[paul cowley]

The time has come for lowering par to below 70 on some of our great shorter courses for the elite players....those 5% who can really take advantage of the new equipment and distance...so that we can quit trying to make courses longer and longer to accommodate their play. The vast majority of golfers play from between 6200 and 6500 yds.

The Leatherstocking thread is a good example of a classic course that gets overlooked because of its length. Sean Arble posted that a Top 100 course had to be long enough to challenge the best players and I agree with him.

Leatherstocking is 6400 yds from the tips and plays to a par of 72.

I would convert (on the scorecard ) three of the par 5's to par 4's, and the short par 4 14 th hole to a par 3 of around 280 yds for the back tees...for a total par of 68. I'm sure the elite players will find this set up very challenging...and they can be 4 over and still shoot a 72. I would leave the card alone for the rest of the tees and pars. The better players are already playing 510 yd par 5's as par 4's, so lets just correct this on the card and quit trying to create more length for a few.

I know we have discussed this before, but it has really become the right time to get over the mental stigma barrier about courses under Par 70 being lesser creations....and to quit allowing great courses to become obsolete because of their length.

[Adam Lawrence]

Of course, this is already the case on a number of well-regarded older UK courses: Swinley Forest, Pulborough, Rye - all par 68, and pretty solid tests of golf for those not truly elite.

[Harris Nepon]

Who are elite players? PGA Tour guys?

I think there is way to few peope who challenge par every time they play to warrant this change.

I would bet a place like Leatherstalking gets 99.8% of it's play from average golfers. Could under par scores there in a season be counted on one hand? Maybe 2 hands? I think so.

[paul cowley]

Harris...for the sake of this thread I am considering elite players as those with low single digit handicaps who make up the approximately 5% +/- of total players that use the back tees.

Adam...I hadn't realized that Swinley Forest and Rye were 68's. How recent has the par been lowered for these two?

[Adam Lawrence]

I don't think Swinley put par figures on their card at all until very recently. Rye I just looked up in an AA golf guide from the 1980s; it was par 68 then. Dickinson's 'A Round of Golf Courses' lists it at SSS 72; some of these old money courses were slow to adopt the concept of par.

[Terry Lavin]

I don't think this is a good idea.  The length of a classic course, and its par score for 18 holes, or any individual hole, should not matter to an amateur player.  Rather than help the old courses, I think it would amount to a concession that the courses are irrelevant and bypassed by time.  In an era in which we should be focusing on the fun in the game and playing the game from the forward tees to increase enjoyment, a move like this would only serve to help those who are intent on lengthening old courses if given the opportunity.  Leatherstocking would not be more fun or be a better golf course if the par were reduced.

[Sean_A]

Paul

To be clear, I don't believe I mentioned yardage to be top 100, I mentioned a good test.  A course like Rye can provide that test in spades and its short of 6400 yards.  In any case, Rye is YOUR case in point.  Its a tight par of 68 and punches miles above weight.  If it is a matter of lengthing courses to challenge a scratch player (a concept I find very dubious in most cases) or changing par, then I am 100% behind the idea of changing par.  Par is really outdated now anyway.  It was originally a measuring stick for pros and now its not necessarily a good measuring stick for the best ams.  

Harlech also provides a nasty par of 69 against a 6600 yard course from ther tips.  That is enough course for any amateur over the course of a multiple day event.

I think both Pulborough and Swinley are a bit light for the very good am, but these may well stand out as exceptions to the rule as they must be in the conversation of top 100 world.

Terry

"The length of a classic course, and its par score for 18 holes, or any individual hole, should not matter to an amateur player."

This is what is brilliant about the idea.  You are right, it doesn't matter, but many people are still willing to alter courses based on providing a faux par tougher test.  Altering par costs little and ultimately lays bare how shallow the concept of par is.  Flat bellies get their "test" and the rest of us get to keep our courses.  Its a win win deal.

Ciao

[paul cowley]

Terry....just to be clear I was suggesting "par" be only lowered on the card for those playing the back tees on certain short courses...and leaving par for the rest of the players alone. This is already done at many Tour events...making 5's par 4's etc...and many other courses have a different par total for the forward tees...I know we have made that concession on a few of the courses we have designed, but in these instances the par total has usually gone up by making a long 4 a par 5 etc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

Doesn't that process inherently eliminate par 5's as a test for the elite player ?

So many par 5's have been converted to par 4's due to the effect of high tech equipment.

But, where is the demand that the elite golfer has to hit three good consecutive shots in order to reach the green ?

With today's length, that would seem to put a challenging par 5 in the 800-900 yard range.

I think par 5's present a unique challenge, one requiring three good consecutive shots.
Years ago, # 5 and # 16 at Pine Tree, 620 and 666 yards respectively, provided that challenge.
Today, elite players are getting home in two on both of those holes.
# 16 tends to play downwind, but, whereas reaching a 666 yard hole was unattainable years ago, it's not so today.

Existing courses without any elasticity are doomed.

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.

The USGA and the R&A are  going to have to reconsider the distance/high tech issue.

While I still play the back tees at a number of courses, I'd be content to move up to shorter if my distance was cut back by 10 % or more.

[Sean_A]

Pat

There is no question that the par 5 suffers on a sub 70 course unless there is a very unusual configuration of six par 3s and/or more than a few short par 4s AND the right routing to include what must be something close to a 700 yard par 5.  I haven't come across many truly wonderful proper three shot holes so for me it is no great loss to cut back on 5s. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - this is interesting in many ways; for me, though, it is most interesting because it touches on the ancient dichotomy between what should be and what in fact is, or between attempting to do what is best (but perhaps unrealistic) and accepting was is actually do-able and practical (but perhaps only second best).  In this case, I don't believe 'shoulds' can be called upon, i.e. it doesn't matter if par "should be" irrelevant -- the fact is, it isn't irrelevant, not to most golfers (well, not to me at least). And it doesn't matter if very good golfers "should" be able to judge a golf course by its architectural merit and not by how many strokes under par they are; the fact is, they don't. So -- yes to your idea, i.e. a simple decision to have a "championship scorecard" (oh god, I can't believe I just coined that phrase) for those playing from the back tees that lowers par, as you suggest.  Will it solve everything, including the urge of nervous and insecure club members/chairs to lengthen their courses? Maybe not - but it will help...especially if it can be marketed as the enlightened idea/approach, and one used by all the best old-line clubs.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

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.]


Paul:

In spite of what I just said above, I think you are putting way too much stock in "par".  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.  Most of the UK courses mentioned above, particularly Rye, hold up as well as they do because there is always wind, which makes some of the longer par-4's feature long approach shots.  At Swinley, the longest hole is 480 yards, which is great for me but not so testing for the pros.  [Royal Melbourne, in fact, has the same problem.]

[paul cowley]

Paul,

Doesn't that process inherently eliminate par 5's as a test for the elite player ?

So many par 5's have been converted to par 4's due to the effect of high tech equipment.

But, where is the demand that the elite golfer has to hit three good consecutive shots in order to reach the green ?

With today's length, that would seem to put a challenging par 5 in the 800-900 yard range.

I think par 5's present a unique challenge, one requiring three good consecutive shots.
Years ago, # 5 and # 16 at Pine Tree, 620 and 666 yards respectively, provided that challenge.
Today, elite players are getting home in two on both of those holes.
# 16 tends to play downwind, but, whereas reaching a 666 yard hole was unattainable years ago, it's not so today.

Existing courses without any elasticity are doomed.

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.

The USGA and the R&A are  going to have to reconsider the distance/high tech issue.

While I still play the back tees at a number of courses, I'd be content to move up to shorter if my distance was cut back by 10 % or more.

Pat, I agree and lament the demise in my lifetime of the three shot hole....which is to my point that if the better players are already playing shorter par 5's as 4's, just reflect it on the card.

[Ken Moum]

I know we have discussed this before, but it has really become the right time to get over the mental stigma barrier about courses under Par 70 being lesser creations....and to quit allowing great courses to become obsolete because of their length.

I think it definitely has come time.

As you note, there a plenty of golden age courses with shortish par fives that almost beg to be made into par fours for the pros.

And since many (most?) of them also have par fours of ~300 yards, why not call one or more of them par threes?

For those who cry sacrilege, consider how many of those old courses had par fours and par threes that required the even the best players to reach for a brassie on the approach shot. Hell, the little nine-holers I grew up on in northern Minnesota nearly all had one par three that could play as a full wood shot for good players of the late 50s and early 60s.

Where I play, built about 1915 or so, we have a 465- yard dogleg par five that would be a good par four, and our closing hole is ~300-yard par three that would be a great par three @ 280-290.  One of the other two par fives is 500 yards and could easily play as a par four, getting us to 68.  The yardage would be just over 6500.

To the naysayers, i would point to the discussion between Payne Stewart and Mike Davis. Stewart complained that a converted par five didn't have a green designed to accept long-iron shots. Davis said that he'd make a par five is everyone in the field agreed to not attempt reaching it in two.

If the elite players are already playing everything under 650 yards as two-shot holes, they are NOT par fives.

K

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - a perhaps irrelevant fact just struck me: that I read somewhere how very short-hitting Corey Pavin makes up most of his strokes (on the course, and against the best players in the world) on par 3s.  Yes, the lowly Par 3 - the great equalizer!

Peter

[Sean_A]

Tom

It never clicked with me that St Enodoc is less than 6500 yards.  In fact, it was quite close to 6400 until the 16th was dubiously lengthened due to the genesis of this thread.  That said, I don't think St Enodoc woud hold up as well as Rye or Harlech against flat bellies.  The thing about all the English courses mentioned so far is that none have truly outstanding greens and this can be the great equalizer.  This is where Beau Desert has it over these courses.  Sure, its a par 70, but the greens are a mystery and both the par 5s have breaks in the fairway making a bomb and gouge play difficult from the back tees.  

Ciao

[Ken Moum]

Paul - a perhaps irrelevant fact just struck me: that I read somewhere how very short-hitting Corey Pavin makes up most of his strokes (on the course, and against the best players in the world) on par 3s.  Yes, the lowly Par 3 - the great equalizer!

Peter

Another place where short hitters have a bit of a chance is any hole that long hitters consider reachable with a driver....  it's not at all uncommon for a pin-high, but off line approach to be more difficult than one from short and on line.

K

[Garland Bayley]

...
But, where is the demand that the elite golfer has to hit three good consecutive shots in order to reach the green ?
...

I doubt this has ever been the meaning of a par 5. At least since the equipment advanced from a very primitive state (after the featherie).

What you are talking about here is 850 yard par 5s. It is already clear that elite golfers can reach 600 yards in two, so the third would have to be over 200 yards making 800 yard plus par 5s.

But, that aside, the core of golf is the two shotter. One shot to put the ball in position for the ideal approach, second shot for that approach. A three shotter usually relaxes the requirement for position on one of the first two, and is the step child of the par holes.

[paul cowley]

Tom

I agree with you about the design of new courses. What I am suggesting is a way of keeping older courses relevent, which I'm sure won't work in all cases...but the phobia and percieved stigma concerning courses under par 70 needs to go, at least on this side of the pond.

Personally I would love to design new challenging par 68's and include at least one true three shot par 5' in each....and while at it I would also have at least one postage stamp par 3 under 100 yds...85 yds would be great...that would play over par on average! Now that's a good design challenge.

Hey, why don't you do one!

Actually the best way to make a three shot hole is to create a par 4 of over 600 yds...silly isn't it.

[John_Conley]

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. 

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.

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.

[Jim Nugent]

Paul - a perhaps irrelevant fact just struck me: that I read somewhere how very short-hitting Corey Pavin makes up most of his strokes (on the course, and against the best players in the world) on par 3s.  Yes, the lowly Par 3 - the great equalizer!

Peter

That's right, Peter.  Par 3s neutralize most of the distance advantage the long-ball hitters have.  Even the pro's rarely average under par, over a season, on par 3s.  They tear up the par 5s. 

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. 

[Matthew Petersen]

Paul,

I think it's your last sentence ("I know we have discussed this before, but it has really become the right time to get over the mental stigma barrier about courses under Par 70 being lesser creations....and to quit allowing great courses to become obsolete because of their length.") that betrays why what you propose in your thread title will never work. The issue is the stigma of short length, not par.

I have never played with anyone who cared whether the course we were on was par 70, 71, or 72, nor can I imagine they would care if it was 69 or 68 (but I've never played a course with that par). If anything, a par 70 makes them think, "Hey I can play bogey golf here and shoot 88 which is better than 90!" And that's a fine attitude as far as I'm concerned.

But a 6,500 yard course is always going to be a 6,500 yd course, whether it's clocking in at par 70 or 68. The length is its detriment, to those who judge a course on such bald things, and changing the par isn't going to change their mind.

I'm also not sure what you define as "elite players." The ones who turn up their noses at courses not over 7000 yards? Pros? Again, most of the golfers I know don't really care whether a pro is -15 or -24. Those guys are good. We all know that, so the concept of par there is also hard to see as something that matters.

[SL_Solow]

There are 2 issues in evaluating this proposal.  First, and what I suspect motivates this proposal, is the importance of protecting "the integrity of par".  Does it really make a difference if someone shoots 264 for 4 rounds whether that same score is 14 under par or only 6 under par?  They shot the same score on the same course.  But from an historic and comparative perspective it appears that many feel better if par has been defended.  So for cosmetic reasons the idea may have merit.  The second issue has been identified and cannot be solved.  If a championship test is supposed to test all facets of the game, and if the negotiation of a true 3 shot par 5 is deemed to be part of that examination, then this proposal does not solve the problem unless of course the remaining par 5's are 3 shot holes or at least strong 2 1/2 shotters.  For me the real issue is , how important is protecting par?  In any event we will be seeing the same shots and the same scores although a shorter player may be compelled to take more risks if a short 5 is denominated a long 4.  Noreason to do so but there are psychological factors at work.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

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. Only for the US Open does this really matter.

One this this thread also misses is the fact that shorter courses, the kind we propose to change the par on, have generally shorter holes overall. A course that comes to mind is the US Naval Academy course, where I played for a few years. 6500 +/- yards from the back tees. Both par 5's are reachable in two, 3 par 4's are reachable by long players, GREAT variety on the par 3's, but then nearly every other par 4 is reachable with a wedge and 7 iron is the longest club I hit into any green, and only then because #1 plays 30+ feet uphill to the green. So, you can change the "par" out there to 67 or 66 perhaps, but what does it do? The best players are still flipping wedges into the greens in competition. So, that is the main issue with shorter courses. I mean, unless you start breaking "par" down to fractions on holes, like a 375 yard hole playing a par 3.6 or something....and of course that makes no sense at all.

But, how many of these shorter courses have any desire to hold major events? State level Am events are generally played at 6700 or so yards, same with Section level PGA events (or at least the state open qualifiers I have played were). So unless the course wants badly to host a US Open or PGA or other really top level event, then it doesn't make much of a difference.

EDIT: BTW, I put US Naval Academy Golf Club in my personal Top 25, so in spite of it being "short" I think its a fantastic course.

[Garland Bayley]

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. Only for the US Open does this really matter.

One this this thread also misses is the fact that shorter courses, the kind we propose to change the par on, have generally shorter holes overall. A course that comes to mind is the US Naval Academy course, where I played for a few years. 6500 +/- yards from the back tees. Both par 5's are reachable in two, 3 par 4's are reachable by long players, GREAT variety on the par 3's, but then nearly every other par 4 is reachable with a wedge and 7 iron is the longest club I hit into any green, and only then because #1 plays 30+ feet uphill to the green. So, you can change the "par" out there to 67 or 66 perhaps, but what does it do? The best players are still flipping wedges into the greens in competition. So, that is the main issue with shorter courses. I mean, unless you start breaking "par" down to fractions on holes, like a 375 yard hole playing a par 3.6 or something....and of course that makes no sense at all.

But, how many of these shorter courses have any desire to hold major events? State level Am events are generally played at 6700 or so yards, same with Section level PGA events (or at least the state open qualifiers I have played were). So unless the course wants badly to host a US Open or PGA or other really top level event, then it doesn't make much of a difference.

EDIT: BTW, I put US Naval Academy Golf Club in my personal Top 25, so in spite of it being "short" I think its a fantastic course.

You must be the person that sent JKM on his Anapolis Quest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()