[mike_malone]

  The thread on 5 1/2 par got me thinking.I know an old architect or two believed in 1/2  shots for putts.
    The new par for my course would be 51 1/2.

     But there is a more important issue here.We have a short par 5 that the "parprotectors" felt needed trees to make it harder versus par.If they had just changed the par from 4(3 full  shots+2 putts) to 3 1/2,then they could have protected par and not ruined the course.
    Many classic  short par 5's are either 2 full shots for low hdcp. players or a third shot that should get within one putt range.
  
    Since we currently count each equally,we have no leeway to have a 1/2 par hole.


    When Flynn designed the 260 10th hole at Rolling Green(built to only 243)he may have had a par 2 1/2 in mind.

[ForkaB]

Mayday

This is yet another one of those really great ideas that will get absolutely nowhere because.....well, because....it is well.......different.  I can hear gasps and thuds of geezes collapsing into their turtle soup on the Main Line already, even though I'm 4000 miles away......

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

If you've never read George Thomas's proposal for half strokes for putts in the back of his book "Golf Architecture in America" you certainly should.

It's a most interesting proposal and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he may not have liked putting. His case is very interestingly conceived and presented and ultimately it has a very interesting architectural application albeit perhaps a bit too "formulaic" one!

[Scott_Burroughs]

I think you mean par 3 1/2 for #10 at RG, not 2 1/2.

Good idea from my standpoint.  I suck at putting.  

[ForkaB]

TEP

Was that perhaps why George left Philly to grow roses (and design a few tracks) out in LaLaLand?

More seriously, I can imagine what he wrote (since I am channeling through Max Behr these days) and I agree 100%.  1/2 pars would make golf an even more interesting and fascinating game, and as Mayday implies above, make GCA a much richer and more challenging pursuit.

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

Do you see how Rich Goodale seems to support the idea of half strokes for putts? Why does he support it? Because it's 'different', that's all--and he probably likes the thought of 'geezers' collapsing into their turtle soup all over the Main Line in horror.

But now I'm going to tell Rich that some of the early architectural thinkers who thought very deeply into the ramifications of golf and architecture such as Thomas, Hunter, probably Max Behr also dabbled with the idea. Except, unlike Rich, they didn't do it just to be "different". They did it to try to solve what they perceived to be some real and impending problems in both golf and architecture.

And they also created proposals that were extremely well conceived and presented.

But you just watch--when Rich Goodale hears that he's going to change his tune, be the constant contrarian and disagree with them and probably the concept of half strokes for putts too. And he will even disagree without the slightest willingness to even read what they wrote. Or perhaps he's reluctant to read what they wrote because he's incapable of really understanding it.

No matter which reason it is when he acts the contrarian and continues to refuse to read I still love the guy anyway--but certainly not the imbecilic things he says.

[ForkaB]

TEP

If you go back to Module 1.1 of the "Why Tommy Can't Read" CD that I sent you, and apply the lesson on there to what I wrote above, you will see that I agree with George T, Max B, Robert H and Byron Nelson and Mayday M amongst others on this issue.

Hopefully I will not have to resort to espousing the complete opposite to what I believe to get you to come over to my side on issues of interest and/or potential importance?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You are not "channeling" through Max Behr these days because Max flat refuses to allow you to channel through him until you really read everything he wrote and give me a formal dissertation on what he ever single thing he was talking about. And Max also told me he wants you to repent all that lavish bullshit about what a great writer you thought Arnold Hautiepants was.

But if you think half strokes for putts are such a great idea why don't you explain to us in detail why you think that's so. Only that way can we see if you're even in the same universe on the benefits of it architecturally as George Thomas appeared to be (despite the utlimate apparent formulaic outcome!).

Thomas moved to LaLa land strictly because LaLa land had a better climate and prehaps medium to grow world class roses. He even gave up architecture completely because he figured there were too many contrarian dumb-clucks like you out there who had no understanding or appreciation for what he was trying to do in architecture.

The poor guy met a sad end though. He apparently had a hateful wife and he devoted most of his time to his mistresses whom he named his beloved world class roses after. When he died his hateful wife found out where his beloved roses got their names and went and tore them all out of the ground and trashed them. And then the poor slob even had to endure the ignominy of having Fazio and MacDonald & Co destroy one of his greatest courses and even tell everyone how proud he would have been of what they did.

[TEPaul]

Rich said;

"Hopefully I will not have to resort to espousing the complete opposite to what I believe to get you to come over to my side on issues of interest and/or potential importance?"

Will you all just look at this weisenheimer! It's taken me the last three years to get this guy to simply open his eyes and mind about one gnat's width on golf architecture and he's now talking about getting me to come over to his side on the very people I've been trying to get him to simply understand a teeny bit for almost forever.

Why do I bother with people like Rich on architecture? It takes me years to get him out of kindergarten on the subject of architecture and now he thinks he's my teacher? Why do I put myself through this abuse? I should have sent him over to the corner of the classroom to face the wall with a dunce cap on permanently!

[Mike Benham]

    The new par for my course would be 51 1/2.
    

How did you end up with 1/2 of a stroke?  Are some holes only a "1 putt"?  (I'm guessing the answer is yes ...)

If that is true, what factors define a hole as a 1-putt "par'?

Is there a different par for low handicappers then high handicappers?

[TEPaul]

"If that is true, what factors define a hole as a 1-putt "par'?"

MikeB:

One factor that defines it (in George Thomas's proposal) would be what we today might consider a very short par 4 or a very short par 5.

Thomas figured these were perfectly good holes in architectural concept but that as straight par 4s and 5s were considered either weak or not appropriately rewarding in match play to good players under the normal whole stroke putts in golf.

He also felt if putts were half strokes he wouldn't have to bunker up short par holes as much thereby making golf courses less costly to build and maintain!

[Mike Benham]

He also felt if putts were half strokes he wouldn't have to bunker up short par holes as much thereby making golf courses less costly to build and maintain!

This of course, only defines "par"  ... how do you count your "actual" strokes?  (I'm not trying to be compative , I haven't heard the concept before so I'ma wondering ...) ...

[TEPaul]

MikeB:

George Thomas's half stroke putt proposal and how works and how it relates to various aspects of architecture is quite complex, it's very carefully crafted as a combined proposal and it's about 20 pages. To really understand the ramifications of it I suggest you get a copy of George Thomas's book, "Golf Architecture in America" and read the chapter. It's Chapter #X1 called "Arbitrary Values".

The entire book is one of the best ever written on golf architecture anyway.

[Paul_Turner]

I don't like these ideas at all, golf scores/strokes are quantised, that's their essence.

[Jeff Fortson]

Uh............?

Jeff F.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Such a bad idea??  I think not.  The game is way too biased on putting...  Do you realize that 40% of the scoring is comprised of putting and contested over less than 5% of the course distance?!!!  Half strokes for putts would reduce this bias.

Wanna know another player who was a proponent of half strokes for putts?  It was a little Texas hacker named Ben Hogan....

JC

[mike_malone]

Scott
  The 2 1/2 on the 260 yd. hole is a drive and a short pitch that is expected to get within one putt range.The putt counts for 1/2.

[mike_malone]

Mike Benham
    1/2 strokes come on holes where the approach is assumed to be close enough for 1 putt.Par is for expert golfers ;just as it is now.

[mike_malone]

I actually was more interested in trying to get the "parprotectors" on the side of GCA.By making par a little more divisible than either 300 yards or 6 inches,we can stop them from penal ideas and bring them along to strategic thought.
    I think counting each strike of the ball the same feeds into this desire to protect par.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

Were Fazio and Macdonald&Co pissed at George Thomas about his bevy of mistresses, too?  If so, perhaps I can now understand their rationale a little better.  

Destroying roses in a fit of jealous rage is one thing, but destroying the 7th and 8th holes at Riviera is quite another!  At least Thomas's wife didn't hold post-mortem seminars with slides of the uprooted specimens, spouting "Welcome Home, George!"  

[ForkaB]

Paul T

Just think of .5 as the value of the "quantum" in golf course relativity terms.  It relates to the energy required to get the ball into the hole when on the green.  When the ball is off the green there is a "quantum leap" and the energy required doubles to 1.0.  I'm sure I don't have this completely right, but then again my TEP-scale mental regression is now at day-care level, so......

Tom P

I suspect that the above was one of Thomas's major points, as he was writing during the Golden Age of Quantum Physics and I'm sure did as much studying of Schroedinger, Dirac etc.as he did of the Arts and Crafts writers in Country Life magazine.

As to why the concept is a good one, well here's what I think:

1.  As others have said above, this brings the "scoring" of the game more in line with the skills required for the various shots
2.  By increasing the relative value for the shots to the green, architects will be encouraged to create features of interest, "through the green" instead of just at the green site
3.  Concomitantly, as the value of hitting a green will be increased, the use of humps and hollows to repel shots to the green will become more prevalent.
4.  Play will be speeded up as the benefit of agonizing over short putts will be diminished
5.  No longer will you hear a pro yell, "Get in the bunker!"
6.  I generally agree, as said above, that maintenance costs might be mitigated, either through reduced bunkering or in a slightly rougher green surface.

This won't happen, of course, but it is interesting.  Maybe somebody could organize a tournament at their club to test out some of these theories?

[TEPaul]

redanman:

As usual your last post makes virtually no sense whatsoever in the context of the proposal (George Thomas's) of half strokes for putts. There's an interesting and pure logic to Thomas's proposal that netted out would probably be a game that is slightly more rewarding to a good player due to his skill level and shot accomplishment compared to another player who half missed a shot or two and then sinks a lucky or fortuitous long putt.

It is an interesting idea indeed that would have that overall effect of rewarding more (or better) the more accomplished player but then again it is geared towards more "formulaics" and does appear to remove to some degree the very interesting element of "luck" which certainly can be considered that unusual "leveler" that can make golf so interesting and appearing "unfair"!

The half stroke putt idea is a little out there--maybe let's say Mars but you're on another planet--perhaps Jupiter! Why don't you see if you can get on over to Mars and on the same page? Or alternatively read Chapter 11 of Thomas's "Golf Architecture in America".

[TEPaul]

"Thomas Edward Paul
You missed the opportunity to propose that my mind might be on Uranus, but alas, you already knew that the the proper pronounciation is yur-a-nus, not the popular one."

redanman:

I didn't exactly miss the opportunity--I seriously considered it and in the name of civility, decorum and bonhommie I passed on the opportunity in favor Jupiter. I considered the "Age of Aquarius" but passed on that one too realizing you probably aren't the muddled thinking unreconstructed hippie your posts sometimes appear to make you seem to be. BTW, redanman, what combinations of mind-altering substances DID you take during your years in California or Colorado?

[TEPaul]

redanman said;

"I have read Thomas and I, unlike others have put it in its proper perspective."

redanman:

Have you really? You sure fooled me. What Thomas proposed and what you just said above--ie;

"Get this, support for the concept of a disproportionate reward for ball striking from a self-proclaimed "Short but straight"  "steady makes the mark" player.  Quel surpris, n'est-ce pas?

A stroke is a bloody stroke.

Do we get 0.9 credit for a little 9-iron and 1.2 for a big 4?”,

is about as close to what Thomas proposed as we are here in Philadelphia to Urnanus.

[Jeff Fortson]

Sorry, but I have to say this.....

1/2 strokes for putts is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.  I know Hogan and some others have brought this up but Hogan wasn't necessarily Ben Crenshaw with the flatstick.  He admitted that putting was his weakest part of his game.  So, of course he would like to see putts be worth a 1/2 stroke.  He was probably the best ball striker the game has ever seen!

Putting is as integral as any other aspect of this game.  

I've got an even better idea than this....

How about we just make golf a ball striking competition on a range off of mats.  Sounds about as fun to me as making putts worth 1/2 stroke.

Jeff F.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()