Choose your tee's wisely relative to par; a little numerical study

[Cristian]

We have all been annoyed or surprised by playing partners who immediately yell 'let's play back tee's' on a course with a par of less than 72. Often the scorecard yardage is not translated to the relative difficulty (par) of the course by these players and ego drives middle handicappers to the tips and 4 hour+ rounds.

However it is not just par influencing relative distance on the numerical side of things (I am not even talking about firmness, wind elevations etc.), also the make up of the holes has influence; a set of two par 4 holes is usually longer than a set of one par 3 and one par 5. So courses with more par 3's generally play longer than its yardage. To measure the extent of this effect, one can do some calculations based on average par 3, par 4 and par 5 length and compare yardages. This is what I have tried to do.

Everybody knows which tee's to choose on a par 72 (4-10-4) course, but it becomes more difficult on for instance a par 70 (5-10-3) layout. Pasatiempo is an example of such a course. Its medal yardage is 6125, on the first glance below average, tempting players to play the back tee's at 6500 yards. But how do these yardages compare to the traditional par 72 (4-10-4) course?

The average back tee yardages for par 3, 4 and 5 holes at Pasa are as follows; 178, 401, 533 (rounded). This would translate to a par 72 (4-10-4) course of no less than 6854 yards. Probably not corresponding to the tee's that our middle hcapper would choose to play
on a (4-10-4) course. In other words due to its par and its (5-10-3)-routing the course plays some 355 yards longer than its yardage.

Similarly one can calculate that The Berkshire red's (6-6-6)-routing plays almost 200 yards longer than a traditional (4-10-4)-course. I found these differences greater than expected. It struck me that for a (5-10-3) routed course one also needs over 350 yds less ground to create a course with similar relative length to a traditional par 72, something archies can surely
use to their advantage on restricted sites.

What are your thoughts on this?
 

[David_Elvins]

IMO, when it comes to playability, a course's length is its length.   No matter what the par is, the holes are just as difficult.  A course like Pasatiempo is going to be easier for those that in your opinion should not choose the back tees because of its lack of par 5s, which the average player finds the hardest type of hole. 

eg. According to your calculations if you move the tee back on the tenth hole 40 yards and call it a par 5, the course would become easier.  But in reality, the course is actually harder to negotiate for the average player because they have an extra 40 yards to hit it.

[Jim Nugent]

Neat idea, Christian.  A few thoughts. 

First, I'm not sure we can make the simple yardage extrapolation as you did.  Most bogey golfers can probably reach a 178 yard par 3 in regulation.  But many probably cannot reach a 401 yard par 4 in regulation. 

Take the bogey golfer used in the USGA's course ratings system.  He hits his drive 200 yards.  Long enough to reach the 178 yard par 3.  But too short to reach the 401 yard par 4. 

So the par 3 spots the drive to the average golfer.  This is real important in scoring.  It's why par 3s are usually the highest handicap holes, and long par 4s or par 5s the lowest handicap holes. 

Those par 3s are the equalizers between scratch and bogey golfers.  They play long for scratch, but short for bogey.  For longer holes the opposite is true. 

So generally, the more par 3s, the easier the course is for bogey golfer.  The harder it is for scratch.  There are plenty of exceptions to this, of course: just make the par 3s hard to impossible for bogey.  #17 at Sawgrass is an example. 

So I think you might need to take this into account in your analysis. 

[Cristian]

David,

Of course it becomes harder; 18 par 5's will incurr higher scores than 18 par 3's. But not relative to par; the 40 yards in your example will have people run into higher average scores, but not normaly a full stroke. Comparing lenghth on courses is easy, but comparing it relative to par is not that straight forward I think.

[Cristian]

Neat idea, Christian.  A few thoughts. 

First, I'm not sure we can make the simple yardage extrapolation as you did.  Most bogey golfers can probably reach a 178 yard par 3 in regulation.  But many probably cannot reach a 401 yard par 4 in regulation. 

Take the bogey golfer used in the USGA's course ratings system.  He hits his drive 200 yards.  Long enough to reach the 178 yard par 3.  But too short to reach the 401 yard par 4. 

So the par 3 spots the drive to the average golfer.  This is real important in scoring.  It's why par 3s are usually the highest handicap holes, and long par 4s or par 5s the lowest handicap holes. 

Those par 3s are the equalizers between scratch and bogey golfers.  They play long for scratch, but short for bogey.  For longer holes the opposite is true. 

So generally, the more par 3s, the easier the course is for bogey golfer.  The harder it is for scratch.  There are plenty of exceptions to this, of course: just make the par 3s hard to impossible for bogey.  #17 at Sawgrass is an example. 

So I think you might need to take this into account in your analysis. 

Jim,


Of course you are right; Average yards is just one part of the equation, I would not think that my analysis accounts for an explanation of relative difficulty; if you have more or less holes of a certain kind this can vary. It is however a good indicator I think of relative distance in terms of which tee's to choose for example. After all these are averages, Pasatiempo has hole 3 which not many bogey golfers will hit in regulation, and there also par 4's which are quite reachable in two. More in general I think the calculation just shows the huge differences  in how long similar length courses play relative to par (not how difficult).

[John Moore II]

I agree with what is said here, a par 70 course "plays" longer than a par 72 if both are the same yardage. This argument, and the one about a shorter par 70 course being the same "playing" length as a slightly longer par 72, is valid. However, it is more valid for the top players than the bogey player. The bogey players needs a generally shorter course because it will play easier for him. And I would actually say that the two less strokes required between a par 70 and par 72 is a good thing because it gives him less chance to mess up.

[Garland Bayley]

...And I would actually say that the two less strokes required between a par 70 and par 72 is a good thing because it gives him less chance to mess up.

2/70 = 3%. Not a significant factor IMO.

Another way to compare is figure out the average approach shot distances. It shows that my < 6000 yard 5 - 10 - 3 course plays longer than most comparable courses in the area with a average of about 10 yards longer.

[Mark Pearce]

Garland,

36 of those 70 shots should, if each hole were played in regulation, be putts.

2/34 =6%, a bit more significant.

[Cristian]

I don't know how to post spreadsheets but based on the pasatiempo yardage averages for par 4(401), par 5(533) and par 3(178) holes relative distance to par works out like this when comparing to courses with a different routing:

Courses of following length play equally long relative to par based on Pasatiempo length averages:

(5-10-3) Par 70 PASA: 6499 (5-10-3)

(4-10-4) Par 72 standard: 6854 yards

(6-6-6) Par 72: 6672 yards

(5-8-5) Par 72: 6793

(2-14-2) Par 72: 7036

(4-11-3) Par 71: 6722

(4-12-2) Par 70: 6590


Please let me know if you want to be sent the complete spreadsheet.

[Michael Whitaker]

Cristain,

My regular group has always "guesstimated" that you need to add 200 yards for each missing shot on a course with a par of less that 72. So, using your example of Pasa, we would have guessed that the course would "effectively" play around 6500 yards from the medal tees (which we can handle) and 6900 from the back tees (which we can't handle). Thus, we would opt to play the forward tees.

It's nice to see that someone is taking a "scientific" look at what we have been doing by feel all these years!

 

[Cristian]

Cristain,

My regular group has always "guesstimated" that you need to add 200 yards for each missing shot on a course with a par of less that 72. So, using your example of Pasa, we would have guessed that the course would "effectively" play around 6500 yards from the medal tees (which we can handle) and 6900 from the back tees (which we can't handle). Thus, we would opt to play the forward tees.

It's nice to see that someone is taking a "scientific" look at what we have been doing by feel all these years!

 

In the case of Pasa you have guesstimated well because it's a 5-10-3 (-/- 350 yds approx) but if you have a par 70 which is 4-12-2 you would have to substract only 264 yards!

[BCrosby]

Christian -

There ought to be a function you could write based on the ratio of 3's, 4's and 5's that would yield the adjusted yardage. But looking over the numbers, I don't see much of a pattern in the various combinations of par.

Instinctively, I would think that more par 3's and 4's would make the course "feel" harder for better players. Simply because par 5's are more forgiving for single digit handicapppers.

On the other hand, par 5's would "feel" harder for higher handicappers than par 3's and 4's.

Interesting exercise.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

My 4/12/2 course converts from about 6600 to 6858 which seems a little longer than it feels when playing.

[Carl Rogers]

An interesting discussion but a little baffling ...
How do you statistically make the transition from length to slope and stroke rating?
As has been stated on the site, there are lots of ways to play to a handicap index.  It seems what you are saying is that the shorter hitter's disadvantage to the longer hitter is mitigated on a course with more par 3's.

That would fit with my own anecdotal experiences, myself being on the side of a shortish hitter but play at handicap index of 4.1.

It seems to me that part of the new golf design emerging trend of sustainable shorter courses is to have more par 3's.
Lester George's Lambert' Point in Norfolk, VA is sporty nine holer with 4 par threes.

[Sean_A]

Christian

There is no question you are in the ball park all other things being equal.  I have long added about 175 yards of playing yardage to courses less than par 72.  This is why courses like Rye and Harlech are tough to match one's handicap on, but it still feels good to break 80 - tee hee.   I have long advocated less than par 70 courses at roughly 6000 yards especially on troublesome properties where five or six par 3s can help out mightily with awkward transition areas. 

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Christian,

Thanks for the reply, I see where you are coming from.  You make a good point if people are trying to pick a tee that gies them a chance of playing to their handicap.  However, I am under the impression that most people don't think aabout their handicap when picking a tee but the playability of the course.  eg. Are there just too many difficult shots from the back tee, does it make the approaches into the greens too long for them to enjoy.  Even in your initial post you wrote:

We have all been annoyed or surprised by playing partners who immediately yell 'let's play back tee's' on a course with a par of less than 72. Often the scorecard yardage is not translated to the relative difficulty (par) of the course by these players and ego drives middle handicappers to the tips and 4 hour+ rounds.

The length of the round is relative to the length of the course and has no direct relationship wit hthe par of the course. 

If you are talking about scoring, I think you have a good point, if you are talking about playability and length of rounds then I think it is the absolute length that is important. 

[John Moore II]

Instinctively, I would think that more par 3's and 4's would make the course "feel" harder for better players. Simply because par 5's are more forgiving for single digit handicapppers.

Bob

And why is that the case? Might it be because par 5's today are designed to girly-man specifications where people somehow think that a 550 yard hole is a par 5 for the better players? I got news for you, 550 is no longer a par 5 for better players. It is quite simply a long par 4. That is why par 5's are "easier" and more forgiving for longer/better players. THEY AREN'T PAR 5'S ANYMORE! Its like I've said before, in spite of the fact that we build par 3's that are 250+ yards and par 4's that top out at 525+, no one ever has the cojones to build a real par 5 anymore.