Mike Clayton Gets it Right

[Steve Lapper]

https://www.golfaustralia.com.au/feature/clayton-hard-golf-doesnt-always-equal-good-golf-569529


  This is an excellent article that should be mandatory reading for any and all greens chairs and greens committee members. Read it and discuss.

[Thomas Dai]

A fine read. Thanks for highlighting.
Atb

[Jerry Kluger]

The article certainly does an excellent job of pointing out the various considerations which should be included when renovating a course and the last sentence clearly applies a very small percentages of courses. I have yet to meet someone who quit playing golf because it was too easy so the first consideration should be how to make it more fun.

[Thomas Dai]

I have yet to meet someone who quit playing golf because it was too easy so the first consideration should be how to make it more fun.

+1

Great line Jerry.
Atb

[Ira Fishman]

I feel very fortunate that my prime (i.e. kids out of house) golf travel period coincides with many architects, clubs, and developers subscribing to the approach described so well in Mike Clayton's article.


Ira

[Joel_Stewart]

First paragraph sets the tone for a shot at Golf Digest and the "Resistance to scoring" category.  It's a terrible way to judge a course especially when you have a 5 - 10 or 15 handicapper trying to decide what a scratch player or someone with a handicap 10 shots higher than you would do.


The caretaker of the panel Jerry Tarde has always refused to change and Ron Whitten was no help. I'm doubtful this would be altered going forward.

[David Wuthrich]

Thanks for sharing Steve. 


I have always said that anyone can build a HARD golf course, it takes a special person to build a course that is fun while challenging!

[JESII]

While there is much good in there, it seemed he reached his word limit too soon. That said, it certainly appears Mike would agree with me that changing par on a hole changes the hole.

[Mike_Clayton]

First paragraph sets the tone for a shot at Golf Digest and the "Resistance to scoring" category.  It's a terrible way to judge a course especially when you have a 5 - 10 or 15 handicapper trying to decide what a scratch player or someone with a handicap 10 shots higher than you would do.


The caretaker of the panel Jerry Tarde has always refused to change and Ron Whitten was no help. I'm doubtful this would be altered going forward.

Joel


It was tricky to mention them by name given they are the only other mainstream golf magazine in Australia. I've discussed it with their guys here and they say it's not just about difficulty but how else can it be interpreted?

[Carl Rogers]

What other courses meet Mr. Clayton's criteria?

[Sean_A]

While there is much good in there, it seemed he reached his word limit too soon. That said, it certainly appears Mike would agree with me that changing par on a hole changes the hole.

He wrote "perceived" and that is likely true. In fact, the hole is the same if only par has been changed. Many people mistake difficulty as difficult relative to par rather than based on hole scoring average.

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

While there is much good in there, it seemed he reached his word limit too soon. That said, it certainly appears Mike would agree with me that changing par on a hole changes the hole.

Jim,


I think it changes the perception of the hole. Members damn a par 5 for being 'too easy' but suggest making it a par 4 and the same members say "It'd be too hard"
Of course there is a difference between a long two shot hole with no decision/choice other than to hit two great shots (e.g Riviera 18, 13 St Andrews Beach - the hardest 'par 4' in Australia)  and 13 at Augusta where there is a clear choice given to either play it in two or three shots - and why it'd be silly to make it a par 4.
Changing the par shouldn't change the hole - but golfers don't think particularly logically

[Thomas Dai]

Another reason to reconsider what is and what isn’t a par-5.
Same hole, same yardage, but the ‘par’ figure gets into players heads and expectations and reactions to outcomes often effect their play from then on.
Golf is also a mind game. ‘15th club’ and all that.
Atb

[Jeff Schley]

Almost without question the scariest tee shot in the country is the drive up the hill and through the chute at New South Wales’ 15th hole. Into the wind, the tee shot at Barnbougle’s 7th is arguably the hardest 110 meters in the game.
Thanks Mike for mentioning these. I have only played 10 courses in Australia, but that tee ball at NSW was a bear and I couldn't get it to the top to have a view of the green at all. Of course the 7th at Barnbougle is always in a wind tunnel which really just makes you laugh at what they wind can do. I like your comment on width at RM and Mackenzie as well.

[Mike_Clayton]

Almost without question the scariest tee shot in the country is the drive up the hill and through the chute at New South Wales’ 15th hole. Into the wind, the tee shot at Barnbougle’s 7th is arguably the hardest 110 meters in the game.
Thanks Mike for mentioning these. I have only played 10 courses in Australia, but that tee ball at NSW was a bear and I couldn't get it to the top to have a view of the green at all. Of course the 7th at Barnbougle is always in a wind tunnel which really just makes you laugh at what they wind can do. I like your comment on width at RM and Mackenzie as well.

15 at NSW isn't the hardest par 4 in Australia but it's the most likely hole to make 7 - or more.

[JESII]

If any of you are claiming an 8 footer for birdie doesn't elicit different emotions than an 8 footer for par, and likewise for bogey than you are missing out on a wonderful part of golf.


You may call it weak-minded, I prefer to call it engaged. There is an opponent in golf, and it's the course and the designer. Par is their measuring stick, and the features that help or hurt you along the way are their tools. For those that par is unrealistic, it should be aspirational. Making bogey should be an accomplishment...even double bogey. The responsibility on the designer is to engage that player as well.

[JMEvensky]

If any of you are claiming an 8 footer for birdie doesn't elicit different emotions than an 8 footer for par, and likewise for bogey than you are missing out on a wonderful part of golf.


You may call it weak-minded, I prefer to call it engaged. There is an opponent in golf, and it's the course and the designer. Par is their measuring stick, and the features that help or hurt you along the way are their tools. For those that par is unrealistic, it should be aspirational. Making bogey should be an accomplishment...even double bogey. The responsibility on the designer is to engage that player as well.

So par isn't just a number? Heresy.

[Sean_A]

If any of you are claiming an 8 footer for birdie doesn't elicit different emotions than an 8 footer for par, and likewise for bogey than you are missing out on a wonderful part of golf.


You may call it weak-minded, I prefer to call it engaged. There is an opponent in golf, and it's the course and the designer. Par is their measuring stick, and the features that help or hurt you along the way are their tools. For those that par is unrealistic, it should be aspirational. Making bogey should be an accomplishment...even double bogey. The responsibility on the designer is to engage that player as well.

Designers don't get to make the final call for hole pars. Their job is done before the card is printed. As we know, par is a shifting concept. The hole remains the same unless physically altered. I am not claiming people aren't effected by the notion of par. I am claiming its their choice to do so.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, designers DO make the call on whether a hole is a par 4 or a par 5, though we can’t do something crazy like call the 7th at Barnbougle a par 5.


I just had a discussion with a client last week who wants to leave par off the scorecard.  I’m okay with that but I’m not sure if the debates that ensue will be good or bad for people’s opinion of the course.  I suspect I will get asked to settle the arguments, here.

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom,


It's a fair bet if 8 at Barnbougle and 13 at St Andrews Beach - both par 4s and noticeably harder to make four than at least two and probably three of the par 5s at Royal Melbourne (2,12,15) - were called par 5s there would be way less discussion and criticism.
Both are at least 10- 15 yards longer than 12 and 15 at RM and with much more difficult terrain to play over. (Not that I need to tell you that!)
Neither owner would have cared if both had been par 5s - but good luck convincing the RM members to call 12 and 15 par 4s, going back to a par 70, with the 4th as the last par 5. (Merion)

[Tom_Doak]

That’s one of the reasons I suggested those holes be called par-4’s - so people would pay more attention to them  .  As a par-5 the hole at St Andrew’s Beach would go unnoticed.  Plus I figured that and the 14th were both half par holes so they should balance out.

[Kyle Harris]

Everything is a Par 3 and I’m a damn sh*^%# golfer.

[V. Kmetz]

I just had a discussion with a client last week who wants to leave par off the scorecard.  I’m okay with that but I’m not sure if the debates that ensue will be good or bad for people’s opinion of the course.  I suspect I will get asked to settle the arguments, here.

Hooray for that client...hope there is more like that person.  Whatever controversies might ensue are likely (as controversies can) to be a boon for curiosity, and a net good, for the enterprise...

[Mike_Clayton]

That’s one of the reasons I suggested those holes be called par-4’s - so people would pay more attention to them  .  As a par-5 the hole at St Andrew’s Beach would go unnoticed.  Plus I figured that and the 14th were both half par holes so they should balance out.

That and when 13 is into the wind, 17 has the wind behind. As a pair it works well