News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would Golf Be Better with No Par 5's?
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2008, 05:02:11 PM »
Par 5s are fun and add great variety to this humble game. It does take more ‘architectural intelligence’ and imagination to design a great par 5. It requires more ‘out of the box’ thinking due to the fact the magnitude of abilities will be magnified and more land bring more advantages and disadvantages that need to be taken into consideration

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would Golf Be Better with No Par 5's?
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2008, 05:48:30 PM »
Golf would be a better game without par.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker.
 --Willie Nelson

Will Wittman

Re: Would Golf Be Better with No Par 5's?
« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2008, 06:53:49 PM »
Golf would be a better game without par.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker.
 --Willie Nelson


I love the willie reference but i dont understand your sentiment.  I know geoff shackleford agrees with you but par gives you a goal, something to strive for.  With out par I dont see golf as a sport. there is nothing to compete against.  IMO par is as much a part of the course as is a bunker lake or tree. I dont see how you could get rid of it. 

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would Golf Be Better with No Par 5's?
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2008, 07:10:21 PM »
Par fives give the designer and player the most options of an hole on the course.  Length does not alway determine par either.  The 13th hole at Royal North Devon is only 440 yards long.  Reaching it is a piece of cake.  The green is a bugger.  Five is an acceptable score.  Nine at RND has another relatively  short par five.  You can hit the tee ball almost anywhere but beware the second and third shot.  It may be one of the worlds great par fives. (read Ran's or Doak's write up).

There can be risk rewards on the first, secon, or third shots.  It is difficult to design four beauties, but when you have played a great par five it is rewarding.  Too many of them are just long slogs.  Number one at RND is like that.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would Golf Be Better with No Par 5's?
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2008, 11:37:56 PM »
Will Wittmann writes:
I know geoff shackleford agrees with you

Geoff is a very smart man -- especially when he agrees with me.

but par gives you a goal, something to strive for.  With out par I dont see golf as a sport. there is nothing to compete against.

Isn't the objective to make the lowest score? What possible place could par have in trying to shoot a low number?

IMO par is as much a part of the course as is a bunker lake or tree. I dont see how you could get rid of it.

IMHO, it makes it impossible to build interesting courses. You can't let the land dictate the holes, because it has to match some predetermined numbers. Numbers should fit into courses, not courses into numbers.

Par is evil and should be uttlerly cryed downe.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Golf is peculiar game of a parculiar people.
 --John L. Low, 1903

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would Golf Be Better with No Par 5's?
« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2008, 12:23:06 AM »
Par 5's need to defend themselves better on the second shot than they did back in the day.

Length was all that was once required of a par 5, but with the longer ball and equipment, there needs to be more trouble facing that fairway wood to the green.

Robert Bruce Harris, who has his share of detractors, always made his par 5 greens the smallest, with the steepest fall of putting, and most guarded with bunkers. He really made it hard to go for it in two shots.

I am just not in agrement with those who want to turn fives into fours. I feel that making the fives frought with danger from tee to green is better for the game, and a better equalizer between the straight short hitter and the long eratic hitter.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would Golf Be Better with No Par 5's?
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2008, 04:00:36 AM »
I love the willie reference but i dont understand your sentiment.  I know geoff shackleford agrees with you but par gives you a goal, something to strive for.  With out par I dont see golf as a sport. there is nothing to compete against.  IMO par is as much a part of the course as is a bunker lake or tree. I dont see how you could get rid of it. 


You need to stop and think and realize that by insisting on par being provided to you, because you lack the imagination to compete against the course without it, that you are losing certain classes of interesting holes.  Where's the market for a 275 yard hole in an overly structured "par is king" design mentality?  Such a hole would receive its share of complaints whether it is marked as a par 3 or a par 4, but there's no reason architects should restrict themselves from creating such a hole if the land presents it to them or the idea strikes them.  But I suspect a great number of 275 yard holes go undesigned these days because most architects fear the reaction of par-minded golfers who think a 275 yard par 3 is too demanding and a 275 yard par 4 is an unworthy test.

Why do you need to have someone tell you what the par is?  If there was no par on a course, couldn't you make a pretty good guess for yourself what number you should expect to score in your personal competition with the course, or does it actually bother you that you might not know how to account for a 275 yard or 495 yard hole without someone telling you what the par is?  Does the actual par really matter in terms of you competing against the course?  Isn't the course rating (and slope, unless you are close to scratch) more relevant?  A course rated at 69 will be easier for you than one rated at 77, regardless of what par is assigned to those 18 holes.  A course rated at 69 will be easier on a day with benign weather than it will be on day when the wind is gusting beyond 40 mph, regardless of what par is.  So please enlighten me as to exactly why the heck you care what number someone has written for par on the scorecard?

What I strive to do on the course has little do with par.  Yes, coincidentally, since par is assigned in a way similar to my capabilities I often associate besting par with success and being bested by par with failure.  But I play no small number of par 5s that I expect to reach with an iron after a decent drive where I consider the number to beat a 4 rather than a 5, and I've played some beastly par 4s into a gale in Scotland and Ireland where I consider it one hell of a success to manage a 5.  For a shorter hitter there are going to be plenty of cases where their measure of success has little do with par, and they are able to compete against the course, and themselves, just fine.

I know we've discussed from time to time the idea that simply changing a hole from a par 5 to a par 4 will raise the scores on the hole because players who felt OK laying up on a par 5 refuse to do so on a par 4 because their mindset linking the way they play to par makes it difficult for them to do so.  I have never been able to understand why it should make any difference at all, but perhaps it makes perfect sense to you?
My hovercraft is full of eels.