Less than regulation golf

[Shindig]

2 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

Sounds like it might be Arroyo Seco.

The course I play the most is a par 58 executive course, four par 4's, 14 3's.  That's my Goldilocks course, (it fits me just right).  

In the early morning I can walk it in less than two hours, and it's not long enough that it tires me out to walk it.  It also is full of hazards on every hole and has small undulating greens both of which provide a challenge.  I've gotten use to taking penalty strokes on this course, just part of the game. It's in the middle of the city but you are out in nature.  And oh yeah, for $30 a month I get free range balls and discounted greens fees including a $5 walking rate before 8 a.m. on weekdays.  My favorite course.  Some in my neck of the woods will recognize it.

Indeed, it's Arroyo Seco.  Anything I should know about it?

If I find myself in San Diego, I may need to look into the course you're describing.  Sounds nice. 

[dave s]

Same as others with the feeling that executive courses are great practice venues.  On all the par 4s, I hit hybrid or fairway woods off tees and whatever into greens.  If they have more than one set of tees, I'll play par 3s from each tee length if it doesn't hold up the course. I may try to drive a shorty par-4 hole with a driver to set up an eagle oppty.

It's not always necessary to play a regulation course ... whatever that may be.  If the place has tees, fairways, greens and cups to putt the ball into, it's golf.  And wherever you choose play, enjoy the game.

dave

 

[chilepepper]

I play " regular" courses and I play " executive" courses. They are both fun, my handicap is accounted for properly by Ghin. Life is good

[Piz]

I'd play golf on the moon...I really don't care.  Like a connoisseur of cheap wine; I must seek pleasure in whatever meager portions it is presented.  The nearby executive course is a 3783 yd par 61 with some challenging holes.  There are a few nothing specials, to be sure, and one hole that is haunted. I like the place.  Some do not.  A full round, weekday mornings, costs 22 bucks and takes 2 hours to play.  Works for me.

[newtogolf]

I'd take just about any course as long as pace of play is decent over the range if I'm not practicing something specific.  

[bkuehn1952]

21 hours ago, stealthhwk said:

Why all the hate, and what are your thoughts on less than regulation golf courses?

I think like many other have said, there is no hate, just the acknowledgement that a great score on a par 67 (or whatever) doesn't compare well to a longer and higher par course.  One of our city courses is a par 67.  Since it just creeps over 5,000 yards it has a USGA course/slope rating.  If I were ever able to get a + differential I can assure you I would brag about it.

It is mainly inhabited by seniors, beginners and the like. I will stop in when I have other plans for much of the day and they keep it open well into December (or later!) if there is no snow.  It is a sporty little track and I would challenge even a very good player to play it with all pars on the par 3 holes.  Lots of hills on the back "11" while the flat "7" features a couple tough par 3's (231 yards and 196 yards). 

[stealthhwk]

Many have shared about some cool less than regulation courses. I just feel like golfers are cheating themselves. There is some great challenging golf out there that people are missing out on just because par isnt 70 or higher. The par 66 I refer to is beautiful, cheap, and tough as nails esp in the wind. Im actually still more proud of the 82 and 83 I shot there than the 88 I shot at a regulation course last week. Reg course had more yards to eat, but its nowhere near as challenging as the par 66. Granted if u dont hit a poor shot, its cake. But u hit one bad shot, or its windy, and your gonna be seriously tested.

[Fourputt]

3 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

I see the wink... but, was the differential less than 18?  The course rating and slope and differential calculation takes care of all that.  "I shot a differential under 18" just doesn't have the same appeal as "I broke 90" though.

I don't care what the differential was.  You could have a par 72 course with the same differential.  Par is still par, and that's all he's really asking.  He shot 16 over par, therefore he did the equivalent of breaking 90 on a par 72 course.  

[stealthhwk]

Just for some clarification. Its all about me trying to wrap my head around everybody elses disinterest in less than regulation courses. I have broke 90 on regulation courses and non regulation courses before. Ive shot 82 at the par 66 and Ive also shot 103. So, the place can obviously give me fits. But imho its a great little course, and I dont understand why people discount anything happening there. I always thought par is par and golf is golf. I find it REFRESHING many of you agree and show love for some of the non regulation courses. I just struggle to understand everybody that disses it.

[pganapathy]

I have never understood why guys get so hung up on the gross number you played.  For me the gross number is just a marker to tell me how many over or under the course somebody is.  I had a discussion with a friend on which was a better score: 59 on a par 70 or 60 on a par 72 and I say since the 60 is 12 under, that is better.  For me your net score is what matters

[cutchemist42]

Now that I think about it more, the only time I might dislike a smaller par course would be if it didnt involve a whole lot of the bag. 

[shanksalot]

When I lived in San Diego there was an executive course there that had 3 nine hole par 30  courses playing at a par of 60. It was a really fun course to play. They rotate the nines each day. When we played it it really helped our iron play since there were a lot of par threes. But we never told anyone we shot 62 or what ever because it was not relevant to normal scoring. I guess you could say I shot five over par today, but it would be silly to say you shot 65 unless you say it was on a par 60 executive course. I wish we had one here so we could play it. They are a lot of fun to play. 

[No Mulligans]

2 hours ago, cutchemist42 said:

Now that I think about it more, the only time I might dislike a smaller par course would be if it didnt involve a whole lot of the bag. 

Yes, that and you don't take many full swings from the fairway that aren't wedges.  Consequently, you're hitting off a tee a lot.

I go to to a mountain course that is a par 35 9 hole. That's my favorite type of round, just play 9 on a full course.  Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any full courses around where I live that let you play 9.  I need to search that out.

[Fairway_CY]

Although it's far from my 'favorite' course... there is a local course that has a separate 9 hole track.  It's not very well maintained, at all... but it's nice to get out there and play on a weekday morning where I can play in just over an hour.

It's a par 35 (3 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 5) that plays to 2914 yards from the back tees.  Even though it's short, it's fairly tight and requires a number of different shots to navigate around the course successfully.  

I've shot as low as 40 (great round for me) and as high as 65 (only 1 hole less than a triple the entire round) on that course.  It's a good tournament prep course for me because I'm usually out there alone and I can focus on a specific part of my game.  

It gets reviewed pretty poorly out here, but... I'm a fan of the place.  

My best score ever was a 76 on a par 65 executive course in 2011.  I was extremely proud of that round.  My best score to par ever was an 81 (+9) earlier this year.  I put those 2 rounds really close together on my scale because they were, in my opinion, equally difficult to shoot.  

I agree with others that say play where you have fun.  If you're playing good golf... you're playing good golf.  I don't care if it's on a par 3 course, an executive course or a par 72 course playing from 6800 yards.  It's always nice to post something you can be proud of.

 

CY

[Strandly]

I've never heard anyone talk smack about the short courses.  I think they're a real fun change of pace.

[No Mulligans]

My home course, Tecolote Canyon, is a par 58 with fourteen par 3's and 4 Par 4's (short around 300 each).  The course has a rating/slope of 55.2/99.  From experience, it feels that 12 over is about playing as well as scoring a 90 on a full size course.  12 over has a differential of 16.9, scoring a 90 from the whites at Torrey Pines north is a differential of 17.4.  Close enough.  Turns out I was right in initial guesstimate.

My best score at Tecolote was 5 over with a differential of 8.9, that would be an 81 at Torrey Pines from the whites.  It feels to me an 81 at Torrey would be playing much better.  And I wouldn't tell anyone I nearly shot an 80 based on my 5 over at Tecolote.

Anyways, playing 17 over on that executive is not equivalent to breaking 90.  It's closer to the equivalent of a 95, at least from the whites at Torrey (rating/slope, 70.8/125).  Those courses might not be representative, but the point is you have to consider rating and slope.  I'd guess the majority of the executive courses have ratings below the par and/or have slopes below 113.

22 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I don't care what the differential was.  You could have a par 72 course with the same differential.  Par is still par, and that's all he's really asking.  He shot 16 over par, therefore he did the equivalent of breaking 90 on a par 72 course.  

 

[Patch]

Golf is golf no matter where you play.  The size of the course is of no consequence. Par is just a number for the golfer to measure themselves against. In the end you still got to put the ball in the hole,  in the shortest number of strokes possible, while having fun doing it.