Darwinism --II (The Par-3 Home Hole)

[Dan Kelly]

Bernard Darwin, "The Golf Courses of the British Isles," Chapter XIV, "Wales":

" ... [Porthcawl] ends with an exceedingly difficult single-shot hole. There is in the minds of many a prejudice against finishing with a short hole, and it is certainly an ending which is not to be found on many good courses. Nevertheless, if the shot be only difficult enough, it is a little hard to see why a short hole should not make a really fine finish. There is an unpleasant feeling of finality about the tee-shot at any short hole, which never allows us to feel wholly comfortable, and certainly 'Hades' or the 'Maiden' would be infinitely more alarming if they came at the end of the round instead of in the earlier part of the round, when no mistake is irreparable. From the spectator's point of view, it is desirable to get the player to the eighteenth tee in the last state of nervous exhaustion, and a tricky, difficult one-shot hole accomplishes that rather inhuman purpose to perfection."

Thoughts?

[Craig_Dex]

It always amazes me when you look at the handicapping of the holes on most golf courses.  The longest par-5 is #1, the longest par-4 is #5, longest par-3 is #15, etc.  I have always subscribed to the theory that those handicaps should be flip-flopped.  Par-3 holes longer than say 150 yards are usually harder pars than a 525 yard par-5.

The USGA loves for their championships to end with a back breaking par-4 (usually a par-5 converted for the occasion).  They obviously want to put a premium on par.  I think a stern par-3 finish would accomplish that.

I live in Atlanta.  I have played East Lake and been satisfied with watching the top 30 money winners trying to negotiate #18 there.  I guess I'm saying I don't mind a "one-shotter" to finish.  But, like everything else, I'll take them in moderation...

- Craig Dex

[THuckaby2]

Craig:  re handicapping of holes, the idea is, where does the higher handicapper need the stroke the most?  In general, the longer the hole, the shots he hits,  and the more he needs the stroke.  Yes, it's exactly the opposite when you think of where the low 'capper makes the most bogeys, but that's not the point...  On the vast majority of par 3's, the low capper can get on in 2 - there's less time to screw up - so he doesn't need the shot as much, especially when you realize the low capper screws up MORE on said holes, given he has a generally longer shot to the green on any par 3 than he does for his 2nd on a par 4 or 3rd on a par 5....  This illustrates a big misconception so many people have re handicap stroke holes - they do NOT measure the hardest holes, necessarily - they measure where the high handicapper most needs the stroke in a match.  My feeling is many golf courses do them wrong, due to this misconception....

Re closing par 3's, East Lake's is perfect for championship play, I think - it absolutely exemplifies what Darwin says, because it puts a wood or long iron into the hands of these guys for an approach shot... VERY few par 4's would do that these days....

TH

[Matt Dupre]

The USGA showed that it's not a prisoner of convention when it kept the par-3 18th at Congressional.  You'll remember that, unfortunately, there was more drama at the 17th than on 18th.  Even with five irons in their hands, no one wanted to go at the left side pins - hit a boring shot to the middle and took their chances on making a putt.

I think Darwin's thoughts on pressure on the player as well as excitement for the spectator are more appropriate for us club players as opposed to professionals or top-notch amateurs.

[THuckaby2]

I think Darwin's thoughts on pressure on the player as well as excitement for the spectator are more appropriate for us club players as opposed to professionals or top-notch amateurs.

That's a great thought.  That's why I think East Lake works where Congressional doesn't... there is definite pressure at East Lake, and it's just too easy to play cautiously at Congressional, as you say.  The key is it has to be a LONG par 3 to make this work for the pros....

TH

[Jim Sweeney]

Craig Dex-

I'm wracking my brain to identify 18th holes the USGA has turned from par 5's to 4's for the U.S. Open. The only one that comes to mind is OAkland Hills, but the tee is moved forward so the ball is driven past the corner, leaving a mid-iron second.

Finishing par 5's include Pebble and Baltusrol.

Changing a par five to a four usually happens because the players would be hitting irons to those greens anyway, and takes into consideration topography and design of green surrounds. These days, thats means pretty much anything under 500 yards, is flat or downhill, open off the tee, and the green has an opening.

Bethpaige, Olympic, Oak Hill, Southern Hills, The Country Club, Pinehurst, and Oakmont all have difficult par four 18th's but all primarily do to severity of the greens and/or surrounds.

Haven't read anything about plans for the last hole at Torrey Pines, but at last year's Buick many players reached with irons......

[Steve Wilson]

Brora, though certainly not a U. S. Open or British Open quality course comes to mind.  It's a long iron or fairwood uphill to a canted green that is surrounded by some fearsome bunkers.  And of course it finishes under the windows of the clubhouse so any struggles will be observed.

And come to think of it, the 18th at Fortrose and Rosemarkie is also a long iron to a green under the clubhouse windows, but it's not uphill nor protected by such menacing bunkers.

[ForkaB]

Steve

I think the 18th at Brora was exactly what Darwin had in mind when he said:

"From the spectator's point of view, it is desirable to get the player to the eighteenth tee in the last state of nervous exhaustion, and a tricky, difficult one-shot hole accomplishes that rather inhuman purpose to perfection."

Jimmy Miller, Brora's legendary golfer, once came to 18 in a medal round needing a birdie 2 for a 59.  He got 4.  While 61 still ain't bad, it shows that the finest of golf holes can make even the best of us suffer from "nervous exhaustion."