half par holes and modern design

[paul cowley]

.....i think we are ready for half pars , especially given todays technology....either formally on the card [as long as there are at least two per 18] or informally.
.....distances maybe as follows;
     2 and 1 half par-  40 to 85 yds
     3 and 1 half par-  260 to 300 yds
     4 and 1 half par-   480 to 520 yds
     5 and 1 half par-   620+ yds
.....doesn't affect design really ,but could be very interesting in scoring and match play [a 3 on a par 3 and 1 half is a half birdie etc.]...just a thought.....

[TEPaul]

On this subject George Thomas's ideas about how to handle so-called half pars is very interesting and he did believe they could be designed for!

However, to do so he believed that putts should only count as half strokes and that would give designing in the "half par" area much more latitude.

Of course his ideas on putts as half strokes seems a bit far-fetched but he didn't propose it because he didn't like putting he proposed it only so architects would have more latitude designing in what we think of as the "half par" hole area. His conclusion was this could make designing in the half par area  easier and could also make the concept of par more equitable across all the levels of ability in golfers.

Anyone who has Thomas's "Golf Architecture in America" should read his proposal in the chapter titled "Arbitrary Values".

[Forrest Richardson]

Arbitrary Values was more about putts counting as a half stroke, I believe. Was it about half-par's? I am not certain, so Tom, tell us please.

As to the idea of half-pars -- why not! If fact, let;s abolish par altogether and just focus on score of the day. More fun, perhaps.

[Forrest Richardson]

Arbitrary Values was more about putts counting as a half stroke, I believe. Was it about half-par's? I am not certain, so Tom, tell us please.

As to the idea of half-pars -- why not! If fact, let;s abolish par altogether and just focus on score of the day. More fun, perhaps.

[Forrest Richardson]

Why did it post twice? Weird.

[TEPaul]

Forrest Richardson said;

"Arbitrary Values was more about putts counting as a half stroke, I believe. Was it about half-par's? I am not certain, so Tom, tell us please."

Forrest:

Having read Thomas's book a few years ago that's what I thought too. But having just reread the chapter again it really isn't about putts counting as half strokes because Thomas appears not to like putting in golf--although he did mention that putting is about 50% of the scoring in golf and that that might be too high a percentage for a single club. Under his system it can be shown that putting would be revalued in "par" golf at 33 1/3% of the strokes of a par golf round (instead of 50%).

But on rereading the entire chapter Thomas appears to feel that half strokes for putting in golf is the only means to an interesting and far more equitable and honest end regarding the concept of par and how to make things fairer and more representative for the play of any level of golfer's supposed "perfect play". He appears to be trying to propose something that would both be more equitable for all levels of players and at at the same time allow the architect more latitude in designing holes in that area that we now think of as "half pars" (for good players).

Thomas remarks that if this were adopted it might have an economic benefit too. He said it could mean less bunkering might be required. He said architects would be able to design greens on short par 4s, for instance, that were bigger and therefore less restricting of pinnable space and less damaging to greens and also less congesting to play and as a result of that they would also be more accommodating of the lesser player.

But one has to read the chapter carefully because he was very much talking about COMBINING two premises:

1. How to actually design better to accomodate all levels of player (not just designing for the good player) and;

2. To make the actual perfect play of every level more representative and equitable in a "par" sense.

By the way, under Thomas's system what we know as a par 72 course would become a par 54. A par 3, for instance, would become a par 2 (one perfect shot to the green and two putts for a total of one stroke).

I'd have to look at this more closely but it appears to be a system that would work much better for match play (obviously those older architects were probably more interested in match play because they felt it was the real game the old original game of golf) as a total whole round score is not particularly important, if at all, in match play.

It could have been that the regulatory bodies may have seen  this as a bother in the event of stroke play because it would have to be possible, I guess, to come up with a 1/2 stroke total at the end of the day.

But it's likely that some of those architects and writers from that day were trying very hard to make some necessary distinctions between match and stroke play!! Behr tried to make the same distinctions between match and stroke play in the way they were handicapped. The rules bodies never listened obviously because they may have seen some obstacles in the public understanding somewhat different procedures for either format.

However, in failing to recognize or accept what either a Behr or a Thomas was saying in these contexts still today the regulatory bodies have never really come to grips with just how different the two formats are and inherently must always be.

But I don't think Thomas's proposal (combined proposals) were directed at putting per se, it was just a means to a more reasonable end in both the play of the game (match play) and also something that would give architects much more latitude to design things to accomodate for all levels of player more equitably.

Incidently, he did make a strong point that a value of 50% on putting certainly did create a hue and cry among good players that putting greens not be too sloped or contoured--that they be much flatter--otherwise bad things would happen to them and that wouldn't be fair given their superior general skill level.

Naturally Thomas felt that removing an architect's ability to build interesting greens and forcing him to build ever flatter ones was a terrible thing to do and a terrible direction for architecture.

For whatever reason, it would seem that is happening!

[Forrest Richardson]

I've played stroke-play using half strokes for par -- was very interesting. A player is rewarded for reaching the green in regulation. This is the key to Thomas's Arbitrary Values. It sparked me to think through a variation, which someday I might post for critique! Thank you for your summary.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

I wonder why you single out stroke play as the format to propose half strokes. Are you talking about half strokes for putting only as Thomas did? It would seem that half strokes for putting would be a more valuable and applicable idea with match play--and not so much or so necessary or even workable in the stroke play format.

If you have a copy of Thomas's "Golf Architecture in America" I suggest you read his chapter on "Arbitrary Values" carefully--it's pretty interesting how he constructs his two premises into one proposal to attempt to show the advantage for all levels of golfer as well as for architects of "half strokes" for putting. The chapter is too long for me to type out here and it's hard to understand it particularly well if its abridged.

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, to the first question -- I have played half-stroke putts in stroke play. It was just for fun, but worked well. Again, it rewarded reaching the green in regulation, or better.

I have read Thomas's chapter several times, but will re-read it again in order to catch what I may have missed. I write about Thomas's concept in "Routing the Golf Course", sumarized as follows:

"Golf architect George C. Thomas Jr. promoted the idea that par was too arbitrary and that it needed to be overhauled. His interesting view was that greens could be smaller and less emphasis placed on their size if putts would count for half a stroke only. This might also speed up play, as the counting of a putt for an entire stroke would be done away with and golfers would not take so much time worrying over half of the score to be counted. Accuracy from the fairway would be rewarded. In essence, hitting greens in regulation or less would come with an advantage. Accuracy would be rewarded until the point of reaching the green. In match play format, the idea that Thomas promoted can make for a very quick game. A hole may be decided early by concession or otherwise...."

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

I can't really see where Thomas mentioned that this proposal would necessarily allow the architect to generally build smaller greens although he does mention a few times it would allow him to build larger greens and also less bunkering.

But you can see that Thomas is really trying to close the discrepency between the realities of the long hitter's ability and the short hitter's ability with what are perfect shots to them across similar distances and the fact that a hole with a par value of 4, for instance, is being asked to cover too much ground between 251yds and 446yds (the limits of a par 4 then) given those two players ability differentials.

In a way what Thomas is trying to do is equalize the value of shots of various distances better across the spectrum of player levels. If you go through all his examples of the different distances of holes and how his new "half-stroke" putting proposal effects various levels of player at those various distances it does seem to make some sense and to equalize things between the playing levels better given the perception of what is a good shot.

Personally, although I recognize his idea seems to be more scientifically exact or "fair" throughout the levels of players in how the scoring in golf has always been conducted I can't say I really like it.

I think the value of whole numbers in golf, even putts, has an interesting unpredictability with outcome which is of unusual fascination in golf. To some it might appear either fortuitously lucky on the one hand or unfair on the other hand, but so what really? That unpredictability or improbablility of outcome is one of the most interesting aspects of golf and probably one of it's most effective "levelers" since skill is not so finely defined in the outcome!

However, I do recognize that constant push from various players to always equalize things, to remove as much unpredicatability as possible and to always make things "fairer" in the name of skill. And I do recognize, as Thomas obviously did how that can have negative effects on some things in architecture such as interesting contoured putting greens.

And also I've noticed some really fascinating applications of par in that "half-par" area recently from some architects like Coore & Crenshaw. I think they'e gotten very good at using that particular "in between" distance and the par they use with it to put some real psychological pressure on various levels of golfer like very good ones.

Thomas's "half-stroke" putting would weaken or compromise that psychological effect and its application in design, in my opinion.