[Tim MacEachern]

Nowadays it's common for tour courses to be payed to a par of 70.  Last week, for instance, Bay Hill was prepared that way.  My question is, do you think that is the psychological limit?  If the pros get much better than they are now, will Bay Hill or other courses be offered as par 69 or 68?

Secondarily, do you think this trend will make regular players more tolerant of non-par-72 courses?

[Phil Benedict]

I doubt we will ever see par 69 on tour. There is a pyshological barrier.  But par 70 is likely to become the norm n Tour. Protects par and limits the long hitters' edge.  It will be interesting to see if this infiltrates non-competitive golf. Tom Doak says the preference for par 72 is very strong among developers.

[JESII]

Two things...

Yes, par numbers will gradually reduce out of a desire to protect par...at all levels

Why does the conversion of a 525 par 5 to a 485 par 4 favor the shorter hitter?

[Jim Sweeney]

Maybe but it will be very uncommon, more uncommon than are par 71s today.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Why does the conversion of a 525 par 5 to a 485 par 4 favor the shorter hitter?"

JES, here's a theory that might hold water: because on that Par 4, neither the long hitter nor the shorter one will have an eagle putt, which isn't the case on that Par 5 (at least if it's playing into the wind). The conversion doesn't help the shorter hitter one iota; it just takes a couple of eagle chances away from the bombers.

What do you think?

Peter  

[JESII]

That must be it Peter, although I would be curious to study the facts a bit. I think shot-link could help...

[Tim Gavrich]

Doesn't the European Tour play a par 69 golf course?  I wanna say it's the tournament up in Switzerland at Crans-sur-Sierre, but am not completely sure.  I am sure that one of the Euro Tour courses is par 69, and if they can bring themselves to do it...

The real question is what is the bigger ego issue: The attractiveness of -8 winning the tournament rather than -16, or the difference between par 69 and 70?

[Jim Nugent]

Thought I read recently that the PGA tour once did play an event at a par 69 course.  One way it might happen again: the USGA does not reign in technology, some tour courses run out of real estate to stretch the holes, and today's 540 yard par 5 is played as a par 4.  Or a short par 4 gets converted to a par 3.  

They'd probably just change courses in that case, though.  

[TEPaul]

"Nowadays it's common for tour courses to be payed to a par of 70.  Last week, for instance, Bay Hill was prepared that way.  My question is, do you think that is the psychological limit?  If the pros get much better than they are now, will Bay Hill or other courses be offered as par 69 or 68?"

Never, absolutely never. You will never see a tour course with a par below 70. NEVER!

It happened once with the US Open at Philadelphia CC (they dropped the par on two holes) but that will never happen again with a golf course hosting a tournament for the best players in the world.

I wish it would just to get realistic with "par" but it will never happen.

[Ken Moum]

Never, absolutely never. You will never see a tour course with a par below 70. NEVER!

Never is a very, very long time.

Look how long it's taken to get down to 70 for full-sized courses.

Another possibility is that some new term will replace par as a standard for skilled players, just as par replaced bogey.

Anyway, if something doesn't happen there simply won't be any par fives under 600 yards. At that point, 68 seems almost inevitable.

BTW, you can call me Ken -- KMoum seems a little antiseptic.

K

[Tom_Doak]

KMoum:  Don't understand your last quote.  The USGA has been playing par-70 courses for many many years; they were reducing par at Baltusrol and Winged Foot back in the 1950's.

[A.G._Crockett]

KMoum:  Don't understand your last quote.  The USGA has been playing par-70 courses for many many years; they were reducing par at Baltusrol and Winged Foot back in the 1950's.

I would add that it isn't just the Tour or the USGA reducing par from 72 to 70 for tournaments.  There are many, many great old courses that are and always have been par 70.  To talk about par 70 on Tour as if it is only a device to "protect par" isn't correct.

And to return to a part of the original premise, I don't think "regular" players have ever been particularly intolerant of courses that are par 70 or 71; I think developers are!  They want to market their course as a "championship" course, and that seems to mean par 72.

[Ken Moum]

KMoum:  Don't understand your last quote.  The USGA has been playing par-70 courses for many many years; they were reducing par at Baltusrol and Winged Foot back in the 1950's.

Fair enough, on further reflection, it's probably nonsense.

I was thinking about how the equipment changes from the late 1800s to the 1930s prompted longer courses, new ball regulations, and a  shift from bogey ratings in the mid-70s to par ratings of 70.

As you said, the USGA was doing it by the 1950s.

I was supposing that dramatic equipment changes beginning in the late 1900s are already causing longer course, ball regulations are being talked about, and ultimately could cause the demise of the par five, just as the par six seems top have disappeared in 1956, accoridng to the USGA's online history timeline.

The USGA did increased the recommended yardages for par 1910 and 1917, but the recommended yardages haven't been changed in 51 years, except that they now have par six above 691 for men.

You're lot better situated to know what course owners are looking for, but it seems that since the USGA and PGA Tour are routinely playing par fours that are 30 yards longer than the minimum recommended length for par fives, it might be time to revisit the standards.

[redanman]

What relevance does the Tour have to the average golfer?  Most of the american attendees have never even seen a solidly-hit shot before their first PGA Tour event.  A 400 yard par 4 is out of reach in regulation for 80% of golfers. 200 yard par 3's are a driver and a reachable par 5 is perhaps 465 yards if it's downwind and two near career shots are hit.

Professional golf is an entertainment venue and the only event that really bears relevance to the average player (most americans really wouldn't get this) is the R & A Open because links is the great equalizer, providing that there is at least some weather.

(KMoum) Look how long it's taken to get down to 70 for full-sized courses.

 Yeah, true.  e.g. Flynn built more 70's than not in the 1920's.  That's 600 years since the 1300's. Very long time.

Just had to comment on that one.

[Ken Moum]

(KMoum) Look how long it's taken to get down to 70 for full-sized courses.

 Yeah, true.  e.g. Flynn built more 70's than not in the 1920's.  That's 600 years since the 1300's. Very long time.

Just had to comment on that one.

Sorry, I was guilty of unclear thinking, and perhaps unclear writing.

See my post #12.

K

[Phil Benedict]

Two things...

Yes, par numbers will gradually reduce out of a desire to protect par...at all levels

Why does the conversion of a 525 par 5 to a 485 par 4 favor the shorter hitter?

Not to be a wise guy but because it's 40-yards shorter. I think the par 4's that result from conversions are shorter on average than the par 5's they replaced, which was certainly the case with the 16th at Bay Hill.

Heres another way to look at it: Would the shorter hitters have been better off if ANGC had converted 13 and 15 to par 4's rathered than lenghtened them to keep them as par 5's?  I think the answer is yes because the longer hitters still can easily reach both holes with irons whereas the shorter hitters may have to lay up more often than not.

[paul cowley]

TomP....I'd be careful with the never word, but you might be right at least in our lifetimes.

Another way to solve the delima would be to start designing and letting the Tour play on 19 hole courses.
Then the par could go all the way up to 75 or 76 again!

That would remove having to play a numbers game to make sure no one feels inferior by having to play an inferior course of less than par 70.

[JESII]

Phil Benedict or anyone...

Who would have an advantage if a hole were played at 360 when it is normally 400?

[Phil Benedict]

Phil Benedict or anyone...

Who would have an advantage if a hole were played at 360 when it is normally 400?

Let's assume the long hitters will drive it 320 and the average pro 280.  The long hitter will have an in between shot if he hits driver on the shorter hole but something like a full lob wedge on the longer version.  The average Joe will have a lob wedge on the shorter hole and a pitching wedge on the 400-yard hole.  The long hitter can hit a shorter club off the tee to give himself a full club on the shorter hole.

Only on the shorter version of the hole can the average player hope to have the same approach club as the long hitter, so I think the short setup favors the shorter hitter.

Of course my example rules out the possibility of the really long hitter driving the green or close to it.

[Ken Moum]

KMoum
please understand I was just joking around

Sure, but that doesn't mean your point was without merit.

I do think that it's odd that the USGA changed the recommended yardages for par in 1907 and 1910 when equipment changes were massive, then again in the 1950s.

But now it's been 51 years since the last change. Of course, that ignores the fact that in their own events the USGA plays par four holes as much as 30 or 40 yards outside the recommendation.

Ken

[Doug Siebert]

You're lot better situated to know what course owners are looking for, but it seems that since the USGA and PGA Tour are routinely playing par fours that are 30 yards longer than the minimum recommended length for par fives, it might be time to revisit the standards.

They'll never do that because it'll just highlight the fact that the USGA has been asleep at the switch for the past 10 years and let the distance the ball goes get way out of hand, with only a couple "studies" to point to and no promises that anything will be done other than weak claims to not allow any further increases.

Here's where TEPaul will chime in and point to signs that the USGA may do something after all.  Maybe he's got inside info and can't comment, or maybe he's just one of those glass is half full optimistic kind of guys.  But I live about 100 miles north of the Missouri border, so I'll borrow their slogan and say "Show me!"

There's a further problem, too.  Course ratings are all dependant on these USGA definitions, so if they acknowledge reality they'lll have to alter the distance that scratch golfers drive the ball from 250 yards and 220 yard second shot to perhaps a 280 yard drive and 240 yard second shot (for a 520 yard maximum par 4, which is about right today)  That'll have the effect of dropping course ratings from the tips around 3 to 3.5 strokes, thereby increasing everyone's handicaps (but at least we'll lose the illusion that because there are so many more plus handicaps running around that golfers have become better, instead of just longer)  They'd have to increase the distances for bogey golfers too, though probably not as much which means the 'slope' in the slope system becomes steeper.  Which is correct, there's definitely a bigger difference between scratch and bogey now than there was 20 years ago.

Even ignoring the chaos this would cause in figuring handicaps that have some courses rated under the old distances and some rated under the new ones, it would probably not be well received by many golfers who wouldn't want to find out they are really 4 strokes worse than they thought.  There are plenty of people who want to see their handicap go higher, but not if everyone else's goes up also!

What relevance does the Tour have to the average golfer?  Most of the american attendees have never even seen a solidly-hit shot before their first PGA Tour event.  A 400 yard par 4 is out of reach in regulation for 80% of golfers. 200 yard par 3's are a driver and a reachable par 5 is perhaps 465 yards if it's downwind and two near career shots are hit.

C'mon this is just being silly.  There's no way a 400 yard hole is out of reach for 80% of golfers.  I don't think its out of reach for even 20% of golfers.  You are making the common mistake of equating an average drive with the best drive.  The large majority of men golfers are capable of reaching a hole well over 400 yards in regulation, though the odds may be stacked against the majority of them as far as hitting two consecutive shots square and straight.

I must confess I'm extremely curious why you say that most of the "american attendees" have never seen a solid shot prior to watching a tour event?  Do non-American golfers have a magical ability that makes them more likely to hit solid shots than American golfers?

At any rate, I imagine the vast majority of golfers who play more than a half dozen times a year have personally HIT a perfectly solid shot, nevermind merely seen one.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day, after all.  Do you really believe that it is possible for a golfer who hits thousands of shots in his life to not be lucky and hit one perfectly square once in his life?  Or do you have some special definition of 'solid' that requires a correct swing and some minimum swing speed before it counts as solid?

[Ken Moum]

Nice analysis Doug.

Much as I might wish otherwise, you are probably right about what revisiting the par yardages would mean.

Ken

[redanman]

C'mon this is just being silly.  There's no way a 400 yard hole is out of reach for 80% of golfers.

I guess I hang out with more average golfers more often .......  

I must confess I'm extremely curious why you say that most of the "american attendees" have never seen a solid shot prior to watching a tour event?  Do non-American golfers have a magical ability that makes them more likely to hit solid shots than American golfers?

 
I know american golfers best (was I slighting americans?) - having played with more of them.  Most grossly over-estimate their abilities and I have (sadly) played with many a player who thought I should become a pro because I can actually hit a 7 or 8 iron 150-160 yards and make it stop or hit a 5-iron consistently straighter and further than their drives.  I play a lot of golf with people I just meet up with at resorts and public courses because I just walk on.  I recommend this approach to understand the "common golfer".

As to american fans vs. elsewhere:  Certainly the attendees at the tournaments I've attended abroad vs. the ones I've in the US (especially R&A Open vs. USGA Open) suggest this.

Or do you have some special definition of 'solid' that requires a correct swing and some minimum swing speed before it counts as solid?

"Solid" = properly hit  as to nearness to sweetspot, squareness of clubface, angle of attack, imparted backspin, absence of sidespin yielding appropriate/intended trajectory" - is that too much of a definition - i.e. a real golf shot.

____________________________________________________
Also - my observations of "real golfers" vs. some perceptions I see on here lead me to say that:

-The average avid woman golfer is better than the average gca.com-er thinks she is

and

-The  average avid man golfer is less talented than the average gca.com-er thinks he is


___________________________________________________
Don't be too offended, but I suggest to try to play with more than just your regular four-ball ("foursome" in america )

Generally 75% or so of men would be best served playing 6100 yards and women 5000 yards.

[TEPaul]

KMoum and PaulC:

I say the tour will never reduce a course to a par 69 for only one reason---eg a golf course with a par with a 6 in front just sends a very bad perception, in their opinion. And that perception is probably shared by the USGA now. I'd love to see them get over that but I doubt they ever will.

The only really big pro tournament that I'm aware of that was held with a par with 6 in front was the US Open at Philly CC in the late 1930s (they dropped the par on two holes).

PaulC:

Your idea for an alternate card in the 60s for a course like, say, Newark, is a great idea, in my opinion, and makes an excellent point as well. But Newark won't be holding a pro tour event---at least I don't think it will. But if for some odd reason they do, I'm going out to our so-called "signature" hole and camp there for the week and watch them both soar as well as crash and burn---or should I say drown?  

Maybe I shouldn't mention it on here but what the hell---these boys on here need some excitement! I stopped in there a week or so ago on my way back from Baltimore and continued checking things out.

On our so-called "signature" hole I've come up with an amazingly varietal design concept that has so many potential strategies and nuancy options as to virtually put a thoughtful player's mind on TILT on the tee.

Did you know that if you walk way over to the right you can get a glimpse of some of the green site beyond the quarry? Yep!

So that will need to be developed.

Then we need plenty of room on the left to create enough width on that huge ramp coming down the hill to the left of the quarry to really tempt the long hitting and aggressive player.

I have also positioned a great big bunker in the upslope on the left well before the ramp that will need to be carried by the long aggressive player. The carry should be in the neighborhood of 250-260. I've also arranged the right side of this bunker to be right in line from the tee with the left side of the quarry which is fairly blind from the tee.

It's too much to go into all the potential tee shot options and strategies this arrangement will create but I'm sorry to have to tell you that we will need to create a swath of fairway from left to right in one area that is 161 YARDS WIDE!!

Sorry about that but the fairway will only need to be about 40 yards wide before reaching that big left side carry bunker tucked up into the upslope. BTW reducing the width of the fairway of that huge side to side swath by even a single yard is not negotiable.  

Also, what does that orange fence and that black fence on the right mean?

Well, never mind about that---I moved both of them over to the right a ways because I need that area to get a good enough view of the green site beyond the quarry. I don't think anyone will mind or even notice I moved those fences, do you? If somebody accuses me of doing that I will call them a bold faced liar so loud you should be able to hear me over near the clubhouse.

One cannot let conservation or ecology or whatever they call it these days get in the way of some really good options and strategies.

[TEPaul]

Oh Paul, I also ran into a bunch of guys who look like they are pretty handy with chainsaws. I was thinking of getting them a bunch of cases of beer if they will agree to go out there and rip out those bothersome "ecological" trees on our par 5 #10.

I don't think anyone will really notice that, do you?

I should also tell you that the entire second half of our #4 is incredible wet. So what are we going to do about that?

I thought this new Range Rover of mine could handle anything but apparently not. Very near sunset I sunk it into some ruts down in that area on the second half of #4 that were so deep a bunch of Boers could put a couple of their military trenches them.

I thought I would be there all night and might have to call BillS to come and rescue me and drag the car out but I gunned the piss out of it one last time and, damn, if the car didn't pop out.

I drove back to Pennsylvania on the back roads because that new car of mine looked something like a cross between Brae'r Rabbitt and Mud Baby.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()