Hole 18 - Let the debate begin
 

If hole 18 (on the orginal course were to have a par other than three, what should it be? I'm thinking five, but can a case be made for four?

I believe it should be a par 4 since it is a good birdie 3.

That would mean shot one, over the hill, shot two over the swamp and near the basket, and two putts. Is that how most people play it?

Most of the weenie arms I play with (self included) play one shot to the top of the hill, maybe slightly over. Shot two goes to the bottom of the hill and/or in the swamp. Shot three over/out of the swamp to basket. Two putts for a five.
I should be able to get a four, but I don't think I have yet. :headbang:

four 4 quatro

I think you could make a case for 5, but I agree that 4 makes the most sense. Yeah, it's 600+ feet, but it is downhill.

One time I put it 40 feet from the swamp on my drive. I think you need to switch to backhand. :nahnah::biggrin2:

Maybe I should switch to being 28 years old. :nahnah:

If you start adjusting pars on the long holes you have to do it on the short ones also. It's not realistic for a course like Hornings to play above par 54 when compared to the likes of Pier, Dabney, Dexter etc.

Having said that, there is a realistic case for 13 and 18 to be considered par four holes. There is no reason par 5 should be part of the discussion.

My feeling is if you are going to mess with the par ratings on two of the holes at Hornings, you have to be consistent and do it for every hole in the region. Get out Chuck Kennedy's charts and start figuring out what is a realistic number for par on everything. That's a laborious undertaking, and would probably result in a few more par 4 holes in the region and a large number of par 2 golf holes. Is this necessary?

4 seems fair on this hole. Good hole; fun to play.

I agree with Eric,

make 18 a par 4, make 12 a par 2, make hole 3 a par 2, and 13 a par 4!

Either way it doesn't really matter the SSA is a 47 so it is not a very tough course regardless of what you make the self par!

Only 3 score cards in the pro field and 11 in the Adv men scored over 54 in the only PDGA tournament ever held there. I don't mean to sound bleak but Eric's on point with this one.

The adage of two putts after you are on the green no longer is a true statement.

I just have a fundamental problem with the concept of par twos. You can play a hole perfectly and not get a birdie? Doesn't seem right.

Some people have said the short course should be all par 2's, and I disagree for exactly this reason. You shouldn't have to get aces to go under par.

Honestly, if par on the HH short course were 2.5 on every hole, that would probably yield sensible results!

Wow, what a lot of discussion :). Actually, I agree with Adam on a lot of his statements. By the guidelines I tried to follow from PDGA, hole 13 and 18 on the original (Canyon) Course are pushing par 4, but not par 5. Holes 5, 11 and 12 are more 2.5 right now, but I plan on moving the targets a bit and making them a true par 3.
As far as the Peacock, Hillside, short 2nd course, Adam is about right on calling them an average of about 2.5. When we set it up we were looking for a par 2 or 2.5, but at the same time challenging and pushing the accuracy end of the game. So far everyone has been keeping a tally of their scores by calling it par 3, which is good for comparison of scores.
Of course this is all pdga gold standard par settings, not blue or red.
on a side note, been thinning out the trees for the new course, this should be a true par 3 at the minimum course, challenging to say the least. One hole, # 16, may be a par 6.
later,:rockon:

the whole par 2 idea is down right stupid and would ruin the game. look at the new course its tiny but all par twos would make it not fun, its one thing to have an ace race but if playing a round and keeping score finishing at 23 over would make most people including me annoyed to the point that i probably wouldn't play the course at all. im not calling any one stupid just the idea. any way back to the hole discussion i think par 4 is a good idea. heck i had a 100 foot look at a three my first time playing it.

When you speak of par, you have to ask yourself why are playing that given round. Is this a pdga tourney round with, unfortunately, pride on the line. If so, par is just a way to rate who is throwing well during a given set of rounds. Then by all means keep everything a par 3 for easy math, heck it's stoke play, so they're counting every stroke regardless of par; lowest total wins ... cool. If on the other hand you want to use par to communicate the average number of stokes to traverse a well laid out hole, the par needs to be determined setting a standard for that given terrain. Let's use a pdga 1000 rated golfer. The par is figured in feet from T to pin, adding in the landscape, obstacles, and any mando along the way. Hole 13 comes in short on distance, but scores higher on terrain, but it would be considered a short par 4 for a 1k rated golfer. Hole 18 scores well on distance, mando, and obstacles, and would be considered a 4 for a 1k golfer.
Ask yourself, why are playing this game. I love to play for the course itself. I love to get birdies at Pier, Dabney, Milo, and as for Horning's - I love to run at the baskets on the short course, a nice draw for an old arm like mine. Course #1, well it's hard for me to dislike any part of that course, but I've always played 13 and 18 as 4s. And as for the new course, I spoke to Bob about a hole on the new course, he told me, "It's two shots to the turn." Bring on a five baby.
Par ... it is what you make of it ... what do you want it to do?

Nice work, Bob!

Dang Darr, that is monstrous. you are one sick puppy. I bet Crider has a tough time getting that shot. You go dawg.

IMO Par is what the average Pro would shoot that course over 10 rounds. In other words, you have to truly define what a "PRO" must shoot on ANY course in order to be a "PRO". Once proper standards are applied to a "PRO" player then they can be applied to any course that player shoots 10 rounds on. As you all know, it is fairly common for a person to shoot the round of their life on any course at any time, but the true measure of your ability is determined by the average number of strokes it takes to get around a course over a predetermined number of rounds. The PDGA seems to have gotten this part right. Flash seems to have gotten it right as well. Bob got it the rightest. He understands the way the system should work. He has built 2 courses that play par for 2 types of players. He is working on a 3rd that will cater to the average advanced or Pro player it sounds like. How cool is that? no matter what level you play at, you can spend the day at Hornings having a blast and challenging yourself. I would buy that for $3.00. Way to go Bob. The only thing I ask is that the 3rd course should be able to kick the average Pro's butt. It should be a legit par 3 for 960 rated players and up. That would challenge even the best players in any Oregon Series. The Elite course will come later?

I am going to press Submit now and I expect a **it storm of opposition on this