[Matt_Cohn]

Par should have some relevance, and if the players in a particular tournament should be expected to hit a particular green with two good shots, then it makes sense to call that hole a par-4.

But as stated earlier, generally the course should determine the par, not the other way around.

[paul cowley]

I'm beginning to think that all holes, regardless of their length, should be par fours....but that is only if a course wants to play to a par of 72.

A par 71 would be 17 par fours and then the shortest hole could be listed as a par three.

I think you get my drift.

Paul

And you led me to believe that par 68/69 was the way to go.  I'm shattered.

Ciao

Baby steps Sean.....sometimes one has to lead the toddler.

Keep the faith.

ch ;)w

[Matt_Ward]

Frankly who cares what the "par" is for such holes. The low scores for the totality of the event is what wins -- the par total is simply an attempt to keep the total number of rounds "under par" from growing and with that the egos of the host clubs and their members.

Chuck B:

Completely concur with your take on OH / South 18th hole. The movement of the fairway is completely out of place for a hole that moves in the opposite direction. Tom Lehman knows full well the harm that can cause -- his tee shot in the '97 event prevented him from winning that year.

[Michael Powers]

I agree that when I see that the USGA or MGA changes a par 5 to a par 4, it changes the way I (and many others in the field) view the hole.  It is so popular to dismiss the notion that par is relavant, and that may be so in a hit and giggle game, but when you know the hole was a 5 par and now its a 4 and you have to post, it changes things.

Several holes which are changed from 5 to 4 do have greens that are too severe or small to be par 4 greens, but the ones mentioned in the thread are plenty big in size, but #7 and #10 at CRCC have some severe undulations.

Also, more good par 4 holes only strengthens a course.  That's one reason Wannamoisett is so great, one 5 par and a par of 69.  If you looked at the achives of this DG, I would bet that 90% of the holes discussed are 3's and 4's.

[Sean Leary]

Can anyone name a Par 5 that is currently considered one of the worlds best that is under 470 yards from the back tee? I can't...

[Michael Powers]

No Sean, I can't.  That's why I  see no comparison between these types of holes to short par 4 holes.  Sure can name a bunch of great short par 4's.

[John Moore II]

Part of the reason a short par 5 is not going to be a good as a short par 4 is because of the way they are going to be designed. most of the time, and short par four may be on a better piece of ground, and there's more room for variety in the par 4.
--as far as changing the par of a hole, I have no problem with it, in general, i think the usga standards for length of par is antiquated and should be updated to reflect the distances that scratch golfers hit the ball, since that is the standard for computing 'par'

[mike_malone]

 Par for the course makes some sense, but the requirement that par for each hole needs to be a whole number just leads to all kinds of arguments about things that aren't important.

  For those that think a hole changed from 5 to 4 changes how you think about it, I think you may need some therapy

  If the hole is the same distance it is the same hole; if it is shortened it is easier.

[wsmorrison]

"For those that think a hole changed from 5 to 4 changes how you think about it, I think you may need some therapy."

Give me a break, Mike.  That is so stupid.  If I thought you were kidding, I'd dismiss it, but I'm afraid you are not.

You think about par when you lengthen a hole to keep it three shots, right?  When you do so and there is a disconnect of the design intent and the features on the ground, it is remarkably ignorant to proceed in that manner.  Your club did that on the 18th hole and it resulted in a terrible hole, and the finisher at that.  So please don't tell me that par doesn't matter.  It is the reason the hole was lengthened despite the dreadful consequences.  As a par 4, from the member's tees for low handicappers, it would be a terrific finish.

Now for a fact check.  Where were the tees for the US Am qualifying?  What was the indicated par?  What was the scoring average and range?  How do scratch players play the hole from the new back tee (poorly placed on the north side, directly under a tree) versus the members' tee?  Which offers more variety, temptation and challenge?  If you answer these questions knowledgeably and honestly the solution will be evident.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

   I think using all of the available space for #18 makes sense. Since players are hitting it farther now, why not use all of the space you have.I would love to see us address the landing area as well to preserve the threeshotedness.

    I know they played the tee up for the AM Qualifying as a par 4. I don't recall anything about the scoring for that hole. Please enlighten me. All I know is the kid who lit it up that day hit a wedge.

   I have only observed a few playing from the new tee, but the dryness or wetness of the fairway seems to be important from that tee. When dry, balls are rolling all the way past the bunker, when wet, only the longest hitters are.

   BTW  I used the "grin" emoticon for that post.



   I have let you go on many times about how "terrible" #18 is now. I now want you to either stop that because it hurts you or at least be specific about how the hole is not as good as it was from the old back tee.

[Tony Ristola]

I've designed short par-5's as par-4's for better players. They play from the same tee. It only requires changing par on the scorecard.

Par is relative... psychology isn't.

[Rich Brittingham]

I believe Mickelson echoed many of the sentiments expressed here at Oakmont last year.  Everyone is playing the same course, lowest total wins.

Its also why I believe match play is the only way to go.....  

[mike_malone]

 Tony,

   It is interesting when you are designing the course to make the decision you did, but for existing courses it is a problem.

[Tony Ristola]

Michael,

Clubs can close a tee...or print a 4/5 on the card...Problem solved.

It provides what both parties want for the most part. Members get a chance at a birdie (breather), and the better players a stronger hole. The best part is it doesn't cost a penny more to construct. Just another scorecard, or a denoting the hole 4/5.

Reality is better players don't care what the scorecard says. They have their own idea of a "winning score".

Rich,

Stableford is the standard game in continental Europe. Buddies of mine from North America that are pro's seethe at it. I think it's fine. It's a faster game, and it allows architects to build courses with more "interest" without getting clobbered for designing "tough" courses. The golfers can screw up a hole or three and still be in the game. That's fun for the masses. It invites riskier play, especially when one thinks they are on the edge of being out of the running.

[mike_malone]

Tony,

  So why bother ?

[Tony Ristola]

Michael,

There is still a psychological factor.
Some may look at the hole as a par 4.5, others as a 4.
It plays with emotions.
It's a strange thing, but the number on the card has an effect betwixt the ears.

Would you be more pissed to make a par on an easy hole or a bogey on a challenging one. I think par (5 on an easy hole) is something where you think... "next time"... bogey (5) is "I lost one". Bogey is negative... par in some instances too, but it doesn't seem as brutal.

Mind you, good players look at par-5's as potential 4's. That said the mind is a strange organism, and a number on paper has an effect.

If I knew exactly what people thought I'd be a bajillionaire. All I know is that damned number on paper has meaning...usually.

[mike_malone]

 Why bother changing the scorecard or closing a tee in order to make the "par" more reasonable. It doesn't matter,so these changes just pander to the golfers that don't understand.

   

[mike_malone]

 Tony,

  Of course I think those things, but I'm just as dumb as everyone else.

   We play "junk" . So, it matters for the birdies whether it is a 4 or a 5. But we usually end up with multiple birds on the "easy" holes which evens things out.


     

[wsmorrison]

"I have let you go on many times about how "terrible" #18 is now. I now want you to either stop that because it hurts you or at least be specific about how the hole is not as good as it was from the old back tee."

What do you mean you have let me go so many times?  You deign to allow me to speak my mind?  It doesn't hurt me in the least to call out the decision to move the tee on the 18th hole at RGGC based upon where it is and what the consequences are.  

You say,

"I think using all of the available space for #18 makes sense. Since players are hitting it farther now, why not use all of the space you have."

I have explained it so many times yet you still don't get it.  Go back through the various threads that led to these discussions and think about it.  Lengthening for lengthening sake is plain dumb.  Lengthening so that there is a disconnect in strategy and a reduction of options along with a nullification of temptation is about as poor a decision as can be made.  Better to be a par 4 from the members' tees (I am advocating this only for better players) and retain the temptation, variety of decisions to be made and a challenge on the final hole than move the tee back and create one lame way to play the hole.  Fine, you don't get that there is no justification for the tee.  I think that hurts you not me.

As for the psychological impact you have ignored, Tony is doing an excellent job of teaching you about that.  I hope you pay attention.

[Sean_A]

Michael,

There is still a psychological factor.
Some may look at the hole as a par 4.5, others as a 4.
It plays with emotions.
It's a strange thing, but the number on the card has an effect betwixt the ears.

Would you be more pissed to make a par on an easy hole or a bogey on a challenging one. I think par (5 on an easy hole) is something where you think... "next time"... bogey (5) is "I lost one". Bogey is negative... par in some instances too, but it doesn't seem as brutal.

Mind you, good players look at par-5's as potential 4's. That said the mind is a strange organism, and a number on paper has an effect.

If I knew exactly what people thought I'd be a bajillionaire. All I know is that damned number on paper has meaning...usually.

Tony

I have always said that the only reason anybody should care about a par number is if it alters where shots are given/taken.  Par is as meaningless or meaningful as anybody wants to make of it.  Don't forget, the number on the card doesn't alter a hole - so you know where I stand!

I don't quite tell the truth.  If birdies are being paid then its good to know the par of the hole.  Your strategy can definitely be altered if you are going for the cash!

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I have always said that the only reason anybody should care about a par number is if it alters where shots are given/taken.  Par is as meaningless or meaningful as anybody wants to make of it.  Don't forget, the number on the card doesn't alter a hole - so you know where I stand!

I don't quite tell the truth.  If birdies are being paid then its good to know the par of the hole.  Your strategy can definitely be altered if you are going for the cash!

Ciao

Par matters a lot if you're playing Stableford, which, whilst not quite the standard game in Europe as has been suggested is certainly a very popular form of the game over here.

[JNagle]

This very topic is something that we address more and more these days.  Courses are land-locked and that tired old 475 yard par 5 is simply too easy for a larger portion of the membership.  The Sr.'s love it, the ladies love it, but the blue tee players hate it.  It is too easy.  What to do?  Tony's comment is very relevant.  Make it a slash hole.  Move the white tee back to 475 and move the blue tee forward (if desired).  There are so many instances where this is happening.  The reverse is true, only because some clubs think they must be par 71 or 72.  So they want to take a four and make it a five.  One must ask the question, "are we making a good par 4 into a crummy par 5?"  All this for the sake of perception or added length.

The other issue that plays into the dynamics is golfing groups.  Today you have so many different groups; scratch players, 5-10 handicappers, Sr. Men, Almost Sr. men that are still playing the wrong tee because their ego will not allow them to move up, 9-hole ladies, 18-hole ladies, Jr's (not that they have a say).............  Slashing a hole is a good solution.  

We have seen holes that are long par 4's that clubs want to change because they want the extra 15 yards and 1 stroke of par.  It may be better to remove an added bunker at the green, reintroduce the run-up approach (a novel idea on a long four par) and there you go.  A fair, stout par 4.  

Clubs also get so hung up on par, as mentioned earlier.  Some should realize that by reducing par can actually gain some length for the course.  Take a par 5 at 490 yards.  Everyone agrees that the holes is terrible but is not sure what to do.  Why not change it to a 4, shorten the hole by 20+ yards.  In reality the club has gained 150-170 yards and loss a stroke of par.  A par 71 course at 6600 yards may be better than the same course at par 72 and 6620 yards.  Most times it is perception.

As far the USGA changing par, it is contrived many times.  In the example first stated regarding Flynn, he was the original designer and was disgusted to see Pro's hitting irons into greens that were intended to be played in three shots or with longer approaches.  He went to the USGA and asked that they change par.  Something about technology changes in the euipment.

[mike_malone]

If we are talking about a straight hole that only has the distance challenge that has been lost with technological advances then I really don't have an opinion.

   But, some of these older par fives have challenges  in the landing area for those who want to get home in two, layup challenges for the shorter hitter or the big hitter's mishit drive, and finally greens that receive the short shot and repel the long one.

   They are three shotters by design as well as distance.


   I also think the routing of the course is a factor in evaluating the hole.Is it important to the total course flow that this hole be a threeshotter?

   Today's fad is that the last hole must be a challenge to par, but I don't see that as important. What is important to me is risk/reward. Not if I fail to execute my first shot I'm done ; but if I don't execute the first one the remaining shots must be very good.


   Changing the par on these older courses bothers me less than moving up the championship tee under the delusion that it makes the hole harder.Let's just play the hole!!!

   

[Dan Boerger]

This is the way I see it ...

Par really is just a number. In medal play it's total strokes for the round and in match play it's total strokes for the hole (bear with me while I state the all to obvious!). I'm not suggesting the word "par" doesn't cause a headgame or players to play the hole differently, just that they should realize it's another mental element of golf to come to grips with. One needs to get over the number prined on the scorecard.

Some holes are 4.5 par (a concept oft discussed and well understood I'm sure), but one can make a good par 4 a bad par 4.5 or a a par 5, which I think is one of the "revised" finishing holes being discussed here. Just lengthening a hole without regard to the landing area or approch shot is hardly a good idea.

I like a challenging finishing hole. That doesn't mean it has to be a hard hole to par. Maybe it's an easy hole to par but a difficult hole to birdie. Think the 18th at North Hills, a hole that many are critical of but is great fun when you are coming down to the wire.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()