[Michael Powers]

There are several courses in my area which have par 5 holes which have become obsolete with the juiced ball and 460 CC drivers.  I believe several of these clubs should consider making them par 4s.  Why are clubs so hesitant to change par?

Examples:
Charles River CC #7
-This hole was converted to a par 4 during the Mass Open as anyone who can hit it high enough can carry the dogleg which leaves a 180-160 yard second.

Charles River CC #10
-This hole is also converted to a par 4, and is actually a very strong par 4 as is.

Essex County Club #5
-This is a very good par 4 as, it' only 450, with a fairly level green (unlike the 7th and 10th at CRCC.  

Myopia #2
-Although the second shot is totally blind, this hole is easily reached with an iron by a most players with todays equimpment.

[Jason Connor]

Why bother?  Par is relative, right?

The Ross course I played in Cleveland (Manakiki) had back-to-back par 4.5s. (carded as 5s of course)

For me they were (or should have been) par 4's.  For my boss who I typically played with they were (usually) par 5's.

You can't make a par suitable for everyone.  Perhaps they should have made the shorter a par 4.  That way the truly par 4.5s were carded as a 4-5 and you still get a total of 9.

But I figure my 84 was an 84 whether it was +12 or +14.  Hence par's contrivedness.

And for handicapping purpuses, I'm sure the rating and slope took into account just how short those 2 par 5s were.

So I'm not sure what the real difference is.  Who cares what the scorecard says?    Scots will tell you the par of a hole changes depending upon the wind.

[mike_malone]

 Changing "par" on a hole shows you don't understand how golf is played.

[jeffwarne]

and of course make all holes under 320 par 3's.

I laugh EVERY time a course takes a 500-520 yard hole, moves the tees up to make it a par 4, and says they've made the course tougher.
(it's only tougher if someone asks you "How many over were you" -which NEVER happens)

[Phil_the_Author]

Instead of making the hole shorter, why not look at how to encourage players to go for it in two as a RISK/REWARD option rather than as a normal play?

In some cases this might involve a redesign of the green complex or possibly redoing fairway landing areas with a view toward introducing hazards that punish and the fairway around them highly rewarding and preferred.

In all cases the hole will be enhanced and players may come to appreciate the architectural principle that great courses and holes are designed to challenge rather than be played

[mike_malone]

 Philip,

   I think you are correct. I call it focusing on the "threeshottedness" of the hole.

[wsmorrison]

"Changing "par" on a hole shows you don't understand how golf is played."

A statement such as this demonstrates a lack of understanding far better.

[JNagle]

Wayne -

Didn't Flynn promote changing a couple of the holes at Philly C.C. for the 39 Open?  He thought the holes were simply too easy as par 5's and wanted to make them 4's.  Philly played as a par 69 for the open.  Guess Flynn did not know anything about golf

[Jon Wiggett]

Changing "par" on a hole shows you don't understand how golf is played.

Why

[Michael Powers]

Michael,  

The purpose of the thread was to discuss the merits of changing par on these 4.5 holes as is done frequently during stroke play tournaments such as U.S Open Q., Mass Open, etc.


Perhaps you lack an understanding of how the discussion board works.

[mike_malone]

 Jon,

   When one plays golf they try to match their skills to the requirements of the hole.

   The movement to change the "par" on a hole is bassackwards. Holes aren't determined by their par , par is determined by the hole.

  I would be surprised if Flynn cared about the par on a hole.

[tlavin]

There are many reasons why members are resistant to this kind of change; the main reason is simply that people are resistant to change!  I'll give you a specific example.  When I was on the board at Olympia Fields, we voted to change our 18th hole on the North Course from a par 5 to a par 4.  As it has been played for several decades, the hole, which is 495 yards from the back tees, with a pond that extends in front of the green about 65 yards away, has played as a par 4 from the blue/black tees and a par 5 from the white tees.   This led to the incongruous appearance of the white tees being behind the blue/black tees.  In any event, the average length of a par 4 at the North Course is about 430 yards.  Our other two par 5 holes measured around 580 from the back tees, so we felt that a short par 4 was a cheesy way to end a man-sized golf course, so we voted to play it as a 440 yard par 4, which was more fitting to the nature of the golf course.

Three days later, some member floated a petition to undo the change and 150 members signed it and we reversed the decision.  Ultimately, it is true that par doesn't matter and one just plays the hole, but psychologically it seems lame to me to have a hole where the usual play is driver, seven iron, wedge and two putt for a par on a course where a 440 yard par 4 is de rigeur...

[mike_malone]

 Terry,

   Is there no room to put fairway on one or both sides of the pond ?

   If not, then this is probably a hole where reducing the distance probably makes sense.

  Is it an example of a poorly designed hole in the first place ?


  BTW Michael the way the discussion group works is that you start a thread and we say whatever we want.

[wsmorrison]

Par is the expected score of a scratch golfer.  When the expected scores change over time, the assigned par should change along with it.  While gross scores are not impacted by the change in par, there certainly are effects from doing so including psychological and strategic.

I've seen cases where holes were lengthened without much thought or understanding to try and keep the "threeshottedness" yet completely disconnect topographic, hazard, dogleg or other features.  There has always been a sense of par indicating the difficulty of a course and that a par 72 course is more difficult than a par 70.  That is nonsense.  Surely it is better to play the hole a bit shorter as a challenging par 4 (especially on a finishing hole) than as a mediocre par 5 or even worse a stretched par 5 that leaves little interest or strategic intent.  Who wants to hit driver, 7-iron, 7-iron into a par 5 because the turn of the hole dictates this?

Mike Malone has proved incapable of grasping this concept.  As Jim Nagle pointed out, Flynn and the members of Philadelphia Country did in 1939.  

[Jeff Goldman]

Terry,

   Is there no room to put fairway on one or both sides of the pond ?

   If not, then this is probably a hole where reducing the distance probably makes sense.

 

Mike,

The 18th on the North course is probably one of the only holes where the par was INCREASED for tournaments.  It started as a 445 yard par 4, but played as a 495 par 5 in the 1928 Open and the 1961 PGA, and (allegedly) as a 520 yard par 5 for the Western Opens in 1969 and 1971 (though, I suspect that that was bs and it played 495-500).

The pond juts halfway into the fairway, and was put in in 1967 or 68 at the urging of the grounds chairman (where have we heard THAT before), who probably just came back from Doral.  It really damages the hole for regular players while doing nothing for better players - too much risk for us to try a runup shot, too far away from the green to threaten better players.  It should either be filled in, or pushed well right of the fairway to take it out of the hole.  Do that, and it's a great hole, par 4 or 5.

Jeff Goldman

[tlavin]

Terry,

   Is there no room to put fairway on one or both sides of the pond ?

   If not, then this is probably a hole where reducing the distance probably makes sense.

 

Mike,

The 18th on the North course is probably one of the only holes where the par was INCREASED for tournaments.  It started as a 445 yard par 4, but played as a 495 par 5 in the 1928 Open and the 1961 PGA, and (allegedly) as a 520 yard par 5 for the Western Opens in 1969 and 1971 (though, I suspect that that was bs and it played 495-500).

The pond juts halfway into the fairway, and was put in in 1967 or 68 at the urging of the grounds chairman (where have we heard THAT before), who probably just came back from Doral.  It really damages the hole for regular players while doing nothing for better players - too much risk for us to try a runup shot, too far away from the green to threaten better players.  It should either be filled in, or pushed well right of the fairway to take it out of the hole.  Do that, and it's a great hole, par 4 or 5.

Jeff Goldman

Before the pond was dug, there was a little ditch, maybe five feet across that crossed five fairways, including the 18th.  It is my understanding that the creek was dammed up somehow and this created the pond.  Ironically enough, the ditch crossed the ninth hole, which played as 18 for the US Open.  The pros just killed the hole off the tee.  The results would have been different if the ditch was still there, because it crossed the fairway about 300 yards from the tee, which would have taken driver out of their hands.

In its current state, the finishing hole at Olympia Fields is a stupid par 5 from the back tees and a tough, but not particularly well designed (and out of character to the rest of the course) par 4.

[Scott Szabo]

A while back I made the statement that a certain green on a certain course was much too severe for a long par four, but would have been acceptable on a par-five.  

Tom Doak's response?  You're just too hung up on par.  

And I've come to agree with that statement.

[Bill_McBride]

The holes the USGA changes from par 5 to par 4 to "protect par" in the U.S. Open never seem to be designed to play as par 4s.  The greens are too small to accept shots with mid irons or long irons so it just never seems to be the right thing to do.

But it seems more important to the USGA that the par be 70 rather than 72.  Seems pretty irrelevant to me.

[tlavin]

The holes the USGA changes from par 5 to par 4 to "protect par" in the U.S. Open never seem to be designed to play as par 4s.  The greens are too small to accept shots with mid irons or long irons so it just never seems to be the right thing to do.

But it seems more important to the USGA that the par be 70 rather than 72.  Seems pretty irrelevant to me.

I tend to agree with you, Bill, but just for a minute recall the pounding that Medinah took on this site and in the "media"  after the PGA a couple years ago when nearly the entire field went low.  If Medinah had converted #5 and #10 to par 4's, the finishing scores would have been eight shots closer to par and the mute button would have been pressed.

I agree that the course is the course and the score and par are just numbers, but that's not the way most people think.

[David Federman]

Every June I am bothered by the USGA's changing two par 5's to par 4's on almost all the US Open venues in a transparent effort to keep the final score at or near "par."

My question is whether physically or mentally the altering of the par 5s into par 4's changes the way the pros play the holes? Does the altering change the strategy of the hole?

It seems to me, that although par is just a number, that changing it does affect play. Any thoughts?

[Jeff Goldman]

I don't think that arguments to the effect that "a green is too small to play as a par 4" work.  What about the fact that the reason the par is changed is that the pros very often hit them in 2?

[Chuck Brown]

They should be changing the 510-yard 13th hole at ANGC to a par 4 any day now...  

I am just guessing that 95+% of the GCA membership would agree that we need more appreciation for in-between par holes (short par 5's, long par 3's and quirky 4's).  That said, you don't get the same effect just by reprinting the scorecards.  Making 11 at ANGC a 5 and/or Making 13 a 4 doesn't cut it.

The most confounding convert hole that I know of is the 18th at Oakland Hills.  It is a dandy short par 5 for members.  Quite a pretty hole as well, albeit a highly imperfect one for playability.  But for elite players, it is too much in-between.  Not pleasant.  Playing from slightly forward tees, the pros have an awkward landing area.  I think it was Tom Doak who gets credit for contrasting it to 13 at Augusta, noting that 18 at OHCC doglegs right, with a right-to-left cant in the fairway, while Augusta 13 doglegs left, ecouraging the player to use that angle.

[Tommy Williamsen]

A shortish par five is as much fun as a short par four.  I like those kind of par fives because it is nice to be able to make a birdie now and then.  Par is meaningless in some ways but as far as what goes on inside it does make a difference.

If I am not mistaken when I played Royal County Down in 1993 number nine was a par five.  The last time I played it, it was a par four.

[paul cowley]

I'm beginning to think that all holes, regardless of their length, should be par fours....but that is only if a course wants to play to a par of 72.

A par 71 would be 17 par fours and then the shortest hole could be listed as a par three.

I think you get my drift.

[Sean_A]

I'm beginning to think that all holes, regardless of their length, should be par fours....but that is only if a course wants to play to a par of 72.

A par 71 would be 17 par fours and then the shortest hole could be listed as a par three.

I think you get my drift.

Paul

And you led me to believe that par 68/69 was the way to go.  I'm shattered.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()