ANGC #13

[Rob Marshall]

If you say so,

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you say so,

I didn't say so. Matty Kelly did.

[Lou_Duran]

While we're still on AN, are Masters winners awarded a membership to the club?

[Jeff Evagues]

While we're still on AN, are Masters winners awarded a membership to the club?

I believe they are honorary members which means they can play whenever but can't bring guests.

[jeffwarne]

Ok...so this is THE prime example of the long-standing GCA beard pulling debate as to whether PAR #'s matter.




My argument for the current tee is simply that the players are more or less forced to try to get there in two and have to hit good shots to do so. Move back 60 yards and only a few players will go to the tee intending to get there in 2.




Major question...and where I'd love this to go.


Who thinks Dustin Johnson would have laid up from the fairway at 205 yards or so if the hole were a par 4?


He was a couple shots ahead at the time (not the 5 he ended up winning by) and apparently was a little uncomfortable with something about the ball. Mud, tight lie...I don't know but I really wonder if he would have laid up if it were a par 4...

It seems to me that DJ laid up several times on par 5's with irons.
Rather than risking a mud ball(and we're left to wonder because he simply dealt with the shots rather than bitch) he simply laid up.I'd argue par didn't matter, risk. vs. reward did and DJ correctly made the decision that 4 from a preferred yardage and angle was better than the left swale where the uber safe play predictably would have gone.

[Rob Marshall]

Ok...so this is THE prime example of the long-standing GCA beard pulling debate as to whether PAR #'s matter.




My argument for the current tee is simply that the players are more or less forced to try to get there in two and have to hit good shots to do so. Move back 60 yards and only a few players will go to the tee intending to get there in 2.




Major question...and where I'd love this to go.


Who thinks Dustin Johnson would have laid up from the fairway at 205 yards or so if the hole were a par 4?


He was a couple shots ahead at the time (not the 5 he ended up winning by) and apparently was a little uncomfortable with something about the ball. Mud, tight lie...I don't know but I really wonder if he would have laid up if it were a par 4...

It seems to me that DJ laid up several times on par 5's with irons.
Rather than risking a mud ball(and we're left to wonder because he simply dealt with the shots rather than bitch) he simply laid up.I'd argue par didn't matter, risk. vs. reward did and DJ correctly made the decision that 4 from a preferred yardage and angle was better than the left swale where the uber safe play predictably would have gone.

Has anyone ever heard DJ bitch? He appears to be the most flat lined golfer I've ever seen. They told a story on the golf channel about DJ getting into the car after handing the Open to Jordan with the Gretsky's  and his brother. No one was talking and he said something to the effect...."it's ok it's only a golf tournament". Look how he dealt with the USGA ruling cluster at Oakmont.

I wish I could play like that. Heading out of NY for the first time since Covid for a week and taking "The Obstacle is the way" for reading material. I've heard Rory talking about it. Stoic would be a good way to describe DJ.

I was never a huge fan until Koepka trashed talked him. He may have 2 more majors but look the number of wins DJ has. I'd love to see DJ win a couple more but save the next Masters for Rory so he can get the monkey off his back.

[V. Kmetz]

I think he was only 2 ahead. If I looked at Smith's card correctly, it was 17 to 15 at that point.

He was obviously torn about the decision and chose laying up. The lie or mud was obviously the reason he was torn. Do you think if it were a par 4 he would have laid up?

I do not...emphatically...

Sorry to revive this two week old thread/bread in the microwave, but I emphatically think the opposite; that it was the lie, the mud, the amount of lead, the holes remaining and the fact he correctly assessed that "going for it" could bring, 6 or 7 into it (as it has innumerable times for weekend contenders) and THAT its the real thing to navigate... while at the same time, keeping a 4 in sight...in short it was (correctly imo) the CONTEXT of the shot in a sequence of what was 268 shots, not its matching to some hole or course par.


And besides that, even if this were the situational instrument, you have asked the wrong question and misrepresented the opposed (mine) opinion...


1. It's NOT whether the 13th hole lists as a Par 4 or Par 5....
2. It's whether there was NO par listed on any of the holes (still allowing the course par be whatever [68? 70? 72?] the raters, elders or cognoscenti prefer).


And lastly, I was surprised in the original exchange that we are (despite voluminous posts from our best voices to never mind what the pros do, its how the architecture is to the greatest range of players as designed) still measuring things by the World #1 approach to a hole... who cares??? (as matter of design integrity or the elimination of par)...no one on this board is hitting it in two and its a three shot minimum to start putting for all but about 100,000 people, 96,000 of whom are never going to play the hole anyway.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO keeping the area of trees in play  that are on the outside of the turn is part of the strategy.  So many need to turn the ball over and if they dont they will end up in those trees...if the holes goes back 60 yards this element may go away...

[Kalen Braley]

True Mike,

But a couple of players hit 3 wood into those trees this year, and a bunch more would have if it weren't for the wet conditions. 

Push the tee back 50-60 yards and its a driver tee shot again...or just do the better option, tournament ball! 

[Mike_Young]

True Mike,

But a couple of players hit 3 wood into those trees this year, and a bunch more would have if it weren't for the wet conditions. 

Push the tee back 50-60 yards and its a driver tee shot again...or just do the better option, tournament ball! 

Kalen,The way I see the hole:  presently one can line up on left side of fairway and make the corner at 265 yards but can enter the outside woods at around 295 -300 yards leaving him around 200 yards to the green.  I one were to hit it down center of fairway about 270 will give you an open shot to the green and and 270 pushed will put you in the outside woods all the way up to a distance of 315.  NOW if you take it back 60 yards  most will have to lay up and many will not even have an open "corner".    I don't know all the variables but IMHO longer could be lower for average score

[Kalen Braley]

Mike those are terrific points.

So instead of one lone small tee 50-60 yards behind the current one, why not a RTJ tribute tee that would stretch 30-60 yards behind, so they could play 13 anywhere from 30-60 yards longer.   

P.S.  And there is precedent for this, the back tees on #1, 15, and 18 are all 30 yards long... not to mention the granddaddy of them all the 45 yard long tee box on 16.

[JESII]

I think he was only 2 ahead. If I looked at Smith's card correctly, it was 17 to 15 at that point.

He was obviously torn about the decision and chose laying up. The lie or mud was obviously the reason he was torn. Do you think if it were a par 4 he would have laid up?

I do not...emphatically...

Sorry to revive this two week old thread/bread in the microwave, but I emphatically think the opposite; that it was the lie, the mud, the amount of lead, the holes remaining and the fact he correctly assessed that "going for it" could bring, 6 or 7 into it (as it has innumerable times for weekend contenders) and THAT its the real thing to navigate... while at the same time, keeping a 4 in sight...in short it was (correctly imo) the CONTEXT of the shot in a sequence of what was 268 shots, not its matching to some hole or course par.


And besides that, even if this were the situational instrument, you have asked the wrong question and misrepresented the opposed (mine) opinion...


1. It's NOT whether the 13th hole lists as a Par 4 or Par 5....
2. It's whether there was NO par listed on any of the holes (still allowing the course par be whatever [68? 70? 72?] the raters, elders or cognoscenti prefer).


And lastly, I was surprised in the original exchange that we are (despite voluminous posts from our best voices to never mind what the pros do, its how the architecture is to the greatest range of players as designed) still measuring things by the World #1 approach to a hole... who cares??? (as matter of design integrity or the elimination of par)...no one on this board is hitting it in two and its a three shot minimum to start putting for all but about 100,000 people, 96,000 of whom are never going to play the hole anyway.

Humorous last paragraph considering you threatened 5 (or something like that) threads discussing Winged Foot in the context of the US Open a month or two ago. Not sure they all appeared, but that's not relevant. There is certainly room on the table for discussion of the TV guys. Maybe a bit hypocritical to suggest there is not!?!


In addition, I am among the staunchest voices in advocating to ignore the TV guys in all things golf course architecture and maintenance related. TV golf is entertainment, these guys are part of the show and 99.99% of the golf played (and all of the most enjoyable) is not and should not be included in that show...


So, you'll ask, why did I ask about DJ and #13 early in this thread. This has been a theory of mine against the beard pullers here for many years. Yes, you are certainly a beard puller... The second shot on #13 was simply the clearest example of a guy having a very difficult time with the decision and the only thing pulling him towards going for it was the par of the hole.


You clearly believe he would have laid up based on all those extenuating circumstances. You may well be right, and considering they combine to a single point in time (ie. 2 shot lead with 6 to play), you've made it inarguable. I'd be curious if anyone can come up with an example of DJ laying up on a par 4 when the green is well within range and he just doesn't quite like the lie.


Sitting in your house suggesting "PAR" is just a number and has no bearing on a player's psychology is wishful thinking. These guys chart out where they can pick up shots and where they need to hold serve. They list EVERY SINGLE par 5 as a place to pick up shots.

[V. Kmetz]

JS,


I'll try not to take up the mantle too quickly on the flavor of sarcasm you give:


But YOU NEVER MAKE ANSWER for what your real objections/failure of my statements are.  It's all your contradictory suppositions, even though you concede so much, "the lie or the mud was the reason he was torn..." but then right to stubbornly rhetorical "Do you think if it was a par 4, he would have laid up?.... I do not, emphatically" YOU YOURSELF JUST STATED THE LIKELY REASON.


You mean you emphatically think that the change of par number would've overruled the hanging lie, the angled creek, the hole location, the places to miss, the lead, the holes remaining... AND THEN the mud???  Where do you get that? How can you be remotely emphatic about it?


It's all your "'wondering' on whether if par was this, would it prove my point...?"


Why don't you wonder about no pars on any of the holes with equal depth and recall?


And we have (as rumP would say, "perfect data") Winged Foot's US Open data from 2006 (when #5 was 515 and its members' Par of  5, and 9 was 514 and called a Par 4... and from this year when those Pars were switched. with a 15 yard reduction of #5 and a 48 yard addition to #9)... AND the control data of #16 ( the fourth members' Par 5 on the West) which stays a 4 for USGA, but was increased 14 yards average tee.


It's right here in front of me; I took 45 minutes to gather and write it down...gross stroke average, gross rank, rank to par, number of 2s,3s,4s,5s,6s,7s+... all right here.  Not going to share it with you because YOU should do some work to found your theories beyond suppositions.  But I will tell you the common sense conclusions that Bobby Jones or Tillinghast could tell you.


The hardest hole on the course is the one that takes the most average strokes to complete?  How is that not so? And the data here shows (generally without all but minute exception) that the longer the hole, the harder gross strokes it plays... the harder relative to 4 it plays... and that worn conception of a hole's rank, relative to its par is an ignorant measure.
 
In THAT alleged mental reality, despite adding 48 yards, the 9th hole at WFW goes from the 7th hardest hole in 2006 to the easiest hole in 2020, just by changing the par of 4 to a 5.


The easiest hole on WFW is #7 at 162 yards, playing to 3.022... the hardest is #12 at 5.146... this was true in 2006 when those gross ranks held at slightly higher (3.092, 5.23) numbers...15 years of technology I suppose...


We're both sitting now, but I'm the one who's got 250+ loops and 20 plays on the West in all competitions, hi and lo, from Anderson to Met Open to 1st flight M/G to 19th flight M/G to Kiwanis club slashers, who are playing the course in all sorts of configurations and pars... Hole Par does nothing to enhance design, but you're proving that it sure limits people's conception and discussion of it, both real and abstract.


So, eh... sit on it...Potsie.


(I'm just kidding; I'm not nearly as perturbed as tone or invective could suggest)

[JESII]

It's right here in front of me; I took 45 minutes to gather and write it down...gross stroke average, gross rank, rank to par, number of 2s,3s,4s,5s,6s,7s+... all right here.  Not going to share it with you because YOU should do some work to found your theories beyond suppositions.  But I will tell you the common sense conclusions that Bobby Jones or Tillinghast could tell you.

Swing and a miss VK...this information is totally irrelevant to THE question.


Taking par numbers off the card (or out of the game is fine) so would plenty of the other ideas you and your ilk have to preserve...something...It's time to grow up Peter Pan. Par has been a concept since the very early days and sure isn't going away.


The issue at hand is do the par numbers that exist effect a player.


How often do you hear the bogey player brag about how many 4's they made? Never! How often do you hear them talk about the pars they made? Every day my friend...and you know it.  Ever give a guy a good read and they make a putt for an unexpected par? It carries a hell of a lot more weight then the same putt for a 4 on a 162 yard hole, although both saved a stroke.


In all that research you did, can you find a single example of a player laying up on a par 4 when the green was easily reachable? Not one I'd bet.


This DJ scenario is interesting; you rightly identified 5 or 6 reasons that make it obvious DJ should have laid up...yet it took him several minutes to make that decision himself. There was only one thing pulling him towards going for it...


It's a game of trying to turn 3 into 2 and the architects greatest (perhaps their only) defense is enticement.

[JMEvensky]

It's a game of trying to turn 3 into 2 and the architects greatest (perhaps their only) defense is enticement.

Pretty damn good turn of phrase and probably pretty accurate.


Hope Pat Burke or Mike Clayton chimes in. Their insight into how much par is/isn't just a number at that level would be interesting.

[V. Kmetz]

It's a game of trying to turn 3 into 2...

Wha?


Obviously mistaken to re-engage; if shit from you was desired, we could have just squeezed your head.


Good luck on your recovery from that ladder fall.  Now go to sleep.
 

[JESII]

Ahh...momentarily forgot I was in with the beard puller extraordinaire. No reason to expect an actual conversation to break out.


If you’d been around WF 300 times you might be able to discuss these sorts of things...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ever give a guy a good read and they make a putt for an unexpected par? It carries a hell of a lot more weight then the same putt for a 4 on a 162 yard hole, although both saved a stroke.

I’m firmly in the “par matters” camp, but I’m in the small minority where I’d feel just as good making a 40-footer for par as I would for bogey, because I know that I saved > 1 shot in both cases against any level of player. But I understand the numbers well enough, and I feel just as good about a hybrid from 225 that I hit to 30 feet (strokes gained baby!) whether it’s a tee shot on a par three, a second shot on a par four… or a second shot on a par five.

But again, small minority here on that side. Par does affect player decisions and performance. I think that’s been shown over plenty of years and studies and across data.

I don’t think, however, you can say that DJ would have gone for it if it was a par four. We’ve all seen good players lay up on par fours. Billy Casper laid up on the par three at Winged Foot, IIRC, after all. It’s not a 100% rule or anything, so I don’t think you can say he’d have gone for it “emphatically” if it was a par four. The pros, more now than ever, are a little bit smarter about understanding how scoring works regardless of par. They’re still emotional, and they’re not quite as deep in the data as someone like me is about it, but… they’re more so like that now than they were twenty years ago, I believe.

[JESII]

Come on Erik...you're not as far gone as VK. You still have a chance at a sense of humor.

Who could ever be emphatic about a pure hypothetical?


I think you're 100% correct about them educating themselves to the data and also correct that emotions are near impossible to eliminate. DJ does as well as anyone and this particular shot was clearly a difficult decision for him.


In my opinion, that's only because he felt pressure to go.

[Kalen Braley]

Can we please now return to my very speculative and partially OT topic! 

P.S.  I too think par matters for the vast majority of golfers as Erik suggests.  Its just too difficult for most of us to overcome that instinctual programming of constantly not measuring up, regardless of what it pertains to!