Does tzwein know courses are 18 holes? lol

Or you can have less par 3s and less par 5s....

You could even have 0 par 3s and still be par 72. Shocking, I know.

Does ARC know that those holes can be comprised of any combination of par 3, 4, and 5 holes?

Sigh. Me and Reid know what's up. Let me try to make sense of the last several posts.

Someone brought up the extremely valid point that par 70/71 are not THAT much easier than par 72s, because it means there are fewer (not less) par 5s. And par 5s are the easiest holes, scoring-wise. While par 3s are the hardest holes, scoring-wise.

Then Zwein came in and said sometimes it's less (fewer) par 3s. This seems to imply that the short courses aren't as hard as that poster made them sound, because there are fewer of the toughest scoring holes.

I crunched some numbers and found that, for a par 70 course, the par 3s will outnumber the par 5s by TWO. This negates the point Zwein was trying to make about scoring because, again, the par 3s are harder than the par 5s in general. So you ideally want the par 5s to equal the par 3s (par 72). Scoring, relative to par, will be easiest this way.

Basically, whatever counter-point he was trying to make about scoring being so much easier on par 70 or 71 is wrong. As is his "59 on a par 70 or 71 is dumb". Shooting a 59 on a par 70 is still incredibly difficult. Unless you think birdie-ing par 3s is easy.

Again, the difference just isn't very linear (in either direction the way I'm saying or Zwein is saying). It's somewhere in between.

Played a weird par 70 about 2 weeks ago that had 6 par 3s. Was kinda trippy

I bet it's easy to shoot 59 there!

By the way, speaking of par 2s. I think it would be cool if a course had a par 2 (and maybe a par 6 to counteract). The par 2 is just a slightly elevated green with some fringe and grass off the green (a typical elevated green). There is a "tee box" just off the green in the grass and you have to drop your ball here with no tee. You basically just try to get up and down for par. So it's obviously a tough hole since every other hole par gets allotted 2 putts. I think this would be fun though. Or maybe you just drop on the fringe and try to 2-putt from there for par. I like the idea of the pitch and putt though because they can tuck the pin close, near the "tee box" and make it extremely difficult to get up and down. But then also allow some birdie chip-ins. HOLE IN ONE!

I wasn't comparing par 3s to par 5s, saying there could be less par 3s than 5s. I was saying there could be less par 3s than normal.

And 'fewer' and 'less' are synonyms lol

Though I'm pretty sure having less par 3s isn't as important as having as many par 5s as possible, but it could depend on how hard the par 3s are. Don't know why I brought anything up really.

Yes but that has nothing to do with your original point. Or, to put it better, that comment not only doesn't help your point, it hurts it. But you keep re-iterating it. If a course is a par 70 and it has fewer par 3s than normal it will have, at most, ONE par 5.

Fewer 3s than normal means 3 or fewer. If a course has 3 par 3s and it's a par 70, then it can only have one par 5.

This does not make scoring easy. Shooting 59 on any 18 hole course par 70 or higher is impressive as hell. A par 70 course is not going to be 2.0 strokes easier than a par 72. Because par 3s are harder relative to par than par 5s.

Like, let's say par 4 scoring averages 4.0 strokes per hole. Par 3 scoring averages 3.25 strokes per hole, and par 5s average 4.75 strokes per hole. Not sure what reality is but I'm keeping this simple and I know that the scoring is not linear.

Now you can see how a course having more par 3s than par 5s is harder, relative to par, than when the number of 5s equals the number of 3s.

Bellerive in St. Louis has a par 2 course. It really is pretty cool I'm sure other country clubs have similar things.

Par 2's suck. There is little or no chance for a birdie unless you chip in/long putt.

With par 3/4/5's the general idea is that you play them well and get close you have a chance to make birdie. Par 2 is like being forced to make a good up and down for a par. Imagine you've just had 4 birdies in a row and you get to the par 2 with little or no chance to continu the run.

The real issue here is that the web.com tour needs to set these courses harder. Two 59s in three weeks is probably indicative of a setup that is too easy.

Friday's scoring average was 68.12. (Par 71). So yes the course should get more difficult as the week goes on - but I don't think scoring should be so low when the guys who aren't playing well and blasting 80s are still in the field. Let's go web.com tour - tuck some pins and narrow a few fairways.

Yeah but it's negated by the par 6, which should be easily reachable in 3 good shots! Eagle putt or 2-putt birdie!

Par 6 would take up a lot of land. I assume you would want to make the hole 750 ish yards, with tee option to extend the hole. I mean it's a lot of trouble and length when you could just have challenging par 5's instead.

I'm sure it would be fun playing a crazy course with par 2 and 6's but just not very practical.

Would be interesting if there was a proper par 6 on a tour event. I mean how long would the thing have to be? Assuming it's flat the Pro's are hitting it 300 ish off the tee plus 2 good fairway woods around 250-280 plus an approach shot you are getting on for a 900 yard hole. Obviously you could be into the wind so you don't want to make it too long but it would have to be long enough that it isn't guaranteed birdie every time.

make it 650 with an island green

I played a par 6 at this course http://www.townofblackmountain.org/golf.htm

Downhill then uphill double dogleg 747 from tips, 700 from white. It was a full 4 shot hole unless you crushed your second far enough not to be blocked out. Basically a gimmick hole.

Tiger Tiger Tiger

Hope the Live @ coverage on the pgatour.com website makes an exception and shows Tiger

this is sick

Par 70 tho :P

I mostly agree with 59 being a dumb number. Relation to par >>>>>>>>>>> some silly #.

-13 should be the milestone on Tour and -14 should be the magic number.

Just like total scoring records at some majors(aka 274 etc etc) are stupid because the par varies from year to year.

And really if you wanted to look at the greatest rounds/tournaments ever played the best measure would probably be score in relation to field. Tiger Woods huge victories at Augusta and Pebble are good examples of tournaments and more recently Phil's final round at the British where he was the low man of the day and was more than 7 shots better than the field average is probably up there with the greatest rounds of all time.

Or finishing score in relation to 2nd place..

It would take me fewer time to just move on with my life than respond to this but I am bored. It just is something I could not care fewer about. I guess other people find it fewer interesting than I do.

But surely you must appreciate how monumentally more difficult it is to shoot 57 on a par 70 than to shoot 59 on a par 72, no?

Words don't have to be interchangeable to be synonyms. Some are always interchangeable, some only sometimes are, and some are not interchangeable at all. Context matters. Schooled bro.

Right. Sometimes words have similar meanings but shouldn't be used interchangeably. I'm glad you agree that the word "less" was used incorrectly up above because it isn't interchangeable with the word "fewer."