Where did this stat come from? Did the players fill out a survey?
I compiled the stats in 2004 based on the PGA shot tracker display of where the golfers hit their drives and the clubs they hit. That year about seven in ten laid up with something other than a driver or three wood (68.6%.) Here are the numbers I posted in 2004: For the week 31.4% went for the green (139/442). Of those, only 4.3% actually ended up on the green (6/139.) On Thursday 41% of the golfers (32/78) went for the green.
I haven't played the hole but have watched it on tv for 20 years and read plenty of analysis on here. I would be surprised if the great majority of players weren't aiming.just barely short left of the green.
This was definitely not the case in 2004, nor has it been the case in any of the many tournaments where I have stood and watched group after group play this hole. (On t.v. they love to show golfers who go for it, so perhaps this is why you think they all do.) Maybe more play toward the green now than did eight years ago, I don't know. But a great majority? I don't think so. The trouble with your plan of attack is that these golfers want birdie, and the green is extremely small and tricky, and it is extremely difficult to get up and down for birdie from close to the green. The ground slopes make what you suggest a difficult task, and even if successful leave a ver difficult up and down. The great majority apparently like their chances better from 80 to 100 yards and well to the left.
It is a brilliant strategic hole that defies conventional wisdom.
Do you think it's possible a highly strategic hole for you may not be as strategic for Tour players?
Sure, but this isn't such a hole. Tour players have a real choice of how to try and play this to get their birdie. In contrast, the vast majority of lesser golfers would be fools to think that hitting driver at the green or "just barely short left" made the most sense for them. But many will go for it anyway, perhaps because neither the layup or approach are simple matters for them either.
I don't believe you can have strategy without penalty.
Neither do I, depending on what you mean by "penalty." I don't think a hole need have an imminent and obvious risk of a rule book mandated penalty stroke in order for it to be considered strategic. Yet such holes are precisely the kind which will register a wide scoring spectrum. Riviera 10 presents much subtler "penalties" or costs. Try to drive the green and fail, or try to have it both ways and try to snuggle up "just barely short left" and the golfer might find himself with a very difficult up and down for birdie, even though the golfer may be only steps off the green. Playing it safe and trusting one's wedge game isn't without risk either.
_______________________________________________________________________________
BCrosby wrote:
Allow me to say on the record that the 10th at Riviera is a great, strategic hole. But there are good reasons to think that it doesn't play that way for pros. See my post above. There are many very good Golden Age holes that have suffered the same fate at the hands of the pros. How you get from there to the conclusion that I am "bashing" the 10th at Riv. escapes me.
This I have got to hear. What are the good reasons that Riviera 10th does not play as great strategic hole for the Pros? All you have offered thus far is your scoring spread theory. So far as I can tell R10 is a wonderful strategic hole,
especially for the pros. That your theory cannot account for such a great hole suggests
flaws in your theory, not to flaws with the golf hole.
In short, you seem to have lost sight of the possibility that
your theory may not do very good job of identifying truly great strategic golf holes, especially when such holes lack extremely penal features such as water hazards. But maybe I am wrong.
What, other than your scoring spread theory, justifies your conclusion that Riviera 10 is not a good strategic golf hole for the pros?
As for your analysis of the 17th at TPC Scottsdale, perhaps you might want to reread some of the previous posts. What you are describing is not what happened. The shot in question was not a drive, but a second shot chip after the golfer had hit three wood to even with the green off the tee. Many of the players did NOT risk the direct line off the tee but instead they hit drivers or three woods well right. leaving themselves very difficult chips. It was the equivalent of them trying to do what Jim suggested at Riviera 10. They tried to be wishy-washy and not commit one way or another, hitting close to the green but not on it.
The difference between the holes is at Riviera the penalty for such a play is more subtle, whereas with this pin and conditions at Scottsdale the penalty was more blatant and severe. But say that the 17th at TPC Scottsdale is more strategic for the pros? Because they chipped into a lake? Well that is too heavy handed for my tastes and ignores the subtle beauty and effectiveness of a truly great design like R10.