It's official: NGLA to be par 72

[rgkeller]

I predict that the hole in question will, more often than not, be set up fifty or so yards shorter for the members.

[Punchbowl]

The 5th is now the 9th stroke hole as a par 5 which has always been way off from reality.

Also, to the comment that the tee will be moved up 50 yards...there is no good place to put a tee up 50 yards...you would be down in a valley.  You could make the white tees the green tees.

[Tom Huckaby]

Great discussion, sorry I missed it on Fri and over the weekend.

Patrick:  Cabell, TEP and Rich said pretty much all that is needed to say, but I shall add one more little thing:

There is no doubt that MOST golfers are very much affected by par figures, and a change in such would indeed thrown them for a loop - for all the reasons you've stated.  In other discussions like this, I've used the example of #1 Pasa - which for all intents and purposes was made an easier golf hole by Doak's group's renovation efforts... they removed a large tree, thinned out the huge ones on the side... and the par figure was changed from 4 to 5.

It's amazing how many golfers now call it a "killer opener", "brutal hole", etc., when in reality it plays way easier than it has in the 20 years I've been playing there.

SO.... that is how this effect goes - on most golfers.

I just never figured YOU were "most golfers."

Because you see, at Pasa, the changes just made it a little easier for me to shoot 78 instead of maybe 79... at NGLA my score changes naught....

Does yours?

And if we're playing match play, I'm hoping like heck I'm playing against a guy pressing to make fours on either of these changed holes... I'll be quite happy with my 5s and I bet I'd win the hole way more than I lose it....

If you can't see this, well you better take up Cabell's offer to caddie for you.

TH

[Gene Greco]

The 5th is now the 9th stroke hole as a par 5 which has always been way off from reality.

Also, to the comment that the tee will be moved up 50 yards...there is no good place to put a tee up 50 yards...you would be down in a valley.  You could make the white tees the green tees.

This is correct.

Based on this it is quite possible the hole would have to be altered.

Either the fairway on the right side would have to be extended ala The Bottle hole or the first fairway bunker in the in the series of bunkers which split the fairway next to the optimum driving area would have to be partially eliminated.

[ChasLawler]

What is usually overlooked in these discussions is stroke indexes.  People claim to be talking about handicap players, but I don't that is strictly true.  Almost certainly a par 5 which is reduced to a par 4 will lower the index of the hole.  In matchplay this could certainly influence the strategy of a player giving or receiving a shot on this hole.  So I think a situation like this can make a difference in how the game is played.  

Ciao

Sean

The stroke index/ handicap designation has nothing to do with "par".

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - if courses do that, they are going completely against the spirit and intent of stroke indexing - at least how we do it in the US.

Here's the full low-down:

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_17.html

Here's the most relevant part:

*****************
a. Basis of Allocation

Allocate strokes based on play of the course from the tee markers used most often by the majority of club members.

Allocate the first stroke to the hole on the first nine on which the higher-handicapped player most needs a stroke as an equalizer and the second stroke to the hole on the second nine on which the higher-handicapped player most needs a stroke as an equalizer. Alternate in this manner for the full 18 holes.

Generally the longer the hole, the greater the need for the higher-handicapped player to receive a stroke.

 b. Distribution of Strokes

Odd Strokes/Even Strokes
The USGA recommends that the odd-numbered strokes be assigned to the holes on the first nine and the even-numbered strokes to the holes on the second nine. This format equalizes, as nearly as possible, the distribution of handicap strokes over the entire 18 holes, and makes matches more equitable. In a case where the second nine is decidedly more difficult than the first nine, consideration should be given to allocating odd-numbered strokes to the second nine.

Importance of Low Strokes
The first handicap stroke should be allocated so that this stroke is most useful in matches between players of almost equal ability, such as matches involving players with a Course Handicap of 0 and 1, 10 and 11, or 29 and 30. In such matches, the first handicap stroke will be of the greatest importance as an equalizer to the player receiving the stroke.

In allocating the second handicap stroke, matches between players having a slightly greater difference in Course Handicap should be given the most consideration, such as matches involving players with a Course Handicap of 0 and 2, 10 and 12, or 29 and 31. This process should be continued until the first six strokes have been assigned.

Without substantially deviating from the above principles, allocating low-numbered strokes to holes near the end of each nine should be avoided, so that players receiving strokes will have the opportunity to use these strokes before either nine or 18-hole matches are decided. Lower-numbered strokes should not be allocated to the first and second holes of a course in the event that a hole-by-hole playoff is necessary.

******************

As you see, par does play no role.  If a course is giving lower numbers to shorter golf holes just because one says par 4 and another par 5, they are allowing that their membership falls prey in a huge way to Muccian thinking... which would be pretty darn progressive.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Long par fours would indeed have low indices, but any par five generally ought to be lower - as per the principles I cited.

And remember, these are just general - it is up to each club to decide what works for them.  I just do believe that if a course gives a lower SI to a 450 par 4 than a 475 par 5 - absent any other differences in hazards or the like - they are cheating the higher 'capper.

BUT... you're right - it's not going to make a huge difference either way in the end.

The main point though is that "PAR" does have nothing to do with this - or shouldn't anyway.

As for your suggestion, I do believe you are putting way too much emphasis on "par".  Take that out and then I'd agree with you.  But anyway, hazards and the like simply must factor in... and do.

The bottom line is this - you give the low SI's to the holes on which the stroke is needed.  IN GENERAL, the longer the hole, the more chance for the higher 'capper to screw up, thus the more the stroke is needed.  But many things can, and do change this.

Par designation just isn't one of them - or shouldn't be anywhere except Pat Mucci CC.  

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

As a golfer with a low handicap and a good ball striker the change in par will affect your mental outlook on the hole, but, probably not your method of play, although you may press and/or play more aggresively or recklessly.

To the higher handicap player, it may well change their play as they have no shot at getting home in two with their typical tacking up the fairway.  Hence, some will probably play the hole more recklessly in an attempt to par the hole.

It's a bad change.

Unfortunately, it would be difficult to take the tee back as it would be lower and have to be moved to the east changing the angle of attack into the fairway.

Bobby Jones liked the concept of a reachable par 5.
A hole that could yield an eagle or a birdie with two exceptional shots.   I see no reason to alter that thinking when it comes to NGLA.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

It comes down to this:  the stupid let that number effect the way they play the hole, the smart realize it's just a number on the scorecard.

Given there are a lot of stupid golfers, one could easily mess with the masses' minds if one made changes like this frequently.

So that's how it works in general.  We are in agreement.  I'm just going to put you back in the "smart" category - you were in the stupid for awhile there given you were saying how YOU would play....

 

Specifically to NGLA, I too wouldn't want to change things.  But that's not what I was commenting on here.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

David Lee Roth replied to a question with respect to the breakup of his band, that perhaps the band moved away from him by standing still.

Analagously, if you're playing with peers in a medal play championship, don't you feel that you're giving up a stroke to the field if you make a 5 on a par 4 ?

Or, are you the one standing still ?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

On most golf holes, yes.  But we're not talking about most golf holes.

On the holes discussed in this thread, my 5 maintains pace, and in fact gains ground on those who focus too much on having to reach the green in two strokes.  For example on #1 Pasatiempo, I'll take my chances big time against a field full of guys hitting driver off the tee, and forcing the 2nd shot into the green, against my two irons plus an easy pitch.  I'm playing it like I always have - they're playing it differently because the card now calls it a par four.

THAT is the issue here... and you know it.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I've never played Pasatiempo, so I can't comment.

A collateral question is.

Does the adjustment from par 5 to par 4 place more emphasis on risk-reward in the play of a hole ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick - do the same analysis on the hole that got changed at NGLA.  I only played it the one time, so I'm not as confident in my assessment.  But I bet the principle holds true:  play it like one always has, as a par five, and one beats all week and twice on Sunday those who feel they MUST reach it in two because the card now says "par four".

As for the collateral question... well... again, for those focused too much on par figures, sure, they're going to feel they have to reach the green in two shots - that's the whole point here - so they will take more risks.  The wise don't let it effect them one way or the other.

There are more unwise than wise though, that's for sure.  So again, I am not doubting that this par change has a large effect - it does.  I just continue to maintain that the wise player does not let it effect him at all.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're looking at the play of a hole prior to teeing off.

Everyone has a game plan prior to teeing off, but,
that game plan is often altered after their drive.

Game plans and strategies change as one plays a hole.

A poor tee shot would not unduly upset a golfer when the hole was a par 5.  I believe a poor tee shot will have a greater effect now that the hole is a par 4.

[Tom Huckaby]

Agreed.

If he is a stupid golfer, that is.

Once again, the smart golfer doesn't let par figures effect him a bit.

And once again, I don't doubt there are FAR more stupid golfers than smart, so I also don't doubt these effects occur.

I just remain surprised they would effect YOU.

And that's the point.  Smart golfers could care less about par; the rest of the golf world lets this abstract concept effect them way too much.  Unless one is playing stableford, in the end what does it matter?  280 wins the tournament, not -8.

TH

[ChasLawler]

Tom,
Let it go. Patrick has been saying the same thing for 3 pages now.

You and I have both acknowledged his point of view, but he refuses to acknowledge ours.

Apparently he is not only a stupid golfer…but a close-minded one as well.


I’m still trying to figure out the David Lee Roth analogy???

[Tom Huckaby]

Cabell - well, that's why I am having a hard time letting this go - because I have played golf with Patrick, and know his resume of competitive success enough, to know that he just plain cannot be a stupid golfer.  In fact if I had to pick anyone from this site to be my caddie and actually help my game competitively, he'd be on the very very short list without a doubt.

Thus my incredulity here....

As for David Lee Roth, I thought that was kinda fun.  

[ChasLawler]

Tom - my post may have come off a bit hotter than I intended.

Similar to you, I don't buy that he believes what he's saying. But true to form, he's taken a stance, and he's not going to budge.

FWIW - The David Lee Roth analogy was fun...but a bit of a stretch

[Tom Huckaby]

Cabell:

Gotcha.  Yes, our man here does put the I in Intransigent.

 

I just don't think - this time - that he is taking a stance he doesn't really believe in just to screw with us.  Oh, he is famous for that... so perhaps he is laughing at us... But we shall see.

TH

[ChasLawler]

Tom - He's not doing this to screw with us. He was taken to task on an opinion he expressed.

He just doesn't want to admit that he's wrong

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom & Cabell,

When you're giving a stroke to your opponent on that difficult par 4 and he lies two, short of the green, not far from you, let me know how trivial par on that hole is, as compared to playing the hole as a par 5 where no strokes are involved.

Broaden your view  

[ChasLawler]

why would strokes be involved?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

WRONG.

Par generally plays no role in how strokes are allocated.  In fact, absent any hazard considerations, the longer hole in terms of yards will nearly always get the lower stroke number.  If a course gives a 450 yard hole a lower stroke index than a 475 yard hole, they have to have a pretty damn good reason... Because it makes perfect sense that the longer the golf hole, the more chance for the higher 'capper to screw up.

So... in most instances, I'm giving or getting the stroke on the longer hole (likely designated as par 5) not the shorter one (likely designated as par 4); not the other way around, as you seem to assume.

But the point is par has nothing to do with it.  Distance carries the day.

Need I point you to the part of the USGA website where this is explained?

Perhaps it is your knowledge that needs to be broadened, if not your view?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cabbell,

If you can find some 10, 15, and 20+ handicaps who will play me for a few quid without the benefit of receiving strokes, I'll pay their guest fees and travel expenses to NGLA.

Tom Huckaby,

I know how strokes are allocated.

Reread my post.

You missed the issue.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Hmmmmm... OK, of course you know that you've created an example that is VERY unlikely to exist in real life.  In far far far more instances, the stroke is given on the longer golf hole.... and none of it is determined by the par designation.  

Is the stroke allocation at NGLA going to change along with the par change?  I don't think it did at Pasa... if anything it went UP because the hole got easier with the tree clearance...

It would be very strange to me if NGLA did lower the stroke allocation on #5 because of the par change.  If they do, well... they are catering to the lowest common denominator of player.  I suppose that can be done... It would surprise me, that's all.

But that would be a way that par factors in here.  I just really don't think it should - or does - work out that way.  Distance should still carry the day in stroke allocation.  And if you lower that hole, which one rises?


TH