[Ben Hollerbach]

On the contrary.


If the PGA was enlightened enough to utilise a 6400 yard course, it is far more likely that it would be sub 70 par.


There is not a single valid reason why the pros shouldn’t play over a par 68 course, and be thoroughly tested.

certainly there is not a single valid reason why they shouldn't. But its the invalid reasons that are more often used to justify their activities. 

[Michael Felton]

On the contrary.


If the PGA was enlightened enough to utilise a 6400 yard course, it is far more likely that it would be sub 70 par.


There is not a single valid reason why the pros shouldn’t play over a par 68 course, and be thoroughly tested.

A par 72 at 7200 shots is regulation 36 long shots and 36 putts. 36 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 7,200 yards. Par 68 at 6400 is regulation 32 long shots and 36 putts. 32 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 6,400 yards. To my mind that means, everything else being equal, those two courses are equally difficult relative to par. And that means that calling a 6400 yard course a par 68 does give a solution to the "can a 6400 yard course hold up" question, but it's not a particularly interesting one. Isn't it much more interesting to consider how you could put together a 6400 yard par 72 that could hold up to the PGA tour?

[Sean_A]

On the contrary.


If the PGA was enlightened enough to utilise a 6400 yard course, it is far more likely that it would be sub 70 par.


There is not a single valid reason why the pros shouldn’t play over a par 68 course, and be thoroughly tested.

A par 72 at 7200 shots is regulation 36 long shots and 36 putts. 36 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 7,200 yards. Par 68 at 6400 is regulation 32 long shots and 36 putts. 32 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 6,400 yards. To my mind that means, everything else being equal, those two courses are equally difficult relative to par. And that means that calling a 6400 yard course a par 68 does give a solution to the "can a 6400 yard course hold up" question, but it's not a particularly interesting one. Isn't it much more interesting to consider how you could put together a 6400 yard par 72 that could hold up to the PGA tour?

Why?

Ciao

[Michael Felton]

On the contrary.


If the PGA was enlightened enough to utilise a 6400 yard course, it is far more likely that it would be sub 70 par.


There is not a single valid reason why the pros shouldn’t play over a par 68 course, and be thoroughly tested.

A par 72 at 7200 shots is regulation 36 long shots and 36 putts. 36 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 7,200 yards. Par 68 at 6400 is regulation 32 long shots and 36 putts. 32 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 6,400 yards. To my mind that means, everything else being equal, those two courses are equally difficult relative to par. And that means that calling a 6400 yard course a par 68 does give a solution to the "can a 6400 yard course hold up" question, but it's not a particularly interesting one. Isn't it much more interesting to consider how you could put together a 6400 yard par 72 that could hold up to the PGA tour?

Why?

Ciao

Because take a course that is 6400 yards long, par 72 and that they'd shoot -35 on, then just call it par 68 by writing a 4 in the par column against the four par 5s and you have a -19 winning score, which is right in line with everything else. It's a trivial solution and therefore not an interesting one. Now, ask how you could change that course without just changing the number in the par column and make -19 the winning score and you have a more interesting (and GCA related) question.

[Sean_A]

On the contrary.


If the PGA was enlightened enough to utilise a 6400 yard course, it is far more likely that it would be sub 70 par.


There is not a single valid reason why the pros shouldn’t play over a par 68 course, and be thoroughly tested.

A par 72 at 7200 shots is regulation 36 long shots and 36 putts. 36 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 7,200 yards. Par 68 at 6400 is regulation 32 long shots and 36 putts. 32 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 6,400 yards. To my mind that means, everything else being equal, those two courses are equally difficult relative to par. And that means that calling a 6400 yard course a par 68 does give a solution to the "can a 6400 yard course hold up" question, but it's not a particularly interesting one. Isn't it much more interesting to consider how you could put together a 6400 yard par 72 that could hold up to the PGA tour?

Why?

Ciao

Because take a course that is 6400 yards long, par 72 and that they'd shoot -35 on, then just call it par 68 by writing a 4 in the par column against the four par 5s and you have a -19 winning score, which is right in line with everything else. It's a trivial solution and therefore not an interesting one. Now, ask how you could change that course without just changing the number in the par column and make -19 the winning score and you have a more interesting (and GCA related) question.

You can change par and hole types/lengths. The biggest issue with par 72 is the 5s either have to be super long to really be par 5s, which means there is less yardage to play with for the par 3s.  Or, the par 5s are really par 4s labelled as 5s.

Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

Taking a cue from St. Andrews, you could have 2 par 5's and only 2 par 3's. That would afford you the chance to have long par 5's and still keep the course a manageable distance.

Considering how many par 71's and 70's are used for tournament play, I don't think its a requirement that the course has 4 par 5's and plays to a 72, but it is not limited if it does.

Here is another 18 hole course that uses holes from 106 yards to 635 yards in pretty even intervals. While not as short as my original 6,400 yard number. It does showcase how a wide range of hole lengths could still be used to create a short and challenging course.

COURSE	HOLE	PAR	YARDS	AVG
Pebble Beach Golf Links	7	3	106	2.96
TPC Sawgrass	17	3	137	2.84
Riviera Country Club	16	3	166	3.05
Harbour Town Golf Links	7	3	195	3.03
Monterey Peninsula CC	7	3	226	3.07
Colonial CC	4	3	247	3.19
TPC River Highlands	15	4	296	3.9
Riviera Country Club	10	4	315	3.88
Monterey Peninsula CC	5	4	349	3.93
TPC Sawgrass	4	4	384	3.97
TPC Southwind	12	4	406	4.14
PGA National Champion Course	16	4	434	4.24
Pebble Beach Golf Links	9	4	466	4.31
Riviera Country Club	15	4	487	4.31
TPC Sawgrass	2	5	532	4.83
Bay Hill Club & Lodge	6	5	555	4.97
Monterey Peninsula CC	6	5	570	5.02
Colonial CC	11	5	635	5.05
		70	6506	70.69

[Duncan Cheslett]

On the contrary.


If the PGA was enlightened enough to utilise a 6400 yard course, it is far more likely that it would be sub 70 par.


There is not a single valid reason why the pros shouldn’t play over a par 68 course, and be thoroughly tested.

A par 72 at 7200 shots is regulation 36 long shots and 36 putts. 36 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 7,200 yards. Par 68 at 6400 is regulation 32 long shots and 36 putts. 32 long shots at 200 yards per shot is 6,400 yards. To my mind that means, everything else being equal, those two courses are equally difficult relative to par. And that means that calling a 6400 yard course a par 68 does give a solution to the "can a 6400 yard course hold up" question, but it's not a particularly interesting one. Isn't it much more interesting to consider how you could put together a 6400 yard par 72 that could hold up to the PGA tour?

Why?

Ciao

Because take a course that is 6400 yards long, par 72 and that they'd shoot -35 on, then just call it par 68 by writing a 4 in the par column against the four par 5s and you have a -19 winning score, which is right in line with everything else. It's a trivial solution and therefore not an interesting one. Now, ask how you could change that course without just changing the number in the par column and make -19 the winning score and you have a more interesting (and GCA related) question.

You can change par and hole types/lengths. The biggest issue with par 72 is the 5s either have to be super long to really be par 5s, which means there is less yardage to play with for the par 3s.  Or, the par 5s are really par 4s labelled as 5s.

Ciao

A 500 yard hole is a par 5 for club golfers.

The same hole is a par 4 for tour players. So call it a par 4 when the pros are in town.

If you've only got 120 acres and can't stretch the course beyond 6400 yards, what in earth is the virtue in wasting land on three or four 550+ yard holes which pros view as nailed on birdie opportunities and club golfers view as interminable slogs?


Get past the tyranny of the par 72 mindset. It is irrelevant and has no basis in history or logic.


Par 68 courses can be great courses and challenge the very best.

[Sean_A]

You don't have to convince me. I am all for all sorts of different pars and number of holes. I have always thought that if 9 hole courses work, why not 14 or 12 or....? I am behind just about anything which decodifies golf courses. Its crazy to think of a huge expanse of leisure oriented land being restrained by rigid, arbitrary rules.

Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

Duncan,


If the cut at a PGA tour event is 145, how much does the par matter?

[AChao]

I think a course that length could hold-up to the PGA Tour, but it wouldn't be very interesting.  For me, more interesting to see the pros play a variety of shots on a well designed course that allows short and long hitters the chance to compete.  Length is always an advantage, but positioning the ball well should be also.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I think a course that length could hold-up to the PGA Tour, but it wouldn't be very interesting.  For me, more interesting to see the pros play a variety of shots on a well designed course that allows short and long hitters the chance to compete.  Length is always an advantage, but positioning the ball well should be also.

If you look at the 2 routings I've listed in this thread I think you'll find a collection of holes that require accurate placement over pure length and a wide variety of hole designs that require players to hit a multitude of shots to be successful. While one trend among them may be the a players avoidance of using the driver, very few truly prohibit a player from doing so and encourage decision making off of the tee to dictate their strategy in playing them.

[AChao]

I think you did a good job Ben.  The holes you selected are great.  Playing somewhat regularly with a mini-tour player, a college golfer, and having played with Rory and Phil this last year, I do think your course would effectively play to a par around 65.  Somewhat arbitrarily, I think courses are more interesting in the par 68 to 72 range.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Length is always an advantage, but positioning the ball well should be also.

The guys who hit it far also “place” the ball pretty darn well, too. I feel like this is over-stated. It’s not like Dustin Johnson just sprayed it at Augusta, and the difference for Bryson versus Bryson from the last two majors is pretty obvious as well. Better golfers tend to be longer AND more accurate.

I’m not saying that you said that, but I’v seen a lot of people who will act like Dustin Johnson or Bryson or whatever are just bombing it. The whole name “Bomb and Gouge” implies it. And trust me, if you’re “gouging” it much more than many others, you’re not winning much of anything.

[Rob Marshall]

Length is always an advantage, but positioning the ball well should be also.

The guys who hit it far also “place” the ball pretty darn well, too. I feel like this is over-stated. It’s not like Dustin Johnson just sprayed it at Augusta, and the difference for Bryson versus Bryson from the last two majors is pretty obvious as well. Better golfers tend to be longer AND more accurate.

I’m not saying that you said that, but I’v seen a lot of people who will act like Dustin Johnson or Bryson or whatever are just bombing it. The whole name “Bomb and Gouge” implies it. And trust me, if you’re “gouging” it much more than many others, you’re not winning much of anything.

What I found interesting in a recent online article is that taking one side of the course out of play is a myth. Of the fairways missed DJ misses 40% of them left while primarily playing a fade off the tee.

[JESII]

In my understanding, Bomb and Gauge is exactly the strategy BDC employed at Winged Foot.


The concept is based on the idea that the player scores better by taking distance of the tee in lieu of accuracy because they can gauge it out of the rough at least as close as if they were well back, and in the fairway. BDC very effectively analyzed and prepared for that approach and importantly, played it great. When he missed fairways, I felt he was on the appropriate side to enable an approach along the ground.






AChao, I'm curious what you mean when you say one of Ben's courses would play to a par or 65. Is that what you think a winner would average over a 4 round tournament? So 20 under? Or are you saying that would be an average score for that level of player so potentially 30 or more under as a winning score for a 4 round event?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What I found interesting in a recent online article is that taking one side of the course out of play is a myth. Of the fairways missed DJ misses 40% of them left while primarily playing a fade off the tee.

”Taking one side of the course out of play” has always been BS, yeah. I think it’s more of a “mental thing” and a “shot cone” idea or mentality than something you actually do. Kinda like “missing it on the pro side” - good putters miss high as often as they miss low, within a percentage point or two.

In my understanding, Bomb and Gauge is exactly the strategy BDC employed at Winged Foot.

That’s really not what I said. Bomb and Gouge implies some things that really aren’t true. It belittles the accuracy and talent/skill of the “bombers” out there. We’ve seen bombers. We saw Hank Kuehne and others who hit the ball far… but lacked the accuracy to stay on Tour.

The rough is still about a 70-yard penalty on Tour. The “bombers” who have a bad week driving don’t generally score all that well. They still have to hit it accurately - their 30 yards or whatever gives them an advantage on the tee shots that they hit as well as the shorter hitters, but they give up an advantage the few extra balls that go into the rough.

[James Brown]

What I found interesting in a recent online article is that taking one side of the course out of play is a myth. Of the fairways missed DJ misses 40% of them left while primarily playing a fade off the tee.

”Taking one side of the course out of play” has always been BS, yeah. I think it’s more of a “mental thing” and a “shot cone” idea or mentality than something you actually do. Kinda like “missing it on the pro side” - good putters miss high as often as they miss low, within a percentage point or two.

In my understanding, Bomb and Gauge is exactly the strategy BDC employed at Winged Foot.

That’s really not what I said. Bomb and Gouge implies some things that really aren’t true. It belittles the accuracy and talent/skill of the “bombers” out there. We’ve seen bombers. We saw Hank Kuehne and others who hit the ball far… but lacked the accuracy to stay on Tour.

The rough is still about a 70-yard penalty on Tour. The “bombers” who have a bad week driving don’t generally score all that well. They still have to hit it accurately - their 30 yards or whatever gives them an advantage on the tee shots that they hit as well as the shorter hitters, but they give up an advantage the few extra balls that go into the rough.

I agree completely with this line of thinking on power being linked with accuracy. 


DJ carries it 300 yards.  How many people here would hit fairways with a 300 yard carry and their current shot pattern?  The long hitters on tour only cash in when they hit it really accurately.   Bryson may have missed a lot of fairways, but he still hit it accurately. 


Augusta has adapted their course to identify this trait while maintaining the premium on great putting and approach shot accuracy. 

[AChao]

Yes Jim ... I've played 16 of the 18 holes.  Absent a hurricane, I'm thinking a good four round total is -40.

In my understanding, Bomb and Gauge is exactly the strategy BDC employed at Winged Foot.


The concept is based on the idea that the player scores better by taking distance of the tee in lieu of accuracy because they can gauge it out of the rough at least as close as if they were well back, and in the fairway. BDC very effectively analyzed and prepared for that approach and importantly, played it great. When he missed fairways, I felt he was on the appropriate side to enable an approach along the ground.






AChao, I'm curious what you mean when you say one of Ben's courses would play to a par or 65. Is that what you think a winner would average over a 4 round tournament? So 20 under? Or are you saying that would be an average score for that level of player so potentially 30 or more under as a winning score for a 4 round event?

[Tom_Doak]

Yes Jim ... I've played 16 of the 18 holes.  Absent a hurricane, I'm thinking a good four round total is -40.

I'm sorry but this is a silly estimate.  Once you start approaching perfection, it gets harder to reduce your score by another shot.  To shoot 60 on a shorter course is entirely possible, but to average 60 for four straight days is a very different matter.


But it would be great TV viewing if they actually just tried it once so we could see the results instead of just picking random numbers in the dark trying to outguess each other.

[AChao]

While I agree with you that as you approach perfection each incremental stroke is more difficult, I think perfection is closer to -15 or -16 for that course.  For a long hitter, a good day on those four par 5s is probably -6 or -7.  After that, you only need 3 or 4 more to get to -10, and for four of the short par 4s a long hitter can easily be within 30 yards of the hole after the tee shot.  The even par average is very misleading as it is the whole field and it requires a bag that is used for the other holes and those courses.  Just preparing for Ben's course requires fewer clubs and changes to the bag.  For example, a pro may go 48 52 60, but if he were to play Ben's course, he may go 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 and drop other clubs he won't use.  A 200 yard shot for me is a four-iron that goes 192 in the air and then rolls to 200.  For the long hitters, it's a seven-iron that goes 200 in the air and stops in a yard or two.   


The top guys are too good.  I think most people underestimate their ability.  My friend who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly every round on a 7,300 course can't get his tour card.   


It would be great to see this for real.  I guess the closest we'll get to see is maybe the Walker Cup at Cypress Point.  I've gone through the holes with someone who has a shot at making the team and the course doesn't require much of his bag as it would mine.  In fact, my suggestion for him would be to go from 3 wedges to 5 wedges. 

Yes Jim ... I've played 16 of the 18 holes.  Absent a hurricane, I'm thinking a good four round total is -40.

I'm sorry but this is a silly estimate.  Once you start approaching perfection, it gets harder to reduce your score by another shot.  To shoot 60 on a shorter course is entirely possible, but to average 60 for four straight days is a very different matter.


But it would be great TV viewing if they actually just tried it once so we could see the results instead of just picking random numbers in the dark trying to outguess each other.

[Tom_Doak]

While I agree with you that as you approach perfection each incremental stroke is more difficult, I think perfection is closer to -15 or -16 for that course.  For a long hitter, a good day on those four par 5s is probably -6 or -7.  After that, you only need 3 or 4 more to get to -10, and for four of the short par 4s a long hitter can easily be within 30 yards of the hole after the tee shot.  The even par average is very misleading as it is the whole field and it requires a bag that is used for the other holes and those courses.  Just preparing for Ben's course requires fewer clubs and changes to the bag.  For example, a pro may go 48 52 60, but if he were to play Ben's course, he may go 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 and drop other clubs he won't use.  A 200 yard shot for me is a four-iron that goes 192 in the air and then rolls to 200.  For the long hitters, it's a seven-iron that goes 200 in the air and stops in a yard or two.   

The top guys are too good.  I think most people underestimate their ability.  My friend who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly every round on a 7,300 course can't get his tour card.   

It would be great to see this for real.  I guess the closest we'll get to see is maybe the Walker Cup at Cypress Point.  I've gone through the holes with someone who has a shot at making the team and the course doesn't require much of his bag as it would mine.  In fact, my suggestion for him would be to go from 3 wedges to 5 wedges. 

I just got to watch half the Tour play my course in Houston from close up, two weeks ago.  You don't have to tell me those guys are really good, but nobody came close to averaging -4 on the three par-5 holes each round.  Here's how the leaders fared on the par-5's:


Carlos Ortiz:  8 birdies, 4 pars
Hideki Matsuyama:  8 birdies, 4 pars
Dustin Johnson:  3 birdies, 8 pars, 1 bogey
Brooks Koepka:  6 birdies, 5 pars, 1 bogey


Making eagles is hard.  I think Augusta still gives out crystal to players for every eagle.  How many players have ever made three 3's on the par-5's there in one round, in 85 years of trying?  [I looked it up ... Dustin Johnson was the first ever to do it once, in 2015.  The most eagles in one tournament by a single player is four.]


It's just like your buddy who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly all the time.  He sure doesn't do that when he is trying to qualify for the PGA Tour, or he would be out there kicking everyone's asses.


Years ago GOLF DIGEST was computing handicaps for the PGA Tour players, and the best of them were a plus-6 or a plus-7 . . . for their best 10 rounds out of 20, against the course rating, not against par.  Let's say it's plus-8 now.  I don't know what the course rating would be for this imaginary 6400 yard course . . . Cypress Point's is 72.4.  I really have a hard time seeing a guy shooting four 62's there, he would have to be on a hell of a roll.  If you'd said 35-under, I wouldn't have objected. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

AChao, statistics do not back your assertions here at all.

The hole is still only 4.25”, and PGA Tour players still average 3.0 strokes from ~170 yards out on a tee.

[Michael Felton]

While I agree with you that as you approach perfection each incremental stroke is more difficult, I think perfection is closer to -15 or -16 for that course.  For a long hitter, a good day on those four par 5s is probably -6 or -7.  After that, you only need 3 or 4 more to get to -10, and for four of the short par 4s a long hitter can easily be within 30 yards of the hole after the tee shot.  The even par average is very misleading as it is the whole field and it requires a bag that is used for the other holes and those courses.  Just preparing for Ben's course requires fewer clubs and changes to the bag.  For example, a pro may go 48 52 60, but if he were to play Ben's course, he may go 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 and drop other clubs he won't use.  A 200 yard shot for me is a four-iron that goes 192 in the air and then rolls to 200.  For the long hitters, it's a seven-iron that goes 200 in the air and stops in a yard or two.   

The top guys are too good.  I think most people underestimate their ability.  My friend who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly every round on a 7,300 course can't get his tour card.   

It would be great to see this for real.  I guess the closest we'll get to see is maybe the Walker Cup at Cypress Point.  I've gone through the holes with someone who has a shot at making the team and the course doesn't require much of his bag as it would mine.  In fact, my suggestion for him would be to go from 3 wedges to 5 wedges. 

I just got to watch half the Tour play my course in Houston from close up, two weeks ago.  You don't have to tell me those guys are really good, but nobody came close to averaging -4 on the three par-5 holes each round.  Here's how the leaders fared on the par-5's:


Carlos Ortiz:  8 birdies, 4 pars
Hideki Matsuyama:  8 birdies, 4 pars
Dustin Johnson:  3 birdies, 8 pars, 1 bogey
Brooks Koepka:  6 birdies, 5 pars, 1 bogey


Making eagles is hard.  I think Augusta still gives out crystal to players for every eagle.  How many players have ever made three 3's on the par-5's there in one round, in 85 years of trying?  [I looked it up ... Dustin Johnson was the first ever to do it once, in 2015.  The most eagles in one tournament by a single player is four.]


It's just like your buddy who shoots between -6 and -10 seemingly all the time.  He sure doesn't do that when he is trying to qualify for the PGA Tour, or he would be out there kicking everyone's asses.


Years ago GOLF DIGEST was computing handicaps for the PGA Tour players, and the best of them were a plus-6 or a plus-7 . . . for their best 10 rounds out of 20, against the course rating, not against par.  Let's say it's plus-8 now.  I don't know what the course rating would be for this imaginary 6400 yard course . . . Cypress Point's is 72.4.  I really have a hard time seeing a guy shooting four 62's there, he would have to be on a hell of a roll.  If you'd said 35-under, I wouldn't have objected.

In case you're interested, Lou Stagner on Twitter has some interesting stats on PGA tour players' handicaps. Rickie Fowler had the lowest one time index with +8.4. There are a few who average around a +7.5 or so - they're the very best. Bear in mind those are regular course ratings, not adjusted for PGA tour set up, so if you're a +6 at your club, you're still nowhere close to them. And none of them are "regularly" shooting -7 on the par 5s for a round.

[Ben Hollerbach]

 There are a lot of people in the world who can shoot 6 under on a 7,300 yard course.  They are everywhere. All it takes is a decent short game, decent swing fundamentals, and a lot of clubhead speed.  These skills are not as rare as we think they are.

There are dramatically fewer people who can shoot 6 under on the course I posted because it requires skills that are much rarer than swing speed. 

The point of this thread to show that length isn't needed to challenge the best players in the world.  Length shouldn't identify the best players in the world alone.  Length is only a minor part of what challenges them in the first place.  Holes that reward skills other than length should be cherished. 

If the goal of a golf course is to reward the player with the highest swing speed, the current trends in golf course set up and design do this fairly well.  I think everyone knows this is bad for the game.  Other skills than just pure power have to be necessary for the game to stay interesting.

The holes selected show the ability to reward skills other than length.  As much as some people here imagine the pro's would destroy these holes, the statistics do not back that notion up. When played by the PGA tour they all average over par.

So why do these holes play over par, while many 450 yard par 4's play under par?  Why do these holes reward other skills besides swingspeed?

How can architecture encourage more holes designed like these so that swing speed isn't the main skill rewarded in golf?

[Ben Hollerbach]

It would be great to see this for real.  I guess the closest we'll get to see is maybe the Walker Cup at Cypress Point.  I've gone through the holes with someone who has a shot at making the team and the course doesn't require much of his bag as it would mine.  In fact, my suggestion for him would be to go from 3 wedges to 5 wedges. 

What did Bubba, Ricky, Nick Watney, and DLIII shoot at Cypress when they replayed "The Match"? My recollection is their scores were not as good as the players from the original match 60 years ago.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()