If #17 averages 4.63 why isn't it a par 5?

[mike_malone]

 When I heard one commentator, Tom Weiskopf is my guess, say it is the best par four in the world I wonder if he would call it a hohum par five. Is the "par" consciousness that prevalent ?

[Anthony Gray]

  Trevino says it is.


 

[Ronald Montesano]

It is a classic, half-shot hole.  Par is a parameter, not a definition.

[Eric Smith]

It is a classic, half-shot hole.  Par is a parameter, not a definition.

The Bear would agree with you, Mo.

He said if he made two 4's and two 5's there during the championship then he felt like he did pretty good.

[Jim Nugent]

18 at Oakmont and 18 at Carnoustie averaged around the same, last time they held Opens there.  

btw, I see it at 4.57 now.  0.05 strokes higher than #5, the 568 yard par 5.  

[mike_malone]

 The approach shot does not in anyway say  "4". It has the evil bunker: the devilish green for its width, its contours, and its angle to the line of play; then finally there is the road. Nothing says this is par four .

[Brent Hutto]

Conceptually, wouldn't there be a difference between a "Really, really tough Par 4" and a "Easy Par 5"? If so I'd say the Road Hole would fit my own conception of the former. Its length is not its primary challenge but rather than narrowness, blindness and angle of the tee shot (at least during Open setups) and the numerous penal features of the green which is a terribly small target.

All of that sounds like treachery added to a "Par 4" to me. My concept of an "Easy Par 5" would be a hole that's barely long enough to qualify for that designation but without any particular small target or risk/reward elements at the green end to make it play harder than its distance suggests. That's not very much like the Road Hole at all.

But maybe others have different concepts brought to mind by phrases like "Easy Par 5" and "Tough Par 4"...

[mike_malone]

 My issue is that there is popular conception that a "hard 4" can be a great hole while an "easy 5" is rarely accorded that recognition , with #13 ANGC being the classic exception. When it is exactly the same hole what accounts for this discrepancy ? I believe it is a misperception that scoring relative to par is a sign of greatness. Another way of saying it is that length is only one part of the par determination but the features of play should be more important, certainly from an architectural point of view.

[Ronald Montesano]

If the average amateur played it as an "easy par five," we'd see sevens and eights from the amateur, because he (I cannot speak for the ladies!) would believe infallibly in a right to a 4 or 5...as a result, we'd see more balls in the bunker, more balls on the road, more reckless putting.  Keeping it a par four, as the caddies in my group suggest, allows you to take a swollen amount of pride home, should you make four.  Returning it to a par five, in this era of technological eunuch-fication, would open up a Pandora's box of "others."

[Scott Warren]

The approach shot does not in anyway say  "4". It has the evil bunker: the devilish green for its width, its contours, and its angle to the line of play; then finally there is the road. Nothing says this is par four .

What about the 6i or 7i most players have been hitting in?

Does the par really matter? Three of the par fours are driveable, 7 of the 14 are under 400 yards, so then you get a few over 450 for variety... they're just cool holes.

17 is a bit narrow, but to me the fun of the green is bolstered by having at least a mid-iron for the approach.

[mike_malone]

 I think it matters what par it is called because it tells the public what is important about golf holes. If it were a 5 people might begin to look at features that determine par rather than just length.

[Scott Warren]

I think it matters what par it is called because it tells the public what is important about golf holes. If it were a 5 people might begin to look at features that determine par rather than just length.

Do the features call for it to be a par 5?

Reaching the green with a driver and a mid iron isn't an issue for the pros. Sure, with the pin tucked back left it's a hell of a second shot, but what about front right?

It's just a 495y hole that due to variable wind, ground conditions and pin placement will play remarkably differently from day to day.

On some days a 4 will be easier to come by, and on some days it will play tough as nails.

Whether labelled a par 4 or a par 5 , it doesn't really matter. Like 4 at Sandwich, 16 at Deal etc, the number that consitutes a good score on the day will vary.

[mike_malone]

 If it doesn't matter then make it a 5.

[Jud_T]

I think it matters what par it is called because it tells the public what is important about golf holes. If it were a 5 people might begin to look at features that determine par rather than just length.

Do the features call for it to be a par 5?

Reaching the green with a driver and a mid iron isn't an issue for the pros. Sure, with the pin tucked back left it's a hell of a second shot, but what about front right?

It's just a 495y hole that due to variable wind, ground conditions and pin placement will play remarkably differently from day to day.

On some days a 4 will be easier to come by, and on some days it will play tough as nails.

Whether labelled a par 4 or a par 5 , it doesn't really matter. Like 4 at Sandwich, 16 at Deal etc, the number that consitutes a good score on the day will vary.

Scott,

I agree completely.  It's a great hole no matter what number you attach to it.  I'd be in favor of eliminating par altogether....

[JC Jones]

The real answer is that because it has been that way for 150 years and people are mentally prepared to deal with it

[Scott Warren]

JC,

Did par even exist 150 years ago?

Besides, it has only been a par 4 for 46 years. From London's Independent.

What everyone forgets amid all this fuss is that the 17th was originally a par five. Only in 1964 was a stroke clipped off its par, though Arnold Palmer still called it "the shortest and toughest par five in golf". The hole played to the same length in 2005 (455 yards) as it did in 1900. John Daly, champion in 1995, hit short irons into the 17th yet played it in three over par for four rounds. Tiger Woods, champion in 2000 was two over par at the 17th and it averaged 4.628 strokes when he won in 2005.

[JC Jones]

JC,

Did par even exist 150 years ago?

No clue, Scott.  It is a poke at Tom D for his response on my thread regarding the Road Hole.

Regarding par on the Road Hole, the answer is that it doesn't matter.  Par is irrelevant and whether someone wins this week at -15 or -19 depending on the par of the Road Hole won't matter.  What will matter is that they played 4 rounds in fewer strokes than anyone else.

[George Pazin]

Actually it was a par 5 for a long time, can't remember when it changed, but it sure wasn't 150 years ago.

I'd look at unintended consequences before changing it back to a 5. If it were, people would start moving the tee back, effin' around with the bunker...

Oh, wait a minute...

[John Moore II]

Holy smokes, a hole actually provides a challenge to the best players in the world and the par aught to be changed? Sorry for thinking these guys aught to have to try hard. Why would we ever want that??

[Adam_Messix]

Mike--

If what you are saying is true, would you say that the 14th hole at Pebble Beach is a par 6?  I think it played to a scoring average of 5.6 in one of the rounds of this year's U. S. Open.

I'm not sure who said it, but one pro said that the Road Hole is a great par four because it's a par five.  To each his own.  The par can be whatever the Committee says it is.  The object of the tournament is to complete 72 holes with the lowest score in the field, whether the par is 280 or 292.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Who cares what par is?

[Ken Moum]

Who cares what par is?

Pretty much everyone who plays the game today.

Like it or not, golfers measure their performance against par, and they are just as unhappy making a six or secen a 625-yard hole as they are on a 430-yard hole--provided the card says they are both par fives.

Golfers in my acquaintance are oddly dense about this nuance.  They will say things like "This hole is really a par five for me," about a long par four, but if you watch them play, they don't approach the hole that way.

Putting par at four instead of five turns the mental screws just a hair tighter, which is why the USGA does it.

The old story about Payne Stewart and Mike Davis illustrates how it works.  Stewart apparently complained that a converted par five had too small a green to accept the second shot as a four.  So Davis said he would put it back at five if Stewart could get everyone in the field to promise they'd never attempt to get on in two.

Payne got the point, and apparently told the story to many of his fellow Tour pros.

Players go for the green based on the length of their shot, but they approach it completely different mentally.  If it's a par four they feel as if they HAVE to get on for par.  If it's a par five, they can accept missing it in two, leaving an easy par opportunity.

All this proves is that golfers are nuts.

K

[Mike Cirba]

mayday,

For the same reason the 8th at Torresdale-Frankford is a par four, even though most of the members can't get over the fronting creek in two shots.

It's because calling it a par four means they have to try!   Simply a mind-game!   

[mike_malone]

 I think the tee shot also makes it a par five. You need to bring OB into play to assure yourself the right side. Going left is leaving 200+ yards out of the rough. Sounds like a par five to me.

[John Moore II]

I think the tee shot also makes it a par five. You need to bring OB into play to assure yourself the right side. Going left is leaving 200+ yards out of the rough. Sounds like a par five to me.

Seems to me that if a hole can be reached in 2 shots by 50% of the field or more, then its a par 4, even if its 580 yards. Guys are making these huge numbers because they are getting greedy.