Par 5's shortened to Par 4's

[James Bennett]

On a recent thread (Tony Muldoon's) about various opinions on changes to Augusta, one of the questions was whether 13 and 15 would be better as par 4's, or left as par 5's.  There have been a variety of opinions, from 13 as a par 4 (which is as Mackenzie at one stage planned it!) to leaving both as par 5,s and just enjoying the scoreyard battles, with eagles to double bogies covering the likely scoring spread.

It made me think about the various events (typically US Opens, but others as well) where par 5's are converted to par 4's by moving the tees forward.  There may be occasions where the hole could be a 4 or a 5 from the same tee (eg Augusta #13, depending on your desire).  I am talking about where the decision is taken to shorten the hole, and to reduce the par by one.

What holes has this been done on that, in your opinion, have resulted in more interesting golf?  Not just more difficult versus par, but more interesting to watch.  Perhaps through better engagement between the player and the course hazards.  Perhaps for some other reason.

James B

[Doug Siebert]

Does it really matter at the level of pro golfers?  They aren't stretching to reach either hole, but those who drive out of position and have a decision to make aren't going to change their decision based on the listed par for the hole.  That may work with bogey golfers, not pros in a major championship.

The fans would be pissed by such a change and it wouldn't really serve any purpose other than to make scores double digits under par far less likely, and even bring an over par finishing score into play if Georgia ever sees dry weather in the weeks prior and gusty winds during Masters week.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I like 13 at AGN as a par five, but I wonder if more tour pros would go for the green in two if it were a par four. If so then it could be an even more exciting hole.

[Doug Siebert]

I assume you meant you wondered if more would go for it as a par 4?

How many don't go for it now?  I'll bet its in the single digits each day, and most of those because they drove it out of position.

Why is a pro going to be more likely to go for it because its a par 4?  If the hole is otherwise identical, the field is going to have the same 72 hole total strokes whether its a 4 or 5, its just the psychology of birdies versus eagles.  I can't believe the pros haven't become immune to that ages ago.

[Jon Wiggett]

James,

there are several cases of holes being shortened par wise for the pro's. One that comes to mind is the 15th at Wentworth's West Course. Par five from the members tees and par four from the championship tee. Bingley St.Ives also used to turn their par 4 1st into a formidable long uphill par three for the tour.

[James Bennett]

My question is 'are these holes more interesting' as a shortened hole for pro-play.

Jon Wiggett mentions two examples of where this has been done, Wentworth West #15 (presumably shorter than the members tees) and Bingley St Ives (a par 3, in lieu of a 4).  Jon,  in your opinion, have these changes made those particular holes better to watch.

James B

[Adrian_Stiff]

My question is 'are these holes more interesting' as a shortened hole for pro-play.

Jon Wiggett mentions two examples of where this has been done, Wentworth West #15 (presumably shorter than the members tees) and Bingley St Ives (a par 3, in lieu of a 4).  Jon,  in your opinion, have these changes made those particular holes better to watch.

James B

I think 13 & 15 @ ANGC are at their best as they are now; ie par 5 holes. I think a pro just tries to play in the lowest score per hole anyway. I think too many are preoccupied in worrying about people being too many under. We are in the entertainments business we like playng golf and making birdies and we like watching them. ANGC is great TV with the subtleness of potential dropped shots everywhere and those two holes where you feel two shots should be picked up. I cant say im a fan of 525 yard par 4 holes.

[wsmorrison]

Charles Howell III was interviewed on the Golf Channel and made a reference to the Florida swing saying that it is a tougher stretch now.  He mentioned that a few par 5s were changed to par 4s (Bay Hill?) making the course tougher.  I do think changing par has a psychological effect that is hard to avoid, even though 4 round aggregate scores win.  It should make them feel better on tour because most think that par 5s are par 4s for Tiger anyway  

[Philippe Binette]

I'd prefer to have 13 and 15 as par fives at Augusta, because the approach is hard enough to make those short holes (relatively speaking) good par 5.

13th requires a fade approach from a severe draw lie and the pin a 15th can be pretty nasty.

It's more exciting to see aggressive play and aggressive putts for eagle from 30 feet than seeing a player happy to be on in 2 and lagging up for a 4

[Doug Sobieski]

Charles Howell III was interviewed on the Golf Channel and made a reference to the Florida swing saying that it is a tougher stretch now.  He mentioned that a few par 5s were changed to par 4s (Bay Hill?) making the course tougher.  I do think changing par has a psychological effect that is hard to avoid, even though 4 round aggregate scores win.  It should make them feel better on tour because most think that par 5s are par 4s for Tiger anyway  

Correct about Bay Hill. #'s 4 and 16 will be par 4's, making it a par 70. The Tour certainly has jurisdiction on this type of set-up decision, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Palmer may have planted the seed in an effort to see scores go up in relation to par.

I can see the pros complaning plenty about #4. That green isn't built to receive a very long shot.

Shouldn't the pros think that the course is EASIER, since the stroke average should go down?  

[M. Shea Sweeney]

how bout the 7th a Bethpage Black. I'm not exactly sure if I like the hole better as a par 4 or 5. However in 2002 the USGA thought 4 would be best.
I
I do think as a par 5 it isnt the most difficult hole, but as a 4 can be one of the tougher ones on the course.

[Gary Slatter]

we worry about par too much, the lowest score wins and par only matters in Stablefords.

[Dave_Miller]

On a recent thread (Tony Muldoon's) about various opinions on changes to Augusta, one of the questions was whether 13 and 15 would be better as par 4's, or left as par 5's.  There have been a variety of opinions, from 13 as a par 4 (which is as Mackenzie at one stage planned it!) to leaving both as par 5,s and just enjoying the scoreyard battles, with eagles to double bogies covering the likely scoring spread.

It made me think about the various events (typically US Opens, but others as well) where par 5's are converted to par 4's by moving the tees forward.  There may be occasions where the hole could be a 4 or a 5 from the same tee (eg Augusta #13, depending on your desire).  I am talking about where the decision is taken to shorten the hole, and to reduce the par by one.

What holes has this been done on that, in your opinion, have resulted in more interesting golf?  Not just more difficult versus par, but more interesting to watch.  Perhaps through better engagement between the player and the course hazards.  Perhaps for some other reason.

James B

In 1982 during qualifying for Match play at the US Amateur the 7th and 10th holes at Charles River were made Par 4's.
The same was done for the New England Amateur, Mass Amateur, 2003 USGA Men's State Team Championship and 2006 Mass State Open.  This makes the holes fun to watch and the average score is about 4.7 in all cases.  
However if played as a Par 5 the average score is still about 4.7.
Ergo what difference does it make.  Low score wins.
Best
Dave

[Jeff_Brauer]

we worry about par too much, the lowest score wins and par only matters in Stablefords.

I think we worry about tournament play too much.  Its only 0.000001% of the rounds played in the US.

On new courses, I actually try to design the longest par 4 as if it was a former 5 that is are now long par 4's.  I give it an ultra small green as if designed for a wedge approach shot.  That makes the best club/amateur players really hit an accurate long iron shot when it counts.  And the average Joe usually comes up short and is still playing with a wedge, so sometimes, he/she has less trouble than the good guys.

Now, some good players complain its unfair, but that only adds to my pleasure on such a hole!  

[Mike Benham]

For the pros and top flight amateurs, the primary issue, as Jeff briefly touches, is when a traditional par-5, in theory designed with a smaller green to accept 3rd shot wedges, is made into a long par-4 that will now be receiving long irons.

Augusta 13 works either in either par configuration as it has a large green with a sufficient "miss" area that will tempt the golfer to go for the green with their second shot but given them a difficult recovery if they fail to execute a great shot.

Compare that to the 17th at Olympic Lake that has a very difficult to hit green when approached with a long iron (more so a few years back before the distance boom).

[James Bennett]

Mike

with Olympic Lake #17, how much shorter was the hole for the US Open?  Did it change the hazards that the Pro's faced on their tee-shot (possibly not, as I recall, there is only one fairway bunker at Olympic Lake)?  Perhaps they hit past a turning point (again, probably not).  Was their second shot into the green more interesting to watch as a shorter shot (or as a second to the green versus a short pitch perhaps for their third).

For others, do you expect Torrey Pines #18 to be a more interesting hole to watch as a par 4?  Will it be a more interesting teeshot (I guess they can 'move' the teeshot hazards for such an event)?  Will the lake be more or less of a feature for the approach shot?

The thread was not about Augusta as such, although we all enjoy commenting on #13 and #15.  For me, the great time of #15 was the wooden head era, when some pro's could make it and some couldn't (Ray Floyd's demolition of a softish course with his 5-wood - a new innovation at that time - springs to mind).  Those who layed up had to play to the left side if they wanted to get a birdie (ie strategic play).  

I'm sure a similar issue can apply to #13 but I don't know the playing angles well enough (impossible for that new front pin though - no strategy there on a lay-up).  We'll see what 2007 Masters delivers.

James B

[Tommy Williamsen]

I assume you meant you wondered if more would go for it as a par 4?

How many don't go for it now?  I'll bet its in the single digits each day, and most of those because they drove it out of position.

Why is a pro going to be more likely to go for it because its a par 4?  If the hole is otherwise identical, the field is going to have the same 72 hole total strokes whether its a 4 or 5, its just the psychology of birdies versus eagles.  I can't believe the pros haven't become immune to that ages ago.

Doug, I did mean par four.  I don't know if the pros would go for 13 more because it is a par four.  I just wonder if they would feel more pressure to go for it in two.  It seems to me that the psychology might change the stategy.  Would I change it?  No.  I think it is an extraordinary par five.

[wsmorrison]

As early as the 1939 US Open, the USGA altered par from 5 to 4 on the sixth hole (played at 447 yards to an uphill green) and the 12th (played at 480 yards!!!) at Philadelphia Country Club.  Overall par was 69 for the Open.  I think par definitely affected the way the holes were played.  Byron Nelson (the victor) told me that his long iron ability was, in his mind, the difference between him and the field.  He mentioned that players were trying to reach the green in two but that he was the best long iron player of his day and the setup played into his strength.

[peter_mcknight]

Olympic Lakeside no. 17 was a 468 yard par 4 at the 1998 US Open.  If memory serves me correctly, it was a 428 yarder in 1987 and 435 in 1966.  Stroke average in 1998 was 4.716, the highest for a par 4 in the US Open since I started noticing these things in 1990.

Keep in mind we will see Oakmont's 9th play as a par 4 this year for the first time.  The yardage remained the same (477), but par was slashed from 5 to 4.

I'm not sure Torrey South 18 will be more interesting as a 525 yard par 4 in 2008 or more compelling from a television point of view, but what pressure must go on if one is one shot back, drives it over 300+ but in the rough, then what is a player to do?

If the USGA ever hosted the Open at Augusta, there would be no doubt that 13 and 15 would become par 4s.

[Mike Benham]

with Olympic Lake #17, how much shorter was the hole for the US Open?  Did it change the hazards that the Pro's faced on their tee-shot (possibly not, as I recall, there is only one fairway bunker at Olympic Lake)?  Perhaps they hit past a turning point (again, probably not).  Was their second shot into the green more interesting to watch as a shorter shot (or as a second to the green versus a short pitch perhaps for their third).

I believe Peter's distances were correct for the past tournaments.

There are no fairway hazards on 17 but during the Open, the firm and fast fairways kicked almost every tee shot to the right and most balls ended in the first cut of rough.  From there it was a hack up the hill, through the narrow opening onto the green, if  the golfer was lucky enough to get a decent lie.




With the green sitting up on a plateau, it is very difficult to run the ball onto the green, and the green has a nasty slope left to right and off the back right side.

With the length of todays golfers, the only defense on this hole may be the USGA's mandate to change the grooves.  A 280-290 yard drive up the hill, will leave a much shorter iron then in years past.  Perhaps the USGA will shove the tee box back to the 522 markers.