Why would you turn a par 5 into a par 4

Time for another gripe from me, about another strange thing thats happened at my club. Some will remember that I posted recently about our club insisting that all QC's were to be played from the blue championship tees (An average 0f 34 yards further back per hole than the white's, with plenty over 70yds)

I played in a charity event on Saturday and noticed that the par 5 481 yds 12th, (Gradual uphill gradient) which is stroke index 3, is being trialled as a par 4. Joke I thought, as it was wet, drizzly and a 2-club wind, which would make this quite a challenge. This hole in dry firm conditions plays easier than stroke index 3, and not being a long hitter, I've managed to get on in 2 a few times. But would say that 90% of the time it's a par 5 for me. Off the tee unless you can go long and straight (270 yd carry), you will hit the fairway and the ball will kick to the right and end up in semi leaving you a ball below your feet in clumpy thick semi. So the majority of the members again are not happy, as this is being trialled so that it benefits the low handicappers. It obviously cannot be sanctioned officially yet, as the union would need to come back and re-measure and set the SI etc. But SI3 par 4 is a complete joke. On Saturday I hit a great drive and my Sunday best 3-wood and was 15 yards short, and although I was pleased with the way I played the hole I should have been going for birdie, instead of walking off with a bogey 5.

Has this happened to anyone else, and why the hell do they continually mess with things which are not broken

SI does not signify the difficulty of the hole anymore.

SR it does when playing stableford

Surely what is the most difficult is a matter of opinion. SI 1 are often par 5's and are seldom the most difficult holes.

I don't know. It's stupid. It's probably because the Sky TV generation now expect par 5s to be over 500 yards, because that's how they are on TV.

All it does is to reduce the par of the course by a shot, and (maybe) make it less than the CSS.

It sounds like yet another example of somebody forgetting that the vast majority of players don't hit 300 yard drives, and 200 yard five irons. I agree, it's far more satisfying to walk off with a birdie 4 instead of struggling to make a hard par 4.

Sounds pretty unrealistic to me. A 270 yard carry (uphill?) is pretty much out of the question for club golfers. I would consider myself to be a mid length hitter and on a flat hole, my carry distance with the driver is probably around 220-230 yards running out to somewhere in the 250 region. Even those that claim to be long and can get it out to 300 yards would struggle to carry 270.

I automatically take a dislike to any course that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 par 5s on it (assuming it's not one of these silly 5,550 yard courses). To me, all courses should have 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s, and 10 par 4s, as it gives the best variety of golf and makes the round more interesting. There's nothing worse than looking at a scorecard on a new course and seeing 7 par 4s in a row.

Par 5s are the most enjoyable holes to play for me, so when clubs reduce them from 5 to 4 it makes me If they insist on faffing around with the par 5 to counteract technology (and to make it more like ont' tellybox) I'd much prefer them to add 20-30 yards to it. If space doesn't permit this... LEAVE THE BLOODY HOLE ALONE!!!!

drive4show wrote:Sounds pretty unrealistic to me. A 270 yard carry (uphill?) is pretty much out of the question for club golfers. I would consider myself to be a mid length hitter and on a flat hole, my carry distance with the driver is probably around 220-230 yards running out to somewhere in the 250 region. Even those that claim to be long and can get it out to 300 yards would struggle to carry 270.

Theres an incline all the way up to the 200 yard marker, so the big boys hitting somehwere near the brow of this slope will get a good kick on in good/firm conditions. Those who are shorter hit the upslope which kicks right and down a slope into thick stuff. SI1 on our course is a monster all uphill dogleg par 4, which is 390 off the back boxes, and it's a genuine SI1. So the course will become a par 71 for gents and 72 still for ladies which have over 1,000 yds less to do. At the moment yellow tees par 72 SSS 68, white SSS 69 and blue SSS 71, so this can only benefit low handicappers.

Marcus, at the moment we have 4 par 3's and 4 par 5's, which is probably going to change to 3 par 5's

I think reducing par 4s to par 3s is even worse... fortunately you don't see too much of that happening, yet.

The 270yd carry you mention is a monster! At least when you're running low on balls, you'll know where to look for some!

At Princes we have 3 holes where the carry to the fairway is in the 200-220 yard region, but this is from the championship tees. The whites and yellows are pretty fair, with the carry required being around 140-160 yards.

Doesn't make any sense at all.
What's the green like, Doc? Usually when a hole is designed as a par 5, the green is designed to be receptive to, say, a wedge, certainly not a fairway wood, hybrid or four iron.
Supposedly easy par 5's are seldom that, and it sounds as if your club is taking an enjoyable hole out of play and making it a grind. To make bogey.

We have a 470-yard par 4 with a forced 30-yard water carry seventy yards out. Par 5 for all but the best drives, especially with one of the most severe greens on the course. I play it as a par 5 and am seldom disappointed in making my "bogey"!

kwinigolfer wrote:Doesn't make any sense at all.
What's the green like, Doc? Usually when a hole is designed as a par 5, the green is designed to be receptive to, say, a wedge, certainly not a fairway wood, hybrid or four iron.
Supposedly easy par 5's are seldom that, and it sounds as if your club is taking an enjoyable hole out of play and making it a grind. To make bogey.

We have a 470-yard par 4 with a forced 30-yard water carry seventy yards out. Par 5 for all but the best drives, especially with one of the most severe greens on the course. I play it as a par 5 and am seldom disappointed in making my "bogey"!

Kwini, the green is a fairly wide one, but not too deep, and its also very well protected front left and front right, making for a very narrow channel into it unless you go the arial route. Theres also more bunkers left and right to catch anything slightly off target for the arial route, and anything long is into thick rough with hedgerow and OB behind. My Sunday best would see me attempting a 3-wood 2nd shot from 250 yards, which is probably out of my range. No way of going in with long irons or fairway woods as it won't stick, so you need luck to find a 15 foot channel onto the green betwen the sand

Marcus wrote:I automatically take a dislike to any course that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 par 5s on it (assuming it's not one of these silly 5,550 yard courses). To me, all courses should have 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s, and 10 par 4s, as it gives the best variety of golf and makes the round more interesting. There's nothing worse than looking at a scorecard on a new course and seeing 7 par 4s in a row.

I've played a course that has 6 par 3s, 6 par 5s and 6 par 4s, over 6000m. I quite liked that set up, it was a break from the norm and a nice change.

Marcus wrote:I automatically take a dislike to any course that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 par 5s on it (assuming it's not one of these silly 5,550 yard courses).

I'm not sure what you mean by silly, but if you don't think a 5,600+ yard Par 68 course can be a stern test of golf, you need to widen your course exposure.

Doc,
Thanks!
Quite!!

we have a par 5 that many can never not get on in 2 . Infact you can hit two irons into the green- the second shot is normally blind- but in all honesty i feel worse on that hole not making a birdie 4 than i would making a bogey on the shot 1 hole on my golf course (465 yard hole- tight drive)

the par 5 in question also averages a lower score than the par 4 i mentioned.

Mercurio wrote:

Marcus wrote:I automatically take a dislike to any course that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 par 5s on it (assuming it's not one of these silly 5,550 yard courses).

I'm not sure what you mean by silly, but if you don't think a 5,600+ yard Par 68 course can be a stern test of golf, you need to widen your course exposure.

Yes Meyrick Park for instance - that is a stern test of golf!

played a course in kent - forgotten the name- but it had one course about 5.5 the other about 7, the original 5500 yard course was not just 10 times the course but it was also tougher(i think the longer was designed by woosnam- but not sure)

super_realist wrote:SI does not signify the difficulty of the hole anymore.

s_r - I'm glad I finally have an ally. I've been preaching that ever since I first joined the old BBC 606

Many golfers done even except that SI only matters in matchplay. In strokeplay it is totally irrelevant (OK it can make a *slight* difference in Stableford if you throw doubles, trebles, quadruples into the mix depending on your handicap)

No one has convinced me yet why SI should matter in any form of strokeplay apart from that minor caveat above - and yet I hear of courses that have different SI distribution for strokeplay and matchplay events!

And as you say, "difficulty" is so very subjective. The SI 18 hole at my course is a really tough hole for higher handicappers, though pretty easy for the better players

I believe too much emphasis is placed on the par of a hole and not enough on the number of interesting shots and routes to the hole there are. I think people should think of holes in terms of how to play them more efficiently than the rest of the field. So in terms of shots you can gain instead of looking at par.

If you just look at the par then GIR becomes too prominent in your strategy. So what does this mean when 5 becomes a 4? Nothing, play the shots that fit with the hole and maximise your strengths. All the better if the hole also provides some interest for the vast majority that will take three shots to reach the green.

correct mclaren

if you cant reach a 4 in 2 without a mamoth effort- dont try, if you can hit a 5 in two with out risk- allways do it. if you cant hit a 3 in 1- then position your shot for an easy chip/ pitch.

play the holes as they come, not the par

Marcus wrote:I automatically take a dislike to any course that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 par 5s on it (assuming it's not one of these silly 5,550 yard courses). To me, all courses should have 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s, and 10 par 4s, as it gives the best variety of golf and makes the round more interesting. There's nothing worse than looking at a scorecard on a new course and seeing 7 par 4s in a row.

Par 5s are the most enjoyable holes to play for me, so when clubs reduce them from 5 to 4 it makes me If they insist on faffing around with the par 5 to counteract technology (and to make it more like ont' tellybox) I'd much prefer them to add 20-30 yards to it. If space doesn't permit this... LEAVE THE BLOODY HOLE ALONE!!!!

You wouldn't like my course then, we only have 2 par 5's and they are both on the front 9. The back 9 has 7 par 4's and 2 par 3's but every hole on the course is completely different.

(sorry but I love that emote )

You wouldn't like TOC either then Marcus as there are only two par 5's, (both reachable in two) and two par threes (one of them possibly the worst par three in Scotland)

drive4show wrote:

Marcus wrote:I automatically take a dislike to any course that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 par 5s on it (assuming it's not one of these silly 5,550 yard courses). To me, all courses should have 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s, and 10 par 4s, as it gives the best variety of golf and makes the round more interesting. There's nothing worse than looking at a scorecard on a new course and seeing 7 par 4s in a row.

Par 5s are the most enjoyable holes to play for me, so when clubs reduce them from 5 to 4 it makes me If they insist on faffing around with the par 5 to counteract technology (and to make it more like ont' tellybox) I'd much prefer them to add 20-30 yards to it. If space doesn't permit this... LEAVE THE BLOODY HOLE ALONE!!!!

You wouldn't like my course then, we only have 2 par 5's and they are both on the front 9. The back 9 has 7 par 4's and 2 par 3's but every hole on the course is completely different.

(sorry but I love that emote )

You'll have to take a trip down to sunny Kent with me sometime, and we'll have a round of proper golluff.

Marcus

only if you make the return journey to Poole for some classic heathland golf

I have no idea where Poole is.

I am geographically inept!

Sunny Dorset, still at the bottom of the country so not toooooo far away

I'd be up for that, but only if you promise that it's sunny, warm, and there won't be any Wicker Man style rituals.

Dahhhn sahff is best.

Always warm, always sunny, scariest thing in Dorset are the deer on the course that come charging out of the rough.
I'll send you a pm.

Doc wrote:It obviously cannot be sanctioned officially yet, as the union would need to come back and re-measure and set the SI etc.

As far as I know, the SI is not set by the golf union but by the club. The SSS is set by the Union according to the measurements. My last club changed the SI for the ladies after a couple of years of computerised scoring. We calculated the average of all the scores on each hole and then worked out what was the hardest hole and so on. Actually, it wasn't that much different from what the SI had been but we had to have a couple of tweaks to ensure the lower SIs weren't together or at the beginning or end of the course - and we had odd numbers on the front 9 and evens on the back! It always amazed me when I play at some other courses when the ladies SI is the same as the men's (which is taken from the back tees). It often results in ridiculous situations where the ladies' tee is 100 or so yards ahead of the men's back (competition) tee and yet is still SI1 and more difficult holes for ladies (for example if there is a long carry over heather or water) have a higher SI. Ladies have been amazed when I've pointed out to them that they can set whatever SI they want and don't have to go with what the men give them. Another example, I'm afraid, of lady golfers not doing themselves any favours by being ignorant as to the rules and regulations.

LP, we have a similar situation for our ladies, where the SI for each hole is the same as the men's. The SI1 hole should be 2 for the ladies, but the SI2 should actually be 1 and also a par 5 instead of 4. This hole is impossible to reach for ladies at our club. Even the low handicappers play it as par 5, and even for me in comp's I have to play it as par 5, as its over water, all uphill into the prevailing wind, and a well protected green which is raised. Ladies who have parred the hole have either done it by chipping in, or getting the 3rd shot close to the stick. No lady has ever birdied it.

Marcus wrote:I automatically take a dislike to any course that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 par 5s on it (assuming it's not one of these silly 5,550 yard courses). To me, all courses should have 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s, and 10 par 4s, as it gives the best variety of golf and makes the round more interesting. There's nothing worse than looking at a scorecard on a new course and seeing 7 par 4s in a row.

Marcus, you would hate my course too. Although a good 1000 yards longer than your "silly course" definition, it only has 2 par 5's and 3 par 3's. The course begins with 6 par 4's in a row, and finishes with 4 par 4's in a row. I've never thought about this before, but we operate a 2 tee start in winter, so if you start on the 11th, you will have a run of 10 par 4's in a row from holes 15 to 6!

My course does lack a bit of variety in this respect, but in its defence, the holes all run in different directions and are uphill / downhill and different lengths.

Doc - why don't they change the SI - or would that upset the odds/evens situation?

I wouldnt but it may be that SSS is constantly under par so its just an attempt to even out par and sss.Pointless really

Doc wrote:So the course will become a par 71 for gents .... At the moment yellow tees par 72 SSS 68, white SSS 69 and blue SSS 71, so this can only benefit low handicappers.

Don't understand what the issue here is Doc. Handicaps are calculated against the SSS/CSS of the course/event, not the par. Presumably the SSS will remain the same which will mean:

Yellow Par 71, SSS 68
White Par 71, SSS 69
Blue Par 71, SSS 71

That doesn't benefit anyone, not low handicappers, not mid, nor high. If anything, it will probably make the course more attractive to new members and entrants to open competitions, not seeing a 4 shot difference between par and sss on one of the tees, and having par /sss equal from the backs.

My away course has a hole which is a 455 yard par 5 from the medal tees, and is a 446 yard par 4 from the yellow tees. Due to the hole set-up it is impossible to get on in two, unless you take on a 260 yard carry from the tee to an extremely small landing zone. This would then require a precise mid-long iron onto a small elevated green with about 5 yards diameter landing zone to hold the green. I have never seen anyone be on in two from the back tees - its a classic layup 3 shot hole. The course par from the back tees is 71, SSS 69. But both par 5s are reset to 4s from the yellows, so par is 69, sss 68. Gives it a nicer balance, even if one of the Par 4s is impossible to get on in two, with sensible course management it is still par-able for anyone with a reasonable short game.

LadyPutt wrote:Doc - why don't they change the SI - or would that upset the odds/evens situation?

LP (I'm guessing you're talking about the ladies here) if they changed the SI it would make no difference as they are both on a different 9. I'm thinking that they've not bothered to do anything as it would mean printing a different card for ladies, as simple as that.

ban_bam wrote:

Doc wrote:So the course will become a par 71 for gents .... At the moment yellow tees par 72 SSS 68, white SSS 69 and blue SSS 71, so this can only benefit low handicappers.

Don't understand what the issue here is Doc. Handicaps are calculated against the SSS/CSS of the course/event, not the par. Presumably the SSS will remain the same which will mean:

spot on

We have a 490 yard par 4 hole of the gold tees. You need to be a long hitter to reach it off the white tees. Plays into the prevailing wind and was originally designed as a par 5 so the green is raised, narrow at the back and angled from the fairway.

We get an extra shot off the gold tees but most of that shot is taken at a single hole, but of course many of the other tees are also back.