Par-3 difficulty and stroke index

[Thomas Dai]

Ever notice how on a course with 4 x par-3's these holes usually have SI's 18, 17, 16 and 15? Okay some courses have more or less par-3's and at some the SI isn't as this but you get the idea.

Say 14 is the average man's handicap. It probably isn't that far off.
This means that Mr 14-hcp receives a shot on each par-4 and par-5 but no shot on the par-3's.

Consider for a moment how many times these days someone of Mr 14-hcp's ability is likely to actually make a 3 on a par-3?
4 out of 4? Doubt it. 3 out of 4? Doubt it. 2 out of 4? Maybe. 1 out of 4? Possibly. 0 out of 4? Not unlikely.

Amateur players, unless they're particularly good or long hitters (ie not Mr 14-hcp), rarely seem to be using 6-9 irons on par-3's nowadays - instead it's more hybrids and fairway metals and even drivers that are needed to reach the greens, and par-3's usually have the most severely defended greens.

The outcome?
Well Mr 14-hcp has effectively lost 4 shots to SI before he even sets foot on a par-4 or a par-5?

So, have par-3's become disproportionally more difficult as courses have got longer?

Thoughts?

atb

[John Kavanaugh]

Want to not be asked to play again? Get a stroke on a par 3. A blind squirrel will indeed find an acorn, hopefully in the middle of the road.

[Andy Stamm]

Par 3s are often have the highest scoring vs par (for good players in particular.) Having a high stroke index isn't because they're the easiest holes, it's that they're the hardest. Not only is Mr 14 not that likely to make par, neither is Mr Scratch his opponent. On the 5s, long 4s, etc. the spread of likely scores between the two is wider, therefore they are stroke holes. The low stroke index holes shouldn't be the hardest but rather those with the biggest spread in scoring between the low handicap player and the high handicap player, which correlates well with length. I know plenty of 3s that are fairly low stroke index because they require a very precise shot with a high cost for a miss, although it seems plenty of courses just use length, which is consistent but not as good in my view.


What's interesting is that for a stableford competition and also for handicap with ESC, the stroke holes should be strictly based on difficulty not on the spread between the tiger and rabbit or where they fall in the round and while assigning the stroke holes as above may be good for a match, it distorts stableford scoring a bit.

[Peter Pallotta]

To Andy's point, I remember reading a stat indicating that, in his PGA Tour days, short-hitting Corey Pavin (who Brandel Chamblee once described as looking, from over on another fairway, like a 16 handicapper) made up most/all of his strokes on the field on the Par 3s - which, if I remember correctly, he played over the course of entire season, at just about even par....good enough to lead the pack.

[Andy Stamm]

To Andy's point, I remember reading a stat indicating that, in his PGA Tour days, short-hitting Corey Pavin (who Brandel Chamblee once described as looking, from over on another fairway, like a 16 handicapper) made up most/all of his strokes on the field on the Par 3s - which, if I remember correctly, he played over the course of entire season, at just about even par....good enough to lead the pack.

On tour par 3s and 4s play pretty close in terms of scoring average relative to par, with 5s much easier. On par 3s scoring doesn't correlate well with length while on 4s and especially 5s it does. So any good short or medium length player is likely scoring very well on the 3s. And given their difficulty they can be a bit of an leveler.

[Pete Lavallee]

ATB,


Don't know how it works in the U.K. but here in the USA we collect scores from scratch and 18 handicap players and allot strokes accordingly. 90% of the time the par 3 holes are last. Two of my clubs give strokes early on par 3's both are over 200 yards.

[Alan Carter]

Although most clubs do not follow this recommendation, the Handicap Index for a course is not a rating of hardest to easiest holes on a course.  It is a ranking of where a higher handicapped player will likely be needing a stroke from the better player in order to halve the hole.  That might not always be on what might be perceived as the hardest hole on any golf course, which is something most golfers cannot wrap their head around, especially the better player.


See below for a bit of what the USGA recommends.
 


The USGA recommends that the Handicap Committee should review the course hole-by-hole to determine the appropriate allocation of handicap strokes for men and women. This procedure is not mandatory and will have minimal effect on a player's Handicap Index®. Common sense should be used to ensure that the handicap strokes are used as an equalizer and should be available where it most likely will be needed by the higher-handicapped player in order to obtain a halve on the hole.
When starting out, the Handicap Committee should remember a few basic guidelines:
Allocate strokes based on the tees played most often by a majority of the members.

• 
  
  Allocate the odd-numbered strokes to the front-nine holes and the even-numbered strokes to the back-nine holes—unless the back-nine is decidedly more difficult than the front—you can reverse the allocation.
• 
  
  Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes
• A method for allocating your handicap strokes is to collect 200 hole-by-hole scorecards from two different groups of golfers. Group A consists of golfers with a Course Handicap™ of 0-8 for men or 0-14 for women. If there are very few members within this range, take the low 25 percent of its golfers as group A.Group B consists of middle-to-high Course Handicap golfers, ranging 15-20 strokes higher than group A (20-28 for men and 26-40 for women).The next step is to compare the average score per hole for group A against the average score per hole of group B. Rank the differential of hole scores between group A and group B from high-to-low (1 highest, 18 lowest) differential. Allocate odd and even numbers to front and second nine. The last step is to make sure low numerical holes are not at the beginning or end of each nine.The Handicap Committee should use good judgment when allocating handicap stroke holes. The club makes the final determination.

[Sean_A]

ATB

As someone earlier pointed out...plenty of better than 14 cappers are not going to come close to four 3s on the card...most people lose shots to the card just as does the 14 capper.  I find it really disheartening when I have to give a shot on a par 3 and often times the shot isn't warranted.  My theory for practically any course when playing with a card in hand is that if you play the short holes well it is hard not to have a decent card.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Thomas,


If your 14 capper drops 14 shots, 4 of them on the 4 par 3s, and deosn't, in a Stableford, get a stroke on any of them, then he's making those dropped points up elsewhere.  What's the problem?

[Emil Weber]

Thomas,
yes, I've noticed that and wondered about it aswell. For one, I would say that the average handicap might be higher than 14 (here in Germany it's more like 24, I'd guess, but I don't have the stats). My theory is that for the average golfer, there's just much less margin for error on par 3s. They are mostly reachable in 1 or 2 shots for even very short hitters. On longer holes however, errors cumulate exponentially. For those short hitters, a par 5 is only reachable in 4 or 5 shots, so an error that influences the following shots (i.e. shank in the high rough) is much more likely. Thus, I think it's not unlikely that par 3s actually are the easiest holes for average and above average hcp golfers.
Does anyone know how frequently courses are re-rated? With the equipment from 30 years ago and the avg handicap maybe higher than today, perhaps that rating system would make more sense aswell.
Anyway, I think that's only an issue if you're overly concerned with S.I.. If we're talking about the possibility of abandoning par, surely S.I. could go first?
Cheers

[Bob Harris]

In the US, rating/slope are valid for 10 years.  My Association re-rates  a course every seven years or earlier if requested by the Club.


I just finished the Allocation of Handicap Strokes for my club, using the USGA's comparison method.


The par 3s were 15, 16, 17 and 18.  The par 5s were 1, 2 and 7. 

[Andy Stamm]

Thomas,


If your 14 capper drops 14 shots, 4 of them on the 4 par 3s, and deosn't, in a Stableford, get a stroke on any of them, then he's making those dropped points up elsewhere.  What's the problem?

If he makes all par and bogeys he's in the same place. But what if he makes all pars and bogeys and a 6 on the most difficult par 3 (that should have a lower stroke index)? He's getting his extra point at the easier hole that is now index 14, where his bogey is now worth 2 points. But his 0 on the par 3 is not being reduced to -1 to equalize. And he's gained an advantage (1 point here) over the scratch man who doesn't benefit for the manipulated stroke allocation.

[James Boon]

Your 14 handicapper would like Littlestone... 


Four pars 3s
6th, 158yds, SI 8
9th, 170yds, SI 6
14th, 185yds, SI 11
17th, 18yds, SI 7


Was a shock to give away shots to people at the recent Buda on so many of the short holes!


Cheers,


James

[Thomas Dai]

Your 14 handicapper would like Littlestone... 
Four pars 3s
6th, 158yds, SI 8
9th, 170yds, SI 6
14th, 185yds, SI 11
17th, 18yds, SI 7
Was a shock to give away shots to people at the recent Buda on so many of the short holes!
Cheers,
James

I suspect they might James.


I also suspect that Sl's in the UK would be different if based not on matchplay (i.e. balanced nines etc etc) but on degree of actual difficulty calculated on say average over par score for all players over maybe a 2-3-4-5 year period.


Worth pointing out that some UK courses now adopt two SI's - one for matchplay and a different one for stableford.


One aspect of par-3 scoring that I've observed over the years is that longer hitters seem to find short, especially very short, par-3's harder than they do middle or longer length ones whereas for the lessor player/shorter hitter the opposite seems to be the case.


Atb

[Ed Brzezowski]

In the US, rating/slope are valid for 10 years.  My Association re-rates  a course every seven years or earlier if requested by the Club.


I just finished the Allocation of Handicap Strokes for my club, using the USGA's comparison method.


The par 3s were 15, 16, 17 and 18.  The par 5s were 1, 2 and 7.

You folks must be very, very, very short hitters.

[Craig Disher]

Your 14 handicapper would like Littlestone... 


Four pars 3s
6th, 158yds, SI 8
9th, 170yds, SI 6
14th, 185yds, SI 11
17th, 18yds, SI 7


Was a shock to give away shots to people at the recent Buda on so many of the short holes!


Cheers,


James

And where did you place your tee shots on the holes?

[Jim Nugent]

For bogey golfers, par 3s are easier because they hit fewer full shots on them.  That means they have fewer chances to screw up before they reach the green.  Par 4s and especially par 5s are harder for bogey golfers, because they must hit more full shots, and so have more chances to screw up. 

The opposite is true for scratch golfers.  Even the world's best players rarely average better than par on par 3s, but eat up par 5s. 

This is why par 3s are usually near 15-18 among handicap holes, and par 5s are often near 1-5. 

This also reveals one way to build courses that tip out at 6700 yards, yet challenge/interest top pros and average golfers alike: design more par 3 holes than par 5s.  Six and four could do the trick, but so could many other combinations.  Save space, playing time, money, while keeping the game fun for all.     

[James Boon]

Your 14 handicapper would like Littlestone... 


Four pars 3s
6th, 158yds, SI 8
9th, 170yds, SI 6
14th, 185yds, SI 11
17th, 18yds, SI 7


Was a shock to give away shots to people at the recent Buda on so many of the short holes!


Cheers,


James

And where did you place your tee shots on the holes?

Craig,


I'm sure no one wants a blow by blow of my rounds at Littlestone 


I actually think if we are using SI as a measure of difficulty, that generally the par 3s at Littlestone are about right, certainly the 6th is a tough hole especially with the drop off left and 17 is a great but also tough par 3 as the green is quite small, so being SI 7 and 8 is about right. If 9 and 14 had actually been the more typical high teens SI though it wouldnt have seemed to odd.


I too am used to seeing the par 3s generally as some of the easiest SI so it was actually a pleasant surprise to see them as they were at Littlestone. It was also a pleasant change to see the par 5s ranked easy as following the opening post principle they often arent ranked as such at a lot of course.


Cheers,


James

[Thomas Dai]

I was discussing this general subject with some golf mates today.
The point was made that if a scratch player is long enough to reach all the par-5's in 2 shots, then assuming 4 x par-5's, that player should actually be a +4 hcp.
The question was then posed, without polite conclusion, of what stops them being one?
Different perspective on the subject.


Interesting point made by Jim above about having courses with more par-3's than par-5's.


Atb

[Sean_A]

Your 14 handicapper would like Littlestone... 

Four pars 3s
6th, 158yds, SI 8
9th, 170yds, SI 6
14th, 185yds, SI 11
17th, 18yds, SI 7

Much of the difficulty of the 3s is dependent upon rough. When the rough is down none except 17 (because of the very small green) is overly taxing.  If the rough is up and a near miss is punished severely...then the high indexes are warranted.  On the day we played I didn't think 6 or 9 were particularly difficult.  It was easy to bunt a short shot on 6 and go long on 9....and members would know where to miss.  17 is the one exception to all this and with rough up I dare say the hole is incredibly difficult.  In my experiences there lost ball is not at all uncommon.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Sean, I reckon you hit a nail on the head above when you wrote "...if you play the short holes well it is hard not to have a decent card."
Play off 14 or less and fail to achieve par on the par-3's and you are likely to be on average probably four-over your hcp. And picking up four shots on the remaining holes doesn't seem like something that's going to occur very often.
And usually par-3's tend to have the most well defended green sites.
atb

[Andy Stamm]

Worth pointing out that some UK courses now adopt two SI's - one for matchplay and a different one for stableford.

Atb

What are some examples? The more high profile the course/club the better.


Cheers

[Mark_Rowlinson]

At the Open Championship this year we sat on the par-3 14th on the final round, playing at about 200 yards. We saw very few 2s, and a few 4s, but it seemed a routine two-putt hole for almost everyone.

[A.G._Crockett]

Read back over the thread, and you'll see how hard it is for even a very knowledgeable group to get over the idea that the hole handicaps are the order of difficulty of the holes, rather than the likelihood that a bogey golfer will need a stroke to equalize to a scratch golfer.

Here are Jordan Speith's birdie (or better) percentages on Tour this year:
par 3's: 17.96%
par 4's: 20.8%
par 5's: 51.6%

So think of it this way; even if a par 5 seems like a relatively easy chance for a par to the bogey golfer, at least as par 5's go, he'll need a stroke from a good player most of the time because that better player is going to make birdie or better an inordinate amount of the time. 

Meanwhile, Speith is only a third as likely to birdie a par 3, so even if it is a very tough par three, the lesser golfer is less in need of a stroke to equalize. 

If handicapping of holes is done correctly by a given club, it's off of a large database of actual scores by scratch and bogey golfers.  "Difficulty" is a subjective term; for one guy, it's about length, for another it's forced carries, for another it's bunkers, and so on.  Of course there is going to be a correlation between the index and generally accepted levels of difficulty, but there are often exceptions than mystify golfers who misunderstand what the ratings mean.

One more thought: Indexes for holes are reckoned from the back tees, and there are MANY cases where the hole changes dramatically as you move up OR change the angle of the tee shot.  At my home course, the #1 handicap hole (#16) is 427 yds from the back, with a 200+ carry over marsh to get to the fairway.  From the next set of tees, the hole is only 361 and from the third set of tees 315, and ALL of the yardage reduction is forced carry!  Players who have never played the back tees are often mystified by why this is the #1 handicap hole; I always urge them to take a look from the gold tees and see what they think from there.

[Peter Pallotta]

Off AG's post, and with reference to the 'most accurate club in the bag' thread -- if golfers have an average percentage miss across the board (say 10% for average golfers and 5% for good ones) then I'm going to be 15 yards away on a short Par 3 and the good golfer will be 7 yards away. I won't make my 45 footer but he likely won't make his 21 footer either. Take us instead to  Par 5 -- I have 230 left and he has 200; which means I'll miss by 23 yards and he'll miss by 10 yards (ie likely me in the rough or bunker and he on the fairway or green). I'll be happy with par, he'll be looking at birdie - every time.