Can a hole be really good if it has the wrong par on the scorecard?

[Paul Jones]

I was playing a great golf course this week and we get to a 490 yard Par 5 uphill.  My friend makes the comment that this is a good hole, but not great since it should be a Par 4.  I really thought it was great, but he disagreed.  Should a number on the card make or break a hole?

We are both single digit handicaps <5 and hit it a decent way.  We both hit good drives, then both hit hybrids pin high (both slightly missed the green).  He went on to say that the club members argue over this as the older members do not want to change it, but the younger members do.

Thoughts?

[Mac Plumart]

I think the par of the hole makes a ton of difference.  It affects your decision making process, the shots you hit, how you play the hole, how you feel after the hole, etc.  Perhaps it is all psychological, but isn't the game played between the 5 inch space between your ears.

Would 7 at Inverness be as great if it were a par 5?

Would 17 at The Old Course be great if it was a par 5?

Perhaps good, but not great.  IMO.

[Tim Martin]

I was playing a great golf course this week and we get to a 490 yard Par 5 uphill.  My friend makes the comment that this is a good hole, but not great since it should be a Par 4.  I really thought it was great, but he disagreed.  Should a number on the card make or break a hole?

We are both single digit handicaps <5 and hit it a decent way.  We both hit good drives, then both hit hybrids pin high (both slightly missed the green).  He went on to say that the club members argue over this as the older members do not want to change it, but the younger members do.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a good half par hole. Why not keep the original intent of the hole and allow everyone to enjoy it? A 490 yard uphill par 4 won`t appeal to most players.

[Paul Jones]

Tim,

I agree.  Everyone seems to love the drivable Par 4s.

[Dan King]

Par is apparently important because there are more than enough golfers who will play a hole according to the number printed on the card rather than according to their own ability.

But the number on the card changes nothing on the ground. The hole hasn't changed, just the way non-thinking golfers will play the hole changed. IMHO par is meaningless and the hole is still great or not great on its own.

It would be interesting to try an experiment. Change the par for a course to a few higher and see if scores and time to play gets worse. For another group of golfers lower par by a few shots. Do scores get lower and time to play get faster?  If this works, I'd vote to change all 18 holes courses to become par 18.

Cheers,
Dan King

Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker.
 --Willie Nelson

[Ronald Montesano]

Your friend, Paul, is undereducated and wrong. I know this, as I was that person once. Have him visit this joint for a while and he'll see the light, eventually.

[Kevin Lynch]

I am guilty of falling into this trap on half-par holes, and Dan's statement is absolutely correct.  You play to get the ball down in as few shots as possible based on where you are.  If you're 200 out with water next to the green, how you play it should be dictated by your ability, not whether you are trying to reach the green in regulation or one below regulation.  But we all know that the par does affect how people will play that shot.  I'd imagine people would be quicker to lay-up on the Par 5 than on the Par 4.

Having acknowledged that I understand the theoretically correct answer, I still think the assigned Par shouldn't be blatantly inconsistent with the demands or risks presented.  If it is inconsistent either way (too low or high), it will never be a great hole.

Consider a 480 Yard Par 4/5 with no real demand other than length.  There is no hazard near the green to make "going for it" a real risk/reward scenario.  In this case, it would either be an uninteresting, pushover Par 5 or a boring slog of a Par 4 (this would be the true 4.5 Par holes).  Changing the assigned par isn't going to save it either way. 

Now, if you take the same hole and add real dangerous hazard near a tricky green, you get an element of risk/reward going for this one in two.  Now, it becomes more interesting as a Par 5, but an even tougher slog as a Par 4.  In essence, now you have a Par 4.75 hole.  Even though the shots are the same, trying to pass this hole off as a Par 4 just feels wrong and inconsistent.

At Augusta’s 13th & 15th, I think Jones & MacKenzie knew they had Par 4.75’s but felt the potential for a big number made it obvious that they had to be designated as a Par 5.  I can’t ever imagine these holes being viewed the same way if they had been designated as Par 4s. 

For a while, technology advances had the 15th bordering the Par 4.5 territory and it was losing its appeal (whether they had changed it to a Par 4 or not).  At least Augusta didn’t take the USGA route and just reduce Par by one and call it a day.  They brought it back up to a 4.75 and maintained the original intent.  Unfortunately, looking at the set-up for Congressional, it appears that the USGA is content to just adopt the uninteresting, long slog approach.

[Bill Brightly]

I agree with most of what is said: par is very important when people judge the merit of a hole, but when we discuss a half par hole here on GCA I think the quality of the greensite is critical. What I mean is that a really good half par hole has to have a green that offers a reasonable play to hold the green with a long shot, perhaps mounding that softens the landing, etc. In other words, I dislike a short par 5 with a tiny green with heavy hazards around it, which makes going for the green in two a foolish proposition.

That's why I have always felt the 13th at Augusta is great half par, but 15 is not, except for the ridiculous length that the pros bring to the table.

Related to this, Saucon Valley Old recently put in several new black tees and four par 4's are now 480ish. When I first had to play those tees in qualifying, I butchered them because I do not have great length. So last year I played a mind game with myself, told myself the course had 8 par 5's, some of them reachable, all of them "birdieable," and played them in one over par.

[PCCraig]

If you need a scorecard to tell you what a hole's strategy is, then you don't understand strategy in the first place.

[mike_beene]

Just play off level fours and forget what the card says.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

If you need a scorecard to tell you what a hole's strategy is, then you don't understand strategy in the first place.

That is true, but I have to agree with some of what is said above in that "par" can change how people perceive a hole. I went into this on my discussion of #2 at Pebble Beach. The way I am able to play the hole, its simply a long par 4 with bunkers flanking the landing area and around the green. But that is not the way it was intended to be played, I don't think. It was meant to be played as a hole where the tee shot is critical to being able to try to carry the cross hazard; it still is, but I play that hole as if its a par 4. The way its intended to be played, its a good, strategic hole. The way I play it, its just a long par 4; hit one hard, hit one high as someones post tagline states. I honestly wish it was not that way.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I always assumed that the par of a hole was basically a function of its length. In search of clarification I came across this, which seems fairly comprehensive;

http://golf.about.com/od/handicaps/f/faq_parlengths.htm

It is clear from this that an uphill 490 yard hole should indeed be a par 5.

Sub 500 yd par 5's are very common on older courses in England. Funnily enough they rarely seem to be ranked among the easier holes on the course. We have a 477 yd par 5 at Reddish Vale which is reachable in two by long hitters despite a steeply uphill tight dogleg 200 yds from the tee. It is still Stroke Index 10 on the card, though...


If a 290 yd par 4 is considered appropriate, a par of 5 for a hole of 490 yards sounds right to me. Golf should not revolve around the abilities of the longest hitters.

[Mark Chaplin]

Duncan - with the EGU wanting the 1st, 9th, 10th & 18th to be in the 9-12 stroke index range it isn't a good measure of difficulty.

Par can make a difference, lots of uneducated people think 16 at Deal should be a four however this is a green "designed" to take a short iron or pitch/chip shot. Yes you can hit it in two but the green would be unfair if you had to hit it with a wood or long iron. Also the shot from the lush - it's the place lowest on the water table - valley of glorious insecurity would disappear.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan - with the EGU wanting the 1st, 9th, 10th & 18th to be in the 9-12 stroke index range it isn't a good measure of difficulty.

Interesting...

I just checked our card;

1st       SI    6
9th       SI  18
10th     SI  13
18th     SI   8

We fail on every count!

[Scott Warren]

I don't get the mindset that leads someone to say a hole is better as a par X instead of a par Y without any other change made to it.

Perhaps I have been fortunate that the two clubs to which I belong each have a number of holes (3, 5, 12, 16 at Deal and 1, 4, 8, 14 and 18 at Bonnie Doon) that can be two-shotters or three-shotters depending on the conditions of the day, so I don't really care what the card says, there are days when I stand on the tee feeling like 5 will be a good score and others when I stand on the tee and feel I should make 4.

Sure, some are better as three-shot holes and others work better as two-shotters, but the assigned par score doesn't make a bit of difference to me when I'm deciding whether I like a hole.

[Sean_A]

This is an endless debate.  However, I would point out that the entire concept of par was created for the expert players of the time.  Of course these days par is outdated for the expert players and should probably be 2-3 shots lower to have any real meaning.  I can see par remaining what it is for the very good amateur, but for the rest of us, par was never meant to be the standard by which we play.  That is why we have handicaps, but for some reason 18 cappers talk about par.  That is about as dopey as it comes, especially when these handicap players want to reduce par.  This is more than dopey, its assinine.  I have long been an advocate of bringing back the bogey score.  This would "cure" the card and pencil types of their slavish regard for playing to a specified number regardless of ability or conditions.  With all this said, I don't mind if you want to call a 200 yard hole a par 4 or a 500 yard a par 4.  Its all golf and the goal remains the same.  The trick is to set your goals properly and ignore what a long dead person wrote about what par is and how that should effect the architecture of holes. 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

The trick is to set your goals properly

Ah ha!!  The secret, indeed.  But to achieve this, don't you first have to accurately assess your own abilities?  Ask yourself this, "Is the average person honest with himself?"  I'd say no, not even close.  In fact, I saw a stat in a magazine the other day and it said 92% of people think they have above average abilities when it comes to driving a car.  Hmmm....

So, if 17 at TOC is a par 4...most golfers are going to try to go for it in two.  If it is a par 5, they will be okay with it if they hit it in 3.  I'd say "Par" is the most powerful force in golf.  Is that because people are stupid?   Maybe. 

[Mac Plumart]

Oh yeah, one more thing...

I can't tell you how many times I've seen people hit a bad tee shot, start to get upset, and then have someone else say, "Hey, it is a par 5."  That is meant to tell them to relax, you've got an extra shot on this hole to try to make par.

Now, take that same drive on a par 4 and that golfer who hit the bad shot is going to try to pull a miracle shot out of their bum to try to save par.

That changes the hole and how a golfer will play it.

Again, is that the correct way to play it.  Probably not (at least for most people not on the PGA Tour).  But it happens day in and day out on golf courses across the world.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Surely we need to define or at least standardise the ball and clubs before going down this path or should I say fairway.

Remember when some of us started playing, thoughts like this, let alone debates would not even be given the light of day as sounding just too farfetched, yet here we are.

Is it good for Golf, well IMHO certainly not as we are watching great Holes and Courses being diminished in stature, forcing new development to accommodate the long drives, but why because no one wants to do the commons sense thing and ‘Take Control of the Technology’.

Seems many want to see the destruction of our traditions and courses, soon we might even find that between our round in the morning and that after lunch the course may have changed by increasing the length and modifying certain hazards. Stupid, well its just as stupid as doing zero and watching our great Holes/Courses being butchered because of lack of any backbone, so that a limited few can drive the Greens aided by their latest purchase of High Technology equipment. Do some of you really think this is golf?

In truth many of the older courses are on the verge of being redundant unless money is going to be spent modifying them for The Few.

Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I think there has to be a correlation between the architectural features, the golfer's ability to interface with them and par.

A major problem created by high-tech and distance is that the golfer no longer interfaces with many of the INTENDED features

[Tim Martin]

Oh yeah, one more thing...

I can't tell you how many times I've seen people hit a bad tee shot, start to get upset, and then have someone else say, "Hey, it is a par 5."  That is meant to tell them to relax, you've got an extra shot on this hole to try to make par.

Now, take that same drive on a par 4 and that golfer who hit the bad shot is going to try to pull a miracle shot out of their bum to try to save par.

That changes the hole and how a golfer will play it.

Again, is that the correct way to play it.  Probably not (at least for most people not on the PGA Tour).  But it happens day in and day out on golf courses across the world.

A seasoned player trying to post a medal score will take his medicine the majority of the time regardless of the par on the card. If the game is match play(4 Ball) everything changes depending on what your opponents and partner have done. There will even be a different mindset if the match play is head on head. I do agree Mac that there are plenty of players who don`t think twice about trying to pull off the hero shot each and every time. This is where the macho bests reason.

[Tom ORourke]

I live near Augusta and our course has the same terrain, maybe even hillier. We have a few short par 5s that are so severely uphill on the second shot that they can not be par 4s. Going for the green in two is a dicey proposition as knocking it over the back can be a quick 6. Short may lead to a 40 yard roll back. You feel like you should make a birdie but any score from 3 to 7 is in the cards. These are par 4 1/2, but still good holes. For most of the membership (90%) these are true par 5s, and the par is correct. There are holes I have played that are 5s from the member tees but 4s from the back tees. The 18th at Rolling Green in Philly is one. Medford Village has another. Who says that the par needs to be set in stone?

[Tim Martin]

I live near Augusta and our course has the same terrain, maybe even hillier. We have a few short par 5s that are so severely uphill on the second shot that they can not be par 4s. Going for the green in two is a dicey proposition as knocking it over the back can be a quick 6. Short may lead to a 40 yard roll back. You feel like you should make a birdie but any score from 3 to 7 is in the cards. These are par 4 1/2, but still good holes. For most of the membership (90%) these are true par 5s, and the par is correct. There are holes I have played that are 5s from the member tees but 4s from the back tees. The 18th at Rolling Green in Philly is one. Medford Village has another. Who says that the par needs to be set in stone?

Tom-Isn`t that the mark of a great par 5 half par hole-that 3 to 7 is in the cards. We see many U.S. open venues convert par 5`s on the card to brutal par 4`s for the tournament. Your last sentence is right on the $.

[Jud_T]

When you look up "Perhaps in part due to the USGA Handicapping posting rules, American Golfers are way too focused on their medal score" in the dictionary there will now be a link to this thread...

Bill,

Nice to know as we head to 15 tee at Kingsley I'll be on the verge of getting deep in your pocket...

[Peter Pallotta]

If you need a scorecard to tell you what a hole's strategy is, then you don't understand strategy in the first place.

That seems to me to be true, and well put.

But if an architect can use 'par' to design-in a touch more second guessing, that's good I guess.

Peter