[Ulrich Mayring]

Sure, everyone appreciates interesting green complexes and surrounds, but that is for their playing value, not for their score protection capabilities. Why is it such a grand idea that the course takes strokes, that are lost to technology in the long game, back in the short game? Wouldn't this ultimately change the character of the game?

Now, I'm not saying that courses should be lengthened all the time or that I have another great idea. I'm just wondering in what way a difficult green complex could protect the shot values of a course. People will drive the ball longer, leaving them a shorter club into the green, which will always be an advantage no matter what the green configuration is.

Difficult greens do not quench the desire to hit a longer ball or do they?

Ulrich

[paul cowley]

I prefer to defend par starting at the tee.....but sometimes I don't bother defending it at all and just let the little slut get its due.

 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Ulrich,

I think it's the default option, the court of last resort.

With the immense gap off the tee and with irons, the green is ultimately where the rubber meets the road for everyone, and that's where the last line of defense has to take its stand.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ulrich,

I think that's a really perceptive post.

It's really illogical to believe that;

a 455 yard par four playing driver, 2-iron to 50 feet, first putt to 5 feet and a character-builder for par...

is equal to

a 455 yard par four playing driver, wedge to 15 undulating feet, a "breathe on it" lag to six inches and a tap in

The ironic part is even with the addition and squeezing out of every possible yard on our historic courses is bringing the same challenges is laughable, as well.

Using the example above, let's imagine that we're talking about the 18th at Merion and Ben Hogan in 1950, because that's how he played the hole.

That same hole has been extended to 505 yards from the back tee, but for a championship level golfer today to play the 18th at Merion with a driver, 2-iron, the hole would have to be closer to 580.  

What did Mickelson hit to 11 yesterday on his second shot?  A 4-iron?  

[cary lichtenstein]

Defending par at the green: I have played the Ritz in Jupiter for 3 or 4 years now, and that course defends par at the green. Nearly every green has 1 or multiple fall off areas, and you can be sure that 3 or 4 shots that hit greens, or more, will collect in very closely mown areas.

I've learnt to hit a lot of 6 irons and lob wedges, all kinds of shots with the latter, as well as sand wedges and 8 irons. Sometimes I walk to the green with 6 clubs and a putter.

While I enjoy this from time to time, I can tell you that as a steady diet, it gets tiring.

What could be a birdie becomes a bogey, and 3 straight bogeys starts to get to you.

My other course, Admirals Cove is more straight forward. If you hit a green, you may have a 90 foot putt, but you are putting. And let me tell you, a 90 footer can be more difficult than a chip.

In either event, I've grown to like the course at Admirals Cove better.

[Rick Shefchik]

"Defending par at the green" can mean a lot of things. Most of us here love #10 at Riviera because it's a tough par on a short par 4, but there are still a lot of ways to play the hole. If you hit 5-iron off the tee and an accurate pitching wedge from the proper angle, you should have a decent chance at a birdie. In this case, a smart, accurate tee shot set up the birdie (assuming you executed with the wedge.)

I can't think of a better example of the angle of a green affecting the decision-making process before the first club is pulled out of the bag. I think more greens like this would be good for golf, no matter how long the hole was.  

[Greg Murphy]

One fallout of defending par at the green: significantly longer rounds.

[Padraig Dooley]

Does par need to be defended? Why?

[David_Elvins]

I hope that no-one is confusing "defending par at the green" with "creating intersting strategy at the green".  The first is quite a bizzare concept, the second is the heart of every significant golf course.  

[paul cowley]

Does par need to be defended? Why?

No Padraig, it does not.
The whole concept of 'defending' is a rather odd one that conjures up a strange image, kind of like protecting the goal posts or the high bar or a hockey goal.

Par is an ever changing concept that loses it relevance when it stagnates.....and trying to defend it creates that very situation.

[Ulrich Mayring]

So we concur that we always want interesting green complexes, but defending par is the wrong idea, no matter where the defense takes place? Fine, but what about shot values? Do we need to defend them?

The shot values are one of the central concepts that make a great course great. The lengthening of Augusta National was justified with protecting shot values.

Ulrich

[Padraig Dooley]

Ulrich, I'm confused. I'm not too sure why par needs to be defended and I'm not too sure what shot values are.

I always thought that variety made a good golf course great.

[paul cowley]

Ulrich....I don't think you can defend them.
You can rate them or rank them and create them, but beyond that they just 'are'.

[paul cowley]

Padraig....its tuff stuff. What I think you should do is climb to the top of Sugarloaf in the Wicklow Mts and bare your Celtic soul for the answers...then find a pub somewhere in the vale of Glendalough and down at least three pints as a fixative.

Usually works for me.....although you have to keep priming the pump every so many years....

[TEPaul]

"I prefer to defend par starting at the tee.....but sometimes I don't bother defending it at all and just let the little slut get its due."

Paul:

Is par a girl?

If so I think you've just changed my entire outlook on golf and architecture.

[TEPaul]

"...and I'm not too sure what shot values are."

Padraig:

Generally shot values are bare bones discount stores that sell shots starting at least 50% off normal retail price.

[Eric Franzen]

I always thought of par as a muscular sailor...

[Ulrich Mayring]

Shot values is a term for the variety of shots that need to be played on a course. If a course is made up so that you need every club in your bag and can even shape for optimum results, then the shot values are high.

For a single shot, the value of a long drive down the middle is not very high, if it occurs frequently. The laws of supply and demand make it cheap. On the other hand, if a course allows to punch a mid iron low and have it bump and run onto the green and feed off a ridge down to the flag, that is a high shot value.

If people hit the ball much longer than at the inception of a Golf course, then shot values may be compromised. The long drive down the middle can become the best option at every hole.

Ulrich

[TEPaul]

"I always thought of par as a muscular sailor... "

Eric:

That's virtually impossible as par would most likely never be in the navy because of his father. Par is the streamlined son of "Col. Bogie" and given his rank it's pretty obvious he was in the army.

Maybe some clubs had an "Admiral Bogie" but frankly I've never heard of him.

[TEPaul]

Ulrick:

Here's the definition of "shot values" from Cornish and Whitten's book. It always seemed a pretty good definition to me:

"a reflection of what the hole demands of the golfer and the relative reward or punishment it metes out for good and bad shots".

[Mike_Cirba]

I always thought of par as a muscular sailor...

Actually Eric, you'd have no way of knowing this but that common misconception and flagrant stereotype was continuously perpetuated and almost certainly originated very early in American golf by one Devereaux Emmett.

[Jim Franklin]

Didn't Tillie say the greens were the courses first line of defense? If it is good enough for Tillie, I am not going to disagree.

[paul cowley]

Eric....I think your're part right.

Par morphs through many personas....sometimes a sailor, sometimes a slut, sometimes a sailor having his way with a slut.

Good post BTW....I like how you think.

Kind of like that other nutcase who is lurking around this thread .

[JESII]

Because defending par with length alone is sooo boring.

Defending par is just a different way of saying focus the challenge and penalty at the green end. In theory this should leave the higher handicapper in better spirits than pulling balls out of water hazards all day long, right?


As to whether or not it changes the game...I think this theory has been in practice for quite a while. Regardless of the length built in for the back tee players, interesting and challenging green complexes make a golf course more enjoyable for all classes (assuming they enjoy golf).

[Kalen Braley]

I agree,

Look no further than to PD#16.  Just a short little par 4, but it defends par very well, even boget for that matter. I would much rather take a 5 on a short wicked little par 4 than a long straight boring one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()