It's official: NGLA to be par 72

[ChasLawler]

Reread my post.

You missed the issue.

I definitely missed the issue, because I understood your comment exactly the same way Tom did (hence my question).

Could you explain what you mean?

[Tom Huckaby]

Cabell - see my modified #74 reply.  I think he believes the stroke allocation will go down on #5 NGLA along with the par change.  I don't think it will - that's not supposed to be how this works - but it is an interesting point.  Courses can do whatever they please re stroke allocation.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

My GUESS is that the primary focus wasn't on that detail.

Reordering stroke allocation can become complicated, certainly more complicated then simply changing par from 5 to 4.

My guess is that the issue will be reviewed over time.

# 5 is currently the 9th stroke hole.

[BCrosby]

I missed this thread.

Pat is completely right about par.

Par matters. It matters enormously. It sets expectations for a hole. It frames how you think about playing a hole. It influences decisions about going or not going for greens because your competitors are under the same influences.

If the best holes tend to be half par holes, tell me again why par is irrelevant. What does Bobby Jones's concept of  reachable par 5's mean if par doesn't matter.

You can pretend to live in a Thoreau-esque universe where the only thing that matters on a golf course is you, your golf swing and the wide, wide universe. You can claim that after a round of golf your communion with the land, the sand and the trees was the essence of your day. I would suggest you are not being honest. Somewhere in the back of your brain, you kept score.

Whether we like it or not, par is an inescapable part of the game. Otherwise golf is just a walk with a stick and a ball.

Bob

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I am very aware that stroke allocation can be quite complex.

So then what is your point?  Man I am hurting my back bending over so far to give you the benefit of the doubt here... Help me out.  

Bob:

Read the entire thread before you make that summation.  No one has said that par doesn't matter, nor has any of us ever said we don't keep score.  The point remains that for the WISE player, nothing has changed on #5 NGLA.  If he's smart, he changes nothing in his manner of playing the golf hole.  As I've said many times in this thread, I have no doubt there are FAR more "un-smart" golfer than smart, and this will have an effect.  I just hope that if I am playing a match there, or a tournament, I don't let it effect me... It surely shouldn't effect Patrick in the Singles this year - and if he's the smart great player I know he is, he'll even use this to his advantage.

Par does matter, for sure.  I never said it didn't.  I just said it's the smart player who doesn't let it guide his play.

As Bobby Jones surely didn't.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

It would be interesting to track the scores on # 5 this year versus other years.

I understand the variables of weather and course conditions.

But, it would be interesting to see how the field fares with the hole as a par 4 versus a par 5.

When qualifying in medal play, against a good field, every stroke over par counts and hurts.   It can also affect future play vis a vis risk-reward.  Smart play is often altered by how well one is playing.  The better you're playing the more likely you are to take a higher risk shot.  If someone teed off late, and saw that par qualified for the championship flight, that too will affect many decisions on the golf course.

You can't sit back in the comfort of a climate controlled room and state with absolute certainty how a hole should be played.  So much depends upon the circumstances of the moment, the weather, course conditions, your play, your opponents play, etc., etc..

I submit to you that changing the par to 4 will create a greater emphasis on performance, manifesting itself in the golfer taking greater risks.

Making a 5 on # 5 will be less acceptable and will alter play on the remaining holes.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I agree with every word of that.  In fact your final line is right on the money:


I submit to you that changing the par to 4 will create a greater emphasis on performance, manifesting itself in the golfer taking greater risks.


I couldn't agree more.

I'd just add this:  you'll gain on the field if you THINK of it as a par five still, and don't let the par change effect you.  Very many will let it effect them, will push to reach the green in two, and will thus make more 6s.  My bet is the scores actually go UP as a result of this change in member play... and in top-flight competitive play, it basically stays the same or maybe goes up a tiny fraction.

That's my point.

Darn I wish you knew Pasa.  It gets fleshed out perfectly on #1 there.

So I will add this for the benefit of Bob Crosby, who I think has played the course or if not, as a Bobby Jones scholar likely knows enough about the course for this to make sense.


Bob:

To flesh this out further, let's use an example, one with which our hero Bobby Jones would be familar:  #1 Pasatiempo.

In Mr. Jones' day, it was a par five.  There were also no trees, and played to a wide open meadow.  Being downhill, I have no doubt he easily reached it in two strokes.  He also likely found no reason not to try.  I think it played at about 490 in Jones' time.

BUT.. the years went by, trees were planted, trees grew huge.   Various tees came and went, until when I started playing it (1982 or so) it had a 460 tee and a rarely-used 480 tee on top of the cart barn.  It remained designated as a par five.  Importantly, a tree grew very large at the front left of the green - and a range was added making OB left - such that combined with the inpenatrable forest on the right, reaching the green in two became VERY VERY difficult.  The wise would not even try.  I have no doubt Jones would have played it cautiously as a three shotter, from the 457 tee.  It just made perfect sense to do so, and the designation of par five made it "acceptable."

NOW fast forward a few years, and the Doak boys renovate/restore the hole a bit to how it was before... But of course not really, as there's no way they're cutting down ALL of the massive trees on the right, nor can they get rid of the driving range OB on the left.  They do remove the tree in front of the green though... And that's enough to make the par designation change, becoming four.

Do we now play the hole differently?  And if so, why?

I will say this:  reaching in two is more doable than it ever has been in my 20+ years playing the course.  BUT it's still death left, delayed death right, and the OB remains left and behind the green... The green remains a very difficult target, and any long approach is still from a downhill lie....

I'm thinking the wise golfer perhaps ups his go/no-go decision from 10% to 20%, but if he is smart, he still plays it as a three shotter.

And in so doing, he GAINS strokes on the field.  Because those who push it thinking they must reach in two are gonna make way more 6s and worse than 4s.  It's the nature of the golf hole.

But yes, way more golfers will feel they have to reach the green in two with the new par designation... I just continue to maintain the smart golfer gains on them by playing the hole as he always has, as a three shotter.

And that's the point of all of this.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I too think scores will go up on # 5 as a result of additional risk taking in the quest for par.  

And, with it's early position in the round, it may impact scores on succeeding holes.

It will be interesting to hear the comments at dinner.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

EUREKA!

So wouldn't the smart golfer ignore this, play it like he always has, and thus gain on the field?

That's all I've ever tried to say here....

 

[Dan Kelly]

Patrick:

EUREKA!

So wouldn't the smart golfer ignore this, play it like he always has, and thus gain on the field?

That's all I've ever tried to say here....

 

Sure took you a lot of words!

But, oh, what the hell, I'll say it: The AwShuckster is, once again, correctomundo!

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - I want to meet the man who could come to agreement with Mr. Mucci on a golf misunderstanding in fewer words.

 

But thanks.  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Dan - I want to meet the man who could come to agreement with Mr. Mucci on a golf misunderstanding in fewer words.

I see no evidence that you've come to agreement, yet.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dammit!

You're right.  But we're oh so close....

 

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Thanks for the explanation. (I got to get to Pasa someday.)

Physical changes to a hole will result in wholesale changes in the way a hole ought to be played. Sounds like there were big changes at Pasa, thus most people play the hole differently by reason of those changes.

Changes in par are more subtle. The par on the scorecard has effects at the margin. They aren't wholesale changes. By that I mean that some of the shots you might have tried under one par regime, you might not be so willing to try under another par regime. If my competitors see a par of "4" on the card, I can assume that they are more likely to try to reach the green in two than if the card said "5". They won't always go for it. But the decision tree will be different depending on the number on the score card. (Sounds like at Pasa you have some mix of physical and par changes going on.)

Par will affect my shot choices at the margin in the sense that I will tend to go for more greens on a par 4 than on a par 5, even if the holes are physically identical. That's because I (quite reasonably) would assume that more of my competitors will go for the green if they think it is a par 4 rather than a par 5. Laying up is more shameful on a par 4 than a par 5. Without regard to whether or not it is rational.

I've gone on too long for a dying thread.

Suffice it to say that the real test for my thesis is to take a half par hole, change its par on the score card, make no physical changes to the hole itself, and record the scoring. My thesis is that (i) average scores would change slightly and (ii) the mix of scores would be more than non-trivially different.

For example, sometime in the 40's the par on The Road Hole changed. My bet is that the scoring there also changed. More precisely, my bet is that the average score changed a little but that the distribution of scores changed more than a little, i.e. there were more low and high scores posted after it became a par 4. But that is a topic for another thread.

Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

Bob:

Perhaps this is a dying thread, but it still pains me to see my point missed.

And missed it again, you did.

Because if you read back in my exchange with Patrick, you'll see that he and I agree that in situations of par changes like this, scores will change.  Both of us speculate that at NGLA, scores will likely rise a bit as more golfers feel they have to reach the green in two, and pay the consequences.  And NGLA #5 is the perfect example for which you were asking:  indeed nothing did change there except the number on the card.  Pasa #1 just makes CLEARER the large effect par figures have, since there you have situation where physical changes made the hole play easier, yet the perception is that it somehow became tougher.

I am NOT arguing that par has no relevance.  Far from it - it has a very large effect on a very large group of golfers, as my Pasa explanation attempted to explain.  See, the hole changes made the hole play easier, but if you ask 100 golfers who played it in 2000 (before the par designation change) and play it today, they'll say it used to be a fairly easy hole, now it's a bitch.

And why?  Because the par was dropped from 5 to 4.  Most golfers do think in par/bogey terms, and since it's now tougher to make par, it's a harder hole.

So you see, I absolutely understand how this works, for most golfers.

MY POINT IS THIS:  if you are smart, you don't let it effect you in this way!  Pasa #1 is actually playing easier than it ever has - it's way more easy to make a 4 on the hole these days.  Why should a number on the scorecard render that irrelevant?  Let the less astute golfers obsess over that - let them try to force their second shots on the green - watch them make sixes as you win the hole playing it like you always have, leaving a pitch for your third.

THAT is the point.  Not that par is irrelevant; but more that in situations like this where the par is changed, the smart golfers understands that nothing really did change, and he lets the less smart golfers play their way into defeat.

280 wins the tournament, not "even par" or "minus four".  Five wins a golf hole against six, not par or bogey against bogey or double-bogey.

And I know you want to be a smart golfer like Patrick who knows this, right Bob?
 
 TH