#2 NGLA

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,
You beat me to it.

[Andy Hodson]

I love how these threads morph into different topics.

TEPaul
I couldn't agree with you more. Par, at its most basic, is a made up concept based on expectation. If we expect a "par 4" to be played in a drive, an approach, and two putts, then a 503 yard uphill par 4 is "unfair", and "ruins" our enjoyment of the hole.

But it is neither fair nor unfair; its simply a hole that is 41/4" in diameter that is in the ground 503 yards away from where we start. Isn't it our job as a player to play the hole to the best of our ability, knowing and recognizes our strengths and weakness, our tendencies and our fears, employing our talents and intelligence ... and get the damn ball in the hole as quickly as possible? Ultimately, who cares what par is?! In medal competition, the lowest score wins, period; no matter what par is.

Yet, we all fall victim to the expectations of par. In a sense, then, par can be a mind***k. If we expect we should make par, we'll pull out that 2 iron we hit well once every blue moon and go for the 210 yard shot over water, since the hole is a par 4. But if it were a par 5 we would play short (&smart) of the water and wedge on...and 9 times out of 10 make a better score. So, in a sense, the expectation of par could become a bigger advantage to the smart player in match play. Allow your opponent to fall victim to the expectations of matching par, instead of playing the hole correctly.

Or, maybe we do what Willie Nelson did at the course he owns in Pedernales. He said one of the great things about owning your own course is that you can make par whatever you want. "See that hole over there? Its a par 35...birdied that sucker yesterday."

[Andy Hodson]

I love how these threads morph into different topics.

TEPaul
I couldn't agree with you more. Par, at its most basic, is a made up concept based on expectation. If we expect a "par 4" to be played in a drive, an approach, and two putts, then a 503 yard uphill par 4 is "unfair", and "ruins" our enjoyment of the hole.

But it is neither fair nor unfair; its simply a hole that is 41/4" in diameter that is in the ground 503 yards away from where we start. Isn't it our job as a player to play the hole to the best of our ability, knowing and recognizes our strengths and weakness, our tendencies and our fears, employing our talents and intelligence ... and get the damn ball in the hole as quickly as possible? Ultimately, who cares what par is?! In medal competition, the lowest score wins, period; no matter what par is.

Yet, we all fall victim to the expectations of par. In a sense, then, par can be a mind***k. If we expect we should make par, we'll pull out that 2 iron we hit well once every blue moon and go for the 210 yard shot over water, since the hole is a par 4. But if it were a par 5 we would play short (&smart) of the water and wedge on...and 9 times out of 10 make a better score. So, in a sense, the expectation of par could become a bigger advantage to the smart player in match play. Allow your opponent to fall victim to the expectations of matching par, instead of playing the hole correctly.

Or, maybe we do what Willie Nelson did at the course he owns in Pedernales. He said one of the great things about owning your own course is that you can make par whatever you want. "See that hole over there? Its a par 35...birdied that sucker yesterday."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hod,

Who is capable of  playing # 18 at NGLA day in and day out and scoring an average of 4.5 on the hole ?

If I came to the 18th tee, even par, I sure would like to shoot one under par for the day, and certainly no worse than par.
As a par 4, that would never happen, as a par 5, the goal is obtainable.

Par is the STANDARD by which one's play of the hole is evaluated.

Do you believe that architects design holes without any consideration for what par is

Do you believe they ignore the tactical options of play of the hole in the context of not establishing or caring about par ??

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If you'll just notice regarding #18 and par, I've never once mentioned it should be a par 4 for you (or me) so stop worrying about all the problems you keep citing about having to play it as a par 4. I've said everytime that it could work as a par 4 for a tour pro level player--by all means go back and check all my posts!

For a tour level player do you really think 4.5 or lower is not realistic??

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I absolutely believe that if the tour played there, the average score would be above 5.0, especially if the hole were a par 4 finishing hole as you desire.

The 6's. 7's and higher would outweigh the 3's and 4's.

As a par 5 I believe the scoring average would be reduced.

Forgotten in your equation is EGO, and its consequences.

[Andy Hodson]

Patrick

You are proving my point. If you came to the #18 at NGLA even par, you would like to shoot one under. Which would be easier to do since it is a par 5. But you could shoot 2 under if it were a par 6, or three under if it were a par 7. Your score in relation to par would be different with those different, and in this case arbitrarily assigned,  pars. But you know what wouldn't be different? Your actual score. What you score is what you score...no matter what the par is.

Par is the standard by which one's play of the hole is evaluated......in a vacuum only (which is OK). But how you fare against the rest of the field (in stroke play) or against your opponent (match play) is what really matters. And if competition doesn't matter, then why do we have the Rules of Golf?

And if we evaluate architecture and design in golf without regard to competition, then we are no different than those who gaze for hours on end in art musuems (which is OK, too). The reason golf course design is so fascinating and different is because we can compete on the courses. And competition means others are involved, and thus they (the competition) and not par, are relevant.

Regards
Andy

[Patrick_Mucci]

HOD (Andy)

How one fares against the course, with no regard to others must be considered as well.

In its initial form, handicaps were developed based on par, and with some minor adjustment and modification, still are.

You and TEPaul seem to ignore the concept that the architect designs the hole with par in mind.  
The relative position of the features, hazards, options, challenge, etc.,etc., are all integrated with the concept of par, for the scratch player and others.

But, if you can re-instate the STYMIE, I might be swayed to de-emphasize TEPaul's fixation with PAR.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

On this entire issue and all you say about it, fundamentally I don't think I could disagree with you more.

First of all, in its initial form handicapping was based on what the US Amateur Champion was likely to shoot on a golf course--that's how rudimentary handicapping was!

Obviously you won't agree with me on that and will take serious exception to it so just do yourself a favor and read the USGA's own section on the history of handicapping!
In its latter form, like today, handicapping is largely based on  par!

You probably really think I'm not considering ego and the consequences of it in relation to par and "par perception" and you also probably really believe I'm not considering your remark "How one fares against the course with no regard to others must be considered as well."

That's just about exactly what I am considering and just about exactly why I keep saying that an overreliance by SOME goflers on a number (par) to dictate decisions on a particular hole is all about ego and "how one fares against a course....."

Ego and the remark you made have a good deal to do with the one mind-set that has much to do with great architecture and is most definitely NOT lost on good architects in how they construct a good and interesting golf hole!

That mind-set is TEMPTATION and has much to do with how effectively really good options and strategies work on a golf hole. As Geoff Shackelford has sometimes written, temptation in golf as it applies to a golf hole and its architecture could truly be seen as the underlying barometer of it all!

In other words golf holes that really tempt players basically show how interesting a hole's options and strategies can be and basically define a hole's architectural quality!

It is definitely not lost on a good architect to put any player at that decision making point (temptation) where he struggles with his own ego and the most realistic consequences of any situation! That's the sort of sublime "balance point" that makes a hole like ANGC's #13 so great and enduring!

That's the point where options and strategies become best when a player must weigh real consequential risks against rewards and try the heroic--and succeed admirably--or the more likely outcome of failure for going beyond his abilities and exceeding his limitations!

That's why I would not recommend par on #18 NGLA as a 4 for you or me or other amateurs. I would however, recommend that par 4 could work well for the tour pro level on that hole.

I also think it completely ludicrous that you really believe a tour pro tournament would produce a scoring average on that hole above 5!!

Pat, there probably is not a par 5 in the world where an entire tour pro tournament will play the hole in a stroke average of higher than 5 and if you think NGLA's #18 is going to be the first one, for some reason, like the collective tour pros egos--you're really dreaming!!

[Sebonac]

Take it easy about burning people at the stake.....there are many people that think that #2 is the only weak hole on the course....

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What would your response be if I eliminated any hazard line up the right side ?

At 503 yards, uphill, well bunkered, with disaster lining the right side the entire way, with a narrow green that falls off about 80 feet into an abyss on two sides, with wind snapping the flag on that 80* foot pole, as a par 4, I see the scores averaging 5.0 or more.

The touring pros have never played a par 4 like that, ever.

The consequences of missing the green long or right are penalty strokes

[Gib_Papazian]

Sebonac,

Define "weak."

In comparison to what? Are we worrying about par again? If the hole is sooooo weak, just pretend it is a 280 yard, uphill, blind par-3.

Again, if we are going to get hung up on the concept of par, then just let the bunker cascade a little further down the hill and then let's see how "weak" you think it is.

I could not care less that these mythical "many people" think that Sahara is the weakest on the course.

Just line them up and we can have a bonfire. I'll light the first match.

[von Hayek]

Time to end the debate on pars at National. The correct answers are:

#5 should be a par four. The tees can stay where they are.

#7 should remain a five. Yes, one often birdies the hole, but one often doubles it as well. It is a classic high beta hole, and even for long hitters the approach shot with a 3-5 iron is an incredibly difficult one to actually get on the green. It isn't terribly receptive. It's a great par 5 and should remain so. Moving the tee back a few yards would be fine, although it's not critical.

#18 a par 5? Oh, please.

[Patrick_Mucci]

von Hayek,

Are you saying that # 18 should be changed to a par 4 ?

How many times have you heard of anyone making "3" at
# 18 ?

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm sure some have holed their third shot to the green, but it seems highly unlikely.

I also don't recall anyone at the Singles ever making "3", especially in the qualifying, medal play round.  
A score of "3" would be heralded by all.  

A better, though more costly solution would be to have the Entrance gates moved slightly to the north, and the tee moved back, such that the left side fairway bunkers present the same strategic challenge on the tee shot ?

Moving the tee across the road and back reduces the strategic significance of those bunkers, and presents a far more benign shot.

While this may be a costly alteration, from a design and challenge perspective, it's probably the best.

[von Hayek]

Sorry, that was a typo. Make that

#18 a par four? Oh, please.

[Patrick_Mucci]

von Hayek,

Puting aside the cost issue for the time being, what do you think of the concept of moving the gates and bringing the tee back  ?

[TEPaul]

Well, no sense in me discussing this #18 par 4 thing any more. Pat still seems to think I'm recommending changing the par on the hole to 4 period!

Nothing of the kind, all I've ever said is if the tour pros came to NGLA a good test for them on NGLA would be at par 70 with #18 being a par 4! For anyone else leave it as a par 5.

I just came back from watching Furyk, Toms, Kuchar and Daly play Inniscrone and to think that #18 NGLA is not well within reach for them as what amounts to a good long par 4 is ludicrous. I don't watch these tour pros in person very often but Jesus, I was shocked at how far they hit the ball. #18 NGLA to them would be an ideal long closing par 4! If they had to use a utility wood on it so be it but from what I saw they wouldn't need anything like that.

Once again Pat, #18 NGLA ONLY a 4 for touring pros NOT FOR YOU!!!!!! Because if for some reason it happened to be changed to a par 4 for you I fear you really would try to play it differently for some unknown reason and consequently you probably would make a 6 or a 7 because of it!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Calm down my boy.

Those tour players sure are long, but the result of hitting the ball from an uphill lie, into a head or cross wind, eight yards right of target is an X on their score card, and a complaint that the hole is too demanding as a par 4.

I like moving the gates, what do you think ?

Calm down, take a deep breath, then begin typing  

[TEPaul]

Pat "Fazio" Mucci:

Nah, why don't we just agree to leave the gates where they are? The better policy for the pros for a par 5 would be to cut down a few trees and put the tee back by the road into NGLA and have the touring pros tee off right over the 17th green!! There wouldn't be anyone on it at that point anyway--that way we could keep it a real reasonable par 5 for the tour pro level!!

Alteranatively we could very calmly, move the tee up to exactly 499yds and have the pros tee it up as a par 4!! Take a deep breath and very calmly consider that would produce a scoring average of about 4.25!

Just calm down and consider that's the reality! I guarantee you into a slight headwind their tee shot trajectory would be just beginning to decline over the left carry bunker!!

[Gib_Papazian]

Okay you two. That is enough and I order you both to go to your room without supper.

The 12th hole restoration aside, it just occurred to me that discussions like this are the beginning of long downward slides for great courses from which there is no escape.

I'm sorry I made any suggestions earlier.

I now vote that not one single modification be made that did not specifically exist in 1929. Nothing.

Print the damned scorecard however you choose, but please, no more heresy.

Go fix Pelican Hill or Augusta or something instead.

[George Bahto]

just a couple of thoughts from me:

If I could ever conceive of any change in NGLA (God forbid it) I could imagine re establishing the Cape green (14) back out into the Bull's Head Bay - the only reason I say that is that the moving of that green was not done for architectural reasons by CBM but rather it was sacrificed for the betterment of the approach road to the clubhouse.

The original road as most of you Macdonald/Raynor "freaks" (a term of endearment, boys - me included leading the pack of you nuts, of course) ..... the original road ran right thru the middle of the course and must have been a terrible nuisance for everyone, especially the players on the course.

The routing: One of the first times I played the course, it was a quiet day there, and I asked if it would be alright to play the course as originally designed, started from present #10. There was a 2 to 3-shot wind on "my" front nine and really played tough but to me it flowed so much better and had a much more interesting feel to the progression of holes.

I’m away right now but will check on the position of the 15th tee when I get back home - it had to be where the present 14th green is of just behind it - certainly couldn’t have been where it is now - CB would never had a tee that far away...........  Stay tuned - I’ve got 3 places to check that one out

(book seems to be on schedule) boy, what are you guys gunna bug me about after it comes out  .....   thought my name was ..... "Hey Weresdabuk"    ......   I'm an amateur at this you know (well I suppose I used to be anyhow)

[Gib_Papazian]

Hey famous author,

Please give these guys your thoughts on the 12th hole and where the original tee was on #16.

I'm a bit unsure.