Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: mike_malone on December 05, 2017, 09:56:38 AM
-
As I recently looked at Flynn’s original designs for Rolling Green I really took in that he just wrote number 7 as 485 and number 8 as 437. We play 7 as a downhill five and 8 as an uphill four. He also had 10 as 260. We play it as a three .
He wasn’t constrained by the par concept. So many good players at my club want to make 18 a challenging par 4. Their idea that somehow the par number is a goal and a course should end on a tough 4 is crazy. They have lost the idea of golf.
I propose the easy/hard idea as more golfish. We need to fight for this change in mindset. ( I sound like Melvyn!).
So both 7 and 8 are easy 5/ hard 4.
-
Considering that most golfers who contribute to a club financially like to place a bet...and the added value of a birdie, the 18th hole can be a touchy subject. At Victoria National when we start on the back we end up finishing on an easy par 5, which is also a stroke hole. It changes the flow of the entire game.
If you have members who are wanting to change the personality of the 18th beware of their motivations.
-
I would suggest betting games should also not be tied to par but what you score.
-
I would suggest betting games should also not be tied to par but what you score.
Of course betting is based on what you score. Birdies and the rare eagle are fun bonuses. They create risk opportunities that do not always exit in straight match or medal play.
In the game we play birdies are often worth five times what a par would be. It gets in your head. My God, who wants to lag for a win all day? Funny thing about our Sunday game, the guys who lag at life are at church.
This weekend I played with a couple of guys in their mid 70's who both explained to me how they love playing the short tees because they can have birdie opportunities again. Brings back a touch of their youth.
-
I would suggest betting games should also not be tied to par but what you score.
Of course betting is based on what you score. Birdies and the rare eagle are fun bonuses. They create risk opportunities that do not always exit in straight match or medal play.
In the game we play birdies are often worth five times what a par would be. It gets in your head. My God, who wants to lag for a win all day? Funny thing about our Sunday game, the guys who lag at life are at church.
This weekend I played with a couple of guys in their mid 70's who both explained to me how they love playing the short tees because they can have birdie opportunities again. Brings back a touch of their youth.
The guys who lag at life are at church could be a helluva t-shirt.You should copyright that.
-
I would suggest betting games should also not be tied to par but what you score.
Of course betting is based on what you score. Birdies and the rare eagle are fun bonuses. They create risk opportunities that do not always exit in straight match or medal play.
In the game we play birdies are often worth five times what a par would be. It gets in your head. My God, who wants to lag for a win all day? Funny thing about our Sunday game, the guys who lag at life are at church.
This weekend I played with a couple of guys in their mid 70's who both explained to me how they love playing the short tees because they can have birdie opportunities again. Brings back a touch of their youth.
I suggest they adjust their thinking and betting to reward making a hard 4 versus an easy 5.
-
There are no easy 5's at Victoria National.
-
Mike,
You know very well that the biggest impact of "par" is on the handicap given to that hole otherwise it is what it is - an arbitrary number. Personally I am all for making the game more fun for more players (and that doesn't always mean easier). It means what I said "more fun" which is also very arbitrary 😊
-
I’ve been told by an expert that handicaps of holes are ordered where the lesser player needs a shot versus the better player. You can rank holes and establish handicaps without knowing par.
-
How can a 300 yard hole have the same par as a 450 yard hole? Or a 100 yard hole and a 260 yard one? A whole number is the weakest way to judge what a golfer should shoot.
Since you can’t hit a half shot I suggest easy/hard as the ideal.
Courses are being changed unnecessarily because of this diversion.
-
Giving a hole a number for par is meaningless. RG's 7th and 8th hole are both par 4's for some and five's for others, if par means how many strokes it takes to play the hole well and add two putts. And it doesn't make any difference what par you call a hole for betting purposes. RG's 7th hole will be the same handicap number whether it is a par 4 or par 5; it's the same hole. Augusta for Dustin Johnson is a par 68; for Jordon Spieth probably it's a par 70. What difference does it make? The one who shoots the lowest score will win. It's an utterly meaningless number. Does that mean we should take it off the scorecard? Who cares?
-
p.s. I guess par matters for Stableford scoring, so leave it on the scorecard or eliminate that game.
-
Giving a hole a number for par is meaningless. RG's 7th and 8th hole are both par 4's for some and five's for others, if par means how many strokes it takes to play the hole well and add two putts. And it doesn't make any difference what par you call a hole for betting purposes. RG's 7th hole will be the same handicap number whether it is a par 4 or par 5; it's the same hole. Augusta for Dustin Johnson is a par 68; for Jordon Spieth probably it's a par 70. What difference does it make? The one who shoots the lowest score will win. It's an utterly meaningless number. Does that mean we should take it off the scorecard? Who cares?
The Masters awards some crystal for making an eagle. It must mean something.
-
p.s. I guess par matters for Stableford scoring, so leave it on the scorecard or eliminate that game.
In strokeplay and matchplay the par of any hole is meaningless. It could easily be done away with and no-one would notice.
In Stableford and Bogey scoring however, it is intrinsic. Stableford is an extremely popular format among handicap golfers, as it is seen as more forgiving of the occasional "blow-up" hole.
If par was abolished we would need to invent a modified form of strokeplay to replace Stableford.
Maybe something along the lines of only your best 15 holes out of 18 actually counting, with a commensurate handicap adjustment ?
-
The coolest thing about Paul Cowley and Love's Diamante Dunes was the variance in hole length.
5 par 5's. 6 par 3's, 3 "short" par 4's. Par definitely didn't matter at least 8-10 of those holes.
That only leaves 4 potentially boring holes-which they weren't.
Tiger's course? lots of sameness in the par 4's.
Long on "fair"
-
Jeff,
A course like that sounds suited to going par free.
-
p.s. I guess par matters for Stableford scoring, so leave it on the scorecard or eliminate that game.
In strokeplay and matchplay the par of any hole is meaningless. It could easily be done away with and no-one would notice.
In Stableford and Bogey scoring however, it is intrinsic. Stableford is an extremely popular format among handicap golfers, as it is seen as more forgiving of the occasional "blow-up" hole.
If par was abolished we would need to invent a modified form of strokeplay to replace Stableford.
Maybe something along the lines of only your best 15 holes out of 18 actually counting, with a commensurate handicap adjustment ?
How about Stableford level 4's?
net or gross (or both)
5 points for a 1
4 for a 2
3 for a 3
2 for a 4
1 for a 5
Has players picking up on long slog holes
makes short holes more exciting
pars not needed-no silly holes where the back tee is in front of the forward with a different par
-
Jeff,
A course like that sounds suited to going par free.
Not unlike Elie, that currently has 16 par fours.
Personally, I think any chance at golfers ignoring par is Clifford Roberts' fault. When the Masters started using keeping score relative to par, it was over.
K