What if a golf course had no par 3s?

[V. Kmetz]

"The real problem with par relates to the idea that a course should total an ideal par number such as 72.  This in truth is a serious constraint on design and it is completely arbitrary.    Why not par 66 if that is what the land offers?  Why not par 33 if that is what the land offers?  " - SA


As is the case with most of your contribution, SA, I agree in principle and I for one, am completely open to differing course pars.


However:
1. 72 for 18 holes in not arbitrary. It may not be intended; it may have developed organically; but it's hard to deny a standard of "level 4s," since they've been keeping such records. And being we've been on an 9/18 hole standard continually since Old Tom...the 72 number is as close to an empirical standard as this type of esoteric construct can ever offer.


2. As I said, I am open to the novelty and possible innovation of differing course pars, other than 72; still, I believe the idea of stripping individual hole pars is a far less disruptive, far more easier step to take first. I think your suggestion comes after that one...if par-less holes are accepted and become a standard argot, then pars of 60-68 are going to be a lot easier to swallow. if par-less holes are not accepted, I think it reveals a crack in this reconsideration, in toto.


For me, the tenor of your post I most agree with is the need for GCA to more fully utilize differing, now-fallow yardages, the 240 - 290 yardages for sure, but I would add the 50 - 100 yardages and the 440 -  490 yardages to that mix-- most of these with a single, large teeing ground from where every level, age and gender of player starts the hole.


Of course, this idea may sound half-cocked to start with to other observers because they are in a vacuum of that which I have given much mental oxygen...that the stripping of hole pars is but one feature of a bigger move I would make (if I were king) to bifurcate the game, to separate it into two games, a recreationally-spirited one 95% of the players play with whatever physical gifts and technical equipment they are fortunate enough to get...and the one on TV that elite, trained, prime of life, skilled competitors play with specialized equipment tailored to nano-tolerance ,where the difference between 2nd and 20th in any week means 4 or 5x the yearly income of the most of the first group.


That is is not an economic or political statement, just another analogous detail about how different it is already, and how silly and wasteful and full of folly it has been/is to chase their standard, their experience.


cheers
vk

[Sean_A]

VK

Nah, the concept of level 4s is a score keeping concept, not an architectural concept which it later became...and I think a very poor development since 72 codified architecture....archies sought out clean ways to provide a par of 72 with 10-4-4 designs....just a bloody awful thing to do.  Furthermore, level 4s back then meant something...unlike today where level 4s sees a guy finish 43rd!  If par is a measurement for expert play....and that is what it is meant to be....course par should be dropping drastically.  This does cause a problem with hole par though because it is so tightly defined.  Hence the reason I think hole par is meaningless in this way.  Rarely is the expert player happy with level 4s. The divide has become so great between the decent handicap player an the expert that in reality a bogey score could easily be 77ish and par 67ish...hence the idea of par would be far more meaningful and there would also be a meaningful score for handicap play.  For me, bifurcation of the rules would include this difference as well as a max of 8-9 clubs and loft range of 15 to 50 for expert play events. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - maybe we also need to review/revise our concept of 'the decent handicap player'.  An 8 today, playing basically the very same inland English course that an 8 played 40 years ago with persimmon, balatas and 1 irons isn't really the same kind of 8 that some of us old enough to remember think of as an 8. A 6500 yard course isn't nearly what it used to be, but most of us just haven't noticed it -- mostly because decent hadicappers aren't what they used to be either.
Pietro

[Sean_A]

Sean - maybe we also need to review/revise our concept of 'the decent handicap player'.  An 8 today, playing basically the very same inland English course that an 8 played 40 years ago with persimmon, balatas and 1 irons isn't really the same kind of 8 that some of us old enough to remember think of as an 8. A 6500 yard course isn't nearly what it used to be, but most of us just haven't noticed it -- mostly because decent hadicappers aren't what they used to be either.
Pietro

Pietro

I agree that players back in the day were better than handicap numbers suggest...same for top flight players.  Just look at the B Jones' famous 66 at Sunningdale....33 putts!  That speaks more to the condition of greens than the quality of players. However, that isn't what matters nearly as much as the gap between expert players (who are really plus handicappers) and decent handicap players.  Par was never meant for handicap players and that situation has only become more plainly obvious.  Yet, archies design holes based on their concepts of what is reasonable for par rather than just building holes.  I am convinced that how golfers equate a level fairness to par is a serious culprit for why so many bland, uninteresting, cookie cutter and obvious holes have been built in my lifetime.  How often have you heard, well its 460 yard par 4 so its alright to use a decent green which isn't too difficult to chip to or putt?  Yet, add 25 yards to the hole and for some reason its fine to get wild because its a short 5. 

Anyway, to reiterate my anwer...it would be a travesty to golf design if par threes were eliminated.  Talk about adding yet another constraint for archies!  Its easier for archies to publish books of designs like kitchen schemes and have folks pick the one they want then have it built 

Ciao