Riviera 10: Expected Scores

[Sean_A]

Q.  Do you look forward to playing it?
    BUBBA WATSON:  No.

    Q.  Can you think of another hole [Riv 10] on TOUR that you least look forward to playing?
    BUBBA WATSON:  A bunch of them but that's the worst for sure.

    Q.  In a good kind of way?
    BUBBA WATSON:  No, I don't think it's a good kind of way.  It's just I'm scared to death of that hole.  We thought about laying up today but then I was like, well, that 80‑yard wedge shot is going to be just as tough as somehow getting lucky off the tee.  And today I got lucky off the tee where all I had to do was go over the tree straight up the green.

I saw this Q&A on Shack's site today.  Its my guess that Bubba is scared of the hole because the short yardage doesn't not compute with the expected scores.  Surely the hole can't be scary from a big score PoV.  If I am correct, isn't this why the hole is so cool?  Does Bubba (Bubba as in the tour pro) get it...or doesn't it matter?

Ciao    

[David Davis]

My guess would be a hole that is this short and has the capacity to make the pros look like complete fools is indeed something to be scared of. What was the worst score of the day on that hole? I like how DJ played it. Greenside bunker, then bunker again, then bunker again. That could of been disastrous.

I can't wait to play this hole. I'm going to hit driver/3wood to the left of the green and try to leave a short chip/pitch over with as much possible green to work with so I don't have to play over the bunkers.

This is not a course where your scoring would be improved with less clubs in the bag 

[Jim Nugent]

1st round stats for #10 are real interesting.  Average score:  4.201.  That's tougher than #18, and only about 0.1 strokes less than the par 5 #1.   

No eagles.  20% birdies.  47% par.  28% bogey.  4% double bogey or worse. 

Curious to see how this plays out the rest of the tournament. 

[Adam Clayman]

I'm a huge fan of the double bunker bogie.

This hole is so great on so many levels. It slaps the face of the difficulty = quality numbnutzes, while simultaneously bashing the need for added distance, to challenge the best in the world.

Whatever happened to being able to stop it on sewer caps?

If these pros weren't playing for money, they'd love this hole. The respect they show it, illustrates it's greatness.

[Mike Schott]

Is it too hard? Shouldn't a short par 4 be a bogey or birdie hole? I didn't see the coverage and don't know if 10 was playing extra hard due to the pin placement or other factors.

[BCrosby]

A sign that that the 10th is a good hole is the degree to which scoring on it is spread from under to over par. Taking yesterday's numbers, there were more players posting scores under and over par than there players who posted a par.

A great hole.

Bob

[Chris DeToro]

I don't see how this hole could be too hard.  Maybe it's too hard because too many of them were trying to go for the green and, from what I saw, that's where the big mistakes happened.  Sorry Bubba.  Granted he did make birdie on the hole.  Apparently Lanny Wadkins called in complaining about players' strategies on this hole. 

[jeffwarne]

Is it too hard? Shouldn't a short par 4 be a bogey or birdie hole?  

a short par 4, shouldnt be a preconceived anything.
10 is a cool hole with a variety of options leading to a variety of outcomes so on one hand I get the predictable annual GCA lovefest over the hole.
And i'd say the fact that it plays so difficult for the pros does lead to its popularity here and more recently amongst the mainstream press.

I do tire of the overthinking that goes into the short par 4s these days(the words jump the shark come to mind) where there must be so many choices(including driveability by all ) and risk reward etc. coupled with a nasty green-because it's a short hole
Years ago they were called drive and pitch holes and every course had 2-3 of them. Npt all of them presented multiple choices and i daresy many of them would be considered "easy"

Without "easy" holes it's hard to see how one can truly appreciate difficult holes, to say nothing of the balance and possible psychological dismay imparted when one misses an opportunity . At one time ANGC presented this in spades, less so now with the relative homogonization of the back tee course.

i.e. it would be OK by me if a hole was truly a drive and pitch, which might mean it was 340-400 for the pros, a hole length very rarely celebrated in modern architecture

[Sean_A]

General

Your rant drifts off topic somewhat  , but if that is where you want to go...At least from PoV, there is nothing wrong with drive and pitch holes, but I also want drivable 4s in the 275-300 range.  For that matter I don't mind a 250 yard par 3 if its a goodun'. Just using Notts as an example of big golf...the shortest 4 is 349 yards...downhill so not far off a drive and pitch hole.  The gap to the next shortest (a 179 par 3) is 170 yards.  On a course where the yardage between the shortest hole and the longest hole is 367 yards, 170 represents a sizeable gap.  We can either make holes longer or find challenge in that yardage gap. I know which way I lean.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

it would be OK by me if a hole was truly a drive and pitch, which might mean it was 340-400 for the pros, a hole length very rarely celebrated in modern architecture

George Thomas devoted a fair amount of space in his book to the subject of drive and pitch holes.

However, I'm not sure there are any of them left at Riviera now.  Maybe #7.

[Dan Kelly]

Just for the record, here is how one pro (Scott Piercy) played No. 10 yesterday. Not sure how good a bunker player he is, but...

Shot 1 307 yds to left rear green side bunker, 34 ft to hole
Shot 2 70 ft to right green side bunker, 56 ft to hole
Shot 3 79 ft to left rear green side bunker, 25 ft to hole
Shot 4 51 ft to right green side bunker, 27 ft to hole
Shot 5 34 ft to green, 7 ft to hole
Shot 6 in the hole

[Tom Allen]

What I was shocked by was the stat showing those going for No. 10 cumulatively scored very much better than those who laid up.  According to the PGA, since 2003, those who went for it are a combined 467 under par, versus those who laid up, who are a mere 21 under par.

That stat just blows me away, because it clearly shows that this is a hole to go for (contrary to what I thought).  Your thoughts?

[Phil McDade]

A sign that that the 10th is a good hole is the degree to which scoring on it is spread from under to over par. Taking yesterday's numbers, there were more players posting scores under and over par than there players who posted a par.

A great hole.

Bob

Exactly -- far too many holes that the pros play on Tour have a narrow scoring range, or more precisely varied ways to play it, and varied scoring outcomes.

[Jim Nugent]

What I was shocked by was the stat showing those going for No. 10 cumulatively scored very much better than those who laid up.  According to the PGA, since 2003, those who went for it are a combined 467 under par, versus those who laid up, who are a mere 21 under par.

That stat just blows me away, because it clearly shows that this is a hole to go for (contrary to what I thought).  Your thoughts?

One thing those stats mean is that since 2003 the pro's have averaged under par at #10.  But in the first round this year, they averaged quite a bit over par.  Wonder what made the difference?  Pin placement?  Weather? 

Tom, last year I recall some pro's saying there was almost no real option on #10 anymore: they had to go for the green.   Don't recall the exact figures, but I think a big majority did that. 

[Phil McDade]

A sign that that the 10th is a good hole is the degree to which scoring on it is spread from under to over par. Taking yesterday's numbers, there were more players posting scores under and over par than there players who posted a par.

A great hole.

Bob

Exactly -- far too many holes that the pros play on Tour have a narrow scoring range, or more precisely lack varied ways to play it, and varied scoring outcomes.

[David_Tepper]

"When Does A Masterful Short Par-4 Become A Silly One?"

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/2/19/when-does-a-masterful-short-par-4-become-a-silly-one.html

[John Kavanaugh]

"When Does A Masterful Short Par-4 Become A Silly One?"

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/2/19/when-does-a-masterful-short-par-4-become-a-silly-one.html

When bitter ex-members start bitching about the course I stop listening.  We all know those guys.

[Jim Nugent]

More interesting stats about #10 in the 1st round:

Out of 144 players, 49 went for the green.  Barely a third.  Only 2 of those hit the green with their drive. 

Ave scores: 4.02 for those tried to drive the green; and 4.29 for those who laid up.

Scrambling: 40.7%

Sand saves:  24.49%. 

The green complex must be really, really hard if the pro's only get up and down 40% of the time... and just 25% from the sand. 

[Brent Hutto]

So are we really just praising brutally difficult greens set at an angle to the line of play?

Would that green make for an all-world 600 yard Par 5?

[John Kavanaugh]

So are we really just praising brutally difficult greens set at an angle to the line of play?

Would that green make for an all-world 600 yard Par 5?

Brent,

No, we are praising a thought process.  Every player in the field can drive the 10th at Riviera.  This would not be true for a 600 yard par 5.

[DMoriarty]

When bitter ex-members start bitching about the course I stop listening.  We all know those guys.

Why do you always have to be such a troll, Kavanaugh?  Geoff and those he quoted (players, not "ex-members") raise some good points.

[John Kavanaugh]

I never go to that site until we are linked over to prove some point.  Sorry but when I read:

"I always have thought the short par-4 10th's character was so strong that it could survive the Fazio-inspired over-meddling that has quietly taken so much of the nuance out of Riviera in recent years."

It felt bitter.  How Fazio destroyed the finest course on Tour is really old tired news that I wish I could have avoided.  Now with a great renovation done across town the term quietly is oddly out of place.

[DMoriarty]

Kavanaugh,  What is oddly out of place is that you are still trolling Geoff after all these years. Give it a rest.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

1st round stats for #10 are real interesting.  Average score:  4.201.  That's tougher than #18, and only about 0.1 strokes less than the par 5 #1.   

No eagles.  20% birdies.  47% par.  28% bogey.  4% double bogey or worse. 

Curious to see how this plays out the rest of the tournament. 

For comparison's sake, here are the numbers from the 2004 tournament week. (I choose 2004 because I happened to post on the numbers that year.)

Eagles:     3  (0.68 %)
Birdies: 134  (30.32 %)
Pars:     265  (59.95 %)
Bogeys:   37  (8.37 %)
Doubles:   2   (0.45 %)
Others:     1   (0.23 %)

These are the 2004 numbers for the full week, but that year there was only one bogey on Thursday.  

If this year's scoring trend continues throughout the week, it seems that something has changed.  Or at least something is substantially different than it was in 2004.

[Brent Hutto]

Are they using the same teeing ground as in 2004?

P.S. I'm asking because I have no idea, not because I'm attempting any sort of cryptic rhetorical point-scoring.

[Matthew Essig]

Easier hole location today... still over par, but barely. Currently 4.036 or so.