Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mark_Fine on February 28, 2021, 11:04:37 PM
-
The concept of par (or the score a proficient player would expect to achieve on a given hole) has been around for a very long time. Very early on golfers did count the number of shots it took them to complete a hole (even in match play) and over time golfers knew that good players would typically make certain scores on certain holes. You can call that what you want (it was called a bogie score at one point) but it was called something.
Not sure about all of you but it is rare to meet a golfer who doesn’t set a target (again call it what you want) for each hole they play. Of course there a few who claim to not care at all and are just out for a stroll but the far majority of golfers are trying to reduce their number of shots per hole not increase it. If their personal target or par for a hole is 7, they are probably pretty happy if the make that score and even happier if they make something lower like the posted par on the card which is what a proficient golfer would be expected to make.
I know some here don’t care to keep score (they feel the card and pencil mentality is bad for the game as it all should just be match play) but if no one ever kept any kind of score there would be no equitable handicaps (which I think is one of the positives that has come out of score keeping). As a result, all of us can play all over at different courses and then come together and play a match with our adjusted handicaps.
So why is the concept of par or tracking typical scores on a hole a bad thing? Seems the positives far outweigh the negatives?
-
Mark, I hope what I'm about to contribute gets at what you're saying. In short, I agree a target score (par for the scratch player) is a good thing. I'm a career 6 handicapper who peaked at a 3.8. From the time I was in high school, I broke a round into six thee-hole segments, each with a personal par of +1. I found it kept me from getting ahead of myself in good rounds while allowing the opportunity to rebound in bad ones. When I acquired the physical strength to reach par fives in two, I modified my "par" with the goal of playing a round with no 6s on the card. As a reasonably accomplished player and somewhat lengthy hitter, I saw no reason why I should be throwing away shots on holes where conservative play would leave me with a short iron approach and a decent chance to make birdie. It's so easy to shoot in the 70s when your highest score on any hole is 5. Having said that, I think my approach may have kept me from going low against my par. There are obviously countless 4 handicaps who have broken par or even broken 70, whereas my career low round is level par. Was I more afraid of going low than I was of blowing up?
-
Of course par is bad for golf. We have reached the point where architects are providing enough different tees so that babies still in the womb can reach the green in regulation, and have a chance for birdie. ;D
I will start another thread that I think will get at the crux of the matter better.
-
I am sure that if par didn't exist, handicapping would have developed. Handicapping has been around a long time.
Par is part of the codification of golf which is connected to fairness. This eventually meant that courses were developed along the lines of a balanced par course, which is awful on few levels. So much lay of the land golf was laid to waste and architects designed courses to meet a par parameter. It is a completely unnecessary straight jacket for design. I can only imagine how many cool courses could have been built without par parameters in place. The irony of it all is that the vast majority of golfers shouldn't be thinking in terms of par because they are not good enough.
I have no doubt that par has been bad for golf.
Ciao
-
Targets, aspirations, achievements and par.
I was fortunate enough to play Kington last year with Messrs Muldoon and Cheslett and Mrs C. Wonderful game/match.
The highlight for me though was the smiles, the high-5’s and the whooping with glee when Mr C made a birdie on the par-3 5th. And it was recorded on video. Wonderful! :):):)
Atb
-
I know the new World Handicap System is supposed to measure "abnormal weather and course conditions". I like the idea of it as The Old Course sounds pretty reasonable to score on a warm and windless day vs a cold and windy day -
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/videos/2019/10/07/world-handicap-system-golf-usga-abnormal-weather-and-course-conditions-6092937342001.html
Since I have not posted any scores yet, I have not seen it work. I personally think it is a good idea, and it is another unique quality of golf. My son and I can play Marikawa and Tiger in a match at any course at any time. You really can't do that with other sports. You have to play evenly matched players.
Sure, fancy guys like Ran like to OVER-negotiate their strokes on the first tee by using the "I don't have a handicap" system. For the rest of us, there is the imperfect, but equally flawed for all of us handicap system.
I recently played with Mr Mayday on a 42 degree and windy and sunny day. No real interest in keeping score on those days, but I will continue to try to break 80, beat my handicap, and take his money on a warm day in June...
-
I don’t think par has anything to do with fairness. Golf is not meant to be fair and I for one have always said the word fair or unfair should never be used to describe a golf hole. Why does par limit golf architecture? Holes come in all kinds of shapes sizes styles locations .... Architects can build what they want. I have played “par threes” that are 75 yards long or less to almost 300 yards long to par sixes that are over 700 yards. Some holes are so hard they’re hard to finish and others are simple. Seems lots of latitude for variation.
I sometimes compare golf courses to ski resorts. Just think if at every ski resort you had to always go all the way to the top and just figure out a way to get to the bottom. Wow wouldn’t that be fun for most people!
-
Of course par is bad for golf. We have reached the point where architects are providing enough different tees so that babies still in the womb can reach the green in regulation, and have a chance for birdie. ;D
LOL
I used to swear I was going to put the tees on the fringe for certain events.....
There are some good quotes already in this thread.
Like Mark's ski analogy as well.
and Mike is 100% correct about those with no handicap(see caddie tournaments) who ALWAYS overnegotiate their handicap, conveniently forgetting that a handicap is based on the 8 BEST ADJUSTED scores of the last 20 rounds.
Shooting a 90 at Shinnecock form the back tees your last round out doesn't make you an 18...
I think par HAS been bad for golf, if nothing else to eliminate some cool holes not built due to trying to get to a certain balance of holes, or a certain length.
But as Sean said, I think handicaps can, should and could've been developed without the shackles of par.
Counting one's strokes IS a part of the game for nearly all, but being made to feel bad (or sometimes good) about it due to an arbitrary "par" that few can achieve, is a silly trapping/expectation the game can do without.
-
Of course par is bad for golf. We have reached the point where architects are providing enough different tees so that babies still in the womb can reach the green in regulation, and have a chance for birdie. ;D
I will start another thread that I think will get at the crux of the matter better.
Ever hear of “8 or 80” bunkers located close to a tee? Only in play if you’re 8 or 80 is the phrase that pays but the game can tempt you from the cradle to the grave that’s for sure.
As for Mark’ question, par is key to the game, something that serves as a relative measure of competence.
-
One of my long-time golfing buddies (a mathematician, FWIW!) would drive crazy another of my buds (an education guy) as the math fellow figured a way out to tally his score quickly that was practical and worked for his brain (but not the EDU guy!):
My numbers friend frequently shot right around 90, hence every hole was a par 5 to him. He then figured out his score at the end of the round by using that as his "par". If he was 2 under at the end of his count, he shot 88.
Easy-peasy!
-
I am sure that if par didn't exist, handicapping would have developed. Handicapping has been around a long time.
...
I would remind everyone that the handicap system developed by Dean Knuth for the USGA did not make any use of par. Only the WHS, which is a little over a year old, added par as an adjustment factor after the true calculation of the handicap index was done. So your handicap still does not use par. Just your course handicap does. They could have declared 72 was the standard for par, and adjusted all handicaps to that. That would be essentially equivalent to what they did for the WHS.
-
...
As for Mark’ question, par is key to the game, something that serves as a relative measure of competence.
???
Your score is a measure of competence. Par is only an adjustment to that measure.
::)
-
I really go back and forth on this question. A couple of random thoughts...
If "par" is really defined as the score an "expert player" should make on a hole, then most courses should be par 70 or less these days.
The 8th hole at Torresdale-Frankford (Union League at Torresdale these days I believe) is about 475 yards with a green behind a creek, and it's called a par four. I guarantee every day people in-advisedly try to reach the green with their second shot with I'm sure a high failure rate. In fact, I'd bet more attempts unintentionally end up short of the creek than actually reach the green. Yet, if it was a par five a large percentage of those folks would lay up to best position their third shot. Make of that what you will, but it definitely seems to me that par has a strategic importance.
-
Mike Cirba,
8 at T/F is much better as the original where the green is before the creek.
As for par whole numbers cause the problem. At Rolling Green we have two par threes that were originally designed at 260 and 130 yards. Those are the same par?
Much of the desire to change holes is to fit the par rather than the other way around.
I think it works for keeping score.
-
One of my long-time golfing buddies (a mathematician, FWIW!) would drive crazy another of my buds (an education guy) as the math fellow figured a way out to tally his score quickly that was practical and worked for his brain (but not the EDU guy!):
My numbers friend frequently shot right around 90, hence every hole was a par 5 to him. He then figured out his score at the end of the round by using that as his "par". If he was 2 under at the end of his count, he shot 88.
Easy-peasy!
As a kid, I even did this with even 7's(126) and even 6's (108).
fortunately I quickly got down to your friend's area.
have a couple more interesting anecdotes about "par" and its importance/balance that will be revealed at a later date
-
I don't think it is anyones business what I shoot so I use a code to keep score. A vertical dash for bogies, a blank for pars and a horizontal dash for birdies. It also provides an instantaneous final score at a glance. I also use a diagonal dash for putts picked up out of haste. For posting purposes you gotta figure I wouldn't make em all.
But my favorite thing about par is making birdies. Almost everyday I play there is a financial incentive for a birdie. Absolutely everyday I play I can remember how many birdies I made. I love birdies and now at my age I cherish eagles and wonder if every eagle putt might be my last.
-
Par had always been important to me. When I played to a two I had a target score every time I played. Now not so much. at 74 I play courses at around 6200 yards. I hate it. It doesn't seem like golf anymore but if I play back too many par fours are par fives and I make too many bogies, so par does matter. With my waning skills I'' like to be able just to enjoy the round without regard to score, I just can't and my enjoyment has gone down appreciably.
I also had a friend who made 5 par on every holes. When we played a match, there were no strokes given we just played against our par. The par threes and fours just averaged out.
-
Par had always been important to me. When I played to a two I had a target score every time I played. Now not so much. at 74 I play courses at around 6200 yards. I hate it. It doesn't seem like golf anymore but if I play back too many par fours are par fives and I make too many bogies, so par does matter. With my waning skills I'' like to be able just to enjoy the round without regard to score, I just can't and my enjoyment has gone down appreciably.
I also had a friend who made 5 par on every holes. When we played a match, there were no strokes given we just played against our par. The par threes and fours just averaged out.
Tommy,
I'm curious why you say you "hate" playing at 6,200 yards? Thanks.
-
Mike,
Do you really think Flynn cared about both those 130 and 260 yard holes being called par threes? I don't think so. He was designing holes to present different challenges. He liked for example long short holes if you know what I mean and incorporated them on many of his designs.
Look at the variety of length of golf holes. They go from several dozen yards in length to almost 1000 yards (I know one hole that is 960 yards in Japan). I think they call it a par 7. Architects have all kinds of flexibility.
Tommy,
I am surprised you don't like playing at 6200 yards at least some of the time to mix it up? I often play back but sometimes when I move up it becomes more challenging as more trouble is in play. Variety is the spice of golf.
John,
The only time it should be anyone's business what you shoot is if you are playing a match or in a tournament. We have people who come as guests to play in some of our events and when they shoot 59 net for 18 holes on their own ball, you realize why it is important to know what they shoot.
I think we all know, Par is just a number and as pointed out, we all can and have our own definitions. It is just a measure to gauge performance against (if one wants to do so).
I still remember someone interviewing Ben Crenshaw about his favorite holes at Shinnecock Hills. He said one of the best was the 11th which he described as the shortest par five on the golf course :) Even the pros have their own pars for golf holes. For those who don't know, I believe the 11th hole is 159 yards from the back tees.
-
8) Tommy, can you break par from the forward or next back tees? Sorry , but as a 68 yr old former 5 with a repaired right shoulder rotator cuff, I have no empathy for a 74 yr old former 2, hating 6200 yds... Just tough love, wondering is it time for a 12 step program?
I'll play from any tees. To me, its all relative in the big stick and ball picture, I could shoot 120's when I started at 9 and will probably return there if I play till 90, which is my goal, as my dad played till nearly 85...
Good luck
-
As it relates to establishing handicaps, Par is not necessary. The system is based intentionally on course rating and not Par.
As it relates to playing the game, I agree with JK that having a measure of success is emotionally positive for most players. I get great joy seeing my wife get joy from a birdie or even a Par, and the same is true to a slightly lesser extent regarding my playing partners.
As it relates to golf course architecture, I am in Sean A’s camp that it provides an unnecessary constraint on good design. Not just because Par 72 is ingrained as the norm but because too many players, at least in the US, look askance at courses with “out of the norm” numbers of various Pars or sequencing of them. But I doubt we can do much to change perception.
Finally, I have now figured out why Ran refuses to improve the Search Function. A better one would tell us exactly how many times that we have a thread about Par. My guess is that only Magazine Ratings and Bunkers might surpass it.
Ira
-
LOL
I used to swear I was going to put the tees on the fringe for certain events.....
One of the USGA Handicap staff starts talks with this story:
He went to a club and the first hole was a downhill 145 yard par 5 on the scorecard. Of course he asked the pro about it. The pros response was, ”I like my members to get off to a good start.”
-
One of my long-time golfing buddies (a mathematician, FWIW!) would drive crazy another of my buds (an education guy) as the math fellow figured a way out to tally his score quickly that was practical and worked for his brain (but not the EDU guy!):
My numbers friend frequently shot right around 90, hence every hole was a par 5 to him. He then figured out his score at the end of the round by using that as his "par". If he was 2 under at the end of his count, he shot 88.
Easy-peasy!
That’s how I was taught to add scores on a scorecard by the USGAs main calligrapher. Just match the 3s and 5s. 2s and 6s and see how far above or below 36 you come for 9. Don’t car about par, only total strokes.
4 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 = two 5s and one 3 = 37.
Gets a little tougher when there are a few big numbers on a card, but I’ve adjusted to above/below 5 (45) or 6 (54) at times.
-
Ira,
I agree with you about repetition of threads and knew this one had been discussed in the past. However, there is a lot of repetition on this site and that is ok because there are new people lurking and only a few who have been on this site for years and years. I recall a training video on quality and customer satisfaction years ago. The topic was a guest asking a staff member at Disney World where the closest restroom was. The training person noted that the Disney staff member was probably asked that same question 100 times each day but they needed to realize that each time it was asked it was the first time that that particular guest had asked the question and it needed the same level of respect :D
I am sure golf architects would love to have complete freedom with no rules. Maybe someone should start a thread about what golf architects would do if they didn't have to worry about par. Someone mentioned Friar's Head. Is that course so vastly radical and different from every other because it has no hole distances on the card (it does have pars on the card)?
-
It'd be damn near impossible to follow a golf tournament without the concept of "par" being present.
I also think we underestimate how much of a little dopamine rush players get when they achieve something like "making a par." My mother is a terrible golfer. She certainly doesn't expect to make par very often, and it doesn't crush her when she fails to. But when she makes one? It's the most exciting moment of the round. Birdies are incredible...
I think our rigidity with it sucks a bit though. Like, the part where a par 65 course would just never be taken seriously probably hurts the game's potential variety and ability to adapt to different types of properties.
-
Par, in and of itself, is a good concept, especially when it comes to the spectator sport of golf, as Jason mentions. It's all this superfluous meaning that gets assigned to it by golfers that's the problem.
Have people ever objected so extremely to the given par of a particular hole that it ruined the hole's architect's career? It's hard to envision such a scenario because the remedy is so exceedingly simple.
-
Mark,
Several architects who do not feel constrained by convention have routed several of my favorite courses:
Swinley Forest at Par 69
The Island Club (until last year) with 8 opening Par 4s
Brora with a Par 3 for 9 and 18th holes
Ballybunion with 5 Par 3s including Back to Back
Pac Dunes same as Ballybunion
Elie with no Par 5s
North Berwick with 3 Par 5s in a 4 holes stretch
Kilspindie with no Par 5s
Crail Balcomie with 6 Par 3s, two back to back, and one of them being the 18th
Unfortunately, it actually is too short of a list because of the impact of convention.
Btw, there are some good threads on this topic.
Ira
-
I get an image of Adam and Eve happily knowing nothing but match play, until one day a serpent in plus-fours starts dropping hints about this new concept called "par" -- and it's been with us ever since, in various guises and known by different names. There's not much use in asking whether par is good or bad for the game, since it's actually *part* of the game, and has been since Time began. It's the Tempter, and it ensnares agnostically wayward clients and piously devout architects alike, not to mention millions upon millions of seriously monkish golfers. At one and the same time, and inexorably linked, it's both The Fall and The Game as We Know It. Or, as the modern saying goes: it is what it is.
-
Regarding the seemingly blasphemous idea of changing the par of a hole over time to reflect "the score of the expert golfer", the most famous par four on the planet used to be a par five not very long ago.
-
Targets, aspirations, achievements and par.
I was fortunate enough to play Kington last year with Messrs Muldoon and Cheslett and Mrs C. Wonderful game/match.
The highlight for me though was the smiles, the high-5’s and the whooping with glee when Mr C made a birdie on the par-3 5th. And it was recorded on video. Wonderful! :) :) :)
Atb
It was Mrs C who got the birdie 2.
She reminds me of it regularly! 🤣
-
Targets, aspirations, achievements and par.
I was fortunate enough to play Kington last year with Messrs Muldoon and Cheslett and Mrs C. Wonderful game/match.
The highlight for me though was the smiles, the high-5’s and the whooping with glee when Mr C made a birdie on the par-3 5th. And it was recorded on video. Wonderful! :) :) :)
Atb
It was Mrs C who got the birdie 2.
She reminds me of it regularly! 🤣
Apologies. Typo temi! I omitted the ‘s’ from Mrs. I can still picture in my mind the huge smile on her face when the putt went in. Your happiness too. A splendid moment during a splendid game on a splendid course.
Atb
-
Have people ever objected so extremely to the given par of a particular hole that it ruined the hole's architect's career? It's hard to envision such a scenario because the remedy is so exceedingly simple.
No... but its certainly ruined a few rounds of mine! ;)
P.S. I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck there isn't anyone in this group who hasn't bragged to his golf buddies, on multiple occasions, at making a par on such and such <insert beastie hole here>. Whether we fess up to it or not, making or saving par has no doubt been a source of great pride in our otherwise dull and uneventful lives! ;D
-
What the hell does pride in achieving a score have anything to do with the notion of par being good or bad for golf?
Ciao
-
Sean,
Golf is a game/sport and most games/sports are supposed to be fun and inspiring which is why people play the game in the first place. If they can for example say they made a par on the same hole and maybe even from the same tee as Tiger made a par, that is exciting to some golfers and good for the game of golf. I know when my wife makes a par (which is basically two shots below her handicap as she is a 36) she is so excited.
We are adding a new forward tee at Lehigh on the 4th hole as the one there now requires a forced carry of about 120 yards over a stream which very few forward tee players can manage. They basically have to chip down in front and then try to get over on their second shot which also presents a challenge. The new tee will only require a 75 yard carry which she and many others are thrilled about. Good for those players. The game will be more fun and they will lose less balls and maybe even make a par :D You know the saying, for me at least happy wife happy life!
-
8) Back in the day, my best Bud and I had a par 15 from the intersection of Cheltenham & Pelham Roads, around Old Orchard School, past Wright's Greenhouse, across the railroad tracks / pricker bushes and down to the 5th green at Ottawa Park... It was a measure of 7 iron prowess and fortitude in the face of natural and manmade hazards at play. And it was good!
You can't manage and improve your game unless there's some metric for assessment and ongoing measurement... does golf really need Ladbrokes to weigh in on average par?
-
Mark,
I don’t have any problem with the concept of par. The vast majority of golf holes are either 1,2 or 3 shots plus 2 putts. I don’t think that hurts anything.
Are there holes not so easy to fit into one of these three options?
Yes, there are. For me a good example would be the 1st hole at Crystal Downs. It just strikes me as what one might call a par 4 & 1/2 or 2 & 1/2 shots plus 2 putts.
But to me calling it either a par 4 or par 5 doesn’t matter. My assessment of the risk reward is that I am likely to score best with a second shot that comes to rest a little short and to the left of the green. Missing right is not good regardless of the designated par.
It won’t surprise me if someone argues that my example of #1 at Crystal Downs (or perhaps the Road Hole at St Andrews) makes the case against the concept of par. I just don’t think so. Such holes are unusual and I know one when I see one. But they are exceptions, not the rule.
Saying that I don’t have a problem with the concept of par certainly isn’t meant to discourage architects from building 1/2 par holes. Not at all. I just think that at the end of the day most golf holes are going to be 1,2 or 3 shot holes and that’s ok.
-
It'd be damn near impossible to follow a golf tournament without the concept of "par" being present.
...
So the scoreboard that says
Player A -21
Player B -19
Player C -18
is so much easier that the score board that says
Player A Leader
Player B 2 behind
Player C 3 behind
???
::)
I guess you like your math!
Par, in and of itself, is a good concept, especially when it comes to the spectator sport of golf, as Jason mentions. ...
Timothy, Timothy, Timothy :'(
-
Regarding the seemingly blasphemous idea of changing the par of a hole over time to reflect "the score of the expert golfer", the most famous par four on the planet used to be a par five not very long ago.
...And while not claiming that MC is in agreement with the entirety of my position (Get Rid of Individual Hole Par off the Card, Every Course is a "Understood" Par of 72), the fact that 40 years ago the Road Hole was commonly billed as a 471 yard Par 5, is a detail piece in that position... has the hole gotten any more or less sui generis because of that terminology/application of 4 as opposed to 5? Was it such an easy par 5 that the hole was in architectural disrepute because of that par? Is the basic quality of any current grandee "half par" hole diminished because the course pushes its card par up past the .5? Is the foundation of virtues of a "half par" hole, or the "drivable" or "short" "par 4" only found in that the hole doesn't obey its par number, or that the hole is great because of the path, the challenges, the obstacles, the green coordinating with those elements, its look, feel, placement in the routing, etc...
Unlike the dubious claims advanced by those inclined to the psychological, culture "virtues" of par, I am not suggesting that golf world or your foursome has to stop using the term, and that we can't go on using the cribbed language of par in our golf... just that we take it off the card without comment and see what happens... there's no golfer in the world who stands on a tee, beholds the new hole and its yardage before them and is rudderless because a stated par is absent...
I am solely interested in the architectural innovations and fresh potentials that are being held back by the tired and rather meaningless, imposed "concept" of par... that we don't have more "half par yardages" (chiefly, 240 - 285 and 450 - 490)... that we'll never see the design of a 700+ yard hole, not for the championship golfer, but for the everyday golfer, unless we call it a Par 6, and call a "4" made on it an "Eagle."
This board spoke of a "Par 2" hole and some of its features, and one of those potential features was its length (30 - 70 yards)...well, I think we'll never see that/those holes, because no public support is seemingly available for something that must be assigned a par of 2.
It would be great if Tom Doak made an interesting 50 yard shot to an interesting green, that had mounds like the old Stoke Poges, designed and grassed to be cut at "5.5" and thus permitted realistic play over them, but that won't happen because no one is going to let him make a Par 2 on their course, with their precious treasury. And its nearly the same for a 265 yard hole... if TD did so, and didn't list a par, it would be the first question asked...
To recap several years, par ought be removed from individual holes because
- ...it is a subjective medal application placed on the organics of design
- ...that has no meaning to the day in day out standards of match play
- ... no meaning to Course Rating and Slope or Handicap
- ...that stifles continued innovation with regards to the objective, in situ, and designed elements that blend to make GCA what it is.
- ... a 4 is a quality score on any hole...12 to 18 of them will send 97% of us home happy
- ...the cribbed cultural language of par will still exist, for you, for TV, for history
- ...no one requires par to appraise their own possibilities and GCA virtues of a hole
Amen.
-
So the scoreboard that says
Player A -21
Player B -19
Player C -18
is so much easier that the score board that says
Player A Leader
Player B 2 behind
Player C 3 behind
???
::)
I guess you like your math!
That only really works when all three are on the same hole.
Otherwise a player 10 shots back in your system could be leading by two.
-
So the scoreboard that says
Player A -21
Player B -19
Player C -18
is so much easier that the score board that says
Player A Leader
Player B 2 behind
Player C 3 behind
???
::)
I guess you like your math!
That only really works when all three are on the same hole.
Otherwise a player 10 shots back in your system could be leading by two.
Got it! A slight oversight on my part. :-[
However, they know the average score on each hole, and could add them to a players score to give a projected final score. So, no use of par is necessary, as it would be a less accurate predictor of the outcome.
-
So the scoreboard that says
Player A -21
Player B -19
Player C -18
is so much easier that the score board that says
Player A Leader
Player B 2 behind
Player C 3 behind
???
::)
I guess you like your math!
That only really works when all three are on the same hole.
Otherwise a player 10 shots back in your system could be leading by two.
Did I neglect to say my tournaments use a shotgun start. ;)
-
Erik,
You are correct about the score keeping. Without some relevance to expected strokes per hole, you would not know who is leading in a tournament (even in a shotgun start) until all players finish (and they would all still need to count strokes which I know some don't like). What is the problem with counting them on each hole? The reason the shotgun start doesn't matter is because the nines (if you are playing an 18 hole tournament) could be very different from a scoring or difficulty standpoint.
Speaking of numbers, both the slope rating and the course rating are a total of the ratings generated for each individual hole. As such that individual hole rating is in essence the par for that hole. If a 345 yard hole is deemed to have a slope rating of 3.95, that is its effective par for the bogie golfer. You add all those up and you get the slope rating. Same for the course rating.
Other than the standard number of holes (18) that has been around for a long time, I don't think architects have been that limited in what they can or can't do. Holes come in all sizes and lengths. Who really wants to play an 800 or 900 yard golf hole? Talk about adding real estate to golf courses ::) And there are many very short holes out there. Pitch and putt courses are still very prominent at least in the U.S. Forrest Richardson has even built Par 2 holes in AZ. I asked earlier, what would architects do differently. I guess they could make some holes so difficult (since their was no score keeping or par, you just pick up your ball when you get tired of playing). Ira pointed out that some courses that are a little less conventional (I have played most of those he mentioned and they are fantastic designs). Nothing wrong with building more of them.
No matter what an architect builds or whether or not par is on the card or distances are on the card, golfers are going to figure it all out. For one they have to figure it out or there won't be a way to come up with handicaps which is one of the great things about golf. I used to be a pretty good tennis player in college and there is no real way to handicap tennis players that I know of. In golf we all can play with anyone and have a fun and interesting match. The only way to do that that I can think of is to have a way to estimate what different players of different skill levels would score "on each particular hole". If for example we only played three holes for our match, how would two players of very different abilities compete? Remember golf is a game :D
-
Unlike the dubious claims advanced by those inclined to the psychological, culture "virtues" of par, I am not suggesting that golf world or your foursome has to stop using the term, and that we can't go on using the cribbed language of par in our golf... just that we take it off the card without comment and see what happens... there's no golfer in the world who stands on a tee, beholds the new hole and its yardage before them and is rudderless because a stated par is absent...
I am solely interested in the architectural innovations and fresh potentials that are being held back by the tired and rather meaningless, imposed "concept" of par... that we don't have more "half par yardages" (chiefly, 240 - 285 and 450 - 490)... that we'll never see the design of a 700+ yard hole, not for the championship golfer, but for the everyday golfer, unless we call it a Par 6, and call a "4" made on it an "Eagle."
This board spoke of a "Par 2" hole and some of its features, and one of those potential features was its length (30 - 70 yards)...well, I think we'll never see that/those holes, because no public support is seemingly available for something that must be assigned a par of 2.
It would be great if Tom Doak made an interesting 50 yard shot to an interesting green, that had mounds like the old Stoke Poges, designed and grassed to be cut at "5.5" and thus permitted realistic play over them, but that won't happen because no one is going to let him make a Par 2 on their course, with their precious treasury. And its nearly the same for a 265 yard hole... if TD did so, and didn't list a par, it would be the first question asked...
VK: I am far more likely to design a par-6 someday, than a par-2. There is precedent from 200 years ago for the former, but not for the latter.
I agree with you entirely in the first paragraph quoted above. I spent a couple of days last week with Zac Blair and he seems like just the sort who could get behind having no par on the card and just making everyone keep track vs. "even fours" if they insist on keeping track.
One of the reasons I don't like par is because people have become too fixated on the "half par" holes you mention, when those lengths seem skewed to the favor of low-handicappers. If you don't want to favor one player over another, holes should come in all lengths including 280 and 490, but they shouldn't be bunched in bias toward certain lengths. Honestly I think the lengths that are being ignored now are 170 and 370 and 500, which used to be staples of every course.
-
Wait a second...Tom, how do half par holes favor low handicap players?
-
Half-par holes is a lot of what makes a course architecturally interesting in my mind.
Courses that have half par holes going both ways are the ones that are most fun in my opinion. Hershey Parkview (NLE) was exceptional in this regard in that there was a mix of a few drivable par 4's and a couple reachable par 5's offset by a few long difficult par 4's where 4 was a very good score. I felt that this mix led to a really fun day since you could get some birds and possibly a look or two at eagle. This was offset with some likely bogies or worse that you could turn into pars with good play. Definitely added to a nice ebb and flow to the round where you alternated between trying to get something versus hanging on to what you had.
Courses where all of the half pars are either up or down are much less interesting day to day.
-
I know we talk about them here but I have never seen a 1/2 par hole on a scorecard :D When I bring up the concept with golfing buddies they don't really get it. Are all tough par fours 1/2 par holes? Are all easy par fives 1/2 par holes? Are some holes 1/3 par holes if they are in between? We all play holes where we probably beg to differ with the scorecard par. Isn't that why we all have our own personal pars? I just played a 285 yard par four hole at Atlantic Dunes in Hilton Head. I was pin high behind a greenside bunker on my tee shot and proceeded to skull my flop shot over the back and made 5. Is the hole a par three, a par four, or something in between? I just think it is a very tempting hole I should make 3 on but it doesn't always happen. And doesn't the term 1/2 par come from what the expected score would be on that particular hole for a proficient golfer? That is all par is any way yet we all get hung up about it. It is just an expected score and no matter what an architect builds, it will ultimately get a number.
-
Mark,
You missed my point. Of course there is nothing wrong with more courses such as those I listed. My point is that there are not more of them because of the Convention of Par and the Conventions Around Par act as limitations on architects designing such routings. You will notice that there is only one Modern course on my list. I am sure that there are others but probably not many.
Ira
-
...
Speaking of numbers, both the slope rating and the course rating are a total of the ratings generated for each individual hole. As such that individual hole rating is in essence the par for that hole. If a 345 yard hole is deemed to have a slope rating of 3.95, that is its effective par for the bogie golfer. You add all those up and you get the slope rating. Same for the course rating.
...
Erik, free to correct him on this misstatement. I demand equal correction. ;)
-
Ira,
As I said, it would be interesting to hear what architects would do differently were it not for par concerns? Tom said he would build par 6's. I say go for it. I think the challenge with longer holes is the time it takes to play them and a lot more real estate. Plus if you are playing match play and your opponent hits two out of bounds off the tee and says your hole, it is long walk to the next one :D We play cross country golf sometimes at Lehigh where we play from say the third hole to the seventh green. Who knows what "par" is but if we played it enough, I am sure we would figure it out.
I still don't think architect's creativity is severely limited because of par. Their goal is to make interesting golf courses uses all the tools they have at their disposal. Different starting points (tees) make help adjust for all different playing abilities. If, however, we all had to start at the same starting location it would be a totally different matter. Think about my skiing analogy. It would really suck for most and many would give up the sport if the only option was you had to go all the way to the top and figure out how to get down. Different stops on the lift are like different tees in golf. Same goes for the different hazards and steepness of the slopes etc. The architects of ski slopes have the same kind of challenges as golf architects. They have "pars" too :D
Garland,
If I am wrong, I stand corrected. I am (was) certified to do course slope ratings. Maybe I am out of touch but we would go hole by hole to figure out the final tally.
-
Mike Cirba,
8 at T/F is much better as the original where the green is before the creek.
As for par whole numbers cause the problem. At Rolling Green we have two par threes that were originally designed at 260 and 130 yards. Those are the same par?
Much of the desire to change holes is to fit the par rather than the other way around.
I think it works for keeping score.
Was/is the 260 hole downhill? Did/does it have a large and accessible green?
Not to be flip, but if you took even a very good amateur event field, the average score on those two holes could be quite close, perhaps 3.08 on the short one and 3.35(?) on the long one -- if the long one has an elevated tee, and a large and accessible green, which most "par 3's" of that length do.
Certainly a 260 yard hole could be designed so that there's no way it would play to that low of a stroke average.
Would be curious to know the scoring average of the longest, yet easiest par 3's on Tour. So the "lowest stroke average per yard" on the PGA Tour. And then the converse would be fun, too.
-
Mark - I think half-par is obviously subjective relative to a given player's ability. I think of a half-par down as a hole that I should be making a decent percentage of birdie opportunities on without having to do anything special, short par 4 with not much trouble, par 5's I can reach in 2 regularly, as well as the occasional eagle opportunity. Conversely a half-par up is a hole that normal play will still result in a fair number of bogies, usually a result of length coupled with a drive or green that even a well hit shot will sometimes result in a poor outcomes. These can be the result of a landing area that is smaller than a good shot's dispersion, or a very bad outcome with a bail out that will almost always result in a lost stroke.
Lehigh's 11th is a hole I consider a half-par down - a decent drive should leave me a shot I expect to be able to convert leaving me a chip/putt for eagle. Obviously I will not do it every time, but I still believe that I have a reasonable expectation in playing it under par.
An example of a half-par up would be Lancaster's 11th. I simply do not feel like I have a second shot that will consistently hold the green. therefore, even if playing well my expectation is that a par feels like a bird and a bogie is acceptable. Lancaster's 10th and 18th might fall in this category as well.
Steel Club's(fka Silver Creek/Bethlehem Steel Club) 1st(half-up) and 15(half-down) is another example of 9 between the two being a fine outcome even though I'm more likely to go bogie-birdie as opposed to par-par.
-
Mark,
I will let architects who have had to making routing choices weigh in if they like, but we have lived in an era for a long time where the Convention is Par 72 with four Par 3s and four Par 5s and courses should have at least 6500 yards. There are deviations but not many that truly are “Unconventional”. I cited PD as the only Modern one that I played. I am not talking about Par 6s although there might be a way to design a cool one depending on the land. I am referring to the Convention of Par and Conventions around Par limiting architectural creativity.
Ira
-
It'd be damn near impossible to follow a golf tournament without the concept of "par" being present.
...
So the scoreboard that says
Player A -21
Player B -19
Player C -18
is so much easier that the score board that says
Player A Leader
Player B 2 behind
Player C 3 behind
Which of those schemes takes up less space on a TV, computer or smartphone screen?
Again, I like the concept of par because it pairs well with our desires for competition and order. Isn't it also an opportunity for an architect to communicate with golfers? To say, "Here are my expectations of you for this hole - let's see if you're able to meet or exceed them."?
Par is also good because it's aspirational. Golf is a game, after all, and people who spend lots of time playing a particular game tend to want to improve at it. Par is an easy standard against which we can measure progress. That first par or birdie is a pretty solid step in any golfer's development. It's an opportunity for a jolt of pleasure that flings golfers forward in their love of the game.
Of course, there are purely recreational golfers out there, who just enjoy the act of hitting a ball around and don't care how many shots it takes them to get from tee to cup. That's fine, too, but par should be of zero concern to these golfers in their recreation (i.e. it can't be called a game for them), because their approach literally negates any need for par.
-
Ira,
I am not arguing with you. I agree with you. I am just curious what architects would do differently. I don't think they would be building 10,000 yard long golf courses. If 18 holes is the "acceptable" standard, I wonder what they would do differently? I played a GAP match last year at a par 68 course in Philly. It was pretty cool. Only thing different though is that is was par 68 which didn't bother me. It still had par three par four and par five holes (or maybe some 1/2 par holes if you call them that kind of thing). So be it.
Tim,
Good post!!
-
Jim,
As I said are all tough par fours 1/2 par holes and are all easy par fives 1/2 par holes? I guess you could call them that if you want. We all have our expected outcomes or goals we strive for on each hole.
-
Mark,
I will let architects who have had to making routing choices weigh in if they like, but we have lived in an era for a long time where the Convention is Par 72 with four Par 3s and four Par 5s and courses should have at least 6500 yards. There are deviations but not many that truly are “Unconventional”. I cited PD as the only Modern one that I played. I am not talking about Par 6s although there might be a way to design a cool one depending on the land. I am referring to the Convention of Par and Conventions around Par limiting architectural creativity.
Ira
Ira-I agree and the constraints placed on modern architects far outweigh those from the Golden Age. Look at some of the par 69 courses that Ross designed like Wannamoisett or Plymouth which indicate to me that the main focus was finding the best holes. I wonder if anybody can come up with more than a handful of modern courses with a par of less than 70? That’s not a knock on the Modern guys but rather on the expectation of many including some clients that a balanced golf course requires a par of 72.
-
It'd be damn near impossible to follow a golf tournament without the concept of "par" being present.
...
So the scoreboard that says
Player A -21
Player B -19
Player C -18
is so much easier that the score board that says
Player A Leader
Player B 2 behind
Player C 3 behind
Which of those schemes takes up less space on a TV, computer or smartphone screen?
To be fair, if you removed par, it would take up (virtually) the same amount of space.
LEADER
+2
+3
+5
-
I'm still trying to figure out what the specific argument is against having par (other than it may squash an idea here or there in the routing of the course phase)
If you don't like par then don't use it. Stick to match play and/or just keep an aggregate score for the round. Or don't keep score at all and just enjoy whacking your ball around gods green earth and be thankful you're still on the correct side of the grass.
What am I missing? Or this a case of "my way of playing golf is the right way and everyone else must adhere to it?"
-
Most people who don’t like par walk and carry their own bag. It’s a symptom of a larger disease.
-
To Tom Doak and any other architect here,
This is an honest question; how many of your golf courses would be better than they are if you didn't have to worry about par and if so what would you have done different? I realize it might not be a fair question (or the right question) but I will put it out there. Maybe a better one would be on the current courses you are working on, what would you do different if you didn't have to worry about par?
Kalen,
I am in your camp. These days I am building a lot more tees which is changing people's par and making the game more fun for them. That is the best way I think I can help address this terrible concept :D
-
Wait a second...Tom, how do half par holes favor low handicap players?
Jim:
It's a "half par" hole as defined for a scratch player, not a 12-handicapper.
In many cases, today, a low handicap guy is hitting 7-iron to the green of the longest "half par" par-4, while the average player cannot get home in two from 470 yards. So why should there be four or five of those holes, and none at 370 yards where the average guy can get home and the scratch player can't drive the green?
Note, I may be conflating the scratch player and the plus-5 mini Tour player, but the point is the same. The Overton window for what length of hole is "long" has changed so much in the past thirty years that anything we call "half par" is in fact easily reachable for elite players, and unreachable for others. Same thing for the "drivable par-4". 12-handicaps aren't driving the green on a par-4.
-
To Tom Doak and any other architect here,
This is an honest question; how many of your golf courses would be better than they are if you didn't have to worry about par and if so what would you have done different? I realize it might not be a fair question (or the right question) but I will put it out there. Maybe a better one would be on the current courses you are working on, what would you do different if you didn't have to worry about par?
We discussed some of these topics last week around the routing of The Tree Farm. Unfortunately I think Zac wants to wait to unveil his new routing and I can't bring up a couple of the discussions without being a spoiler, so I will have to defer on that course for now.
One hole where I bent the current custom is the 7th at Tara Iti. It is 260-something yards from the back tee so very reachable by good players, but we built a tiny green and it's a bit of a fluke if you can get there and stay on it. Most people nowadays would insist that a drivable par-4 should, in fact, hold a driver, but that would have been boring and as Mr. Dye used to say, that's really just a long par-3 if you treat it that way. As you will note, the main thing stopping designers from ignoring par is fear of potential criticism, and I'm mostly beyond that, though not all of my clients are.
I don't think there are too many times where I let other people's expectations change what I do on individual holes. The main ones are holes which would be better as a par-5 or par-4 for long hitters, but the only good place for a tee for shorter hitters can't really be called the same par. There is a lot of resistance to holes where some players have to make a daunting carry and others don't have to face one at all, because the carry would be too far to be reasonable. When I see something like that I usually steer around it entirely even if I think it would be a good hole from the back.
I do think there are 3-4 of my courses that are not as good because the client wanted me to bump par up to 71 or 72 instead of leaving it at 70 per the original routing, and the hole we stretched out to being a par-5 just didn't turn out as good that way.
Likewise, I would bet there are a ton of courses in Asia and even in the U.S. that would have been better as par-71 courses, but the client insisted on 72 and that insistence eliminated a better routing.
-
Tom,
Thanks for your answer. My guess would have been around par five holes as they are usually the trickiest to design well.
Regarding 1/2 pars; I may be confused because I don't usually think about 1/2 par holes but can't 1/2 pars go the other way for higher handicap golfers? Most scratch players as you say are calling 1/2 par holes for example par fours that are 3 1/2 pars and par five holes that are 4 1/2 pars. Why can't higher handicappers call some par fours 4 1/2 pars and some par five hole 5 1/2 pars? Just asking.
-
Regarding 1/2 pars; I may be confused because I don't usually think about 1/2 par holes but can't 1/2 pars go the other way for higher handicap golfers? Most scratch players as you say are calling 1/2 par holes for example par fours that are 3 1/2 pars and par five holes that are 4 1/2 pars. Why can't higher handicappers call some par fours 4 1/2 pars and some par five hole 5 1/2 pars? Just asking.
What I'm trying to say is that what's considered a cool half-par hole is biased by the long hitter's viewpoint, as, in fact, is the whole concept of "par" which is based on how the scratch player sees things.
A ten-handicap like me could conceivably think of every hole as a half-par hole and aim to shoot nine over, but that viewpoint doesn't really inform strategy very well. Instead, I should probably identify the 5-10 holes where I would be better off playing safely for bogey and taking double out of play, and try to make pars on the rest, though I surely won't make par on all of them.
-
Doesn't the use of the words "half par" imply that par is important?.
I clearly have a minority opinion but my like of the occasional 280-330 holes that don't bury you with modern complex "driveable par 4" options/choices/layups, but are just out there for the taking for the better player and actually par-able for the 16 hdcp, is usually met with WTF "6 minute abs"? ummm...enthusiasm.
But a hole like that feels like a missed opportunity for a better player, and can thrill a hacker.
Same with 230-250 yard par 3's with a bit of trouble, or long par 4's with small greens.
they're just holes, where the only thing that gets in the way are expectations(both good and bad), and par has a lot to do with that.
-
Doesn't the use of the words "half par" imply that par is important?.
I clearly have a minority opinion but my like of the occasional 280-330 holes that don't bury you with modern complex "driveable par 4" options/choices/layups, but are just out there for the taking for the better player and actually par-able for the 16 hdcp, is usually met with WTF "6 minute abs"? ummm...enthusiasm.
But a hole like that feels like a missed opportunity for a better player, and can thrill a hacker.
Same with 230-250 yard par 3's with a bit of trouble, or long par 4's with small greens.
they're just holes, where the only thing that gets in the way are expectations(both good and bad), and par has a lot to do with that.
Agree with this completely. Par definitely does "get in the way" of people just playing a darned golf hole. 460 yard par 4 with a tough small, well bunkered green? "This par-4 hole is 'too long' to have such a small, difficult green!!!"
-
I do think there are 3-4 of my courses that are not as good because the client wanted me to bump par up to 71 or 72 instead of leaving it at 70 per the original routing, and the hole we stretched out to being a par-5 just didn't turn out as good that way.
Likewise, I would bet there are a ton of courses in Asia and even in the U.S. that would have been better as par-71 courses, but the client insisted on 72 and that insistence eliminated a better routing.
Tom,
My default thinking on this is that a great designer is still going to get a great product in the ground and find a good solution when this occurs. I may be wrong, but I'm guessing for the ones you worked on, they didn't end up as DS 7s when they could have been DS 9's or 10 otherwise.
And for all the countless masses of courses in Asia and the US that are boiler plate par 72s, also guessing they wouldn't have been DS 6's instead of 3 and 4s.
-
Mark - I think I think there is more to it than that, not all short holes would qualify based on the risk/reward equation, just as not all long par 4's would either. But, I can see how it could come across as such.
With either vocabulary it's the balance that's important.
Jim,
As I said are all tough par fours 1/2 par holes and are all easy par fives 1/2 par holes? I guess you could call them that if you want. We all have our expected outcomes or goals we strive for on each hole.
-
Mark - I think I think there is more to it than that, not all short holes would qualify based on the risk/reward equation, just as not all long par 4's would either. But, I can see how it could come across as such.
With either vocabulary it's the balance that's important.
Jim,
As I said are all tough par fours 1/2 par holes and are all easy par fives 1/2 par holes? I guess you could call them that if you want. We all have our expected outcomes or goals we strive for on each hole.
Jim-I understand “balance” in your statement above to translate to variety. It’s not hard to pick out the one trick pony.
-
A ten-handicap like me could conceivably think of every hole as a half-par hole and aim to shoot nine over, but that viewpoint doesn't really inform strategy very well. Instead, I should probably identify the 5-10 holes where I would be better off playing safely for bogey and taking double out of play, and try to make pars on the rest, though I surely won't make par on all of them.
There’s an event format .. I’ve heard it called a few different names .... where in advance of play each participant has to nominate the score he/she considers they will achieve on each and every hole. In the case of say a 10 hcp, the player is allowed 10 shots over gross but has to nominate in advance which individual holes the 10 shots will be used on.
The winner is not the player with the best nett score.
Instead the winner is the player who achieves the most correctly nominated scores, ie 18 is the best achievable result if 18 holes are played.
It’s not as easy as it may seem and can be mentally pretty taxing. Not perhaps an ideal format for hotheads! Achieving all nominated 18 scores can be done but is unlikely. Thought is needed with the nominating hole process in relation to anticipated score and on which specific holes the player intends to use their hcp shots.
If folks haven’t tried it, give it a go. And if your really feeling adventurous attempt it for not 18 but 36 or even more holes!
Atb
-
Kalen,
I tend to agree with you again. Architects like Tom and others are clever enough to make sure they get the most out of every one of their designs and I doubt they compromise too much. I can see how "green size" could come into play due to "par" but on many courses a bigger factor is maintenance issues dictated by the amount of play the course is expecting,...
Regarding 1/2 par holes; I think those holes that fall in this range are many times the best holes in the game. Does anyone really care if the 13th hole at Augusta National is called a par 4 1/2? The way to ruin that hole would be to make it a true par five for the best golfers. Then we could get to see everyone playing flip wedges into the green for their 3rd shot :-\ And for those who can't reach these kind of holes in two shots, either they are playing the wrong set up tees or at least they still have a chance for a 4 because they are well in reach in 3 shots.
I guess I just don't see holes being limited because of par. A hole could be "ideally designed", whatever that means, to be 470 yards long but different sets of tees can make it play as short as you would like (and maybe even longer if deemed necessary). To mean it is hard to understand what "an ideal hole" would be since there are sooo many different levels of golfers and why par would impact what is designed. Furthermore, par is changing as the game changes (that has been pointed out with #17 at The Old Course). It sure doesn't change how I play the golf hole.
Thomas,
Interesting idea but aren't you still suggesting setting personal pars for each hole which I think most of us do already. The challenge with your format is for example when you choose a 5 for #10 and you have a two foot putt for a 4 :D
-
Precisely Mark.
And does the player concerned have the mental fortitude to when required lag a 2’ putt to 2” and tap in to achieve their nominated score without it effecting their play for the rest of the round?
And does the player have the mental fortitude and the skill to hole-out from some vile spot when they’ve made a mess of the preceding few shots on a hole and find themselves not very close to the cup?
And does the player have the mental fortitude and the skill to know how best to play a given hole without screwing-up yet still make an acceptable (nominated) score?
There’s more to golf than just hitting a ball with a stick.
Mr Jones and his 5” inches between the ears comment comes to mind.
Atb
PS .. I happen to go along with your sentiments on the need for hcps mentioned earlier.
-
There’s an event format .. I’ve heard it called a few different names .... where in advance of play each participant has to nominate the score he/she considers they will achieve on each and every hole. In the case of say a 10 hcp, the player is allowed 10 shots over gross but has to nominate in advance which individual holes the 10 shots will be used on.
The winner is not the player with the best nett score.
Instead the winner is the player who achieves the most correctly nominated scores, ie 18 is the best achievable result if 18 holes are played.
It’s not as easy as it may seem and can be mentally pretty taxing. Not perhaps an ideal format for hotheads! Achieving all nominated 18 scores can be done but is unlikely. Thought is needed with the nominating hole process in relation to anticipated score and on which specific holes the player intends to use their hcp shots.
If folks haven’t tried it, give it a go. And if your really feeling adventurous attempt it for not 18 but 36 or even more holes!
Atb
I should do this somewhere.
One of my favorite golf stories is about the old pro at Sunningdale, Arthur Lees, doing this back in the 1950's or 60's, at the Swiss Open. He dejectedly said after the third round that it would take 63 to win the next day, and when a friend said that was impossible, he methodically detailed what it would take for him to shoot 63 . . . and then he went out the next day and shot exactly those scores for every hole, to win by one.
-
Tom,
My default thinking on this is that a great designer is still going to get a great product in the ground and find a good solution when this occurs. I may be wrong, but I'm guessing for the ones you worked on, they didn't end up as DS 7s when they could have been DS 9's or 10 otherwise.
And for all the countless masses of courses in Asia and the US that are boiler plate par 72s, also guessing they wouldn't have been DS 6's instead of 3 and 4s.
Not sure I agree with you there.
Being told to give up on the best solution and use another is demoralizing and rarely leads to a great project. You can start to think, "Why argue?", and then it's all downhill quickly from there.
Certainly there are a lot of courses in Asia that fell short because the architects dismissed their client as not understanding golf well and didn't bother to make a normal effort. This includes the work of some of the biggest names in the business. Many of those courses could easily have been 6's if they had just concentrated on building a good set of greens, but organizing the people to do so is far more difficult in China or Japan, and if the client won't pay through the nose for it, the architect just shrugs and gives them a 4.
-
Thomas,
Good point. As you said, I guess if you are good enough or lucky enough to get yourself in that position (to lag a two footer for your targeted score) that is impressive. Or to hole out a bunker shot at will is awesome. I guess I see more the other way; someone playing a causal match and being a couple over par until the last two holes when they manage to go double double with two three putts. I guess everyone manages their handicap differently :D :(
I will add though that I think the scratch/better golfers would have a big advantage. Wouldn't they just choose 18 pars and see what happens? They won't par every hole but likely 14 or 15 of them which should be pretty good. They would just lag birdie putts wouldn't they? It might be a fun game to try.
In Korea and in Japan as well we have played a lot of “honesty” golf where before your round you guess what score you will shoot and the closest to that score wins the pot of cash. It is always amazing to see all the honest scores come in right on the number :D :o
-
Same with 230-250 yard par 3's with a bit of trouble, or long par 4's with small greens.
they're just holes, where the only thing that gets in the way are expectations(both good and bad), and par has a lot to do with that.
Agree with this completely. Par definitely does "get in the way" of people just playing a darned golf hole. 460 yard par 4 with a tough small, well bunkered green? "This par-4 hole is 'too long' to have such a small, difficult green!!!"
Exactly... this is getting to the heart of it...purely from the GCA side... the imposition of par tends to decline a novelty or innovation from jump street... "You can't do that!" One of the reason I love the old "2 or 20" hole at Engineers... even in contemporary state, it has been a hole you remember and does the fun and art of GCA credit, shows GCA design has character, whimsy and self-regard
No one has to adopt my interior appraisal, but I look at any hole as a solution of 4... short fours, long fours, hard fours, relatively easy fours, decision fours, tepid fours, stressful fours, demanding fours, ridiculously simple fours, impossible fours, enjoyable fours...
-
VK,
I agree with your "fours" concept. It is very insightful and right on the mark. But don't you think architects think the same way when they design golf holes? I actually think they do (at least the best ones do) and this variety shows in their designs. And isn't par to some extent the basis for it as that is at least "one" measure they might build around. The par or measure in your case is four :D
-
VK,
I agree with your "fours" concept. It is very insightful and right on the mark. But don't you think architects think the same way when they design golf holes? I actually think they do (at least the best ones do) and this variety shows in their designs. And isn't par to some extent the basis for it as that is at least "one" measure they might build around. The par or measure in your case is four :D
If it is "one" measure, I hope it is the least of those measures. As I think all here understand, the creative siting of holes and features and greens with all manner of local and practical decisions ought to overwhelm whatever par of the hole may be "called for" And to the extent that it curtails this creative freedom in emerging design, this holding of par is a negative and a limiter... and that's one answer to Kalen, from his earlier post of "what's the rub, really?"
Another is in the reputation, the regard of treasures we already have, that go unremarked, unappreciated because of their "par" in the zeitgeist of our GCA. There are scores and scores of examples of holes that describe the issue... One is #16 WFW, most often for WF's 100 years encountered as a 450-470 yd "Par 5"...but for the last 80 years played as a "4" in WF's championship/elite hosting (including Andersons)...and now nearly tipped out at near 500 for USGA play. I'll wager many people who have played WFW on this board don't even recall the hole, no less those who just see WF every 7-10 years on TV. And yet, it is perhaps one of Tillie's most enjoyable holes on that magnificent property.
Without detailing its interesting, tantalizing features, I will give you one telling statistic about the hole regardless of its par... and one that speaks to its equanimity as a great hole for all to play regardless of class. It is the No. 18 HCP hole on the course, which, as you know, means that the "bogey" needs the least handicap here to tackle the "scratch"... a figure not derived from its relation to any par, but results of sampled rounds. Whenever did you see a hole of over 460 yards that vexes the scratch and the bogey in the closest terms a great course has... ?
Don't we want more of that? I think removing indy hole pars will speed us to that place.
***One further note, in the final round as he was just about cemented in victory, BDC cut the corner of this 25 degree dogleg left and only had 138 left in... I played WF the day after the Open and I cannot express the grotesque felling of seeing his divot and knowing the hole as I do. But he too, only made 4 on it... just like my tired, weak slashing got me a 4; my truth goes marching on.***
[size=78%]. [/size]
-
VK,
To further your point that Par has unfortunately limited creativity/variety in design: Elie is the course that I have played that comes closest to your 4s concept. 16 Par 4s and 2 Par 3s with holes ranging from 131 to 470 yards. Not even Doak would have the courage to try to sell that to a developer.
Ira
-
Ira,
I have only played Elie once but very much enjoyed it. Was the architect limited by par in his creativity there or did the land best set up for 16 par four holes?
As you know some architects build 18 holes that are all par threes. I was working on one of the best in the world until Covid hit in Bermuda (Turtle Hill GC). The Director of Golf who I was working with has since moved on and who knows what will happen next.
VK,
I know that hole at WF West and played it many times in the past. Do you think par was on Tillinghast's mind when he designed it? If so, is that an example of a hole that needs a tee adjustment if possible to restore his design intent or is it fine as is regardless of what they call par?
-
VK,
To further your point that Par has unfortunately limited creativity/variety in design: Elie is the course that I have played that comes closest to your 4s concept. 16 Par 4s and 2 Par 3s with holes ranging from 131 to 470 yards. Not even Doak would have the courage to try to sell that to a developer.
Ira
Sounds like a fun course. I think those creative limitations are easily seen before any particular course is considered; look around us...
- Do we see many white tee distances between 230 and 280? Truly, consider the paucity of holes all of you play between those yardages, aren't the few you do encounter some of the most fun (I immediately think of NGLA #2, and Fenway #1, WFW #3, WFE #17)
- Do we see anything but a "Par" 3, 4 or 5? Why not have a Par 6? or Par 7? (If you must keep par)... an 800 yard Par 7 might be fun.
- Do we see many holes under 100 yards... under 80 yards....? There used to be a 65 yard hole at a 6100 yard course I played, and it was one of the great caps to an curious but compelling stretch of opening holes:
- A 275 yard opener, straight, flat with no bunkers, that I never made a 2 on
- A 310 yard gentle dogleg right with a tree in the middle of the fairway at 200 out and a wicked green.
- A 450 yard up and over hole that had a punchbowl green at the bottom of a gentle gully
- A 65 yard flick to a fairly big green surrounded by a scraggly thin encircling bunker.
-
Interesting last few posts. I've come around to the notion that, in terms of gca, the imposition of 'par' does indeed impact creativity, ie the process of creation. A short story is written differently than a novel or novella; a one chorus jazz solo develops differently than a three chorus solo. Telling a writer or a jazz musician -- beforehand -- what he *must* write or play instead of letting what wants to be written or played emerge naturally changes everything.
-
VK,
I know that hole at WF West and played it many times in the past. Do you think par was on Tillinghast's mind when he designed it? If so, is that an example of a hole that needs a tee adjustment if possible to restore his design intent or is it fine as is regardless of what they call par?
I wouldn't presume to know, but can only assess the routing was taking him to a place where a longer hole was due... he was such a great architect in every sense. I love all the ODGS and some of NLGs, but Tillie is really special when he is/was on.
It is great still, maybe better today that tech helps a larger class of golfer honestly achieve it in 2 shots; of course my entire argument is that the par has nothing to do with its greatness, though it is a members 5 and a championship 4. It needs no re-design of any sort, except that they may have to provide or plan for what they will do when the massive tree in the left rough which dominates the left side of the green entrance is one day lost. That monumental tree is part (just part) of what equalizes the scratch to the bogey man in determining that 18 HCP.
-
If you don't want to favor one player over another, holes should come in all lengths including 280 and 490, but they shouldn't be bunched in bias toward certain lengths. Honestly I think the lengths that are being ignored now are 170 and 370 and 500, which used to be staples of every course.
I don't know if TD is still on the thread, but I didn't want to ignore this... the variety in yardages (especially the absence of the yardage ranges I discussed in my first contribution) is one of THE defining factors for the course's giving of diverse joy. And I don't think that joy ought to be trammeled by the matching of one of three numbers to the yardage.
I'm not well travelled or up on ongoing design enough to know what yardages are not as well represented. Why does TD (or any of you) feel that is the case, if mostly true.... Why no 170, 370 or 500...
As I think of it now, another longish "Member 5/Chmp 4" (and needs neither in its wonders) on the WF property is #2 East, a dead straight, but rumply beauty that has the most delicious considerations for using one's power to achieve the dynamic green in two, or how to allow for the challenging partial pitches when that is not achieved and the flats afforded to the shorter strategic golfer who lays back for a third. It is darn near a perfect 500 yards of golf that bomber can't get away with miss and gouge and the shorter higher handicap must be on point with his compensations too. Both parties are ultimately equivocated by this amazing green, which has been discussed on these pages... (About 10 years ago in the Anderson, there were dry, heavy winds and the greens were over 12, near 13... the pin was placed in the domed center of this pastry shell and you've never seen more exacting surgical skill needed just to survive).
-
To get distance variance, play the combo tees. I agree that you won't find the variance suggested by playing one set of tee boxes often, but with combo (white/blue for example) I think you can achieve more variety.
-
To get distance variance, play the combo tees. I agree that you won't find the variance suggested by playing one set of tee boxes often, but with combo (white/blue for example) I think you can achieve more variety.
+2!!!
-
Elie is the course that I have played that comes closest to your 4s concept. 16 Par 4s and 2 Par 3s with holes ranging from 131 to 470 yards. Not even Doak would have the courage to try to sell that to a developer.
I often cite Elie (and its more famous older neighbor) as an example that golfers don't really care about how many par-3 or par-5 holes there are. Many do not even notice there are only two short holes there, or only three at Kingston Heath or Woodhall Spa. But can you think of any modern course with less than four par-3's?
-
Tom,
I cannot. And in my post 26, PD is the only Modern course that I have played that breaks the Convention of Par or the Conventions about Par. I am sure that there are others, but I agree with VK and some others that Par does impact architecture for the worse.
Ira
-
Are we sure it isn’t equipment that is more the culprit than par? Also we have to remember speed of play is a big factor as well. Short “drivable” par fours and short par fives tend to back up play. Could that be part of the reason we don’t see more of those?
Some of the hole yardages that have been mentioned I happen to see ALL the time. I just played a Gary Player course two days ago called Dolphin Head and many of the par fours are in the 330-380 range and the par fives are in the 490-520 range and the par threes vary but the best one in my mind is about 170 from the middle tee. They have lots a sets of tees so you can pick where you want.
I have another question for you guys; if for example the middle set of tees on a course has a set of four par three holes all playing at about 160 yards but each hole offers varying tee locations from say 90 yards to 235 yards, is the lack of distance variety because of the hole designs or just because the of the same distance from the middle tee locations? I played a course with a magazine panelist one time and he said to me “all the par threes were the same length”. I said to him, do you realize you can go tee it up 80 yards short of this tee if you want or go behind us 30 yards and tee it back there. He hadn’t really thought of that because he was just looking at where the tees were that day and what was on the card. So is the architect to blame when all those other teeing options are there? I bring this up because yardages for holes (that supposedly some feel aren’t used very often) I find exist almost everywhere (unless you are hung up on the color of tee you are playing). Note: This is one good thing the USGA does when they take a 460 yard hole and move the tee up to 290 yards. At least they aren't hung up on teeing locations. I wonder if the architect cringes when they do this? I doubt it :D Some will say the green wasn't designed to hold a driver. Too bad, deal with it. Its golf!
It was noted about par 6’s and par 7’s etc. They exist, maybe not many, but I think that has to do with long holes can be real slogs and take up a lot more real estate. I mentioned about a 900+ yard hole in Japan. Sounds like fun especially for a high handicap golfer.
We keep talking about golf architect’s creativity being limited by par, etc. How would you like to design tennis courts or baseball fields or rugby pitches or cricket fields or ping ping tables or squash courts or bowling alleys or ice hockey rinks or horse racing tracks or .... Golf offers some of the most varied playing fields of any sport. Architects can and do make holes of almost every length with a infinite variety of challenges and hazards to confront the golfer. If they thought golfers would love 45 yard holes or 850 yard holes someone would be building more of them regardless of this notion of par. Most course owners are golfers too. Mike Keiser thinks out of the box. If he thought par was limiting his architect’s creativity on the properties he presents to them I think he would be the first guy to say, don’t let anything stop you from designing something great. Golf architecture has two fixed attributes that do limit architects - you need a starting points and you need at least one hole. The rest is up to the designer. Just my opinion.
-
But can you think of any modern course with less than four par-3's?
Kapalua Plantation is the only one I know of.
One odd one is the Breakers Ocean Course, which has only 3 par 3s but is on an exceedingly small piece of property that you'd think would be a great excuse for fashioning a course with 5 or 6 par 3s. Of course, it dates back to around 1900 and though it's been renovated a couple times in the last quarter-century I don't know that that makes it a "modern" course.
Re: combo tees, I'd beware of regarding them as a solution for golfers looking for variety. When I scan the scorecard of a course with combo tees listed, it's often the case that the shorter tee gets used on the longer holes and the longer tee gets used on the shorter holes, which of course yields a course with even less variety than before. I'm sure some courses do it more the opposite (i.e. correct) way, but I haven't encountered a lot of them.
Very interesting point about holes in the 170-, 370- and 500-yard range being neglected. Going to spend the rest of the day thinking about my favorite holes of those lengths...
-
Do not leave the fox hole Peter...there is no denying that the Par identifier matters to the player and that it is also the architects best tool if they want to use it.
This is the force that pulls every golfer to their personal edge. In the old days when Par was an aspirational round for the best players, it relied on Bogey to keep lesser players engaged. These days, lesser players remember their occasional pars for weeks and the best players take on all sorts of risk to avoid losing a stroke to par. Nobody counts in 4's, except when they're adding up their scorecard...and nobody remembers the last 4 they made on a 150 yard hole.
Now...to those in-between holes Tom laments not building. All I can ask is, why not?
Seeing Tim Gavrich just posting...agree 100% on the Combo Tees. They seem to be anti-variety...
-
Jim and Tim,
Surprised about your comment on the combo tees being anti variety. We often play a game where we rotate taking turns selecting which tees we will play from hole to hole which is basically what combo tees are (mixing it up). By the way, we don’t change the par when someone selects to play a 530 yard par five from the 410 yard tee markers. It is fun to see the added pressure when you have a match going with $20 Eagles and $5 birdies,...
Correct me if I am wrong but when most architects are designing golf holes, aren’t they thinking about how they will be played by different golfers? Isn’t that often how and where many hazards get placed and or located. Take a blank canvas like C&C had at Talking Stick. Basically just flat desert. How did they decide what to build? I am willing to bet they thought about who was going to play there and how the holes they designed would be played. That is all par is. It is a cumulative assessment of how a certain level of golfer will play a hole. I think the reason there are more par four holes is many architects think they are the best kind of holes to build. Par threes are good too but often fill gaps. And par fives are tough to build and to make interesting for a wide range of golfers. The longer the hole the tougher to design which is also why we don’t see more par 6s and par 7s. They also take up more real estate. I would love to talk to an architect who could care less how a hole is played or designs a hole without any regard to how it might or will be played. This is where par or that expected score comes into play.
-
Mark - Tim referenced the Combo tees on scorecards developed by someone (the Pro or the Golf Committee). The ones I have seen do what Tim said.
Your suggestion is good, and a fun way to play on occasion and it essentially emulates the courses that have no tee markers (or maybe those courses emulate this type of play).
Along these lines, there's a rumor that when Jerry Kelly moved to Florida to pursue a career as a professional golfer, he was a long way from the player that made nearly $40M on Tour. Bill Davis apparently told him to play the very front tees every round until he was comfortable making 9 birdies a round...then move back a set and repeat...and do so until he got back to the back tees. I believe Kelly referenced this as the primary reason he became a successful player on Tour.
-
Jim - neat story. We all remember as kids being told by teachers that if we cheated on a test we were 'only cheating ourselves'. None of us could ever really understand what that meant. But golfers know. I think that, in terms of the game, the concept of par is older than Adam. If we try to fudge it (by cheating) or ignore it, we're only cheating ourselves out of one of golf's great pleasures. In terms of architecture, however, I think the concept of par works in the completely opposite way -- ie it cheats the designer out of the complete freedom to create a golf hole in all its potential glory. As per my last analogy: if you tell a musician beforehand that he only has 1 minute for his solo instead of 2 or 3 or 10, he immediately -- if unconsciously -- starts restricting himself. Neither he nor we will ever know what he might have produced without that 'pre existing condition'. It might still have been a 1 minute solo, but if so it would be that naturally, not artificially.
-
Jim,
Great idea about playing the shorter tees. I do it from time to time and it is fun.
Peter,
Using my Talking Stick example of a blank canvas like C&C had to work with. How did par hinder them and their design? I realize 18 holes is a constraint (we don't see too many 15 hole courses) but par is just par. Let me ask you this, how was C&C constrained when they designed and built the 13 hole Preserve course at Bandon Dunes?
-
Peter,
Sure...it starts with the basic convention of the number of holes to play. Add in the desire to compete across the fields and golf, for the architect is wholly different than music, for the musician.
The instances where an architect can build a course and then hope someone will use it are so few that they illustrate the difference. It would seem to me (although you'll know exponentially better) that the majority of songs are created and then found to be viable or not. "Viable" could mean marketable...released...or listened to.
This thread seems to want to go down the road that if an architect were given 100% free reign over a project/property they would build something substantially different than what we see in their other courses and I flat out don't believe that. It's a fantasy.
What would be the greatest example of freedom we've yet seen in GCA? Wolf Point? Shadow Creek? Sand Hills? Pine Valley? Sheep Ranch? TOC? All are widely praised, but are certainly not transformative in the context of liberating us from convention. Would they be worse or better if the architect did not feel constrained by the notion of one, two or three shot holes? I doubt it and truly hope not. I assume these are among the highest expressions of the art.
-
Jim,
Well stated :D
-
Jim, Mark - you raise a key point. All I can do (in answer) is to make myself clearer: I'd be the first to say that all architects follow/honour a clear set of design 'conventions', and always have -- it's what makes the game the game and ensures that golf courses serve as golf courses. The art-craft of gca has all manner of restrictions, both external and self imposed. The music/writing analogies are not ideal ones, or even very good ones. But they are meant to raise this notion: that the concept of par is *one more* restriction, and that if an architect stands on a mound of dirt and looks out at another mound of dirt 220 yards away and says 'I need a Par 3 hole here', that sentiment will 'cascade' into a whole series of choices that might well have been otherwise. We'll never know.
-
Jim - neat story. We all remember as kids being told by teachers that if we cheated on a test we were 'only cheating ourselves'. None of us could ever really understand what that meant. But golfers know. I think that, in terms of the game, the concept of par is older than Adam. If we try to fudge it (by cheating) or ignore it, we're only cheating ourselves out of one of the great pleasures of the game. In terms of architecture, however, I think the concept of par works in the completely opposite way -- ie it cheats the designer out of the complete freedom to create a golf hole, any and all golf holes, in all its potential glory. As per my last analogy: if you tell a musician beforehand that he only has 1 minute for his solo instead of 2 or 3 or 10, he immediately -- if unconsciously -- starts restricting himself. Neither he nor we will ever know what he might have produced without that 'pre existing condition'. It might still have been a 1 minute solo, but if so it would be that naturally, not artificially.
I think that analogy is pretty close, but how it's influencing "current/immediate future" design is only one part of the impact; I think it also influences our "regard" of design already there (almost the entire de facto mission statement of this board and our interest in it)... I think some really fine, fine holes on very fine fine courses are ignored, not modeled, not appreciated because of that par assignment.
I do want to remark about Jim's last post, now that I see it, in that I see he used the language of "one shot, two shot and three shot holes" which is crib for "arriving on the green" as opposed to 3, 4, 5 Par, which is the ultimate score one will/ought to achieve on the hole... evenso, that doesn't have to go away from an architect's intent as he or she plans for the range of golfers that will experience the course... In my scheme, a 600 yard hole, without a par assignment is still designed and mostly played as a "three shot" hole; it simply means that it is a difficult and long "4," probably the most difficult four on the entire course, but balanced in its "difficulty" by other shorter holes, like a 110 yard hazardless hole, that might be the easiest 4 on the course...with all the other holes, we stand to obtain a diverse experience across play... doesn't mean we will, just means we might...this round...or the next... or for the next guy who plays.
I wish to make some responses to Mark and other interim posts in light of what's been already said and proposed...about slow play considerations...about combo/multi tees...about design intents... but I've already used enough thread oxygen to get out my own point. But unless some feels its valuable to continue publicly, I'll let you message me, and otherwise end with this general statement.
I think removing/de-coupling an individual hole par is something "easy" and lo-disruption for breathing life into the challenges of contemporary GCA, both building and assessing it critically. In design and building, it may lead to greater variety and innovation in the types of holes we encounter and what recreational joys it offers to the main tackles of the sport. In assessment, it may help us realize some fundamental things about what makes a golf hole "worthy" no matter what it's yardage or particular features. (I'm also searching for that Clement Greenberg "fundamental" of what something/art is)
I don't offer it as a cure-all nor something that has to be adopted with fascist adherence; we can still locally (and on TV) keep the familiar adjuncts/language sense of a hole's par and that holes place in a scheme of 18.
I think the basics of golf design and our historic experience cast 4 as a competent (not excelling or matched to a scratch standard, just competent) "par" score for any hole and 72 as a competent, skillful score for the navigation for most any 18 hole course. I've put those two observations to anecdotal and physical experience tests and they can stand as true.... This makes me say this interim closing piece:
That While Individual Hole Par May Make a Difference to How ONE's think about OWN fortune; it is inanimate and voiceless as to whether or not the hole, the architecture, is a good hole, soundly designed, fun, memorable, challenging and consensus-gathering among cognoscenti. All of the great holes and the courses they appear on, which we discuss, are impervious to what their own Par is... 10 at Riviera is not better or worse because it's a 3, 4, 5, 6 on the card; it is a good hole, period... so it is for thousands of holes hi or lo.
-
VK,
Great post and thanks for taking the time. Like many things in GCA, there is sometimes no right answer.
I do want to reference your last line about #10 at Riviera. It is one of my favorite holes in golf and have been fortunate to play it several times. As you said it is a good (I think great) hole regardless of the par it is given and as you said it not better or worse for it. But I am also convinced that when Thomas built that hole he knew that some golfers would play it different ways and treat it as a par 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 and I don't think he cared. I also don't believe the concept of par hindered what he designed. Do you?
-
Mark,
I am willing to bet that whenever you have pitched to do an 18 hole design that you did not offer one with a Par less than 70 or more than 73 or one with more than four Par 3s or less than three Par 5s. And that is not a criticism. You would not be alone. Which is my point: the Convention about Par is the kind of constraint that Peter identifies.
Ira
-
Ira,
Isn't the real "constraint" the 18 holes? Given the most popular golf hole is probably a par 4 if you have 18 of them you end up with par 72. If you replace a few with some par threes and some par fives you will end up in the same par range as you suggested. Months ago I proposed an 18 hole course composed of 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives that I think could be set up to challenge even the best golfers in the world and only be 6400 yards long. Of course it is unconventional but it is one idea. Maybe the total par is holding ideas like that back but then again, most architects think two shot holes (par fours) are the best kind of holes so there are usually more of them.
-
VK,
Great post and thanks for taking the time. Like many things in GCA, there is sometimes no right answer.
I do want to reference your last line about #10 at Riviera. It is one of my favorite holes in golf and have been fortunate to play it several times. As you said it is a good (I think great) hole regardless of the par it is given and as you said it not better or worse for it. But I am also convinced that when Thomas built that hole he knew that some golfers would play it different ways and treat it as a par 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 and I don't think he cared. I also don't believe the concept of par hindered what he designed. Do you?
First, yes, no "right" answer... but in my belief, an answer we haven't tried since scorecards and tee signs and post Gutty golf has been played. (When's the first time the classic UK courses first introduced scorecards with yardages and pars - I do not know; I've never seen a scorecard from before 1897)..
Second, I don't for a second surmise Thomas (or any architect) has been actively aware of that par balance/nomenclature in the guts of designing a hole in the way we're speaking, but remember that superb hole (which I had my only play 20 years ago next week) isn't designed in a vacuum, unto itself... Thomas could very well be aware of what his total course is like, perhaps knowing what he intends for that piece of the routing or that he is lacking (on that course) many an experience in the 300-350 range; who knows if other routing and facility choices would have made him put something else there.
A last hole of emphasis on that same course (which I think is the best in America; there I said it), which draws out precisely what I mean is the very first hole. It gets shit on every year by this well-informed board, because they see the pros hit 6, 7 and 8 irons and make exciting 3s, loads of 4s and rather disappointing, tap in 5s... they see it be a "fairly" standard 4 on TV and I've seen all sorts of "change the par" to a 4 and the course to a 70, as if it that would cure the deficiency. I tell you that's a wonderful 500 yard hole for 99% of us...even better as an opener, stirring and frightening in its suggestion of dead center accuracy, but yet with generous playing corridor befitting an opener... It's a challenging, inspiring, difficult "4" for most of us, but more importantly it is a fine 500 yards of golf that will reward the power besotted man and the short player well for control of their abilities. But yet since we see the pros tear it up as a Par 5, it takes on the reputation of antiquated, or chinzy as if Thomas lost his mind for a moment designing the opener of the most well-regarded courses in the world...when we want to alter that, I know that par ought to be given a break for a while.
-
VK,
Again you make good points. Par is a fascinating subject and this has been an interesting discussion. Thanks to all for chiming in.
-
A last hole of emphasis on that same course (which I think is the best in America; there I said it), which draws out precisely what I mean is the very first hole. It gets shit on every year by this well-informed board, because they see the pros hit 6, 7 and 8 irons and make exciting 3s, loads of 4s and rather disappointing, tap in 5s... they see it be a "fairly" standard 4 on TV and I've seen all sorts of "change the par" to a 4 and the course to a 70, as if it that would cure the deficiency. I tell you that's a wonderful 500 yard hole for 99% of us...even better as an opener, stirring and frightening in its suggestion of dead center accuracy, but yet with generous playing corridor befitting an opener... It's a challenging, inspiring, difficult "4" for most of us, but more importantly it is a fine 500 yards of golf that will reward the power besotted man and the short player well for control of their abilities. But yet since we see the pros tear it up as a Par 5, it takes on the reputation of antiquated, or chinzy as if Thomas lost his mind for a moment designing the opener of the most well-regarded courses in the world...when we want to alter that, I know that par ought to be given a break for a while.
This is a good paragraph VK. I'll expand on the sentiment with an interesting story exactly on this theme.
I play my golf at Lulu, just outside of Philadelphia. A good Donald Ross course. Not his best, but a very enjoyable place to play. Over these several years I've gained more and more appreciation for his use of subtle angles to create challenge and interest on, what is today, a short course.
The first hole is about 475 from the back tees and is listed as a par 5 on the scorecard and fits my definition of a half-par hole to a T. There is a bunker protecting the left corner that's about 250 carry (again, from the back tees). From there, the hole turns to the left and goes uphill maybe 20-25 feet to the green. The terrain itself provides visual obstruction to seeing the green and surrounds if you're 175 - 225 out and hoping to hit the green. Importantly, there is also a brilliantly placed approach bunker about 30 - 40 yards short. This bunker really forces you to hit the fairway so it's not in play for the second shot but it also works to virtually hide the entire flagstick from view. This is through the eyes of anyone hitting the ball 230 - 280 in my opinion. Longer players don't worry about it and shorter players have two comfortable shots and an 80 yard pitch. To me, every other feature on the hole is superfluous but the approach bunker makes the hole good and interesting.
A few years ago I was walking up the hole with a buddy who asked what I thought about changing the hole from 5 to 4 on the card. It would give the course more teeth and reduce the total par to 70 which is fine. I said, if that was the goal at our 6,400 yard course, fine but asked what else he would do. He said he would want to take out that bunker because "you can't have a blind approach on a 475 par 4!" What's the MasterCard slogan? Priceless...
At which point I objected and let him know what I thought of that bunker.
Now, what does that mean in this conversation? To me, I'll play more aggressively in an attempt to make a birdie than a par. If it's a par 4 and I hit a poor drive, I'll lay up and hope to get up and down for 4 and be content with a bogey. As a par 5, I have to be stone dead to lay up because if I can just get it over that bunker I have a great chance to make a birdie.
-
Mark,
I am willing to bet that whenever you have pitched to do an 18 hole design that you did not offer one with a Par less than 70 or more than 73 or one with more than four Par 3s or less than three Par 5s. And that is not a criticism. You would not be alone. Which is my point: the Convention about Par is the kind of constraint that Peter identifies.
Ira
Mark,
Good for you to go so outside of the box with that proposal. The fact that the developer did not pursue it though might be evidence about the point about the Convention of Par being a constraint on design.
Ira
-
The first hole is about 475 from the back tees and is listed as a par 5 on the scorecard and fits my definition of a half-par hole to a T. There is a bunker protecting the left corner that's about 250 carry (again, from the back tees). From there, the hole turns to the left and goes uphill maybe 20-25 feet to the green. The terrain itself provides visual obstruction to seeing the green and surrounds if you're 175 - 225 out and hoping to hit the green. Importantly, there is also a brilliantly placed approach bunker about 30 - 40 yards short. This bunker really forces you to hit the fairway so it's not in play for the second shot but it also works to virtually hide the entire flagstick from view. This is through the eyes of anyone hitting the ball 230 - 280 in my opinion. Longer players don't worry about it and shorter players have two comfortable shots and an 80 yard pitch. To me, every other feature on the hole is superfluous but the approach bunker makes the hole good and interesting.
A few years ago I was walking up the hole with a buddy who asked what I thought about changing the hole from 5 to 4 on the card. It would give the course more teeth and reduce the total par to 70 which is fine. I said, if that was the goal at our 6,400 yard course, fine but asked what else he would do. He said he would want to take out that bunker because "you can't have a blind approach on a 475 par 4!" What's the MasterCard slogan? Priceless...
At which point I objected and let him know what I thought of that bunker.
Now, what does that mean in this conversation? To me, I'll play more aggressively in an attempt to make a birdie than a par. If it's a par 4 and I hit a poor drive, I'll lay up and hope to get up and down for 4 and be content with a bogey. As a par 5, I have to be stone dead to lay up because if I can just get it over that bunker I have a great chance to make a birdie.
Jim, an apt tale in this context...as I think of it now, there are more than a few sub 500/"half par" holes that start some interesting courses and one 265 yard hole (Fenway) that also does.
But I mainly want to respond to your last paragraph (how you play it); I emphasize that in my no-hole par world, you and your friends and your history and a TV commentator do not have to abandon their traditional nomenclature... I just think stating the yardage and saying "Have at it" will elicit and enhance all the features of your description of the hole in the first paragraph I quoted here....and you make a sound final point, as "no par" tends to dampen that which would have people remove wonderful features (or add penal ones) because they don't appear to fit in some inscrutable idea of rigor pinned to a yardage, pinned to a number.
Isn't it interesting to contemplate, that blindness is less "unfair" when there's no par, that the meanest (but fun and memorable) two shot pit you might encounter is acceptable on a 265 yard hole with no par... That a featureless, straight, slightly downhill wide open hole of 480 yards with F/F conditions and a mild green (I'm thinking #10 Mohansic) is as nearly legitimate a potential for 2,3,4,5,6,7...J, Q, K, (lol, Peter Alliss) as is a 130 yard hole with complications, such as 17 Sawgrass. All of the sudden, just in perspective, the shots and offerings are just the shots and the offerings, judge them and tackle them as you will... (for me, it takes on the "playing" character of simply knowing that 4 will be a good score on any hole, the rest will take care of it itself in relation).
Lastly Jim, your story about Jerry Kelly registers to the extent I think he stole it from me, as I've been needling the members of the clubs I serve/served over 40 years when they negotiate affairs on the putting green, what tees to play, etc. I've told them repeatedly, that you can't leave the reds (5700) until you shoot 72 from the reds, you can't leave the whites (6250) until you've made an attested 4 on every hole, and you can't leave the blues (6550) unless you've broken 80 from the blues... and if you play the blacks, I get paid double.
-
Well, now that this thread has devolved into a few people posting repeatedly, I can report my count of the good vs. bad tally.
Good 6
Bad 8 (Ally posted his response on the match vs medal thread.
The count may not be entirely accurate, as some posters were not hugely specific, and I had to ascertain to the best of my ability what they were intending. Others were so unspecific, I did not count them in the total.
In the match play vs. medal play thread, we have a much more definitive answer.
Match 13
Medal 0
And, one poster who said good things about both, so perhaps we call that a draw.
Since this very scientific poll (NOT) says definitively (?) that everyone should ;) be playing match play, it begs the question what the heck is par good for? Or, as V.K. says remove it from the score card. I.e., let it be a concept, or challenge that each individual might expect for him/herself.
-
Garland,
What would be interesting to see is a poll about par from golfers with different handicaps? We might think that the lower the handicap the more they value par but I am not sure. As I said it would be interesting.
However, how par has influenced GCA is another matter. Don't most sports have "standards of measurement" including their playing fields. Is there any reason golf should be that different? I think it still is more than most. 18 holes is probably a bigger constraint but as much as I love golf I don't think I would love playing a 47 hole golf course (even if it were in match play) :D Plus those last few holes would probably rarely if ever see a golfer play them :o
-
Playing 47 holes for a match might be something you would or could do at the Himalayas. But, if you have noticed, I am saying that I don't need classifications of 1, 2, and 3 shot holes. What does that leave? The possibilities of 4 and 5 shot holes (and more). So instead of 47 holes, I would be more in favor of 12 holes. Some of them would be 4, and possibly 5 shot holes for scratch golfers. 4, 5, and 6 or more shot holes for non scratch golfers. But in reality, if you are playing match play, no one really cares if they are 6 shot holes, as par and birdie are not the object. In fact, the greatest golf lovers are those that have been playing 6 shot holes on our current courses, because they have been ardently pursuing this sport even while the sport has been telling them they suck at it! So, thank you ladies! We really appreciate your great love for our favorite game.
-
Garland,
Isn’t the last thing golf needs is a six shot hole that plays as 12 shots for those golfers who you talked about :o
That is why I am such a strong advocate for more shorter tees and call par what you want :D
-
Garland,
Isn’t the last thing golf needs is a six shot hole that plays as 12 shots for those golfers who you talked about :o
That is why I am such a strong advocate for more shorter tees and call par what you want :D
Golfers love hitting golf balls. Go to a driving range, and get a 40 ball bucket. Isn't that a 40 shot holeless hole?
You really need to divorce yourself from John Low and his bonkers academic analysis that produced the bogus 1,2,3 shot hole theory. ;)
Why can't a properly handicapped weak woman player play a match against a properly handicapped strong woman player on long holes, and be interestingly competitive? It may require some improvement in handicapping technique, but should be doable!
-
So the reason for par and course rating/slope is to get golfers a handicap index so they can play against anyone else. Outside of that you can go to any course and make a bet. Without that baseline (as manipulated as it maybe for some), I don't see how anything else can be more accurate for one to play another.
-
So the reason for par and course rating/slope is to get golfers a handicap index so they can play against anyone else. Outside of that you can go to any course and make a bet. Without that baseline (as manipulated as it maybe for some), I don't see how anything else can be more accurate for one to play another.
How does individual hole/course par have to do with course rating or slope or the hcp holes or the players' hcps?
-
So the reason for par and course rating/slope is to get golfers a handicap index so they can play against anyone else. Outside of that you can go to any course and make a bet. Without that baseline (as manipulated as it maybe for some), I don't see how anything else can be more accurate for one to play another.
How does individual hole/course par have to do with course rating or slope or the hcp holes or the players' hcps?
Your score for the day gives you a differential using your index, if you don't have the course par score how can you calculate the differential?
-
So the reason for par and course rating/slope is to get golfers a handicap index so they can play against anyone else. Outside of that you can go to any course and make a bet. Without that baseline (as manipulated as it maybe for some), I don't see how anything else can be more accurate for one to play another.
How does individual hole/course par have to do with course rating or slope or the hcp holes or the players' hcps?
Your score for the day gives you a differential using your index, if you don't have the course par score how can you calculate the differential?
Very easy! Par is not part of the calculation, so it is completely irrelevant.
-
So the reason for par and course rating/slope is to get golfers a handicap index so they can play against anyone else. Outside of that you can go to any course and make a bet. Without that baseline (as manipulated as it maybe for some), I don't see how anything else can be more accurate for one to play another.
How does individual hole/course par have to do with course rating or slope or the hcp holes or the players' hcps?
Your score for the day gives you a differential using your index, if you don't have the course par score how can you calculate the differential?
Very easy! Par is not part of the calculation, so it is completely irrelevant.
Then let's get rid of it already! Where is the petition?????
-
Guys,
How is a course rating or slope rating different from Par? I must be dense to not understand.
If a golf course only consisted of ONE hole how would you rate it for handicap purposes? Wouldn’t that rating essentially be its par? Isn’t it no different for a two hole course or an 18 hole course? When I see a course rating of 76.4 from the back tees I consider 76.4 as par for the course! That 76.4 gets divided up over the 18 holes so they each have a rating and that rating is their par. What am I missing?
-
WHAT???
How does a hole rating of, say, 4.2 instruct anything?
Too funny...
Garland, was Mark one of your Goods or Bads? Ha
-
Jim,
How do you interpret a course rating of say 69 or 76.3,...? I interpret that as par for the 18 (or what a scratch golfer is expected to shoot from those tees. Is that wrong?
-
Guys,
How is a course rating or slope rating different from Par? I must be dense to not understand.
...
For one thing, it's not listed for each hole on the score card, thereby suiting VK's criteria for what to do with par. ;)
-
Garland, how does that suit VK's approach?
The hard 4 easy 4 concept is fine, but just a mutated version of par. What could be the point of thinking of a 600 yard hole in relation to 4? His method is purely a scoring tracker that would have the same mental/emotional impact that I'm suggesting the actual par numbers has...but with several holes per round that become irrelevant.
Mark, I think this is where half par holes can help...both over and under half.
If the hole by hole rating were somehow posted, that would simply tell you which holes are viewed as more difficult than others but doesn't advise on a place to take risks versus being conservative...and I'd be shocked if there were ever a hole rated as substantially under par.
-
Jim,
I understand that each hole's individual rating is not listed on the card but each hole's individual rating is how the total rating gets tallied. A 76.1 rating for 18 holes is a tally of the rating for all the individual holes. Most of us can figure out approximately what each hole's rating is (just like when you assign your own 1/2 pars to certain holes). There is NEVER a 1/2 par on the scorecard but we all know which ones are. Par is an expected score for a scratch golfer which is what a course rating is. What is the difference? If you play what you call a par 4 1/2 twice and score a 5 and a 4, you have achieved your expected par score for that hole. The course rating for your par 4 1/2 hole might be similar.
-
I think that the difference between a long four and a short five or three shotter is some challenge in the layup area. If there is a challenge like a bunker or some natural hazard it’s a par five.
-
Mike,
Perhaps criteria was a poor choice of words. I was just referring to his advocacy of taking hole pars off the card.
-
Mark, do you think there are any holes that rate under par?
Standing on the tee of the 7th at Rolling Green, I am expecting to make a 4 if I hit all good shots. On #9, I know I have to hit all good shots to make a 5.
-
Jim,
Yes, many courses are rated under par just like a par 72 course that has a 69.7 course rating.
-
Some variation of rating golf courses' difficulty is necessary in order to assign handicaps. Could that be done without giving individual holes a "par"? Sure.
Why doesn't someone do that? Build a golf course. Give it a rating and a slope. Refuse to assign par to any of the holes.
Am I missing something here? I very well may be.
People would absolutely play that course and very quickly would get over the "novelty" of the course not having holes assigned a "par."
-
Again all par is is somebody putting on a scorecard the expected score for a scratch player. I’m sure Garland has expected pars for the holes he plays. If we put those expected scores on a scorecard we could call them Garland’s pars for these holes :-).
-
Again all par is is somebody putting on a scorecard the expected score for a scratch player. I’m sure Garland has expected pars for the holes he plays. If we put those expected scores on a scorecard we could call them Garland’s pars for these holes :-).
I don't even remember my scores on holes. I remember the match status. The former accountant who keeps the card gives me a number for posting at the end.
-
Garland,
What do you do when you don’t have a match, not play? Do you bring someone to count your strokes so you can post your score for your handicap for when you do have matches?
-
Garland,
What do you do when you don’t have a match, not play? Do you bring someone to count your strokes so you can post your score for your handicap for when you do have matches?
You are not allowed to post when you play by yourself.
If I end up by myself, I practice some chipping and putting at some greens so I am not breathing down the necks of the group in front. Also, might rehit when I muff a shot.
-
Just to re-state, my main rail is...
1. Simply remove individual hole par from the card, without comment.
2. The "fours" thing is just my own idea, an analysis of how I approach the nature of golf holes, if it bears on how the world can think about their playing golf or GCA, mores the better.
3. The current course rating/slope/handicap/hole handicap are not based on "Par" in any sense:
- there's a 10-12 element criteria the USGA directs to be used per hole
- the tally of those 18 different "criteria scores" makes the course rating
- Slope considers the 0 vs the 18 hcp...
- ...As does the hole's HCP rank
Par has nothing to do with any of these important "Play Establishment" numbers.
-
Garland,
I just played today as a single with three guys I got paired up with and didn't know. We didn't have a match. Can I post my score? Also what do you post if you play a match and you close out your opponent after 13 holes?
VK,
You can answer the same above question I posed to Garland. What and how do I post my score?
Also, if a made a 7 on one of the holes can I post it or must I adjust it?
-
Garland,
I just played today as a single with three guys I got paired up with and didn't know. We didn't have a match. Can I post my score? Also what do you post if you play a match and you close out your opponent after 13 holes?
VK,
You can answer the same above question I posed to Garland. What and how do I post my score?
Also, if a made a 7 on one of the holes can I post it or must I adjust it?
Mark, this is only my current understanding, because things have changed some in the last 12 years
1. An attested card ought to be acceptable for putting in the score, whether you played a match or not.
2. I believe the cutoff line for creating an unfinished 18 hole or 9 hole postable score IS indeed at 13 holes, you would add the number of shots remaining on the card (by HCP)... "Add them to what?" yes, the remaining par (which might recommend that you need par for this purpose... but since we're talking about 5 holes, I'll bet it's safe to say that there are 19-20-21 "par" shots remaining in the round...I think we can figure it out).
3. i thought ESC was clear on this... if you're HCP is 0 to _____ you take a 6 for an unfinished hole.... if you're hcp is _____ to ____ you can take no more than 7 on any hole; if you're hcp is over that you take no more than 8....
-
VK,
The maximum number of strokes a single digit handicap player can take is net double bogie. What is a net double bogey if there is no par?
I think par is needed for handicapping? Someone who knows more than me about this can comment.
I will say though that while I do think par has a role I can emphasize why some don’t think it is important. Many of you have done a good job of convincing me why. I am still wavering about how it hinders design.
-
Garland,
I just played today as a single with three guys I got paired up with and didn't know. We didn't have a match. Can I post my score? Also what do you post if you play a match and you close out your opponent after 13 holes?
...
Why don't you just read the handicap manual? Seems to me that if you are using the handicap services of the USGA you should be responsible for adhering to their regulations.
-
VK,
The maximum number of strokes a single digit handicap player can take is net double bogie. What is a net double bogey if there is no par?
I think par is needed for handicapping? Someone who knows more than me about this can comment.
A. In all things, I'm hoping that good sense applies in that I expect the administration and players of a course to understand the translation of nomenclature like double bogey to the honest reporting of an ESC limited pickup score. I don't see the minute controversy over whether an X on a hole should be recorded as a 5, 6, 7 or 8 lasting long into the Grill room, the committee room or the board room. Anyone who sticks to their guns in that argument, "because there is 'no par' to establish my ESC X-pickups," will quickly find:
- he or she will get the score they want... "go ahead, give yourself two 7s"
- their next partners will know what to get square on the first tee
- or their partner opportunities will dwindle.
- or they oughtn't to be so petty, trying to get an edge, against the herd
B. Even so, if this is truly an identified "need," it is for one portioned aspect (ESC) of player handicapping, not course rating or hole handicapping... and it is marginal, infinitesimal in application towards what we want...honest handicaps and how they are established. Consider:
- this is about about the X+1/-1 reported score of a pickup hole in a match round
- Which is/are in a sea of one's 20 best 18 scores...
- Averaged...
- and applied at .92%(?) to derive an index
- which will be used at different courses/ratings/terms of play
C. And if still rankling, abusable the proportionate remedy of which could include:
- the creation of an ESC "par" for each hole... (probably identical to the older card pars)
- posted, like rating/HCP conversion charts are, near the first tee and the HCP entry in the shop
- which would be readily known/anecdotally by that club's citizens
D. If it deemed to be a larger problem, beyond local remedy, it still could be addressed by:
- the evolution of ESC language to turn away from "double bogey" to a hard number, according to handicap class. 0 -9 HCP = 6 max any hole, 10-21 = 6 max any hole+1 off the green, 22 - 36 = 7 any hole +2 off green.
- to distinguish ESC scores "pickups OFF the green" from "pickups" ON the green, still for handicap class.
But I think the latter remedies would be an increasing complication to treat a minor, easily established local matter...and all this gets away from the origins of the GCA questions/principles I say are at issue.
-
VK and Garland,
You guys obviously want to get rid of par. I may have missed this but are you ok with keeping course ratings and slope ratings? I trust you do agree we need some way to measure hole and course differences and difficulty to determine handicaps?
-
Absolutely...
As rating is derived as a cumulative 18 hole number from a 10/12 pt criteria per hole, not any par... and Slope as well as hole HCP are derived by the differential impact from scratch to 18... they are absolutely untainted and unaffected by a hole par.
Your (rightful) mention of ESC in establishing player handicap is perhaps that only area where a newer organic sense/nomenclature will have to companion stripping the holes of individual par.
-
Your (rightful) mention of ESC in establishing player handicap is perhaps that only area where a newer organic sense/nomenclature will have to companion stripping the holes of individual par.
Yes the ESC is needed, but not just to establish, to maintain your handicap. Unfinished holes as Mark pointed out.
Another I just thought of is how do you play a Stableford without par?
-
But Jeff, you must concede that the worries about ESC are minute and easily, locally quelled... and as to Stableford, as I mentioned for ESC, there can simply be posted a chart which describes the par for these special purposes...
I'm not assailing the question, but on a big world view, what percentage of golf is being played on a Stableford basis. Outside of a few one-off occasions, I've just about not seen it in 40 years immersed in golf.... Would it really be that hard or controversial to have a back up par...
And, why can;t Stableford change ITS nomenclature/schema? Why can't:
A score of -
1 = 7 pts
2 = 6 pts
3= 5 pts
4 = 4 pts
5 = 3 pts
6 = 2 pts
7 = 1 pts
8+ = 0 pts... or some such?
Just the same, I return to the idea that Stableford isn't so ubiquitous that it couldn't bear its arrangement locally for those who wish to play at one of my courses that doesn't have a hole par. I promise I'll make a chart for your game, if you come.
-
But Jeff, you must concede that the worries about ESC are minute and easily, locally quelled... and as to Stableford, as I mentioned for ESC, there can simply be posted a chart which describes the par for these special purposes...
I'm not assailing the question, but on a big world view, what percentage of golf is being played on a Stableford basis. Outside of a few one-off occasions, I've just about not seen it in 40 years immersed in golf.... Would it really be that hard or controversial to have a back up par...
And, why can;t Stableford change ITS nomenclature/schema? Why can't:
A score of -
1 = 7 pts
2 = 6 pts
3= 5 pts
4 = 4 pts
5 = 3 pts
6 = 2 pts
7 = 1 pts
8+ = 0 pts... or some such?
Just the same, I return to the idea that Stableford isn't so ubiquitous that it couldn't bear its arrangement locally for those who wish to play at one of my courses that doesn't have a hole par. I promise I'll make a chart for your game, if you come.
I agree that our examination of why par is needed is prime is not central, but on the fringe. However, from a golf point of view having the terms of birdie, par, bogey are so synonymous with the game, is removing them in it's best interest? When I was young I remember getting my first birdie on a par 3. To change the culture of the game to remove par do you think that would lose some cache from its historical roots? I see the benefits of removing par, but from a historical point of view I see a little less luster in it's appeal. Which side wins, is not 100% clear as there are pluses and minuses without a clear winner IMO. Thus, it is fun to examine the topic certainly. You and Garland's argument is strong.
-
I agree that our examination of why par is needed is prime is not central, but on the fringe. However, from a golf point of view having the terms of birdie, par, bogey are so synonymous with the game, is removing them in it's best interest? When I was young I remember getting my first birdie on a par 3. To change the culture of the game to remove par do you think that would lose some cache from its historical roots? I see the benefits of removing par, but from a historical point of view I see a little less luster in it's appeal. Which side wins, is not 100% clear as there are pluses and minuses without a clear winner IMO. Thus, it is fun to examine the topic certainly. You and Garland's argument is strong.
I have to stress that I do not think that such a thing needs complete obliteration of our familiar nomenclature and historic appeal. I think those things (TV, local terminology) will come last in our cultural adoption, way down the line after many new courses adopt the policy, after older courses finally give it a try... I also re-stress that there's not any one of you I could plop out there that won't see any yardage of hole and know what to call a birdie or an eagle or a bogey.
But it's the easiest f'n, lo-cost thing to re-vitalize, re-essentialize our practice and regard of GCA in the face of an era where the trade and the art have so many pressures... from technology and too many years of elite Tour leadership, to economics and markets, to a need for sustainable land, water and labor practices that result in beautiful, amusing and broadly accommodating courses for quick, enjoyable diverse play.
I've said "lastly," in this thread 346 f'n times (sorry) but, lastly, isn't this no par program a honest return to the the fundamental thing you're doing when you golf a hole, and appreciating it unto itself? You're just looking ahead, matching a yardage to that view, remembering previous plays, watching opponents and fellow competitors play it, assessing it all through your imperfect predictions of imperfect swing, wind, lie, stance...that day's feeling, the feeling of the last hole, what you're going to have for a meal later... Doesn't a lot of the nonsense about what you can't and can do, how you ought or ought not play it, how good or not good it is... go away when you take off par... the nettlign debates about fairness of a bunker or blindness are dampened when they are not cast against the par of the hole.
And lastly, (348), I want to see a slew of 240 - 280 yard holes made; the more I go on, the more I see that this almost-absent class of yardages are frequently the best holes on the courses where they appear. That goes for first class joints, like Blind Brook (5) WFE (17), WFW (3) Myopia (1&3), Fenway (1& 6)and Riviera (4) or scrubby pub-munis I encounter locally... such holes can be brilliant, drivable for many, but awkward for the bomber....one amusing, unconventional hazard can so prey on the mind... but they augur "good things" on the tee.
-
VK,
Fun discussion. You as well Garland.
One thing you do have to remember and I just went through it on one of my projects - those “drivable” holes (I won’t say the par ;D ) have challenges beyond the golf itself. They slow up play because almost always there is someone in the group who thinks they can knock it on so they wait till the group ahead finishes the hole or they don’t wait till the group clears because they don’t think they will reach and they drive into them. On the one hole we purposely made the green surrounds tougher adding a formidable front bunker which we located slightly short of the green and offset to the right and we also left a large tree on the left all to discourage the bombers. But as I said to the GM, with this length hole most will still have a go but it might deter some and help play at least a little bit from backing up so much.
I have played most of those holes you mentioned (Fenway had another one I think it might be #15 that is awesome) but this is something you have to think about (especially on public courses). And also remember as much as many here don’t seem to like the idea there are almost always tees in these yardage ranges you talked about - play them!!!
-
VK and Garland,
You guys obviously want to get rid of par. I may have missed this but are you ok with keeping course ratings and slope ratings? I trust you do agree we need some way to measure hole and course differences and difficulty to determine handicaps?
I would have to collect more data to determine if I need those. Length may be the only thing necessary.
-
VK,
Fun discussion. You as well Garland.
One thing you do have to remember and I just went through it on one of my projects - those “drivable” holes (I won’t say the par ;D ) have challenges beyond the golf itself. They slow up play because almost always there is someone in the group who thinks they can knock it on so they wait till the group ahead finishes the hole or they don’t wait till the group clears because they don’t think they will reach and they drive into them. On the one hole we purposely made the green surrounds tougher adding a formidable front bunker which we located slightly short of the green and offset to the right and we also left a large tree on the left all to discourage the bombers. But as I said to the GM, with this length hole most will still have a go but it might deter some and help play at least a little bit from backing up so much.
I have played most of those holes you mentioned (Fenway had another one I think it might be #15 that is awesome) but this is something you have to think about (especially on public courses). And also remember as much as many here don’t seem to like the idea there are almost always tees in these yardage ranges you talked about - play them!!!
Just a follow up to your post, Mark...
1. Though I'm a regular critic of 7 - 12 there, I love 1-6 and 13-18, and 15 at Fenway is only "off" the list, because it has a regular tee over 280.
2. Trust me, I do/did play those tees that best reflect what I want; it's one exposure of how I started noticing the value of that one particular ignored yardage/half par range. When I played more golf 10 -30 years ago, we used to do all sorts of formats/games, where it could best ball from the reds for one team on the front vs. scramble for the other team from the blues...then switch on the back. On those (now-completely dormant) rarer occasions when I deigned to just play myself at the local ghost town, I would invariably have the course to myself and play holes from crazy spots, challenging myself to make 3s and 4s from here or there.
3. In citing the honest practical GCA concerns that you do (speed of play, safety, flow of routing), you are precisely doing the thinking that I hope will happen among working GCAs... YES, it is a problem to consider and I want you to consider it...tap your creativity, your imagination, your planning and judgement. This is one portion of the thing when I say "removing par will refresh the contemporary art to a degree"...this is what I mean. GCA's lead, and innovate as much as react or rely, I would wish.
4....bearing in mind, when I say "slew" of 240 - 285 holes, I know only so many can be apportioned to any one course, depending on its character... I mean slew of them appearing in more and more design or resto-vation.
5...bearing in mind that the 240 - 285 hole is just ONE distance (which I feel is way, way underrepresented, owing a lot to the strictures of hole par)... I also would like more 450 - 485 holes on a "No Indy Hole Par" course
6. ... bearing in mind that the entire program will re-calibrate what you might do with everyday yardages we DO see a lot of already... 320 - 430... 500 - 540...
-
VK,
It is fun to play all different tees. Too many golfers are hung up on not mixing up the color of the tees they play. It is of course a handicap thing. Otherwise all those different yardages you like such as the 450-480 yard holes are already out there. Think about it, there probably isn’t a hole anywhere that has a back tee of 520 yards and nothing shorter. Most will have formal tees in your 450-480 range for those holes and even shorter if you like. Play those other tees or just pick the yardage you like. I honestly don’t see a yardage gap issue and if someone does please explain. Let’s put it this way, almost any hole on the planet can play shorter. Just find the yardage you want and start from there. However, not every hole can play longer as not all holes have the luxury of extra real estate to extend them.
-
VK,
It is fun to play all different tees. Too many golfers are hung up on not mixing up the color of the tees they play. It is of course a handicap thing. Otherwise all those different yardages you like such as the 450-480 yard holes are already out there. Think about it, there probably isn’t a hole anywhere that has a back tee of 520 yards and nothing shorter. Most will have formal tees in your 450-480 range for those holes and even shorter if you like. Play those other tees or just pick the yardage you like. I honestly don’t see a yardage gap issue and if someone does please explain. Let’s put it this way, almost any hole on the planet can play shorter. Just find the yardage you want and start from there. However, not every hole can play longer as not all holes have the luxury of extra real estate to extend them.
In our club championship, we play day one from the Red tees at ~5800, day two from the White tees at ~6200, and the final round from the Blues at 6570.
-
David,
Love it! Mix it up. It's ok :D
-
In our club championship, we play day one from the Red tees at ~5800, day two from the White tees at ~6200, and the final round from the Blues at 6570.
I think that's stupendous... but in so many contexts (casual or club tourney) it is so hard to convince people to do that.
Knowing how brutal WF was going to be (the day after Sept. Open), I pleaded with my hosts to play a scramble from a different tee every hole... Nope, they wanted to shoot 131z with 6xs, when we all know we stink with diminished games from however good we were 15 years ago...