How do you defend par if par does not matter??

« **on:** April 18, 2006, 03:57:43 PM »

If par is irrelevent, and the only thing that really matters is the lowest amount of strokes you can get the ball in the hole, then how would an architect defend par??

Does he defend it by length of a hole?? Is that how an architect determines it?? I mean, after all, a 500 yard hole could be called a par three (though it never would). Why not defend longer holes the same way as a shorter hole is defended??

For instance, I have never seen a Redan hole on a hole where par was 4...Could this be possible?? Say, a driveable par 4 (or a hole called a par 4...) which was a redan...? Or, even a two shot longer hole of maybe 490 yards??

« **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2006, 04:16:36 PM »

Jordan,

You've now officially spent too much time online thinking about this stuff.

Trust me...I've been there.

Of course, you may be interested to note that Dr. Katz takes young clients, as well.

« **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2006, 04:20:39 PM »

1st at Bluemound in WI is a par 4 with a Redan green...not driveable though Jordan

« **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2006, 04:33:14 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 18, 2006, 03:57:43 PM

If par is irrelevent, and the only thing that really matters is the lowest amount of strokes you can get the ball in the hole, then how would an architect defend par??

Uhhh, come again?

« **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2006, 05:09:19 PM »

Quite the existentialist. I suggest reading some Beckett to satisfy your intellectual curiosity.

« **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2006, 05:38:44 PM »

par is irrelevant insofar as it does not impact a match between golfers.

However, the internal battle between the golfer and "old man par" as Bobby Jones described "him" is another matter altogether.

Make sense? It's just a benchmark

« **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2006, 05:44:37 PM »

"It's just a benchmark."

Yes, and benchmarks matter. However much you wish it weren't true.

Bob

« **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2006, 06:06:43 PM »

Jordan,

The premise of your question seems to imply that architects design for par to begin with. Sure, we have conceptual holes that are Par 3, 4, 5, 6... etc. However, it really is more of a "Tee Shot, approach, interesting putt/chip" game in lieu of an actual number.

The architect should seek to provide interest in the individual shots on the hole, then par will take care of itself - relevant or not.

If we consider the holes to be "short, medium and long" how does thsi design process change? I'd imagine not too much, since it has been my experience that the architects use the "feel of the land" to determine the placement of the various sized holes.

Par enters into the equation after this initial design, ideally.

As such, does defending par (based on my arbitrary definition) fall more into the hands of the architect or the superintendent preparing the course for play?

« **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2006, 08:53:46 PM »

Quote from: Paul T on April 18, 2006, 04:20:39 PM

1st at Bluemound in WI is a par 4 with a Redan green...not driveable though Jordan

That would then be a Redan design pattern within whatever design pattern the rest of the hole uses.

« **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:01:34 PM »

This is all confusing.

Maybe this is better??

Why is there par if par is irrelevent to how may shots you take??

Also, like I said earlier, why arent certain design features used on longers holes that are used on shorter holes and vice versa...

« **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:03:11 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on April 18, 2006, 04:16:36 PM

Jordan,

You've now officially spent too much time online thinking about this stuff.

Trust me...I've been there.

Of course, you may be interested to note that Dr. Katz takes young clients, as well.

Thinking...??

Me??

You must be kidding...

« **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:05:31 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 18, 2006, 11:01:34 PM

This is all confusing.

Maybe this is better??

Why is there par if par is irrelevent to how may shots you take??

Also, like I said earlier, why arent certain design features used on longers holes that are used on shorter holes and vice versa...

Standard to measure by. A benchmark. Easy to compare relative ability. Target to shoot for... all are good indicators.

It's really just tradition, plain and simple.

And it works.

« **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:07:51 PM »

Jordan,

As spastic as most golfers are is a par four really ever a par four...You seem to base reality in your own most excellent ball striking. Remember it is not as easy for most as it is for you..my young friend.

« **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:11:46 PM »

John,

I am just thinking.

I am not too good.

I guess a par four is always a par four for me....But think, why call a 500 yard hole a par five if people always birdie it...

How about no pars??

« **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:13:16 PM »

Jordan,

It is important to know what is par so we know when to double the bet...Under "par" is always worth a premium...

« **Reply #15 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:24:45 PM »

OK. I understand.

What about this though...

Also, like I said earlier, why arent certain design features used on longers holes that are used on shorter holes and vice versa...

« **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:36:33 PM »

Jordan,
You are wise beyond years. Any relation to Art Wall Jr?
In most professional tournaments par is no longer a benchmark, despite what others say. If breaking par was a benchmark, it is done too easily and you may not make the cut. It remains to make it simply for spectators to compare how golfers are doing at various places on the course.
For amateur golfers it is still a benchmark. We are just waiting for the USGA and the R&A to recalibrate how far a scratch (Mid-Am quality) player hits the ball and bite the bullet. Here as well, they're just ignoring change.
Designwise, you see it best illustrated in the majors when a par 5 is changed into a par 4, but the green that was designed to accept a short third shot is temporarily the target for a longshot. Don't think the designers will do anything different as they would design for the bulk of play instead of the aberration of tour calibre golf.

« **Reply #17 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:41:13 PM »

the 1st hole at Creek could also be categorized as a Redan. Actually, it does a really good job of defending par. There are some really good pin positions in which it is impossible to get it really close to the pin. I would love to see more par 4's that came close to replicating this green!

« **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2006, 01:35:50 AM »

Jordan,

Your thread makes me think about shot values.

You ask, why call it a par 5 if every pro birdies it? (scores a 4)

Great holes push the envelope of what is what? If I recall correctly, wasn't there two 500+yd PAR 4's at the U.S. Open held at Bethpage? The majority of us mere mortals are going to play those as three shot holes!

Into the wind, I absolutely cannot reach #4 at Pacific in regulation. Such is life. At the same time, in that same wind, #6 at Pacific is drivable. Nothing like an eagle on a par 4, I have had but one of those cherished beauts in my day.

Par is relative, but a great golf course will balance the unreachable par 5's (PV7) with a drivable par 4 (CP9). Mix a reachable par 5 (AUG13) with an unreachable par 3(CP16) for increased variety, better shot values and unparalleled thrill and challenge.

« **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2006, 09:52:47 AM »

Heres a question.

If you have par set on a course, then why change it?

Tachnically the US Open was just like every other tournament last year, except the winning score was 8 strokes higher because the par was changed from 70 to 72.

If you are constantly changing par, wouldnt it be better to not have par in the first place...?

« **Reply #20 on:** April 19, 2006, 10:17:03 AM »

"Also, like I said earlier, why arent certain design features used on longers holes that are used on shorter holes and vice versa..."

Jordan:

The easy answer is because different types of shots are expected on different types of holes.

For good explanatins of this kind of thing you should read Tillinghast's chapter called "The Three Shotter" or George Thomas' chapter on half strokes for putts. Both explain why certain types of holes (greens particulrly) are designed for certain types of shots---eg "shot value".

Furthermore, the premise of your thread is "IF" par is irrelevent. Who says par is irrelevent?

Par is irrelevent in one area that few people seem to understand---eg par is irrelevent when it comes to handicap stroke allocation. In other words if you do absolutely nothing to a par 5 hole other than change its par number to 4, the hole's handicap stroke allocation should not change. And the reason for that is just as you said in the first post---that golfers are expected to attempt to play any hole in the fewest number of strokes, period!

« **Reply #21 on:** April 19, 2006, 01:19:50 PM »

My answer to that question would be simple:

I don't defend par.

I mean, seriously. What the heck does it need defending from?

____

On a somewhat related thought, I've got this theory that the indivudual holes' pars should be a decimal value (ie. 3.2 or 5.3, or the average score that a scratch golfer would shoot on that hole) and should add up to the course's rating. Makes sense, no? And it would certainly get rid of all bullsh*t that surrounds par, such as defending it, or holes that are "too easy", "too hard", or [CRINGE!] "unfair"....

« **Reply #22 on:** April 19, 2006, 03:09:05 PM »

For all you architects out there or anyone really...

If you could design a course and forget par, would it make designing the course easier or harder?

« **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2006, 11:40:25 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 18, 2006, 03:57:43 PM

For instance, I have never seen a Redan hole on a hole where par was 4...Could this be possible?? Say, a driveable par 4 (or a hole called a par 4...) which was a redan...? Or, even a two shot longer hole of maybe 490 yards??
Quote

Jordan,

Arrowhead Golf Club in Molalla Oregon has a redan hole on a par 4, not reachable though. To defend par, the solution is not to lengthen the hole but to defend the hole better. Placing a premium on shot making will defend par. Building greens that are not one dimensioned, back to front slope, left to right, right to left. Shot making, shot making, shot making. Build greens with slopes and contours to the extreme (think Alister MacKenzie), that allows the greenkeeper to raise the HOC (height of cut). Make the approach shot to the green risky from a distance and "easier" from a shorter distance. Oh, and bring back the real hazard.

Troy

« **Reply #24 on:** April 20, 2006, 01:40:12 AM »

Troy,

Which hole at Arrowhead is that? Is it one of the new ones they built last year? I play Arrowhead next month. It will be interesting to see the Redan design pattern embedded in a longer hole.

News:

Jordan Wall

Mike_Cirba

PThomas

Kyle Harris

Chris Moore

Michael Dugger

BCrosby

Kyle Harris

Garland Bayley

Jordan Wall

Jordan Wall

Kyle Harris

John Kavanaugh

Jordan Wall

John Kavanaugh

Jordan Wall

peter_p

Robert Mercer Deruntz

Michael Dugger

Jordan Wall

TEPaul

Jeremy_Glenn.

Jordan Wall

Troy Alderson

Garland Bayley