Forums

How about an 18 hole par 3 course?

• Allen63 364 Posts

  Tue, Apr 17 2012 6:37 AM

  There are enough holes with the existing courses to put one together and if a true "executive" course were desired, there could be a couple short par 4's included in lieu of a couple of the par 3 holes.

  I lived in south Florida for a few years and there were quite a few executive (i.e. par 3) courses down there that were a nice option if the higher profile courses were too stacked for tee times on the weekend or if I just wanted a quick hit in the evening during a work week. They allow for some really good par 3 practice and as stated above, with an odd par 4 thrown in can also make for some interesting rounds with some friends.

  This would be fun as an option for a skins game IMO, or just to dial in a new set of irons.

  Just a thought.

• piztaker 5,743 Posts

  Tue, Apr 17 2012 10:14 AM

  It's been suggested many times. One of the problems would be that it would mess up the averages.

• Hewsey 1,958 Posts

  Tue, Apr 17 2012 10:22 AM

  Couldn't it be played in practise rounds only???  Just a thought.

• Allen63 364 Posts

  Tue, Apr 24 2012 9:23 AM

  piztaker:

  It's been suggested many times. One of the problems would be that it would mess up the averages.

   

  How would it mess up averages? Every golf score (with the exception of blitz and ctth in this game) is a number in relation to par. What's the difference if par is 36 for 9 holes or 27 for 9 holes? (the obvious answer is 9, but that's not what I mean)

  If you're talking about fairways in regulation, well, that shouldn't even be considered because par 3's aren't used in that calculation in tour stats either. If it's GIR you're worried about, so what. If you hit the green, you hit the green.

  I don't get it.

   

• TarheelsRule 5,613 Posts

  Tue, Apr 24 2012 6:48 PM

  You sure about that, I thought that every round was the actual score recorded with no relationship to par.  For example 10 under at Oakmont as a par 70 is not the same as 10 under at Kiawah as a par 72.

• Buggyyy 1,963 Posts

  Tue, Apr 24 2012 7:23 PM

  No, he's right. It is in relationship to par. If I shoot a -8 on a par 72 course, my average goes up, but if I shoot an -8 on a par 70, my average stays the same or goes down.

• MBaggese 15,378 Posts

  Tue, Apr 24 2012 7:26 PM

  Buggyyy:

  No, he's right. It is in relationship to par. If I shoot a -8 on a par 72 course, my average goes up, but if I shoot an -8 on a par 70, my average stays the same or goes down.

  You can't shoot -8 ;) 

• Buggyyy 1,963 Posts

  Tue, Apr 24 2012 8:10 PM

  MBaggese:

  You can't shoot -8 ;) 

  I can't anymore. I used to be able to.

• LeonDelBosque 1,551 Posts

  Tue, Apr 24 2012 9:23 PM

  Buggyyy:

  No, he's right. It is in relationship to par. If I shoot a -8 on a par 72 course, my average goes up, but if I shoot an -8 on a par 70, my average stays the same or goes down.

  Huh? If you shoot -8 on a par 72 it's a 64; on a par 70 it's 62.

  Your average is 62+ ... it goes up on a) and down on b); so it's NOT in relation to par. (otherwise "-8" would have the same effect in both cases)

   

• Allen63 364 Posts

  Wed, Apr 25 2012 4:39 AM

  My point is, it would be relatively easy to do and does NOT have to have impact upon averages. I know it would be counter-productive to many players' requests to include ALL games in calculating averages etc, but under the current formula, it doesn't have to do so.

  I'd like to hear a better argument than affecting averages. No offense.

  Purity of the game? No. We already have ctth and blitz games