How to exploit "par" as a designer

[paul cowley]

Good God it's so simple...just make it what you want according to what you are trying to achieve.


You want a hole to challenge a player to have to use 2 woods or a long iron to get home in "reg"...?

Meet Diamante #10...Par 4, 547 yds.


A risk/reward reachable Par 5...?

Meet Diamante #6...Par 5, 475 yds


Both of these holes are on the same score card...along with a few others that don't fit the normal suggested yardage ranges for holes and their relation to par. Somehow this course is highly ranked regardless of these abnormalities...or maybe even because!


Whoever decided that "par" designations must fit within a certain "range/length" wasn't doing designers a favor.


Par shouldn't be about the length of a hole...but more about the intent, strategy and strength of a hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

With due respect, I don't think Diamante is highly ranked BECAUSE you built a 547-yard par-4.

[Jud_T]

Paul,

I agree with the gist of your post.  Seems to me that every time we try to put golf into a box, we do so to the detriment of the game.  Par, rating, slope, Medal play, statistically based group rankings, fairness, etc...Frankly, why do you need a Par on the card anyway? A 3 for Tiger, a 4 for you or a 5 for me might be "par" on any given day, particularly in the winds at a place like Diamante.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Paul,
And surely par is realtive to the weather conditions, especially on the holes you choose here.
I have them both into opposing winds and no wind whxih realy chnages the "relative" par or shotmaking required to play the hole, so in that respect I agree with the premise of the post. It is just a number with which we become obsessed.
As Streamsong is so topical on here at the moment two holes there fit the same bill.
Number 11 on Tom's Blue..Into any sort of a breeze and with that penal green complex it plays like a short 5 par, downwind a very reachable par four with the same penal green that really demands a running shot onto the gree.
On the C&C Red....Number 18..Normally very reachable in two, but into the wind becomes way more strategic as a three shotter.
Si in essence you architects do neutralise par rather well

[Greg Tallman]

Hmmmmmmm could have sworn #10 was actually 568.

I think it is about 510 from the tee I would normally play.

6 green is far less difficult than 10 which could be one of teh most difficult to pitch to on the course from the normal short right position of a second shot.

6 actually funnels balls toward the hole while 10 largely repels them. A more cynical person than I might just think you flipped the par deisgnations for the sake of being "unique" 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I don't have a problem with the concept of "par", I do however have a problem with the concept of everyone being entitled to make par by the creation of innumerable tees.

[jeffwarne]

Paul,

I don't have a problem with the concept of "par", I do however have a problem with the concept of everyone being entitled to make par by the creation of innumerable tees.

Lot easier to have different pars on the scorecard than innumerable tees
i.e. 5/4 ,common on many UK courses

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

I don't have a problem with the concept of "par", I do however have a problem with the concept of everyone being entitled to make par by the creation of innumerable tees.

+1 to that.

If we're to play about with par because of differing conditions and abilities, we'd better send the greenkeeper out at 5:30am to assess how any given links is going to play on that day and calculate the day's numbers from there.

If you're a club golfer and stupid enough to place such a premium on the number on a card then, rather than suggesting that it should be removed, amend your thinking. It seems to me to be yet another example of dumbing down for the masses. Heaven forbid we actually do anything to remind the public that they lack the skills to play par golf.

[paul cowley]

Paul:

With due respect, I don't think Diamante is highly ranked BECAUSE you built a 547-yard par-4.

Tom - not quite sure what you infer, but I do think Diamante enjoys some of its appeal because of its yardage quirkyness....something that wasn't as intentional as you would think, but more a response to the site features and the wind conditions AND an effort to build into the course the shot and par challenges that I previously stated...how to design a true two wood long par 4...something the ODG's understood, and we used to experience before all this distance explosion. Hogan's 1 iron at #18 Merion...lets see what they average for the second shot at the next US Open.

Sure #10 could be an easy downwind par 5 that most wouldn't remember much...anymore than they would remember the Road Hole  if it was reverted back to a par 5.

Half pars are predictably becoming all the rage and #10 is a good par 4.5...7 is a good par 3.5...14 a good 5.5 and so on.

My take anyway.



 

[paul cowley]

Hmmmmmmm could have sworn #10 was actually 568.

I think it is about 510 from the tee I would normally play.

6 green is far less difficult than 10 which could be one of teh most difficult to pitch to on the course from the normal short right position of a second shot.

6 actually funnels balls toward the hole while 10 largely repels them. A more cynical person than I might just think you flipped the par deisgnations for the sake of being "unique" 

Well Greg...if you haven't noticed the back tees are rarely placed beyond the cart crossing anymore....a small concession for the sake of being unique...so I shortened the hole for this thread.

So you are suggesting that we make the 475 yd par 5 #6 a long 4 into the wind?...it fits the par numbers better.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

 Paul,
In essence the golfer plays whichever one of those holes is downwind as a par four anyway no?
Therein lies the premise of the thread correct?

also OT..when will number 12/13 on the Dunes be finished do you think?

[paul cowley]

Michael - my best guess we start the second quarter...trying to coordinate it's construction in the same time frame as El Cardonal...the Wood's course.

Touch base the next time you're in town!

[Greg Tallman]

Hmmmmmmm could have sworn #10 was actually 568.

I think it is about 510 from the tee I would normally play.

6 green is far less difficult than 10 which could be one of teh most difficult to pitch to on the course from the normal short right position of a second shot.

6 actually funnels balls toward the hole while 10 largely repels them. A more cynical person than I might just think you flipped the par deisgnations for the sake of being "unique" 

Well Greg...if you haven't noticed the back tees are rarely placed beyond the cart crossing anymore....a small concession for the sake of being unique...so I shortened the hole for this thread.

So you are suggesting that we make the 475 yd par 5 #6 a long 4 into the wind?...it fits the par numbers better.

Why not? You could stretch 10 to 590 and still be reachable for the likes of MWP.

Actually just adding to the discussion. If it were only as simple as you suggest but it is not for we all have egos and have all been trained to evaluate score versus par.

Example.

The green on #6 is much friendlier than that on 10 though I am probably more compelled to lay up on 6 into a stiff wind simply due to the par... "easy par" sounds so much better than "easy bogey" even though an easy 5 is easy 5.

Conversely on 10 I am more likely to push a shot trying to reach the green as it it does not compute for many to lay up on a par 4 when you have a chance to get there... even if the chance is limited (David Toms be damned!).

Of course this thought process fails to discuss the recoverability of the respective holes. 


 as 10 certainly seems to be more of a "par 5 green" than 6 does. I have hit 7 iron into 6, I do not recall ever having an iron shot into 10. Then again my game is rather weak these days.

[paul cowley]

Greg - it really is so relative.

Use the Road Hole as an example. A world renowned long par 4...over 500+ yds and growing. Is the second shot any less difficult than #10 Diamante? It's probably more so, and for similar reasons....length and hard green to hit and hold.

Make it a par 5 and most players would lay up and hope for a close wedge and birdie. As a par 4 most players don't lay up (although Hogan did) and try to get up and down, but instead go for it in two.

That's the quirk pressure that the extra length/lower than usual par scenario creates.

I wouldn't use it all the time....or should I? 

[BCrosby]

Paul -

You should use the effect of par designations at every opportunity. People poo-poo par. It's just a number, blah, blah. Which at a superficial level is obviously true.

But in the real world par affects expectations about how holes are played, like it or not. People who claim to be immune to such things live in a different world from the one I am familiar with.

Par ought to be an important tool in the architect's toolbox. You should exploit it, not try to neutralize it.

Bob     

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

The Road Hole, unless you happen to be an elite tour player and playing in the British Open, plays at a maximum length of 455 yards. It's status as a par 4 has nothing to do with any attempt to convince the golfer that it's a tougher hole than it really is, but rather just a reflection of the fact that it measures less than 475 yards, that being the standard length over here at which a hole becomes a par 5. Historically it was a par 5 because, in an era when the ball just didn't travel so far off the bat, the yardage at which a hole was deemed to be a par 5 was less.

More broadly, regarding your point about the golfer tending to treat a hole differently because of the number on a card, I'm all in favour of holes which muddle the players' thinking. Learning to think about your own game instead of the printed par is all just part of the joys of golf for me and something everyone should be made to consider more often, be it in the form of an unreachable par 4 or a par 5 which you should really be treating as a par 4. It's a skill which you'll see the best players in the world apply all the time as second nature; doesn't matter one jot whether you put a 4 or a 5 on a card, if they can reach in two blows and they make five, as far as they're concerned, they've dropped a shot to the field.

Late Edit: Having written the above, I hit post and discover BCrosby has summed it up far better in a few short words than I could manage in an entire ramble!

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul -

You should use the effect of par designations at every opportunity. People poo-poo par. It's just a number, blah, blah. Which at a superficial level is obviously true.

But in the real world par affects expectations about how holes are played, like it or not. People who claim to be immune to such things live in a different world from the one I am familiar with.

Par ought to be an important tool in the architect's toolbox. You should exploit it, not try to neutralize it.

Bob    

I think I'm with Bob here, Paul -- which is interesting given how differently our golfing experiences probably are. My guess is that Bob, like many on this board (including the majority of those who poo-poo par), took up the game relatively early in life, became good-to-very good golfers, played a lot of golf over the years, in a lot of cool places, worried about par and about score for a long time, and then 'came out the other side' and now reject the card and pencil mentality. (I was going to say, they 'earned the luxury' of rejecting par.) Well, I have a completely different narrative: I took the game up in my mid 30s, was able to play very little for the first ten years (about 10 rounds a summer), and am only now slowly getting better, slowly learning to really hit the ball solidly and chip and putt....and I am completely a card and pencil type (despite my appreciation of the game for all its natural charms and mystical feel). It gives meaning and benchmarks to one aspect of my journey -- i.e. the long hard road to getting good at the game. Your golf holes sound great -- and for me would play great precisely because of their Pars, because of the challenge and excitement I'd feel in hitting two consecutive woods properly, and getting onto or near that green in regulation (Par 4), and the sheer fun I'd have in making on fairly rare birdie on the (short) par 5. And, in the likely event that I went double bogie, par, I'd lick my wounds and carry on, knowing that the results were in the natural order of things. (Boring, I know...but I need to ground in the boring once in a while or I'd float away! )

[paul cowley]

Paul -

You should use the effect of par designations at every opportunity. People poo-poo par. It's just a number, blah, blah. Which at a superficial level is obviously true.

But in the real world par affects expectations about how holes are played, like it or not. People who claim to be immune to such things live in a different world from the one I am familiar with.

Par ought to be an important tool in the architect's toolbox. You should exploit it, not try to neutralize it.

Bob    

You are quite right  Bob (and Peter)...poor choice of title! I've fixed it...and will leave the rest alone!

I suffer from a decades long struggle with "par"...it's concept, it's history, how and why it affects the play of the game and how it influences the games design...a personal journey I probably should leave private!

[Sean_A]

Paul -

You should use the effect of par designations at every opportunity. People poo-poo par. It's just a number, blah, blah. Which at a superficial level is obviously true.

But in the real world par affects expectations about how holes are played, like it or not. People who claim to be immune to such things live in a different world from the one I am familiar with.

Par ought to be an important tool in the architect's toolbox. You should exploit it, not try to neutralize it.

Bob     

Bob

Except you aren't really exploiting "par" at all.  What is being exploited is wind direction, terrain and some people's odd concept of par.  The goal for an archie should be to build the best course he can.  The par numbers should then be slapped onto the hole numbers.  Instead, we get archies looking to build to par 72 from the get go - that can't be good.  I think design would be better off if par was never mentioned and that the concept is a handicap to design.  I understand your position is probably from a real world Pov, but I believe that if archies build good enough courses that particular real world can be altered.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Isn't it true that Friar's head has no yardage or par listed on the card?  I'd love to play a course like this.  Hopefully they ban GPS and cell phones as well.  I imagine it would be an eye opening experience for most of us.  Many of us are focused on attempting to play the game as it was played during the Golden Age; seeking out classic courses, collecting hickories to play with, even donning the silly attire of the 20's.  Seems to me that losing the card is the simplest method of bringing back a bit of the adventure and shotmaking skills of the days of yore.

[Tags:]

Tags: