[Tom Huckaby]

How about the easy opening hole that is followed 4 brutal holes except that the easy opening hole, a 500 yard par 5 with no fairway bunkers, a gentle left to right dogleg and no green side bunkers is anything but a easy birdie hole.

If that hole becomes a 500 hard par-4 in 2012, it will be THE hardest stretch of opening holes, period, d-o-n-e.

Matt - how would it be different just due to changing a number on the scorecard?

The hole remains the same, and 4 still beats a 5, as 280 beats 281.

 

[J Sadowsky]

Tom, if you treat em all like Par 10s, there's no such thing as a tough opening hole

[Tom Huckaby]

Justin:

Of course that stretches the point and I love it... but in essence I agree.

"Par" does not win tournaments, nor golf holes in match play.  "Par" only has meaning in stableford, and here in America we play darn little of that!

See, I don't doubt that it plays into the emotions of the player.  If one makes a 5 on the opening hole at Olympic Lake, right now that "feels" OK because the card says it's a par 5, whereas if they change it to a par 4, it won't feel OK at all.  But that same 5 will neither gain nor lose strokes to the field per se... or at least shouldn't... a 5 is a 5 is a 5 and a 4 is a 4 is a 4.

It's a fascinating subject I think, one we've discussed many times in here. And I don't mean to sidetrack from brutal starts.

I'll be curious as to Matt's thoughts though - he is a top-level competitive player.

TH

[John Nixon]

On the east side of Indianapolis is Winding Ridge, which to my knowledge has never been mentioned here. Not a spectacular course, but it has some nice holes.

First hole is a par 4 on which the opening shot, from the white tees, is about a 190-yard carry over water. Second shot is another carry over water to the green. On a course with no range. Two consecutive water carries makes a tough opener when you don't get to warm up.

[peter_mcknight]

Winged Foot West
Merion
Oakmont
Firestone (after the first two)
Riviera (if the 1st plays as a par 4)
Olympic Lakeside
Oak Tree
Colonial
Royal St Georges (with the 4th as a par 4)
Carnoustie (well, all 18)

[Jay Cox]

How about the first two at Kiawah (Ocean). It doesn't get much more intimidating than those two tee shots!!!

Pat, I agree with you re the second hole.  But the first?  For my money, it's the least intimidating tee shot on the golf course and probably the easiest of the Par 4s.

[JSlonis]

Of the courses I've played, I'd probably choose Winged Foot West.  The first 4 holes are very tough...and it doesn't get much easier from there on.

Peter,

I wouldn't include Merion.  Not that there are any easy holes, but the first hole is one of least difficult on the entire course.

[mark chalfant]

Huntingdon  Valley's  "C nine" starts with a stout trio  of 4-4-5.Length, elevation changes, or a winding brook tend to complicate matters on this scenic strech of demanding holes. The tee shots are especially provocative

[David Mulle]

I nominate Anglebrook in NY.  The first four holes are the most brutal on the course.  The first is a 454 yard dogleg par 4.  The second is a 521 yard par 5 which is quite narrow.  The third is a 427 yard par 4.  The fourt is a 602 yard par 5.  

My playing partner described the message they delivered to the player as "Welcome to Anglebrook, &*$^ you!"

Winged Foot West has four very tough opening holes but they never struck me as being harder than the next 14 holes.

[JESII]

Huntingdon  Valley's  "C nine" starts with a stout trio  of 4-4-5.Length, elevation changes, or a winding brook tend to complicate matters on this scenic strech of demanding holes. The tee shots are especially provocative

I'll second that vote...#'s 1 and 2 are brutal, and 3 can be unless you carry the hill at 275 from the back and 230 or so from the regular tees...

[Matt_Cohn]

Tom,

I was thinking about that as I wrote, but what other way do we have to measure difficulty?

If we disregard par then all the toughest holes are the ones with the highest scoring averages - basically, the longest ones, the holes that are currently par-5's.

If it's the highest ratio of shots per yard, then the one-shot holes are always the toughest at about 1 shot per 60 yards, and two-shot holes are next at about 1 shot per 100 yards.

Of course, if we're talking about one- and two-shot holes, then we're basically talking about par.

If we're talking about "toughest holes to beat the average score", then we're just talking about any hole whose scoring average is 2.999 or 3.999 or 4.999. That seems silly because then the easiest holes would have a scoring average or 3.001 or 4.001 or 5.001.

If it's some hypothetical measurement of the margin of error allowed on each shot and the resulting difficulty of the next one, I don't think you'd learn anything different than if you just looked at the average score.

Which is tougher - a 400 yard hole with a 4.2 average, or a 500 yard hole with a 4.3 average?

Difficulty has to be judged relative to *something*. Holes are only easy or tough compared to what we hope or expect to score on them. Given that we can only score in full-shot increments, we generally hope or expect to score either a 3, 4, or 5 on any given hole.

"Difficult holes are those which present the greatest challenge to achieving the score that one could reasonably hope to achieve."

I don't find that definition significantly different from judging difficult holes relative to par.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I get that.  So when judging holes from different courses against each other, par has a role, just as you state.

But here's what I am getting at....

Say they do change OClub Lake to a par four, playing at 500 yards.  If anything the hole has become shorter, and it's now easier to make a 4.

Would you consider it a harder golf hole than it was before?

That's what I am getting at....

TH

[Matt_Cohn]

Yes, it would be harder.

But if I was the guest of a member who forced me to play from the white tees, and that's where the white tees were that day, then it would be easier.

That's because I default to par when I judge difficulty. If I really felt like ignoring the scorecard and creating my own personal par for each hole, then I guess that would change, but a par-4 that plays half a shot over par and a par-5 that plays half a shot under par are the same thing.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Interesting.  I would not have figured a great successful competitive player like yourself to be a slave to par - that's thinking for a hack like me.

What wins a tournament or qualifies for a championship:  71, or even par?

Methinks 71 makes it no matter what the par on the card says.

So my contention is you let the rest of the field be slaves to par, you play your own game and disregard it, and you'd come out ahead.  Let them press on #1 at 500 yards par 4 thinking they now really have to make 4... you play it smartly with no change than you ever have... Perhaps you felt like you had to make 4 even before, but well... I really do think more will press harder if the par change is made, and if you don't, you gain on the field.  Let them think of it as harder and press, you think of it as shorter and easier.

Disagree?

[Matt_Cohn]

I don't think you play to match or beat par, you just use it as a tool for comparison. I agree that if I choose a different club off the tee because par is different, that's not good thinking.

The original question wasn't about how I determine my strategy on various holes. It was just about determining which ones are most "difficult".

I never said that I'd change my strategy based on par or whether I perceived the hole as being difficult or not.

Perhaps your automatically assuming that I would change my strategy relative to par is much more indicative of being a slave to par.

...sorry, let me pull that arrow out of your back. We're still friends!

[Matt Vandelac]

The first couple at Ross's White Bear Yacht Club can be brutal.  Very demanding holes; can't imagine what it would have been like to get home in reg with the old equipment.  Here at Big Fish, we've found that holding palyers up until the group in front pulls the visible pin and a shorter par 4 helps speed up play.  

[Tom Huckaby]

I don't think you play to match or beat par, you just use it as a tool for comparison. I agree that if I choose a different club off the tee because par is different, that's not good thinking.

The original question wasn't about how I determine my strategy on various holes. It was just about determining which ones are most "difficult".

I never said that I'd change my strategy based on par or whether I perceived the hole as being difficult or not.

Perhaps your automatically assuming that I would change my strategy relative to par is much more indicative of being a slave to par.

...sorry, let me pull that arrow out of your back. We're still friends!

But of course!

And of course I obviously changed the original question.  If the question is which course has the most brutal start relative to par, then the par change at Lake #1 has huge relevance and I agree, we have a winner.

But my changed question is why should the hole be seen as inherently harder, when if anything it's been moved up and thus should be EASIER?

I think most golfers are slaves to par and would think of it exactly like this, as they do at #1 Pasatiempo, where the tee has remained the same, a key tree has been removed short of the green, the trees on the right have been thinned tremendously... and yet people now call it a brutal hole because on the card it says par 4... when then truth is it's now easier to make a 4 than it ever has been.

That's what I am getting at - the perception of par, the relevance it does have, the relevance it SHOULD have.

And I have confidence that it won't take me caddying for you to get you to look at it as I have outlined here, if you do play it in competition and it is at 500 yards, par four on the card.

 

So sorry to use you as a means toward my own weird ends...

TH

[Matt_Cohn]

How about this.

Tell me, without using par, how you would determine the most difficult hole on the PGA Tour last year.

[Tom Huckaby]

How about this.

Tell me, without using par, how you would determine the most difficult hole on the PGA Tour last year.

I'd use numbers relative to par.  I said that more or less in my first paragraph of my last post.

But you tell me then, why would #1 Lake be seen as a harder hole than it was before - comparing it only to itself, before and after changes - when it's been moved up 20 yards and nothing has changed other than a number on a scorecard?

I don't think you'd really call it harder than it was before, would you?  It's easier to make a 4.  4 is what counts, not even or +1.

So... we're talking about two different comparisons here, my friend:  holes on different golf courses, and a hole that's been changed (before and after).  My bad for not making that clear before.

TH

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I have always thought that the first tees hot at Royal Birkdale is one of those scary first hole shots.
With the prevailing wind coming off the left, it becomes very intimidating.
I am not sure if with modern technology this has been lessened any.
It used to be that the carry down the left side was very difficult, and as such plyers would lay up towards the right side, which also has the deepest rough and out of bounds.

[Jeffrey Prest]

This may be the high-handicapper in me talking but I personally wouldn't be best pleased with Seve Ballesteros for making me start with a par 3 to a virtual island green on his Shire course, near London, England.

I can, however, respect his thinking behind it, as relayed to me by the club. As I blogged at the time:

"The Shire's management company tell me that Seve's thinking was for the course to challenge players from the outset and that tee bookings are made at nine-minute intervals, which should at least allow you to tackle the first without an unwelcome audience crowded round the tee. They also argue that the lay-out allows golfers to put one clear hole between themselves and following groups."

Full post and course diagram links at:
http://golfcourseasart.blogspot.com/2007/09/seves-first-uk-golf-course-brown.html

[Michael Powers]

In NE Wannamoisett takes it.  Other tough starts.
Kittansett #1 and #2
Essex #1, #3, and #4
Red Tail #1 and #2
TCC #1 and #3

[Kalen Braley]

How about this.

Tell me, without using par, how you would determine the most difficult hole on the PGA Tour last year.

I'd use numbers relative to par.  I said that more or less in my first paragraph of my last post.

But you tell me then, why would #1 Lake be seen as a harder hole than it was before - comparing it only to itself, before and after changes - when it's been moved up 20 yards and nothing has changed other than a number on a scorecard?

I don't think you'd really call it harder than it was before, would you?  It's easier to make a 4.  4 is what counts, not even or +1.

So... we're talking about two different comparisons here, my friend:  holes on different golf courses, and a hole that's been changed (before and after).  My bad for not making that clear before.

TH

Darn it Huck,

Quit throwing me off like that by saying something that makes complete sense.  

I must admit, I always felt like when par was reduced to a 4 from a 5 that the course became harder, even if they did move the tees up a bit.  But thats probably the best way I've heard it put, the course is now shorter and presumably easier to make a 4 on that hole and post a better finishing number based on strokes, not some benchmark of par.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

Well, few do think I make any sense about this.

But it struck me pretty hard a few years ago when they changed Pasatiempo #1 from a par 5 to a par 4, and all of a sudden people starting talking about what a brutal opener it was.  It hit me that hey, I'm playing it from shorter tees or the same tees that I used to and they've removed a bunch of trees.  How can it be harder?  It truly is easier if anything and that "par" figure is just something to try to fool us all!

Since that day I've been trying to get others to understand or accept this.  Count yourself among the few.

But I keep trying....

TH

[John Kirk]

For me, the point of the "brutal start" discussion is the impact on the golfer.  Is it a good idea or not?  My opinion is probably no different than most.  I believe the two worst places to have difficult holes are the first and the eighteenth holes.  It is demoralizing to start poorly, and even worse to finish poorly.  My biggest problem with my home courses at Pumpkin Ridge is that each course has a very difficult finishing hole.  Send them home with a heartbreaking double bogey.  Similarly, you don't want to beat somebody up right at the start of the round, and get them thinking negative thoughts.  It might take a few holes to break out of it.

On the other hand, this discussion has logically turned to some of the well known California classics (Olympic, Pasatiempo, add Riviera and Stanford) that start with an easy par 5 before a really tough par 4.  Although one might say this gives the player one hole to shake the rust off, it can also be perceived the other way.  You've got to be ready right away, here's your best chance at birdie all day.

Championship courses have a responsibility to test a player's mettle, and it's reasonable to make them start strong and finish strong as part of the test (Oakmont, Winged Foot), but most of us just play for fun, and frankly, the guys who acsribe to that "manly man" philosophy of golf are generally not my type.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()