Course not constrained by par & allows full use of all clubs

[MichiganMike]

I was reading through the other thread of people's top 5 complaints about golf. A couple of complaints stood out - one about short par 4s (320 or less) and another about long par 3s (210+). It go me thinking about how so many people have an idea of what golf should be with conventional par length holes and how a course should be set up. (As an aside I suspect these people probably hate links golf too.)

 

In my opinion par has no real meaning. Regardless of the printed number on the scorecard, the goal is to still get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes. Additionally I think a good round is one where you can use everything in your bag and not be playing identical 375 yard par 4s 5 times a round. It can be fun and interesting to play a 235 yard hole. Do you go for it and risk trouble? Or do you lay up off the tee and play it safe? Some courses (the future Olympic course in Rio being one) effectively have half par holes forcing these tough decisions.

 

So to add variety to a round and lose the constraints of traditional par, I'd love to see a course with a shortest hole of ~125 yards and subsequent holes all being spaced by ~25 yards until a max length of ~550. (I'd mix up the order, but the point is you'd play holes with lengths of 125, 150, 175...325, 350...500, 525, 550.)

[hollabachgt]

Par is a bi-product of tournament golf and television. It really has little implication on the day to day play and I wouldn't mind seeing it removed from course signs and scorecards.

[erik81]

I love them short par 4s personally.

[larrybud]

A "par" designation gives another mental aspect to the game.

How many times did you stand on a 450 yard par 4 and think "tough par", yet stand on a 480 yard par 5 and think "easy birdie"?

[eagle1997]

interesting concept, but no. unless the course has a defined means of measurement, your score at the end is rendered somewhat meaningless in a larger context.

[cardoustie]

I think a course definitely need to think out it's par 5 and par 3 yardages to all be different

I hate playing a course and hitting 8 iron on every par 3. I agree with the OP, give me a short 3 of 140 .. then a 170, then a 200 and a 225ish

I'd also like to see 4 diff length par 5's.

I'd never though about different length par 4's across the board. Interesting concept. I am a huge fan of having at least one monster par 4 and a driveable par 4 as well

[DavePelz4]

[quote name='cardoustie' timestamp='1406043801' post='9758507']
I think a course definitely need to think out it's par 5 and par 3 yardages to all be different
[/quote]

Let me add to this that the par 5's should not all be in the same direction relative to the prevailing wind. One of the regular courses we play has 3 of the 4 par 5's in the same direction and the 4th is very close.

[MichiganMike]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406043607' post='9758467']
interesting concept, but no. unless the course has a defined means of measurement, your score at the end is rendered somewhat meaningless in a larger context.
[/quote]

Your score is the defined means of measurement. Today I shot an 82, yesterday was an 86 - therefore I was better today. Or, I shot an 82 and my buddy shot a 79 - therefore he was better.

Par can be misleading. Look at the British Open. Rory was 17 under, but were those last 2 par 5s really par 5s for him? No. They were effectively par 4s.

But to my original post and regardless of my 2 comments just above, I'm not saying you couldn't (or shouldn't) put a par on my every 25 yards proposal. You can put a par on it. Heck, it would make for some interesting hard 3s/easy 4s and tough 4s/easy 5s. My main point was about eliminating what we see as conventional hole distances for certain pars.

[ratspros]

I agree on courses that make you play different clubs into par 3's,4's and 5's are the funnest to play. I do not think the 25 yard increment is the way to go as for that to net you the end result. You would need a dead flat price of land, all arrow straight holes, no wind, no hazards that limit tee shots, etc etc. As an example at a course I play regularly there is a par 4 of 440 yards that plays shorter for long hitters than another 365 yard par 4 on the course. The 440 one is a big dog leg and if you can carry the ball 280 you can cut the corner and go driver lob wedge, yet the 350 yard par 4 has a hazard at 150 out so your usually laying it back to 160 leaving a 9 iron in. I'm in Calgary at a big elevation so carrying it 280 isn't that big.

[mark m]

[quote name='cardoustie' timestamp='1406043801' post='9758507']
I think a course definitely need to think out it's par 5 and par 3 yardages to all be different

I hate playing a course and hitting 8 iron on every par 3. I agree with the OP, give me a short 3 of 140 .. then a 170, then a 200 and a 225ish

I'd also like to see 4 diff length par 5's.

I'd never though about different length par 4's across the board. Interesting concept. I am a huge fan of having at least one monster par 4 and a driveable par 4 as well
[/quote]

+1 - I totally agree with this. It's good to have a mixture and some risk/reward involved in the shorter par 4's and par 5's.

The various lengths and difficulties also help in defining the handicap holes on the score card.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='MichiganMike' timestamp='1406044144' post='9758553']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406043607' post='9758467']
interesting concept, but no. unless the course has a defined means of measurement, your score at the end is rendered somewhat meaningless in a larger context.
[/quote]

Your score is the defined means of measurement. Today I shot an 82, yesterday was an 86 - therefore I was better today. Or, I shot an 82 and my buddy shot a 79 - therefore he was better.

Par can be misleading. Look at the British Open. Rory was 17 under, but were those last 2 par 5s really par 5s for him? No. They were effectively par 4s.

But to my original post and regardless of my 2 comments just above, I'm not saying you couldn't (or shouldn't) put a par on my every 25 yards proposal. You can put a par on it. Heck, it would make for some interesting hard 3s/easy 4s and tough 4s/easy 5s. My main point was about eliminating what we see as conventional hole distances for certain pars.
[/quote]

very true, par can be misleading (and this makes my point). placed in it's larger, historical context, rory's (-17) is the lowest total to par for the open, save one. we as golfers have our own history, and are constantly measuring our latest score against our own personal best. unless we only played one course, we would be unable to compare rounds/scores.

sorry to go off on this tangent, i guess i misunderstood your original line regarding par having no real meaning.

to your point: varied yardages on every hole is a great idea. implementing a 25 yard differential might get a bit tricky with varying pin/tee positions, but with a little planning, totally doable. might be a nice way to draw in the discerning golfer as well.

[MichiganMike]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406045448' post='9758731']
[quote name='MichiganMike' timestamp='1406044144' post='9758553']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406043607' post='9758467']
interesting concept, but no. unless the course has a defined means of measurement, your score at the end is rendered somewhat meaningless in a larger context.
[/quote]

Your score is the defined means of measurement. Today I shot an 82, yesterday was an 86 - therefore I was better today. Or, I shot an 82 and my buddy shot a 79 - therefore he was better.

Par can be misleading. Look at the British Open. Rory was 17 under, but were those last 2 par 5s really par 5s for him? No. They were effectively par 4s.

But to my original post and regardless of my 2 comments just above, I'm not saying you couldn't (or shouldn't) put a par on my every 25 yards proposal. You can put a par on it. Heck, it would make for some interesting hard 3s/easy 4s and tough 4s/easy 5s. My main point was about eliminating what we see as conventional hole distances for certain pars.
[/quote]

very true, par can be misleading (and this makes my point). placed in it's larger, historical context, rory's (-17) is the lowest total to par for the open, save one. we as golfers have our own history, and are constantly measuring our latest score against our own personal best. unless we only played one course, we would be unable to compare rounds/scores.

sorry to go off on this tangent, i guess i misunderstood your original line regarding par having no real meaning.

to your point: varied yardages on every hole is a great idea. [color=#ff0000][b] implementing a 25 yard differential might get a bit tricky[/b][/color] with varying pin/tee positions, but with a little planning, totally doable. might be a nice way to draw in the discerning golfer as well.
[/quote]

Yep. You are definitely correct. It's easy to do if every hole is straight, but that gets boring quick. Much harder to implement when you add doglegs, elevation changes, hazards, etc. There are hundreds, if not thousands of possible hole layouts. Impossible to get everything into an 18 hole layout - which is why it's so frustrating to play a course which repeats itself.

[Conrad1953]

I've wondered about this as well. Just give each hole it's own
slope/rating from each tee box and let players mix it up and
decide what risk they want to take on each hole.

On the scorecard just write your score and indicate what tee
you played on that hole and let a computer spit out your
differential.

No more choosing one set of tees for a whole round. Every
round you can do something different with 54 options with
3 sets of tees and 90 options with 5 sets of tees.

And you can still maintain an official HC.

I could be missing something so please correct me if this
is not doable or has been tried and not worked out. Seems
like a way to bring some variety that some might want.

[watch4sharx]

I disagree with having posted pars on every hole. It messes with most players perceptions and screws up course management.

If there is a 240 yard hole and you have a club you consistently hit 240 with accuracy sure take a shot at the green but if you don't why are you going for it regardless of whether or not it is an easy par 4 or a ridiculous par 3? Labeling that hole a par 3 tricks most golfers into going for the green in one shot to try to make a par instead of playing two short irons to make the best score possible for that players skill level a higher percentage of the time.

I have always thought that TV scoring should be displayed as strokes relative to the leader instead of strokes relative to par. This might help display some of the course management strategies that pros use that make them that much better than the rest of us.

[shortstop20]

[quote name='MichiganMike' timestamp='1406039915' post='9757909']
I was reading through the other thread of people's top 5 complaints about golf. A couple of complaints stood out - one about short par 4s (320 or less) and another about long par 3s (210+). It go me thinking about how so many people have an idea of what golf [i]should[/i] be with conventional par length holes and how a course should be set up. (As an aside I suspect these people probably hate links golf too.)

In my opinion par has no real meaning. Regardless of the printed number on the scorecard, the goal is to still get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes. Additionally I think a good round is one where you can use everything in your bag and not be playing identical 375 yard par 4s 5 times a round. It can be fun and interesting to play a 235 yard hole. Do you go for it and risk trouble? Or do you lay up off the tee and play it safe? Some courses (the future Olympic course in Rio being one) effectively have half par holes forcing these tough decisions.

So to add variety to a round and lose the constraints of traditional par, I'd love to see a course with a shortest hole of ~125 yards and subsequent holes all being spaced by ~25 yards until a max length of ~550. (I'd mix up the order, but the point is you'd play holes with lengths of 125, 150, 175...325, 350...500, 525, 550.)
[/quote]

FTR I was one of the people who mentioned short Par 4's. I like them, what I don't like is people who have no hope of ever driving the green waiting for the green to clear. At my home course, it is always backed up from there(hole 14) all the way into the clubhouse because these guys think they can hit the green.

I love Links Golf too BTW. Played Ballybunion and Lahinch in May. : )

[shortstop20]

[quote name='cardoustie' timestamp='1406043801' post='9758507']
I think a course definitely need to think out it's par 5 and par 3 yardages to all be different

I hate playing a course and hitting 8 iron on every par 3. I agree with the OP, give me a short 3 of 140 .. then a 170, then a 200 and a 225ish

I'd also like to see 4 diff length par 5's.

I'd never though about different length par 4's across the board. Interesting concept. I am a huge fan of having at least one monster par 4 and a driveable par 4 as well
[/quote]

Agreed.

[MichiganMike]

[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1406046051' post='9758787']
I've wondered about this as well. Just give each hole it's own
slope/rating from each tee box and let players mix it up and
decide what risk they want to take on each hole.

On the scorecard just write your score and indicate what tee
you played on that hole and let a computer spit out your
differential.

No more choosing one set of tees for a whole round. Every
round you can do something different with 54 options with
3 sets of tees and 90 options with 5 sets of tees.

And you can still maintain an official HC.

I could be missing something so please correct me if this
is not doable or has been tried and not worked out. Seems
like a way to bring some variety that some might want.
[/quote]

This may be the best idea I've seen posted on here in a long time. Definitely doable with a computers. You'd just need to enter a hole by hole score after each round.

[dday39]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406043607' post='9758467']
interesting concept, but no. unless the course has a defined means of measurement, your score at the end is rendered somewhat meaningless in a larger context.
[/quote]

differential is all that really matters in terms of measuring your game/progress

[larrybud]

[quote name='watch4sharx' timestamp='1406046249' post='9758813']
If there is a 240 yard hole and you have a club you consistently hit 240 with accuracy sure take a shot at the green but if you don't why are you going for it regardless of whether or not it is an easy par 4 or a ridiculous par 3? Labeling that hole a par 3 tricks most golfers into going for the green in one shot to try to make a par instead of playing two short irons to make the best score possible for that players skill level a higher percentage of the time.
[/quote]

That's the point!!!

Just like tee boxes that are askew to the target line, or tucked pin positions. It's all part of the mental aspect to the game.

[larrybud]

[quote name='MichiganMike' timestamp='1406046780' post='9758881']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1406046051' post='9758787']
I've wondered about this as well. Just give each hole it's own
slope/rating from each tee box and let players mix it up and
decide what risk they want to take on each hole.

On the scorecard just write your score and indicate what tee
you played on that hole and let a computer spit out your
differential.

No more choosing one set of tees for a whole round. Every
round you can do something different with 54 options with
3 sets of tees and 90 options with 5 sets of tees.

And you can still maintain an official HC.

I could be missing something so please correct me if this
is not doable or has been tried and not worked out. Seems
like a way to bring some variety that some might want.
[/quote]

This may be the best idea I've seen posted on here in a long time. Definitely doable with a computers. You'd just need to enter a hole by hole score after each round.
[/quote]

While it's technically a good idea, we already have die-hards here that don't understand the handicap system as it is, and I can already see the discussions amongst the foursome every hole on which tees to play.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='dday39' timestamp='1406049995' post='9759335']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406043607' post='9758467']
interesting concept, but no. unless the course has a defined means of measurement, your score at the end is rendered somewhat meaningless in a larger context.
[/quote]

differential is all that really matters in terms of measuring your game/progress
[/quote]

maybe if you are a mathematician. ask most regular golfers what their goals are for the year. 'shoot in the 70s/80s/90s... break par...etc.' these goals aren't quantified by what the course rating is.



quick question: what's your best round ever?








if your answer includes the word 'differential,' then i'll know what group you fall into.

[canadian_mike]

I'm all for the variety of holes as well. The one course I play consistently is a cross between links golf and North American golf. The par 5'scan be reached in two, but because of the wide open nature of the course, the hole can change dramatically. Also, there are no trees on 14 holes I believe that would provide some protection against the wind. As well, there are very few holes that offer a straightaway driving hole. So it adds another factor of having to shape shots or risk running through the fairway.

Like someone pointed earlier about par 3's. The most annoying thing I find is playing the same two clubs for all of them. The par 3's vary in length from 121-201. And because of the fairly large greens, one of them is 40 yards deep, they can play very different. I don't think making the holes different lengths just to accommodate being able to hit all clubs is a problem.

I think it comes down to being creative when creating these so called short holes. My favourite hole on this course is a short hole. It plays 320 with a massive green and bunkers everywhere. Several options on that hole. Can try for green, but it takes a perfect drive from me at least. But short there is 3 bunkers. I can lay up to 150, and then have a carry over two separate sets of bunkers. I can take a 3 or 5 wood down right side, but bring into play bunkers on right, fescue, the rare trees on the course and the bunkers on the left. Making short holes is fun in my opinion. I get annoyed of the same 350 yard hole that doesn't give you trouble if you simply just take driver out and hit it straight. They are fun, but when you play 3-4 of them a round, it offers no satisfaction in trying to hit the exact shot you want.

[joey2aces]

[quote name='larrybud' timestamp='1406043598' post='9758461']
A "par" designation gives another mental aspect to the game.

How many times did you stand on a 450 yard par 4 and think "tough par", yet stand on a 480 yard par 5 and think "easy birdie"?
[/quote]

profound in so many ways and yet I have never even thought about that.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='MichiganMike' timestamp='1406039915' post='9757909']
I was reading through the other thread of people's top 5 complaints about golf. A couple of complaints stood out - one about short par 4s (320 or less) and another about long par 3s (210+). It go me thinking about how so many people have an idea of what golf [i]should[/i] be with conventional par length holes and how a course should be set up. (As an aside I suspect these people probably hate links golf too.)

In my opinion par has no real meaning. Regardless of the printed number on the scorecard, the goal is to still get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes. Additionally I think a good round is one where you can use everything in your bag and not be playing identical 375 yard par 4s 5 times a round. It can be fun and interesting to play a 235 yard hole. Do you go for it and risk trouble? Or do you lay up off the tee and play it safe? Some courses (the future Olympic course in Rio being one) effectively have half par holes forcing these tough decisions.

So to add variety to a round and lose the constraints of traditional par, I'd love to see a course with a shortest hole of ~125 yards and subsequent holes all being spaced by ~25 yards until a max length of ~550. (I'd mix up the order, but the point is you'd play holes with lengths of 125, 150, 175...325, 350...500, 525, 550.)
[/quote]

You had me up to the last paragraph. The best courses let nature dictate the hole layouts, never forced upon the land with some sort of preconceived notion or "standard." Variety and quirk are being bred out of the modern course by some misguided beliefs of what a "standard" golf course should be.

That said, I do favor variety and love courses that offer a full range of shots. I don't mind a long par 3, just not four of them.

As for par, I agree, it's just a number that doesn't necessarily have any meaning. I love the concept of half par holes and agree it stimulates a bit of mental aspect of the game.

We have a golf course that is par 71. The finishing hole is a very long and uphill par 4 of which players have the virtually unanimous opinion that it is an unfair par 4. But if one were merely to change the par to a par 5, the course would then have a par of 72. Nothing but that conceptual and arbitrary assignment of a par value would change on the course. The total yardage would not change. The rating and slope would not change. The player's score would not change. Yet I guarantee everyone would stop bitching about it.

[kmac49]

It's an interesting topic. I've played courses where all the par 3s are between 140-155 and it does feel a bit monotonous. I like where there are variations, though I don't love a 225y par 3 all that much

On my regular course, there are par 3s of 182 & 180 on the front, and 141 & 143 on the back. But, the holes play very differently so it doesn't feel like I'm playing the same hole.

I always like the short par 4s where you have to decide whether to avoid trouble and lay up or go for it and risk getting into a bad spot. My favorite hole when I was younger was a downhill 280y par 4. It had 2 huge bunkers guarding the front left and front right portions of the green, but the green was pretty big and inviting. It always made for a fun hole. I had quite a few eagles on it, but plenty of bogeys too.

[larrybud]

There's a local course, The Orchards, which is a top course in the area. Hosted the US Am when Ryan Moore won it. Anyway, for a while they had all of their par 3s within 20 yards of each other. I mentioned it to them, and I noticed that they started switching it up a bit, as least as much as it could for the allowance of the design. when I played last week I hit between a 9 iron and 5 iron, so a much better mix than pounding an 6 and 7 on every hole.

[dday39]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406050607' post='9759419']
maybe if you are a mathematician. ask most regular golfers what their goals are for the year. 'shoot in the 70s/80s/90s... break par...etc.' these goals aren't quantified by what the course rating is.[/quote]

a goal of shooting 70's/80's/90's doesn't change if you remove par

my goal is breaking 90.
best score was a 92 on an unrated course with a par of 68. best round was a 96 on a par 72, 69.1/122

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='larrybud' timestamp='1406050437' post='9759399']
[quote name='MichiganMike' timestamp='1406046780' post='9758881']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1406046051' post='9758787']
I've wondered about this as well. Just give each hole it's own
slope/rating from each tee box and let players mix it up and
decide what risk they want to take on each hole.

On the scorecard just write your score and indicate what tee
you played on that hole and let a computer spit out your
differential.

No more choosing one set of tees for a whole round. Every
round you can do something different with 54 options with
3 sets of tees and 90 options with 5 sets of tees.

And you can still maintain an official HC.

I could be missing something so please correct me if this
is not doable or has been tried and not worked out. Seems
like a way to bring some variety that some might want.
[/quote]

This may be the best idea I've seen posted on here in a long time. Definitely doable with a computers. You'd just need to enter a hole by hole score after each round.
[/quote]

While it's technically a good idea, we already have die-hards here that don't understand the handicap system as it is, and I can already see the discussions amongst the foursome every hole on which tees to play.
[/quote]

It doesn't necessarily have to be understood since there would
be a few decimal points, lol; but no one has chimed in yet to
say it can't be done.

The goal is that you can mixed it up while still being to able to
report a score for HC. Don't think, just play. You want a short
par 4? Move up. You want a long par 4? Move back. Do what
you want with any hole.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='dday39' timestamp='1406049995' post='9759335']
differential is all that really matters in terms of measuring your game/progress
[/quote]

[quote name='dday39' timestamp='1406142639' post='9769057']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1406050607' post='9759419']
maybe if you are a mathematician. ask most regular golfers what their goals are for the year. 'shoot in the 70s/80s/90s... break par...etc.' these goals aren't quantified by what the course rating is.[/quote]

a goal of shooting 70's/80's/90's doesn't change if you remove par

my goal is breaking 90.
best score was a 92 on an unrated course with a par of 68. best round was a 96 on a par 72, 69.1/122
[/quote]

perhaps this discussion is worthy of its own thread, as it is off-topic from the OP's initial post, but i will say this:

for the accomplished golfer, it absolutely matters what is the posted course par when it comes to achieving goals, both seasonal and historical. certainly, you could say that you shot a 78 and achieved your lifetime goal of breaking 80... but what if it was on a par 54? the letter of the 'law' would say yes, you did it! you can celebrate and cross that one off your list!

i wouldn't, but that's just me.

[natedd]

[quote name='MichiganMike' timestamp='1406039915' post='9757909']
I was reading through the other thread of people's top 5 complaints about golf. A couple of complaints stood out - one about short par 4s (320 or less) and another about long par 3s (210+). It go me thinking about how so many people have an idea of what golf [i]should[/i] be with conventional par length holes and how a course should be set up. (As an aside I suspect these people probably hate links golf too.)

[/quote]

I like links golf, don't mind short par 4s but really dislike long par 3s. My reason for this is the fact that around me, on the courses I play, long par 3s are used to artificially inflate a total yardage number so a course, or the members can meet an arbitrary expectation.

There is a course by me that plays 6000 from the white and 6500 from the blue. I typically play 6500, but on this course most of that 500 yards is stuck on 4 of 5 par 3s. 3 of the par 3s are jacked back between 60 and 80 yards each and play at 215, 205, 205 and 195. If it was one or two, it wouldn't be so annoying for me.