Thinking abt it, the right way to decide if this is really a good risk reward hole is to evaluate the dispersion of outcomes among those who attempt the shot, rather than looking at who goes for it and who does not.
What do you expect that the dispersion is going to tell you and what difference does that make anyway? Contrary to popular belief a good strategic hole does not necessarily have a large dispersion of outcomes. Penal holes have large dispersions of outcomes, but noone is saying that Riv. 10 is a penal hole.
A while back I started a thread on exactly this issue, using the relatively narrow dispersion of scores at Riviera 10 as my example. It should be somewhere around here if you are interested.
The fact that the percentage of players going for it improved so dramatically from one year to the next, despite advrese conditions, tells me that players are changing their views on just how much "risk" is really involved. If i can find the stats i'l try to post something over the weekend
Scott, the 2005 stats are all but worthless. First, there was no official tournament, not unless two rounds counts as a tournament. Second, while you try to paint the 2005 results as being "despite the weather, " Don points out it is much more likely that more players went for it
because of the weather. The ball generally has to bounce or run to get to any of the really nasty spots on the hole (particularly long left.) Big bad dangerous bounces are taken out of play in soggy conditions. Also, it was pretty clear that this was not going to be an official event, and the golfers may have played accordingly.
But let's give the 2005 stats the great weight you want to . . .
Just over 50% went for it in 2005. That means that just under 50% laid up. When around half a PGA field decides to lay up, I'd hardly call this support for your position. When half the golfers go one way, and the other half go the other, I'd say that is a pretty good indication that there was actually a legitimate strategic choice.
I am baffled as to how you can interpret these stats otherwise.
I do believe, however, that citing the outcome of one two player sample in order to refute conclusions drawn from two samples totalling over 700 players is less than convincing.
Well, if all I cited were the outcome then you might have a point. But that isnt all I cited. I cited the stats for the last Official PGA tournament at Riviera. Someone else added the specific numbers and the stats for the first two rounds in 2005. All those numbers show that a significant percentage of tour players lay up on a hole you describe as a no-brainer-go-for-it hole. Every stat I have seen undercuts your position.
Of course the recent dramatic finish is anecdotal. But it just happens to be a pretty powerful anecdote. The two players most on their game that particular week took two entirely different routes to the hole (every time, I think.) Given this and the stats above, how on earth can you argue that there is no real choice?
By the way, I wasnt citing the "result," but rather that the two leaders took two different approaches. Weir's winning didn't invalidate Howell's decision no more than Howell's winning would have invalidated Weir's decision. What is important is that each had a decision to make with two distinct but viable options.