Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ed Oden on February 22, 2010, 10:00:21 PM
-
I have read that for most of its history TOC #17 played as a par 5. And NGLA #7 has always been a par 5. So both the original road hole and the original "template" were par 5s. Yet it seems that virtually every road hole since has been designed as a par 4. Why did the road hole template evolve into largely a par 4 concept? Is there any merit to a par 5 design?
Ed
-
When did the original become a par 4? I imagine that evolution is what drove the evolution of the template.
-
I have read that for most of its history TOC #17 played as a par 5. And NGLA #7 has always been a par 5. So both the original road hole and the original "template" were par 5s. Yet it seems that virtually every road hole since has been designed as a par 4. Why did the road hole template evolve into largely a par 4 concept? Is there any merit to a par 5 design?
Ed
When I first saw ANGC #13 it was a 465 yard par 5. Then it was 475 and whatever it is now, still par 5.
I think the 17th at TOC became a par 4 because it just wasn't long enough from the farthest back tee to meet the then-current par 5 minimum length of 475 yards.
Has it made any difference in how the top players play the hole? I doubt it.
-
Ed:
That's a good question, and I've never really figured out the answer myself.
The seventh at National was a par-5, but many of the other Macdonald / Raynor Road holes are not:
Mid Ocean #10 (kind of a reverse Road green) is 400 yards.
Piping Rock #8 was less than 400 yards.
Chicago Golf #2 may have been a par 5 originally, but is now a long 4.
I don't know why, but on at least some of those, Macdonald decided the hole should be a par 4.
-
Haha,
This thread might go into one of those "what is the value of par?" discussions. But to answer your question, I think it's because the template for the road hole calls for a longish approach. Even if it used to be a par 5, most golfers would probably have been hitting theirs 2nd shots around the green trying to negotiate the short left and long right hazards.
Part of the template changing to a par 4 also has to do with golfers being more successful now with those approaches then they used to be. In fact, the road hole as a par 4 might be a better hole because it gives more players the opportunity to try to pull of the difficult approach than a par 5 length hole would.
-
Are there any Road-type greens that come on drivable par 4s? It would be thrilling to take a swipe at a driver and try to fit a ball between the little pot bunker and the long skinny rear one.
-
Are there any Road-type greens that come on drivable par 4s? It would be thrilling to take a swipe at a driver and try to fit a ball between the little pot bunker and the long skinny rear one.
How about #14 at Cape Kidnappers? Closest one I can think of offhand but I am sure there are others.
-
When did the original become a par 4? I imagine that evolution is what drove the evolution of the template.
Matthew, I actually sent Scott Macpherson an IM earlier this evening asking that very question. But I would have thought that, at least in the US, NGLA #7 would have driven the evolution of the template since most were designed by CBM and his proteges.
-
Tom, did you ever give any thought to a par 5 at OM? Is the design concept thwarted if the typical approach (whether on a par 5 or a short par 4) is with a lofted iron?
-
it's all about 'par' and the values that are the current fashion of the day....since its inception.
-
One idea is the structured formality of "par" wasn't there in 1911. It always was a "bogey" five, meaning a 4.5 hole. As par took over for bogey, it neatly slide into long, difficult par-four status. It was more about it's relative length.
In a very early mention of the layout of the Yale course, the fourth--it's Road hole--was labeled as a par-five at 440. But every mention after that, through coverage of opening day, listed it as a par-four. There probably isn't a single "road" hole that didn't played like a par-five on many days in the 19-teens and and twenties.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't think this has much to do with the "value of par". It seems to me that the concept of the road hole changed from one where very few golfers could reach the green in two shots (i.e., TOC #17 and NGLA #7) to one where most golfers could reach the green in two shots (i.e., almost everything after TOC #17 and NGLA #7). So the prevailing approach likely went from a lofted club to a long iron. I assume the designers intended this result, otherwise they would have continued to create longer holes rather than moving toward a shorter template. If so, that is a change in the design concept and not a question of the value of par.
Ed
-
Well, I think The Road Hole changed par for the 1964 Open, the same year there was scuttlebutt about pushing the tee back like it will be for this year's Open. Doing nothing and reducing par was probably the compromise solution as I think funds were tight then. I know that green fees increased that year and the Trust looked for ways to reduce costs.
Perhaps Mac/Raynor could see the writing on the wall and thought that eventually a 460ish par 5 would be seen as birdie hole regardless of how well it was designed. What I find odd is that Mac/Raynor courses are not really known for championship status and one of the standouts to this is NGLA with its Road Hole a par 5. It could just be that mac thought the concept worked better if guys felt they had to have a go BECAUSE it is a par 4. The concept of par was just becoming solidified around this time and it could be a mind games issue.
Ciao
-
The Yale road hole is also a par 5.
What do people think about the par-3 "Road hole" at Bandon... especially now there is another par-4 version at Old Mac?
-
Tom, did you ever give any thought to a par 5 at OM? Is the design concept thwarted if the typical approach (whether on a par 5 or a short par 4) is with a lofted iron?
Ed: Figuring out the length of the Road hole at Old Macdonald was really tough, because of the prevailing wind. If we kept it at 465 yards and played north, it would be out of reach for most visitors most of the summer; if it played downwind at the same length, they'd be hitting wedges in.
In the end, it fit better heading north, as the 11th hole. It will play as a par five for many golfers, but it's still a 4 on the card. We did build an alternate tee up at about 380 yards, which I think will be a long iron or hybrid approach for the typical visitor in the summer.
Macdonald, of course, became acquainted with the Road and the Stationmaster's Garden back in the 1870's. I'm sure the hole was not often reached in two shots back then.
-
Tom, I'm really glad that you didn't give up on a good hole just because it isn't easily categorized as a Par 4 or 5. Did you get any opposition to the idea of a "Par 4" that most golfers wouldn't be able to reach?
I'm afraid that too many golfers, even passionate ones like us, get hung up on the concept of par. If it's a good hole with a lot of interest, it doesn't really matter what we call it. It sounds like the play of 11 at OM will vary quite a bit depending on the wind. This is one of the best things about so-called half-par holes. I played 4 at PacDunes on a day that it would have been unreachable in two for just about any golfer. It was a great hole in those conditions, and the fact that par was nearly unattainable didn't detract from the experience.
-
What do people think about the par-3 "Road hole" at Bandon... especially now there is another par-4 version at Old Mac?
Jaeger,
Which hole are you referring to?
-
I think he must be referring to #12 at Bandon Dunes. The green is sort of like a Road hole, although I always thought of it more as a backwards Eden ... the angle is more like the Road hole, though.
-
Tom
After Eden i.e. 1939
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/RoadHole1939UniofStAndrews.jpg)
Before Eden i. e. 1900
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/TheRoadHole1900UniofstAndrews.jpg)
Looks like TOC to me ;)
Melvyn
-
The Yale road hole is also a par 5.
Jaeger,
Yale's is #4, a par 4.
-
In my opinion, the Road Hole template, particularly the green design is one of the truly great "par skewing" designs golf has ever known.
The original---TOC's #17 was probably "gettable" in two by some even in the old days but it is just such a dangerous shot. When they transitioned it down to a par 4 even that strategic reality held to the extent that a Tiger Woods in his blowout win in 2000 apparently didn't even try to get on the green when he was well within its range in two.
This history also includes the dictate of Bob Jones as the captain of an early Presidents Cup or whatever to his team that none of them should try for the green in two until Bill Hyndman playing cleanup on the last day had to make something happen and Bob Jones told him he could go for the green if he wanted to. He did with something like a 3 iron and he hit a remarkable shot and got a photograph some weeks later from Jones with the inscription; "That was the single best shot I have ever seen."
I believe Macdonald dearly wanted Piping Rock's #8 Road Hole to be quite a bit longer than it originally was which was around 350 yards but that is because the club would not allow him to put a tee in what was then a double polo field. In the 1950s and 1960s we used to hit like a nine iron into that green which was still pretty dicey---a bit more difficult than basically the same shot on Merion's #10. Today there is a tee in the back of that old double polo field (for many years the practice range) and the hole is much longer.
In my opinion, a pretty stock Road Hole green and stock bunker arrangement would make an awesome par 3 design approachable from three basic directions with wonderful challenges and strategies. The only direction I don't think would work so well would be from behind right.
One of the cool things about using the likes of TOC's #17 or NGLA's #7 (both have always been just about the exact same lengths) as a par 5 or par 4 is essentially it costs the club little to nothing to do. That seems to be a concept Pat Mucci cannot get his thimble sized mind around but he always has been a problematic student of mine on the finer points of golf and architecture.
-
In my opinion, a pretty stock Road Hole green and stock bunker arrangement would make an awesome par 3 design approachable from three basic directions with wonderful challenges and strategies. The only direction I don't think would work so well would be from behind right.
The angles, if not the lay of the land, for the approach to a road hole-style green, have a lot in common with the angles of a Redan par 3.
-
"The angles, if not the lay of the land, for the approach to a road hole-style green, have a lot in common with the angles of a Redan par 3."
Matthew:
It's a good point you make there but I would take it a step or two further. Of the Road hole greens and the Redan greens I've seen I think they both get better as the long axis of the green gets further towards a right angle to the approach shot of the golfer. I'd be glad to give you some examples of what I mean if you'd like.
-
Perhaps Mac/Raynor could see the writing on the wall and thought that eventually a 460ish par 5 would be seen as birdie hole regardless of how well it was designed. What I find odd is that Mac/Raynor courses are not really known for championship status and one of the standouts to this is NGLA with its Road Hole a par 5. It could just be that mac thought the concept worked better if guys felt they had to have a go BECAUSE it is a par 4. The concept of par was just becoming solidified around this time and it could be a mind games issue.
Ciao
Sean
I wonder how the other par 5's, long par 4's on the course effected Mac/Raynors views on whether their Road Hole on any given course should be a par 4 or a par 5. I don't know there courses at all but is it possible that they designated it a short par 5 if they felt that fitted the sequence of holes better or that they already had enough long par 4's ?
Niall
-
"The angles, if not the lay of the land, for the approach to a road hole-style green, have a lot in common with the angles of a Redan par 3."
Matthew:
It's a good point you make there but I would take it a step or two further. Of the Road hole greens and the Redan greens I've seen I think they both get better as the long axis of the green gets further towards a right angle to the approach shot of the golfer. I'd be glad to give you some examples of what I mean if you'd like.
Makes sense to me, but I would be interested to see some example of this nonetheless. :)
-
Are there any Road-type greens that come on drivable par 4s? It would be thrilling to take a swipe at a driver and try to fit a ball between the little pot bunker and the long skinny rear one.
Tim,
One of the few things that that idiot savant, TEPaul, and I agree on is that the 7th green at NGLA would make a great par 3 green from any angle.
The same could probably be said of a drivable par 4, except that the trajectory (aerial nature) of the drive would be a dominant factor from some, if not most, of those angles.
-
I believe Macdonald dearly wanted Piping Rock's #8 Road Hole to be quite a bit longer than it originally was which was around 350 yards but that is because the club would not allow him to put a tee in what was then a double polo field. In the 1950s and 1960s we used to hit like a nine iron into that green which was still pretty dicey---a bit more difficult than basically the same shot on Merion's #10. Today there is a tee in the back of that old double polo field (for many years the practice range) and the hole is much longer.
Tom:
Putting the tee in the old polo field at Piping Rock was Pete Dye's idea when he walked Piping Rock in 1985; I did the follow-up work to make it happen, though there was really nothing to build at all. There was no evidence that Macdonald had ever had a tee there, as far as we could find out.
-
"There was no evidence that Macdonald had ever had a tee there, as far as we could find out."
Tom:
There never was a tee on #8 where you and Pete put one. The original back tee was at about 350 and it wasn't far off the 7th green. It was always that way. The story that Macdonald wanted to use the polo fields for golf holes is well known and it's been around Piping Rock as long as I can remember which is back to the early 1950s. Matter of fact, Macdonald mentions it himself in his autobiogrphy when he mentions, 'I had my troubles' (at Piping Rock) and that the first nine was sacrificed to a race track and polo fields.
He doesn't mention the 8th hole tee or distance specifically but it's obvious he was not able to put a tee back there where you and Pete did.
The thing is those polo fields were used by Piping Rock for many years. I remember polo matches on them so that was obviously into the 1950s and perhaps longer. The thing most people don't consider is it wasn't really a problem having that practice range and the polo fields in use at the same time. All they needed to do is put in the goal posts and the sideline barriers and then just remove them after the games. There has also always been a common etiquette in polo between Chukkers when the spectators go out on the field and kick back in and stamp down the turf chewed up by hoofs.
There were two side by side polo fields at Piping and they played the matches with the goal posts in the direction of the 1st and 10th fairways so there really was no problem using that area for polo matches and as a golf practice range basically simultaneously for many years. The only problem with that back tee area on #8 was as long as polo lasted at Piping Rock they just couldn't put a golf tee in the space that was being used for the second polo field out there in that area where the present back 8th tee is now. The other thing most don't realize is the second polo field was further out at the end of the range than most probably now realize. The reason apparently was the first field was out past the present tees on the practice range because the polo fields had to make room for the old race track to come in between the first field and the grandstands for the track.
By the time you and Pete got to Piping Rock polo was no more (and the race track was gone) and so it wasn't a problem putting a tee out there. Actually that area where the back tees now are is an area I spent a whole lot of time as a kid because that's where my father would practice. He had his own balls and we'd just drive out there and park and then either my brother or I would field his practice shots for him with a first baseman's mitt. We could even catch drives on the fly but you definitely had to be sure to catch it in the netting. Get it in the palm and we would definitely be on the ground writhing in pain. My Dad was really could and I recall how little we had to move to field his shots.
-
TomD:
Here's another interesting little item for you to take note of if you haven't already. Next time you're out around the redan pay close attention to that enormous depression to the right of the green and to the right of the higher walk off the 6th tee. That thing has to be an enormous cut operation where Macdonald got all the substantial amount of fill to build up that massive green off original natural grade. He did it very well as that huge depression sort of looks like it's always been there.
I should also mention that an old 1913 photo shows that originally the right side of the 8th fairway basically shared the right side Biarritz bunkers. Expanding that right side of the fairway on #8 on the second half of the hole is something you should seriously consider because that's the way it was originally even though the hole was only 350 yards long. It would be pretty cool as an option for shorter golfers and ladies on a second shot layup because they would then be playing next sort of right up the length of that green but I can definitely see some members screaming it would be too dangerous to reestablish the original right side of the 8th fairway claiming it's too close to the Biarritz.
It might be pretty cool for play on the Biarritz too if someone lost it right of the right bunkers they would then be playing off a tighter lie in the 8th fairway and over those Biarritz bunkers.
Gently melding holes somewhat together as they originally were!! What could be cooler?! Go for it and if someone sues you for it I have a bunch of first class New York lawyers who can defend you not problem at all. ;)
-
The number one tool an architect has is the ego of each and every player...because we all think we can hit a particular shot more often than we actually can.
Re: #17 at TOC - the pressure of hitting a shot you want to hit is a hell of alot less than the pressure of hitting a shot you feel you need to hit...and that's the value of par.
-
The number one tool an architect has is the ego of each and every player...because we all think we can hit a particular shot more often than we actually can.
Re: #17 at TOC - the pressure of hitting a shot you want to hit is a hell of alot less than the pressure of hitting a shot you feel you need to hit...and that's the value of par.
Only if you allow yourself to be sucked into this false logic. Plus, what do all the handicap players think? Thats the problem with buying into par - guys may feel a need to hit a shot when they are clearly not good enough to pull off a simple 8 iron approach from the middle of the fairway more than 5 times out of 10. Anybody who gets sucked into hitting a dodgey shot based on the idea of par, hitting the green in regulation and two putting is not thinking clearly.
Ciao
-
Sean,
You got it backwards...the value of par is revealed by the players ego because at least a couple times per round they will go out on the edge enough to find out. The 25 handicapper finding himself short left of the 17th green at TOC will inevitably try to make a 5 while very likely making a 7 while they could virtually guarantee them selves a 6 if they will just accept it.
-
"You got it backwards...the value of par is revealed by the players ego because at least a couple times per round they will go out on the edge enough to find out. The 25 handicapper finding himself short left of the 17th green at TOC will inevitably try to make a 5 while very likely making a 7 while they could virtually guarantee them selves a 6 if they will just accept it."
Sully:
If that's what you think "par" is or if that is in fact what par is then I would say it's a very good thing, perhaps a wonderful thing because perceived that way it is, in fact, quite tightly married to temptation herself and there isn't much better in architecture than that which encourages and promotes temptation.
As Oscar Wilde famously said: "I can deal with anything except temptation."
But perhaps much more mundanely, "par" and the concept of par began its life in golf essentially as a baseline mechanism for the necessity of handicapping in golf, even if par was the second generation in that vein as "bogey" came first for that reason.
-
Anybody who gets sucked into hitting a dodgey shot based on the idea of par, hitting the green in regulation and two putting is not thinking clearly.
Ciao
I think that's why par is so great! Because it messes with people. The whole point of good golf course architecture is to separate those who think through their shots clearly from the ones who don't. If par can enhance this, then maybe it's not so bad ;D
Also, I think changing the road hole template from a par 5 to a par 4 is just a huge conspiracy by the USGA to get more par 70 courses so they will be eligible for championship play. 8)
-
The number one tool an architect has is the ego of each and every player...because we all think we can hit a particular shot more often than we actually can.
Re: #17 at TOC - the pressure of hitting a shot you want to hit is a hell of alot less than the pressure of hitting a shot you feel you need to hit...and that's the value of par.
Only if you allow yourself to be sucked into this false logic. Plus, what do all the handicap players think? Thats the problem with buying into par - guys may feel a need to hit a shot when they are clearly not good enough to pull off a simple 8 iron approach from the middle of the fairway more than 5 times out of 10. Anybody who gets sucked into hitting a dodgey shot based on the idea of par, hitting the green in regulation and two putting is not thinking clearly.
Ciao
I think this is what makes the Road Hole so compelling today. I find it amazing how even professionalis "do not think clearly" and let the idea of par get to their head on the Road Hole and take risky shots. But can a golf course architect consider building such a hole today? A long difficult par 4 with no obvious avenue to the green? That would be considered a terrible hole by most of us. We'd want to see a larger green and an easier way to run it up. Yet the Road Hole plays with the mind the way few others do.
-
The number one tool an architect has is the ego of each and every player...because we all think we can hit a particular shot more often than we actually can.
Re: #17 at TOC - the pressure of hitting a shot you want to hit is a hell of alot less than the pressure of hitting a shot you feel you need to hit...and that's the value of par.
Only if you allow yourself to be sucked into this false logic. Plus, what do all the handicap players think? Thats the problem with buying into par - guys may feel a need to hit a shot when they are clearly not good enough to pull off a simple 8 iron approach from the middle of the fairway more than 5 times out of 10. Anybody who gets sucked into hitting a dodgey shot based on the idea of par, hitting the green in regulation and two putting is not thinking clearly.
Ciao
I think this is what makes the Road Hole so compelling today. I find it amazing how even professionalis "do not think clearly" and let the idea of par get to their head on the Road Hole and take risky shots. But can a golf course architect consider building such a hole today? A long difficult par 4 with no obvious avenue to the green? That would be considered a terrible hole by most of us. We'd want to see a larger green and an easier way to run it up. Yet the Road Hole plays with the mind the way few others do.
Richard
I don't believe pros get sucked in by par. They get sucked in by what they need to do to compete well. From this PoV, it isn't getting sucked in at all because these guys have a good pulse of what it takes to win, get a top 10, make the cut, whatever. Lets face it, if a pro today is using par as a standard he will not do very well. The best players nearly always know when to attack and when to ease off and regroup. Par is only a way to keep an easy score among a large field. If it gets into anybody's head or has a value, it is only down to an individual's decision to make it so as "par" isn't really a concept which exists on its own.
Now, since par is really a way to keep an easy score for a large field, what the heck is a rank and file handicapper doing with it in the back of his mind? I suggest that if he does have par in mind, his course management skills are next to zero. No, I think par is totally over-emphasized both in terms of its effect on architecture and as a standard, but it isn't surprising. For my part, I can't do anything about architects, but there is no way I ever get sucked in by some arbitrary number (and getting more and more arbitrary all the time) written a piece of paper. Its that sort of logic which gets people to say that as a par 5 its a great hole, but as a par 4 it is weak - when the only difference between the two is the number on a piece paper. That sort of thinking isn't for me and that, in a nutshell, is what worrying about par results in.
Ciao
-
The number one tool an architect has is the ego of each and every player...because we all think we can hit a particular shot more often than we actually can.
Re: #17 at TOC - the pressure of hitting a shot you want to hit is a hell of alot less than the pressure of hitting a shot you feel you need to hit...and that's the value of par.
Only if you allow yourself to be sucked into this false logic. Plus, what do all the handicap players think? Thats the problem with buying into par - guys may feel a need to hit a shot when they are clearly not good enough to pull off a simple 8 iron approach from the middle of the fairway more than 5 times out of 10. Anybody who gets sucked into hitting a dodgey shot based on the idea of par, hitting the green in regulation and two putting is not thinking clearly.
Ciao
I think this is what makes the Road Hole so compelling today. I find it amazing how even professionalis "do not think clearly" and let the idea of par get to their head on the Road Hole and take risky shots. But can a golf course architect consider building such a hole today? A long difficult par 4 with no obvious avenue to the green? That would be considered a terrible hole by most of us. We'd want to see a larger green and an easier way to run it up. Yet the Road Hole plays with the mind the way few others do.
Richard
I don't believe pros get sucked in by par. They get sucked in by what they need to do to compete well. From this PoV, it isn't getting sucked in at all because these guys have a good pulse of what it takes to win, get a top 10, make the cut, whatever. Lets face it, if a pro today is using par as a standard he will not do very well. The best players nearly always know when to attack and when to ease off and regroup. Par is only a way to keep an easy score among a large field. If it gets into anybody's head or has a value, it is only down to an individual's decision to make it so as "par" isn't really a concept which exists on its own.
Now, since par is really a way to keep an easy score for a large field, what the heck is a rank and file handicapper doing with it in the back of his mind? I suggest that if he does have par in mind, his course management skills are next to zero. No, I think par is totally over-emphasized both in terms of its effect on architecture and as a standard, but it isn't surprising. For my part, I can't do anything about architects, but there is no way I ever get sucked in by some arbitrary number (and getting more and more arbitrary all the time) written a piece of paper. Its that sort of logic which gets people to say that as a par 5 its a great hole, but as a par 4 it is weak - when the only difference between the two is the number on a piece paper. That sort of thinking isn't for me and that, in a nutshell, is what worrying about par results in.
Ciao
I agree totally, except for the pros and the Road Hole. There have been truly many bad decisions made there, usually on the approach but also off the tee . And while this is speculation, in my experience (watching on TV admittedly) Americans are more prone to this than British or European professionals. I still remember Jack Nicklaus in the commentary box being apoplectic whem John Daly used a driver (on either the 4th round, or the playoff, can't remember which). He got away with it, but Nicklaus clearly thought it was a terrible decision, and I think the par does come into it. I know Daly is uniquely aggressive but anyone who has watched the Open at St Andrews have seen countless pros try to take it on, usually unsuccessfully, and a few take the wise more cautious approach. And the difference between the two is far more stark than it is on your average par 5. For one thing, it is not really based on strength but almost entirely on judgement (all the pros can reach the green easily after all). Pros commonly back off a hole when they can still get on "in regulationi" but they seldom do when it means they have to make an up and down for par. The cases where they do (Bobby Locke at Portrush's Calamity and, apparently Bob Jones at the Road Hole, for example, and didn't somebody famous always bail at 11 at Augusta?) are so rare that they are famous. Of course it is also also rare because there are so few par 4s or par 3s designed today where missing the green in regulatioin might in some cases be the best option. When the situation does arise, it still does many professionals' heads in. To use your language, they become uncertain about when to attack.
-
We've been through this whole par subject in years past on other threads in the back pages.
One idea of mine was to do away with hole par and just go with a whole course par. If an expert player of today like a good tour pro was used as a barometer a whole course par would probably be something like a 68.
If courses had only whole course par and no hole par then it seems like players would be freed up to just play any course as good and low as they felt appropriate in an over-all risk/reward equation throughout.
With only a whole course par and no hole pars architects would also be freer to design more holes in mid-ranges like 100 yards or 290 yds or 520 yds or 690 yds;
I think this would work fine in match play too. Only real problem with it is it would totally fail in stroke play in the context of leaderboards and spectator (TV) information etc---eg it would be very hard for golfers and spectators to know who was doing what in a field context but what the hell I bet in the old days stroke play competitors rarely if ever knew what they were doing in relation to the rest of the field. With that lack of information they were obviously reduced to just guessing and doing their very best.
I think it was also one of the great old golf and architecture philosophers like John Low who maintained golf was just not a sport that was conducive to spectators.
Kyle Harris seems to have developed an idea for a numerical application albeit a physcological one he calls "Resistance to 3." And don't forget that sort of old fashioned concept that even I remember that a number of handicap players used that they referred to as "Over or under 5s."
-
TEPaul,
If you do away with par, shouldn't you do away with multiple tees and have every golfer play from the same location, as was the case originally ?
-
I don't believe pros get sucked in by par. They get sucked in by what they need to do to compete well. From this PoV, it isn't getting sucked in at all because these guys have a good pulse of what it takes to win, get a top 10, make the cut, whatever. Lets face it, if a pro today is using par as a standard he will not do very well. The best players nearly always know when to attack and when to ease off and regroup. Par is only a way to keep an easy score among a large field. If it gets into anybody's head or has a value, it is only down to an individual's decision to make it so as "par" isn't really a concept which exists on its own.
Ciao
Sean,
I think par is used as a relative barometer, and is incredibly useful in that way. I certainly have no problem with anyone who ignores it (the concept of par) all together, but they are and will continue to be in the great minority. The good players think of par in terms of certain holes offering a chance to pick up a stroke on the course and others offering a chance to survive the challenge. In either event, making the goal score on the hole (birdie on an easy hole or par on a hard one) results in a certain satisfaction just like missing that score results in disappointment.
This use of relative success works for higher handicappers as well. Why take away the joy of two or three PARS for the guy that shoots 96?
-
I tend to agree with TEP here. I think the par # on the card is not important, they are all easy 5's, hard 4's, and that what makes them so cool. I can't prove it, but I have come to believe that Macdonald liked the idea of "blending" par with this hole.
I hate giving shots on Road Hole. The higher handicapper usually has no illusions of reaching it in two, so he wisely plays short of all the trouble, planning to hit a wedge on and putt for a 4 or make a safe 5. (I think higher handicaps don't take this approach on "normal" long par 4's.) And the lower hdcp is taking on all the challenges that the hole presents to get it on in two. I really wonder if lower handicaps wouldn't score better over the course of a season if they played it like an easy par 5...avoiding big numbers and making a good precentage of up and down pars.
-
A prudent reason that "Road Hole" like holes transitioned from par 5's to par 4's is that they didn't have the real estate to extend the tees back to maintain their shot values when golfer distance was increasing.
-
Bill Brightly:
Regarding what you say in your post #40, I think you are exactly right about the Road Hole design, particularly that green design. Frankly given some pin positions it's a very hard approach shot for even a wedge or a pitch. It is obviously very significant to understand both that and why that is so. We need to appreciate that even Tiger Woods did not really try to hit that green surface in two during his blowout win in the 2000 Open. I think his pre-tourney strategy was that if he played that hole in one over par or even two over par for the tournament he would be doing just fine against the field.
-
"I think par is used as a relative barometer, and is incredibly useful in that way. I certainly have no problem with anyone who ignores it (the concept of par) all together, but they are and will continue to be in the great minority. The good players think of par in terms of certain holes offering a chance to pick up a stroke on the course and others offering a chance to survive the challenge. In either event, making the goal score on the hole (birdie on an easy hole or par on a hard one) results in a certain satisfaction just like missing that score results in disappointment."
Sully:
Even though that's not exactly what you said above, I doubt you would possibly deny that tournament players of various levels who play a bunch of tournament stroke play golf at scratch really do use course par as a real working barometer throughout rounds and tournaments.
I mean I always pretty much knew within just a shot or two what I needed to do to qualify for something, to make cuts, to get into contention or to even try to win something, even though the last item was harder and more complicated for various reasons such as me ;). I knew very well who I was competing against in that kind of "field" context and I knew what some of them would invariably do. It never changed frankly----it was remarkably predictable and for that reason alone it was a very useful barometer. In the level I played on par was a very useful barometer, not hole par but course par. Of course with scratch better ball you just take it down 5-6 shots and such.
In something like a club championship I figured if I could shoot par I would probably win over 95% of the time and over the years it worked out that way.
Of course for spooky accurate stroke play predictions about what anyone needed to do to win or make cuts or whatever there was always Chet Walsh who I came to call the Human IBM machine! Chet won the A.J. Drexel Paul tournament a few years ago (its six rounds of match play in three days) and when we were doing the handicapping I told the committee that Chet was probably getting one shot too many. As he was coming up the 18th hole in the finals I mentioned that to him and he told me as soon as he saw his handicap he just knew he had a very good shot at winning the tournament.
-
"I think par is used as a relative barometer, and is incredibly useful in that way. I certainly have no problem with anyone who ignores it (the concept of par) all together, but they are and will continue to be in the great minority. The good players think of par in terms of certain holes offering a chance to pick up a stroke on the course and others offering a chance to survive the challenge. In either event, making the goal score on the hole (birdie on an easy hole or par on a hard one) results in a certain satisfaction just like missing that score results in disappointment."
Sully:
Even though that's not exactly what you said above, I doubt you would possibly deny that tournament players of various levels who play a bunch of tournament stroke play golf at scratch really do use course par as a real working barometer throughout rounds and tournaments.
I mean I always pretty much knew within just a shot or two what I needed to do to qualify for something, to make cuts, to get into contention or to even try to win something, even though the last item was harder and more complicated for various reasons such as me ;). I knew very well who I was competing against in that kind of "field" context and I knew what some of them would invariably do. It never changed frankly----it was remarkably predictable and for that reason alone it was a very useful barometer. In the level I played on par was a very useful barometer, not hole par but course par. Of course with scratch better ball you just take it down 5-6 shots and such.
In something like a club championship I figured if I could shoot par I would probably win over 95% of the time and over the years it worked out that way.
Of course for spooky accurate stroke play predictions about what anyone needed to do to win or make cuts or whatever there was always Chet Walsh who I came to call the Human IBM machine! Chet won the A.J. Drexel Paul tournament a few years ago (its six rounds of match play in three days) and when we were doing the handicapping I told the committee that Chet was probably getting one shot too many. As he was coming up the 18th hole in the finals I mentioned that to him and he told me as soon as he saw his handicap he just knew he had a very good shot at winning the tournament.
Tom
Yes, I broadly agree with you. Other than for scoring purposes, I think par does a decent job of a starting place on what sort of 18 hole scores one needs to qualify, top 10, win etc. Still, that target number is shifted as circumstances change. One of the big problems with par as a barometer of playing quality is its static nature despite what the weather or competitors are doing. Of course, all of this is very much medal play thinking. IMO, the soul of the game rests with matchplay.
Ciao
-
When did the original become a par 4? I imagine that evolution is what drove the evolution of the template.
Matthew, I actually sent Scott Macpherson an IM earlier this evening asking that very question. But I would have thought that, at least in the US, NGLA #7 would have driven the evolution of the template since most were designed by CBM and his proteges.
Ed,
Sorry in taking so long to get back to you, but the 17th was played for the first time as a par 4 in the 1964 Open Championship, and this made the Par of the course 72 (prior to this it was 73). The hole was measured at 453 yards for the '64 Open, and lengthened to 466 for the following Open at St Andrews in 1970. 466 yards is the second longest length the 17th hole has ever been measured at. It was 467y in 1927 & 1933. The length for the hole for the 2010 Open has not yet been announced, but I will guess it will be about 490 yards... and still a par 4.
Regards,
Scott
-
Scott,
Thanks for the info.
On courses where the "Road Hole" can't be lengthened, changing par makes sense in light of today's distances.
But, where length can be added at the tee end, clubs should try to preserve the architectural aspects of the hole, such as the hotel/shed equivalents and the process of interfacing with them off the tee.
# 7 at NGLA is a perfect example.
There, additional tee length can be added, tee length that would restore the interfacing of the "hotel/shed" bunker field equivalent with the golfer's tee shot, which is semi-blind. It would also alter and make positioning the second shot even more important in terms of determining the angle of attack into that green on the third shot.
Where there's no real estate, convert to a par 4, where there is real estate, lengthen the hole to preservet the architectural and playiing values of the hole.
-
Is the green complex just too difficult to think it would be an interesting challenge for the 10 handicap or so player to be compelled to approach it with a long shot to make his par than a short shot as a par 5?
In other words, the concept of risk reward changes dramatically based on your goals and expectations. If you feel the need to make a 4, are you not more compelled to try to hit the green with a long second than if you only wish to make a 4 in hopes of picking up a stroke on the field?
-
Thanks Scott! So both TOC #17 and NGLA #7 continued to play as par 5s long after the road hole template trended toward a par 4. Feel free to rehash the value of par thing if you like. But my intent in starting this thread had nothing to do with the value of par. Rather, the prevailing concept of how a road hole should be designed and played changed at some point. I mean, TOC #17 and NGLA #7 were likely conceived as 3 shot holes for all but the very finest players, with the final approach shot being a relatively short one. Then, all of a sudden, the original model is scrapped for one where the approach shot is likely a long one for most players. What happened at TOC or NGLA at a later time seems irrelevant other than to prove that they were not the spark for the shift in concept since they remained as 3 shot holes long after other designs made the switch. My point is that after NGLA it looks like CBM, Raynor, etc. quickly came to the conclusion that the template worked better under a different model.
-
Is the green complex just too difficult to think it would be an interesting challenge for the 10 handicap or so player to be compelled to approach it with a long shot to make his par than a short shot as a par 5?
Jim, for once, you've hit on a critical and valid aspect, the approach for the mid to higher handicap.
While the higher handicap isn't supposed to hit a long par 4 in regulation, that is within the realm of possibility for the 10 handicapper.
The problem is, the ramifications if that 10 handicapper misses the green.
Recovery can be very, very, very difficult, far beyond the ability of a 10 handicapper to up & down it.
The 7th green at NGLA remains a challenge from 5 to 100 yards.
From 200 or more yards it's nearly impossible for a 10 handicapper
In other words, the concept of risk reward changes dramatically based on your goals and expectations. If you feel the need to make a 4, are you not more compelled to try to hit the green with a long second than if you only wish to make a 4 in hopes of picking up a stroke on the field?
It's doubtful that a 10 handicap feels that he'll pick up a stroke on the field by making a 4 on that hole, as a par 4.
10 handicaps don't think that way and they're not competing against +2 handicaps.
As a par 4, it's a bogey hole or worse for a 10 handicap, thus, I think they'd approach it in a defensive mode, whereas, as a par 5, a birdie would be a reasonable goal with a good up & down. The critical factor for a higher handicap, is to avoid a huge number at that green, and off the drive.
It's not unheard of for a round to be ruined by an errant shot ending up in the road hole bunker, hotel bunker or flanking rear bunker.