Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Pete Lavallee on February 17, 2017, 12:48:38 PM
-
Hole #1 at Riviera is 503 yards from a very elevated tee. Hole #2 is listed at 471 yards. Captain Thomas intended both to be par 5's. The second has been a par 4 for the Pros for as long as I can remember. Watching the early action yesterday #2 was playing much tougher than #1. I am a little puzzled as to why #1 is still considered a par 5? Pros are hitting 7-5 iron in and many par 4's are now over 500 yards for Touring Professionals. Why the insistence on labeling it a par 5 when everyone in the field easily reaches it in 2 shots?
-
Because it's really a 2 hole par 9 and they don't want the front 9 to not have a par 5.
Plus eagles are cool and fans want to see eagles!
-
Isn't it because the narrow green doesn't easily accept longer irons?
-
What difference does it make? It's still the same hole on the ground.
I suspect they call it a par 5, because the majority of the membership cannot hit the green in two shots.
-
I suspect they call it a par 5, because the majority of the membership cannot hit the green in two shots.
By that criterion, any hole over 450 yards from the back tees would be a par 5.
-
Hole #2 is now officially listed as a par 4 at 470 yards, which I doubt many members can't reach in two either?
Watching play yesterday both Adam Scott and Justin Rose stuck their second shots inside of 10 feet. Shouldn't a par 5 at least require a long iron or wood to reach in two? I realize the definition of a par 5 has blurred since the Pro V1 came out but still this is sort of ridiculous. With the elevation of the tee shot the hole effectively plays around 470 yards; 3 wood (can't hit driver or you'll go in the ditch) then 7 iron. I would think the Club would welcome a score that is 4 shots higher at the end of the tournament. What am I missing???
-
I agree with Alex and Tom.
-
.... I am a little puzzled as to why #1 is still considered a par 5? Pros are hitting 7-5 iron in and many par 4's are now over 500 yards for Touring Professionals. Why the insistence on labeling it a par 5 when everyone in the field easily reaches it in 2 shots?
PL, the primary answer is that you're presuming a "label" ought to be granted on the basis of the 1% of rounds played by touring professionals, 140 of the best 300 players in the world. For the other 99% and as pertains Riviera's greatness as an architectural venue, the "label" of Par 5 makes traditional sense.
The bigger reason for me, with regards to this "incongruity" you sense, is that it is yet another place where the individual hole par has become anachronistic, and is dampening potentially refreshing architectural answer to what the paradigms of good sport are. If #s 1 & 2 HAD NO "Par," we could just let the field (pro or am) sort it out themselves...we all know what we want, and what we are capable of at the end of the day and we know an excellent standard of play is a 72 (for the pros, lower)... I think we can sort it out as to what a good, plain, or poor score is on this 503 hole as well as that 103 yard hole... and a 303 yard hole (like #10) without one of three "par" numbers (3, 4 & 5) to tell or direct us to do. Especially true when 90% of the 99% are playing matches, and not medal/stroke competitions (not that this matters so much to the overall thesis)...
cheers
vk
-
Tell Mike Davis par doesn't matter!
I completely agree that it should remain a par 5 for the members. But a par 5 is like pornography, you know one when you see it; this Sir is not a par 5 for those players this weekend! Trust me, every Tour Pro who walks away with a 5 there this weekend will feel like he has given a shot up to the field; shouldn't the official par reflect this? What's wrong with calling Riviera a par 70 for Professionals?
-
I suspect they call it a par 5, because the majority of the membership cannot hit the green in two shots.
By that criterion, any hole over 450 yards from the back tees would be a par 5.
Because the moment they call it a par 4 they have build 7 more sets of tees so everyome regardless of ability, physical condition, skill, age, handicap, or sex (both at birth and later) should have the ability to hit the green in regulation.
ick....
-
Don't forget that every member wants their guests to have the thrill of teeing off in front of the dining room windows. It would be a shame to rob that from anyone. Also the second hole is so damn hard that having a start of two difficult par 4's would rob the course of some of its charm.
-
...Also the second hole is so damn hard that having a start of two difficult par 4's would rob the course of some of its charm.
This strikes me as a very good answer, and the only one that addresses Pete's actual question. Most of you seemed to ignore the fact that it was Pete asking the question and not some newbie who needed the benefit of a gca primer/education...
-
When I played the course back in the 80's a member pointed out a nonexistent tee on #2 that was about 75 yds behind the tee that made it a true par 5. Could they still bring this tee back for the pros? I seem to remember talk of doing this for the PGA there. Also the member showed me an elevated tee on #5 that was almost in a backyard that lengthened the hole.
-
Easy Peasy.
Because it requires a greater than wedge approach for the pros and isn't drivable.
JAKAB also is spot on.
-
I think it should be a par 4 for pros and a par 70. I saw some guys hitting 8 iron in for their second shots.
I'm interested to see if the USGA plays the 1st as a par 4 or 5 for the US Amateur this year.
In my opinion, no matter how much risk a player takes on with the drive or how well executed the shot is, a player should never have less than a 3-4 iron into the green for a second shot on a par 5. Particularly for tour courses since so few par 4s test the players long irons game nowadays. It's just not a par 5 when a lot of players have a mid/short iron in for a second shot[size=78%]. [/size]
-
Pete is asking why it isn't a par 4 for the pros, not the every day golfer. I don't think it is a big deal to call a hole a par 4 for the tournament since they are hitting 7 irons into the green.
-
Threads like this remind me of when I played Old Mac with my dad for the first time. We were playing #4 into the winter wind. My dad looked over at me wondering why it was listed as a par 4. I looked back at him and postulated that Mr. Doak probably intended it to play as a par 5 into the winter wind and as a par 4 with the summer wind.
Low score wins no matter what "par" is.
-
When I played the course back in the 80's a member pointed out a nonexistent tee on #2 that was about 75 yds behind the tee that made it a true par 5. Could they still bring this tee back for the pros? I seem to remember talk of doing this for the PGA there. Also the member showed me an elevated tee on #5 that was almost in a backyard that lengthened the hole.
My copy of 100 Greatest Courses And Then Some has #2 listed as a 530 yard par five. I believe this book was first published around 1983-84. But I don't ever remember it being one, certainly not in the years since the '83 PGA.
Abandoned tee, perhaps?
-
When I played the course back in the 80's a member pointed out a nonexistent tee on #2 that was about 75 yds behind the tee that made it a true par 5. Could they still bring this tee back for the pros? I seem to remember talk of doing this for the PGA there. Also the member showed me an elevated tee on #5 that was almost in a backyard that lengthened the hole.
My copy of 100 Greatest Courses And Then Some has #2 listed as a 530 yard par five. I believe this book was first published around 1983-84. But I don't ever remember it being one, certainly not in the years since the '83 PGA.
Abandoned tee, perhaps?
Probably used as a tee way back on 12?
-
I think it should be a par 4 for pros and a par 70. I saw some guys hitting 8 iron in for their second shots.
I'm interested to see if the USGA plays the 1st as a par 4 or 5 for the US Amateur this year.
In my opinion, no matter how much risk a player takes on with the drive or how well executed the shot is, a player should never have less than a 3-4 iron into the green for a second shot on a par 5. Particularly for tour courses since so few par 4s test the players long irons game nowadays. It's just not a par 5 when a lot of players have a mid/short iron in for a second shot[size=78%]. [/size]
Why would it matter what par is during a match play event?
-
I think it should be a par 4 for pros and a par 70. I saw some guys hitting 8 iron in for their second shots.
I'm interested to see if the USGA plays the 1st as a par 4 or 5 for the US Amateur this year.
In my opinion, no matter how much risk a player takes on with the drive or how well executed the shot is, a player should never have less than a 3-4 iron into the green for a second shot on a par 5. Particularly for tour courses since so few par 4s test the players long irons game nowadays. It's just not a par 5 when a lot of players have a mid/short iron in for a second shot[size=78%]. [/size]
Why would it matter what par is during a match play event?
It really doesn't matter but the USGA has turned par 5s into par 4s in match play events, just like stroke play events. For the US Amateur Four Ball at Winged Foot East holes 2 and 8 are par 5s for members and were par 4s for the championship.
Based on the link below, it looks like Riviera will be par 70 for the US Amaetur so I'm guessing 1 will be a par 4 for the championship.
http://www.usga.org/championships/2017/2017-u-s--amateur-fast-facts.html
For some reason I had trouble with this link in Chrome but it worked in Firefox
-
The par of a hole is completely irrelevant in matchplay games.
The par of a hole is also completely irrelevant in medal or strokeplay competitions, when all that matters is the final tally of shots taken. (less handicap if appropriate.) All that the concept of par gives us is a running indication of how each member of the field in a pro tournament is doing in relation to others while out on the course.
Where the par of each hole is of relevance is in Stableford or bogey competitions, which form a large part of club play here in the UK at least.
I am unaware of Riviera members' predilection or otherwise for Stableford competitions, but that is hardly of concern when the pro tour comes to town.
So I would say that it really doesn't matter what par you give #1 at Riviera...
-
If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?
-
No it would not...good call!
-
If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?
Discussion over.
-
For you Thomas students: are those "discovered" back tees on 2 and 5 part of his lifetime?
Separately I was unhappy with the coverage on #4 yesterday as though these guys think a par-3 should allow you to finish on the green. And then we get two chips to 6" and a hole out by Segio. I spent a morning behind that tree years ago and wondered if these guy could play a wooden shafted driver over the right fairway bunker and hook it on the green.
Anthony
-
Where the par of each hole is of relevance is in Stableford or bogey competitions, which form a large part of club play here in the UK at least.
Duncan,
if you called all the holes on a course par 5s it would have no real effect on the results of a stableford competition results sheet other than to push up the number of points for each player.
Jon
-
Anyone know the average score on #1 during the tournament this year? How about the last 10 or 20 years?
-
Duncan,
if you called all the holes on a course par 5s it would have no real effect on the results of a stableford competition results sheet other than to push up the number of points for each player.
Jon
Which rather confirms my assertion that par is meaningless.
Incidentally, I recently turned up an old handbook from Reddish Vale from 1932. Below is the description of the 520 yard Par 5 7th hole, which remains exactly the same to this day.
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg157/dantovey/7th%20Hole_zpsejjrpsfz.jpg) (http://s247.photobucket.com/user/dantovey/media/7th%20Hole_zpsejjrpsfz.jpg.html)
It is very interesting that reaching the green in two was considered a possibility 85 years ago. Despite the advances in ball and club technology since then it is a feat rarely accomplished even today.
-
Anyone know the average score on #1 during the tournament this year? How about the last 10 or 20 years?
At the moment, it is playing to a 4.3 for the week. Don't know before cut/after cut numbers. Don't know past years.
EDIT: Finished at 4.271 for the week
-
In 2012, #1 at Riviera was the 10th easiest par 5 the pro's played all year. Ave. score was 4.373. Easiest that year was #1 at the Blue Monster, with a 4.16 average.
Those numbers come from a PGA Tour stats page, that shows the 10 easiest and hardest par 3s, 4s and 5s for 2012. They played the US Open that year at Olympic: it had 1 one of the 10 hardest par 3s, 4 of the 10 hardest par 4s, and the hardest par 5.
Overall, the majors had 8 of the 10 toughest par 4s, and 15 of the 30 toughest par 3s, 4s and 5s. i.e. half. The majors didn't have even one of the easiest holes.
You can see all these stats at http://www.pgatour.com/news/2012/11/24/stats-easy-tough-holes.html
-
As one who could care less about the par of a hole, I still believe par should be the number expert players (and they don't get anymore expert than touring pros) think they should achieve in normal weather conditions. Par should have nothing at all to do with membership/handicap play. Because handicap players have for some crazy reason hijacked "par", the concept of par has been greatly watered down. We need to reintroduce bogey score and let the pros reclaim par. Maybe then courses will get a proper par number in the 60s which will then stop the madness of lengthening courses.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Surely the par of a hole is meant to be the number of strokes the scratch player should be expected to take - not the "expert".
Expert players - top touring pro's - are generally reckoned to play to handicaps of between +7 and +10. There is a huge gulf between the scratch player, of whom most clubs have one or two, and the expert player, virtually all of whom are professionals.
I have a mate who plays off +4. He is close to being an expert player. He views all par 5s as holes where he expects to get a birdie. A par to him is a dropped shot.
Even the scratch player will generally look at par 5s as holes where he should get a lot of birdies to make up for the inevitable occasional bogey at long tough par 4s.
One of the beefs I have with the concept of par for a hole is that it seems to be determined purely as a function of distance. I know several long par 4s with tricky approaches on which it is a lot more difficult even for the scratch player to get down in five shots than on some straightforward par 5s. IMO the club should be able to give whatever figure of par to a hole that it considers appropriate. Distance should be but one factor.
Maybe you're right about club courses being assessed for "bogey" rather than "par". It would resolve the anomalies of which I speak.
-
Duncan
Perhaps you are right, but I always thought "expert" players was the target for par. Of course, back in the day an expert player was about scratch! To me, if one is a pro he is an expert...its just that some experts are better than others.
+7 to +10 seems very high to me for touring pros. Think of the best scoring average on any given year for the touring pros....69ish is usually the Vardon Trophy winner...so I make it +6ish for the best touring pros. Regardless, par should be sub 70 for nearly all courses pros play and handicap players should not think in terms of par because that was not a concept developed for them. Bifurcation started long ago, its just that golfers failed to recognize it.
Ciao
-
Duncan,
spot on about the par being for scratch players.
It would be better if they could use a comparison to the player with the lowest score at that point IMO. Something like the leader in the clubhouse that is sometimes referred to. For the final two rounds of a tournament it would be similar to the second run in a skiing slalom race.
Jon
-
+7 to +10 seems very high to me for touring pros. Think of the best scoring average on any given year for the touring pros....69ish is usually the Vardon Trophy winner...so I make it +6ish for the best touring pros.
But UK club handicaps are assessed in relation to the SSS of the course, not the total par. The courses the pros play would have an SSS of maybe 4 or 5 shots greater than par, instead of the maximum 1 or 2 at club courses.
Put a touring pro at an average members club for a year and his handicap would come out at between +7 and +10
If we are to attempt to compare like with like this is how we must look at it. These guys are good!
-
Duncan
Handicap/stroke only relates to handicap play. For experts its about stroke average and placement in tournaments...so par is the measurement. Hence the reason I say golf was bifurcated long ago.
Ciao
-
We're going round in circles.
If par is the measure of the scratch player, and the experts are many shots per round better than that, then surely par is irrelevant for the pros.
I would suggest that par is actually more relevant for club golfers than pros. It is normally the measure of the best players at their club.
I agree that the game has bifurcated. The pros left par behind many years ago. It is for the pros that the idea of par should be abandoned, not the rest of us.
-
Because it's really a 2 hole par 9
Ian Baker Finch made the same comment yesterday. Is he a GCA lurker?
-
When I played the course back in the 80's a member pointed out a nonexistent tee on #2 that was about 75 yds behind the tee that made it a true par 5. Could they still bring this tee back for the pros? I seem to remember talk of doing this for the PGA there. Also the member showed me an elevated tee on #5 that was almost in a backyard that lengthened the hole.
The "long" tee for the second now lies between the longest tee and the fairway on hole 12. I have played from the elevated tee on 5 - it adds a new dimension to the hole but is awkward to get to.
-
If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?
Discussion over.
Uh, no. I thought par didn't matter? ;D
But more notably — last year at the Masters, #13 played to a 4.73 average and #15 played to 4.91, both with big chances for disaster. This year #1 at Riviera played to 4.27, with virtually no chance of disaster. They're not comparable.
I'm curious how #2 would be as a par-5 with a back tee around 550. It looks like the pro's could safely carry the barranca without issue. I haven't played Riviera. What would that start be like — #1 as a 500 yard par-4, and #2 as a 550 par-5?
-
Last year I started keeping my score off of 4's and it freed me up especially at my home course. A 2 or 3 feels really good especially when it's a eagle for me but a birdie for you. And it seems to eliminate 6s or at least make me work to avoid them.
-
If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?
Discussion over.
Uh, no. I thought par didn't matter? ;D
But more notably — last year at the Masters, #13 played to a 4.73 average and #15 played to 4.91, both with big chances for disaster. This year #1 at Riviera played to 4.27, with virtually no chance of disaster. They're not comparable.
I'm curious how #2 would be as a par-5 with a back tee around 550. It looks like the pro's could safely carry the barranca without issue. I haven't played Riviera. What would that start be like — #1 as a 500 yard par-4, and #2 as a 550 par-5?
If Riviera hosts a future major (U.S. Open) I guarantee you this would be the set up.
-
If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?
Discussion over.
Uh, no. I thought par didn't matter? ;D
But more notably — last year at the Masters, #13 played to a 4.73 average and #15 played to 4.91, both with big chances for disaster. This year #1 at Riviera played to 4.27, with virtually no chance of disaster. They're not comparable.
I'm curious how #2 would be as a par-5 with a back tee around 550. It looks like the pro's could safely carry the barranca without issue. I haven't played Riviera. What would that start be like — #1 as a 500 yard par-4, and #2 as a 550 par-5?
If Riviera hosts a future major (U.S. Open) I guarantee you this would be the set up.
Knowing the USGA's goal for even par, they would leave 2 as a hard 4 and say par is 70 like what it appears will happen for the US Am.
-
Agreed, the USGA will certainly call #1 a par 4 for the US Am. There certainly was a precedent, as in the 80's #2 was a par 5 on the card for members but a par 4 for the Tournament. Just a little puzzled at the motivation of the club to maintain that a hole that averages 4.27 should be called a par 5? I completely agree with Matt that there just isn't enough risk to call it a par 5 for PGA Tour Pros.
-
I think many of you are losing site that this course is located in Hollywood. Riviera is the course for the entertainment industry. A land of make believe so to speak. Not all things are what they seem and those that bring a smile are last to die. Come on people, let the members make a birdie now and then on a beautiful early morning with the smell of eucalyptus in the air. Making the first a par 5 even for just a week, when the course is at the height of its exposure, is no less than pulling back the curtain on a dream.
-
Last year I started keeping my score off of 4's and it freed me up especially at my home course. A 2 or 3 feels really good especially when it's a eagle for me but a birdie for you. And it seems to eliminate 6s or at least make me work to avoid them.
Truly, MB - isn't that a fun and better way to enjoy and excel at one's golf?
Since I've thought that way for the last decade or so I really do stay away from the 6+ much more than I did when I was a lower handicap (4.5 -8.0). My rise in handicap (9 - 12 now) is completely attributable to lack of practice and deteriorating abilities...I suspect it would be closer to 14-15, if I didn't adopt this approach. With my horrific lack of play and aging over the last 5 years, I'd be struggling to break 90 every time; instead I've have whipped out some 83s and 84s from no play whatsoever.
And if I ever do recover practiced abilities, I know I'll be a much better golfer.
cheers
vk
-
Maybe they ordered too many scorecards!
Seriously, I've always thought 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, and 18 are all tough par 4s.
-
If they call #1 a par 4, how will that change strategies, outcomes, etc. in the tournament?
-
The winning score will be 4 shot less under par!
-
If they call #1 a par 4, how will that change strategies, outcomes, etc. in the tournament?
A guy tied for the lead will sleep better knowing he doesn't have to birdie the first hole.
-
This doesn't answer the question about what par to list on #1 for the pros, but according to the scorecard, from the members' tees #1 is 497 yards while #2 is 438 yards . . . which lines up with one being a par 5 and the other being a par 4.
-
If they call #1 a par 4, how will that change strategies, outcomes, etc. in the tournament?
For the pros/amateurs, nothing. They play it as a par 4 anyway. It plays to a 4.27 with no risk except OB way left of the corridor. The length is 500 yards, but subtracting the downhill tee shot, plays about 475-480 yards. It is just a long par 4 for them.
-
For what it's worth--some guys in this thread have talked about the abandoned back tee that was formerly used when the hole was a par-5.
Not sure if this came through on TV--but that tee has actually been restored to a reasonably close approximation of its original location. It's almost even with the greensite on the first hole--backed all the way up against the tall grass between the 11th greensite and the set of back tees on 12.
It's brutal. 520 yards with the second shot playing up the hill and usually into a quartering wind that comes in from the left.
Unquestionably, if you stretch out both 1 and 2 to their max, the second hole would play to a higher raw scoring average than the first hole would.