[Adam Clayman]

 90 years ago, Donald Ross (and others) designed 240 yard par 3's.  15 years ago technological improvements in I & B allowed the best golfers to repeatedly drive the ball in excess of 350 yards, accurately.

What length par 3 today, would be commensurate with the 240 yard par 3, designed almost a century ago? 350?

Now, if the value of par were to be lowered, would it remove the need to roll back I & B, and, extend courses to ridiculous lengths, while still keeping the character and nature of the sport's intrinsic values? (Challenging the best while still providing an enjoyable experience for the rest of us, by not taking 4+ Hrs. to do it)

Have to run off now , there's more I'd like to add but will wait to see if anyone else can carry the ball for me, and/or hopefully better articulate what I'm trying to convey. Or, shoot it down without letting any preconceived notions or prejudices show. Best of luck.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

How many guys actually drive the ball 350 yards in neutral conditions?  I've seen them at Cape Kidnappers, swinging freely ... they hit it 330-340 with a 5 MPH tailwind and firm fairways.

240 yards was not at the edge of a Tour pro's length in 1920.  I am thinking a comparable distance today is 300-320 yards, not 350.

[Sean_A]

Adam

The problem with modern equipment is not the length of the drive.  Long drives have been achieved for many decades.  The problem from an architectural PoV is the 300 yard carry.  That really is different and essentially negates any chance of creating ideal courses with high cappers and pros in mind. 

However, I am all for reducing yardage slightly and par.  Cutting back par to 65-70 would acheive all these goals of so called challenge (really translates to protecting par).  This is far more preferrable to adding yards, rough and bunkers to courses which have stood the test of time until quite recently and then only a few golfers really outclass these courses.  However, if this were to be a "mass" movement I woiuld be greatly in favour of bringing back bogey scores for the handicap players.  I believe this would go a long way to eliminating the myth of par and how it should be seen.

Ciao   

[Forrest Richardson]

What is interesting is the aspect of numeric values — I would guess that a 240 par-3 in old times would have a "par value" of 3.2 to 4.2 ... but the primary difference is the roll of the ball which would have allowed such a wide range of shot rating (i.e., 3.2 to 4.2 rather than a narrower range for the "pro" golfer.)

The same hole today — whether 300 or 340 — would have a narrower range in my opinion.

Perhaps looking at the US Open statistics for Oakmont No. 8 (280-300 yards) would enlighten us — my recollection is that the hole rated somewhere about 3.3 average shots during the last US Open at Oakmont. Perhaps someone can confirm or correct that.

This is an interesting question. Of course the hazards and other-than-length difficulty make up the slack for distance.

[Adam Clayman]

Thanx Sean, I think you've picked up the ball well.

Ok, so 320 is commensurate. The pros that are shorter than average (287 if you believe the tour stats which I don't) compensate by having better iron and short games. Don't they?  So I don't see why any hole under say 380 couldn't be re-oriented to a par 3.

I'm not placing the values I think are germane, I'm placing values on par and length because that's my perception of what other people appear to think, and IMO, is holding back what seems like a natural progression of the sport. Personally, I'm of the opinion that pars value, on a great hole, can and should be elastic, depending on conditions.

Why is/was it so easy for short par 5's to be turned into par 4's (2nd at Pebble for i.e.) yet the 300+ par 3 seems verbotten?

Would you still tune in to watch the Masters if par was 68 with only one par 5? 

To the point, what commonality do the decision makers have, that causes them to disfigure their grounds versus ordering new values on a scorecard?

[Sean_A]

Thanx Sean, I think you've picked up the ball well.

Ok, so 320 is commensurate. The pros that are shorter than average (287 if you believe the tour stats which I don't) compensate by having better iron and short games. Don't they?  So I don't see why any hole under say 380 couldn't be re-oriented to a par 3.

I'm not placing the values I think are germane, I'm placing values on par and length because that's my perception of what other people appear to think, and IMO, is holding back what seems like a natural progression of the sport. Personally, I'm of the opinion that pars value, on a great hole, can and should be elastic, depending on conditions.

Why is/was it so easy for short par 5's to be turned into par 4's (2nd at Pebble for i.e.) yet the 300+ par 3 seems verbotten?

Would you still tune in to watch the Masters if par was 68 with only one par 5? 

To the point, what commonality do the decision makers have, that causes them to disfigure their grounds versus ordering new values on a scorecard?

Adam

I think it comes down to entrenched thinking. 

1. Even most on this site have fairly rigid ideas about what a course should add up to in par & distance (including individual holes) to be a proper test. 

2. I don't think we are ever going to get away from a minimum of 7000 yards as the idea of championship golf.  Folks have a hard time understanding how a par of 68 at 6600 yards can be a real test.

3. Folks think far too much in terms of what golf is from the professional perspective rather than from the handicappers perspective.   

Ciao

[Ken Fry]

I don't want to resurect the "no par" conversation, but why would numbers on a card change anything?  A pro is trying to make 3 on a 380 yard hole under normal circumstances anyway.  Do you honestly believe a psycholigical game of number changing will have an impact on strategy?

Would the 13th at Augusta be somehow more exciting because it's listed as a par 4 instead of a par 5?  Would Zach Johnson suddenly go for green instead of laying up?

Ken

[Niall C]

Ken

The 16th hole at Carnoustie has long been a par 3 at 240/250 yards and over 50 years ago Ben Hogan in his one and only appearance at the Open played it as a two shotter every day, and I think I'm right in saying that he managed a three each day. Local legend has it that at a subsequent Open at Carnoustie that Nicklaus didn't believe the yardage and asked that the hole be remeasured because he couldn't believe he couldn't get the ball up to the hole on a par 3. I've no idea how Nicklaus scored each day but if the story is true it suggests to me that the numeric value affected how Nicklaus looked at the hole but maybe I'm wrong.

Niall

[Ken Fry]

I've no idea how Nicklaus scored each day but if the story is true it suggests to me that the numeric value affected how Nicklaus looked at the hole but maybe I'm wrong.
 

But eventually the winner is the player with the lowest cumulative score, not in relation to "par" so to speak.  Looks good on a scoreboard, but means little else.

I would have to believe with the severity of the wind there are many holes on Carnoustie that par could be thrown out all together.

Ken

[Sean_A]

I don't want to resurect the "no par" conversation, but why would numbers on a card change anything?  A pro is trying to make 3 on a 380 yard hole under normal circumstances anyway.  Do you honestly believe a psycholigical game of number changing will have an impact on strategy?

Would the 13th at Augusta be somehow more exciting because it's listed as a par 4 instead of a par 5?  Would Zach Johnson suddenly go for green instead of laying up?

Ken

Ken

I am in your camp.  However, look at the current Augusta thread if you don't believe the concept of par is important to a great many people.  Apparently, excitement is generated if guys are scoring 4s and 3s on the back nine par 5s.  It makes no sense to me that if one calls a hole a par 4 or 5 that it changes the excitement, but for a great many people it clearly does.  To me, excitement is generated by great shots and a tight competition.  I have no idea why reducing par (and the length if need be - depending on weather) at Augusta would effect the excitement, but many believe this is the case.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think everything is ok as it is. A hole is 475 yards and is a par 4 or 476 and a 5... its just a line (and I know that theres no strict line length now) Most clubs have preferred to keep their par up..why? because it is fun  for the members to score lower. The 500 yard par 4 holes are for pro's not for the charlies. Its hard to protect a par 72 course 7600 yard course anyway, on the same basis Sean says people want to see an Eagle 3 and not a birdie 3 at Augusta's 13th, lets see these pro's shoot 59 and entertain us.

[Ken Fry]

Ken

I am in your camp.  However, look at the current Augusta thread if you don't believe the concept of par is important to a great many people.  Apparently, excitement is generated if guys are scoring 4s and 3s on the back nine par 5s.  It makes no sense to me that if one calls a hole a par 4 or 5 that it changes the excitement, but for a great many people it clearly does.  To me, excitement is generated by great shots and a tight competition.  I have no idea why reducing par (and the length if need be - depending on weather) at Augusta would effect the excitement, but many believe this is the case.

Ciao

Sean,

Believe me I understand your point.  The concept of par is so deeply ingrained in people.

I have a 430 yard par 5 on my home course.  Its shape resembles a horseshoe standing up with the tee on one side and the green on the other.  On most days it's a 3 wood-5 iron for me.  I rarely make 3 but often make 4.  For a good portion of the membership, it's a tough 3 shot hole due to the huge uphill nature of reaching the green.  Most will argue the psychological impact of making a par to bogey or bogey to double bogey if the par for the hole changes.  It's common sense to me that numbers are numbers and you add them up at the end.  I know if a I played a hole well or not.  Like appreciating certain golf course architecture, many in the golfing public just won't get it.

At Notre Dame, par for the men and ladies tournaments at Warren has been adjusted a handful of times over the years.  They now settle on a par 70 for the men and 71 for the women.  Hole 10 is played as a par 4 for the guys and par 5 for ladies.  If the hole is being played into a very strong headwind, going for the green in two is foolish with watering fronting the green.

We had a "no par" scorecard when we opened Warren and caught so much hell from folks par was added on.  It was amusing to see how emotional some would get about no par.

Ken

[Sean_A]

Ken

In truth, we should be looking at elasticity to mean pushing tees forward as well as back.  For instance, the holes mentioned above at Augusta and Carnoustie.  Why can't there be a tee further back for the bogey score of 4?.  Likewise, why can't the forward tees at Augusta's back 9 par 5s be bogey scores of 5 with the back tees (perhaps an older ones) as pars of 4?  This may not be a total solution to courses being messed up for pros, but it is a start and costs next to nothing. Re-creating a dual hole value system is much preferable to changing courses or having different equipment for different class players.  In essence, I am pushing for a pro/expert standard of par and a handicap standard of bogey for everybody else.  The neat thing is the length of the two courses in setup needn't be all that different in length like what we have today.

However, I bet golfers can't see the sense of this.  It is likely they wouldn't get the Spinal Tap joke of the amp going to volume 11.  Golfers are just too rigid in their expectations of par and what it means.

Ciao

[Ken Fry]

Sean,

Agreed.  I did think Mike Davis' work at Torrey Pines opened an interesting window for folks.  Utilize forward tees on occasion to provide more "elasticity", as you say, on all holes.

Changing numbers on a card means very little at the highest level.  The only way to prevent the needed massive course expansions is to dial the ball back.  Until then.....

Ken

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Agreed.  I did think Mike Davis' work at Torrey Pines opened an interesting window for folks.  Utilize forward tees on occasion to provide more "elasticity", as you say, on all holes.

Changing numbers on a card means very little at the highest level.  The only way to prevent the needed massive course expansions is to dial the ball back.  Until then.....

Ken

Ken

I profoundly disagree.  I believe with the current length championship courses have gotten, a reduction in par and some length (would probably mean using forward tees - even ladies tees sometimes) would resolve the current crisis.  It would likely mean courses would come in at pars of 66ish-69ish for the top guys, but so what?  In essence, these guys would probably be playing tees comparable to 5-75 years ago, but the par reduced by 5ish shots.  Its true that some big hitting would be eliminated, but then there is no way to combat the big hitting of today without severely compromising the integrity of many great classics.  I can't see the ball being rolled back anything like what would be required to keep this integrity in tact.  What does that leave us with - continued expansion or true elasticity?

Ciao

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - Re two tier par/bogey I would say thats exactly what not to do. Just make golf fun, dont worry about protecting par if they do 59....GOOD. let the members be 7 handicap when they are really 13...let people make eagles not birdies.. GOLF IS PART OF THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS... we need people to enjoy the game. If you start having a two tier par system, you will let people convince themselves they did not make a real birdie and making one or two good scores in 18 is what makes a lot of peoples days and keeps this game so great, that just for 1 hole I did what Tiger did. The EGU are doing all they can do rip peoples handicap off them by forcing them to maintain 3 cards per year. That might not sound so much but over half of our members will not make the 3 cards, they will lose their handicaps and in time even less people will be members of clubs. If you want to protect the integrity of golf courses and their design intent, just have a tournament ball even if its just used for that course, let cat 1 players use a 85% ball or a 90 or a 80.. whatever that rolls the 300 back to the 240 or wherever the hazards are, but let Mr Average hit it miles.

[Jud_T]

Ken,

I love the "No Par" scorecard! I love the visual of all the scorecard and pencillers foaming at the mouth even more!!! 

[JESII]

The idea of removing "Par" from a holes label should only have legs on an internet discussion board.

It removes a most important arrow from the architects quiver...the players ego!

Lowering par on a course below the Mendoza line of 70 would help some courses increase the risk taking of top players however...

[Ken Fry]

Ken

I profoundly disagree.  I believe with the current length championship courses have gotten, a reduction in par and some length (would probably mean using forward tees - even ladies tees sometimes) would resolve the current crisis.  It would likely mean courses would come in at pars of 66ish-69ish for the top guys, but so what?  In essence, these guys would probably be playing tees comparable to 5-75 years ago, but the par reduced by 5ish shots.  Its true that some big hitting would be eliminated, but then there is no way to combat the big hitting of today without severely compromising the integrity of many great classics.  I can't see the ball being rolled back anything like what would be required to keep this integrity in tact.  What does that leave us with - continued expansion or true elasticity?

Ciao

Sean,

By allowing for yardage flexibility on certain holes where it would be appropriate, tournaments can provide different looks to keep players a little off balance.  A par 4 that it's possible to drive one day could return to long the next.  Par 3's from different angles and varying yardage.  These could provide changes within the appropriate course without major structural changes or adjustments to par.  That's why I brought up Mike Davis and his setup philosophy at Torrey Pines.

I love the "No Par" scorecard! I love the visual of all the scorecard and pencillers foaming at the mouth even more!!!  

It began as a "marketing" move to generate a little buzz.  It got humerous when people would become IRRATE at the concept.  In the end it just wasn't worth the fight.

Ken

[Sean_A]

Sean - Re two tier par/bogey I would say thats exactly what not to do. Just make golf fun, dont worry about protecting par if they do 59....GOOD. let the members be 7 handicap when they are really 13...let people make eagles not birdies.. GOLF IS PART OF THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS... we need people to enjoy the game. If you start having a two tier par system, you will let people convince themselves they did not make a real birdie and making one or two good scores in 18 is what makes a lot of peoples days and keeps this game so great, that just for 1 hole I did what Tiger did. The EGU are doing all they can do rip peoples handicap off them by forcing them to maintain 3 cards per year. That might not sound so much but over half of our members will not make the 3 cards, they will lose their handicaps and in time even less people will be members of clubs. If you want to protect the integrity of golf courses and their design intent, just have a tournament ball even if its just used for that course, let cat 1 players use a 85% ball or a 90 or a 80.. whatever that rolls the 300 back to the 240 or wherever the hazards are, but let Mr Average hit it miles.

In theory I agree with you - do nothing - let the pros figure out how they make their product more appealing .  In practice, people change courses to protect par and build horribly long things.  Didn't you build one such monster down near Bristol ?  Given the knee jerk reactions to the pro game, I think it is better to act with shortening courses and par rather than actually changing courses.  Besides, the concept of a bogey score fits right in with your idea of golf being in the entertainment business and it is a far more realistic expectation.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

The bogey concept has been dead for too long Sean, it cant be revived. Yes i did build a monster down in Bristol and largely it was a mistake, people hate to play it at 7600 yards except for one day of the year when they love to beat themselves up. The top pro's would still do 64 though whilst county players can take 92, that actually illustrates the huge gap between todays players. From our white medal tees we are 6575 yards par 72. The 6 handicappers + we lose if we use tees beyond the 6600 range, and there is a good lesson there, people wanna score low and 6 handicappers wanna be 5 handicappers not drift back to 9. I dont think many people can understand just how long a par 72 golf course is at 7600 yards, virtually every hole is bordering the next par. They just started out as an extra set of tees that we put in initially for tournaments and thats what they are today but the press picked up on the longest UK etc. Its a plus for a visitor point of view but as a course its viewed as very difficult and the masses dont think of it from the yellow tees where at 6050 yards par 72 its a kick around.

[Sean_A]

The bogey concept has been dead for too long Sean, it cant be revived. Yes i did build a monster down in Bristol and largely it was a mistake, people hate to play it at 7600 yards except for one day of the year when they love to beat themselves up. The top pro's would still do 64 though whilst county players can take 92, that actually illustrates the huge gap between todays players. From our white medal tees we are 6575 yards par 72. The 6 handicappers + we lose if we use tees beyond the 6600 range, and there is a good lesson there, people wanna score low and 6 handicappers wanna be 5 handicappers not drift back to 9. I dont think many people can understand just how long a par 72 golf course is at 7600 yards, virtually every hole is bordering the next par. They just started out as an extra set of tees that we put in initially for tournaments and thats what they are today but the press picked up on the longest UK etc. Its a plus for a visitor point of view but as a course its viewed as very difficult and the masses dont think of it from the yellow tees where at 6050 yards par 72 its a kick around.

Adrian

Yes, I know we aree always looking for reasons why the simplest answers won't do, yet we find reasons to build 7600 yard courses.  Call me crazy, but I will never understand how those in the golf industry think.

BTW Jim & Ken

I think the idea of a no par course is wonderful.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

The 7600 yard thing is the attempt to create a challenge for the very elite players. It is not for mere mortals. The 7600 yard course means certain pro's cant win. I know of one ryder cupper who came off the tour when he hit his best drive and got up on a long 5 with a 3 wood second shot only to hear Ernie Els hit an 8 iron second shot, you cant compete over 4 rounds against that sort of disandvantage. Length at the very elite end of our sport is paramount and is the way our piers have chosen to decide who is best. Turnberry did not play long this year and a 59 year old showed he could be still be elite, but he worries at 2010 TOC that he might not make the fairway at the 4th.

[JESII]

Sean,

re-read my words...I think it's a bad idea because it removes the players ego from the architects arsenal.

[Jud_T]

Jim,

Only in medal play....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()