[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

At 478 yards into a prevailing wind, a usually heavy wind off the water, it's a very hard par 4, and will probably cause many golfers to press their tee shot.

You can't view every golf situation from the perspective of the PGA Tour Pro.  NGLA is played by it's members and guests, mostly amateurs.  I predict that making the hole a par 4 will prove to be an unpopular and ill advised decision amongst the ranks of those who play the hole.

TEPaul,

It's no different from demanding that a player goes from an 80 % free throw shooter to a 90 % free throw shooter.

Nothing about the height of the basket has changed, it's still 10 feet, and the free throw line remains at 15 feet.

It's that the benchmark, the bar has been set higher, therefore performance must match it.

At 478 into the wind, I won't be making many pars unless my chipping and putting improve.

Quite simply, reaching the green in regulation will be difficult to impossible for most players, thus, they'll lose a shot to par because the hole is too hard.

And, shouldn't reaching a green in regulation factor into determining par for the hole ?

[Bill_McBride]

The biggest factor when changing a hole from par 5 to par 4 without changing anything but the number on the card is that the green is not big enough!  Long par 4 = big green, run the ball onto the green.  Short par 5 = small green, protected from run up shot.  

This happens a lot at the US Open, which doesn't make it right or make the hole play any better.

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan, et. al.,

Let's face it, the pressure to perform, to play and make a par increases dramatically when you just change the par from 5 to 4.

Especially when you have a once and a lifetime oppurtunity to play NGLA!!  I sure wouldn't wanna play bad on a course like that!![/color]

Par remains a benchmark for performance.

Precisely!!![/color]

It's cavalier nonsense to think that par doesn't matter in stroke play competition.

True true true.  I bet there would have been more 3's and 4's on #11 at Augusta if it was a pPar-5!!!  I think pos make eagles so much because they are almost, more mind intended to make birdie, so they hit the green in two a lot, and once that happens they change their minds to eagle.  Par really does matter in competition!![/color]

[Gene Greco]

The biggest factor when changing a hole from par 5 to par 4 without changing anything but the number on the card is that the green is not big enough!  Long par 4 = big green, run the ball onto the green.  Short par 5 = small green, protected from run up shot.  

This happens a lot at the US Open, which doesn't make it right or make the hole play any better.

Bill:

  The fifth green is huge just like most all the greens at NGLA.
Not a factor with plenty and still more room to bail out right of the green.

[TEPaul]

I've looked at #5 a lot to see what it would play like as a par 4 for long players and one of the things I think they should do on that hole is expand the fairway to the right along side that big center bunker. Then set the tees on that hole so long players would have the opportunity (the temptation) to drive the ball to the right along side that big center bunker. They may even be able to see the green from that vantage (if they hit the ball far enough down the right). The good news with that wrinkle is it would bring that big center bunker right into play off the tee if they hit the ball straight down the fairway and not down the right. The entire idea is to get that big inline center bunker into play as much as possilbe as a strategic factor on the tee shot.

[Punchbowl]

The risk/reward would be to use the old man's tee as the middle tee and provoke players to go up the hill on the LEFT side where they would not be left with a blind second...and they would not run through into the cross bunker if they are long hitters....but the landing area on the left is tight.

[George_Bahto]

A good replication of Road hole strategy just about demands reaching its green in regulation (2-strokes now) is something you could not often accomplish.

A try should be very dangerous.

[ChasLawler]

It's no different from demanding that a player goes from an 80 % free throw shooter to a 90 % free throw shooter.

Nothing about the height of the basket has changed, it's still 10 feet, and the free throw line remains at 15 feet.

It's that the benchmark, the bar has been set higher, therefore performance must match it.

Pat – I know we’re not going to agree on this, but your argument assumes that EVERYONE evaluates the level of his or her performance in relation to par.

The simple truth is the par shouldn’t matter to the intelligent player. Some may use it as benchmark, but in the end, the person who gets in with the least amount of strokes wins…in match play AND stroke play.

You stated earlier that golf is played one hole at a time. Actually golf is played one shot at a time. In stroke play competition an intelligent golfer should evaluate each shot based on how it could affect his total score – not just par for that hole.

Personally for me, taking 5 on a 468-yard hole (especially into the wind) sounds about right. I'd obviously rather take only 4 or even 3 if possible, but everyone needs to understand and accept their own limitations. Why should I care that someone designated it a “par 4”?

Quite frankly, I’m amazed you’ve been so successful in your amateur career with this type of mindset. Just imagine what you could have accomplished otherwise.

If you ever need a caddy….

[Dan Kelly]

I'd rather not walk to the 6th tee frustrated by a bogey or angry over a double bogey.

I'd be perfectly happy walking to the 6th tee at NGLA, having taken a double-bogey at 5.

This may be one of the many reasons Patrick has had much competitive success, and I have had none.

I'm with Cabell_Ackerly on this, from Alpha to Omega.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Punchbowl,

Are you suggesting that the golfer should lay up short of the leftside punchbowl, or hit over it ?

Cabell Ackerly,

Scorecards make golfers keenly aware of the par an every hole.

This is a concession to the distance problem, and nothing more.

[ChasLawler]

Cabell Ackerly,

This is a concession to the distance problem, and nothing more.

Well...would you agree that it's the best concession yet to the distance problem?

If I understand your thought process correctly, NGLA just got harder...and they didn't have to change anything architecturally.

[TEPaul]

This mindset that a good player would approach or play this hole differently simply because they now call it a par 4 without having done a thing to the hole just blows my mind. Does anyone actually think it will now be easier or more likely that one should or would make 4 on this hole now that its a par 4 and not a par 5? If someone actually believes that then all I can say is both golf and this thing in it called par definitely will always have the last laugh.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell Ackerly,

This is a concession to the distance problem, and nothing more.

Well...would you agree that it's the best concession yet to the distance problem?

If I understand your thought process correctly, NGLA just got harder...and they didn't have to change anything architecturally.

Cabell,

Here's where you and TEPaul go wrong.

You ignore the impact distance has had upon the architecture and the play of the hole as intended by the architect.

It's like the "Hotel" bunker complex on # 7, it's been obsoleted due to hi-tech and distance.

And, so it is with # 5.

The name of the 5th hole is "Hog's Back", after the fairway feature, a feature the golfer was meant to encounter with his driver, especially into the prevailing wind.

As to the green, it's small by NGLA standards, less then 5,000 sq/ft

What is interesting about NGLA is CBM's theoretical lines of play for the championship and average golfer as manifested in his schematics that hang in the pro shop and appear at the back of "Scotland's Gift"

CBM clearly defines the route of play for the lessor golfer.
The 5th hole played a 478, 460 and 420, mostly into a prevailing wind.

If you and TEPaul can view the play of the hole in the context of the average golfer it would help you understand why changing par to 4 is a mistake.

When you combine the yardage with the configuration of the features and the wind, you make it next to impossible for the average player to make par on that hole.

All too often this esteemed group only views golf courses and architecture from the perspective of the PGA Tour Pro or scratch handicap golfer.  Yet, the great majority of golfers have handicaps and methods of play that differ greatly from that esteemed group.

And as such, changing the hole to a par 4 abandons the needs of the average player by removing par from his scoring spectrum.

The average player needs to tack his way down the fairway, weaving around the features, the Hog's Back, bowls, bunkers and slopes, just to reach the green in three.

And, the approach for the average player is tricky.
The fairway pitches high right to low left, the green is relatively small, and only has a three foot elevation change from back to front, thus, the ability of the average player to "recover" to the green in three, is no easy task, and asking him to "recover" to the green and one putt, is almost impossible.

Thus, the average or higher handicap player is unfairly punished for being an average or higher handicap player.

And, that's why the hole should remain a par 5.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"If you and TEPaul can view the play of the hole in the context of the average golfer it would help you understand why changing par to 4 is a mistake."

Patrick:

As per usual you are confused and wrong again.

It has never been my proposal that NGLA officially change the par of any of their holes on their regular scorecard.

All I've ever proposed for NGLA is that they have an alternate scorecard only for elite players that reduces the par a few of the par 5s.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you actuallly think the way an intelligent golfer plays a golf hole that does not change an iota other than the fact that its par number is dropped is beyond my comprehension.

If the risks and rewards of the hole don't change at all why should the way any intelligent golfer plays the hole change?

TEPaul,

You did write this didn't you ?

Or has Mayday Malone been sneaking into your computer room again ?

Do you want to revisit this post in view of the average player or higher handicaps play of the hole as designated by CBM himself ? [/color]

[ForkaB]

The past two days I played an old fashioned course with some old fashioned players (it was a senior's tournament ), and after getting 3 on the 8th hole on the first 9 of the first day, the youngest member of our group said with a smile:

"That gets me back to 'level 4's."

This fellow was (and still is) a seriously good player, but the thought of "par" hardly entered into his mind.  In fact, when he got 4 on the 530 yard 16th he didn't even realise it was a "birdie" until I congratulated him.  To him, it was just keeping his score at "level 4's."

Patrick

Give up the ghost on this one.  "Par" is probably somewhat relelvant to touring pros as a way of figuring out their position relative to the field without resorting to higher maths such as elementary algebra (or in the case of some of them, addition and subtraction)........

Have a nice day!

[ChasLawler]

Cabell Ackerly,

This is a concession to the distance problem, and nothing more.

Well...would you agree that it's the best concession yet to the distance problem?

If I understand your thought process correctly, NGLA just got harder...and they didn't have to change anything architecturally.

Cabell,

Here's where you and TEPaul go wrong.

You ignore the impact distance has had upon the architecture and the play of the hole as intended by the architect.

It's like the "Hotel" bunker complex on # 7, it's been obsoleted due to hi-tech and distance.

And, so it is with # 5.

The name of the 5th hole is "Hog's Back", after the fairway feature, a feature the golfer was meant to encounter with his driver, especially into the prevailing wind.

As to the green, it's small by NGLA standards, less then 5,000 sq/ft

What is interesting about NGLA is CBM's theoretical lines of play for the championship and average golfer as manifested in his schematics that hang in the pro shop and appear at the back of "Scotland's Gift"

CBM clearly defines the route of play for the lessor golfer.
The 5th hole played a 478, 460 and 420, mostly into a prevailing wind.

If you and TEPaul can view the play of the hole in the context of the average golfer it would help you understand why changing par to 4 is a mistake.

When you combine the yardage with the configuration of the features and the wind, you make it next to impossible for the average player to make par on that hole.

All too often this esteemed group only views golf courses and architecture from the perspective of the PGA Tour Pro or scratch handicap golfer.  Yet, the great majority of golfers have handicaps and methods of play that differ greatly from that esteemed group.

And as such, changing the hole to a par 4 abandons the needs of the average player by removing par from his scoring spectrum.

The average player needs to tack his way down the fairway, weaving around the features, the Hog's Back, bowls, bunkers and slopes, just to reach the green in three.

And, the approach for the average player is tricky.
The fairway pitches high right to low left, the green is relatively small, and only has a three foot elevation change from back to front, thus, the ability of the average player to "recover" to the green in three, is no easy task, and asking him to "recover" to the green and one putt, is almost impossible.

Thus, the average or higher handicap player is unfairly punished for being an average or higher handicap player.

And, that's why the hole should remain a par 5.[/color]

So the hole is somehow more fair if it's a par 5?

Call it a par 5...a par 4...a par 6...even a par 3 - it's the same frickin hole. NOTHING has changed.

Some holes are harder than others. The better player is always going to have a better chance of making the lower score...or "par".

Using your logic again - should clubs alter their scorecards for their seniors and short hitters who can't reach existing long par 4's in two shots? Are they somehow not fair?

FWIW - I'm an average golfer

[TEPaul]

Richard:

Patrick has flogged a lot of dead horses on this website but this one was both dead and buried long ago.

It's interesting to hear you mention that "level fours" thing. Maybe I'm just much older than you but I remember how prevalent that mentality and expression used to be in golf. My mother approached and played golf that way. I think her idea and expectation was "level fives" though.

If Patrick thinks that now that NGLAs' #5 is called a par 4 and that that should induce of inspire him to make more 4s on that hole than he used to one might wonder both why and how Patrick approached that hole in the past since nothing about the actual hole has been changed other than a lower par number.

Isn't it delightful how daffy golf can make people like Patrick?

[TEPaul]

"So the hole is somehow more fair if it's a par 5?
Call it a par 5...a par 4...a par 6...even a par 3 - it's the same frickin hole. NOTHING has changed."

Cabell:

Yes the 5th hole at NGLA can be considered more fair for the average golfer if it remained a par 5, at least if "fair" is considered to be a reasonable expectation. The reason is obvious---eg very few average golfers are capable of getting on that green in two shots. Whether you and I agree with it or not most golfers from the tees they play or should play have a reasonable expectation of reaching greens in the regulation amount of shots depending on the hole's par. We may not like this relatively modern standard of GIR but the point is it does exist in the eyes of the USGA as well as in the perception of most golfers. GIR is a component of the USGA's definition of "par".

As usual, Patrick Mucci has completely missed my point about the 5th hole at NGLA and I've been saying the same thing for years now. His abilty to read and comprehend things is just shocking at best.

I have never suggested, recommended or advocated that NGLA reduce the par on the 5th hole or any othe hole on that course on their regulation scorecard---eg the one all the members and guests use.

All I've ever suggested is that NGLA consider printing a separate and alternate scorecard for the benefit of the elite player calling #5 and perhaps even #7 or even #18 par 4s. These separate and alternate cards could list the course as a par 72, 71 or even 70.

The reason I say that is with two normal shots most all elite players I know are capable of reaching each of those greens in two shots.

I believe if the club produced those separate and alternate scorecards to be used by the elite player it wouldn't take long for the perception of the challenge of those holes and consequently the golf course to change.

I feel exactly the same way about Maidstone. They should have a separate and alternate card on hand lising #15 and #16 as par 4s and the course as a par 70 instead of a 72 for elite players ONLY because the fact is in reality those two holes are par 4s for elite players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell Ackerly,

Charles Blair MacDonald diagramed the play of the hole for the less then scratch golfer.

It involved tacking one's way around the considerable architectural features that he designed on the hole.

Into the prevailing wind a 5 handicap player has little chance of ever getting home in two.  Now picture the plight of a 10 or 15 handicap player who could get home in three.

Before you provide your analysis of how the hole should be played, or make the statement that nothing about the hole has changed, take a careful look at MacDonald's schematic, and how the less than championship player had to play the hole.

Why make him one over par by reducing par when getting home in two is FAR, FAR beyond his ability.

It's absurd.

Why shouldn't the higher handicap player have a chance to make birdie.

In most instances, the par 5's at NGLA are the most likely place for that to happen.  And now, one of those opportunities will be removed.

TEPaul,

I don't view the architecture at NGLA solely as it relates to the scratch golfer.

You have to expand your horizons and view the architecture in the context of the broad spectrum of golfers who trod those fairways.

And, if you do that, you'll see that making # 5 a par 4 is patently unfair to them.

CBM knew what he was doing.
You and Cabell don't.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I don't view the architecture at NGLA solely as it relates to the scratch golfer.

You have to expand your horizons and view the architecture in the context of the broad spectrum of golfers who trod those fairways.

And, if you do that, you'll see that making # 5 a par 4 is patently unfair to them."

Patrick:

What the hell is going on with you anyway??

That is WHY I've for years now suggested leaving the par for NGLA just the way it's always been and printing up a SEPARATE and ALTERNATE card for the elite player ONLY reducing the par.

Is that really so hard for you do understand??

I have NEVER suggested dropping the par for any hole at NGLA on the regular scorecard.

How in God's name is it not possible for you to understand this??

[Doug Siebert]

So does anyone know for a fact that the hole in question at NGLA will remain the same length once it is switched to a par 4?  If it is a bit too long for average golfers, maybe the members will play it up a bit.  For those playing the tips, a 468 yard hole (even into the wind) isn't unreasonable as a par 4.  I'm assuming NGLA has multiple tees, but as I've never been there I realize that may be an incorrect assumption.

Go play Prestwick and you'll be treated to several 460 yarders that play directly into wind that I'm sure is typically stronger than what NGLA sees.  They are listed on the card as par 4s, but they are played as par 5s (or more) without any complaint.  On the other hand, you have the Cardinal which is longer at IIRC 482 yards and listed on the card as a par 5 but played 4i/8i for me last time I was there.

[ChasLawler]

Pat,
I don't disagree with your assement of the hole, and the way MacDonald intended it to play.

My only point is that an intelligent golfer shouldn't change the way he plays a hole based on its par designation.

You and I disagree on the relevance of par. It appears as if that's not going to change.

Please answer this one question though...
Do you believe that the course is now harder (not just in relation to "par") as a result of this change? That is what you seemed to be saying earlier.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabell,

The intelligent golfer won't change the way he plays the hole.

The problem is that the vast majority of golfers who play the hole intelligently, and execute according to plan, will now post a bogey, when a par was intended for those who planned and played intellligently.

Both, because the expectation for performance has been heightened.

Most golfers would rather make par then bogey.

With the original scorecard, par was within their reach.
As a "4" it's not.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Nothing like the scorecard and pencil mentality ruining a perfectly good golf hole.....

The place will always be a Par 73 for me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()