[Jim Sherma]

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.

[Ira Fishman]

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

[Tim Gavrich]

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.

[Mark_Fine]

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!!

[Mark_Fine]

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. 

[Tim Martin]

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.

[David Ober]

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

[Kalen Braley]

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?"

[John Kavanaugh]

Most people who don’t like par walk and carry their own bag. It’s a symptom of a larger disease.

[Mark_Fine]

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 

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Mark_Fine]

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. 

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[jeffwarne]

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.

[David Ober]

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!!!"

[Kalen Braley]

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.

[Jim Sherma]

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.

[Tim Martin]

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.

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Mark_Fine]

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 

[Thomas Dai]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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_Doak]

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.

[Mark_Fine]

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   


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 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()