Ron Fream's "Defense of Par" (long)

[Mike_Cirba]

I thought the following article by architect Ron Fream deserved some reading and discussion.
 
http://www.golfplan.com/defense.htm

[jglenn]

I hope I won't be too blunt, and I apolgize if I come across that way, but that article has struck a nerve.  

I must admit that, at least in general terms, I disagree with Mr.Fream's article.  In fact, in my opinion, such thinking has done more to harm  the game of golf and golf course architecture than most anything else.  It has taken a game of imagination and creativity and reduced it to a parade of statistics.

We need "to defend the value of par"?

Oh, really...   Why?  Defend it from what?

[Craig_Rokke]

This is a difficult issue. I've gone back and forth with my opinion since I've read the article.

Fream acts like these pros have everything handed too them--
better genetics (huh?), better nutrition, better equipment etc.
How about the fact that they spend more time in the gym working on their strength and flexibility than any of their predecessors? They have to, to keep up with the next guy who's doing it. (Alright, they still do have a lot handed to them.)

[Jeff Mingay]

In my opinion, the defense of par has very little, if anything at all to do with golf course design.

I sympathize with Ron Fream's concerns about the abilities of the modern ball, and the threat of further advancements in play equipment technology and the potential effect an even longer ball will have on golf and golf courses.

But Fream's obsession with the "defense of par" only serves to exemply an attitude cultivated by Robert Trent Jones more than a half century ago; an attitude that has been detriemtnal to the art of golf course design and its advancement.

My personal concern is designing and building holes that are INTERESTING to play for golfers of varying abilities. History has proven that attempting to "defend par" is a futile endeavour.

Fifty years ago, Trent Jones renovated Oakland Hills South in an attempt to "defend par". Ben Hogan improved his scores with each round during the 1951 US Open, and managed a 67 in the final round to win. Nice try.

These days, the USGA tightens the fairways, grows the rough, saturates the approaches to rock-hard greens and Tiger still shoots 18-under, or whatever it was at Pebble Beach.

The pros are going to shoot low. Thus, defending par is a futile attempt. Making golf holes infinitely interesting to play -- for pros and all others -- takes the talent of a Mackenzie, a Ross, a Tilinghast or a Colt.

Cypress Point isn't necessarily difficult, particularly for a world-class pro, but it's infinitely interesting to play. Same goes for Seminole, San Francisco and Swinley Forest.

Good players posting good scores is to demeaning. It's going to happen.

We need more INTERESTING golf courses, not more difficult ones. There's a difference.

[Jeff Mingay]

Whoops! I typed too fast...

My second last sentence was supposed to read: Good players posting good scores is NOT demeaning to a golf course. It's going to happen.

The problem is that the majority of golfers, like Fream, are obsessed with score in relation to par. When in fact this statistic is irrelevant.

As I wrote on the most recent Old Course thread, Tiger, I'm sure, was very much challenged by The Old Course during the 2000 Open. Yet, he was able to execute the shots properly and won with a low score, by a large margin.

Good on him! It certainly doesn't mean The Old Course has lost its relevance. It was still interesting and challenging to play. It's just that Tiger (and, of course, his equipment) is that good.

My theory is that Tiger would have won by an even larger margin had everyone in the field been using persimmon woods and a 1970s golf ball  

[Chris Hervochon]

I am not so sure I but the whole “Defense of Par” bit.  In the end, a golf tournament is just one big match play shenanigan, with everybody playing the same course and the same shots.  Somebody is ultimately going to win, and I am not so sure it really matters what their score is, because they are going to beat everybody else no matter what.  However, I do think it is possible to build a course that is really difficult, AND interesting to play.  Ocean Course ring a bell? Just because it is interesting does not mean it isn’t hard and vice versa.  In any matter, I say let the pros do their thing.  If Tiger shoots 20 under so be it.  He deserves it.