Par 4 and 5's are killing me

[SavvySwede]

I typically find par 3's are the holes I average the most above par.  A 200 yard par 3 requires a 200 yard shot for GIR.  Most 4's and 5's don't have anywhere near that.  The advantage of teeing the ball up helps, but on the whole, long par 3's are tougher for me.

This is pretty much the case for all lower handicappers. A high handicapper has a better chance of hitting one great shot than stringing together 2 or 3 decent shots on a par 4 or 5. 

[Dave2512]

Though I'd question whether a higher handicap golfer is in fact playing par 3's better unless they have the stats to back it up. The higher the handicap the lower their GIR is even with lucky shots. I wouldn't put much stock in scoring well on a par 27 course. Typically zero obstacles and flat greens compared to the par 3's found on longer courses.

 

[SavvySwede]

Though I'd question whether a higher handicap golfer is in fact playing par 3's better unless they have the stats to back it up. The higher the handicap the lower their GIR is even with lucky shots. I wouldn't put much stock in scoring well on a par 27 course. Typically zero obstacles and flat greens compared to the par 3's found on longer courses.

 

Still should be a higher GIR because the higher handicapper has a clear shot at the green every time instead of having no chance to begin with half the time because they're in the woods or too far out after a poor drive.

[billchao]

Still should be a higher GIR because the higher handicapper has a clear shot at the green every time instead of having no chance to begin with half the time because they're in the woods or too far out after a poor drive.

Yes, higher chance to make GIR from a par 3 because the first shot is the approach. Can't make GIR if you're lying 4 in the fairway.

[vangator]

Yes, higher chance to make GIR from a par 3 because the first shot is the approach. Can't make GIR if you're lying 4 in the fairway.

This is an interesting point.  I wonder what the stats would be.  Unless it's a short, I'm happy with par on any par 3.  Unless it's a long par 4, I'm looking to put the ball close for a good chance at par.  Most par 5s I'm looking to gain a stoke.  But higher handicappers would need to have the ball in play fairly long, plus they wouldn't have the advantage of the tee.  Unless they're long, a player could par a par 5 with 3 mid iron shots.  These guys who hit 170 yards 9 irons could do it with 3 of those.

[Dave2512]

Still should be a higher GIR because the higher handicapper has a clear shot at the green every time instead of having no chance to begin with half the time because they're in the woods or too far out after a poor drive.

I'd be willing to wager higher handicap golfers not only score lower relative to par on par 5's but that they also have a higher GIR % on every hole but par 3's. It's not the par it's their inability to hit solid shots from anywhere on the course. With par 3's they have just one chance to hit a good shot. On every other hole more chances to recover. If par 3's are harder for lower handicap golfers they're harder for higher handicap golfers regardless of luck.

With more par 4's and 5's on a course at some point happenstance and more opportunites is going to be in their favor.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Dave2512

[JonMA1]

I'd be willing to wager higher handicap golfers not only score lower relative to par on par 5's but that they also have a higher GIR % on every hole but par 3's. It's not the par it's their inability to hit solid shots from anywhere on the course. With par 3's they have just one chance to hit a good shot. On every other hole more chances to recover. If par 3's are harder for lower handicap golfers they're harder for higher handicap golfers regardless of luck.

With more par 4's and 5's on a course at some point happenstance and more opportunites is going to be in their favor.

I'd have to go with the higher handicappers doing better on par 3's.

It mostly depends on whether a course has longer than normal par 3's (there is quite a variance between the courses I play). But to simplify, lets say I'm playing 6,000 yard tees. The par 3's average 140 yards, the par 4's 345, and the par 5's 500. Let's also assume the player averages 230 yards with driver, and 210 yards with the 3 wood.

1. With the par 3's, I'm going to have a perfect lie on every approach shot.

2. Regardless of what my percentage of good shots vs bad shots are, the chances of a bad shot occurring multiply with each stroke. I'd have to pull off my best tee shot from a par 4, and my best tee shot followed by my best 2nd shot on a par 5 to get closer than the tee on the par 3's.

3. I'm more likely to mis-hit a longer club than an iron (don't know how typical this is with other high cappers).

4. Remember, as a poorer player I don't have the game to get up and down from a crappy tee shot off a par 4 or 5.

5. With a less-than-perfect par 3 tee shot, a decent chip can still set me up for a one putt (if you believe that the short game is easier to manage than the full swing).

[iacas]

I'd be willing to wager higher handicap golfers not only score lower relative to par on par 5's but that they also have a higher GIR % on every hole but par 3's. It's not the par it's their inability to hit solid shots from anywhere on the course. With par 3's they have just one chance to hit a good shot. On every other hole more chances to recover. If par 3's are harder for lower handicap golfers they're harder for higher handicap golfers regardless of luck.

Higher handicappers tend to do worse on par fives. It gives them more chances to hit a bad shot.

That's why par fives tend to be the holes which are 1-4 handicap holes. 

[billchao]

This is an interesting point.  I wonder what the stats would be.

I don't know what the stats are for amateurs, but I know that as players get better they score better on par 5s than par 3s. The median player on the PGA Tour this year scored +0.5 strokes to par on par 3s vs -0.33 strokes on par 5s. The reason is that better players are able to put themselves in better positions for their approach shots, so the tee shot on par 3s generally become the longest approach shots they face on the course.

Unless it's a short, I'm happy with par on any par 3.  Unless it's a long par 4, I'm looking to put the ball close for a good chance at par.  Most par 5s I'm looking to gain a stoke.

That's because you are a better player. The stats support your observations.

According to Game Golf, I score best on par 3s even though I don't have a single birdie on a par 3 on my stats. I also score better on par 5s than par 4s because I hit the ball long enough to be able to recover from a bad shot on a par 5 and I can reach a number of them in two with two good shots.

But higher handicappers would need to have the ball in play fairly long, plus they wouldn't have the advantage of the tee.  Unless they're long, a player could par a par 5 with 3 mid iron shots.

Not just fairly long, but they have to hit 3 good shots in a row. Hitting the ball consistently well is hard for high handicap players.

[vangator]

This is an interesting point.  I wonder what the stats would be.  Unless it's a short, I'm happy with par on any par 3.  Unless it's a long par 4, I'm looking to put the ball close for a good chance at par.  Most par 5s I'm looking to gain a stoke.  But higher handicappers would need to have the ball in play fairly long, plus they wouldn't have the advantage of the tee.  Unless they're long, a player could par a par 5 with 3 mid iron shots.  These guys who hit 170 yards 9 irons could do it with 3 of those.

I meant to say "for a good chance at birdie".

 

Higher handicappers tend to do worse on par fives. It gives them more chances to hit a bad shot.

That's why par fives tend to be the holes which are 1-4 handicap holes. 

That's funny.  I was waiting for "It gives them more chances to hit a good shot".