TravelGolf.com
- Updated Daily |
Golf Search
-
Course ReviewsCourse GuideResort FeaturesTravel FeaturesGolf InstructionGolf PackagersReader Forums
The Daily Blog Archives
Kiel Christianson   Kiel Christianson
   a TravelGolf.com Blog
-
Blog Home | The Daily Blog | Worldwide Golf Blogs | Free Golf Podcasts

Don't make golf courses longer, make par shorter

Monday August 22, 2005 | 13:03:17 515 words, 1543 views
Win a free golf book!

Are you of the opinion that technology is killing the game? Or do you think that the hysteria is, well, hysterical?

Stuart Appleby hit a 427-yard drive on the 650-yard 16th at Firestone this past weekend (and a few more over 400 yards, to boot). Is that exciting to witness in your book? Or is it simply boring to watch these freaks of nature hit driver-wedge on every hole?

For the average Joe, the new equipment is quite likely slowing down the speed of play, as more and more golfers are slicing further and further off the fairway. So length of holes isn’t as much of an issue as the width of the holes (or, more precisely, the amount of acreage needed to lay out a course that won’t be hemmed in by O.B.). The new equipment DOES make the game more fun in general for us mortals, though. So I say don’t worry so much – the USGA and R&A are doing fine (apologies to new course developers who need that extra land, though).

For the courses that host Tour events, length of the course IS an issue. Many classic tracks are land-locked, and cannot expand. Moreover, doing so threatens the integrity and beauty of the original designs. Instituting a special Tour ball or equipment limits for them that do not affect everyone else assaults one of the fundamental beauties of the game, where everyone plays on the same track with the same equipment.

So here’s my idea: For Tour events, don’t lengthen the courses, just shorten the pars. We’re already seeing 500+ yard par 4s. Good! More of that. No one says par has to be 72, 71, or 70. Maybe par should be 67, 68, or 69 on some tracks for tournaments. There are already tournament pin positions and tournament tee boxes on many courses which are never used for regular daily play. Likewise, there are competition course records and non-competition records. The division between competition and non-competition play is established already. One between “pro equipment” and “amateur equipment” is not.

A 340-yard par 3? Sounds pretty damn exciting to me. Some pros can’t hit it in one? So what? Let’s see how good their wedges are. Just grow the rough and REALLY penalize the long hitters if they go for it and miss. A 560-yard par 4? So what? Just whittle the fairway down to a sliver 350-400 yards from the tee and keep it nice and inviting at the 270-300 yard area and from 150 yards and in. Again, let’s see how good these guys are with their long irons and wedges.

The beauty of this idea is that it is cheaper than lengthening holes (all that might need to be done is to adjust rough conditions and fairway widths, and maybe reposition a few bunkers). It also leaves the course essentially unchanged for recreational players. That 340-yard par 3 can revert back to a par 4 when the tourney is over.

And they can still go for it from the tee if they want, with that new toaster-on-a-stick driver and that nuclear-core ball.

Comments:

Comment from: Archie Nova [Visitor]
The problem with the idea is that by narrowing the pro landing area to a "sliver" you are also narrowing the second shot landing area for shorter hitting mortals (especially seniors and women) thus making their game even more difficult. A 10 to 15% rollback in the top end carry distance of all balls would help bring the old courses back. I also think that it would be a boon to the equipment and ball manufacturers to know that say 5 years from now when a scheduled rollback could be put into place, that many people serious about their games would have to shell out even more money for the newer conforming (although less explosive) technology.
Permalink 08/22/05 @ 14:32
Comment from: Bob [Visitor]
I think it's a great idea. I am a (good) scratch golfer. 457 for me is a drive and a 6 iron - Tiger et al? Drive and wedge. Clearly we are not all playing the same game. Maybe we should have Championship par? Funny thing is, the scores don't reflect the "length". Tiger still shot 1 over Sunday.
Permalink 08/22/05 @ 16:48
Comment from: Tim McDonald [Member] Email
Excellent idea. What is "par" anyway? A lot of people have trouble defining that. Par for Tiger Woods is not par for you or me.
Permalink 08/22/05 @ 18:17
Comment from: Norman [Visitor]
Good idea.

And especially about tightening the fairways at certain points.

I think if you hit a massive drive, there should be no margin for error. If long hitters see terrible dangers and disasters at the 350 yard mark, they won't be going near it!
Permalink 08/22/05 @ 19:57
Comment from: Charrongolf [Visitor] · http://www.charrongolf.com
Wrong. These new drivers and balls are ridiculous. My father 60+ years old driving the ball longer than he ever has is ridiculous. He's happy, but the game isn't. When are the manufacturers going to come out with a 600+cc driver? Let's get back to some normalcy.
Permalink 08/24/05 @ 06:59
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
I say stop worrying about everything. Regardless of lower than historical scoring, it's still a relative test of skill for the players in a given tournament. So what if they are under par by 5-10 shots more than they were 20-30 years ago. It's kinda like the career money list - the older players are easily eclipsed by todays players because of the change in purses.

However, it would be nice if designers built more courses like Pinehurst No. 2, where the challenges increase the closer you get to the green and where rough needs only to be 3 inches deep to test the best players in the world. And, amazingly, it's a lot of fun to play for golfers of all skill levels. Imagine that.
Permalink 08/24/05 @ 10:19
Comment from: C.B. [Visitor]
How does 'shortening par' change anything? The cumulative four round score is still measured against the other players, right? Your plan only works if par is fixed to a sliding scale with an individual player's length.

Par and Bogie are just words. The number on Sunday isn't really about how many over or under someone is it is about how many strokes they took for 72 holes. Would it assuage your ego to see that Tiger was only 4 under at Augusta instead of 12 even if his four round total was the same? Are you that simple?

Basically the only part of your idea that is substantive is growing rough. I suppose that article has already been published though.
Permalink 08/25/05 @ 15:55
Comment from: Shanks [Visitor]
Here's a better idea to test the pros shotmaking skill: have one tournament where the players are limited to three clubs ... any 3 they want.

If you ever want to play a quick nine and have a little fun, give it a try.
Permalink 08/26/05 @ 11:05
Comment from: Jim Beall [Visitor]
No, the answer is to have the Pros go back to hitting woods. I mean real wood!! As in persimmon. That would shorten things up, bring all the old courses back in play, and allow us to compare the good players of the past with the good players of the present. The equipment makers can keep selling us amateurs the high tech equipment, and I'm sure many of us would start buying WOODS again if the pros were playing them. I think 370 yard and 427 yard drives are ridiculous and are destroying the integrity of the grand old game.
Permalink 08/28/05 @ 23:56
Comment from: BV [Visitor]
I think poster C.B. sort of missed the point (or I did). I think what Kiel was saying is 'make the decision to "go long" be one that could be costlier score-wise' - which is probably the best thing we can hope for. I don't see the pros (or us) going back to wood woods or other things that don't work as well - even though poster Shanks has an interesting idea there.
Permalink 08/30/05 @ 14:12
Comment from: Jason [Visitor] · http://www.thegolfblog.com
Par is just a relative term. All that really matters is the number of shots to complete the golf course. I believe, and have not had the time to check, the entire "under par" idea is a way to keep it simple for those who are not golf purists.

If you notice tournaments such as the Masters, they refer to players at the end by their total score 282 or 280 rather than 6-under or 8-under.

You can make courses par 50, but the winner will always be the person who completes the course in the fewest number of shots.
Permalink 08/31/05 @ 11:12
Comment from: JPC [Visitor]
Appleby's rolled about 150 yards of the total 427.

Why is it that pros have to play on concrete fairways. A bit more water would surely do the job. After all, with a normal roll (like we all get at our clubs)only a small number of competitors would carry over 300 yards.
Permalink 08/31/05 @ 11:59
Comment from: James COULTHARD [Visitor]
Here's a really cheap way to make a course more difficult. Make the holes smaller.
Permalink 09/08/05 @ 19:45
Comment from: Kasey Dunn [Visitor] Email · http://kaseydunn94
Is golf boring or fun?? i think its fun but many people in this town thinks its so boring? so i'm writing a report about it in school..because when i grow up i want to be a pro!!
Permalink 12/07/06 @ 09:26

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>. Bloggers reserve the right to edit or delete comments. Any opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the management.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
Grass is green. What color is grass?
-

Misc

GolfPublisher.com Add GolfPublisher.com articles/headlines to your web site
Course Reviews | US Golf Guide | Resort Features | Travel Features | Golf Instruction | Golf Schools | Golf Packages | Free Vacation Quote

© Copyright 1997-2008, WorldGolf.com, LLC. For questions, comments or suggestions on any of our network publications, Contact Us!
Privacy Policy