Reread my post.

You missed the issue.

I definitely missed the issue, because I understood your comment exactly the same way Tom did (hence my question).

Could you explain what you mean?

Tom Huckaby,

My GUESS is that the primary focus wasn't on that detail.

Reordering stroke allocation can become complicated, certainly more complicated then simply changing par from 5 to 4.

My guess is that the issue will be reviewed over time.

# 5 is currently the 9th stroke hole.

Patrick:

I am very aware that stroke allocation can be quite complex.

So then what is your point?  Man I am hurting my back bending over so far to give you the benefit of the doubt here... Help me out.  

Bob:

Read the entire thread before you make that summation.  No one has said that par doesn't matter, nor has any of us ever said we don't keep score.  The point remains that for the WISE player, nothing has changed on #5 NGLA.  If he's smart, he changes nothing in his manner of playing the golf hole.  As I've said many times in this thread, I have no doubt there are FAR more "un-smart" golfer than smart, and this will have an effect.  I just hope that if I am playing a match there, or a tournament, I don't let it effect me... It surely shouldn't effect Patrick in the Singles this year - and if he's the smart great player I know he is, he'll even use this to his advantage.

Par does matter, for sure.  I never said it didn't.  I just said it's the smart player who doesn't let it guide his play.

As Bobby Jones surely didn't.

 

Patrick:

I agree with every word of that.  In fact your final line is right on the money:


I submit to you that changing the par to 4 will create a greater emphasis on performance, manifesting itself in the golfer taking greater risks.


I couldn't agree more.

I'd just add this:  you'll gain on the field if you THINK of it as a par five still, and don't let the par change effect you.  Very many will let it effect them, will push to reach the green in two, and will thus make more 6s.  My bet is the scores actually go UP as a result of this change in member play... and in top-flight competitive play, it basically stays the same or maybe goes up a tiny fraction.

That's my point.

Darn I wish you knew Pasa.  It gets fleshed out perfectly on #1 there.

So I will add this for the benefit of Bob Crosby, who I think has played the course or if not, as a Bobby Jones scholar likely knows enough about the course for this to make sense.


Bob:

To flesh this out further, let's use an example, one with which our hero Bobby Jones would be familar:  #1 Pasatiempo.

In Mr. Jones' day, it was a par five.  There were also no trees, and played to a wide open meadow.  Being downhill, I have no doubt he easily reached it in two strokes.  He also likely found no reason not to try.  I think it played at about 490 in Jones' time.

BUT.. the years went by, trees were planted, trees grew huge.   Various tees came and went, until when I started playing it (1982 or so) it had a 460 tee and a rarely-used 480 tee on top of the cart barn.  It remained designated as a par five.  Importantly, a tree grew very large at the front left of the green - and a range was added making OB left - such that combined with the inpenatrable forest on the right, reaching the green in two became VERY VERY difficult.  The wise would not even try.  I have no doubt Jones would have played it cautiously as a three shotter, from the 457 tee.  It just made perfect sense to do so, and the designation of par five made it "acceptable."

NOW fast forward a few years, and the Doak boys renovate/restore the hole a bit to how it was before... But of course not really, as there's no way they're cutting down ALL of the massive trees on the right, nor can they get rid of the driving range OB on the left.  They do remove the tree in front of the green though... And that's enough to make the par designation change, becoming four.

Do we now play the hole differently?  And if so, why?

I will say this:  reaching in two is more doable than it ever has been in my 20+ years playing the course.  BUT it's still death left, delayed death right, and the OB remains left and behind the green... The green remains a very difficult target, and any long approach is still from a downhill lie....

I'm thinking the wise golfer perhaps ups his go/no-go decision from 10% to 20%, but if he is smart, he still plays it as a three shotter.

And in so doing, he GAINS strokes on the field.  Because those who push it thinking they must reach in two are gonna make way more 6s and worse than 4s.  It's the nature of the golf hole.

But yes, way more golfers will feel they have to reach the green in two with the new par designation... I just continue to maintain the smart golfer gains on them by playing the hole as he always has, as a three shotter.

And that's the point of all of this.

TH

Patrick:

EUREKA!

So wouldn't the smart golfer ignore this, play it like he always has, and thus gain on the field?

That's all I've ever tried to say here....

 

Dan - I want to meet the man who could come to agreement with Mr. Mucci on a golf misunderstanding in fewer words.

 

But thanks.  

TH

Dammit!

You're right.  But we're oh so close....

 

Bob:

Perhaps this is a dying thread, but it still pains me to see my point missed.

And missed it again, you did.

Because if you read back in my exchange with Patrick, you'll see that he and I agree that in situations of par changes like this, scores will change.  Both of us speculate that at NGLA, scores will likely rise a bit as more golfers feel they have to reach the green in two, and pay the consequences.  And NGLA #5 is the perfect example for which you were asking:  indeed nothing did change there except the number on the card.  Pasa #1 just makes CLEARER the large effect par figures have, since there you have situation where physical changes made the hole play easier, yet the perception is that it somehow became tougher.

I am NOT arguing that par has no relevance.  Far from it - it has a very large effect on a very large group of golfers, as my Pasa explanation attempted to explain.  See, the hole changes made the hole play easier, but if you ask 100 golfers who played it in 2000 (before the par designation change) and play it today, they'll say it used to be a fairly easy hole, now it's a bitch.

And why?  Because the par was dropped from 5 to 4.  Most golfers do think in par/bogey terms, and since it's now tougher to make par, it's a harder hole.

So you see, I absolutely understand how this works, for most golfers.

MY POINT IS THIS:  if you are smart, you don't let it effect you in this way!  Pasa #1 is actually playing easier than it ever has - it's way more easy to make a 4 on the hole these days.  Why should a number on the scorecard render that irrelevant?  Let the less astute golfers obsess over that - let them try to force their second shots on the green - watch them make sixes as you win the hole playing it like you always have, leaving a pitch for your third.

THAT is the point.  Not that par is irrelevant; but more that in situations like this where the par is changed, the smart golfers understands that nothing really did change, and he lets the less smart golfers play their way into defeat.

280 wins the tournament, not "even par" or "minus four".  Five wins a golf hole against six, not par or bogey against bogey or double-bogey.

And I know you want to be a smart golfer like Patrick who knows this, right Bob?
 
 TH