[Ken Moum]

driveable par fours and reachable par fives?

The USGA's announcement (http://www.thegolfchannel.com/tour-insider/notes-usga-change-par-middle-event-30586/) that it might change par in the middle of the US Open at Chambers Bay has some people again up in arms about the USGA's penchant for messing with par figures.

The common refrain is that they should "play the course as it was designed" which is fine if it includes one or two half par holes that make birdies commonplace. But try shortening a hole to make a a half-par and all hell breaks loose

If a a hole is almost unreachable in regulation figures, people, especially Tour pros, throw a fit.

Personally, I love seeing those guys squirm over a 525-yard par four, or a 295-yard par three. Hell, several holes on my home course are a par-and-a-half for me. One, in particular, a 432-yard par four that good player can cut the corner on, is tantalizing to me. I have to hit a perfectly struck draw off the tee, and flirt with disastor on the left to have ANY chance of getting home in two. I could play it safe, but somehow that never occurs to me while I am standing on the tee.


Precisely the same thing happens to pros on holes like that. So why is a par-and-a-half less acceptable than a birdie-and-a-half?

KenM

[Bill_McBride]

driveable par fours and reachable par fives?

The USGA's announcement (http://www.thegolfchannel.com/tour-insider/notes-usga-change-par-middle-event-30586/) that it might change par in the middle of the US Open at Chambers Bay has some people again up in arms about the USGA's penchant for messing with par figures.

The common refrain is that they should "play the course as it was designed" which is fine if it includes one or two half par holes that make birdies commonplace. But try shortening a hole to make a a half-par and all hell breaks loose

If a a hole is almost unreachable in regulation figures, people, especially Tour pros, throw a fit.

Personally, I love seeing those guys squirm over a 525-yard par four, or a 295-yard par three. Hell, several holes on my home course are a par-and-a-half for me. One, in particular, a 432-yard par four that good player can cut the corner on, is tantalizing to me. I have to hit a perfectly struck draw off the tee, and flirt with disastor on the left to have ANY chance of getting home in two. I could play it safe, but somehow that never occurs to me while I am standing on the tee.


Precisely the same thing happens to pros on holes like that. So why is a par-and-a-half less acceptable than a birdie-and-a-half?

KenM

I don't agree, half par holes can also be like Royal Dornoch #14 "Foxy," where you are absolutely thrilled to make a par, it feels like a birdie,.

So half par holes can be very long par 3s, par 4s or par 5s.  

It's the par 4 / 3.5 and the par 4 / 4.5 that really make golf interesting.

***** Ken, looks like I should have read the rest of your post, not just the first paragraph!  I think we are in agreement.

[J Sadowsky]

Agree with Paul Goydos.  Par is just a number.

[Tom Huckaby]

I not only agree with Paul Goydos, I posted damn near those EXACT WORDS a few times in here.  That is, 277 wins an event, not -3, or -7 or -11.

What's amazing to me is that Tiger doesn't seem to get this.  I bet his words were taken out of context in some way.

[Mike Benham]

"play the course as it was designed"

How many courses are designed from the onset to host a US Open?   

Since no course that I have played has a stock 485 yard par 4 from the regular tees, it is once again obvious that the USGA alters a course used for a championship based on the skill level of the golfer.

[Ian_L]

What's amazing to me is that Tiger doesn't seem to get this.  I bet his words were taken out of context in some way.

Wasn't Tiger talking about changing par rather than the score itself?  I can see how changing par in the middle of a tournament would cause some havoc on the stats sheets...

[Phil Benedict]

Isn't the Road Hole a half par hole?  There must be plenty other examples of hard par 4's that play as half par holes.

The greatness of the Road Hole is that the risk/reward on the second shot dictates playing it as a half par hole, since laying up or playing to the front part of the green is often the prudent strategy even when the green is reachable.

[Tom Huckaby]

I am not sure what exactly Tiger meant.  I'd like to hear the whole quote.  The snippet is in the other thread about this.

Stat sheets, shmat sheets.  We'd always know who was winning.

 

[Scott Warren]

You know what I'd love to see? A golf course with a course par/rating, but no par for the individual holes. I'd love that. Call each hole whatever you like, long as the 18 holes add up to the total.

[J Sadowsky]

You know what I'd love to see? A golf course with a course par/rating, but no par for the individual holes. I'd love that. Call each hole whatever you like, long as the 18 holes add up to the total.

::Shrug:: You could do that, but why bother?  Most good holes have a structure to it that makes it well defined what par is, with some exceptions where there is a risk-reward element to "going for it" versus "laying up."  You can choose not to include what par is on any particular hole, but someone who knows what he's going up against will quickly calculate par in his head anyway.

[Scott Warren]

My home course has three holes that measure mid to high 400s and one is a par 5 from either men's tee, one is a par 5 from one tee and a par 4 from another and the third is a par 4 from both.

Depending on the wind, I have hit driver/hybrid/short iron or driver/7-9i into all of them. More fun to give you the land to traverse and let you handle it how it suits you on a given day.

Trevose, St Enodoc, Royal Zoute and The Addington all have the same setup. As do countless others.

On the contrary to your assertion, IMO most good holes are liquid and have as many different approaches as weather conditions.

[J Sadowsky]

Sorry.  I was forgetting courses in which the prevailing wind is both extreme and changes.  Even then, I'd say that par changes rather than doesn't exist (and the well-designed hole still has a structure of some sort that incorporates the various prevailing winds), but I understand where you are coming from now.

Of course, even in that case, what the overall par for the course should be would ALSO change depending on the prevailing wind's strength and direction.  So that would nullify the value of that information as well, except for strict handicapping purposes.

[Scott Warren]

Perhaps true that par changes rather than ceases to exist, but we're never going to get a wind-direction specific scorecard, so why not let the golfer apportion shots in his head?

Your second paragraph is true, but in comp golf there has to be a rating. I'd rather do away with par altogether, but I accept we are stuck with it.

[John Moore II]

Why not a par 5 1/2? Of course, everyone would think that was stupid, a 750+ yard hole. I think it would be quite intelligent if designed correctly.

I'd love to see more 290 yard par 3's and 520+ yard par 4's. That would actually cause tour players to hit long clubs on approach shots. That is why par 5's are viewed as 'birdie' holes to just about everyone on the tour. 525 yards, even for someone like Corey Pavin, is nothing more than Driver-3wood-Chip. Anyone who can hit the ball more than 275 off the tee can reach the green in two.

What is so wrong with making players hit a 3 wood approach shot into a par 4? Or my gosh, heaven forbid having to hit Driver-3 wood-3wood on a par 5.

[Garland Bayley]

What's amazing to me is that Tiger doesn't seem to get this.  I bet his words were taken out of context in some way.

Wasn't Tiger talking about changing par rather than the score itself?  I can see how changing par in the middle of a tournament would cause some havoc on the stats sheets...

It may very well necessitate some software updates. Shouldn't affect the golf one iota.

[John Moore II]

What's amazing to me is that Tiger doesn't seem to get this.  I bet his words were taken out of context in some way.

Wasn't Tiger talking about changing par rather than the score itself?  I can see how changing par in the middle of a tournament would cause some havoc on the stats sheets...

It may very well necessitate some software updates. Shouldn't affect the golf one iota.

I didn't see thiis one earlier. I don't see why it would require some type of software update. Playing the same course at different par would be no different than playing two totally different courses in a given week. I mean, they keep track of four different courses for the Bob Hope event, why would it be so hard to keep track of one with different par?

[Ken Moum]

What's amazing to me is that Tiger doesn't seem to get this.  I bet his words were taken out of context in some way.

Wasn't Tiger talking about changing par rather than the score itself?  I can see how changing par in the middle of a tournament would cause some havoc on the stats sheets...

It may very well necessitate some software updates. Shouldn't affect the golf one iota.

I didn't see thiis one earlier. I don't see why it would require some type of software update. Playing the same course at different par would be no different than playing two totally different courses in a given week. I mean, they keep track of four different courses for the Bob Hope event, why would it be so hard to keep track of one with different par?

It wouldn't, which is why all thes detractors are just being silly. I was interested in how GCA.com participants would react, because it's pretty common for golfers of average opinion to think the USGA is somehow demented when they reduce par, or other such manipulation.

I believe it's nothing more than a mind game being played on the Tour pros, and I am all for it.

[John Moore II]

What's amazing to me is that Tiger doesn't seem to get this.  I bet his words were taken out of context in some way.

Wasn't Tiger talking about changing par rather than the score itself?  I can see how changing par in the middle of a tournament would cause some havoc on the stats sheets...

It may very well necessitate some software updates. Shouldn't affect the golf one iota.

I didn't see thiis one earlier. I don't see why it would require some type of software update. Playing the same course at different par would be no different than playing two totally different courses in a given week. I mean, they keep track of four different courses for the Bob Hope event, why would it be so hard to keep track of one with different par?

It wouldn't, which is why all thes detractors are just being silly. I was interested in how GCA.com participants would react, because it's pretty common for golfers of average opinion to think the USGA is somehow demented when they reduce par, or other such manipulation.

I believe it's nothing more than a mind game being played on the Tour pros, and I am all for it.

Why don't they do something really crazy like play it one year without hole pars at all? Just a total number for the day. Now that would make for some interesting scoring/commentating.

[John Moore II]

Since we seem to have strayed from the real topic, let me see if I can get us back on the topic here.

I see no reason that all 'half-par' holes must always be reachable par 4's and 2 shot par 5's. Very rarely is a par 3 1/2 par 3 seen, the one at Oakmont is the only one that comes to mind in tournament golf, and 4 1/2 par 4's are somewhat rare as well. I would love to see numerous other types of half-par holes.

How about a par 2 1/2, being a very short par 3 with a green that essentially funnels the ball into 4 or 5 general pin placements.

Or a 540 yard par 4 that is fairly difficult to reach in 2 shots

295 yard par 4 with a highly contoured green that is difficult to hold with a fair penalty for missing the green.

Or perhaps a 750+ yard par 5 that at least requires players to hit a middle iron into the green (it would take 800+ to make most of those guys hit a long iron into the green)

We need to not be so stuck on silly yardage figures and find out what makes the best hole. If the land only allows for a 310 yard hole, why not build a 290 yard par 3 instead of the 310 yard par 4 if the par 3 design is better? Same with a par 4 or 5. Don't get so mixed up with yardages and pars, just get the best holes possible.

[Jason McNamara]

How about a par 2 1/2, being a very short par 3 with a green that essentially funnels the ball into 4 or 5 general pin placements.

The Sunday Duval shot his 59, one of his fellow competitors (Maggert?) commented during the round that he didn't realize the course had par 2s.

No. 3    3    6-iron to 3 feet    Birdie
No. 5    3    5-iron to 5 feet    Birdie
No. 12    3   6-iron to 2 feet    Birdie
No. 15    3   8-iron to 1 foot    Birdie
No. 17   3   9-iron to 20 feet, two-putt    Par  (jeez)

[Sean_A]

Half par is just a convenient way to briefly describe the difficulty of a hole relative to its par designation.  For many it implies a risk reward element - this may or may not be true.  I think the difference in the thought process of par boils down to either playing "old man par" or playing the course as you find it on the day.  For instance, how many top players these days play a par 3 as a par 4 hoping for the chip and putt par?  This sort of thing went on in the old days and shows how the meaning of "par" has changed for many golfers.  This probably started to happen once the concept of the bogey score was eliminated.  The numbers guys probably won't like the idea of switching the par designation and the guys who play the course and worry about the number at the end of the round probably won't care.  Personally, I can't see any logical reason for not switching par designation or dropping the idea of par altogether in terms of playing the game.  However, I can see how scoring relative to par makes reporting on golf easier.

Ciao

[Matthew Mollica]

Tom Doak's done 2 half par holes (both par 4s) which many would play as par 5s.
The 8th at Barnbougle, and the 13th at St. Andrews Beach are both long, and tough 4s.

At least the wind gets up at Barnbougle and gives a real helping hand on 8.

MM

[Mark_F]

Tom Doak's done 2 half par holes (both par 4s) which many would play as par 5s.
The 8th at Barnbougle, and the 13th at St. Andrews Beach are both long, and tough 4s.

At least the wind gets up at Barnbougle and gives a real helping hand on 8.

Interesting that the shorter of those two holes is generally played downwind, and the longer one was played the vast majority of the time with the wind into, or into across.  And has a smaller green.  Both with difficult landing zones for the drive, though.

[Guy Nicholson]

Since we seem to have strayed from the real topic, let me see if I can get us back on the topic here.

Very rarely is a par 3 1/2 par 3 seen, the one at Oakmont is the only one that comes to mind in tournament golf

John,

Sorry, I'm late to this discussion and haven't posted much at all lately.

You refer to 8 at Oakmont, but wasn't 17 a very similar hole? It was a few yards longer and was called a par 4, but there was barely a player in the field who didn't shoot at the green from the tee. Every single one of them felt they needed to make 3 to keep up with the field. For them, 3 became par, not birdie. The real prize was a 2.

On one hand, it proves your point that the USGA called it a par 4, rather than par 3. But on the other, we're no better, because we've bought into it -- got "mixed up with yardages and pars," to use your words. If the exact same hole *was* called a par 3 -- or if they started calling 540-yard holes par 4s -- would it be more likely to change the players' calculation, or ours?

Now, par 2-1/2 or 5-1/2, that really would be revolutionary ... or would it just be an easy par 3 and a hard par 5? OK, now I'm just messing with you. 

[Cabell Ackerly]

I like the idea of a course not having a "par designation", but only a rating. "Par" should be totally meaningless in determining how one plays a hole anyway, and the "par" designation of each hole should have no affect on each hole's handicap rating either.

As far as keeping track of scores - just base the over/under on level 4's.

The best reason I've heard to maintain par designations is actually for stat keeping purposes. Personally I could care less about how many greens in regulation Joe Blow hit during their round, but I do understand that some people really get into that kind of thing.

As far as changing the designation from day to day, I think it's silly, but I don't see why it should be hard to keep track of.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()