If #17 averages 4.63 why isn't it a par 5?

[Ken Fry]

Who cares what par is?

Pretty much everyone who plays the game today.

Like it or not, golfers measure their performance against par, and they are just as unhappy making a six or secen a 625-yard hole as they are on a 430-yard hole--provided the card says they are both par fives.

Golfers in my acquaintance are oddly dense about this nuance.  They will say things like "This hole is really a par five for me," about a long par four, but if you watch them play, they don't approach the hole that way.

Putting par at four instead of five turns the mental screws just a hair tighter, which is why the USGA does it.

The old story about Payne Stewart and Mike Davis illustrates how it works.  Stewart apparently complained that a converted par five had too small a green to accept the second shot as a four.  So Davis said he would put it back at five if Stewart could get everyone in the field to promise they'd never attempt to get on in two.

Payne got the point, and apparently told the story to many of his fellow Tour pros.

Players go for the green based on the length of their shot, but they approach it completely different mentally.  If it's a par four they feel as if they HAVE to get on for par.  If it's a par five, they can accept missing it in two, leaving an easy par opportunity.

All this proves is that golfers are nuts.

K

Ken,

They're playing the Open.  The average score for the hole is 4.67.  Make it a par 3, the average score doesn't change.  These guys could care less what par is.  They want the lowest score they can get.  Period.  So they should stop going for the par 4's with a driver to have eagle putts because they're par 4's??

Ken

[mike_malone]

 Alright, I'm willing to compromise. 17 is a 4 1/2 and 18 is a 3 1/2 so the overall par remains 72.

[John Moore II]

I have an interesting thought. If players actually played this hole more like a par 5, driver off the tee, but then, rather than going for the green, pop it down short and right of the green, but basically on the centerline of the green, totally taking the Road Hole Bunker out of play, and then pitching onto the green, I think this hole would play probably 1/2 shot easier, maybe 1/3 shot. The main time that shots are lost is when players get greedy, try to get all the way back to the flag and either hit it 2 yards too long onto the road or 2 yards too short into the bunker. You hit a drive and then a second shot to just shy of the green to the right and you've taken 6+ out of the picture. And with those guys, they'll get it up and down at least half the time, if not a little more as a full field average. Just a thought.

[john_stiles]

If the majority of 2010 tournament players are hitting  7, 6 or 5 iron into the green then it seems to fit the modern 'professional' definition for a  PAR 4 based on yardage.

It does seem to be outside another governing body's guidelines for a par 4,  251 to 470 yards.  Their handicap manual mentions a 'scratch' golfer can reach a 470 yard hole in two.  (Another definition that needs to be refined because everyone is working out too much.)

Maybe we need a scorecard for  golf professionals and one for the rest of the golfers.

Actually I imagine there are many old courses where par is now 69 or 70 or 71 because everyone is working out too much.

After much thought, it isn't a par 5 because everyone is working out too much.

Pass the beer and chips.   Burrrrpp.

[John Moore II]

If the majority of 2010 tournament players are hitting  7, 6 or 5 iron into the green then it seems to fit the modern 'professional' definition for a  PAR 4 based on yardage.

It does seem to be outside another governing body's guidelines for a par 4,  251 to 470 yards.  Their handicap manual mentions a 'scratch' golfer can reach a 470 yard hole in two.  (Another definition that needs to be refined because everyone is working out too much.)

Maybe we need a scorecard for  golf professionals and one for the rest of the golfers.

Actually I imagine there are many old courses where par is now 69 or 70 or 71 because everyone is working out too much.

After much thought, it isn't a par 5 because everyone is working out too much.

Pass the beer and chips.   Burrrrpp.

You just don't like guys that go to the gym do you?
Can't fault a guy for wanting to look like this:

[john_stiles]

You're looking good John and I can say that as a confirmed heterosexual !

BTW,  I see your chest has something similar to my family coat of arms,    TAP OUT

[mike_malone]

 The left rough is another indication of a par five. The only ones that are hitting midirons are those who take on the OB left. The constricted tee shot with OB right and deep rough left and the approach shot with the green , the road, and the bunker all comspire to lead to an average score of a par five.

   I believe if the par is five here it shows more of an appreciation for architecture than for a scoring mindset .

[Andy Hodson]

I can almost guaranteen that the best players in the world don't care, when playing a tournament, what par on the scorecard is. If they do, they have lost a half shot or shot to the ones who don't care what par is,per round.

That said. then, I guess par does matter, as a head game. Much like an architecht attempts to mess with players minds.

In the end, tho, par shouldn't matter. Lowest score wins, always. No matter the format,no matter the par,  lowest score wins.

[Sean_A]

Regardless of what the par is what the scoring average is, great courses need holes like the 17th.  The temptation to obtain an easy 4 or even the odd birdie is just too much for these guys when they hit a good drive.  It is amazing to me how many guys take on the shot when the hole is near the RHB - which serves as a much better hazard as an obstacle for the 3rd rather than as a sand hazard.  After watching the Open in 2005 I thought the best use of this bunker was to shape the land away from the sand so balls collect somewhere  behind the bunker - this is the shot that is the scariest.

Mayday, at the end of the day, I would rather see par numbers kept lower so lengthening courses isn't necessary, but there is sosmething to be said for your leniency for club players.  If you call #17 a par 5 I guarantee teh powers that be will want to increase its length even more - I trend I totally disagree with.  There is nothing wrong with par 69 courses maybe without a par 5.  I would also say I am fully behind the idea of a par score for the excellent players (essentially no handicaps in play) and a bogey score for the handicap players.  One of the most insane things club golfers do is compare themselves to par.  In any case, #17 would be a par 4/bogey 5.  I see nothing wrong with a course which has a bogey score 5 or 6 shots higher than the par score.   

Ciao

[Kevin Pallier]

Alright, I'm willing to compromise. 17 is a 4 1/2 and 18 is a 3 1/2 so the overall par remains 72.

Mayday

As such - they may be my favourite in each "category" per se.

[Mike Hendren]

I've played it twice and made 5 both times, missing par putts inside 10 feet.  If I can make a 5 why can't they be expected to make 4?  FWIW, my yardage book indicates the avg. during the 2000 Open Championship was 4.71.

Bogey

[Jason Topp]

I thought the new tee played well.  Drivers off the tee, OB a credible threat, and road seemed to be more in play.