Reaction from GCA on Atlanta

[Gary Sherman]

Regarding the strategy of the 18th hole.

In another thread last Thursday, I stated that the leader(s) would lay up on 18 to preserve a win opportunity.  This was after having the opportunity to see the hole in personm and watch several groups in Wednesdays practice round struggle with the hole.  Well....
The problem with 18 is that it completely took away the opportunity of "winning" the tournament.  Because of it's penal design, someone could only lose it.

Look at the options for each player from the tee to green.  Toms, not as long as Michelson, hits driver.  He can't reach the water on the left.  His only fear are the bunkers on the right.  Even if he hits into them, he figures he will lay up and try and make par by getting up and down.  If he hits 3 wood off the tee, he has a 5 wood or another 3 wood home-not a choice.  Michelson decides to hit 3 wood because the water is in play for him on the left, the bunkers on the right with driver.  He must make birdie.  If he hits it in the bunkers the tournament is basically over.  

Now Toms is left with 200+ yards to the green with a hanging lie.  He has to lay up. Some for fear of dunking his ball but also because his 5 wood will not hold the green and it will be a very difficult up and down from the rough.  The best up and down opportunity for Toms is to lay up then hit a 60 degree wedge tight.  Tom's knows Michelson has 197 to the green and will have to hit a mid iron to a very difficult pin position.  Michelson has to be careful because of the tucked pin.  Toms choices are no choice at all but to lay up.

We all know the rest of the story.  Now consider if the hole played 450-470 range with the first two slice side bunkers from the tee removed.  Both hit driver.  Toms has around 180-190, a 5 or 6 iron.  Michelson has 160-170, an 8 or 9 iron (depending on conditions).   Toms must decide how safe to play his approach to the pin.  He must be close enough to perhaps have an opportunity for birdie, but also assure himself of a certain par.  Toms must execute a shot to the green. Michelson is going for the pin. He knows he has to hit it tight.  More importantly, both Toms and he knows that he can.
This is the type of drama I was looking forward to.  Unfortunately, this hole design was not going to allow that to occur.   I am just not a big fan of herculean, penal closing holes.  They become a matter of making the "safe" play and survival not shotmaking and reasonable risktaking.

Just my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I completely agree with your similarly thoughtful post.  Please see my thread from a few weeks back titled, "Let's just change par for the pros".  

I based that thread on a simple and obvious point; the definition of "PAR".  

The definition reads as follows;  "The score that an EXPERT player would expect to make on a hole under normal conditions."

Who could possibly argue that the score an expert player should make has changed greatly over the years?

For instance, a course like Merion would now simply be a par 68, with 3 monster par fours on the front side, and more in balance with the difficult finish.  

Augusta National could simply become a par 68 or 69, based on the very reachable par fives on the back, as well as the second hole.  All of this needless construction and lengthening and other surgery would be eliminated.

Can anyone possibly provide a reason why this wouldn't be a good idea?  Who really cares if the pros at a US Open at Merion would now shoot 268 at Merion instead of the 280 that Nicklaus and Trevino fired in 1971?  That would be about -4 under the new par, and certainly indicative of wonderful play.

What's more, it would give us some historical perspective as to how much better the players of today might be against their predecessors.

I still think the ball should be rolled back somewhat, or at least stopped in its tracks, but even so, I think the changing of par is really the short-term, realistic answer.

[Mike_Cirba]

Or, is this too simplistic?

Another title might have been, "the demise of the par five", simply because most "par" fives are no longer that for the professionals.  

The definition of par has also always included the assumption of how many shots were required to reach the green by the expert player, as well as a standard two putts.  

By definition, it doesn't seem that there are all that many par fives left out there, does it?

If we broaden our thinking, we might just help save our golf courses.  After all, par is simply a number we use to measure our performance.  

If the performance changes, the measurement should surely follow.

[Mike_Cirba]

sorry for the multiple posts, but...

There has been mention several times in here about exactly "how much better" the pros are than the average golfer.  If anything that gap seems to have widened quite a bit in recent years.

When I mentioned par as a measurement, it's really the measure of the play of the handicap golfer against an expert player.  

Once again, I think changing par also reflects the reality of the disparity between the two classes of players.

Of course, a purist might argue that we should really be measuring against the "scratch" player, but when guys like Tiger Woods have indexes of +10, what does scratch really mean in comparison?  Is there not a world of difference between a scratch and -10 player?

[Mark_Fine]

Gary,
If the 18th hole at AAC was simply shorter to the 450-470 you are talking about, Mickelson would have then hit 2I and Toms 3W off the tee and had the same yardages in!  

If Michelson wanted a 160 yard approach instead of a 190 approach he would have hit driver.  If Toms wanted to go for the green from 200 or so yards, he should have hit his tee shot in the fairway.  

Call it what you want, but the tee shot offered options and with rewards for proper execution.  Let's not forget Michelson hit 3W/6I to a very tough pin (for him) and still almost made birdie from 25 feet.  

Again I've played the hole and I can't say it's one of my favorites, but does that matter.  I go back to my point about Pine Valley's 18th - would you have preferred to see that as the closing hole then the 18th at ACC.  What is the better golf hole?  You only have one option on the approach to 18th at PV, it's a high soft short iron!!

Think about it!
Mark