[David Druzisky]

So I will ask this.  If they are designed with par in mind, would a 290 yard hole be more fun as a 3 or a 4?

[John Moore II]

Since we seem to have strayed from the real topic, let me see if I can get us back on the topic here.

Very rarely is a par 3 1/2 par 3 seen, the one at Oakmont is the only one that comes to mind in tournament golf

John,

Sorry, I'm late to this discussion and haven't posted much at all lately.

You refer to 8 at Oakmont, but wasn't 17 a very similar hole? It was a few yards longer and was called a par 4, but there was barely a player in the field who didn't shoot at the green from the tee. Every single one of them felt they needed to make 3 to keep up with the field. For them, 3 became par, not birdie. The real prize was a 2.

On one hand, it proves your point that the USGA called it a par 4, rather than par 3. But on the other, we're no better, because we've bought into it -- got "mixed up with yardages and pars," to use your words. If the exact same hole *was* called a par 3 -- or if they started calling 540-yard holes par 4s -- would it be more likely to change the players' calculation, or ours?

Now, par 2-1/2 or 5-1/2, that really would be revolutionary ... or would it just be an easy par 3 and a hard par 5? OK, now I'm just messing with you. 

But even though the yardages were nearly the same for each hole at Oakmont, the holes were very different. The green on 8 was very open and not terribly penal, but the green on 17 was fairly heavily bunkered, surrounded by 5-6 inch rough and very penal for those who went for the green and missed. That, to me, is the main difference between a 3 1/2 par 3 and a 3 1/2 par 4. The long par 3 should likely have a very open design to readily accept the long shots, but the short par 4 should be less open (but not so closed off as to prevent people from going for it) and moderately more penal to errant shots.

I don't know how the calculation would change is a 540 yard hole was a par 4, but it may prevent people from playing the kind of golf that Zach Johnson did at Augusta when he didn't even make effort to hit at the green on any of the par 5's during the week. Now of course he won, so its harder to critisize him like we do Mickelson leaving out the driver at the Open, but the concept is the same.

And I would love to see a 2 1/2 hole. I get the feeling that #7 at Pebble would qualify as one of those if the wind was dead calm, but that is rare. The 17th at Tobacco Road I think is something of a 2 1/2, it requires nothing more than a gap wedge because of the tee elevation and such, so its a fairly easy birdie. But those type holes are very rare. But I'd love an 80-120 yard hole with a funnel type green (where the green works good shots in real close to the pin). That would be fun.

[Cabell Ackerly]

So I will ask this.  If they are designed with par in mind, would a 290 yard hole be more fun as a 3 or a 4?

Why should it matter if it's a par 3 or 4?

[Niall C]

I was down at Gailes watching the Open Qualifier and was also there for the practice day where I saw the guy from the R&A take great care as I'm sure they do at all tournaments to find the individual hole placements but with a thought to the whole 18 so that there were 6 easy, 6 moderate and 6 hard. What if instead of moving the hole postions about (other than to save wear and tear) the moved the tees about on most of the holes to really challenge there thought process.

Niall

[BCrosby]

So I will ask this.  If they are designed with par in mind, would a 290 yard hole be more fun as a 3 or a 4?

Why should it matter if it's a par 3 or 4?

Because the par of a hole determines scoring expectations. When you are playing against a competitive field, you will play a 290 par 3 hole more aggressively than a 290 par 4 hole. Because you (rightly) will expect the field to do likewise if it is a par 3.

Further evidence that par matters is a recent study by Wharton about risk aversion. They found that on the PGA Tour more players made identical putts for par than for birdies or eagles. Fascinating study, btw.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

I agree that the Wharton study was intriguing, but one must remember that "risk aversion" has a mirror image, i.e. "result expectation."  Both are cental elements of the larger Bayesian issue pf "risk preference."  A pro putting for a par (or a hacker putting for a bogey) is trying to achieve what he expects as well as avoid that to which he has an aversion.  I would contend that due to the relative skills (physical and mental) the pro would make far more of those putts than he misses and the hacker would miss far more than he would make (as well as having far more 3-putts from the same distance).

However, I disagree with you that the pros would inherently treat a 290 yard "par" 4 any differently than a 290 yard "par 3."  Yes, in a tournament, they would be keeping count of their relative to par (and to their competuitors by the same yardstick), but all things being equal they would (and should) play the hole the same way, regardless of "par."

Rich

[John Moore II]

I will take a stab at both of these questions since I brought it up.

So I will ask this.  If they are designed with par in mind, would a 290 yard hole be more fun as a 3 or a 4?

That is a unique question. It all depends on the land. A 290 downhill par 3 with an open green may play fairly easy while a 290 uphill par 4 with a heavily bunkered green may play very hard. The key is which one would be best given a certain piece of land. We need to not confine outselves to what seems 'normal' in yardages associated with a given 'par.' Like I said, if a piece of land can hold a 300 yard hole, why not make it a 295 yard par 3 (from the back tees of course, perhaps it need only be 150 or so from the front tees) if that would make for a more interesting hole than a par 4 of the same length? I think either a 290 par 3 or a 290 par 4 could both be designed to be fun holes, depending on how they are presented.

Why should it matter if it's a par 3 or 4?

It shouldn't matter. The score is what counts, if you make 3, you make 3. Whether or not that is a birdie or par does not matter. I would much rather see a 290 yard par 3 like that seen at Oakmont hole #8 than that abortion of a driveable par 4 they created on the 14th (I think) at Torrey Pines last year or 18 at Bethpage this year.

[BCrosby]

Bob

I agree that the Wharton study was intriguing, but one must remember that "risk aversion" has a mirror image, i.e. "result expectation."  Both are cental elements of the larger Bayesian issue pf "risk preference."  A pro putting for a par (or a hacker putting for a bogey) is trying to achieve what he expects as well as avoid that to which he has an aversion.  I would contend that due to the relative skills (physical and mental) the pro would make far more of those putts than he misses and the hacker would miss far more than he would make (as well as having far more 3-putts from the same distance).

However, I disagree with you that the pros would inherently treat a 290 yard "par" 4 any differently than a 290 yard "par 3."  Yes, in a tournament, they would be keeping count of their relative to par (and to their competuitors by the same yardstick), but all things being equal they would (and should) play the hole the same way, regardless of "par."

Rich

Rich -

I don't know from Bayesian, but the Wharton study found as an empirical matter that how you approach a putt for par vs. a putt for birdie matters. Thus par matters, at least to the extent there are different putting outcomes. Q.E.D. No? (Yes, you need to be working with a data pool of players with similar talents, but that is taken care of by it being a Tour event.)

My intuitive take is that par tells you (as a stock price tells you) something important about the crowd's perception of value. In the context of golf, it means that par helps you make predictions about how other players in a given competitive field will play a hole. Not unlike how a technical stock trader will react to certain price levels. He is trying to predict the behavior of other investors. And he trades accordingly. So will a golfer.

The thing about the Wharton study I find most interesting is how (or if) it can expanded to larger gca issues. For example, whether the same risk aversion issues are present in, say, the second shot at the 13th at ANGC. Interesting because to test it in that context you have another variable. You would have to measure not just the quality of the second shot, but also whether there was a shot to the green at all. How you would sort that out makes my head hurt.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

Let's do a hypothetical.

Player A and Player B are lying at roughly the same spot after their drives on the 15th at Augusta on day 4 of the Masters.   Both are in contention, and with a 4-iron in their hand each has a probability of 50% of hitting the green with a chance for eagle, 30% of getting it over the creek but needing to scramble for par and a 20% chance of putting it in the creek.  A (let's call him "Seve") values the potential reward (eagle or easy birdie) much more than he fears the potential risk (dumping it in the creek) and hits the 4-iron.  B (let's call him "Chip") values the minimization of his risk much more than the potential value of his potential reward and opts to hit two wedges to get to the green.

They both lose the Master's, but in a very different way, due to the difference in their risk preferences, not any difference in the probability of success of their alternative strategies.  This is how I remember Bayes, but I was taught it over 40 years ago.  Maybe Mark Bourgeois can jump in and tell me how full of sh*t I am......

Rich

[Garland Bayley]

Bob,

Did Wharton adjust anyway for having seen the break on the missed par putt? Or was their sample all one putt greens?

[JNC Lyon]

Bob

I agree that the Wharton study was intriguing, but one must remember that "risk aversion" has a mirror image, i.e. "result expectation."  Both are cental elements of the larger Bayesian issue pf "risk preference."  A pro putting for a par (or a hacker putting for a bogey) is trying to achieve what he expects as well as avoid that to which he has an aversion.  I would contend that due to the relative skills (physical and mental) the pro would make far more of those putts than he misses and the hacker would miss far more than he would make (as well as having far more 3-putts from the same distance).

However, I disagree with you that the pros would inherently treat a 290 yard "par" 4 any differently than a 290 yard "par 3."  Yes, in a tournament, they would be keeping count of their relative to par (and to their competuitors by the same yardstick), but all things being equal they would (and should) play the hole the same way, regardless of "par."

Rich

Setting aside economics studies of risk-aversion and focusing on more architecture-related issues, I believe that par does not, in and of itself matter.  That is, if one 290-yard hole is changed from a par four to a par three and all other features remain the same, the player will likely not play the hole differently.  It doesn't matter if the 525-yard seventh at Bethpage Black is a par five or a par four.  Each player's strategy for the hole will remain the same.

However, par DOES affect how different holes are designed, and how different holes holes are designed does affect the par.  290-yard par threes usually look nothing like 290-yard par fours.  I know of no 290-yard par four that look like the 8th at Oakmont, and I know of no 290-yard par threes that look like the 10th at Riviera.  That being said, both holes, regardless of which side of 3.5 they fall on, require extensive thought.  Ultimately though, I believe it is more common to see half par holes that fall on the low side of 3.5 and 4.5.  A look at scoring averages in scratch amateur and professional tournaments will determine that there are more par fours and threes that play a half-shot over par than fours and fives that play under par.

[BCrosby]

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.

My claim - and the claim borne out by the Wharton study - is that par bears on the the degree to which I am risk averse... or not. The study found that it has a direct effect on how pros hit a putt.

I think that can be expanded beyond the putting green. If par shapes scoring expectations generally (which true by definition), then it is a factor in how risk averse I am as I progress through the hole. That effect is compounded by the fact that par also gives me partial information (which is always better than no information) about how my competitors will probably play a hole.

Both combine to influence my risk aversity on the margin on a given hole. It will be a factor, though not the only factor, in whether I play a hole aggressively or conservatively. Ergo, par matters. It is not a meaningless number.

At any rate, an intersting discussion. As a long-ago philosophy major, "par" as a concept is endlessly fascinating. Wittgenstein once said something to the effect that the strangest things in the world are the things you take most for granted. Per usual, Ludwig nailed it.

Bob   

[Ken Moum]

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.

My claim - and the claim borne out by the Wharton study - is that par bears on the the degree to which I am risk averse... or not. The study found that it has a direct effect on how pros hit a putt.

I think that can be expanded beyond the putting green. If par shapes scoring expectations generally (which true by definition), then it is a factor in how risk averse I am as I progress through the hole. That effect is compounded by the fact that par also gives me partial information (which is always better than no information) about how my competitors will probably play a hole.

Both combine to influence my risk aversity on the margin on a given hole. It will be a factor, though not the only factor, in whether I play a hole aggressively or conservatively. Ergo, par matters. It is not a meaningless number.

At any rate, an intersting discussion. As a long-ago philosophy major, "par" as a concept is endlessly fascinating. Wittgenstein once said something to the effect that the strangest things in the world are the things you take most for granted. Per usual, Ludwig nailed it.

Bob   

If your thinking weren't correct, then there'd be no reason for the endless whining by Tour players when the USGA shortens a hole and makes it "harder." 

I think it was Tom Meeks who told Payne Stewart that he'd restore one of those holes with a green that "wasn't designed to accept a long iron," back to a par five if Stewart would get everyone in the field to promise they'd never attempt to get on in two.

As you suggest, the reality of golf is that even someone who know better feels the pressure to get on in two on a par four. My home course has several par four holes that I have almost no chance of getting on in two, but I still battle my subconscious over swinging within my ability.

[Chuck Brown]

18 at Oakland Hills - South is in fact a converted Par 5 (for the members) and is a dandy Par 4.5 in my book.  Trouble is, fans want "triumph" on the last hole, not "punishment."  And as such, a lot of drama is lost.  It is a hellish Par 4.  Despite all the same shot values. 
I'd certainly play the tees back, and make it a shortish Par 5, if I were Mike Davis.

[Ken Moum]

18 at Oakland Hills - South is in fact a converted Par 5 (for the members) and is a dandy Par 4.5 in my book.  Trouble is, fans want "triumph" on the last hole, not "punishment."  And as such, a lot of drama is lost.  It is a hellish Par 4.  Despite all the same shot values. 
I'd certainly play the tees back, and make it a shortish Par 5, if I were Mike Davis.

Given the history, I don't expect we'llbe seeing a reachable par five as a finishing hole for the US Open any time soon.

The concept of the back-breaking finisher has become far too rooted in the golfing consciousness. Hell, even the ANGC has felt compelled to make its 18th in a brute.

KenM

[Kalen Braley]

18 at Oakland Hills - South is in fact a converted Par 5 (for the members) and is a dandy Par 4.5 in my book.  Trouble is, fans want "triumph" on the last hole, not "punishment."  And as such, a lot of drama is lost.  It is a hellish Par 4.  Despite all the same shot values. 
I'd certainly play the tees back, and make it a shortish Par 5, if I were Mike Davis.

Given the history, I don't expect we'llbe seeing a reachable par five as a finishing hole for the US Open any time soon.

The concept of the back-breaking finisher has become far too rooted in the golfing consciousness. Hell, even the ANGC has felt compelled to make its 18th in a brute.

KenM

kmourn,

I'm not sure if that conventional wisdom holds.  The last two US Opens we've seen both a reachable par 5 18th, and an almost reachable par 4 18th.

P.S.  And with Pebble being the site next year, we'll have another reachable par 5 finisher...

[Ken Moum]

18 at Oakland Hills - South is in fact a converted Par 5 (for the members) and is a dandy Par 4.5 in my book.  Trouble is, fans want "triumph" on the last hole, not "punishment."  And as such, a lot of drama is lost.  It is a hellish Par 4.  Despite all the same shot values. 
I'd certainly play the tees back, and make it a shortish Par 5, if I were Mike Davis.

Given the history, I don't expect we'llbe seeing a reachable par five as a finishing hole for the US Open any time soon.

The concept of the back-breaking finisher has become far too rooted in the golfing consciousness. Hell, even the ANGC has felt compelled to make its 18th in a brute.

KenM

kmourn,

I'm not sure if that conventional wisdom holds.  The last two US Opens we've seen both a reachable par 5 18th, and an almost reachable par 4 18th.

P.S.  And with Pebble being the site next year, we'll have another reachable par 5 finisher...

Short term memory loss is a bitch... I'll have to start taking something for that.

Anyway, look at all the griping about those two holes.

BTW, my last name is MOUM, I know it looks like mourn, but it's not. No offense, just a clarification.

[John Moore II]

Well, I think the easier finisher is more an exception. The 18th at Oakmont was a backbreaker. And looking back at the past few opens, the 18th has been anything but easy. Yes, at Pebble, it is reachable, but its somewhat rare that people go for that green. So, I think the longer finishing hole will continue to be the rule.

[Cabell Ackerly]

Well, I think the easier finisher is more an exception. The 18th at Oakmont was a backbreaker...

I'd be curious to see how the players, media and fans would react calling the 18th at Oakmont a par 5. Keep the tees where they are - just change the par designation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()