Riviera afraid of 34?

[mike_malone]

Does Riviera call #1 a par five because they don’t want a par 34 front?
At 491 downhill they even force a layup on the tee shot and still have a straightforward second shot.

[SB]

For the pros, the hole averages 4.38, which is the easiest hole by .4 strokes. 

However, if you turn it into a par 4, it would be the hardest hole on the course.  I'm not sure they would want 40% of the field starting with a bogey. 

[JESII]

Bingo!


It’s a show, first and last...

[Peter Pallotta]

For the pros, the hole averages 4.38, which is the easiest hole by .4 strokes. 

However, if you turn it into a par 4, it would be the hardest hole on the course.  I'm not sure they would want 40% of the field starting with a bogey.

God bless golf course architecture: on the one hand, literally the most 'grounded' of all arts & crafts; on the other, so dependent on the airy-intangible concept of 'par' for its full meaning and impact.
The exact same design and unchanging opening hole, but today it's an easy one that leaves golfers smiling and tomorrow it *could be* a very hard one that leaves us gritting our teeth.
It won't be, I know -- but if it was, the difference would have nothing to do with earth-moving or lengthening or a re-design, but instead with merely a card and a pencil.

[Brian Finn]

If it were assigned a par 4, I could see it being beneficial to the design, or more accurately, the setup.  Theoretically, if it were a 4, might they widen the (currently ridiculously) narrow fairway, since even with a widened fairway, it would likely still play to an average higher than 4?  For those of us that care more about the design than the assigned par, that would be a win, no?

[John Kavanaugh]

The course would lose its inherent charm if it started with two ball busting par 4’s. A huge loss for those who play and support the club.

[Tal Oz]

We talk a lot about architects intent on here. Didn't George Thomas frequently design for a shorter par 5/longer par 4 start to his courses?

In a laughable move, during the 2017 US Am they made the 1st a par 4. During a match play tournament smh

[Matt_Cohn]

In a laughable move, during the 2017 US Am they made the 1st a par 4. During a match play tournament smh

Isn't it more laughable to refer to a hole as a par 5 when every player in the event expects the reach—and actually hit—the green in two with an iron? Today it's the easiest hole relative to par by 0.55 shots. As a par 4, it would be the toughest hole relative to par by 0.02 shots. I know which way makes more sense to me.

[Mark Smolens]

But why does any of this discourse on labels matter? It's a hole, played by every player in the field. It's one of Robert Hunter's 10 holes requiring a long second shot.


If it's a handicapped event, then perhaps the par of the hole would make a difference to the stroke allocation, but in this instance, I say "meh. . ."

[MCirba]

The course would lose its inherent charm if it started with two ball busting par 4’s. A huge loss for those who play and support the club.

True dat.

[Tal Oz]

In a laughable move, during the 2017 US Am they made the 1st a par 4. During a match play tournament smh

Isn't it more laughable to refer to a hole as a par 5 when every player in the event expects the reach—and actually hit—the green in two with an iron? Today it's the easiest hole relative to par by 0.55 shots. As a par 4, it would be the toughest hole relative to par by 0.02 shots. I know which way makes more sense to me.

Matt, I still think George Thomas' intent of having a short 5 long 4 start is important to maintain.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I thought par didn’t matter?


Like someone said above: everyone has to play it.

[JESII]

Ha...yes, in class it doesn’t matter.

[Rob Marshall]

In a laughable move, during the 2017 US Am they made the 1st a par 4. During a match play tournament smh

Isn't it more laughable to refer to a hole as a par 5 when every player in the event expects the reach—and actually hit—the green in two with an iron? Today it's the easiest hole relative to par by 0.55 shots. As a par 4, it would be the toughest hole relative to par by 0.02 shots. I know which way makes more sense to me.

Matt,
I played in a state am many years ago and they converted short par 5 into a par 4. Everyone was bitching. I said to a buddy. What’s the difference if you shoot 3 over or 4 over? It’s still a 75.....

[Peter Pallotta]

edit - wrong thread

[Jason Thurman]

We talk a lot about architects intent on here. Didn't George Thomas frequently design for a shorter par 5/longer par 4 start to his courses?

In a laughable move, during the 2017 US Am they made the 1st a par 4. During a match play tournament smh

It’s match play. Make it a par 23.37. Who gives a shit?

[Ally Mcintosh]

In a laughable move, during the 2017 US Am they made the 1st a par 4. During a match play tournament smh

Isn't it more laughable to refer to a hole as a par 5 when every player in the event expects the reach—and actually hit—the green in two with an iron? Today it's the easiest hole relative to par by 0.55 shots. As a par 4, it would be the toughest hole relative to par by 0.02 shots. I know which way makes more sense to me.

Matt, I still think George Thomas' intent of having a short 5 long 4 start is important to maintain.

Or is that just a result of him having to route two holes of approximately the same length to get back to where he wanted to place the third tee?

[Matthew Rose]

Weren't they both par fives at one point?

[Sean_A]

Continuing with bifurcation which already exists, why not

1. roll back the equipment for expert players, I suspect most everybody will fall eventually follow suit

2. reduce the number of clubs to less than 10, 14 clubs for these guys is ridiculous

3. reduce par for expert players, practically every total par on the planet could be reduced by 1 to 3 shots. The current ideas of par, even if an equipment rollback occurs, are so long outdated that if par ever meant anything this has long ceased to be the case. Better yet, why not reintroduce bogey score for handicap play then the idea of par can be totally eliminated. Or maybe courses simply have a total course par.

The idea that par should have the influence it has had on architecture is one of the darkest blots on the history of golf.

Ciao

[JESII]

I'll agree with Sean's last sentence while also insisting that the numerical par for a hole actually does matter.


It must be within reason...23.37 is not, ha...but a 300 yard hole called a par 3 will put pressure on these guys to try something while a 300 yard par 4 let's them hedge their bets a little bit...as in the case of the 10th this week. They all hit driver but aim for the trees left hoping for a good lie and angle to chip back up hill. All except JT who has natural cut spin on his wedges...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It must be within reason...23.37 is not, ha...but a 300 yard hole called a par 3 will put pressure on these guys to try something while a 300 yard par 4 let's them hedge their bets a little bit...as in the case of the 10th this week.

The 8th at Oakmont and the 10th at Riviera are about the same length but, I would argue, correctly classified as a par 3 and a par 4.

[Sean_A]

I'll agree with Sean's last sentence while also insisting that the numerical par for a hole actually does matter.

It must be within reason...23.37 is not, ha...but a 300 yard hole called a par 3 will put pressure on these guys to try something while a 300 yard par 4 let's them hedge their bets a little bit...as in the case of the 10th this week. They all hit driver but aim for the trees left hoping for a good lie and angle to chip back up hill. All except JT who has natural cut spin on his wedges...

It is highly interesting that most seem to believe that pros will not mess with actual troublesome features, but will take risks based on the par of the hole.  This may be true, but I reckon if par actually reflected the skill of a expert golfers then no, pros would not take risks based on par.  For instance, long par 3s back in the day were more often played as layup holes to avoid big numbers than is the case today because golfers are not hitting driver or wood into these holes.

There has been a push for more short holes to be shorter.  I think there should also be a push for more par 3s to be closer to 275 yards as well.  Its very easy to create an expert tee at 275 par 3 (should par 3s for experts now be more like up to 300 yards...I think so) and forward tee at 300 par 4. 

Ciao

[JESII]

It must be within reason...23.37 is not, ha...but a 300 yard hole called a par 3 will put pressure on these guys to try something while a 300 yard par 4 let's them hedge their bets a little bit...as in the case of the 10th this week.

The 8th at Oakmont and the 10th at Riviera are about the same length but, I would argue, correctly classified as a par 3 and a par 4.

I'd agree with that.


How about the 1st at Riviera as a 490 downhill par 5?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How about the 1st at Riviera as a 490 downhill par 5?

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, just as I don't care about the ninth at Oakmont being a 4 or a 5. I was only saying that a 300-yard hole can have a variety of designs that tend to lean toward par 3 or par 4, and 10 at Riviera strongly leans toward 4 IMO.

[JESII]

Sean,


I think either the expectation that par is representative of an experts play on a hole has changed, or our use of expert is very subjective. A legitimate scratch handicap amateur must be in the top 1% of golfers worldwide, but that's not likely who we are talking about in these conversations.


Either way, I agree with you on longer par 3's and shorter short par 4's would be great!