Par to be switched on 4th and 5th holes for 2014 U.S. Open at Pinehurst?

[Ed Oden]

My apologies if this has been discussed before.  Did anyone else notice the short blurb in the current Golfweek issue ("Upside-Down at Pinehurst") that Mike Davis plans on swapping par on the 4th and 5th holes at Pinehurst #2 for both the 2014 men's and women's U.S. Opens?  So the 4th will play as a long par 4 and the 5th will play as a very short par 5 from a new tee stretching the hole to 507 yards...

His reasoning?  It has to do with the receptive nature of the fourth green - the most receptive on the entire golf course - and the infernally elusive contours of the fifth - which consistently is the most difficult green on the course to hold in regulation.

Thoughts?  I suspect this will be largely a non-factor for the pros since almost all will still play both holes as two shotters.  But won't resort guests who take out a second mortgage to pay the green fee at #2 expect to play the U.S. Open course?  It will be disappointing if this leads to adoption of a similar approach for day to day play. 

[Tim Nugent]

Ed, it only matters is you think par matters in a tournament.  To me, low score wins, period.  Actually, the way those guys play, there are very few Par 5's out there.  I think of a par 5 as predominantly a 3-shot hole with a very high degree of risk-reward in going for it in 2.  I don't see that in either #4 or #5.

For the guy that mortgaged his house, I'd bet he'd be more than happy to card a par af 5's and move on to #6.

[Dean DiBerardino]

I played No. 2 in early January and was scratching my head when I saw that they were building a new back tee on hole #5. Come to think of it, they were building a new "forward" tee on #4 that is closer to #3 green.

My thought is that the total "par" for both holes combined is nine anyway since both could be considered half-par holes.

[Ed Oden]

Tim, normally I would agree since I don't put much stock into par.  But this seems different.  Isn't this an attempt by the USGA to change the way golfers approach and play these two holes?  Otherwise, why make the switch?  I have no problem with all the par 5s that have converted to par 4s for the pros over the years since they rarely carry over to member/guest play when the tournament leaves town.  However, converting a par 4 to a par 5 seems far more likely to stick since it makes the hole "easier" for the member/customer in relation to par.  That is a worrisome proposition, especially when you are messing with arguably the most acclaimed hole on the course.  Let me ask you this.  Think of the best long, tough hole on any of your courses.  If someone came in and added 40 yards and called it a par 5, wouldn't it change the way the hole is played for a significant portion of golfers?  If so, does that alteration fit your design concepts when the hole was created?

[Ed Oden]

Let me put this a different way.   Forget about the U.S Open.  Assume there will never be another tournament at #2.  If you can honestly say that you would not be disappointed if the owner of the resort just woke up one morning and decided to switch par on the 4th and 5th holes strictly for member and guest play, then par really doesn't matter to you and this is a non-event.  But I'll bet that many (if not most) on this board would be apoplectic if the owner mucked with Ross' gem in such a fashion.  How is this any different than if the same result happens via a trickle down from USGA events?

[Jud_T]

This must be driven by #4 cause #5 is one of the great par 4s around imo. 

[Ronald Montesano]

What landing areas will the new tees bring into play? This would seem to be the (shitty pun) driving force from my nest.

[Anthony Gray]

  Making 5 a par five changes the way you play the hole greatly. Its better as a par 4. Now its a birdie hole. Shame.

  Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

Did Bill Coore have anything to do with suggesting that change?  Or is it Mike Davis' idea?

[Brad Klein]

It was Mike Davis.

If you go back to the 1936 PGA Championship both holes played as par-5s. The reasoning Davis gave is that the fairway and esp. the green at the 4th are more concave shaped and very receptive whereas the notoriously elusive, sloped green on the 5th hole barely holds a mid-iron.

In the two U.S. Opens there, the fifth clocked about 20% GIR.

A new back tee on the long par-5 10th hole makes that one virtually out of reach in two, and so the thought was that if the other par-5 was going t reachable in two, at least make it more challenging to the whole field, which is surely the case from the new back tee on the 5th.

[BCrosby]

Brad -

I'm scratching my head. Why wouldn't you leave par as it is on 4 and 5 and get more birdies and more bogies? Aligning par more closely with actual scoring will take out some of the thrills and spills, no? Why not opt for more drama, even if you think that the par of the holes is wrongly assigned?

Put differently, you'd get cheap thrills without affecting total scoring.

Bob 

[Brad Klein]

Bob, I'm just a reporter, I don't take sides.

BSK

[William_G]

Could the USGA change par on these holes on a daily basis during the US Open?

Seems like a possible F-up in the course Set-up...

[Alex Miller]

Could the USGA change par on these holes on a daily basis during the US Open?

Seems like a possible F-up in the course Set-up...

Has the USGA ever done that? Has a US Open course ever had different par holes on a day to day basis?

[jim_lewis]

As far as I am concerned, #5 has always been a par 5, and a tough one at that.  I have said many times that if you put a gun to my head and said I had to make a 4, and I could choose the hole, I would rather take my chances on #4 than #5.  There is no question that the green on #4 seems more appropriate for a long approach, while the green on #5 seems better suited for a short iron shot, and not easy at that.

I have no problem if they want to make the change permanent. Don't look for #5 to be a birdie hole, even for strong players.

[Grant Saunders]

Par or relation to certainly makes it far easier to follow a tournament and measure a players performance. Seeing that a player is 10 under or 3 over is far simpler to understand how they are playing. Without par, during the days play, scoring would show a player as 186 shots for 47 holes. It would take some serious mental arithmatic to compare that against 164 shots for 41 holes to determine who is playing better. Now try that with a field of 70+ and see how much your head hurts!!!!

[rjsimper]

When was the last time the USGA up-parred a hole?

Doesn't seem to make any sense and I hope they don't do it. 5 is a brilliant par 4, even from 500 yards (and the USGA has shown plenty of times that they have no qualms about playing par 4s at that length)

Does anyone have the scoring averages of the last open and a comparison between 4, 5, 8, and 16?

Is 507 yards even long enough? Hit a rope hook on that hole and I'd still think pros are looking at 5 irons in to that green, which seems perfectly reasonable.

[Matthew Essig]

Could the USGA change par on these holes on a daily basis during the US Open?

Seems like a possible F-up in the course Set-up...

Has the USGA ever done that? Has a US Open course ever had different par holes on a day to day basis?

At the 2010 us am at Chambers Bay, the USGA switched the par of 1 and 18 on almost a daily basis. I don't if they have done that at a us open yet.

[Ronald Montesano]

Does changing par matter? You could call it Pi or cube root of 64...doesn't really matter. I'd like to see a card with no pars and have the announcers call "X under even 4s."

[Mark Ringsmuth]

Ed,

I played #2 yesterday and today from the white tees. The course is absolutely unreal in both its beauty and quality. I personally believe that after C & C's work the course is superior to Pebble.   

On hole 4, the whites are 471 yds and the Open tees are 569 yds (all numbers from scorecard).  The 4th hole is rated #15 on the course.  The Open tee box is 15 yards right of the whites. The Open tees provide a better angle of attack and lessen the odds of a ball rolling through the fairway into the waste area on the right side.  A long drive to the fairway yields an open 2nd shot to the green, which is a substantial defense all by itself.   Moving up to the white tee for instance creates more problems for long or errant drives and if the second shot misses the green, the odds of bogey rise significantly. 

On hole 5, the white tees are 425 yds and the Open tees are 476 yds. This is the #1 rated hole on the course. The new tee has already been built.  My caddy thought that the new tees added 50 yds to the current Open tee markers. The new tee box is about 10 feet higher than the other tees.  The fairway slopes dramatically to the left to a waste area with pines.  The green is elevated and the front left has a significant drop into a bunker. You don't want to be left.  This is the only hole on the front nine that can reasonably be turned into a par five. 1(406),3(389) & 7(429) are too short.  The 2nd(503) is easier than the 5th.  It is flat, has an easier (open) approach and less challenging green. The course is a par 70 for the Open, not the normal 72.

I suspect the net effect is that scores will be higher with the proposed changes than they would be without them. 

As far as wanting to play the holes as under the conditions that are proposed instead of the current setup, it's a no brainer; I'll play it as it is.