Are Par 4.5s Better Rounded Up or Down?

[Mark_F]

A poster here postulated somewhere else that, compared to the esteemed Doctor MacKenzie, the dastardly Doak builds par 4.5s - eg 8 at Barnbougle, 13 at St Andrews Beach and I'm sure others elsewhere - that are more like fives than fours.

I would think a par 4.5 that plays toward the lower end of the scale is merely a somewhat difficult par four, and that a par 4.5 that plays at the higher end is actually a hole that demands higher quality shotmaking and coherent decisions, and punishes more if neither are achieved.

Is there a difference?

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

Surely it depends on the decisions you are asked to make.
At holes like 14 at The Lakes its better rounded up becaue the second is a 200 yard shot with a long carry over water.
You have a clear choice to play the hole in two or three shots.
Into the wind its a driver,four iron,eight iron.


The two holes you mention have different issues and I personally love playing both, despite the constant criticism of both holes - which I find perplexing
8 at Barnbougle is almost always downwind - Geoff Ogilvy hit a wedge there the day we played - but with no wind or on the rare days its into the wind there is a significant decision to make with the second shot - to go up on top of lay back into the bowl.

13 at St Andrews Beach simply asks for two great shots - there is no strategic decision to make and that makes it a much different hole from Barnbougle 8.

The reality of the modern game makes 13 a rounded down 4 and with no wind there is an argument to say 8 at BD could be rounded up - but it is almost always easier to reach than 13 at St Andrews Beach.

There is no decent forward tee at St Andrews Beach but 8 at Barnbougle is still a terrific hole from 80 yards forward if you are a short hitter (like JJJ)

[Lloyd_Cole]

Individually it doesn't matter so long as the total +.5s don't outnumber the -.5s too greatly... and I personally like the easy 5 next to the hard 4, leave with 9 strokes taken, however gotten, and move on. Par can play with folks' heads. It takes a certain strength of character to play within ones limitations and accept that bogey is an acceptable score on certain holes, knowing that there will be birdiers to be had elsewhere. My new local course - Wycoff CC, an old and supposedly short Ross track on the side of a hill is constantly referred to a 'short' by locals but features an uphill par 3 of 240 yards and a 440 uphill, sidehill stroke 1 that I have yet to get close to in 'regulation'..

[Mark_F]

You have a clear choice to play the hole in two or three shots.

Mike,

I guess this goes to the heart of what myself and the honourable member are getting at.

None of RM West's short fives are really a choice of two or three shot holes for many players, are they?  

Were they still in the mid-70s?

4 and 12 W seem more likely candidates than 2W.

What about something like the 17th at Prairie Dunes? Is that possibly a terriffic example of a real 4.5?

As for the 13th tee on Gunnamatta, was there ever any consideration to putting it on the dune about 25 metres left and uphill of the current middle tee?  

[Andrew Thomson]

I'm firmly in the 'like it' camp with regards to 13 at St. Andrew's Beach.  I think the problem most people have with it, is that they don't believe the fairway is reachable from the tee into the wind.

I say if Mark can get there, anyone can.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

Royal Melbourne West 12 into the wind in the winter with poa fairways was a real decision in the seventies because the bracken you had to carry was much thicker than it is now.
If you go there on an average Melbourne winter day with a wind from the north there is still a real decision to make - not for Tiger of course but for people who hit my length.

With the right conditions at 4 west there is still a decision if you don't hit a perfect drive.Those bunkers short and right are no fun - bogey probably half the time.
What we forget about RM is we all see the pro's play the course in the middle of summer when it is at its shortest - it's a much different course in winter.

There was never a decision to make on the 2nd - even on days when the green was out of reach.
Probably the best -'shall I go or should I lay up' shot at RM is the second to 10 East - its a pity it is so short now but that shot from 240 yards away is unbelievable.

I have never played Prairie Dunes - but I know 17 is a great hole.

At 13 St Andrews Beach there was thought to moving the tee left but there was a problem pulling out the trees on the left- as in we couldn't and that is where the tee needed to go.
As it is I like the tee shot because it's one of the few times on the course you really have to nail it with a driver and it does set-up a great looking approach.

If you ask someone who hits it 200 they probably hate the hole - ask Geoff Ogilvy and he will tell you its one of the best he plays all year.
I played Royal Melbourne with a hickory driver about five years ago and it was a lot more difficult to get over the bunkers at 2,4,6(impossible) and 18 than it is to get it to the right place at 13 St Andrews

[wsmorrison]

I believe that the placement of the half-par in the routing progression has a lot to do with what the par should be because I think it is linked to how it is played.

A course I know has a downhill par 5 of less than 500 yards for the 7th hole.  It precedes 3 long and difficult holes.  I think it right that this hole is rounded up to a par of 5.  Players try to birdie the hole because in their minds they need to make up a stroke for the upcoming holes.  For this reason they might be more aggressive than they would if it were a par 4 (and thus four hard to make pars in a row).  This added aggressiveness can make the hole play with a higher average stroke than if easier holes followed.  I like the mental games something like this provides.

If the half par is towards the end of the round, I am of a mind that the par could be rounded down if appropriate given overall design considerations.  It is pressure time--time to catch up or close the deal.  Testing the ability to win is a good thing towards the end of a round.

I also agree with my friend, Lloyd Cole.  It is important that all the half-pars are not skewed towards one direction or the other but also not bunched together within the routing progression.

[Tom_Doak]

Am I missing something?  

I believe it's just a number on the scorecard and it has nothing to do with how the hole should be played.

[Tom Huckaby]

Am I missing something?  

I believe it's just a number on the scorecard and it has nothing to do with how the hole should be played.

Of course that's very wise and how one SHOULD think playing these holes... But how many actually do that, as opposed to how many getting VERY caught up in the number on the scorecard?

Case in point:  #1 Pasa.  A simple change in printing on the card took that from a nice gentle opener to a beast.  Oh I know, you and your guys did some fine additional restorative changes as well, which really made the card change possible... But if anything you guys made the hole a lot easier, and yet the perception remains that it's tougher - all because of the number on the card.

TH

[wsmorrison]

I agree with Tom H, Tom D.  It is just a hole, and in stroke play it is the total number of strokes that determines the winner.  Psychology definitely comes into play to the detriment of most players.  You understand the subject so thoroughly that you are immune.  The rest of us schmoes need to work on the mental side of the equation.  My examples are from empirically watching and talking to others and fighting my own inner demons between the ears.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne - just to set the record straight, I fight the same demons.  Knowledge and practice are sadly often too different things.

 

The Pasa example is just really amazing to me... Not sure if you've seen the hole in recent times (or ever) but what Tom's group did for the most part was thin out trees to the side and remove a large tree near the green.  No distance was added or removed - only the use of a former back tee on top of a cart barn was discontinued.  So in effect it is an easier golf hole than it's ever been in the 20+ years I've been playing the course...

But yet the card pressures remain.  I know I do sit on that tee thinking I better make a 4, and dammit that's tough to do.. I'm gonna be behind something if I don't... whereas I never thought that before... 5 or even 6 was always OK.   And I do this knowing full well how stupid it is, and I am!

TH

ps - quoting that last line out of context would be a great rip on me.  If anyone does it, just do so knowing I set you up for the spike and I expect a tip of the cap acknowledgement.

[Dan Herrmann]

Gil Hanse built 2 consecutive par 4.5's at French Creek - #12 and #13.  Each, from the tips, plays over 450 with both water and sand hazards on #12, and a big, big uphill climb on #13.

The members love them because we've come to discount that artificial "par" idea.  If you beat your opponent on the hole, you win - standing vs par is not important.

The only time I think par matters is a "Par Competition" which is covered under Rule 32.  Last time I checked, Par Competions were pretty rare.

[Doug Siebert]

It doesn't matter to me whether they are rounded up or down, when I play a 4.5 that's a 5 on the card and I feel like it should be a 4 for me, I think of it that way.

There's a little 9 holer I played 4 or 5 times this winter when it'd get to the mid 50s, and there's a 470 yard par 5 there where I hit a sort of half-assed drive but followed it with beautiful 2 iron about 18" from the hole.  The guy I was playing with (just someone I joined up with) was like "wow, an eagle" after I tapped it in and I told him I thought it was really a birdie because that hole wasn't a legitimate par 5 for me.  Which I suppose would be true in the summer, but a 470 yard hole that's uphill the last 250 yards, on soggy ground, into a bit of a breeze on a 55F day probably was a par 5 for me that day, but I said what I said without really thinking about all that.

If I've got a short 5 I can see myself falling into the trap of thinking of it as an eagle opportunity -- thinking of it as a birdie opportunity would be fine, but when you think eagle on the tee you often find yourself needing to make a good putt to save par, or worse!  But when I've got a tough 4 I'm not thinking birdie on the tee, I'm thinking par, I wouldn't think birdie until I've got it on the green with a makeable putt.  So maybe mentally altering the par of a 4.5 listed as a 5 on the card is my way of sort of protecting myself against trying to push too much.


As far as Dan Hermann's comment, I like that way of thinking.  At Saddleback Ridge, one of my local favorites, the 15th is a 549 yard par 5, but you tee off from way up high on the ridge and it is with the prevailing wind, so its reachable for me everytime with as little as a PW once.  The hole that follows it is almost as long, but its into the wind and back up that hill, so its definitely a real three shotter most of the time.  They'll often move the tees up about 30 yards so it plays more like 515 on really windy days, but I wonder what it would be like if it were more like 445 and listed as a 4 on the card.  When the wind was really strong it would really play like a 5 but you get the previous 5 playing like a 4 to make up for it.  It would be an interesting test of a golfer's mind.  You see that sort of thing in Scotland and Ireland a lot.

[James_Livingston]

If you ask someone who hits it 200 they probably hate the hole - ask Geoff Ogilvy and he will tell you its one of the best he plays all year.

Mike, I think you've just defeated you own argument there.  Ogilvy is ranked 16 in the world.  A quick search of Google suggests there are 50-60 million golfers in the world, making him about as an extreme statistical outlier as you will get.  How he (or pretty much any other top professional) plays any hole is completely irrelevant to practically any other golfer on the planet.  If a golfer has to be near Ogilvy standard to like the hole then it suggests there may not be too many that like it.

Which begs the question are designers overly worried about how their courses stands up to professional golfers when they account for such a minute amount of rounds?  Playing weekly members comps doesn't lead me to suggest the typical club golfer is blowing older layouts like RM or Portsea away to the extent most newer courses need to be 400-700 metres longer.

[Mike_Clayton]

James,
I wasnt trying to advance any argument with the Ogilvy reference - just that someone who cant hit it 200 isn't likely to love the hole  but there are a bunch of holes at St Andrews he will love- Ogilvy doesn't like it just because he is one of the few who can driver/six iron it- I think he has a good feel for what a good hole is and the second shot is great.
I don't think its a hole only a tour pro can enjoy.
Of course many of Australia's new courses are only really playable from the back tees by low markers - but not the best new courses or the best old ones.

The average club golfers are on a 17 handicap - they are not about to blow anything away if breaking 80 is your definition of 'blowing a course away'

[Brian Walshe]

Mike,

Surely the reference to how Ogilvy plays BD 8 is an attempt to suggest that it's not that hard - otherwise why bring it up at all?  As James suggests, how Ogilvy plays the hole is an irrelevance to almost every other golfer on the planet and surely not something you'd be too concerned about in designing a public access track in NE Tasmania.

As we have discussed at length in the past - once into the wind and you can't get home then there ceases to be options.  You knock it into the same place in the bowl and then pitch on.  It's the only hole at BD that lacks options like that and as such is the poorest hole there to me.

I suppose that I prefer holes that round up - like the par 5's at RM rather than the par 4's that jump to 4.5.  The first tend to make people gamble the second tend to make them defensive.

[Andrew Thomson]

I wasnt trying to advance any argument with the Ogilvy reference - just that someone who cant hit it 200 isn't likely to love the hole  but there are a bunch of holes at St Andrews he will love- Ogilvy doesn't like it just because he is one of the few who can driver/six iron it- I think he has a good feel for what a good hole is and the second shot is great.

I'm a 7 capper and hit Driver 7 iron in there.  If you take the line to the right off the tee, it aint that bad.

From the tee



About 220m from the tee with 230m to get home.



Obviously an intimidating tee shot, but you just need to make a decision on the tee.  Am I playing this as a three shotter or a two shotter?  Then take the appropriate line.

Straight over George Blunt's head at the tree plantings is nice and safe.  Aim at the mound on the right of the fairway and it's an excellent risk/reward scenario.

And what a fantastic green!

[Tom_Doak]

James L:

I can't read Michael's mind, but the intent of the 13th at St. Andrews Beach was twofold:

1.  To build one hole on the course which would be a testing two-shotter for even the elite players, while serving as a decent 3-shotter for the average member; and

2.  To get from the natural site of the 12th green to the natural site of the 14th hole, using the natural site of the 13th green along the way.

It is a "big boy" hole.  You haven't seen me play but I am anything but a "big boy", but I will still kick most players' asses on that hole because I can accept the limitations of my own game and I'll be happy to make five, with the possibility of a four.

[Brian Walshe]

Tom,

By saying -  "To get from the natural site of the 12th green to the natural site of the 14th hole, using the natural site of the 13th green along the way" you seem to indicate that the first 250m odd of 13 were a requirement of the routing but not necessarily a preference.  Mike indicated that you looked for other places to put the tee (up and left) so to an extant the tee shot on 13 is a bit of a compromise required to use the 12th and 13th green sites.

Did you ever consider moving the 12th green back a bit towards the 13th tee today, making it a par 5 and then playing 13 from higher up as a shorter 4?

[Tyler Kearns]

Brian,

If memory serves me correctly, the land falls away beyond the 12th green, thus the approach would either be blind, or require a fair amount of fill to build. Regardless, I would prefer to have a bit longer walk between two natural golf holes than compromise an ideal green site.

TK

[Brian Walshe]

Tyler,

Unless you are way right the approach to 1 is blind yet that isn't a problem is it?  Coming over the the little ridge the 12th green is on might make the 2nd shot an interesting decision.

[Mark_F]

I say if Mark can get there, anyone can.

Thommo,

You have succintly summed up exactly why the hole is eminently fair!

Brian:

Isn't the fact that you just mentioned 'defensive' proof that Doak and Clayton got it right at both BB and St Andrews Beach?

A man with your length - but perhaps not control? - is surely one of the few who should glory in hitting a 3-wood or hybrid from the plateau over all that fantastic tumbling ground on 13.  

You should be looking forward to the challenge, striding boldly upon the tee, not thinking defensively.

AND NONE OF THIS IS A CRACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is the first being blind a problem?  

RCD's first is largely blind, I think, and that is one of the greatest 3 hole starts in the game.

[Andrew Thomson]

12 is a fantastic hole and much like 13 I'd call it a 4.5 rounded down I wouldn't mess with 12 or 13.  14 is the hole I'd make some changes to.  But we're talking about 1/2 Par holes here, not the design of the Gunnamatta Course.

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

The remark about 1 being blind was in response to Tyler's remark suggesting that the green would be blind and therefore and issue if moved back on 12.  I was merely pointing out that 1 was blind as is, so blind shots shouldn't be an issue.

If you make a hole too hard then the majority of golfers get defensive and don't even try and make par.  The beauty of the “round up” Par 5's at RM or in fact the 2nd at StAB is that a lot, if not most guys stand on the tee and think birdie or par.  It encourages them to gamble, to try the risky shot.  Sometimes it comes off and at other times it causes some big scores.  It epitomises risk/reward.

When you have a ‘big boy” hole you run the risk of taking the gamble away, even for the better player.  A couple of years ago I asked the Medallist in the Club Champs at the National what he’d hit into 18 Ocean.  His answer was wedge which amazed me given the length, uphill nature of hole and wind that day.  He then explained he’d played it the same as he always did in a stroke round.  He hit 3 iron, 3 iron and wedge to ensure he made 5.  Hitting driver or trying to rip 3 wood into that green he felt wasn’t worth the risk of making 7.  This from a scratch marker who turned pro weeks later.  I’m not suggesting that 13 is as poor a hole as 18 Ocean, merely that once you make something that is out or reach for most players, then the risk/reward and to me fun, suffers.

If we had a $100 on a game at StAB Mark, I’d hit hybrid, 3 iron, wedge.  On a course as good as StAB, that challenges to have a go on almost every tee and into almost every green that means 13 is perhaps a little out of place.

[Andrew Thomson]

Brian,

I can understand not having a crack at either 13 St. AB or 18 Ocean but to not hit driver off either tee, is surely ludicrous.

Your overwhelming claim about 13 at St. AB being bad hole is that the fairway is severe/blind/hard to get to.  Perhaps if you hit driver instead of the hybrid you might gain a different perspective.

Even when playing safe, I can't ever imagine hitting anything other than driver on either hole.  Perhaps a 3 wood on 18 Ocean to stay out of the pots.  3-iron for a scratch marker on 18 Ocean is difficult to believe.