[Carl Johnson]

At the risk of posing an architectural question, how does the "in regulation" concept influence (1) golf course architecture and (2) how we play the game?

Golf's evolved.  The founders didn't come up with idea of par, which has been discussed, ad nausea, hereon (as it should be).  What I haven't noticed in the past couple of years is a discussion of "in regulation."  I've never seen this expressed, but implicit in the concept of par seems to be the concept of "in regulation" – that is, a par 4 implies two shots to get on the green and two putts to make par.  Or am I missing something on that?

That is, assuming that "par" is a useful concept, does that necessarily mean that "in regulation" is also a useful concept?

From a design standpoint, if the architect thinks in terms of creating a par 3, par 4 or par 5, does that necessarily mean that "he" must think in terms of the number of shots it should take a scratch golfer to put the ball on the green, e.g., two shots for a par four?  Is it possible (taking the meaning of that word anyway one chooses) for an architect to conceive and design a par four as, maybe, three to the green, and one putt?  Or, one to the green, and three putts?

From the average player's standpoint, how many holes are messed up because the average player thinks "he" must always try to reach the green "in regulation" (or better)?  I cannot answer the first question, but my answer to the second would be, "Many, many".

[jeffwarne]

At the risk of posing an architectural question, how does the "in regulation" concept influence (1) golf course architecture and (2) how we play the game?

Golf's evolved.  The founders didn't come up with idea of par, which has been discussed, ad nausea, hereon (as it should be).  What I haven't noticed in the past couple of years is a discussion of "in regulation."  I've never seen this expressed, but implicit in the concept of par seems to be the concept of "in regulation" – that is, a par 4 implies two shots to get on the green and two putts to make par.  Or am I missing something on that?

That is, assuming that "par" is a useful concept, does that necessarily mean that "in regulation" is also a useful concept?

From a design standpoint, if the architect thinks in terms of creating a par 3, par 4 or par 5, does that necessarily mean that "he" must think in terms of the number of shots it should take a scratch golfer to put the ball on the green, e.g., two shots for a par four?  Is it possible (taking the meaning of that word anyway one chooses) for an architect to conceive and design a par four as, maybe, three to the green, and one putt?  Or, one to the green, and three putts?

From the average player's standpoint, how many holes are messed up because the average player thinks "he" must always try to reach the green "in regulation" (or better)?  I cannot answer the first question, but my answer to the second would be, "Many, many".

The words "In regulation" are why a course has 6 sets of tees

[Bill_Yates]

....and why playing from the correct tees (Play it Forward) can bring fun back into the game for many players.

[Carl Johnson]

....and why playing from the correct tees (Play it Forward) can bring fun back into the game for many players.

Last two (also, first two):  Good comments.  Can anyone move beyond that?  A simple example: the right set of tees for most holes is 2 + 2, but also includes a couple set up where 2 + 2 won't work, but a par four will.  Possible? Or is the answer, which these comments suggest to me: "By definition, derived from the concepts of par and 'in regulation,' if the set up for a set of tees is that way, then the tee set is not set up properly?"

[Jeb Bearer]

....and why playing from the correct tees (Play it Forward) can bring fun back into the game for many players.

Last two (also, first two):  Good comments.  Can anyone move beyond that?  A simple example: the right set of tees for most holes is 2 + 2, but also includes a couple set up where 2 + 2 won't work, but a par four will.  Possible? Or is the answer, which these comments suggest to me: "By definition, derived from the concepts of par and 'in regulation,' if the set up for a set of tees is that way, then the tee set is not set up properly?"

I would argue that par is really just an imaginary number and has no bearing on how you should play the hole. You should play it the best way you can regardless of what the card says. Therefore, if a hole can be reached in one (whether easily 150 yards, or difficult, 270 yards) but has a wild green that's very difficult to two putt, then I would expect to make a number of fours on that hole, sometimes hitting e green and three putting, or missing and not getting up and down. Even if regulation says it should be a par three, because it can be reached in one, I would not be upset with a four on such a hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

There is one difficult par-4 at Crystal Downs (the 13th) that I play with the following mind-set:  I'm trying to get up around the green in two shots, and then get down in two.  The reality is that the hole is probably a par 4.75 for me.

The problem with building lots of forward tees is that every golfer starts to feel entitled to have a set of tees that is perfect for THEM ... which would be fine if they accepted the viewpoint I take toward certain difficult holes.  But most do not see it this way ... most start to feel entitled to expect to hit every green "in regulation" and find fault with the course set-up if they can't, instead of finding fault with their own sorry golf games or with their choice of tees.

[jeffwarne]

Carl:

There is one difficult par-4 at Crystal Downs (the 13th) that I play with the following mind-set:  I'm trying to get up around the green in two shots, and then get down in two.  The reality is that the hole is probably a par 4.75 for me.

The problem with building lots of forward tees is that every golfer starts to feel entitled to have a set of tees that is perfect for THEM ... which would be fine if they accepted the viewpoint I take toward certain difficult holes.  But most do not see it this way ... most start to feel entitled to expect to hit every green "in regulation" and find fault with the course set-up if they can't, instead of finding fault with their own sorry golf games or with their choice of tees.

That's pretty much what i was trying to say.....
What's most amazing to me is that people not only expect a set of 18 tees for their game,but they expect a mythical "right" set of tees for them on every hole, rather than simply playing the Blacks on one hole, the blues on another, and the reds on another, or God forbid, doing as you suggested above....

[Grant Saunders]

From a design standpoint, if the architect thinks in terms of creating a par 3, par 4 or par 5, does that necessarily mean that "he" must think in terms of the number of shots it should take a scratch golfer to put the ball on the green, e.g., two shots for a par four?  Is it possible (taking the meaning of that word anyway one chooses) for an architect to conceive and design a par four as, maybe, three to the green, and one putt?  Or, one to the green, and three putts?

Here is a link to an interesting little piece with Mark Parsinen discussing the third shot on a par 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_N4YsqTpQU

[Jason Thurman]

I know that regulation makes a big difference in how a lot of weekend players that I know perceive a course's architecture, regardless of whether it should. I've had three different mid-to-high handicappers in the last year tell me that no par 3 should be over 170 yards, because it's just too hard for most players to hit "in regulation."

The concept also affects how people approach holes. Watch how much more frequently your playing partners are willing to "take their medicine" when out of position for the second shot on a par 5 as opposed to the second shot on a par 4. I see people attempt stupid shots all the time in the hopes of hitting a green in regulation.

Even my mother, who's about a 28 handicapper, wants to know what "par" is on the tee of every hole. I've also noticed that she won't take out a driver on a par 3 unless I tell her she needs to. I think it comes back to the same concept. Players want to hit greens in regulation, and they want to do it with a club that we typically think of as a club that you hit at a green as opposed to at a fairway.

[John Ezekowitz]

I think the reason players want to hit a "green in regulation" is because of the allure of the birdie putt. I think the "in regulation" mindset that Tom and others have identified is largely, if not wholly, derivative of the desire for a chance at a birdie. The 18-handicapper won't remember the shots he lost going for birdie opportunities, but he will remember a birdie if he gets one.

[Ben Sims]

It strikes me that par is based on the concept of two putts and the remaining shots are based on distance.  My question is this, why?  What is wrong with the paradigm of one putt?  Or three?  Before I get attacked let me make my point.

All of the great golf courses of the world have great variety.  What they also have is wide variance.  These are distinctly different concepts.  Great variety means there are lots of different concepts at work, lengths, widths, etc.  To also have great variance means that there is a large difference between what is expected and what actually occurs.  I.e, you have to think because what you're seeing is a bit outside of the norm.

So if so many of the worlds great courses have both variety and great variance, why do we base our thoughts about architecture on two putts being the normal?  Maybe one hole should be thought of as a two-shot, two putts.  Maybe another could be thought of as a 3 shot, 1 putt (longer with a smaller, simpler green).  Perhaps a great par 5 could be a hole that is short (a 2-shot par 5) with the norm being three putts based on the size and contour of the green.  

I think breaking norms in golf is the key to challenging good golfers, providing fun for less than great players, and keeping course lengths under control.

 

[Stephen Davis]

It seems to me that the idea of "In Regulation" is actually become less of a factor in some of better courses built recently. We are seeing many more half par holes than we used to (at least this is the way it seems to me). I know my favorite courses are the ones that have great half par holes, whether they be of the short or long variety.

[Mike McGuire]

Bogey bunkers were a great concept and provided interest for the player who could not reach a hole in 'regulation'.

[jeffwarne]

So if so many of the worlds great courses have both variety and great variance, why do we base our thoughts about architecture on two putts being the normal?  Maybe one hole should be thought of as a two-shot, two putts.  Maybe another could be thought of as a 3 shot, 1 putt (longer with a smaller, simpler green).  Perhaps a great par 5 could be a hole that is short (a 2-shot par 5) with the norm being three putts based on the size and contour of the green.  

 

Good stuff Ben.

I also like stretches where due to wind or design you can have a par 4 be driver 3 wood unreachable, and the next hole be a driver SW par 5
total par still the same (9)

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

Yes.  Going a bit further, I think a phenomenal example of this is The National.  In fact, you could make an argument that modern equipment makes The National a better golf course for the average mid-cap golfer.  Depending on the wind, all those outward/inward holes completely change character with what is expected vs. what is possible.  For instance, with an outbound tailwind, #2 plays almost like a par 3.   So on and so forth.  Great golf courses have the variance where small changes in conditions cause vast changes in playability.  

Par is a number only.  More and more people are coming to this conclusion.  I hope the greater golf world starts to change that paradigm.  Golf is better when par isn't an expectation-based approach to understanding golf holes.  

[Bill_Yates]

Par is only relevant when playing against the course. When playing against the field or playing against a single player, the total number of strokes taken by each competitor is all that matters.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Yes.  Going a bit further, I think a phenomenal example of this is The National.  In fact, you could make an argument that modern equipment makes The National a better golf course for the average mid-cap golfer.  Depending on the wind, all those outward/inward holes completely change character with what is expected vs. what is possible.  For instance, with an outbound tailwind, #2 plays almost like a par 3.   So on and so forth.  Great golf courses have the variance where small changes in conditions cause vast changes in playability.  

Par is a number only.  More and more people are coming to this conclusion.  I hope the greater golf world starts to change that paradigm.  Golf is better when par isn't an expectation-based approach to understanding golf holes.  

Ben,
that's a common arguement on here-one I really don't care to engage in (I happen to agree with you about par althoughI will say par matters when playing junk )
That's why I liked your 3+1 concept of a hole that's really long with a small,perhaps even elevated, simple green(once you're on it). #13 at Augusta CC used to be that way before they enlarged the green, thus, with modern equipment, it became just a midlength hole with a generic green.

[David_Elvins]

Par is only relevant when playing against the course. When playing against the field or playing against a single player, the total number of strokes taken by each competitor is all that matters.

Playing golf against the course is one of the stupidest ideas in the world.  

No-one seriously plays darts against the dart board, or has a rowing race against the lake.  

With all the outside vagaries that affect the difficulty of a golf course from day to day - wind, temperature, pin position, green speed, etc - the idea of playing against the course without any reference to how other other golfers are tackling the same conditions is ridiculous.  

No allowance for this sort of stupidity should be made in the design of a golf course.  

[Mark_F]

No-one seriously plays darts against the dart board, or has a rowing race against the lake.

Presumably you are familiar with the concepts of buoyancy and surface tension, David?

[Ulrich Mayring]

The concept of "in regulation" is important. If we accept that only very good players can reach every green in regulation and thus the average hacker needs to lay up on most holes, then we accept a boring golf experience for 90% of the golfing population. The reason for that is that an average player will use driver, fairway wood/hybrid, wedge on most par 4s. He will use one of his limited selection of non-iron clubs on many par 3s. He will hit an iron for the third shot on the shorter par 5s only.

If we sum it up and allow two short par 3s and two short par5s and one very short par 4, then the average player will hit a total of five iron shots in his round of golf. Most of the clubs in his bag will therefore go unused.

I would say that a course set up to a length, where a player cannot reach at least half the greens in regulation with his best shot is architecturally deficient. My goal as an architect would probably be to go for an even larger percentage: 2-3 holes are so long that most players cannot reach them in regulation with their best shot. And a further 2-3 holes are so long that most players can reach them with their longest fairway club. The rest must be reachable with an iron to account for the fact that golf is traditionally played that way. Being one myself, I would not deny the traditional golf experience to the hacker.

Ulrich

[Kyle Harris]

Par is only relevant when playing against the course. When playing against the field or playing against a single player, the total number of strokes taken by each competitor is all that matters.

No-one seriously plays darts against the dart board, or has a rowing race against the lake.  

With all the outside vagaries that affect the difficulty of a golf course from day to day - wind, temperature, pin position, green speed, etc - the idea of playing against the course without any reference to how other other golfers are tackling the same conditions is ridiculous.  

No allowance for this sort of stupidity should be made in the design of a golf course.  

What?

Disagree. Fully. All of the above statements are just as arbitrary as the concept of par. The sport is about making it to the hole in the least amount of strokes, period. By playing against someone, you're just moving a standard for play away from par and on to the skill of another.

You can play against the course and neglect par. Ever hear of trying for a personal best? Golf as a sport makes the conditions part of the challenge, and overcoming them without any real change to result is what the sport is all about.

[David_Elvins]

 
What?

Disagree. Fully. All of the above statements are just as arbitrary as the concept of par. The sport is about making it to the hole in the least amount of strokes, period. By playing against someone, you're just moving a standard for play away from par and on to the skill of another.

Kyle,  what is sport if it is not comparing your standard of play to that of another person or other persons.  If you are not comparing your play to others, you are not playing sport.  Sure, some might consider golf a past-time or recreation, but recreational golf is not real golf, it is a poor facsimile that exists around the fringes of the golfing world.  It is to golf what hitting a tennis ball against a wall is to tennis, or hackey sack is to soccer. 

I don't care if you are playing in the US Open or a $2 match against a 18 handicapper, unless you are competing against someone you are not participating in the sport of golf.

You can play against the course and neglect par. Ever hear of trying for a personal best? Golf as a sport makes the conditions part of the challenge, and overcoming them without any real change to result is what the sport is all about.

Kyle,

If you think that daily conditions don't affect a player's score, I don't know what to say.  Personal bests, course records, etc are a part of most sports,  but they are always a side-show, not the main event. The main event is winning.  The idea that golfers can play against the course is the antithesis of great course architecture.  Great golf courses offer a variety of challenges from day to day and course to course.  The standardisation of golf course into 1, 2, and 3 shot holes, course ratings, slopes, handicaps, etc has done more to harm the game of golf than any other modern invention.

[Sean_A]

I agree with David, playing the course is just a fancy way of saying practice. 

Back to the idea of regulation, while I agree with Ulrich, all that really means is courses are too long and rely on length too much for the challenge side of the game; I am not advocating for more sets of tees - quite the opposite.  This gets back to player "entitlements".  Being able to reach nearly all the holes in regulation is a false entitlement that archies have enabled over the years.  Why can't there be some courses which an 18 capper finds too difficult to enjoy?  I am happy to avoid courses which are too difficult for me.  There are plenty of options out there.  I think the problem occurs when owners/clubs want to have difficulty and playability for higher cappers.  This is very difficult to pull off and I think it would be a rarity to be done with six sets of tees based on length.   

Ciao 

 

[Jud_T]

I love half par holes, either under or over the par on the card.  The par 3.5 and par 4.5 are acquired tastes I'm afraid.  And obviously more than a couple becomes tedious.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Why can't there be some courses which an 18 capper finds too difficult to enjoy?

Because you won't find enough very good players to frequent that course. If it is a private course for a single person, who happens to sport a low single digit handicap, or you can find a group of Tour players supporting it, then by all means, go for it. But as a general rule this course is not sustainable under market conditions.

Ulrich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()