[Jeff_Lewis]

Several times on this site, participants have suggested changing the par of a hole to "toughen" a course. NGLA at par 71, is a common example. Of course, the USGA is guilty in many of its championships of "defending par" by lowering it. I guess I have two questions....in a championship setting, do the best players in the world play a hole differently, because it is a 490 yard par 4, as opposed to a 500 yard par 5? And, in your own experience, with 265 into a par 5, is your own tendency to lay up, but at a similar distance into a par 4, is it your tendency to try to reach the front of the green. Shouldn't the risk/reward of the shot itself dictate our choice?

[THuckaby2]

GREAT questions, Jeff.

Of course we all would like to THINK we disregard "par" and just play the shot at hand... but I'd venture to say the only ones who really do that, all the time, are the true masters of course management - your top flight, best thinking pros.  Oh yeah, I'd say nearly all amateurs are seduced by par and changing the number on the card changes everything for us, with the only exceptions being the really top flight competitive players.  But I'd also say that it effects many PROS also way more than people think....

An example would be 13 at Augusta.  I'd bet right now that the score average goes up if they call that a par 4, as more pros go for the green because they then feel they "have to."  That would be an interesting experiment, wouldn't it?

TH

[Jeff_Lewis]

Tom, I agree that it probably affects the play of the pros, because they have trained themselves subconciously that success=more under par. They look pretty drained in some of these US opens. I bet their expressions would be different if they walked off Winged Foot at -4 instead of +4 with the same overall score.

I also think it is interesting that in handicapping holes for match play purposes a 480 yard par 5 is usally 12 or 13 on a scorecard, but a 470 yard par 4 is usually 1 or 2. Doesn't the high handicapper have the same disadvantage relative to the low handicapper on both holes?

[THuckaby2]

JL:  Another interesting question!  At least here in NorCal, the NCGA doesn't set handicap holes, that is done by the clubs.  The NCGA can give the clubs data to assist with this, but in the end it is their decision.  In any case, assuming that the idea is to give strokes where the higher handicapper needs them most, in the end "par" should indeed be meaningless!  He generally needs them where he hits the most shots, and thus the longest holes should nearly always be the low handicap holes.   But it is indeed funny how often you see a 470 par 4 as #1 and a 470 par 5 as #13 or something!

We are ALL seduced by par way too much - I am convinced of that.

TH

[Rob Hallford]

This is something that I have thought about a great deal with my own game.  I am a Decision Scientist for a pharmaceutical company, and I believe that par should have little or no bearing on decision-making DEPENDING ON YOUR VALUES.  If a person values low scores, that person should make the same decision for the same conditions regardless of how many he lies or what the par of the hole is (e.g., 235 out, ball above the feet, water left should result in the same decision process whether you are lying 1 on a par 5 or 3 on a par 4) as the risks/rewards are the same.  

People often make the mistake of factoring sunk costs into their decisions.  How many strokes it took you to get here is irrelevant to your decision--you can't get them back!  The better way to think about it is to start counting from your current situation rather than from the tee.  For the above example:  "I could hit the green and two-putt to get down in three, but I've been hooking my 2-iron all day and if I go left, I'll wind up getting down in 4 or 5 at best."  

This way of thinking works until you throw competition into the mix of values.  Values change slightly as I not only want to shoot a low score, but I want to shoot lower than my best competitor.  The riskier or safer shot becomes more attractive depending on where you stand on the leaderboard.  Even here, unless you place a high value on moving up one spot or avoiding moving down one spot (e.g., the difference between 1st and 2nd at the end of the tourney) your best bet is to make decisions the same way you normally would given playing conditions and your shot alternatives.

Another example of how values can change is when you stop "protecting a score."  I played Pebble Beach a few years ago and, honestly, my values centered around what I would be able to tell my buddy about my round afterward.  I'd love to say "I shot 75", but when it became evident that I wouldn't be relating my 18 hole total (somewhere around #7), I started pulling out my driver more and shooting at flags rather than "playing smart".  I wanted to be able to say, "Well, at least I birdied 13" (which I did).  I sacrificed several strokes for my "trophy memory", and I'm glad I did.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Yes, Tom, the handicapping of holes is done by the club. And doesn't that also change how we play holes? And for good reason. Par is irrelevant to proper strategy, but what handicap the hole is probably is eminently relevant if one is playing a match. If I were getting three strokes from you on the back nine of Quaker Ridge, the card gives them to me on 12, 16 and 18. three 440ish par 4s. I would prefer to give that one on 18 up for one on 13, a 225 yard par 3. Your superior skill probably gives you a better edge on a difficult one-shotter than the two-shotters and the match might be over by 18 anyway.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Indy,
Great post.

[redanman]

The designation of par should have no impact whatsoever on outcome.  The designation of par only provides one the justification of a specific layup shot on a par 5.  A coddling device.

And Huckaby, did you see anyone lay-up on purpose at 13 ANGC this year at the tone-a-mint?  All pros on the PGATour (Independent of whether or not the 4 "majors" are part of the PGA Tour), unless in trouble go for all par 5's in two shots now.  Always.  It's what's in vogue, what with 64* wedges available.

[THuckaby2]

JL:  don't I know how handicap holes effect strategy... I play in a team match play league every summer and the "stroke holes" are HUGE.  Very well said.

And Indy, that was a damn great post - concur re that - thanks!

And redanman, hmmm... yeah, I guess today's equipment is taking a lot of this out of the equation, so my example is a bad one!  It was enlightening to me to watch a really long hitter play recently, as I was privileged to see at Barona (Josh T).  I was intrigued talking strategy with him... and he did indeed confirm what you say - there really is no such thing as a par 5 for him, when it all boils down.  Guys like him do indeed just have a long 2nd shot.

Josh is one of those few who can and do disregard par... but I wonder if even for him, if he misses the green on his 2nd, is it somehow "ok"... and is it this way for the pros, also...

It would seem so.  But I wonder if these guys do buy into this thinking.

Hey, I'm a strange cat, I find this really interesting...  

TH

[THuckaby2]

Muy interesante, shivas.  I'm with ya re par 3's - hate to give strokes there, very hard to win the hole... but I had never thought this way re par 5's.  I guess they're so often "stroke holes" I've just gotten used to it.

Another thing I have gotten used to, however, is that in match play it doesn't matter diddly what number wins the hole, and par often goes right out the window.  In the last few years I've won holes and matches with some pretty big numbers and lost some of both with some low numbers... That's why it's so fun for me to play, stroke holes and par be damned.  I'm finding that a hole never is over until the ball is in the hole or it's conceded, and a match REALLY isn't over till it's over, as Yogi would say.  It's funny how many people have trouble closing out a match and how momentum can turn so quickly...

My season starts pretty soon... need to get back into this thinking.  Thanks!

TH

[THuckaby2]

shivas:  oh I understand that thinking all too well - Mr. Huntley can confirm how iffy my putting is.  So that makes a lot of sense.

Turning the negative into a positive is a good thing, I think.  I've always had better success in match play trying to find positives than avoid negatives, if that makes any sense... Thus for me try as I might I can't avoid some negative thinking on a par3 where I have to give a stroke... that's just too obvious... but all other holes I do indeed just try to let the chips fall where they may.  Oh yeah, I've lost plenty of holes to net 4's, but those have happened on all types of holes, not just par 5's... What I'm trying to do is not get mad in any case, ever, and move on to the next shot/next hole.  Note I said TRYING.  It's tough to do all the time.  That's why I'm the sometimes-decent hack compared to REALLY good players that I am!

One other thing re match play before I bore you to death:  I've come to terms with my swing "limitations" so all this mental stuff I REALLY focus on, try to make it an advantage for me.  I often need all the help I can get... But thinking better can win a match even when the swing goes awry.  That's been my focus for a few years now, and I think I'm getting better at it...

TH

[THuckaby2]

shivas:  ha!  That might happen SOMETIMES.  I'll kinda take your ballstriking, thank you very much.  This is a crazy game... and oh yes, each round is indeed an adventure.

It's becoming clear why you and I make a damn good partnership though, isn't it?  

Mr. Egg

[THuckaby2]

yes, it is!

Mr. Ham  (hey, how come you get "eggs"?)

Just got to it first, that's all!  

TH

[Rob Hallford]

It is a rare bird that can play a 460 yard par 4 into a strong gale and make 5 and think "I made par" or play a downwind downhill 490 yard par 5 and make birdie and think it's "legit" if he's got a 7 iron in.    

Shivas--

Seems like cheating to have it both ways, doesn't it?  When I'm playing by myself, I do like to have it both ways, purely for confidence reasons.  I play better when I THINK I'm playing better, and if I go 5-4 as you describe above, I'm 1 under for those holes (in my mind).  

In medal play, par can serve as a construct to help you gauge how you're doing vs. the field (unless you're the type to play tourneys where there's a leaderboard...), but I would still argue that you are better off making decisions based on conditions and shot alternatives rather than scrambling after the elusive "par".  With an easy chip I want to get down in 2 just as badly if it's for birdie, par, or "other".  

Tom--
I think you're spot on with your assessment of match play-"par?  what's par?"  The issue becomes whether an individual can both play the course and play the competitor with good results.  Mental toughness is as much an ability/talent as shotmaking, and the successful golfer understands his/her own strengths/weaknesses in this regard, especially relative to the competition.

indy

[THuckaby2]

Tom--
I think you're spot on with your assessment of match play-"par?  what's par?"  The issue becomes whether an individual can both play the course and play the competitor with good results.  Mental toughness is as much an ability/talent as shotmaking, and the successful golfer understands his/her own strengths/weaknesses in this regard, especially relative to the competition.

indy

Right on, Indy!  Sounds like you and I would make a damn tough team also... or at least we'd THINK we would!  

TH

[Tim Weiman]

Jeff,

I don't know about the pros, but near my home is a course with a 485 yard par 5 followed by a 430 yard par 4.

The "par 4" is really the tougher hole regardless of what you call it.  I always try to make 4 on the par 5 and am quite happy to settle for 5 on the par 4.

The location of the green and the green complex itself accounts for why the par 4 is really the tougher hole regardless of what it is called.

Several years ago I played in a tournament.  Out of 88 players (averaging 77 for their round), only four guys made "par" on the par 4.  About a third made "birdie" on the par 5.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Tim, I am not sure what the message of your post is. I can understand the short par 5 playing under Par for the field and the long par 4 playing at over Par for the field, but it seems you are telling me that the psychological effect on the players of a hole being "easy" is enough to allow them to actually average a lower gross score on a hole that is 55 yards longer?

[redanman]

This discussion interests me because the way I give strokes depends on par.  As a rule, I hate to give strokes on par 3's and 5's.  If I'm giving someone 2 a side, it's always on the 2 highest handicapped par 4's.  Thus, par means everything in the way I think of things.  

Dave

Another way to do it it how a friend of mine and I did it when the two of us played.  He used to be better than me so giving me two a side he started two down.  Kinda evens it up.  Makes both parties think, too.

Loses something when you give 6,7 or 8 a side, but how often do we want to give that many?  How often does a 5 win playing a 19?  Almost never.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

redanman

You need to start drug-testing your opponents!

In my experience a legitimate 19 will be lucky to beat a legitimate 5 at match play one time out of three.  Of course, if you put a bunch of 5's and 19's together in a stroke play tournament, one of the 19's will inevitably have the lowest net score.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()