[PCCraig]

Imagine a par-5 that plays "easy" from the back tees for better players, but would make a more difficult long par-4 from a more forward tee.


Now assume the back tee on that hole is "moved up" to where the forward tees are and now plays as a par-4. So the course par is a 71 from the back tees and a 72 from the "normal" men's tees.


I've seen Ron Prichard implement this at a couple of his Ross restorations; Cedar Rapids & Skokie come to mind.


Is this a common practice today on classic golf courses with limited land to expand?


Are there any other examples? Good or bad? What is the thought on the practice, or does it not really matter because par is just a figment of our imagination?

[Matt_Cohn]

Imagine a par-5 that plays "easy" from the back tees for better players, but would make a more difficult long par-4 from a more forward tee.


Now assume the back tee on that hole is "moved up" to where the forward tees are and now plays as a par-4. So the course par is a 71 from the back tees and a 72 from the "normal" men's tees.


I've seen Ron Prichard implement this at a couple of his Ross restorations; Cedar Rapids & Skokie come to mind.


Is this a common practice today on classic golf courses with limited land to expand?


Are there any other examples? Good or bad? What is the thought on the practice, or does it not really matter because par is just a figment of our imagination?

Well, it works for tournaments obviously. I'm not sure how it would function at the club level where people are playing different sets of tees. It just seems weird to have a group where the 18 handicap tees off, then the 5 handicap tees off from 30 yards forward. Par aside, it just seems like it would feel...wrong.

[BCowan]

Prichard did a varation of that at Barton Hills too on the 10th hole. Works good there I think.  Except the tips are the longest tee.  Par 4 for tips and 5 for rest.

[Tom_Doak]

I have seen this tried a lot of times over the years.


I just don't know what difference it makes.  The hole is 460-480 yards.  You can call it a par-4, or a par-5, it doesn't matter which.  Calling it both is just an attempt to appease both constituencies.  It doesn't change how the hole is played.


P.S.  Woodhall Spa has the opposite.  They have three holes which are 480-500 yard par-5's from the back tees [par 73], and 450-yard par-4's from the whites [par 70], just because they tie the par strictly to the yardage.

[Matt Frey, PGA]

No. 18 at Rolling Green near Philadelphia employs this strategy.

From the back tees, the "Black" tees in their case, No. 18 plays as a par-4 at 493 yards, making the course a par-70.

From the next set of tees, the "Blue" tees, No. 18 plays as a 527-yard par-5 with a course par of 71.

I have not played Rolling Green from the Black tees as I try not to torture myself with long irons and fairway wood approaches on most holes, but I can say that playing No. 18 from the Blue tees is a blast.

[JESII]

I think it does matter what par on a hole is. Just look at Matt's statement...the hole is more fun from 527 than from 493. It's not because a 3 (or a 4) is more likely...


Within reason, the architecture should entice us to reach a little to achieve a goal. Par, or birdie, are natural goals in golf. There is a huge emotional difference between par and birdie and bogey...and specifically, how we achieved the result.

[SPDB]

Fishers Island employs this. From the normal back tees, the 8th is a 465 par 5 and the 18th a 452 par 5. From the "Championship Tees" the 8th is a 414 yard par 4 and the 18th a 404 yard par 4.


Normal Back Tee par = 72
Championship Tee par = 70


I agree with Tom, seems pointless, unless you're obsessed with "defending par".

[Peter Pallotta]

Average golfer:
An easy Par 5 gives me a good chance at a (rare) birdie.
A long Par 4 gives me a good chance at (yet another) bogey.
I like the challenge of the latter, but please don't take away the former (by turning it into the latter!)
Of course, in today's sophisticated circles I could just play "marker-less golf", ie play different sets of tees throughout the same round in whatever way pleases me best. That way I could, if I wanted, avoid long Par 4s altogether!
I wouldn't even have to call that "cheating" (as my conscience tells me I should.) Nowadays we can call it "freedom golf" instead! 

[Jason Topp]

Minikahda's 14th is an example.  It is a 476 yard par 5 from the whites and a 460 par 4 from the blues. 

[Garland Bayley]

As Tom says, it doesn't matter what you call it, it is going to be played the same.

You can get away with changing par from 72 to 71, as both are quite accepted.
My home course rightfully should be par 67, but we call it par 70 as we doubt people would be that interested in playing on a par 67 in this culture. It doesn't matter what we call the par, as the better long players are going to try to make 4 on the short holes we label 5, and make 3 on the short hole we label 4.

[Andy Stamm]

P.S.  Woodhall Spa has the opposite.  They have three holes which are 480-500 yard par-5's from the back tees [par 73], and 450-yard par-4's from the whites [par 70], just because they tie the par strictly to the yardage.

Carnoustie is the same, par from the whites is 72, from the yellows 70. Interestingly at both Carnoustie and Woodhall Spa while the par goes up 2 the SS is only 1 shot more from the medal tees. Another good reason to put more faith in the SS.


Matt,


The 18th of the Old Course plays shorter from the medal tees to the same par. It's rare to see the yellows and whites used in the same game although it certainly does happen, but it really doesn't make a difference at all, and you'd hardly notice.

[BCrosby]

I think it does matter what par on a hole is. Just look at Matt's statement...the hole is more fun from 527 than from 493. It's not because a 3 (or a 4) is more likely...


Within reason, the architecture should entice us to reach a little to achieve a goal. Par, or birdie, are natural goals in golf. There is a huge emotional difference between par and birdie and bogey...and specifically, how we achieved the result.

I'm with Jim. Like it or not, par matters.


Bob

[Sean_A]

I have seen this tried a lot of times over the years.


I just don't know what difference it makes.  The hole is 460-480 yards.  You can call it a par-4, or a par-5, it doesn't matter which.  Calling it both is just an attempt to appease both constituencies.  It doesn't change how the hole is played.


P.S.  Woodhall Spa has the opposite.  They have three holes which are 480-500 yard par-5's from the back tees [par 73], and 450-yard par-4's from the whites [par 70], just because they tie the par strictly to the yardage.

I think it matters not because of the par number, but because if par is reduced for back tees then there is less chance the course will be altered for flat bellies.  It is far easier to change the card rather than the course. I know folks will say why change anything, but that is not realistic because people like to change shit regardless....they will dream up reasons why change is a good idea.

Ciao

[James Brown]

Imagine a par-5 that plays "easy" from the back tees for better players, but would make a more difficult long par-4 from a more forward tee.


Now assume the back tee on that hole is "moved up" to where the forward tees are and now plays as a par-4. So the course par is a 71 from the back tees and a 72 from the "normal" men's tees.


I've seen Ron Prichard implement this at a couple of his Ross restorations; Cedar Rapids & Skokie come to mind.


Is this a common practice today on classic golf courses with limited land to expand?


Are there any other examples? Good or bad? What is the thought on the practice, or does it not really matter because par is just a figment of our imagination?

Well, it works for tournaments obviously. I'm not sure how it would function at the club level where people are playing different sets of tees. It just seems weird to have a group where the 18 handicap tees off, then the 5 handicap tees off from 30 yards forward. Par aside, it just seems like it would feel...wrong.

Lots of state and city Amateur level tournaments in the DC/MD area seem to have taken to converting 5s to 4s lately, but I have always thought it actually makes the course seem easier when you move up the tees from 550 to 480 and call it a par four.  Par doesn't mean anything in a competitive situation - just shooting the lowest score. 

[Keith Phillips]

Two George Fazio courses I know well have holes like this...#1 and #17 at Jupiter Hills and #18 at The National (Toronto) are long fours from the 'back' and short fives from the 'further back' white tees...I've never played the black tees but suspect this is a good solution if there is no land to make a natural 'real par 5' for the scratch golfers.

[jeffwarne]

Fishers Island employs this. From the normal back tees, the 8th is a 465 par 5 and the 18th a 452 par 5. From the "Championship Tees" the 8th is a 414 yard par 4 and the 18th a 404 yard par 4.


Normal Back Tee par = 72
Championship Tee par = 70


I agree with Tom, seems pointless, unless you're obsessed with "defending par".

beyond pointless to me.


Does anyone find a 414 yard hole vs. a 465 hole more challenging? Especially a hole like # 8 which at Fishers which is quite a narrow tee shot all the way back--widens the farther you hit it(or the further up you play it)
I mean why exaggerate the issue technology has brought up for elite players?


Does anyone ever ask "How many over were you?" no, they ask "what did you shoot"?
On a course steadily losing the race with technology, why chop 85 key yards off two of their longer holes?
I have NO issue with them changing the par to 4, unless that's going to suddenly lead to four more tees so everybody can reach in "regulation"-in which case I would merely suggest a 4/5 arrangement from the same tees

[Bret Lawrence]

If you play the Championship tees at Fishers Island Club you play 8 as a 465 yard, Par 4 and 18 as a 452 yard, Par 4.  From the blue tees the yardages are the same, however both of these holes are labelled Par 5's on the scorecard.  Either way the course rating is right around 72.


I have played many courses where the Forward Tees Par is slightly higher than the Back Tees Par.  A muni I used to play at had runway tees on just about every hole.  The men's Par was 71, the ladies Par was 75.  Instead of making additional tee boxes they just added a stroke to the long holes.  I never did see a lot of women playing this course!


I think when Yale opened in 1926, the middle tees played to a Par 71 and the back tees played to a Par 70.  I believe the fourth hole was considered a Par 5 from the middle tees.  This has been going on for a long time.


People do ask me what I shoot, but if I see a friend in a parallel fairway during a tournament and ask them how they are doing, they don't tell me they are at 35 strokes. Instead they will flash me a few fingers up or down to let me know how they are doing in relation to par!

[Eric LeFante]

I think it does matter whether its a par 4 or par 5. One can argue the number, 4 or 5 doesn't matter, but what does matter is where the tees are set up as a par 4 or a par 5.


Look at 18 at Chambers Bay. Jordan Spieth hated it as a par 4. The USGA was planning on making it a par 4 for the final round but last minute they decided to make it a par 5. I think that was a very wise decision because the hole is a much better par 5. We saw Spieth hit an awesome 3 wood to 15 feet and we saw DJ rip driver and 5 iron to 15 feet. I think the finish would have been much worse if it played as a par 4.


I completely agree with Jim Sullivan; every golfer is trying to achieve a goal and an easy to define goal is a par or a birdie on a hole. I also think there could be asterisks next to holes when they don't play to their true par. I know there is another topic on for this, but for the pros, the 1st hole at Riviera is not a true par 5. I think the fact that it is listed as a par 5 for the LA Open takes the discussion away from the characteristics of the hole and more to a discussion about technology and how its not really a par 5 anymore.

[jeffwarne]

If you play the Championship tees at Fishers Island Club you play 8 as a 465 yard, Par 4 and 18 as a 452 yard, Par 4.  From the blue tees the yardages are the same, however both of these holes are labelled Par 5's on the scorecard.  Either way the course rating is right around 72.


I have played many courses where the Forward Tees Par is slightly higher than the Back Tees Par.  A muni I used to play at had runway tees on just about every hole.  The men's Par was 71, the ladies Par was 75.  Instead of making additional tee boxes they just added a stroke to the long holes.  I never did see a lot of women playing this course!


I think when Yale opened in 1926, the middle tees played to a Par 71 and the back tees played to a Par 70.  I believe the fourth hole was considered a Par 5 from the middle tees.  This has been going on for a long time.


People do ask me what I shoot, but if I see a friend in a parallel fairway during a tournament and ask them how they are doing, they don't tell me they are at 35 strokes. Instead they will flash me a few fingers up or down to let me know how they are doing in relation to par!

very good points!!


Of course addressing the equipment issue would eliminate this discussion,,,,,

[B.Ross]

in NYC area, metropolis is a 70 from the tips, but a 71 from all other tees. siwanoy is either a 70 or 71 from its back "plate" tees, and then 71 or 72 from everywhere else.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it does matter whether its a par 4 or par 5. One can argue the number, 4 or 5 doesn't matter, but what does matter is where the tees are set up as a par 4 or a par 5.


Look at 18 at Chambers Bay. Jordan Spieth hated it as a par 4. The USGA was planning on making it a par 4 for the final round but last minute they decided to make it a par 5. I think that was a very wise decision because the hole is a much better par 5. We saw Spieth hit an awesome 3 wood to 15 feet and we saw DJ rip driver and 5 iron to 15 feet. I think the finish would have been much worse if it played as a par 4.


I completely agree with Jim Sullivan; every golfer is trying to achieve a goal and an easy to define goal is a par or a birdie on a hole. I also think there could be asterisks next to holes when they don't play to their true par. I know there is another topic on for this, but for the pros, the 1st hole at Riviera is not a true par 5. I think the fact that it is listed as a par 5 for the LA Open takes the discussion away from the characteristics of the hole and more to a discussion about technology and how its not really a par 5 anymore.

Your memory of Chambers Bay is a bit faulty.  Spieth didn't like the hole "as a par 4" not because of the par, but because there was a bunker that would restrict his drive, that Dustin Johnson could easily drive past.  Jordan convinced them to move the tees back to where he didn't have to lay up, and Dustin had to squeeze a perfect drive through the narrow spot [which he did].


That's my problem with Jim's point.  It's got nothing to do with the par.  The fact is, playing a hole at 480 yards is going to give some players a relative advantage -- it favors the 270-yard hitter over the 250-yard hitter -- while moving back to 525 yards favors other guys -- the 300-yard hitter over the 270-guy.


I do understand that part of the deal is just the psychology of par, the fact that lots of players would rather be making birdie or par, instead of par or bogey.  When I have built in-between holes, I used to always opt to call them par-4's instead of par-5's, just to make the course seem harder, because my courses tend to be criticized for being "short".  Nowadays, I'm more likely to let the same hole be called a par-5, so that more people are happy with the outcome.  But trying to do both is silly, because as I explained above, that's not what I think the really good players are concerned with.   

[Jason Connor]

I play a lot with older relatives, and it wouldn't work given I add distance to equate our games.

[Peter Pallotta]

One advantage, I'd imagine, of building stout Par 4s that double as short 5s is that architects might not feel the same need to create the (usually quite boring and clearly imposed) "landing areas" for lay-up/3rd shots on such Par 4s as they do on Par 5s.
So the result is you have a good if stout par 4 and a decent (or at least unconventional) par 5.
The 8th at Crystal Downs is a truly great Par 5; have a set of tees further up, and it would also be a marvellous Par 4.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Holes around the 460 - 500 yard mark illuminate the wide difference between the average player and the good player.


A 460 yard hole is not reachable in two for most golfers - it is in effect, a par 5.


A 500 yard hole is reachable in two for good players , making it a par 4.


I can see the logic therefore, of reducing the par of a hole the further back the tee. It toughens up the hole for the flat bellies while making it more playable for bogey golfers.


We already have this concept established for lady golfers. On most courses many par 4s play as par 5s from the Ladies tees. It is not uncommon for there to be only two par 5s on a course for men but as many as six or seven for ladies.


However, on balance I am against this thinking.


I am very much in favour of multi-tee competitions, whereby players in the same competition choose which set of tees to play from according to their capacity to drive the ball, and the suitable adjustment is made to their handicap by the computer to ensure a level playing field.


Older players (or beginners) are then able to play alongside everyone else without being unduly punished by long carries off back tees, and making the golfing experience a more pleasurable one.

In a medal competition the par of each hole is irrelevant - it is only the overall total that means anything. In Stableford scoring however, the par of each hole is the basis on which points are awarded. For multi-tee Stableford competitions to function the par of each hole must be the same from all tees.

I appreciate that this point of view is a GB&I centric one. Here, club competitions are the bedrock of most golfers' lives in a way that is not apparently the case over the water.

[Thomas Dai]

Nicely put Duncan.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()