[mikeyolympic]

the USGA has a noticeable trend of turning par 5s into par 4s. for example, pinehurst' 99, 16th hole and 5th hole at 480+, pebble '00, 2nd hole at 484, southern hills '01, 16th hole at 491, bethpage '02, 10th hole at 492, 7th hole at 489, 12th hole at 499! YET... none of these holes have really been that long for the pros.... i think the 2nd hole at pebble, pros were hitting like 6 irons into the green, phil mickelson had a 9 iron to the 16th hole at southern hills once after a 350+ drive, and tiger woods had like 170 left after cutting to corner on the longest par 4 in U.S. open history at 499. have we really seen these converted par 5s into 4s really make that big a difference? i think in my opinion, they were at pinehurst. we saw the late payne stewart and mickelson having trouble even reaching the 16th green with two irons. but that's because they were still playing wound balls then. at the '98 open at olympic, the 17th hole played really long at 468 yds, but it played uphill and into the wind. none of these holes we've seen the USGA convert have been uphill holes since the one at olympic. is changing to par of a hole just trying to psych the players out, because i don't think they make the holes play that long cause most of them are usually downhill.... what do you think? i want to hear your opinions.

[Jim Sweeney]

mikey- first a quick story. I played in the 1981 Amateur at Olympic and the 17th was a par 4. The next summer I had the opportunity to talk with Lee Trevino and asked him about his strategy on that hole. He said, "I play it as a par five, and occasionally I make a birdie." The important physical fact that makes that hole a difficult 4 is not the length or the uphill but the distinct right to left slope. If one could keep the ball on the up hill side the hole would be much easier. Of course, that is the problem.

What I will now express is not opinion, but the USGA's philosophy about these conversions as it was explained to me by a USGA staffer who is in a position to know.

1) The USGA prefers a par of 70 if possible. However, it will not force a par or 70 if it does not make sense in the overall strategy of the course.

2) They look at how the players will play the hole. If the players will be trying to reach the green in two anyway, it is a good bet that hole will be considered for conversion.

3) The hole's physical features are examined. What is the landing area like? The approach? Green size? Placement of hazards? What clubs will the players hit? Where does the hole fall within the course? etc. You are probably aware that the USGA has tried several different configurations of Olympic 17.

You are right that par does not make a difference in terms of the total stokes taken, but it does make a difference in score relative to total par. 280 is eight under 4x72 but even par 4x70. The USGA's philosphy is that par should be a good score. Making par 280 instead of 288 helps ensure that happens. They've been remarkably effective in getting that result.

ONe more note- the ninth at Shinnecock is converted for the Open and it is uphill.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mikey,

You wrote:

"16th hole at 491, bethpage '02, 10th hole at 492, 7th hole at 489, 12th hole at 499! YET... none of these holes have really been that long for the pros...."

I think you need to check a few facts. At Bethpage, the only par-five that was converted to a par-four, was the seventh hole.

The tenth hole and the twelfth holes have ALWAYS been par- fours going back to the days when TILLINGHAST first designed them.

The championship tee was always measured at 480 yards for the tenth hole, so even where some were lengthened for the Open, this tee was flattened (it settled over the years and was played slightly downhill the further one went back) and so it really wasn't lengthened by much.

The pros had a GREAT problem in reaching these holes in two on a regular basis, but this was caused more by their lack of accuracy with drives that landed in the rough rather then by the length of the holes.

By the way, the purpose  in playing it to a par of 70 and by reducing par five(s) to do this, is to enable the shorter hitter to be more competitive. The thinking is that a shorter hitter will have an easier time reaching a long par four or laying up and making par, than he would of making birdie on a par five that measures in the 550+ yard range, whereas a long hitter will have an easier time making birdie or even eagle on a par five that is in that length range, than a par on a long tough par four.

The seventh hole on the Black that was converted for the Open, from its original championship tee measures 590+ yards. Long hitters have always had an advantage on this hole. In fact, in 1936, Jimmy Hines, the reigning Met Open champion, became the first person to reach this hole in two. He did it with a driver and a TWO-IRON! At the time, the hole was measured for play at 600 yards!

It just goes to show you, there's always been big bears in them woods!

[Dave_Ward]

For this year's Open at Olympia Fields, the course will play at 7,190 yard par 70 with with five par 4s over 450 yards. The Willie Park Jr. course was designed as a 6442 yard par 70 in 1920.  It was lengthened by 314 yards to 6756 yards for the 1928 US Open, at which time, the 18th hole (#9 for the 2003 Open) was converted from a 445 yard par four to a 490 yard par 5.  The members have since been playing the hole as a par five from the white tees and a par four from the blue and black tees.  The Board recently voted to play the hole as a par 4 from all tees as originally designed.  

[Tom_Doak]

jeplusone:  The ninth at Shinnecock has always been a par-4.  The USGA turned it into a much longer par-4 with a new tee back in 1986, but they didn't convert it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()