[Thomas Dai]

Overall yardage is sometimes seen (by some) as a marker for a courses difficulty. But is it?


Can the difficulty of a course still be maintained, or even increased for better players, by reducing the length of the course?


For example, a plus-hcp long hitting player I know says that for him short and very short par-3's are usually the hardest sort of par-3's as he hits full-shots with his shorter irons/wedges too far (!) so when he has to play a short length par-3 he has to play a more awkward partial shot.

I thought this an interesting remark.

I also know that long par-3's (when long-irons, hybrids, fairway-metals, even Drivers) are usually needed from the tee, significantly increases the difficult of a par-3 for lessor players and short hitters. And most par-3's have high SI's so the lessor player doesn't even get a shot!


Thoughts?


Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,


firstly, SI is not directly to do with difficulty. I do however think that length of the course, size of the greens, in relation to par is the relevant factor. I played Tobermory on Tuesday and though it is less than 5000 yards from the backs I doubt that there are many people who could play their handicap around it. It is an absolutely unforgiving course despite the fact that you will probably not lose a ball nor find any really long grass. The difficulty is down to the slopes and lies that are to be played. I would suggest that this is the same with par 3s. It is the context of the setting and not the length that is the important thing.


Jon

[Doug Siebert]

The reason par 3s generally are the highest handicap holes and par 5s the lowest is because as the length of a hole increases, the separation of good players from lesser players increases. Not just because good players tend to hit further, but because the more shots a bad player needs, the higher the chances of hitting a really bad one.

Pros always average the worst relative to par on par 3s compared to par 4s (I'll ignore par 5s since reaching them in two skews the numbers) The situation would be reversed for most 100 shooters, because even if they don't actually hit the green with their tee shot, unless they duff it or hit into a bunker getting on in two and is easy and they can probably make bogey. More can go wrong on a 400 yard par 4.

So I'd argue that on the whole, a par 70 course with four 3s and two 5s should have worse average scores compared to par for scratch golfers and better for bogey golfers (when compared to a standard par 72 with four of each)

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes if you take the example that a 250 yard par 3 is incredibly difficult and a 251 yard par 4 is very easy.


This config at Par 66 and 6375 is a real monster, SSS would be 70 perhaps even 71. No one would buy into the Par 66


1: 475 Par 4
2: 400 Par 4
3: 250 Par 3
4: 400 Par 4
5: 200 Par 3
6: 475 Par 4
7: 350 Par 4
8: 175 Par 3
9: 450 Par 4
10: 425 Par 4
11: 250 Par 3
12: 375 Par 4
13: 475 Par 4
14: 400 Par 4
15: 200 Par 3
16: 475 Par 4
17: 150 Par 3
18: 450 Par 4


And yet at 6375 this PAR 71 is typical of the many UK golf courses with just a few yardage changes and never more than 25 yards.
1: 495 Par 5
2: 400 Par 4
3: 270 Par 4
4: 400 Par 4
5: 175 Par 3
6: 490 Par 5
7: 350 Par 4
8: 155 Par 3
9: 450 Par 4
10:425 Par 4
11: 275 Par 4
12: 375 Par 4
13: 500 Par 5
14: 375 Par 4
15: 175 Par 3
16: 475 Par 4
17: 140 Par 3
18: 450 Par 4


The real hard holes are in 200-250 range for par 3 holes and 450-475 for par 4 holes, the easy ones are 250-300 for par 4 holes and 475-525 par 5 holes naturally discounting aspects of other difficulty.

[Jerry Kluger]

I think your example of the really good player is suspect.  When you watch pros play the game the closer they are to the green the closer they hit it to the hole.  Years ago with different ball and clubs top players would often leave themselves shots of a particular distance so they would have a full swing but with today's balls and clubs they usually try to get as close as they can. You watch the best players and see how they play very firm long par 3s versus short par 3s and the difference is dramatic.  Can you imagine playing the Postage Stamp hole at 220 yards?  I was at the US Open at Pinehurst on Sunday and watched them play the 224 yard number 6 and one player hit the green out of the 30 or so we saw. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Adrian - that's a fascinating example/comparison, thanks. I think that first course would be a joy to play, but only if I could make myself believe that "par is just a number" -- something which, sadly, I'm probably incapable of doing. You can, until you're blue in the face, try to convince the average golfer (whether an 18 handicapper or a scratch) that he has no God-given right to reach every green in regulation, but in our heart of hearts we will never believe you/accept it. A par 66 course like the one you laid out is where the rubber hits the road, i.e. it is only the true golfer -- the rare one who fully and meaningfully understands and embraces the unique ethos and spirit of the game -- who could appreciate and value a course like that.  We talk around here about new frontiers in golf course architecture, and I think you've provided one genuine (if unlikely) potential approach/development -- a golf course for golfers who love the game of golf.  Very likely it wouldn't work/succeed, but alas that's only because there are so few such golfers around anymore. I can't help but feel that it's a shame there aren't many more. 
Peter     

[Sean_A]

But of course Adrian has set up an extreme example of the short par with several monster 3s and 4s.  To me, this is certainly the way to go in terms of setting up a high level event.  It makes far more sense to reduce par than to add yards.  It also supports the idea that op players today rarely use 72ish as their par no matter what the card says.  Flat bellies would absolutely buy into 66 or perhaps even cheat a few shots toward 70.  This is what flat bellies do, they set their own number depending on their abilities and what they think the field can shoot. 


I even think a softer version of Adrian's concept works extremely well for handicap players.  We have examples of sub 70 courses which are considered difficult even if quite short in total yardage.  My guess is these 6000ish yarders will test all handicap players and agood percentage of flat bellies on any given day.  What they can't do is test the tour player....and that absolutely fine. 



Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The analysis provided by Adrian is indeed interesting. The par-66 would certainly be tough.....I doubt there'd be many low handicaps on such a track.


Jerry mentions the Postage Stamp, a hole that has historically been tough on pro-scoring generally, surprisingly so when it's short length is considered. But then again it does have a tiny, easy to miss putting surface, a challenging green complex, grizzly bunkers and the wind.


As to playing the PS at 220 yds, bogeys for all I imagine as almost all would miss the tiny green and fail to achieve an up-n-down. But what would it's SI be at such a distance?


This to me is a key question if you're playing what seems to have become the standard form of golf in the UK, namely one-round stableford or matchplay because most of the time par-3's have a high SI. If we assume that the average male hcp is 14, well a 14 hcp is not going to get a shot on SI's 15-18 so a tougher par-3 is probably going to be a 'dropped shot' stableford wise for Mr Ave-Hcp pretty much every time he plays it or a lost hole in matchplay if playing against a much lower hcpper. SI may not, as Jon points out, be directly related to difficulty, but for amateur handicap play SI is pretty key.


Normally there is only one SI pattern for the men's tees irrespective of colour of tee/length. Should there be different SI's for different holes depending on the men's tee colour (length) being used? For example the same hole could be say SI 1 from the yellows (as a long par-4) but say SI 15 from the whites (as a very slightly further back short par-5). Or it could be say SI 2 as a long, tough par-3 from the super back tees but say SI 16 from the upfront-yellows. Does this happen?


Atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Thomas - The Stroke Index is not designed for that. It is a method to more equally give strokes. If you give 6 shots you give them every 3 holes is the underlying principle.


Back in the late 70's in Spain certainly they used to list Stroke Index (for the purpose of giving strokes) and Handicap (where you got your strokes in stableford). I never saw this in the UK or have seen it since.

[Thomas Dai]

I appreciate what you're saying Adrian as SI is essentially based on the matchplay format of the game.


These days however, it seems that in the UK stableford is becoming, maybe has already become, the main format of amateur golf, it seems that way from one-round Open amateur hcp events, whether it be singles, 4bbb, foursomes, 3-4 person team/AmAms etc, so having such hcp events based on an SI process that is essentially about equality in matchplay doesn't seem appropriate to me. Maybe I need to moan at the EGU/Congu!


atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

I appreciate what you're saying Adrian as SI is essentially based on the matchplay format of the game.


These days however, it seems that in the UK stableford is becoming, maybe has already become, the main format of amateur golf, it seems that way from one-round Open amateur hcp events, whether it be singles, 4bbb, foursomes, 3-4 person team/AmAms etc, so having such hcp events based on an SI process that is essentially about equality in matchplay doesn't seem appropriate to me. Maybe I need to moan at the EGU/Congu!


atb

I half agree with what your saying and fully agreed with it when I was younger. Now I take the view if you get say 9 shots then some will fall on easy holes and some will fall on hard holes, does it actually matter? Is it actually good to still have hard and easy holes? Is it right to try and equal out all 18 holes?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()