Clue wrote:Tweener holes absolutely exist. For instance, at Humboldt this last weekend, one of the add on holes was right at 500ft with no trees. Both rounds everyone came up 100-120 short, layed up to 10ft and made 3. One exception, a guy muffed his drive, but still got up and down because there was no obstacle. Don't take my word for it, Houck has written at least 100 articles about it.
The real problem with defining a hole as a twener is that the distance used to quantify a tweener changes with every golfer.
That's where the issue when people try to define par. Par is not based on each golfer, its based on what level of golfer the hole was designed for.
Quote from CK regarding a different hole on a different course, but the logic's the same:
Bottom line is if at least 2/3 of the player skill level a shot is intended for cannot make it, then it descends into luck. That's what it boils down to no matter where you place the pinch point. If only half of the players at a skill level can execute the shot, why is that any different than a coin flip?
IMO, like Tanner pointed out, its not a matter of par, its a matter of if its a bad hole or a good hole. Using Chuck's logic, which I agree with, its a bad hole.
"I'm not impressed with aces of any kind. 95% of the time, they're just bad shots that got lucky and happened to hit the chains. Otherwise, they'd have sailed 50' past the hole." ~ Cydisc