At the risk of posing an architectural question, how does the "in regulation" concept influence (1) golf course architecture and (2) how we play the game?
Golf's evolved. The founders didn't come up with idea of par, which has been discussed, ad nausea, hereon (as it should be). What I haven't noticed in the past couple of years is a discussion of "in regulation." I've never seen this expressed, but implicit in the concept of par seems to be the concept of "in regulation" – that is, a par 4 implies two shots to get on the green and two putts to make par. Or am I missing something on that?
That is, assuming that "par" is a useful concept, does that necessarily mean that "in regulation" is also a useful concept?
From a design standpoint, if the architect thinks in terms of creating a par 3, par 4 or par 5, does that necessarily mean that "he" must think in terms of the number of shots it should take a scratch golfer to put the ball on the green, e.g., two shots for a par four? Is it possible (taking the meaning of that word anyway one chooses) for an architect to conceive and design a par four as, maybe, three to the green, and one putt? Or, one to the green, and three putts?
From the average player's standpoint, how many holes are messed up because the average player thinks "he" must always try to reach the green "in regulation" (or better)? I cannot answer the first question, but my answer to the second would be, "Many, many".