Forrest Richardson said;
"Arbitrary Values was more about putts counting as a half stroke, I believe. Was it about half-par's? I am not certain, so Tom, tell us please."
Forrest:
Having read Thomas's book a few years ago that's what I thought too. But having just reread the chapter again it really isn't about putts counting as half strokes because Thomas appears not to like putting in golf--although he did mention that putting is about 50% of the scoring in golf and that that might be too high a percentage for a single club. Under his system it can be shown that putting would be revalued in "par" golf at 33 1/3% of the strokes of a par golf round (instead of 50%).
But on rereading the entire chapter Thomas appears to feel that half strokes for putting in golf is the only means to an interesting and far more equitable and honest end regarding the concept of par and how to make things fairer and more representative for the play of any level of golfer's supposed "perfect play". He appears to be trying to propose something that would both be more equitable for all levels of players and at at the same time allow the architect more latitude in designing holes in that area that we now think of as "half pars" (for good players).
Thomas remarks that if this were adopted it might have an economic benefit too. He said it could mean less bunkering might be required. He said architects would be able to design greens on short par 4s, for instance, that were bigger and therefore less restricting of pinnable space and less damaging to greens and also less congesting to play and as a result of that they would also be more accommodating of the lesser player.
But one has to read the chapter carefully because he was very much talking about COMBINING two premises:
1. How to actually design better to accomodate all levels of player (not just designing for the good player) and;
2. To make the actual perfect play of every level more representative and equitable in a "par" sense.
By the way, under Thomas's system what we know as a par 72 course would become a par 54. A par 3, for instance, would become a par 2 (one perfect shot to the green and two putts for a total of one stroke).
I'd have to look at this more closely but it appears to be a system that would work much better for match play (obviously those older architects were probably more interested in match play because they felt it was the real game the old original game of golf) as a total whole round score is not particularly important, if at all, in match play.
It could have been that the regulatory bodies may have seen this as a bother in the event of stroke play because it would have to be possible, I guess, to come up with a 1/2 stroke total at the end of the day.
But it's likely that some of those architects and writers from that day were trying very hard to make some necessary distinctions between match and stroke play!! Behr tried to make the same distinctions between match and stroke play in the way they were handicapped. The rules bodies never listened obviously because they may have seen some obstacles in the public understanding somewhat different procedures for either format.
However, in failing to recognize or accept what either a Behr or a Thomas was saying in these contexts still today the regulatory bodies have never really come to grips with just how different the two formats are and inherently must always be.
But I don't think Thomas's proposal (combined proposals) were directed at putting per se, it was just a means to a more reasonable end in both the play of the game (match play) and also something that would give architects much more latitude to design things to accomodate for all levels of player more equitably.
Incidently, he did make a strong point that a value of 50% on putting certainly did create a hue and cry among good players that putting greens not be too sloped or contoured--that they be much flatter--otherwise bad things would happen to them and that wouldn't be fair given their superior general skill level.
Naturally Thomas felt that removing an architect's ability to build interesting greens and forcing him to build ever flatter ones was a terrible thing to do and a terrible direction for architecture.
For whatever reason, it would seem that is happening!