Full swing vs. Short game vs. Putting: where do we lose more strokes?

[ntanygd760]

The distance you hit your 5 iron multiplied by 36 is the best rule of thumb for length of course you should play imo. The tee it forward numbers are okay as long as you use median not average or your typical drive in game golf.

Also half the reason strokes gained is so awesome it can give you a true evaluation of your game. Take putting for example I have had rounds with 28 putts that were negative strokes gained wise and rounds with 34 putts that were positive strokes gained.

Same with scrambling strokes gained treats getting up and down for par and getting up and down for double as the same short game wise. The loss of strokes gets assigned to the shot that cost you the chance to get up and down for par like driving OB ect.

Driving stats are a subject of both distance and accuracy since you are expected to get closer our of fairway and rough but 250 in the fairway is about the same as 275 in the rough assuming you have a clear shot to the green.


Basic stats are easy to keep but fairly worthless. I only keep them because entering my score gives them to me, don't really care too much except GIR since that has highest correlation to scoring well.

 

[ntanygd760]

Basically what the PGA is saying is that you should hit 7 or 8 irons into green complexes. They're more accurate clubs than 5 irons or hybrids. The game will be more fun, but you'll still have a challenge. A 140 yd shot with an 8 iron is not a sure thing.

According to statistics I read somewhere, and I can't remember off the top of my head, a person who gets about 4 GIR per round should be shooting in the upper 80s. This is how difficult the game is. According to my own Game Golf statistics, I'm getting this and I'm not scoring like that due to penalties and a few missed putts.

Here is the GIR to score stat you mentioned.

 

[cnosil]

Also half the reason strokes gained is so awesome it can give you a true evaluation of your game. Take putting for example I have had rounds with 28 putts that were negative strokes gained wise and rounds with 34 putts that were positive strokes gained.

I have some basic knowledge of strokes gained. Are all the methods the same? Did you pick it up from reading Every Stroke Counts? Care to enlighten on how you would keep those stats?

 

[ntanygd760]

Just get a spreadsheet that does strokes gained super easy. Just record distance and surface for every shot.
Say 400 yard hole with drive in rough 137 out but playable you hit green 45 feet away and 2 putt.

You enter 400 and T for off tee
137 and R for rough
45 and g for green (use feet for putts)
then putt your second putt distance but not really important besides you needed a second putt.


Comes out to -0.15 for tee shot, +0.05 for approach and +.09 for the putting.

Here is a link for an online one. Be warned don't click back of refresh or you will lose everything. One little weird thing is shots inside 10 yards off the green you need to just put 10 down.
x is for recovery which is like a punch out tree trouble type shot and penalty stokes you put a 1 or 2 in the far right column. That was a solid book and you are going down a good path but being a little more accurate never hurts.
http://strokesgainedcalc.com/strokes-gained-calculator/

Posted this earlier explaining strokes gained method


The method for strokes gained is the same as in the book and as far as I know is set in stone mathematics wise. Any difference would come from the database used. The link I use is from shotlink database as far as I know.

As an example I have kept them for 40 or 50 rounds of the last season of golf in Ohio.
Mine were (negative is bad)
Tee shots: -2.24
Approach : -3.40
Short game: -0.91
Putting: +0.11

Difference between those and game golf is that is shotlink data and short game is defined as 60 and in I believe and game golf uses scratch golfers as baseline and short game is 100 yards and in.


I also don't mean to come off like this way is the only way you should ever track stats for your golf game. I tend to get obsessed with things like this anyways combined that I am obsessed with golf I tend to ramble on about this stuff. No reason someone should make golf so it is no longer fun for them.

 

[InTheRough]

The distance you hit your 5 iron multiplied by 36 is the best rule of thumb for length of course you should play imo. The tee it forward numbers are okay as long as you use median not average or your typical drive in game golf.

Also half the reason strokes gained is so awesome it can give you a true evaluation of your game. Take putting for example I have had rounds with 28 putts that were negative strokes gained wise and rounds with 34 putts that were positive strokes gained.

Same with scrambling strokes gained treats getting up and down for par and getting up and down for double as the same short game wise. The loss of strokes gets assigned to the shot that cost you the chance to get up and down for par like driving OB ect.

Driving stats are a subject of both distance and accuracy since you are expected to get closer our of fairway and rough but 250 in the fairway is about the same as 275 in the rough assuming you have a clear shot to the green.


Basic stats are easy to keep but fairly worthless. I only keep them because entering my score gives them to me, don't really care too much except GIR since that has highest correlation to scoring well.

Game Golf seems to toss the drives I really duff out of the mix. They mention the longest one. But it looks like they toss the outliers on both ends. Keeping stats is a pain in the butt so this is why I bought this thing. Like I said, my normal drive is around 219 yds. I hit some longer, and some shorter. The shorter ones are around 200. The longer ones go to around 240. Occasionally there's a duckhook or a duff, but I've hit so many drives that the real short drives and my longest drives don't even factor into the mix

I disagree with the 36 * 5 iron formula because I think it's too general and it's outdated. The articles I've read where this formula has been cited are pre-2010. Lofts have gotten a lot stronger since then, but people's ability to hit the 5 iron hasn't improved, and despite the appearance of hybrids, many people still have trouble hitting anything with less than 24 degrees of loft off the deck.

My 36 * 5 iron distance = 6300 yds which are the between white and blue at many courses and that's a big joke because there's no way I could come close to breaking 100 from that distance. The thing is that I hit it once in a blue moon off the deck, and when I get my distance it's at the driving range, not on the course. Due to the design of most courses, this formula would have me playing a few 400+ yd par 4s, and that means hitting a hybrid into a green and a driver off the tee onto an occasional par 3. This is not an enjoyable round of golf.

I don't believe in this idea. I think golf should be fun and enjoyable especially since most of us are not making money at it. We're spending money on it. I'm retired. I want to enjoy my retirement. I'm done working.

How are we defining a 5 iron these days? If we're using "standard lofts" as in a set of forged blades, to paraphrase Mark Crossfield, I'm hitting a 3 iron with a 5 stamped on it. :tongue: The loft on the 5 iron in that formula is the same as the loft on my 7 iron, so let's take 36 * 7 iron and that means I should play from 5760 yds. which approximately matches that of my driver distance. If I'm 160 yds shorter or 50 yds longer on a course due to the length it isn't going to matter.

There's another rule. Until you're consistent at breaking 90, move up a set of tees.

 

[BigTex]

I have some basic knowledge of strokes gained. Are all the methods the same? Did you pick it up from reading Every Stroke Counts? Care to enlighten on how you would keep those stats?

I read that book, and keep some stats based on it but I think a little more simplified. Basically work off in a standard round par there are 14 tee shots, 22 fairway/approach shots, and 36 short game/putts to make par. I evaluate each hole and decide how I executed on each facet. So on a hole that I hit the fairway with a drive, hit an approach left of the green, chipped on and two putted I woul probably score it drive 1, approach 2, short/putt 2. The reason being that I had three shots instead of two on or around the green because I did not hit a good iron shot. So I would be par on drives and short game, and +1 on the intermediate game. Gets a little subjective on how each shot affects the next shot, but it makes sense to me.

 

[ntanygd760]

I took the don't move back till you golf good to the extreme. Was still playing the 6150 tees at my course till I shot par then moved back to the just under 6700 ones. Turns out there was basically no difference except driver 11 or 12 times instead of 8 or 9. I rarely if ever play over 6800-7k in a casual round, it just isn't as fun having every par 5 a 3 shot hole when they are are all mid 500's - 620. Trying to push myself next year as I want to play some city amateur tournaments and" I don't like to play courses over 6700" a valid excuse to not play the back in a tournament.

 

[Sowega]

What a fascinating thread this has been to read. For what it's worth, when I've played with some scratch or near scratch golfers they have not been bombers or young. They were normal, middle age even 50+ guys that did not overpower the course. They hit the ball about 260 with driver but were quite accurate with their full shots. They rarely missed big enough to warrant a penalty and were very solid at chips just off the green. Any birdies made were due to approaches knocked within 5-10 feet or closer.

Often when playing them (I'm a typical bogey golfer) I will feel as if they are not doing anything special or that much different than me. Yet I look up and they've shot 75 to my 92.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rollin]

I took the don't move back till you golf good to the extreme. Was still playing the 6150 tees at my course till I shot par then moved back to the just under 6700 ones. Turns out there was basically no difference except driver 11 or 12 times instead of 8 or 9. I rarely if ever play over 6800-7k in a casual round, it just isn't as fun having every par 5 a 3 shot hole when they are are all mid 500's - 620. Trying to push myself next year as I want to play some city amateur tournaments and" I don't like to play courses over 6700" a valid excuse to not play the back in a tournament.

But imo a par5 is suppose to be a 3 shot hole just like a par4 is suppose to be a 2 shot hole. I view this the other way around and am not at all a fan of par5's in the 400's unless the hole has a layout that forces a lay-up or a very risky scenario of some sort. Other than that I think many par5's lose integrity on the average courses we play. The only way imo we should get on a par5 in 2 strokes is if it requires we make both our very best and longest drive and second shots And I don't mean just our better hits but I mean our very best. Sort of like the ones you cant count on when averaging driver distance. You shouldn't just hit 2 ok shots and be on or very close around a par5 green imo. An attempted eagle putt on a par5 should only come via 2 of the very best shots we can make. Either hole distance (or in lieu of distance, hole layout) imo must require that otherwise it has little integrity. Requiring anything less imo is really then a difficult par4 (which then of course is too difficult and heads in the other direction of not being a good hole. But that's just me. Its the same reason I think a par 4 in the upper 200's and even very low 300's with little to no real trouble are ridiculous and lack integrity. I don't want golf holes to be very difficult because its not fun I understand but imo they shouldn't lack integrity because that's not fun either.

 

[rollin]

What a fascinating thread this has been to read. For what it's worth, when I've played with some scratch or near scratch golfers they have not been bombers or young. They were normal, middle age even 50+ guys that did not overpower the course. They hit the ball about 260 with driver but were quite accurate with their full shots. They rarely missed big enough to warrant a penalty and were very solid at chips just off the green. Any birdies made were due to approaches knocked within 5-10 feet or closer.

Often when playing them (I'm a typical bogey golfer) I will feel as if they are not doing anything special or that much different than me. Yet I look up and they've shot 75 to my 92.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, one doesn't have to be he fanciest, or longest, or most daring to score well. Its about consistent ball striking. Consistency is the difference between the 75 and the 92. Obtaining that kind of consistency? ...well...that's another story...lol

 

[ntanygd760]

But imo a par5 is suppose to be a 3 shot hole just like a par4 is suppose to be a 2 shot hole. I view this the other way around and am not at all a fan of par5's in the 400's unless the hole has a layout that forces a lay-up or a very risky scenario of some sort. Other than that I think many par5's lose integrity on the average courses we play. The only way imo we should get on a par5 in 2 strokes is if it requires we make both our very best and longest drive and second shots And I don't mean just our better hits but I mean our very best. Sort of like the ones you cant count on when averaging driver distance. You shouldn't just hit 2 ok shots and be on or very close around a par5 green imo. An attempted eagle putt on a par5 should only come via 2 of the very best shots we can make. Either hole distance (or in lieu of distance, hole layout) imo must require that otherwise it has little integrity. Requiring anything less imo is really then a difficult par4 (which then of course is too difficult and heads in the other direction of not being a good hole. But that's just me. Its the same reason I think a par 4 in the upper 200's and even very low 300's with little to no real trouble are ridiculous and lack integrity. I don't want golf holes to be very difficult because its not fun I understand but imo they shouldn't lack integrity because that's not fun either.

500 hundred yards and under I expect to be on in 2. Once they get past the 530 range eagle putts are few and far between. Except during summer at my home course. It gets rock hard and 300 yard drives are fairly easy to do. But agree reaching a 475 yard par 5 isn't even worth mentioning since the hole really should be a par 4. I think of 460-500 yard holes as par 4.5's

 

[tahoebum]

Yesterday it was full swing by a mile. I hit one OB(a 4 iron "safe" shot on a par 4) and 2 other shots into hazards but managed to make some putts to salvage a 78 with 3 double bogies on the card.

 

[Fourputt]

But imo a par5 is suppose to be a 3 shot hole just like a par4 is suppose to be a 2 shot hole. I view this the other way around and am not at all a fan of par5's in the 400's unless the hole has a layout that forces a lay-up or a very risky scenario of some sort. Other than that I think many par5's lose integrity on the average courses we play. The only way imo we should get on a par5 in 2 strokes is if it requires we make both our very best and longest drive and second shots And I don't mean just our better hits but I mean our very best. Sort of like the ones you cant count on when averaging driver distance. You shouldn't just hit 2 ok shots and be on or very close around a par5 green imo. An attempted eagle putt on a par5 should only come via 2 of the very best shots we can make. Either hole distance (or in lieu of distance, hole layout) imo must require that otherwise it has little integrity. Requiring anything less imo is really then a difficult par4 (which then of course is too difficult and heads in the other direction of not being a good hole. But that's just me. Its the same reason I think a par 4 in the upper 200's and even very low 300's with little to no real trouble are ridiculous and lack integrity. I don't want golf holes to be very difficult because its not fun I understand but imo they shouldn't lack integrity because that's not fun either.

To some extent I semi-agree with you on the par 5 holes. But I will modify that to say that one of the great things about golf is the reachable par 5. I'm not talking about driver 7I reachable, but driver 5W or driver 3W. I think that for the typical par 72 course, 2 of the par 5 holes should be reachable, or at least tempting. The other two could be at extreme or outside the range the better players.

The fun thing about par 5 holes is that there are so many options for the good designer to play with. Dogleg, double dogleg, bunkering, and hazard placement. Terrain features like ravines or hills that make the player consider where to place the ball for his best chance. Strips of moderate rough separating "safe" fairway zones. Do I want to put a grove of trees on the inside of that dogleg, or will a couple of bunkers be enough risk to make the player think before he tries to cut the corner? Bunker in front of the green? Or give the player a chance for a FW wood run up? Or maybe a cross bunker 40 or 50 yards short for even more risk consideration.

I love creative par 5 holes. The plain old straightaway 540 yard par 5 is one of the most boring holes in golf, and I've seen a few of them on muni courses. With all of the fun options available, those holes are a pure copout.

 

[stevie-a]

What a fascinating thread this has been to read. For what it's worth, when I've played with some scratch or near scratch golfers they have not been bombers or young. They were normal, middle age even 50+ guys that did not overpower the course. They hit the ball about 260 with driver but were quite accurate with their full shots. They rarely missed big enough to warrant a penalty and were very solid at chips just off the green. Any birdies made were due to approaches knocked within 5-10 feet or closer.

Often when playing them (I'm a typical bogey golfer) I will feel as if they are not doing anything special or that much different than me. Yet I look up and they've shot 75 to my 92.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is SOOOO true... I periodically play with an older gentleman in his mid-to-late 70's and this describes him perfectly. Even more astonishing is the fact that he carries his bag on a hilly course. Pushing my Clicgear while he totes his sticks feels a big ridiculous...ha!

 

[rollin]

To some extent I semi-agree with you on the par 5 holes. But I will modify that to say that one of the great things about golf is the reachable par 5. I'm not talking about driver 7I reachable, but driver 5W or driver 3W. I think that for the typical par 72 course, 2 of the par 5 holes should be reachable, or at least tempting. The other two could be at extreme or outside the range the better players.

The fun thing about par 5 holes is that there are so many options for the good designer to play with. Dogleg, double dogleg, bunkering, and hazard placement. Terrain features like ravines or hills that make the player consider where to place the ball for his best chance. Strips of moderate rough separating "safe" fairway zones. Do I want to put a grove of trees on the inside of that dogleg, or will a couple of bunkers be enough risk to make the player think before he tries to cut the corner? Bunker in front of the green? Or give the player a chance for a FW wood run up? Or maybe a cross bunker 40 or 50 yards short for even more risk consideration.

I love creative par 5 holes. The plain old straightaway 540 yard par 5 is one of the most boring holes in golf, and I've seen a few of them on muni courses. With all of the fun options available, those holes are a pure copout.

As for reachable I'd agree for 2 of the 4 like you say but by reachable you also mention tempting and that is the key imo but also is subjective. Imo...tempting means only because we just hit one of our better if not best tee shots where we needed to place it and we are now left with a fairly difficult shot to still pull off. Imo that needs to be a shot (either due to distance or layout for a shorter one) where "less than good" will not still work out quite well enough to still offer ample opportunity to still bird the hole. And imo there in then can still lie the integrity in a reachable par5. Being a bit "les than good" on an average par4 can often enough result in still having an opportunity to par the hole but not so much at all to still birdie it. So then a reachable par5 should also imo (after a bit less than good shots) not still offer decent opportunity to birdie the hole either.

 

[Fourputt]

As for reachable I'd agree for 2 of the 4 like you say but by reachable you also mention tempting and that is the key imo but also is subjective. Imo...tempting means only because we just hit one of our better if not best tee shots where we needed to place it and we are now left with a fairly difficult shot to still pull off. Imo that needs to be a shot (either due to distance or layout for a shorter one) where "less than good" will not still work out quite well enough to still offer ample opportunity to still bird the hole. And imo there in then can still lie the integrity in a reachable par5. Being a bit "les than good" on an average par4 can often enough result in still having an opportunity to par the hole but not so much at all to still birdie it. So then a reachable par5 should also imo (after a bit less than good shots) not still offer decent opportunity to birdie the hole either.

Your idea of a reachable par 5 is more punitive than mine. Just because a par 5 is said to be reachable doesn't mean that it's an automatic birdie, with eagle a realistic option. All I think is that two good shots - not necessarily perfect shots - should put a player near the green even if not on, whether short or off to the side. For most of us a hybrid, FW or long iron is not necessarily going to be all that accurate all of the time, and since virtually nobody outside of the Tour gets up and down from off the green even 50% of the time, par is still the most likely scenario. But having a real chance for birdie, or even a semi-miraculous eagle, makes the game ever so much more fun. Being able to stand on the tee and say "This is a birdie hole", even if that birdie only happens one time in ten, still makes the game more attractive. That's what I mean when I talk about a reachable par 5.

Golf is Not a Game of Perfect, to quote Bob Rotella. Sometimes good should be good enough.

 

[InTheRough]

But imo a par5 is suppose to be a 3 shot hole just like a par4 is suppose to be a 2 shot hole. I view this the other way around and am not at all a fan of par5's in the 400's unless the hole has a layout that forces a lay-up or a very risky scenario of some sort. Other than that I think many par5's lose integrity on the average courses we play. The only way imo we should get on a par5 in 2 strokes is if it requires we make both our very best and longest drive and second shots And I don't mean just our better hits but I mean our very best. Sort of like the ones you cant count on when averaging driver distance. You shouldn't just hit 2 ok shots and be on or very close around a par5 green imo. An attempted eagle putt on a par5 should only come via 2 of the very best shots we can make. Either hole distance (or in lieu of distance, hole layout) imo must require that otherwise it has little integrity. Requiring anything less imo is really then a difficult par4 (which then of course is too difficult and heads in the other direction of not being a good hole. But that's just me. Its the same reason I think a par 4 in the upper 200's and even very low 300's with little to no real trouble are ridiculous and lack integrity. I don't want golf holes to be very difficult because its not fun I understand but imo they shouldn't lack integrity because that's not fun either.

Section 16 PAR COMPUTATION

Definitions

Within each section, all defined terms are in italics and are listed alphabetically in Section 2 - Definitions.

Yardages for guidance in computing par are given below. The effective playing length of a hole for the scratch golfer determines par. (See Section 13-3b.) These yardages may not be applied arbitrarily; the configuration of the ground and the severity of the obstacles should be taken into consideration.

Authorized golf associations are empowered to adjudicate questions of hole par. (See Decision 16/1.)

*************************

This is from the USGA Handicapping Manual. The yardage can vary depending upon the obstructions, hazards, narrowness of the fairway, trees, terrain, and stuff like that. Courses are also rated for par and slope. Your handicap is based on your differential when you play a course.

I like the idea of having one drivable par 4 on a course, but make it a risk/reward shot. One that you would do only if you were having a bad round or if you needed it to win a tournament. I like the idea of a couple of reachable in 2 par 5s, but remember only the best players are going to be accurate with that hybrid from 210 yds. - that isn't you or me. All this stuff affects the course rating and slope.

Those misses add up in a hurry.

 

[rollin]

the configuration of the ground and the severity of the obstacles should be taken into consideration.

The above is a big part of it. I did mention that the integrity can be maintained by either distance or difficulty. You cant get rid of both and keep a justifiable par5 imo. One just shoudnt imo be handed an eagle oportunity on a par 5 due to 2 decent shots. 2 decent shots should offer you great opportunity to par the hole with decent chance at bird. But we are talking about reaching in two so we are actually talking eagle putt here with great chance at bird. This is where some of this recent discussion may be overlooked. Putting for eagle should only come from 2 of our very best shots imo not just 2 average decent shots. Have a couple Reachable 5's? (which means eagle putt) ... yes ok ....but not at all via anything less than 2 of our best plays.

Also don't forget 471 yrds is even shorter from tee sets inwards.
And 210 yrd approach is indeed a difficult shot for most amateurs but still makeable. But being 210 out should only have come because of one hitting one of his best drives. But its hard to talk about the second shot yardage because 210 for some is a 3wood and others 5w, or maybe a 3 hybrid while others even a 4iron and some is driver distance. So second shot yardge is only relative when discussing how difficult it is. But point is that imo you shouldn't expect to have an eagle put via the route of anything but only your best shots prior. Just being decent enough (or good enough) should then result in "good enough". which means par and maybe a chance for bird....but not eagle. Eagle is not just "ok" nor "good enough" but its something special which should require something a little special from ones play and not just "good enough".

 

[InTheRough]

The average dog track has three to four sets of tees: red (4700 - 5400), white (6200), blue (6600), and possibly black (7200). Here's the deal with 475 yd par 5s. Like I've said from Trackman data. The Average Male Golfer hits about a 225 yd drive. So if you hit a 225 yd drive, that leaves you a 250 yd second shot. You're not going to hit a 250 yd 3W off the deck with a 93.7 mph SS. You'll hit about a 200 - 210 yd FW. This will leave you a wedge shot into the green unless you duff your second shot.

If you're hitting a 260 - 270 yd drives and keeping them playable you should not be playing from the whites. Move back a set of tees to the blues. That's where you should be playing. You should not have any par 5s under 500 yds, and most should be around 540 or longer from the blues. If you're hitting 300 yd controllable drives, consider yourself fortunate that you're a gifted athlete and stop complaining.

How many eagles have you had?

Remember I'm a woman and I play different yardages. I played for 3 summers from 1968-1970 (inclusive) and 2013-2015. I've had 1 and that was last summer. I've had a grand total of 4 birdies - three last year and two were on a par 4s. This is playing two 410 yd par 5s 50 times in the past two years, and add another 40 rounds on another course with one shot at an eagle. I should reach them in two but I only get pin high and off to the right or left and pitch on to about 6 feet and two putt for par. So there you go. That's 1 eagle in 140 chances on par 5 holes that were around 410 yds. Getting an eagle is extremely hard. Getting birdies is hard.

We should make the courses have more integrity and start a new thread "The Breaking 110 Thread." Seriously, the game is hard enough as it is.

But this has drifted off topic into a related area and has shown how much of an advantage distance is to the game.

 

[rollin]

The average dog track has three to four sets of tees: red (4700 - 5400), white (6200), blue (6600), and possibly black (7200). Here's the deal with 475 yd par 5s. Like I've said from Trackman data. The Average Male Golfer hits about a 225 yd drive. So if you hit a 225 yd drive, that leaves you a 250 yd second shot. You're not going to hit a 250 yd 3W off the deck with a 93.7 mph SS. You'll hit about a 200 - 210 yd FW. This will leave you a wedge shot into the green unless you duff your second shot.

If you're hitting a 260 - 270 yd drives and keeping them playable you should not be playing from the whites. Move back a set of tees to the blues. That's where you should be playing. You should not have any par 5s under 500 yds, and most should be around 540 or longer from the blues. If you're hitting 300 yd controllable drives, consider yourself fortunate that you're a gifted athlete and stop complaining.

How many eagles have you had?

Remember I'm a woman and I play different yardages. I played for 3 summers from 1968-1970 (inclusive) and 2013-2015. I've had 1 and that was last summer. I've had a grand total of 4 birdies - three last year and two were on a par 4s. This is playing two 410 yd par 5s 50 times in the past two years, and add another 40 rounds on another course with one shot at an eagle. I should reach them in two but I only get pin high and off to the right or left and pitch on to about 6 feet and two putt for par. So there you go. That's 1 eagle in 140 chances on par 5 holes that were around 410 yds. Getting an eagle is extremely hard. Getting birdies is hard.

We should make the courses have more integrity and start a new thread "The Breaking 110 Thread." Seriously, the game is hard enough as it is.

But this has drifted off topic into a related area and has shown how much of an advantage distance is to the game.

I'm not looking to make the game harder. I even stated that in one of my posts. I'm not even saying par 5's need to be so very hard. But that is in relation to par. The game is indeed hard enough. But we are not talking pars or even birds here. We are talking eagle and having the opportunity to eagle a par 5 should be very very hard and rare unless on id extremely good at this game. It doesn't matter how many times one has made one. That's not relevant. The opportunity to attempt one should only arise via nothing short of our very best golf. You can have an easier par 4 and an easier par 3 and also an easier par5. But that means easier to par and perhaps then by default also more birdie ops on those holes. I feel the same way about a drivable par4. If your going to have one than it imo needs to have great risk. You cant imo just have a short drivable par 4 with only minimal risk. It doesn't matter if one played it 50 times and never got on it (or a 100 times). That not really relevant. If the risk is only minimal its an opportunity on a hole with little integrity as a par4 imo. Its the same with reaching a par 5 in 2 strokes. The opportunity to reach (or be very near the greens) on a par5 in 2 strokes shouldn't imo present itself without ones very best shots and/or without great risk. Minimal risk if any and along with 2 not your best (but good) shots and your on the green putting for eagle? I am sorry but to eagle a par5 imo needs to be harder than that regardless how many times one was successful. That has nothing to do with making the game harder. making the game too hard would be making it so paring the hole is too hard. It is after all a par5.

Most people are not going to birdie a 98 yrd par3 most of the time or (for most amateurs) even par it. Most aren't going to par or birdie a drivable and minimal risk par4 either. But none of thats relevant. That doesn't dictate that the hole is already hard enough. Saying that a short no risk par4 has no integrity is not saying that I want golf to be harder. The opportunity to attempt to eagle a par4 imo without overcoming great risk and /or without your very best golf just shouldn't be. The same needs to apply to the par5. That's not at all implying the game needs to be harder. Thosee kinds of things are not only suppose to be the hardest but having the opportunity to attempt them shouldn't even come up unless one played his/her very best. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[Fourputt]

I'm not looking to make the game harder. I even stated that in one of my posts. I'm not even saying par 5's need to be so very hard. But that is in relation to par. The game is indeed hard enough. But we are not talking pars or even birds here. We are talking eagle and having the opportunity to eagle a par 5 should be very very hard and rare unless on id extremely good at this game. It doesn't matter how many times one has made one. That's not relevant. The opportunity to attempt one should only arise via nothing short of our very best golf.

Just as a continuation of this idea. Although I've had quite few eagles over the years, 2 of my first 7 eagles were aces, and the rest were all chipped in from off the green. Although I don't remember exactly, I didn't hole an eagle putt until my 8th or 9th eagle. I think that's in keeping with your contention that one shouldn't regularly have an eagle putt. This mostly happened back in the 90's and the early 2000's. I was more than average long for a weekend amateur with my driver and FW woods (although as today, accuracy could be erratic), so I definitely had an advantage over the "average" player in giving myself opportunities.

 

[rollin]

BTW and FWIW I also think that 250 or even 230 for that matter are ridiculous for par3's. I honestly don't think a par3 should be over 210 yards or so from any tee. 230's and 40's or even 20's imo is not what I would really consider any "real" fair chance at par for most players. Its less than fair because for most people it would require ones very best shot and not just a good shot. And although one might imply ....- "but its the same 210 that one might be away on the second shot par5" .... I say its a very different thing. Its very different because one is for "par" and the other is for "eagle". Not even bird but eagle. There is an enormous difference there. If one hit two good shots and was still 210 away on a par5 that would be ridiculously hard too.

To approach a par5 green with only average good play should imo then result in a shorter approach shot not too far from an average par4 approach with the exception of course that its ones 3rd shot, not second. This is suppose to be why it was rated a par5. It shouldn't be rated a par 5 because it is a small step above a difficult par4 unless its got some truly risky scenario involved that elevates its status. This isn't making the game harder. Harder would be making the hole too difficult to par.

 

[Den60]

Right now my putting is costing me the most strokes. I have been missing makeable putts more than making them. Finally got some instruction and I have been doing pretty much everything wrong.

 

[Den60]

The average dog track has three to four sets of tees: red (4700 - 5400), white (6200), blue (6600), and possibly black (7200). Here's the deal with 475 yd par 5s. Like I've said from Trackman data. The Average Male Golfer hits about a 225 yd drive. So if you hit a 225 yd drive, that leaves you a 250 yd second shot. You're not going to hit a 250 yd 3W off the deck with a 93.7 mph SS. You'll hit about a 200 - 210 yd FW. This will leave you a wedge shot into the green unless you duff your second shot.

If you're hitting a 260 - 270 yd drives and keeping them playable you should not be playing from the whites. Move back a set of tees to the blues. That's where you should be playing. You should not have any par 5s under 500 yds, and most should be around 540 or longer from the blues. If you're hitting 300 yd controllable drives, consider yourself fortunate that you're a gifted athlete and stop complaining.

How many eagles have you had?

Remember I'm a woman and I play different yardages. I played for 3 summers from 1968-1970 (inclusive) and 2013-2015. I've had 1 and that was last summer. I've had a grand total of 4 birdies - three last year and two were on a par 4s. This is playing two 410 yd par 5s 50 times in the past two years, and add another 40 rounds on another course with one shot at an eagle. I should reach them in two but I only get pin high and off to the right or left and pitch on to about 6 feet and two putt for par. So there you go. That's 1 eagle in 140 chances on par 5 holes that were around 410 yds. Getting an eagle is extremely hard. Getting birdies is hard.

We should make the courses have more integrity and start a new thread "The Breaking 110 Thread." Seriously, the game is hard enough as it is.

But this has drifted off topic into a related area and has shown how much of an advantage distance is to the game.

I missed my first eagle putt of my life two weeks ago and didn't know it. It was a short Par 5 (420 yards into the wind) with a blind uphill tee shot and OOB left. Pulled driver but kept things under control. Was left with 204 to the pin which was back. More than my hybrid but less than my 3W. So I choked down on the 3W a bit and hit it to the left of the green. I caught the greenside bunker but it skipped out onto the green for about a 30 foot putt. Proceeded to 3 putt from there. It wasn't until one of my partners said he had a 5 for par that I realized it was a Par 5.

 

[InTheRough]

@rollin - this is getting off topic.

What you're talking about is where course ratings come in. A course rating is determined by what a scratch golfer (or 0 HC) OF THAT GENDER can reasonably be expected to score on the course from the given set of tees.

According to the USGA for rating purposes: a male scratch golfer can drive the ball about 250 yds and can reach a 470 yd hole in two shots at sea level.

For rating purposes, a female scratch golfer can drive the ball 210 yds and can reach a 400 yd hole in two shots at sea level.

Say for example you have a hole that is 468 yds (red), 502 yds (white) and 525 yds (blue). My point was that FOR MEN, you're going to have the average male who hits the ball 225 yds off the tee, according to Trackman data. If this person is playing the White tees, they still have 277 yds. They are not going to make it in two shots. Their 3W will go at most 210. Best case scenario if they can hit a 3W. Some people can't hit one off the deck. This leaves them with a 67 yd scary Lob Wedge shot to the green which usually gets skulled over or chunked, ending any opportunity for birdie.

For the average woman whose average drive is 180 yds, this leaves 288 yds and another shot of about 150 yds with the 3W, leaving a 138 yd hybrid shot to the green and typically results in a bogey for a good score. This is a very tough hole and is probably the #1 handicap hole on the course.

So if there is a 471 yd par 5, it is most likely from the white tees, not the blue tees. My point is that if we go by Trackman data the Average Male Golfer won't be able to reach this green in two unless the planets are aligned properly and a goat is sacrificed. If you can reach these with ease, you might want to consider moving back a set of tees if you don't find the course challenging.

Courses are rated by people who know far more about the game than you or I.

I've played my best golf and have yet to break 88. Bottom line is that golf is hard. It is extremely challenging. If it wasn't we wouldn't need a handicap system. The only people I see who can shoot par and break par regularly are touring professionals, not people like you and me.

What you're arguing for a par 5 is 225 yds tee shot + 210 3W + a 150 6 iron shot = 585 yds. That's not challenging, that's brutal. Maybe for professionals, but not for amateurs. That is not a fun hole.