Jason,
Yes that's a good catch -- maybe the whole risk-reward equation didn't exist back then either. I do wonder about that; whether it's been overstated all along and we were just buffaloed by what the pros and Bobby Jones used to say. (Although I can draw up a bevy of quotes from golfers who played in the tournament in the 1980s that speak to the risk-reward and especially all the decisions a golfer then had to make through a round -- I think one said most tournament courses demand tough decisions on 3-4 holes but at Augusta it was more like 13-14.)
But no I don't have the data -- how bout we delegate finding it to you!
Kalen
I would guess the most significant impact on the overall distribution likely would be the cut rather than Round 4 - it would be interesting to compare the distributions of scores for the cut vs the continuing groups.
The average score should be higher, but it would be interesting to see whether those cut suffered from a higher or lower variation of scores. I'd guess higher, because that's part of what it means to play worse. It might be meaningful though if those cut produced a narrower distribution. The implication would be it doesn't pay to play conservatively - or to lack the game enabling you to play the risk-reward game.
As to Round 4, maybe so but think about the play on the par 5s. Three groups of golfers: those like Zach Johnson whose strategy is independent of score or position (they will do the same thing every time), those who will take greater risks, and those who will take fewer.
It's not automatic that each player will take more (or less) risk just because we fix his position at XXth place in the tournament. It's player-specific. Very likely it's on the margin: most of the 60 or so are going to stand on those tees and use the same risk reward criteria they used in prior rounds.
So I think its reasonable to assume that the impact of all these decisions made by individuals when added up will minimize the impact. It might not be a wash, but it will probably mean less impact than commonly assumed. Remember, what we see on TV is NOT representative of the field!
All that said, and more to your point, perhaps we should just look at the distribution of scores of the top 10 - ie the play of everyone in the top 10 *at the time they play a par 5*.
Good luck, Kalen!
One other thought about Round 4 differing in terms of risk-reward: how much the current architecture and setup seems to limit the flexibility of the Committee. I mean, they can't build a new tee, chop down trees, or get rid of the rough Sunday morning, can they?
What I am saying is I think they retain some ability to lower or raise the average but have less ability to affect the distribution. Why? It seems the design and setup don't do nearly as effective a job at what Bobby Jones called testing the temperament of the golfer. By removing the range of decisions the golfer must think through, the architecture and setup reduce the impact of decision making during the round. That could narrow the distribution of results.
So what? On Sunday among that top 10 we might see a certain type of skewed distribution: lots of doubles but almost no eagles. Certainly fewer than the number implied by the doubles made. In other words, a desperate lot who demonstrate there's risk without reward out there - just like the US Open!
Mark