Distance Par Correlation

[John Connolly]

In 1910, Golf magazine discussed Western Golf's standards for distance and related par (thanks to Sven Nielsen for the reference):

Par 3 - up to 215
Par 4 - 216-400
Par 5 - 401-575
Par 6 - over 575

How often have these "standards" been updated through the years? Historically, were the WGA, USGA and the R&A ever at odds over this?

[Jason Thurman]

The USGA will update the standards daily during this year's US Open.

[David Bartman]

It has been awhile since they have re-evaluated the landscape. 

About 10 years ago, I called the USGA and spoke with the head of their course rating department.  My inquiry was about their definition of a "Scratch Golfer".  I asked if they had any plans to update their definition to properly reflect the length that scratch players generally hit the ball. 

As well as the yardages that determine a par 3,4,5.  1956! was last update

"Par 3 - Up to 250 yards
Par 4 - 251 to 470 yards
Par 5 - 471 yards to 690 yards
Par 6 - 691 yards or more"


Their definition hasn't changed in these past 60 years on either account.  Yet at the same time every male USGA event plays par 4's over 470 ( maybe not the Junior, but certainly, Us Mid, US AM and what I played in this week US 4 ball, in fact usually over 500 yard  par 4's. 

"Scratch Golfer: A male scratch golfer is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots." 

This directly effects par, course ratings and handicaps.   Obviously, these numbers are really old and not very effective which is why you have so many Plus handicap players all over the country.  It makes those players playing in handicap events have a disadvantage in two man competitions when they have to "add back" strokes on 1 or sometimes 4 or 5 holes. 

BTW, I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about in regards to Scratch Golfers, the reason it hasn't changed is because courses get rated every 10 years unless significant changes are made and they can't figure out how to implement 2 ratings for 10 years until all courses are rated and then simply switch over. 

[Brent Hutto]

In 1910, Golf magazine discussed Western Golf's standards for distance and related par (thanks to Sven Nielsen for the reference):

Par 3 - up to 215
Par 4 - 216-400
Par 5 - 401-575
Par 6 - over 575

How often have these "standards" been updated through the years? Historically, were the WGA, USGA and the R&A ever at odds over this?

Those 1910 numbers almost spookily reflect my own game in 2015. So I'm basically 100 years behind the times.

What's really scary is to contemplate how difficult I would have found a 400 yard Par 4 using the equipment prevailing in 1910.

[BCrosby]

Brent -

Some fun with math:

If you assume a long player in 1910 drove the ball 230 yds. and a long player today drives the ball 320 yds, a 400 yd hole in 1910 plays like a 556 yd. hole would today. That's how long a 400 yard par 4 would have played back in the day. 

556 yds, or something in that neighborhood, is how long a par 4 should be today at the upper end of the range for par 4's. If apples to apples historical comparisons matter.

Bob

[Doug Siebert]

In 1910, Golf magazine discussed Western Golf's standards for distance and related par (thanks to Sven Nielsen for the reference):

Par 3 - up to 215
Par 4 - 216-400
Par 5 - 401-575
Par 6 - over 575

How often have these "standards" been updated through the years? Historically, were the WGA, USGA and the R&A ever at odds over this?

Those 1910 numbers almost spookily reflect my own game in 2015. So I'm basically 100 years behind the times.

What's really scary is to contemplate how difficult I would have found a 400 yard Par 4 using the equipment prevailing in 1910.

I think almost everyone reading this would find a 400 yard par 4 difficult using 1910 equipment, regardless of how far they hit the ball using today's equipment! 

[Sven Nilsen]

The USGA updated the distances in 1917 (May 1917 Golf Illustrated) -

[Jim Nugent]

If you assume a long player in 1910 drove the ball 230 yds. and a long player today drives the ball 320 yds, a 400 yd hole in 1910 plays like a 556 yd. hole would today. That's how long a 400 yard par 4 would have played back in the day. 

556 yds, or something in that neighborhood, is how long a par 4 should be today at the upper end of the range for par 4's. If apples to apples historical comparisons matter.

Bob

And a 6000 yard course then (as CBM recommended to Merion) would have to play around 8347 yards today -- assuming everything else is pretty much the same. 

[Sven Nilsen]

If you assume a long player in 1910 drove the ball 230 yds. and a long player today drives the ball 320 yds, a 400 yd hole in 1910 plays like a 556 yd. hole would today. That's how long a 400 yard par 4 would have played back in the day. 

556 yds, or something in that neighborhood, is how long a par 4 should be today at the upper end of the range for par 4's. If apples to apples historical comparisons matter.

Bob

And a 6000 yard course then (as CBM recommended to Merion) would have to play around 8347 yards today -- assuming everything else is pretty much the same. 

I think the initial assumption is a bit off.  There are reports of some of the better guys topping out at 250-270 back then, and the courses were generally much more firm, with a lot more roll out.

[BCrosby]

Sven -

There were reports circa 1910 of people hitting drives 300 yds or more under the right conditions. So yes, when things aligned prodigious distances were possible. I doubt, however, that anyone at the time regularly hit drives at the distances you note. The Field magazine held an annual driving contest pre and post WWI in Britain. Very few winners, iirc, notched yardages over 250. Most winners were well under that number.

But let's not quibble. Take whatever yardage you want as your historical baseline, a modern 7400 yard course (a/k/a a "long course") is in fact incredibly short when compared on an apples to apples basis to "long" historical courses. Based on even conservative historical comparisons, a modern course does not begin to play "long" until it nudges up against 8000 yards or so. And that number is probably under-shooting the length required.

We've all gotten over the shock of how far modern pros hit the ball. The related shock that gets much less attention is how badly modern championship venues have failed to keep up with those distances. To the point that you could argue that pros today face golfing tests that are  qualitatively different from those faced by Jones in the 1920's. (For example, few pros today have to hit a long iron approach on a par 4.)

(To be clear, I am not advocating that we rush out and extend our home courses to 8K plus yds. A different topic for a different thread.)  

Bob

[Sven Nilsen]

No quibble Bob, courses were longer back then.

[Sean_A]

Its hard to know if post classical penal architecture ushered in the incredible increase in carry distance (~100 yards) or if the improvement in equipment ushered in and fostered post classical penal architecture.  What we do know is that actual carry requirements are of no matter...guys still want to carry the ball 300+ yards when possible even if the architecture doesn't call for it.  A second thing we know is increased yardage only plays into the hands of big hitters and probably hasten the "need" for additional carry distance...so that is a waste of time and money.  A third thing we know is those guys back in the day were very fine and highly skilled golfers...its almost impossible to fathom how good they were because of how the game is played today.  Distance was much more of factor in creating difficulty than it is today, but accuracy was also rewarded and a true weapon for the guys who couldn't keep up with the longest drivers.  

I have long said that barring any actual rollback in ball distance (which I think is pie in the sky thinking), that the number of clubs and lofts must be re-thought....something 9 clubs 15-50 degrees spread.  I also think that to stop the increase in course yardage (which is completely unneccesary) for the punter that a two tier system of play should be brought back into play...ie bogey score.  Finally, what is driving reactionary behaviour is the result of the long ball...sub par scoring.  Don't increase yardage...reduce par.

In short bifurcation is the answer.  Elite players play on par 68/69 courses with 8/9 clubs and lofts betweene 15 and 50.  Those not playing to par (ie bogey score) can use if they wish the current 14 clubs any loft goes rules.  

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

8/9 clubs (inc putter) with a 15-50 degree spread in loft for all non-putter clubs and with different 'par distances' for the pro's sounds interesting. Maybe limit the height of the tee peg as well.

It would be interesting to know how of the pro's we see on TV would get on 'par' wise if par-3's were up to say 300 yds, par-4's say 550 and par's 700+ish.

Atb

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Agreed there are no obvious solutions.

I guess my main point is simply that there was a time when the most difficult shot in golf, the one that separated the men from the boys -
the long iron approach shot - is now a rarity for the pros. Golf at the highest levels does not test the same things it did 50 or 60 years ago. 

It is a loss for the game. I'd guess golf will pay a price for it someday.

Bob 

[Sean_A]

Bob

I don't lament the loss of any particular shot for the big boys, just the loss of more interesting and varied shots.  

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean touched on this earlier, but to me this again calls into question the decades-old framing of/distinction between "penal" and "strategic" architecture. I'm not sure that this way of understanding and describing and categorizing courses is particularly useful or accurate (except perhaps at the very extremes of design, if many such designs even exist); but I am sure that even the most-vaunted of the golden age's "strategic" courses were in fact "penal". In fact, looking at these numbers, I'm thinking that all courses were penal back then, except for maybe the modest/crappy ones.  If you weren't a pro or a top flight amateur, you'd be playing bogey golf, plain and simple -- no matter how many "options" and "choices" you thought you had.

Peter

[Sean_A]

Pietro

For sure the concept of penal-strategic is a spectrum and where the final line is drawn as to either/or is very subjective.  For instance, Oakland Hills is held up as a model of penal architecture yet only about half the holes can be said to be penal design. Who decided 50% constituted an overall penal design...I don't know...maybe Ben Hogan's monster comment is the source  .  

There are also a few other elements involved.  First, penal doesn't equal bad architecture...indeed some of the best architecture on the planet is penal. This concept is probably the greatest disservice to the game the Dr Mac's, Colts etc did. Second, there can be quite mild penal archtecture...so much so that most people wouldn't even think they are experiencing penal design.  An example of this is Royal Ashdown Forest.  People probably don't cotton on because the course couldn't be characterized as difficult...which is often the prime descriptor of penal design.  I would even go so far as to say that if overall yardage and difficulty is kept in check that golfers would (and do) welcome penal architecture.  

I disagree with you where describing courses in a penal/strategic mode is concerned.  For me at least, it is very useful in helping dissect courses and therefore help explain why I hold certain opinions on courses.  Perhaps more importantly, it helps frame the questions I have about design. I can honestly say that once I grasped the penal/strategic concept some 20 years ago it led to a far better understanding of architecture.  It took me a few years after that to ditch the Dr Mac, Colt etc value system of the relative merits between penal and strategic architecture which of course led me directly to the idea that there are no bad forms or placements of hazards.  Its all in the balance and variety of how and where hazards are placed.

Ciao  

[Tony_Muldoon]

If you look at the list of Open winner's score's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Championship

Roughly speaking    Pre 1905      300+
Introduce the Haskel mid 20's      290+
Post WWII                                 280+

Looked at this way Par at least for an individual hole is irrelevant and I think that has always been true for the best Golfers.

As Scott McPherson's excellent book on The Old Course shows, during all of this the course was being altered i.e. mainly through lengthening. I need to consult the book again to see the development of positions where the hole is cut.


The recent Biography of RTJ has been largely ignored on here, but it made clear he made a career in responding to the post WWII improved  scoring, by tightening with rough and water AND adding distance. 

Sadly there is no end to this when there are so many variables to alter and I believe that overall these trends have spread throughout the game and it worse for the bogey golfer like me.