[jglenn]

I was having a quick back-and-forth with Mark Fine in another thread, which got me thinking about the concept of challenge.

Quite often, we describe golf courses or individual holes as "easy" or "difficult".  But what exactly do we mean by that?  What makes a golf hole difficult/easy?  More/less difficult than another?

I couldn't answer those questions.  The more I thought about it, the more a realised that every course/hole is as challenging as the next.  Perhaps because the challenge is not the golf course, but rather yourself or your fellow competitors?

For example, the 17th hole at St.Andrews is no more difficult than the 18th.  Tough to believe, isn't it?

As I often thought, in golf, if you think its easy, you're not trying hard enough, and if your think it's difficult, you're trying too much.

Essentially, we often define "easy" or "difficult" based on "par".  But I believe that this idea is entirely baseless and misleading.  If a 470 yard hole is a "par 4", it is thought to be difficult, but call it a "par 5" and it's easy.  Yet the hole hasn't changed one bit.  Why should we perceive an identical object differently based on what we call it?
______

What's Montague?  It is not hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man.  Oh, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.  So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called.      

Shakespeare

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeremy,

I started to get into my personal theory of challenge over on the Bob Jones thread a minute ago.  For what its worth, here goes.....

To me, challenge is distinct from difficulty.  A hole may call for, say a "feathered six iron" cut into the wind to attain the "Sunday Pin" location.  That challenge could be present on two holes, but if one has a two foot deep sand hazard, and the other has a twenty foot deep sand hazard for those who overplay the fade, it seems to me the second hole is more difficult - assuming that after repeated play, any golfer will eventually misplay a shot.

The first hole may have a slightly smaller dimension for the sunday pin, or be on a hill more exposed to the wind, making judgement all the more difficult.  These, in my mind, increase the challenge  of the first hole relative to the second, but perhaps not the difficulty.

Your St. Andrews example does have merit, however for those in competitions.  I suspect most tournament competitors, all the way down to the junior level, mentally calculate that day's par based on both course conditions, and who they have to beat.

[TEPaul]

Jeremy:

You asked a wonderful question in what is challenge?! It's definitely a central question about the way any golfer looks at a course, a hole, its difficulty, its architecture.

It's a complex question, I suppose, but I think you both asked it and answered it! It just doesn't appear that you believe in your answer! But I do!

The way the vast, vast majority of golfers look at a hole and its "challenge" almost completely relates to its "par"--somehow! Of course it shouldn't, and as you say, it really doesn't (in a completely rational sense) but only if any golfer could or would wipe out of a his mind the concept of par (on a particular hole!).

But the vast, vast majority of golfers just can't or don't do that. It isn't really even the hole itself, just that they are convinced that "par" is the expected number to make on that hole--and so that's just what they try to do--that's what they base all their strategic thinking on!

You actually prove your own answer (although you still don't seem to completely believe in it) by your statement that if and when the "par" number (the expectation) changes the vast, vast majority of golfers' entire attitude about the difficulty and challenge of the hole changes. This is very much a true and valid phenomenon that proves your answer!

I consider that when I played acceptable tournament golf the strength of my game was my course managment ability, but still I'm more than willing to admit I would play a hole differently if the par was changed? Why? I'm not sure really, other than to say that because I'm convinced that most other golfers would too! And this not only includes the more understandable stroke play but also head to head match play! Now that's saying a lot!

Of course there are other elements to various holes that make it very much of a "challenge" other than "par" expectation. And that would certainly include a particular shot or combination of them that are just plain difficult for almost anyone! That would certainly include do or die shots like the tee shot on Merion's #18--no matter the ultimate par expectation.

Of course there are the rather rare examples of golfers who might actually look at a hole in the lowest score that's  potentially doable to them, but even in the mentality of a tournament player that's still relatively rare.

That to me is evidenced by the extremely "mature" attitude by a world class golfer like Woods or Nicklaus who look at a hole not so much for what they can do on them (although of course they do that) but much more for their thorough and accurate gut feeling and understanding about what those they are competing against are likely to make on them. In this way they are realistic and not at all dreamers!

But I guess there are plenty of other ways to look at "challenge". Some may even look at it as "temptation"! In other words how they evaluate their own inter-yearnings of the possible against the probable and the meaning of the overall results of either.

Great question--and I'm sure there will be a ton of diverse opinions--as it should be in golf!

[Jeff Mingay]

A CHALLENGING course allows you to play the same ball for 18-holes and still shoot 85 (!).

A CHALLENGING course leaves you to contemplate why that many strokes were required? You're confused, at first -- the greens weren't too fast? The fairways were adequately accommodating? The rough wasn't excessive? And you visited but two sand bunkers? What happened?

Ah... after thought, you get it! You didn't play the angles! Your approached certain pins by air that should have been approached along ground, and vice versa!

Next time, you say to yourself  

A CHALLENGING course you can't wait to return to!  

A DIFFICULT course is plain difficult -- frustrating and unenjoyable. On a DIFFICULT course, you shoot 85 and understand exactly, in detail, how that score was tallied. There's no mystery.

You dread returning to a DIFFICULT course. And rarely do.

The Old Course is a CHALLENGING course. You shoot 85, using one ball for 18-holoes, and can't wait to play it again, to try a new plan of attack!

[Mark_Fine]

Jeremy,
Par is really a relative term, however, it does have a role in golf and those who argue otherwise are fooling themselves.  I take it most people on this site have a handicap and you can't have a handicap without the concept of par can you?  

"Why should we perceive an identical object differently based on what we call it?"

Because when you label a hole "a par five" or "a par four", you've changed it.  It is no longer the same.  

Challenge like par, is also a relative term.  It of course ties back into ability of the golfer.  Architects must be conscious of par as well as challenge when designing golf courses.

We have to remember, golf is first and foremost, a game.  Like any game, it can change as can the rules that are applied to it.

Golf courses are designed a places for golfers to "play the game".  The rules and "general principles" of the game have to for the most part be taken into consideration when doing so.  
Mark

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Jeremy,
Perhaps it is simply knowing your relationship with the course that conjured it up, but I was thinking of the second hole at Montebello.

At 415 yards from the back tees there is no reason to consider it more then a 4 (unlike the 475 yard in between).
The course demands an accurate tee shot preferably a fade and then an approach to a very interesting green with some very challenging pins.  The hole is not plain difficult (as Jeff defines), because you do not need a great deal of length to negotiate it.  It was fun every time I played it and I had a great variety of scores, however I always looked forward to the challenge that it presented.

Ben

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Isn't the general principle of golf to get the ball from one spot to another in the least number of shots possible?  Given that we agree on this, mentally, every golfer has some idea what "par" or whatever term you want to use, is on every hole they play.  That is term is the number of strokes they want to take on that particular hole.  Challenge is associated with the difficulty of achieving these stroke levels.
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Honest to God I've never met you but I understand you're a pretty good player. I can't imagine how or why we seem to disagree on so many things on this website! I really do know what the general principle of the game of golf is, to theoretically play the ball from tee to green in the fewest possible strokes--and theoretically that really shouldn't be encumbered by anything else!

But it is my friend and you've got to know that! "Par" is really not an unattractive expectation for anyone, even Tiger many times and it is a "brass ring" goal that most of the world of golfers try to achieve. And if you change it that becomes what they will likely play for and try to achieve! If they didn't feel that way and play that way, I'm certain you know that they would make far fewer errors and far lower scores!

[Rich_Goodale]

Mark

"Par" on any great course, under competitive competitions, is rarely the same or less that what number is posted on the card.  Think of the Wilson last year at Merion.  If the winner was 5 over, or whatever, what was "par" to the rest of the +3 hacks that played there?  Surely if you believe in "par" you plan on the first tee which holes you are going to "bogey", since, as I understand it you are a very good but not now "scratch" golfer......

I think, rather, that good golfers do and should have a sense what sort of score they are aiming for, for the whole round, but no particular plans to how they are going to achieve it, except in the most general terms (i.e. try to birdie the "par" 5's, keep the doubles off the card, try to sneak another birdie or two in there on the 3's and 4's).  I know of a very good golf course where the scratch palyers refer to 5, 4 as the "dream start" for two holes hardly exceeding 500 yards in total and doing so without too much of a sense of irony.  It is partly because they know they still have 2-3 strokes to play with (baed on a course rating of 4-5 strokes over "par"), but also because they know that on reaching the 3rd tee relatively intact they will have surmounted one of hte greatest challenges of that course.......

What this thread tells me, so far, is that the only "challenge" in any golf course is in our mind.  I'm looking forward to learning more from later posts.

[Mark_Fine]

I think we are saying the same thing but it's not coming across the same in text.  Tom I believe you said if you change the par you change the mindset of the player - I agree!  The hole has essentially changed!  Rich, every player does set his/her own "par" so we agree as well.  I guess I was just trying to say that "par" what ever it is does matter and challenge is related to it!  

[Rich_Goodale]

This whole concept of how does "par" affect our thinking of a particular hole has intrigued me since it was brought up many moons ago.  As the result of this thread I think I have a clue now what it means to me:

For whatever reason, given the same shot to 2 holes (say 220 yards to a slightly elevated green with bunkers on the right), one a "par" 4 and the other a "par" 5, my psychology is to try my damnedest to hit the par "4" (hoping I can get up and down from trouble if I reach it) and be far more likely to "lay up" to the par "5", avoiding the trouble.  This is not at all rational, but I think it is what I now feel.  I'm going to change this negativism this year!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You got it on the subject of par and changing it on a hole without changing anything else and a golfer's reaction to that! It's not rational, but nonetheless it can be very true!

Who said golfers are even remotely rational when playing golf? Nobody I know of ever did! Now go back and read Max Behr's quote on that other thread and you will see why golfers tend to react to things that are natural differently than things impeding them that are artifical! That might not be rational either but nonetheless it can be very true!

[Jeremy Glenn II]

Mark,

Actually, "Par" is not used to calculate handicaps.  Never has.

Anyway, as Tom said, par is indeed used to define a hole's degree of difficulty, at least in our mind.  However, I don't think it should.  Isn't it time for us to think outside the box, and look at things for what they are, rather than to have our perceptions slighted by arbitrary definitions?
____
PS I'm posting this message on another computer, and it doesn't allow me to use my real name, so I put a II next to it.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeremy,
I disagree with you regarding par being involved with handicaps.  I realize slope rating and course rating are the two key factors but that is only because the "relative" par for a golf course is deemed to be different for every design.  My par 72 course has a different challenge factor than your par 72 so to compare apples with apples the "par" for the course is adjusted.  I'm sure you know all this but that is how I relate par to handicaps.  The guys doing the slope ratings and course ratings do look at the score cards.  

Perception is reality and you can call par for a hole what you want but each player will view it relative to their own skills.  In my mind I view most par fives as par fours.  My wife views most par fives as par sevens or eights.  So be it.  To us that is what par is on those holes.  

The first five holes at Lehigh I view as par 20 even though the card par is 19.  That view is a function of the challenge they present to my game.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

You have a different way of looking at "par" than I do for sure but I really should not say too much more about the way I think about it. And I shouldn't say anything else about the way others look at it either, since it seems much different than I thought.

Personally I think I do look at the par on a hole or just sort of feel it while I play the hole--but I try to really hit smart shots one at a time--although I really do grind! It would be intersting to talk to Jones about his noted feeling about "Old man par".

But I can't forget my father who played at a consistently high level for a lot of years but he had the most bizarre way of looking at "par" if that's what one would called the way he looked at those things! He just had such an odd way of looking at competition that I never could figure it out. Most of his competitions back then were at match play and he figured out early in his career (or thought he did) that basically he won 6 out of 7 matches and he just sort of went with that and didn't think about anything else except hitting one good and smart shot after the other!

They had some real lulus in his day, particularly early--some of them had very strange ways of looking at golf!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Paul,
Be careful now! Mentioning a Max Behr quote in any post on Golf Club Atlas is sure to get a resounding thud of disapproval because it is both ancient and thereby uninformed. (Meaning Not intelligent or intellectual enough.)

Jeremy, Glad to see you are really taking the Old Course to heart. One of the things that is most admirable about the Old Course that SOME people do get is that "Challenge" requires an essence of luck in some regard. It has been my belief that the very essence of challenge is an attraction risk and being able to live with the result.

How great a tool to have luck on your side, eh??

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

I don't think so; this time Max nailed them and they're speechless! Rich tried to transcend him but he was so overwhelmed he couldn't get airborn! Matter of fact Max was so intellectual even after 24 hours they haven't gotten the courage up to attempt to parse his quote!

For your information it's on "Thought for a Day", 1/20/6:27pm.

[Chris Kane]

Just an idea to throw into the mix:

Why not build a golf course that has no par on individual holes?  The course rating could be used as the par for the whole course, therefore maintaining a standard for players to strive for.  No par on individual holes would void the artificial concept that a hole can have its difficulty altered by changing the par.  Player wouldn't be able to step onto the tee with a pre-concieved idea about how to play the hole and what their score should be.

The 13th at my club is a 487yd Par 5.  Many players consider it the easiest hole on the course, and indeed, it is rated 17 on the card.  But to change its par to 4 as has been suggested by some would make it among the most difficult on the course.  And all that has changed is the par.  

Unfortunately this system would make stableford and par competitions redundant, therefore bringing that horrible game stroke back into play every week.

Any comments?  I'm not too convinced about the whole idea myself, but it might add some unpredictability back into golf.

[Evan Fleisher]

Chris Kane,

You brought up an excellent point, and to let you know there IS a golf course like this...Crenshaw & Coore's new course at Notre Dame called the Warren Course.  There are no indications of PAR on any of the holes or scorecard...you are "free to decide for yourself" as you play.

I think it might be VERY interesting to see what the golfing public's reaction to this concept has been, and what the "average" scores are compared to the players "normal" average scores.  In other words, has the absence of a defined "goal" like par allowed the player freedom to interpret and play the holes as their game dictates, instead of a raw number.

[Chris Kane]

Evan,

It's good to hear that C&C had the courage to think outside the square.  If anyone has played it, does it achieve its purpose? - allowing players to play the course to their own strategy, instead of having it dicatated by the architect.  Are the thought-processes different when you don't have par to worry about?

[TEPaul]

Evan, I would venture to say that if all par consciousness was removed most players would probably score better. I would also venture to say that for many golfers, except very good ones, if you took all the flags out they would also score considerably better!

[Mark_Fine]

I suggest removing the holes as well since no one on this site seems to care about keeping score either    Just kidding Tom!

[jglenn]

Chris,

I don't know if you've been reading my posts on the Reverse Course, but I have made no mention of "par" for any holes.  And there won't be a "par".  It was my intention from the start.

So far, no one has noticed its absence.

[Evan Fleisher]

Tom,

I agree RE: removing the flags.  Actually, if we'd just fire at the center of greens more often, forgetting actual pin positions, I'd say your hypothesis would also hold quite true.

Being a fairly short player myself (actually, I'm 5'9" [rim-shot]), playing most holes without regards to par, and defining my own "strategy and relation to par/strokes" has helped me to score better by placing layup shots in my desired "wheelhouse" for getting it close and saving par or having a good chance at birdie depending on the hole.

That being said...I think the term "challenge" is a somewhat relative thing meaning different things to different players of differnet abilities on the same layout...it's all about manging your game to your own set of expectations and levels of ability.

[TEPaul]

Jeremy:

I'll bettcha nobody noticed the absence of par on your reverse TOC because everybody just assumed it!

I mean here am I saying how misguiding an over-reliance on a par number can be and I thought one of your holes was odd because I couldn't figure out what it was!! How ingrained is that?

Great effort of yours on the Reverse course! I haven't looked at is as closely as I should because I've never been there and it's a bit hard to relate because of that.

But I will really look because it's a great effort of yours!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()