and for women.  Maybe this should be its own thread.  Heck, maybe it already is.  I'll go check. :P

[DrvFrShow]

Discuss, debate, and get different views, fine. But not go into an LPGA discussion to dump on the accomplishments of LPGA players in their own venue. 

If I'm not interested in a thread topic, I don't read it. 

I wasn't calling anyone in particular a hater. But let's get this thing back on topic.

[SavvySwede]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

Fair point.  If we're just talking independently of what we think the fair cutoff is between what is a par 3 and what is a par 4, then we probably all have opinions and they should be considered non-judgmental.  But in this case, because of the nature of the thread, it's directly tied to whether or not we think this girl should get credit for an albatross.

I guess the follow-up question for me (to those who voted par 3), would be what do you think should be the cutoff from 3 to 4?  For men and for women.  Maybe this should be its own thread.  Heck, maybe it already is.  I'll go check. :P

I think the risk-reward is the real border. Take the 288y par 3 from the 07' US Open and place a big bunker where the 40yds fairway running up to the green were and I'd call it a short 4.  

 

[JonMA1]

It's a par 4 because that's how the course was setup. Of course no one is going to get an albatross on a difficult hole.

There's a lot I don't understand about how they rate courses. But seeing as this doesn't happen with the best women players in the world - ever - it's an impressive accomplishment.

It's completely irrelevant if it's less so for a male golfer.

[rolopolo]

11 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Discuss, debate, and get different views, fine. But not go into an LPGA discussion to dump on the accomplishments of LPGA players in their own venue. 

He really wasn't dumping on their accomplishments from what I can read

 

12 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

If I'm not interested in a thread topic, I don't read it. 

This thread was clearly about the lenght that the par 4 played to. Therefore, even if you're not an LPGA fan, this would still be an interesting thread and would warrant a read. I am not a fan of Spieth, think he is a bit full of himself. So even though I am not a fan, if there is a thread "Jordan Spieth is so humble" , I would very much like to read it,even though I'm not a fan.

[Golfingdad]

For the record,  the "equivalent" length hole on the PGA tour (based on average driving distances I got from google) would be about 255 yards.

 

49 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

I think the risk-reward is the real border. Take the 288y par 3 from the 07' US Open and place a big bunker where the 40yds fairway running up to the green were and I'd call it a short 4.  

 

I would tend to agree based on the risk-reward factor ... a hole in one or eagle on #10 at Riviera, for example, would be phenomenal, regardless of the fact that it's only 300 yards long (Even birdies are extremely rare there).  But there still has to be a number that you would go to 4 regardless of risk-reward.  I feel like it would be around 260-270 for men on tour (the US Open does its own thing :P) and the 220 number that this hole played at was pretty close to the cutoff I'd assume for women.

[Tee2Trees]

GREAT SHOT!!  That said, kind of an embarrassment for the course and whoever set it up.  Yeah, it's a really short "driveable" par 4, but more noticeable is the fact that there is no trouble anywhere around the green.  You could top a 4 iron and see it roll up there.  Most players would score par if they were only allowed to use their putter on this hole.

[SavvySwede]

3 hours ago, Tee2Trees said:

GREAT SHOT!!  That said, kind of an embarrassment for the course and whoever set it up.  Yeah, it's a really short "driveable" par 4, but more noticeable is the fact that there is no trouble anywhere around the green.  You could top a 4 iron and see it roll up there.  Most players would score par if they were only allowed to use their putter on this hole.

Well that certainly isn't true. Miss 15-20y left of the pin and you're on the beach. It's tough, just not tough enough to justify laying back from the green off the tee because there is no forced carry.