[mike_malone]

   Every tournament they talk about the easiest hole. It almost always is a short par five. I always cringe because I believe it sends the wrong message about the playing of a golf hole. I think that because a hole is "easier" to par leads us to bad thinking about the challenges of a golf hole.

     For instance, I believe that #13 at Augusta is an easy hole by this defintion but clearly it is a great hole.


  I would prefer something like scoring dispersion as a way to compare holes.


 I also find many advocate changes to holes when they play easy to par. This leads to many silly architectural ideas, in my mind.

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

Here's a thread I did on the terrific short par 4 9th at Milwaukee CC, site of last year's Mid-Am. Some of the stats during the tourney point to your notion of dispersion -- this short par 4 played "easy" (relative to the other holes on the course for the Mid-Am players), but had a near-equal number of above vs. below-par scores. A gambling-type hole, with some real choices to be made off the tee.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37107.0/

[James Bennett]

Mayday (and others)

is there any site which shows the dispersion of scoring - perhaps a standard deviation type measure.  Would be interesting to me to see which holes on the tour had the highest scoring spread, and the lowest.

Note that generally, par 3's have less scoring spread (because there are less shots, hence less chance for things to go wrong) whereas par 5's (even the shorter ones) have generally larger spreads.

My one concern with this sort of measure is that it might start to 'revere' stroke and distance penalty holes.  Nearby OOB, forced carry water hazards and incredibly penal rough will all produce large scoring spreads, but are not necessarily the holes we actually desire.

James B

[mike_malone]

 James,

   That's a good point. I certainly wouldn't want that result---more penal holes. So, I guess we need some more thinking.

    Phil,

    That's a great example.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Yes, but the challenges facing the Tour player as reported by the announcers are easier, and they never fail to report the number of eagles, birdies, pars, bogies, doubles and others, as you asked for.

The real problem lies in the fact that people believe that there is any relation between them and us.

[Tom_Doak]

The problem with that is simply that 99% of American TV viewers do not know what "standard deviation" means.

[mike_malone]

Jim,

    One par five this week has been encouraging most to layup off the tee. This is a less challenging shot than using a driver so that you can go for it. As a result, I think the hole is less interesting. I imagine it probably plays easier to par as well since the pros are pretty smart and calculated that going for eagle would lead to many bogies.

   I think "easier" means less challenging shots are tried on the hole not par is more likely.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

    I'm sure the genius writers could come with words to describe what I'm getting at.


    I believe this way of describing holes trains the viewers to value "easy to par" or "hard to par" as meaning "bad hole" or "good hole".


   I also think it leads to the architecture becoming beholden to par.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Money is encouraging many of those players to lay-up,  ,you and I would most likely be hitting driver. 

[mike_malone]

 Jack was asked if moving up the tee on the short 4 on the back (14?) would encourage some to go for it. He said he played a practice round with a young guy and told him to go for it. He hit the green.   Now , I believe that holes are better when more choices are encouraged  not where fewer are required.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Isn't that the same as the par five, where ..."encouraging most to layup off the tee" seems to mean that some guys still go for it?

I don't think you can realistically judge a hole, or how that hole is played, when there is a lifetimes worth of money riding on the outcome.

[mike_malone]

    How about the most different clubs in the bag used relative to the par of the hole? I'm not a statistician but I know that I would prefer discussions of holes that are more tied to architecture/ playability.


     I'm thinking of that statistics guy who turned baseball on its ear by coming up with different statistical categories that turned out to be more valuable in evaluating players than the tried and true stats.

[mike_malone]

 Jim,


   I'm more concerned about how the viewer sees things.



     I'm trying to get some of the talent on this site to think imaginativvely instead of arguing with each other


     Also,   I believe this type of thinking affects the architecture which we are concerned with here.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
One of the more telling graphics is the one with the different colored balls showing where the players were off the tee and how many different scores were produced from those positions. The ones with the highest spread always seem to be the ones that the announcers label as the 'best' at that event.

I think that graphic gives the average viewer most of what you are asking for.

[mike_malone]

  Jim,

    I agree with that.

[Matthew Hunt]

The problem with that is simply that 99% of American TV viewers do not know what "standard deviation" means.

It wouldn't be that high would it? I learned it here in N.Ireland at about 14 and now I can find it in about 10 new and exciting ways . . Then I again I was talking to a girl from an Americian college who was training to be a Maths Teacher yet couldn't figure the intragration I was doing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()