Lowering par to below 70 for the elite players to save great short courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, there are plenty of great 6,500 yard golf courses.  Crystal Downs and Cypress Point come right to mind.  There as elsewhere, MacKenzie pulled off the trick by building four really great short par-4's on each course, so he could have some longer par-4's for contrast, instead of building a bunch of 380- and 400-yard holes which challenge nobody.

Jim N:  Rye and Swinley Forest each have five par-3's, and most of them are tough as nails.

[Jim Nugent]

This is an interesting concept, but as has been said, it does nothing to really change the playability of the golf course. Changing par only makes it look better on TV that guys shot higher in relation to par.

This is probably true -- it makes sense -- but is it 100% so?  A 495 yard par 5 likely seems short to a good golfer.  He expects to make birdie.  The same hole as a par 4 may seem real long.  The good golfer's psychological perspective may be entirely different.  

So I wonder if changing par might also change scores?  

[Scott Warren]

I think the issue is twofold.

1. Defending par, for whatever reason people think they need to do so.
2. Ensuring variety in the shots a golfer is forced to play.

I don't see the real issue with the absence of a genuine three-shot hole for the pros. I am having a hard time remembering any recent major where a pro has had more than a short iron for their third shot.

As far as sorting the wheat from the chaff, I could argue that more holes where the field are playing long irons and hybrids to greens does a better job of that than a hole no one can reach and everyone has a wedge or short iron in their hand for the third shot.

What par figure you assign to a hole is meaningless, but in my mind a championship course should contain plenty of great shots and plenty of different shots.

I guess that's why I am not bothered by the fact Royal Melbourne (West) hasn't really got a three-shot hole for better golfers - the four "par 5s" are all really good holes in their own right, all full of challenging shots, with the challenges varying between the holes.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick:

You should play more overseas.  Rye and Swinley Forest are ample proof that a course doesn't need par-5 holes to be a great course.  

Not to forget Elie, although its conglomeration of great short par 4s make it an unlikely"championship venue.". No par 5's!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You should play more overseas.  Rye and Swinley Forest are ample proof that a course doesn't need par-5 holes to be a great course.  [West Sussex GC is another; so is St. Enodoc.]

Tom, that wasn't the question.

The question was in the context of challenging the elite players, which I took to mean PGA or European Tour golfers.

Shouldn't there be an architectural demand that forces them to hit three good consecuive shots ?
The same challenge that you and I have to face on every round ?

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Something else that must be said or looked at is the near universal idea of saying "just make a par 5 a par 4." Key is, the hole has to be designed in such a way for that to be possible. Take the past US Open at Pebble Beach. 2 was played as a par 4. It is able to be played as such because, looking at past images of the hole and speaking with my caddy who has been there 35+ years, the hole was always meant to be a somewhat reachable, downwind par 5. That is why it has the cross bunker and a fairly wide opening to the green. 6 was not designed as such, even though it basically played as a par 4 this past year, so it would be much more difficult to "convert." The blind second and such make it tough to do. But then take #14, that hole, from what I understand was always intended to test the wedge game, and certainly does so now. It would make for silliness to ask players to try to hit that green as a par 4 using a 3 iron or something. Same goes for short par 4's, would a hole like #17 at Oakmont make a reasonable par 3? I think not.

To answer Mr. Nugent's question, yes, par figures can possibly change the way a player plays a hole, but I would say that it does not change the way a great or very good player plays the hole. Even with a "5" as the par, #2 at Pebble is played as a par 4 by the better players, I know I treated it as such the two times I played there. And I played 6 as a "5" due to the oddities in the shots. The best players go with what gives them the best chance to make the best score. I have heard it mentioned that some professionals feel that the best way to score on #8 at Pine Valley is to hit driver into the greenside bunker/waste area and try to get up and down. Zach Johnson won the Masters by laying up on the par 5's, Tiger and others have won the Masters by not laying up. Some guys play The Road Hole at TOC conservatively, laying the ball out to the right, taking the road and bunker out of play. Obviously the "par" can't change on #8 at PV, but would guys at The Masters change the way they play 13 and 15 if they were suddenly marked "4" on the card? Probably not, I don't recall seeing anyone lay up on either of those holes from the fairway. Same at The Road, would guys play that hole differently if they walked up and saw "5" on the card? Or if they saw "3" on the card for 18, for that matter? The truly elite players will play a hole the best way possible without real regard to the scorecard "par."

Mr. Mucci yes they should be forced to hit 3 precise shots in order to make a "par," and that is why "par 5's" are easy today, because so none of them really require 3 shots, even the longest are just Driver-3 wood-flip wedge or something. However, as you noted above, a real 3 shot hole today would need to be madly long, at least 750 yards, and if you think about it, most guys who play on tour would reach that hole 5 iron or 4 iron, guys like JB Holmes and Bubba hitting Gap Wedge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The question is, when guys like Shaq and Labron start playing golf at an early age, 300 and 400 yard par 4's will have to be converted to par 3's.

Okay, that's not a question.  It's also not a concern, since being abnormally big and strong isn't a proven advantage in golf.  
It sure is.
Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Vijay.  all big guys.
The trend is that golfers are getting bigger and stronger.  a small golfer can't create the same arc that Michael Jordan can.
It's only a matter of time before bigger players impact the game.

This theoretical wave of massive, dominant golfers has not materialized.  If it is an advantage to be really big, we would see the PGA Tour money list with body types mirroring the Re/Max finalists.  

When one of them combines finesse with distance, you'll see the trend take off.
Big is an advantage.  Creating a big arc is a natural by-product of size.
When I was a kid, NO ONE, repeat NO ONE gravitated toward golf or tennis, they were deemed "sissy" sports.
But, when Dan Marino, John Elway and Michael Jordan started playing and being visible on TV playing golf, it energized a whole new segment of golfers, big, talented athletes.   Mario Lamieux is another big, great athlete who plays golf.
The next generation will come and with it, short to medium 4's will become obsolete

Also, "guys like Shaq and Lebron" aren't starting golf at an early age as efforts to make the game more accessible are not expanding the sport's demographic much in North America.

Tiger Woods and the "First Tee" program are changing all of that

[paul cowley]

Personally I think there is a big difference psychologically between a better player confronting a par 4 of 495 yds and a par 5 of 495 yds....played as a par 4 the better player is just trying to keep up with par... but as a par 5 he is trying to get ahead.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Personally I think there is a big difference psychologically between a better player confronting a par 4 of 495 yds and a par 5 of 495 yds....played as a par 4 the better player is just trying to keep up with par... but as a par 5 he is trying to get ahead.

OK, here are the stats for #6 at Pebble Beach in the final round last year. There was 1 "other" which was Micheel's Double Eagle, 4 eagles, 38 birdies, 35 pars, and 5 bogeys. Scoring average was 4.47. So in reality, on a hole like that, you're needing 4 to keep the pace with the field. In a tournament, which is what you are asking about, you play the "scorecard" but you really play the field as well. So in truth, your 495 yard hole will play to the field. If it plays to 4.5 stroke average, then in reality, 4 is basically keeping the pace with the top competitors and 5 is certainly losing ground to the field. Just look at Tiger on #13 and 15 at Augusta this year. He made 5 on 13 and knew he basically lost ground as many of the guys on the leaderboard made 4, same with his 4 on 15, he knew that basically kept him steady with the group because all but 2 people on the board made 4 as well. You have to take that into account as well.

[Ed Oden]

The real question is how do you build a golf course that tests good players with a few really difficult shots, and that's hard to do if they are going to hit short irons for approach shots 15 times out of 18.

Tom Doak: one way you make a course more challenging for elite players by building lots of real tough par 3s.  You also build fewer par 5s. 

Why not go in the other direction and build MORE par 5s?  So what if the best players would play them as two shot holes.  At least there would be s few more opportunities to test them with the tough long iron/fairway wood shot that Tom says is often missing.  And for everyone else, there would be a few more birdie opportunities.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Personally I think there is a big difference psychologically between a better player confronting a par 4 of 495 yds and a par 5 of 495 yds....played as a par 4 the better player is just trying to keep up with par... but as a par 5 he is trying to get ahead.

Paul,

I'd agree about the headset.

The problem is that for the elite player a 495 yard par 4 is a 300 yard drive and a 6 or 7 iron

For me, the 7th hole on Ridgewood East was an eye opener

At 470, dogleg left, uphill, it was virtually unreachable by all but the very longest under wet/damp conditions.
Now guys are reaching it with medium irons, it just doesn't present the intended challenge.

Compressing par doesn't bring the architectural features, meant to interface with the golfer, back into play.

I think the same thing has happened with par 5's for the. Elite player, they're push overs, not challenges.

[John_Conley]

It sure is.
Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Vijay.  all big guys.
The trend is that golfers are getting bigger and stronger.  a small golfer can't create the same arc that Michael Jordan can.
It's only a matter of time before bigger players impact the game. [/b][/size][/color]

This theoretical wave of massive, dominant golfers has not materialized.  If it is an advantage to be really big, we would see the PGA Tour money list with body types mirroring the Re/Max finalists.  

When one of them combines finesse with distance, you'll see the trend take off.
Big is an advantage.  Creating a big arc is a natural by-product of size.
When I was a kid, NO ONE, repeat NO ONE gravitated toward golf or tennis, they were deemed "sissy" sports.
But, when Dan Marino, John Elway and Michael Jordan started playing and being visible on TV playing golf, it energized a whole new segment of golfers, big, talented athletes.   Mario Lamieux is another big, great athlete who plays golf.
The next generation will come and with it, short to medium 4's will become obsolete

Also, "guys like Shaq and Lebron" aren't starting golf at an early age as efforts to make the game more accessible are not expanding the sport's demographic much in North America.

Tiger Woods and the "First Tee" program are changing all of that

[/quote]

Pat, this drivel isn't true.  I'll bet you right now the final 16 players at the U.S. Amateur are young college players that mirror the size of a normal adult.  5'10" +/-2" with very few exceptions.  And they'll be pretty slender.  Maybe fit, but not muscular.  I have a VHS tape from the Ryder Cup with Tiger Woods when his waist was 27".  He hit the ball just as far then.  He might be 6'1", or a half-foot shorter than Gordon Sherry.

Your big swing arc is good to hit the ball high and far.  But it doesn't translate.  Tournament golf is contested on courses where the fairways are narrow, the penalty to miss is great, and the wind often negates the advantage of hitting it up in the air.  If tall is good, then short is bad.  It just doesn't compute.  Mark Wilson is TINY.  The bright young players include Rory McIlroy.  David Toms just won again.  You don't see people chronically overcoming a disadvantage in other sports. How could it happen in golf?

When are these players going to arrive?  Wally Uihlein told USA Today in 2002 that they were all on their way.  It didn't materialize.  Sure, an occasional player like Dustin Johnson comes to the Tour, but there are always outliers like George Bayer, Phil Blackmar, or Ian Woosnam.

A tall friend won on Tour and said there is no advantage.  Another has made cuts on Tour and told me the only advantage is that he can see the hole without tending the pin.  You have no proof that being big helps.  Nick Faldo and Ernie Els maybe won because they are good.  Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer, and Tom Kite won a lot too.  Nobody sees that and draws the conclusion that being normal size or smaller helps.

BTW, First Tee isn't exactly impacting the demographic of professional golf.  PGA Tour rookies from the U.S. are still basically not classified as multi-sport athletes that look like they could step onto an NFL field and catch passes.

[Sean_A]

Somehow, and this always seems to be the case, folks are measuring a golf course by how the pros play.  I don't think this thread was about that at all.  The thread is about protecting our great courses that ARE TOO SHORT FOR THE PROS, but can provide a fine test for the scratchish player.  Shifting par gives the illusion of a better test, because as Pietro points out, par matters to people even though its just a number.  This par test can be "protected" without actually changing the course. 

Can we please stop talking ab out the pros?  We all know the pros the can go low anytime, anywhere.  That is an issue which only serves to provide fodder for changing courses - in vain I might add. 

Ed O

More par 5s is more maintenance and more land.  I would rather see the opposite end of the spectrum exploited fully before we decide to throw money at what is after all only a perceived problem.  Plus, after playing many very fine 6000-6500 courses I know its fully possible to challenge the scratchish player without having to take him over 6500 yards.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

The real question is how do you build a golf course that tests good players with a few really difficult shots, and that's hard to do if they are going to hit short irons for approach shots 15 times out of 18.

Tom Doak: one way you make a course more challenging for elite players by building lots of real tough par 3s.  You also build fewer par 5s. 

Why not go in the other direction and build MORE par 5s?  So what if the best players would play them as two shot holes.  At least there would be s few more opportunities to test them with the tough long iron/fairway wood shot that Tom says is often missing.  And for everyone else, there would be a few more birdie opportunities.

Ed:

If I were designing a course with the purpose of making an exciting Tour venue, that's exactly what I would do.  I would have five or six holes over 470 yards, ranging up to maybe 670 yards.  Only a couple of those would really be three-shot holes for the pros, so some on this thread would insist that they are really par-4's instead of par-5's.  I don't care one way or another about that; I just want to see them hit long irons and hybrids into greens, and find out which players are really good at it.

That's only for a theoretical Tour venue, though.  For other projects, Sean is right ... better to throw in a couple of 270- and 300-yard holes and keep the total yardage and total acreage and maintenance costs down.  The idea that every course should test the elite player is pretty ludicrous; it's like saying every practice range needs to be 400 yards long just in case one of those long-driving champs shows up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, this drivel isn't true.
Of course it is.  Just ask Archimedes

  I'll bet you right now the final 16 players at the U.S. Amateur are young college players that mirror the size of a normal adult.  5'10" +/-2" with very few exceptions.  And they'll be pretty slender.  Maybe fit, but not muscular.  I have a VHS tape from the Ryder Cup with Tiger Woods when his waist was 27".  He hit the ball just as far then.  He might be 6'1", or a half-foot shorter than Gordon Sherry.

That's all irrelevant.
Size = arc = distance, it's irrefutable

Your big swing arc is good to hit the ball high and far.  But it doesn't translate.

That's the point, par 4's will become par 3's
Why don't you go back and reread what I stated

 Tournament golf is contested on courses where the fairways are narrow, the penalty to miss is great, and the wind often negates the advantage
of hitting it up in the air. 

You're misguided, this has nothing to do with the PGA tour
Why don't you go back and reread what I wrote.

You're also not familiar with long drives.
Every long drive is about high trajectory and your absurd notion about the wind is comical.  So the wind only blows in the players face ?
Or, are you now posturing that hitting the ball along the ground to avoid potential wind is the way to play[\b][\size][\color]

If tall is good, then short is bad. 

Short is bad
Do you know any midgets that hit it big ?

It just doesn't compute. 

Of course it does, just ask Archimedes

Mark Wilson is TINY.  The bright young players include Rory McIlroy.  David Toms just won again.  You don't see people chronically overcoming a disadvantage in other sports. How could it happen in golf?

Because it's not a disadvantage

You're missing the entire point, namely, that when taller, talented athletes take up golf, the distance issue will become more of a problem,

I've played with guys on the Long Driving Tour at Adios
They drove the 2nd, 5th,14th and 16th holes and were home in two on 3 of the 4 par 5's,
Avoiding the architectural intent on every one of those holes.
So why don't you go back and reread my initial post on Shaq and Labron instead of misunderstanding and misrepresenting what i wrote   a


When are these players going to arrive?  Wally Uihlein told USA Today in 2002 that they were all on their way.  It didn't materialize.  Sure, an
occasional player like Dustin Johnson comes to the Tour, but there are always outliers like George Bayer, Phil Blackmar, or Ian Woosnam.

A tall friend won on Tour and said there is no advantage.  Another has made cuts on Tour and told me the only advantage is that he can see the hole without tending the pin.  You have no proof that being big helps.  Nick Faldo and Ernie Els maybe won because they are good.  Tom
Watson, Arnold Palmer, and Tom Kite won a lot too.  Nobody sees that and draws the conclusion that being normal size or smaller helps.


The issue has NOTHING to do with the PGA Tour
Go back and reread what I wrote about Shaquille and Labron, then read it five more times, and then, maybe you'll get it.
Maybe

BTW, First Tee isn't exactly impacting the demographic of professional golf.  PGA Tour rookies from the U.S. are still basically not classified as multi-sport athletes that look like they could step onto an NFL field and catch passes.

This isn't about the PGA Tour or bilked up athletes, but since you brought it up Tiger sure looked like an NFL Cornerback to me

[David Harshbarger]

I like to look at these measures through my psuedo-economic lens as quality signals, stand ins for more refined, or in regards to GCA, more opaque quality measures.

The early century digital camera revolution presents a great example of this, as manufacturers battled on Megapixels, knowing full well that buyers often unable to discern other differences in the product, but could easily correlate more megapixels with higher perceived quality.

Consciously or not, the challenge you have to get players past golf's deeply ingrained quality signals for these changes in par to make a difference, and even then you are just shifting numbers from one quality signal, Par Tested, to another Par Defended.

The quality signals in golf as I see them are:

Number of hole: 18, not 9, 27 is weird, nothing else.  Look at the big resorts. They build multiple 18's.
Par Tested: 72 is the sweet spot.  When you stray high, the course is a ball buster.  When you stray low, it's easy or it's cheating you by not being enough.
Par Defended:  Not being a scratch golfer, am guessing here that scratch golfers expect to play scratch golf.
Rating and Slope:  in the US this a proxy for Par Defended.  I don't know that there is a number too high as far as acting as quality signals, but when the rating and slope are in the 60's and 110's, who doesn't think "cow pasture?"
Yardage: 7000 from the tips seems to be the gold standard.
Price: The universal quality signal.

Leatherstocking has been getting some love and as an old course might fit in to this category.  How does it do on quality signals?

Holes: 18 Check
Par tested: 72 Check
Par Defended: I believe it was said State Ams break 70.  No check.
Rating and Slope: 70.8/135.  Mixed.  Below Par rating, but healthy slope signals challlenge, commemsukrate with:
Yardage: 6416. No check.
Price: $99 weekend. In this area Check.

I think dropping Par Tested here would be a mistake.  While a Par 70 that played above Par (70. is good, sacrificing the quality signal Par Tested would be a bigger loss.  The slope signals that despite the yardage the course is no pushover, and the price signals much the same, as if they can separate you from a C-note, their must be something going on those 6,400 yards.

Interstingly, the decision to change Par Tested for the Pros fits in with this viewpoint quite well.  For the week of the tournament, the cost of lowering Par Tested is outweighed by the very visible benefit of increasing Relative Par Defended.  A course the Pros play in -15 seems easier than a course they play in -7.  Sure, looking objectively it's a shell game, shuffling some numbers around, but the effect is that by shuffling the numbers relative to anchoring quality signals, the intrepretation of a single outcome can be manipulated in mind of the observer.

In a world where consumers have limited time, information, and understanding, minding quality signals is important, and changing them in an adverse way should be undertaken with a clear head. 

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick:

You should play more overseas.  Rye and Swinley Forest are ample proof that a course doesn't need par-5 holes to be a great course.  [West Sussex GC is another; so is St. Enodoc.]

Tom, that wasn't the question.

The question was in the context of challenging the elite players, which I took to mean PGA or European Tour golfers.

Shouldn't there be an architectural demand that forces them to hit three good consecuive shots ?
The same challenge that you and I have to face on every round ?

I think this is flawed logic. Drop out the greenside play and putting, and these guy are hitting 30+ consecutive good shots. Approaching a green is a far higher demand than hitting a fairway to fairway shot. The fairway to fairway shot has a huge variation in length and target you can choose. Approaching a green with a flag stick in it has a very small variation in length and target to choose from.

[paul cowley]

Interesting post David...it actually bolsters what I am suggesting.

The vast majority of the complaints come from the better players....those who look at a scorecard and say "6400 yds, must be a drive, wedge course". As evidenced by the C notes, the average players find it challenging enough.

Changing the back tee par to 68 does a few things for the elite:

Par 68...6400 yds...might be interesting

Slope would probably move up to the high 140's...not pushover.

Par rating might move up to a 70 or even a 71...not rated 2 below, but goes to 2 or 3 above. Strong course.

They ought to try it that way for a State Am or a regional Pro event....I would even come out to help set it up. 

[David Harshbarger]

Paul,

I suggested an idea some time ago about developing a "GCA" rating of courses as a way of leveraging the power of numerical ratings as Quality Signals to further the goal of preserving the integrity of these cherished courses.  (That led to one of my GCA.com personal highlights.  Tom Doak lambasted me to the effect that " Mr Stimpson probably he thought he was doing the world a favor, too, and look how that turned out.". My reaction to which was "one of the pre-eminent GCA of our time thinks I'm an idiot! How cool is that?")

Not one to learn...if you think about the Doak scale, it, too acts as a Quality Signal, albeit to a very small and already well informed community of enthusiasts.  Having not read his book, but having read of it, his scale has validity to many because it's married to long form qualitative analyses that were perceptive yet pointed.  It also had validity because his scale is like the Michelin guide.  You get one Michelin star, you've separated yourself from the pack.  You get even a Doak 4, same thing.  That leaves a lot of room to separate out really good from really great, and orks to sharpen the critical faculties.

Unfortunately, the Doak scale doesn't lend itself to a broader use as a Quality Signal.  Tom's moved on to other things, (although I guess he could license the rating scheme, train people to rate the courses, and build out a living Doak Guide, that, like Michelin, would influence golf architecture and maintenance practices by those that covet the rating.  What say you, Tom?)

But, that doesn't mean their couldn't be some other metric developed, weighted towards what GCA sensibilities favor, that with time, branding, promotion, etc. Could grow to take a place alongside other quality signals.

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately, the Doak scale doesn't lend itself to a broader use as a Quality Signal.  Tom's moved on to other things, (although I guess he could license the rating scheme, train people to rate the courses, and build out a living Doak Guide, that, like Michelin, would influence golf architecture and maintenance practices by those that covet the rating.  What say you, Tom?)

David:

I like my day job, and don't intend to market the Doak scale like a J.D. Power award.  But thanks for thinking of me!

As you'd imagine, I don't like your Quality Signals much, either.  They are everything that's wrong with golf development now -- the "design by scorecard" mentality where judgments are based on yardage and par, and not on golf.

[Jud_T]

I
The quality signals in golf as I see them are:

Number of hole: 18, not 9, 27 is weird, nothing else.  Look at the big resorts. They build multiple 18's.
Par Tested: 72 is the sweet spot.  When you stray high, the course is a ball buster.  When you stray low, it's easy or it's cheating you by not being enough.
Par Defended:  Not being a scratch golfer, am guessing here that scratch golfers expect to play scratch golf.
Rating and Slope:  in the US this a proxy for Par Defended.  I don't know that there is a number too high as far as acting as quality signals, but when the rating and slope are in the 60's and 110's, who doesn't think "cow pasture?"
Yardage: 7000 from the tips seems to be the gold standard.
Price: The universal quality signal.
 

David,

Seriously?  So I can go out and build a 8000 yard tree-lined, water laden, forced carry house of horrors that's 18 holes par 72 with a 76 rating and a 152 slope, charge $500 a round and I'm in like flint?  All this time wasted on this site to find out an idiot with a bulldozer and a wallet can build the greatest course on the planet...Oh, wait a minute....

[Jim Nugent]

Changing the back tee par to 68 does a few things for the elite:

Par 68...6400 yds...might be interesting

Slope would probably move up to the high 140's...not pushover.

Par rating might move up to a 70 or even a 71...not rated 2 below, but goes to 2 or 3 above. Strong course.

They ought to try it that way for a State Am or a regional Pro event....I would even come out to help set it up. 

Why would course rating, bogey rating or slope change at all? 

[David Harshbarger]

I
The quality signals in golf as I see them are:

Number of hole: 18, not 9, 27 is weird, nothing else.  Look at the big resorts. They build multiple 18's.
Par Tested: 72 is the sweet spot.  When you stray high, the course is a ball buster.  When you stray low, it's easy or it's cheating you by not being enough.
Par Defended:  Not being a scratch golfer, am guessing here that scratch golfers expect to play scratch golf.
Rating and Slope:  in the US this a proxy for Par Defended.  I don't know that there is a number too high as far as acting as quality signals, but when the rating and slope are in the 60's and 110's, who doesn't think "cow pasture?"
Yardage: 7000 from the tips seems to be the gold standard.
Price: The universal quality signal.
 

David,

Seriously?  So I can go out and build a 8000 yard tree-lined, water laden, forced carry house of horrors that's 18 holes par 72 with a 76 rating and a 152 slope, charge $500 a round and I'm in like flint?  All this time wasted on this site to find out an idiot with a bulldozer and a wallet can build the greatest course on the planet...Oh, wait a minute....

Jud, see how easy that was?  You can thank me later for all the time you've saved not worrying about strategic angles and alternate strategies based on wind direction.  Until the market dries, at which point I hope you were playing with OPM.

[paul cowley]

Somehow, and this always seems to be the case, folks are measuring a golf course by how the pros play.  I don't think this thread was about that at all.  The thread is about protecting our great courses that ARE TOO SHORT FOR THE PROS, but can provide a fine test for the scratchish player.  Shifting par gives the illusion of a better test, because as Pietro points out, par matters to people even though its just a number.  This par test can be "protected" without actually changing the course. 

Can we please stop talking ab out the pros?  We all know the pros the can go low anytime, anywhere.  That is an issue which only serves to provide fodder for changing courses - in vain I might add. 

Ed O

More par 5s is more maintenance and more land.  I would rather see the opposite end of the spectrum exploited fully before we decide to throw money at what is after all only a perceived problem.  Plus, after playing many very fine 6000-6500 courses I know its fully possible to challenge the scratchish player without having to take him over 6500 yards.

Ciao

Well said Sean.

[Doug Siebert]

Changing the back tee par to 68 does a few things for the elite:

Par 68...6400 yds...might be interesting

Slope would probably move up to the high 140's...not pushover.

Par rating might move up to a 70 or even a 71...not rated 2 below, but goes to 2 or 3 above. Strong course.

They ought to try it that way for a State Am or a regional Pro event....I would even come out to help set it up. 

Why would course rating, bogey rating or slope change at all? 

They wouldn't.  Not sure what Paul is talking about here.  The course (scratch) rating and bogey rating (from which slope is derived) are totally independent of the par assigned to the hole on the scorecard.  You can have a course rated that's got a 550 yard par 3 or a 150 yard par 5, and it would be rated the same way as if the scorecard had not been misprinted.