I’m a fan of tweener holes and I once thought par was irrelevant, even unfortunate, but I’m not sure anymore. I do know par will not go away so it may be better to think of ways it can be used to make rounds more enjoyable and memorable rather than pretend it shouldn’t make any difference (because it does). My thinking is affected by a recent board of directors planning exercise at the Katepwa Beach Golf Club. One question board members were asked was to identify their favorite and least favorite holes at the course. There was no clear winner or loser, but the most often mentioned hole was the seventh and the responses were far from unanimous. Half listed it as one of their favorite holes. Half of the rest identified it as their least favorite hole.
From the back tee, the hole plays as a right to left dog-leg par 4 of 270 yards, but if played directly to the green it shortens to 255 yards. To get to the fairway one must carry a ravine. The safe play is a 170 yard tee shot to a semi-blind but generous landing area, followed by a 100 yard pitch over a shallow bunker to a low profile green that slopes Redan-like slightly away and from right to left. There is fairway left of the safe 170 yard landing area angling all the way to the green, but it becomes narrower and hump-backed as one gets closer to the green and the further left one goes off the tee (more directly at the green), the more danger comes into play on the left hand side with slight misses getting punished by bush, long grass or a collection bunker about 30 yards before the green. There are two other tees on the hole, one at 165 yards, on the green-side of the ravine, and one at 215 yards that must carry the ravine but at an angle more perpendicular to the green and fairway than the back tee. For men, the hole has played as a 270 yard par-4 from the “regular” tees and a 215 yard par-3 from the “back” tees. At least 90% of our rounds are played from the regular tees. Probably 90% of those playing the regular tees are going for the green rather than laying up, but no more than a third of these have the slightest chance of actually reaching the green. Carnage ensues.
Divergence of opinion over the hole I suspect is due to the following: (a) it is a non-traditional length—It doesn't fit some player's preconceived notions of what a par-3 should be or what a par-4 should be; (b) it slows play; and (c) it frustrates those who cannot bring themselves to lay up and find themselves nine times out of ten losing balls or hacking out of long grass or blasting out of a nasty bunker from that no-mans length of 30-40 yards or so. There are more 6's and worse on this hole than there are on the next hole even though the next hole is a couple hundred yards longer!
So guess what some players clamor for? What is the solution to frustration and slow play? Play to the fairway? Nooo—take the trouble away between tee and green—that's the ticket. All you have to do is fill in a bunker, re-grade the fairway to kick balls right or forward instead of left and bring in fill to create a fairway area extending back from the green on a line toward the back tee. Arrgghhh! The result would strip the hole of all its strategic interest and unique and distinct personality. A bit like J-Lo getting plastic surgery to make her fanny flatter.
Another suggestion is to have the hole play from the regular tees as a 215 yard par-3 and from the back tees as a 255 yard par-3. It would create instant notoriety, as it would be the toughest par-3 within a days drive. But here is where I find myself succumbing to the "Power of Par" and the “Fun Factor”. Par is of course objectively irrelevant to a hole. A hole is a hole and a score is a score. Whether it's labeled a 3 or a 4 does not change the playing characteristics of a hole. But—an eagle is not a birdie. Reaching the green on a par-3 is meeting expectations while reaching the green on a par-4 is a thrilling exception to expectations. Putting a par number on a hole can without question affect how fun (subjectively) the hole is to play by transforming it (in the player’s mind) into a penal rather than a heroic test of golf.
Intellectually, it should make absolutely no difference to me. I often play the hole as a par-3 of 215 yards. But from the back tee, if I am honest with myself, I know I would rather play the hole as a par-4 as would all the other lower handicap players I’ve talked to. I lay up about half the time now, which is the smart thing to do especially as the hole plays into the wind much of the time. But if it was labeled a par-3 I think I'd be going for the green on the tee shot 9/10ths vs. 5/10ths the time (and my average score on the hole would climb). The hole wouldn't have changed, but somehow my manliness would be challenged by the thought of laying up on a par-3. Then again, if there was no par assigned to the hole, I’d be back to playing it “smart”.
Ironically, the only players who would like to see the back tee labeled as a par-3 are higher handicap players who find themselves unable to play the hole smart, regardless of whether it is assigned a par or not, so they want to be moved off the tee altogether. They simply cannot get themselves to aim anywhere but at the green or somewhere between the green and the safe layup area. They even say they find it easier to lay up from 215 yards than from 255 yards. They repeatedly make such foolish choices relative to their ability, the extra stroke relative to par (at the cost of a mere 40-50 yards) is of no use to them. The dimensions and angles of the hole itself makes them play stupid, irrespective of par. On the other hand, my stupidity is revealed only after assigning a par to the hole.