Par 2's

[Jim Johnson]

So I'm catching some of the Nissan Open yesterday, when up on the screen there's a graphic describing how Tiger has fared on the par 3's, par 4's, and par 5's throughout his pro career thus far.
Interestingly, he is but 17 under par on all of the par 3's.
Really interestingly, though, was his score on the par 5's. Of the 2200+ par-5 holes that he's played, he has birdied over half of them.
This got me thinking. We talk and we talk about how the game (or the ball) has gotten "out of hand", that distance needs to be increased when building a new course to keep the big hitters from destroying par. Obviously, increased distance makes older, shorter, classic courses obsolete (Merion??), and makes the building of new courses that much costlier, with the need for more land when building. So, here's my idea....
Eliminate par-5 holes altogether.
And, while we're at it, introduce par-2 holes.
Forrest Richardson, in his book "Routing the Golf Course" (great book, I might add) has a page devoted to that idea. A hole of 50 yards or less, he proposes that the tee markers be set on the very edge of the green, which is complete with plenty of undulations for interest sake. Advantages, amongst others, are that the next hole's tee markers could be right next to the green, speeding play.
Radical, yes.
Thoughts??
JJ

[Bob_Huntley]

JJohnson,

Sounds daft to me.

Bob

[James Edwards]

Might take a little time convincing the R&A of that one JJ.

I personally think par 5's are very important golf holes in the context of golf both for professionals and for Amateurs - They are 3 shot holes for "most" players and 2 shot holes for 'most' professionals.  I class them as 'my own' beacon of hope to 'maybe' recover a shot that I dropped on the last or a few holes ago with '3' good shots.

I would say though that introducing a par 2 with 3,4,5 sounds an interesting idea for the future.  I have played a par 6 in the States, somewhere in Long Island near Westhampton - who knows what that is?  Its the 18th hole...  so, 2,3,4,5,6 might one day be available...

[Doug Sobieski]

JJ:

I think most people are surprised that Tour players aren't more under par on par 3's, especially since they have a perfect lie every time!! For the most part, if a player plays the par 3's even par for a season, he is beating almost the entire field. Over the past 5 years, this is how many players played the par 3's under par for the entire season-

2004 - 6 (even with improved technology, guys are making fewer 2's?)
2003 - 10
2002 - 14
2001 - 16
2000 - 14

In Tiger's monster year of 2000, he played them -25!!!!

All the best,

Doug

[Joe Hancock]

Doug,

Don't you have a sporty little Par 2 hole that tee's off by your office door and doglegs slightly around the corner of your desk?

Joe

[Doug Sobieski]

Joe:

It's more of a par 2 1/2, depending upon the location of the chair. If it's pulled out, you can reach the green from the tee.

By the way, I've got the 2005 Kingsley calendar on the wall now, so all is right in the world  

All the best,

Doug

[Wayne Freeman]

James-   the par 6 you are asking about is actually in Riverhead, on Long Island, at the Links course at Cherry Creek, a so-so public track.  At 644 into the wind it's a pretty good test, but a good player would expect to birdie it on a regular basis.  P.S.  I would not be in favor of par 2's on any course.  

[blasbe1]

James-   the par 6 you are asking about is actually in Riverhead, on Long Island, at the Links course at Cherry Creek, a so-so public track.  At 644 into the wind it's a pretty good test, but a good player would expect to birdie it on a regular basis.  P.S.  I would not be in favor of par 2's on any course.  

I've played that par 6 once, eagled it with a 10 ft. putt and felt like shit because I nearly holed out my third into the green (a wedge).

It's a lousy hole on an otherwise lousy course built for outing speed (6hours).  

I'm not usually one for convention but a par six is a joke, and, frankly, a par two is a joke as well.  The only par two that should exist in golf is on the practice green, otherwise you're in minature golf land.  I'm suprised FR advocates such a hole, just make an easier short hole and you've got a 2.5 par hole, it's all about the .5's now anyway and, frankly, championship golf has always played that way . . . hence the flight toward par at US Opens . . . what's in a number if it's not challenging and fun at the same time . . .  

[Doug Siebert]

Why would anyone be surprised tour players aren't more under par on par 3s?  They may have a perfect lie, but they have a longer shot into the average par 3 than they have into all but the most stern of par 4s these days.  Sometimes they have a shorter second into one of the par 5s than they do for their tee shot on one or two par 3s!

Once anyone progresses to single digit handicap they quickly realize that par 5s are the easiest and par 3s the hardest.  If you are a single digit because you are long, you can get on or near the green in two on a par 5.  If you are a single digit because you have a good short game, your can put your wedge third close for a birdie on a par 5.  On the other hand, bogies are easy to come by on par 3s, one bad shot is really all it takes, where on longer holes you have chances to make up for mistakes.

[Jason McNamara]

The day Duval shot his 59 at the Hope, he didn't drain a bunch of 30-footers; he was flagging it.*  One of his fellow competitors (Maggert, I think), after another of Duval's lasers on a Par 3, commented "I didn't know we were playing Par 2s today."

On five Par 3s that day, Duval had four 2s.  Come back, David.

Jason

* The guy had 11 birdies and an eagle, and the longest putt he made all day was 8 feet.

[ForkaB]

I advocated "par" 2's and 6's (and even 7's....) on this site 4 years ago.  As usual, I was a prophet aheadof my time!

[Doug Sobieski]

Doug Seibert:

You are absolutely, 100% correct. Unfortunately, it can be tough to convince a 14 handicap that a 220 yard par three is the 15th stroke hole!! They'll tell you they usually make 4's there, and they are surprised that MOST people usually make 4's there!!! I wish I had $1 for every time I had to try to explain handicap stroke allocations to a member who thought that a particularly difficult par three should have a much lower allocation.

Regards,

Doug

[Brian_Gracely]

If you're a long-hitting stud, and happen to make "2" on a Par 6, what's what called?  It is a Triple-Eagle?

[James Edwards]

Jason, Wayne.

Thank you, Yes of course it is Cherry Creek.  I played the course in 02 with one of the head policeman in Westhampton with whom I was staying with for the week.  His partner owned a B&B and he took us out most nights to the bars and to that golf club.  I remember that final hole because It was the first time I have ever had an albatross chip from 25 yards short of the green - One of the easier eagles I have ever had..!

[Doug Siebert]

Doug Sobieski:

You'll never successfully explain the idea of par 3s being hardest for good players and easiest for poor players, even if you can get their quick agreement that par 5s are the other way around.  Just tell them that holes are usually ranked in something approaching the order of length from longest to shortest, because more yards give higher handicaps more of a chance to screw up.  That's pretty much what it boils down to anyway.

[Doug Sobieski]

Doug Siebert:

That is just too logical for most people to grasp   I find it easiest to smack them across the face with the USGA Handicapping manual, and then tell them to stop complaining until they actually understand the process.

It also bugs me when a course allocates strokes on the scorecard and it is obvious that they didn't use the USGA's guidelines whatsoever. It happens a lot more than one might think. I know that I'm being a bit obsessive about stroke allocation, but I've studied it too much to ignore it when it's done inappropriately  

Compulsively,

Doug

[Jim Johnson]

Thought I'd resurrect this one.

It somehow got me thinking of "executive" courses, and why they aren't more popular. Is it that they are just fighting a losing battle against traditionalism [i.e. par 70/71/72]?

When one thinks of the cost to play, and the time it takes to play, one wonders why a world-class "executive" style course wouldn't be more successful? I mean, throw in 9 or 10 beautiful, exciting par 3's [and not 100 yarders], a handful of challenging par-4's, and maybe one or two par-5's, and you could come up with a darn nice golf course, given the right land and the right architect.

I've got to think that construction costs would/could be substantially lower than building a "typical" par-72 course. And land costs would definitely be lower.

Is "tradition" the reason this style of course isn't more common?

JJ

[Jim Nugent]

I do not believe par 5's should be eliminated.  That would mean Tiger gets punished because of his unique skill.  It takes more than just power.  TW is not the longest driver on tour.  

Par 2's might belong on a pitch and putt course, but not a regulation course IMO.