[Ted Sturges]

I recently read a review of Fishers Island from a Golf Magazine panelist.  A point he made about F.I. which I didn't understand was an opinion he expressed about the 18th hole.  His comment was something like; "the 18th hole, as a par 5, was not a good hole".  

Am I to understand from this that if we change a number on the scorecard, this hole gets better?  I don't think the 18th at F.I. is one of the strongest holes on the course, but how on earth can we improve the hole by changing it's par?  Will the hole play differently?  Aren't we all still going to try to make the lowest score on the hole we can?

I also remember reading a comment Jack Nicklaus made about the US Open setup for the last Open at Pebble Beach.  When commenting about the 2nd hole there, Nicklaus said the course was playing "tougher" in part because the 2nd was changed to a par 4.  He made no comment on the fact that the hole played about 15 yards SHORTER than the last time the Open was played at P.B.  Would a hole, which is playing SHORTER, not by definition be "easier" than a longer version of the same hole?  Would it not be easier to shoot a lower score on the shorter version of the hole?  What does the "par" on the hole have to do with this?  Please explain this to me.

TS

[Joel_Stewart]

Ted:
This hole is easy to understand.  Its a 452 yard uphill par 5?  It was a par 4 and then changed to a par 5 years ago.  I hit driver-6 iron a few months ago.  I'll agree with whoever that wrote that it should be a par 4.  You may want to ask Gil Hanse since I think it was his suggestion.  

[Andy Hodson]

Ted

I couldn't agree with you more. Golf is game of numbers, lower is better than higher. Somewhere along the way a notion of bogey or par came into being (and if anyone can provide historical information on the evolution of these ideas that would make for a wonderful thread), and thus a relative definition of the difficulty of a hole or a course.

A hole is hard if it requires the execution of difficult shots, without regard as to what the "par" number next to it is on the scorecard. A 210 yard long iron from a hanging lie to a water-guarded green is hard. It doesn't get any easier if it is a second shot on a par 5, or any more difficult if it is a fifth shot on par 4. It simply is what it is. 485 yards uphill with bunkers left and right is what it is. And should be played accordingly, no matter what the scorecard says "par" is. That is part of our challenge as players: not to get tempted by "Old Man Par" and all of his inherent expectations.

[Dan King]

You'll never go broke underestimating the gullibility of the golfing public.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

"Fame is proof that the people are gullible."    
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[TEPaul]

Ted:

Changing the "par" number on a golf hole without doing a thing to the golf hole is merely a "perception" change but very very clearly an extemely strong one with many golfers, even very good ones!

Does it make any actual sense when you consider a golf hole should simply be played in the lowest amount of strokes  always considering the risk/rewards of the hole?

Of course it doesn't make any actual sense. If nothing has been done to the hole except to drop its par number what has been changed in the way of the holes actual risk/reward? Absolutely nothing has changed!

So why again do golfers look at a hole differently when it's par number has been dropped sometimes going so far as to call the hole strong as opposed to weak and vice versa!

It's nothing more than strictly a strong perception as to what they THINK they're "supposed" to make or "should" make. This may be somewhat born out by their perception that other golfers actually WILL play the hole differently and consequently better or lower and so they should too!

But in reality it makes no real sense in the context that all golf holes should be played in the lowest possible strokes by everyone always considering the risks/rewards! But if the latter doesn't change (the architecture and the risks/rewards), how can the hole change?

But possibly there is some merit in any golfer's "perception" that other golfers may play the hole more aggressively and consequently better because of the lower number! But if any golfer is going to make that assumption they should also make the assumption that other golfers will also play that hole worse too!

Understanding that is not much more than clearly understanding any holes risks/rewards and how to balance the two to gain strokes as opposed to throwing them away and how others might do the same!

The obvious answer though as to whether a change in "par" number alone can change a hole is--It can't!! So the "par" number is virtually meaningless, except of course in "perception"!

[Dave_Miller]

Ted:

Tom Paul took the words right out of my mouth.  Well some of them anyway .

Changing par does absoultely nothing except maybe assuage a few egos.

If you shoot 75, 85, 90 or 68 what difference does par make particularly to the everyday golfer who is not a tour pro.  

Par only means something in tournaments for records etc.  Which is one reason why I think there tends to be a bias against Par 70 courses.

These type changes are meaningless without changing something on the hole and the integrity of a hole should never be changed in the name of par.

Best,
Dave

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Great post Ted

Nicklaus' quote implies that shooting 288 over 4 days on the "normal" "par" 72 Pebble is a better performance than shooting 285 over the "shortened (by 60 yards)" "par" 71 course.  Not.

[TEPaul]

Nicklaus may have said hole #2 played tougher in the 2000 Open at Pebble because they changed the par to a 4. But Woods apparently disagreed with Nicklaus.

When the USGA did that it was the only time I ever saw Woods get pretty hot about a tournament set-up and it really got me to wondering what exactly was on his mind!

I recall him saying in a press conference that it was foolish of them to do it if they thought it would get him to play the hole differently--he said he wouldn't play it differently at all!

And then it became apparent what he was thinking about! They were just skewing the numbers before the tournament began and that might not look the same in the record books!

Clearly Woods is always thinking about winning but he's obviously thinking about other things too--long term!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ted,
I don't fully agree with TEPaul's premise that it is just perception. I only agree with it as it relates to classifying a given hole as good or bad.  
In the case of the last at FI, or any 'tweener hole, the hole won't play differently as a four or a five but it may be played differently. Club selection, shot type, positioning off the tee or for the approach, all vary with the number printed on the card.

[Ted Sturges]

To:  Jim Kennedy;

2 questions:

1.  Are you saying that you might change your opinion on the 18th @ FI to "good" or "bad" based on changing only the par listed on the scorecard?

2.  Would you really play the hole differently if the par on the card is 4 versus 5?  If so, why?  Wouldn't you still try to make the lowest score on the 452 yard hole that you could?

To Joel Stewart;

Please read my question a second time.  I don't think you understood what I was asking.

TS

[TEPaul]

"The hole won't play differently as a par 4 or 5 but it may be played differently. Club selection, shot type, positioning off the tee or for the approach shot all vary with the number printed on the card."
Jim Kennedy

Certainly that may be true but you're failing to demonstrate a single valid reason why that's anything other than perception if not a single thing about the hole has changed other than the par number!

Anyone can legitimately say too that if the par number remained at 5 the hole won't play differently but it can be played differently!

And the only valid reason to play it differently would have to be some choice to do with risk and reward for the golfer (and again possibly due to his perception of how other golfers will play the hole or have played the hole) because the hole in ever case is exactly the same!

A golfer may even think he needs to make a 3 on the hole which would influence how he may play it differently but again that has nothing to do with the hole per se or it's par number, only what the golfer thinks he has to do.

And that scenario in the last paragraph was exactly what a golfer I was playing with did in the tournament we were playing in the last time I played that hole.

I believe he made something like a 7 and unfortunately found out later a 5 would have done it! In that case too it had nothing whatsoever to do with what was printed on the card--just what he thought he needed to do. He took a big risk obviously where he may not have in other circumstances--again having nothing to do with what was on the card or anything different about the hole.

[Dan King]

jim_kennedy writes:
Club selection, shot type, positioning off the tee or for the approach, all vary with the number printed on the card.

I'm curious what is this game you play where the objective is to get close to the number on the scorecard?

Dan King
dking@danking.org

I got no pride on the hole. It's a par-5 and I play it that way. A four is a birdie.
 --Lee Trevino (on the Road Hole at the Old Course at St. Andrews)

[JWL>]

RICH and TEPaul

I think you may have misinterpreted Nicklaus' comments regarding the relative difficulty of the PB #2 hole as a Par 4  vs Par 5.   His comment  was strictly as it related to "par" as set by the USGA.  You know how they try to protect shooting under par at the Open.
Therefore, Jack was correct when stating that the hole would play more difficult as a Par 4 (as related to making a par).  
It is generally accepted that a stroke as related to distance is between 200 and 250 yards.  Thus, by shortening the hole approximately 20 yards, you have in effect added approximately 180 to 230 yards to the length of the course (again as related to par).  So, it becomes obvious that the hole has to play more difficult, again as related to par.  This was Nicklaus' point.
The second hole was always the easiest hole to birdie on the course.  Now the same score is a par.
This may not be relative to you, but to the USGA, it is apparently important.  That is why they continually modify par on their championship course setups.

[TEPaul]

JWL>

I completely understand Jack's point that the hole is tougher to play in 4 than it is in 5! That should be patently obvious to everyone!

But Woods's point to the USGA was a better one to me which was; "what the hell difference does it make? All the pros are going to play the hole the same way anyway which is to try to score the lowest number on the hole regardless of whatever par number they call it! So why bother to change it?"

Wood's has a great point. Why change it unless the USGA is trying to protect the PERCEPTION of the validity of "par" in the face of the onslaught of golfers with superior equipment? Woods doesn't want to see that as it skews the numbers in the record books!

Jack's point is valid about the toughness of 4 vs 5 and Jack's 25 year point about the need for the USGA to do something about the golf ball is an even more valid point in the context of this altering hole par number situation!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

JWL>

I understood exactly what Nicklaus was saying, and so, might I assume, did Tom Paul and Ted Sturges who started this thread.  I (and I assume the others) were just trying to point out the absurdity of equating "difficulty" with "ability to shoot some arbitrary number" on any given hole.  If you follow your logic, Pebble could be made easier just by moving the 2nd tee back a few yards and calling it a par 6.  Yeah I know the USGA talks about "standards" but it's finger in the dyke stuff, and really irrelevant to identifying the best golfers in the world, if that's what they really want to do.  But, if they really wanted to do that, they wouldn't really be holding opens at Torrey Pines, would they?

PS--what's the ">" stand for?

[JWL>]

Rich
All I was trying to do was clarify the context of Nicklaus' remarks.  When he said that the second hole would play harder (as related to par), he was correct.  That is established by the USGA, not me or you.   That was the context of his remarks.  TEPaul and Sturges apparently disagreed with Nicklaus' remark.  I am just suggesting that Jack is correct.  And yes, if you move a tee back a few yards and call it a par 6, it will be easier, as related to par.   Whether you think par is relevant to anything seems to be the question.  But the difficulty of a hole does have a relationship to it's stated par.  Maybe I am wrong in reading that their posts disagreed with Nicklaus, but it sure seemed that way to me.                 >has no meaning at all, just a typo, LOL

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan
Very funny, haha   . I had a match today in which I played  and scored well. As we all know they don't always go hand-in-hand. Very satisfying.
Afterwards two of us played some cross-country golf, teeing off from some strange places, which created some very interesting shots, some hit well. No scorekeeping, very little putting. Equally satisfying.  

TEPaul,
I said: "The hole won't play differently as a par 4 or 5 but it may be played differently. Club selection, shot type, positioning off the tee or for the approach shot all vary with the number printed on the card."
You replied:
"Certainly that may be true but you're failing to demonstrate a single valid reason why that's anything other than perception if not a single thing about the hole has changed other than the par number!"

I'll try to give you the reasoning I had in mind and you help me to understand if it is just related to perception.
Sometimes a 'tweener hole can be very deceptive. Its stated yardage and par designation suggest some sort of devilment may await, especially on a short yardage 5(short 4's too). The choices a player makes when faced with the many different ways he could play the hole can be influenced by that number on the card and the player's desire to at least match it. If that falls within your definition of perception as you explained it then I defer.  

Ted,
No, a hole is either good or bad and the decision as to which is unrelated to par.
Sad as this sounds I sometimes weigh the risk/reward as it relates to the par of a hole when deciding how I might choose to play a hole. Yes, I am trying to get the lowest possible score on the hole but as I said above, on 'tweener holes I sometimes become very wary and satisfy myself with equalling the number on the card.    This is in keeping with my belief in the axiom "Par is your friend".  

[JWL>]

TEPaul
Forgive me if I'm a bit slow on this.  But in this post you said that "it is patently obvious" that the hole would play harder as a par 4 rather than a par 5 (as related to making a par)
In an earlier post, you said that when Jack said that that Tiger disagreed with that, and I took, by implication, that you did also.  So I tried to explain the context in which Jack spoke.
So, I am confused.  Is it patently obvious (and if so, I will shut up) or did Tiger disagree.  It must not have been obvious to him, if that is the case.  Forgive me, I get confused sometimes. :-/

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Let's make a collective promise.

Each time we say "The [such-and-such] hole is a [tough / easy] hole..." we must finish the sentence by saying "...to make a [3 / 4 / 5] on."

The second half of the sentence is important.  

[Dan King]

I have a confession to make. Whenever announcers say such and such a hole is the toughest hole on the course when reality says it isn't, it gets on my nerves.

For instance they said at the Masters® last year that No. 18 was the toughest hole on the course. No. 18 had a stroke average for the pros of 4.33, while No. 8 had a stroke average of 4.94.  

Decimals can be confusing, but my understanding is that 4.94>4.33.

I know, in the grand scheme of things, its a small thing. But hey, if I can't make these sort of confessions around y'all, what's the point of having such a group.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

"I never could make out what those damned dots meant."
 --Lord Randolph Churchill (referring to decimal points)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim, Call it fate if you will, but this subject of par and length brings up an excellent subject which I would really enjoy hearing your comment on. In fact I hope you can relate to all the difficulty of designing on such a site.

Now guess which hole at which course, more specifically, hole I wish to discuss?

Yes, Jim, Strawberry Farms #16.



Now I don't have a single problem with the hole, in fact it is a pretty darn good hole when considering what you had to work with on the back nine. But is it really of a par 5 length and does it play to it?

I'm a relatively short knocker, and I have hit driver-six iron into it. And this was from the very back tee!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tommy,
Or whoever you are today   What have they been putting in your sauce? That hole lists as 501 from the tips and you hit driver/six? No short knocking there.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

JWL> (may I call you ">"?)

I don't think we are arguing over anything.  I do think that this thread is a good complement to the other ones about "par" and I think that Nicklaus' and Woods' remarks(parenthetical remark--Isn't it inerestin how the 3 greatest golfers of all times have names ending in "s"?) say a lot about the psychology of golf.  As Dan K. points out, the reality of difficult, on a hole by hole basis is often far different than perception.

Far more important, however, is this matter of Tommy N. using driver/6 on a 500 yard hole......

[TEPaul]

JWL>

First of all, I really don't know what Jack's quote was about the 2nd hole at Pebble being dropped from 5 to 4 and the consequent toughness of it. I only know what Ted Sturges said Jack said in his initial post on this thread.

But I didn't actually say that it was patently obvious that the hole played tougher as a par 4 than a par 5. I said if nothing was changed on the hole (architecturally) it's patently obvious it would be harder to make a 4 rather than a 5 (I said nothing about "par"). To me there's a very real difference in those two statements because the first one is a fact and the second one is the creation of an different "expectation" only. In this case the altered "expectation" is known as "par".

And in a very real way that's the strength of the "perception" of par. To many golfers it's the creation of what they think they're "supposed" to make! And so they may actually try to play the hole differently although the hole is exactly the same as before!

Apparently to Tiger Woods the alteration of par from 5 to 4 on #2 Pebble and the creation of a lower number being what he's now "supposed" to make is a fallacy.

His point was he will play the hole the exact same way no matter what the USGA want to call the hole's par! He sees no difference in the hole and how to play it because they haven't changed any of the demands on the hole.

Let's just suppose that Woods does feel that way and consequently plays the hole the same way for years that he's already played it (as a 5). Let's say his scoring average on the hole has been 4.1 (as a par 5) and continues to be (4.1) after they change it to a par 4.

So please tell me how the hole has become tougher to him as a 4 rather than a 5? I can't see that it has and apparently either can Woods.

And the reason for this is Woods does not play the hole to have his score on it conform to something someone (like the USGA) tells him he's supposed to make or is "expected" to make. To him what he's expected to make is the lowest score on the hole he can make and over time if the hole doesn't change but the par does and he continues to play it the same way he always has and continues with a scoring average of 4.1 that's basically proof that the hole is the same to him, that the alteration of the par number is irrelevant to him too.

Woods is apparently concerned that it seems the playing field has been changed by the "perception" of par alone. If someone shoots a score of 284 on Pebble when the par of #2 was 5 and the course's par is 288 and Tiger shoots 284 when the par on #2 is 4 and the course's par is 71, what looks better in the record books--a score of -4 or a score of even?

That's what he doesn't want to see happen because the fact is the 2nd hole and the golf course is EXACTLY the same. He wants a level playing field in both the golf course, the par and the perception of par.

The fact of the matter is his 284 (at even) and the previous 284 (-4) are exactly the same, as #2 and the course in reality are no different despite the fact of whatever the USGA wants to call "par"!

Unfortunately most people don't see it that way because they fall for the "perception" of par completely. But a golfer like Woods understands that in the reality of the way he will play that hole if they don't change it is the same and that par is only a "perception", and to him, in this case, a wholly fallacious one!

[JohnV]

A few years ago after John Huston tore up Wailua and set a new scoring record, the folks there decided to change the "par" on two of the holes from 5 to 4 changing the course from 72 to 70.  I believe that is all they did to the holes.  They were still played at the same length and no changes were made on the ground.  During the next Hawaiian Open, I swear I heard an announcer say, "The changes they have made have taken this hole from the easiest to the hardest on the course" or some such statement.

The funny thing is that the average score probably did go up because once it is listed as a par 4, every pro figured he had to hit the green in 2 and a lot got in trouble, whereas before some would layup and wedge in for their 4.

I think the USGA does change par to try to get inside the players heads at times.

Dan King,  ever played bogey or par competitions?  That is the only time you ever really should care what par is on the card.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()