[Anthony Gholz]

For you Thomas students: are those "discovered" back tees on 2 and 5 part of his lifetime?


Separately I was unhappy with the coverage on #4 yesterday as though these guys think a par-3 should allow you to finish on the green.  And then we get two chips to 6" and a hole out by Segio.  I spent a morning behind that tree years ago and wondered if these guy could play a wooden shafted driver over the right fairway bunker and hook it on the green.


Anthony

[Jon Wiggett]

Where the par of each hole is of relevance is in Stableford or bogey competitions, which form a large part of club play here in the UK at least.

Duncan,


if you called all the holes on a course par 5s it would have no real effect on the results of a stableford competition results sheet other than to push up the number of points for each player.


Jon

[Jim Nugent]

Anyone know the average score on #1 during the tournament this year?  How about the last 10 or 20 years?

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan,


if you called all the holes on a course par 5s it would have no real effect on the results of a stableford competition results sheet other than to push up the number of points for each player.


Jon

Which rather confirms my assertion that par is meaningless.


Incidentally, I recently turned up an old handbook from Reddish Vale from 1932. Below is the description of the 520 yard Par 5 7th hole, which remains exactly the same to this day.





It is very interesting that reaching the green in two was considered a possibility 85 years ago.   Despite the advances in ball and club technology since then it is a feat rarely accomplished even today.

[Matthew Essig]

Anyone know the average score on #1 during the tournament this year?  How about the last 10 or 20 years?

At the moment, it is playing to a 4.3 for the week. Don't know before cut/after cut numbers. Don't know past years.


EDIT: Finished at 4.271 for the week

[Jim Nugent]

In 2012, #1 at Riviera was the 10th easiest par 5 the pro's played all year.  Ave. score was 4.373.  Easiest that year was #1 at the Blue Monster, with a 4.16 average.

Those numbers come from a PGA Tour stats page, that shows the 10 easiest and hardest par 3s, 4s and 5s for 2012.  They played the US Open that year at Olympic: it had 1 one of the 10 hardest par 3s, 4 of the 10 hardest par 4s, and the hardest par 5. 

Overall, the majors had 8 of the 10 toughest par 4s, and 15 of the 30 toughest par 3s, 4s and 5s.  i.e. half.  The majors didn't have even one of the easiest holes. 

You can see all these stats at http://www.pgatour.com/news/2012/11/24/stats-easy-tough-holes.html

[Sean_A]

As one who could care less about the par of a hole, I still believe par should be the number expert players (and they don't get anymore expert than touring pros) think they should achieve in normal weather conditions.  Par should have nothing at all to do with membership/handicap play.  Because handicap players have for some crazy reason hijacked "par", the concept of par has been greatly watered down. We need to reintroduce bogey score and let the pros reclaim par.  Maybe then courses will get a proper par number in the 60s which will then stop the madness of lengthening courses. 


Ciao 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Sean,


Surely the par of a hole is meant to be the number of strokes the scratch player should be expected to take - not the "expert".


Expert players - top touring pro's - are generally reckoned to play to handicaps of between +7 and +10.  There is a huge gulf between the scratch player, of whom most clubs have one or two, and the expert player, virtually all of whom are professionals.


I have a mate who plays off +4. He is close to being an expert player. He views all par 5s as holes where he expects to get a birdie. A par to him is a dropped shot.


Even the scratch player will generally look at par 5s as holes where he should get a lot of birdies to make up for the inevitable occasional bogey at long tough par 4s.


One of the beefs I have with the concept of par for a hole is that it seems to be determined purely as a function of distance. I know several long par 4s with tricky approaches on which it is a lot more difficult even for the scratch player to get down in five shots than on some straightforward par 5s. IMO the club should be able to give whatever figure of par to a hole that it considers appropriate. Distance should be but one factor.




Maybe you're right about club courses being assessed for "bogey" rather than "par". It would resolve the anomalies of which I speak.

[Sean_A]

Duncan

Perhaps you are right, but I always thought "expert" players was the target for par.  Of course, back in the day an expert player was about scratch!  To me, if one is a pro he is an expert...its just that some experts are better than others. 

+7 to +10 seems very high to me for touring pros.  Think of the best scoring average on any given year for the touring pros....69ish is usually the Vardon Trophy winner...so I make it +6ish for the best touring pros. Regardless, par should be sub 70 for nearly all courses pros play and handicap players should not think in terms of par because that was not a concept developed for them. Bifurcation started long ago, its just that golfers failed to recognize it.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Duncan,


spot on about the par being for scratch players.

It would be better if they could use a comparison to the player with the lowest score at that point IMO. Something like the leader in the clubhouse that is sometimes referred to. For the final two rounds of a tournament it would be similar to the second run in a skiing slalom race.


Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

+7 to +10 seems very high to me for touring pros.  Think of the best scoring average on any given year for the touring pros....69ish is usually the Vardon Trophy winner...so I make it +6ish for the best touring pros.

But UK club handicaps are assessed in relation to the SSS of the course, not the total par.  The courses the pros play would have an SSS of maybe 4 or 5 shots greater than par, instead of the maximum 1 or 2 at club courses.


Put a touring pro at an average members club for a year and his handicap would come out at between +7 and +10


If we are to attempt to compare like with like this is how we must look at it. These guys are good!

[Sean_A]

Duncan


Handicap/stroke only relates to handicap play.  For experts its about stroke average and placement in tournaments...so par is the measurement. Hence the reason I say golf was bifurcated long ago.


Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

We're going round in circles.


If par is the measure of the scratch player, and the experts are many shots per round better than that, then surely par is irrelevant for the pros.


I would suggest that par is actually more relevant for club golfers than pros. It is normally the measure of the best players at their club.


I agree that the game has bifurcated. The pros left par behind many years ago. It is for the pros that the idea of par should be abandoned, not the rest of us.

[JMEvensky]

Because it's really a 2 hole par 9

Ian Baker Finch made the same comment yesterday. Is he a GCA lurker?

[Joe Andriole]

When I played the course back in the 80's a member pointed out a nonexistent tee on #2 that was about 75 yds behind the tee that made it a true par 5. Could they still bring this tee back for the pros? I seem to remember talk of doing this for the PGA there. Also the member showed me an elevated tee on #5 that was almost in a backyard that lengthened the hole.

The "long" tee for the second now lies between the longest tee and the fairway on hole 12. I have played from the elevated tee on 5 - it adds a new dimension to the hole but is awkward to get to. 

[Matt_Cohn]

If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?

Discussion over.

Uh, no. I thought par didn't matter? 


But more notably — last year at the Masters, #13 played to a 4.73 average and #15 played to 4.91, both with big chances for disaster. This year #1 at Riviera played to 4.27, with virtually no chance of disaster. They're not comparable.


I'm curious how #2 would be as a par-5 with a back tee around 550. It looks like the pro's could safely carry the barranca without issue. I haven't played Riviera. What would that start be like — #1 as a 500 yard par-4, and #2 as a 550 par-5?

[mike_beene]

Last year I started keeping my score off of 4's and it freed me up especially at my home course. A 2 or 3 feels really good especially when it's a eagle for me but a birdie for you. And it seems to eliminate 6s or at least make me work to avoid them.

[Alex Miller]

If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?

Discussion over.

Uh, no. I thought par didn't matter? 


But more notably — last year at the Masters, #13 played to a 4.73 average and #15 played to 4.91, both with big chances for disaster. This year #1 at Riviera played to 4.27, with virtually no chance of disaster. They're not comparable.


I'm curious how #2 would be as a par-5 with a back tee around 550. It looks like the pro's could safely carry the barranca without issue. I haven't played Riviera. What would that start be like — #1 as a 500 yard par-4, and #2 as a 550 par-5?

If Riviera hosts a future major (U.S. Open) I guarantee you this would be the set up.

[Matthew Essig]

If you had lived your life as a person who loves golf and the 11th, 13th and 15th at ANGC had all been ball buster par 4's would April hold the same special place in your heart?

Discussion over.

Uh, no. I thought par didn't matter? 


But more notably — last year at the Masters, #13 played to a 4.73 average and #15 played to 4.91, both with big chances for disaster. This year #1 at Riviera played to 4.27, with virtually no chance of disaster. They're not comparable.


I'm curious how #2 would be as a par-5 with a back tee around 550. It looks like the pro's could safely carry the barranca without issue. I haven't played Riviera. What would that start be like — #1 as a 500 yard par-4, and #2 as a 550 par-5?

If Riviera hosts a future major (U.S. Open) I guarantee you this would be the set up.

Knowing the USGA's goal for even par, they would leave 2 as a hard 4 and say par is 70 like what it appears will happen for the US Am.

[Pete Lavallee]

Agreed, the USGA will certainly call #1 a par 4 for the US Am. There certainly was a precedent, as in the 80's #2 was a par 5 on the card for members but a par 4 for the Tournament. Just a little puzzled at the motivation of the club to maintain that a hole that averages 4.27 should be called a par 5? I completely agree with Matt that there just isn't enough risk to call it a par 5 for PGA Tour Pros.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think many of you are losing site that this course is located in Hollywood. Riviera is the course for the entertainment industry. A land of make believe so to speak. Not all things are what they seem and those that bring a smile are last to die. Come on people, let the members make a birdie now and then on a beautiful early morning with the smell of eucalyptus in the air. Making the first a par 5 even for just a week, when the course is at the height of its exposure, is no less than pulling back the curtain on a dream.

[V. Kmetz]

Last year I started keeping my score off of 4's and it freed me up especially at my home course. A 2 or 3 feels really good especially when it's a eagle for me but a birdie for you. And it seems to eliminate 6s or at least make me work to avoid them.

Truly, MB - isn't that a fun and better way to enjoy and excel at one's golf?


Since I've thought that way for the last decade or so I really do stay away from the 6+ much more than I did when I was a lower handicap (4.5 -8.0). My rise in handicap (9 - 12 now) is completely attributable to lack of practice and deteriorating abilities...I suspect it would be closer to 14-15, if I didn't adopt this approach. With my horrific lack of play and aging over the last 5 years, I'd be struggling to break 90 every time; instead I've have whipped out some 83s and 84s from no play whatsoever.


And if I ever do recover practiced abilities, I know I'll be a much better golfer.


cheers
vk

[AChao]

Maybe they ordered too many scorecards! 


Seriously, I've always thought 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, and 18 are all tough par 4s.

[Jim Nugent]

If they call #1 a par 4, how will that change strategies, outcomes, etc. in the tournament? 

[Pete Lavallee]

The winning score will be 4 shot less under par!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()