Why not change par for the pros?

[Mike_Cirba]

So many classic courses are seeing changes (some good, some not so good) in the interest of "protecting par" against the professionals.

The definition of par is is "the score an expert player should score on a given hole".

Because of a host of factors, including technology, the score an expert player should score on a given hole has changed.  Take Duval's win at Lytham.  If I recall correctly, he was -10 on the par fives.

Let's look at Augusta.  If suddenly, 2,8,13, & 15 were par fours, with a overall par of 68 for the Masters, why is that a bad thing?

A course like Merion would have 3 monster par fours on the front nine, at 2,4,&5, which would create a better balance with the tough finishing stretch.

If we're simply talking a numbers game, why isn't this eminently sensible?

Is ripping up the place and building new tees and adding yardage (everywhere we can, in the words of Hootie) to classic courses more sensible?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Why not simply abandon par?

I mean, regardless what a scorecard illustrates as par for an individual hole, we're all -- the PGA Tour pros included -- trying to use the fewest number of strokes possible to hole our ball.

Thus, what's the significance of par? I don't believe it has a significance. Yet, sadly, it's a focal point in the game. Strange.

Take a 480 yard long hole, call it a par 5, and it'll likely be criticised as "too easy". Call the same hole a par 4 and it'll  probably be heralded as an extremely challenging two-shot hole (?).

Sounds like Augusta's 13th, doesn't it?

But, we don't care about par on that hole. It's simply an extremely exciting hole to play, and to watch the world's best play during The Masters each year... regardless of it's said par.

Par is pointless.

We should be more concerned about the world's best still having to play long clubs on occassion. Therein lies a problem today.

Personally, I don't care if the pros get to 20-under par for a four round tournament. They're good after all. But I'd like to see them presented with a long iron/fairway wood test on at least a few holes during the course of a round.

How is this possible these days?

We've built a 240 yard par 3 this year, at Blackhawk in Edmonton, in an attempt to put a long club in the hands of the very best players that may come through. But, for example, which club does Tiger pull from 240 yards -- on relatively level ground, with no wind? It's certainly not a 3-wood... or even a 2-iron. With a bit of wind assisting him, he might hit a 6-iron (!).

If the USGA doesn't do something quick about the ball, they're going to be force to change their par equation. And we'll then be seeing 300 yard par 3 holes.  

Let's hope the day never comes. If it does, I'll be priced out of playing the game...

[jglenn]

Bravo, Jeff.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  Par is a totally useless concept in golf.  It certainly has done far more too harm golf course architecture than just about anything else around.

As far as putting long irons into the hands of good players, I'm all for the idea as well.  "Test every club in the bag" is a bit of an over-used cliché, but it has merit.  

The thing is, the long iron doesn't need to be used for an approach shot to be "tested".

[aclayman]

A former poster here used to advocate the senseless obsession with the scorecard and pencil. He is correct that a diemnsional move to match play would solve all these issues.
Then there is the:
Course Managers who are after revenue and are sick of losing groups to longer scorecard courses, Now, they have a real incentive to lengthen the course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeremy,

I would disagree that a long iron doesn't have to be used on approach to be "tested".

In my opinion, using a 2-iron standing level with the ball on a tee is much different than approaching a green with the same club from a downhill/sidehill lie, for example.

The latter needs to be "tested".

Back to the root of this discussion, the problem is that today we need to build 550 yard plus holes -- and call them par 4s -- to put long irons into the hands of the world's best in the fairway. I mean, these guys are hitting 9-irons into 500 yard par 5s everywhere nowadays.

[ForkaB]

Jeff

How about just building downhill/sidehill sloping tees for your long 3's? I must admit that I am finding it very, very hard to understand why "we" NEED "to put long irons into the hands of the world's best in the fairway."  We know they can play that shot.  Why ruin golf for the rest of us just to prove that simple fact?

Rich "Just now recovering from the 560 yard par-4 that I and 3 other GCA'ers played on Wed" Goodale

[BillV]

JeffM

Edmonton, like Denver and Salt Lake CIty are high above sea level making up to 2 clubs difference.  240 in Denver was a 3-4 iron for us non-Tiger types.

This whole thing about distance control and classical courses comes down to whether or not we wish to preserve some courses as they now exist. Years ago not many club members played the "blues" on these 6400 yd courses, now many and virtually all under 30 do.  Digging up the spare land and expanding golf courses probably ought to be stopped one of these days.  Why not now?

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich:

I'm not clear what you mean by saying "we" don't need to test the pros with long iron approach shots because we already "know" they can hit them.

What exactly is the point of a tournament?

Also, are you saying it is impossible to design a course that tests long iron approaches for the pros without "ruining" the course for the rest of us?

[ForkaB]

Timn

To me the point of a tournament is to see who is the "best" golfer for the 4-days, under the conditions offerred by the course, the weather and the competition.  It is not an A-Z skills test, nor should it be.  NO golf course, current or imagined, can test all of the skilled golfer's skills.  Pinehurst doesn't have wind.  Pebble Beach does not have the design or agromony or climate to test the ground game. Pine Valley has neither.  NGLA and Dornoch and TOC lack length.  Augusta has innumerable flaws, as evidenced by the fact that the club feels the need to dramatically change the course nearly every year.

To me, requiring that any champion be able to hit every possible golf shot better than any of his competitors, is like trying to settle the NBA championship by a game of H-O-R-S-E, or the Super Bowl by a Punt Pass and Kick competition, or the World Series by a Home Run Derby.

I didn't notice any downhill/sidehill 3-irons hit at Lytham last month, and the tournament was not any the worse for that.

And, yes, I do believe that it is impossible to design a course that both makes the pros play a 1-iron to a hole such as Merion #18, and allows us mortals some sort of golfing satisfaction from the same hole.

What is very possible, and in fact what we do have, in spades, are lots of tremendous golf courses, including all of our favorites, which can test all of us (including the David Egers and Ken Baksts of our world) and also test the pros, but at a completely different level, as it should be.  As BillV has said in effect, on another thread, we are all pond scum compared to those 200 or so guys who can make some decent money on the various pro tours.  We very much deceive ourselves if we even begin to think we are playing the same game as are they.

[Ed_Baker]

How about having the pros play the same game we do. NET MEDAL!

If a touring pro is a plus 7 handicap his 65 becomes 72. Par is protected,Corey Pavin can compete with Tiger,and you would have 1 winner per week and a 70 way tie for second!

My point is, that the pros have always "played a different game".The term and concept of par is here to stay and is accepted as the universal measurement of "how well" the best player scored against the golf course and field.
The aggregate of 268 is meaningless until it is put in to the -20 term for the media and masses.The same aggregate stated as "only" 12 under or -12 for a par 70 course seems to indicate that the field was weak.Silly.

Lytham stood the test of time because "only" 10 under won the open! What was the aggregate and how did it compare to other opens held at Lytham?

We as purists understand aggregate as the definitive measurement of golfing excellence on any golf course,but that score must be "validated" in relation to a universally accepted "benchmark" that has come to be known as "par" for the masses to relate too.

If the reason for adding length to championship venues is really to protect "par" then Mikes premise would certainly solve that problem.

I think Mikes point is well taken that what is really obsolete is not the golf courses,but the concept of "par".

Publish and publicize aggregate and leave the golf courses alone!

[Bob_Huntley]

I have a rather old score-card from Muirfield about the same size as a credit card. It had columns for the scores of two players, no reference to par and very little room to record the money changing hands.

Perhaps we should do away with par for the pros and just post the numbers.

I am afraid it's just not the pros that are making a mockery of the older layouts. I played with a 16 year old English schoolboy who hit a three iron, through a stiff breeze, to the 16th at Cypress and hit every par 5 in two. It would seem that the only way to control the situation is by having pot bunkers or water in play on every hole. With the pusillanimity of the governing bodies of golf, it sure will not happen with a restriction on ball velocity.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich:

Of course, no single golf course can test every possible golf skill A to Z.

Thank God they are not all the same!

Still, I do believe it is reasonable to ask major championships to test a variety of golf skills, including the ability to play a variety of clubs.

Certainly, that is a better test than a repetition of drivers followed by short iron approach shots.

Your analogy of H O R S E is interesting.  Isn't that game usually played by taking shots from a variety of angles and distances?

I don't want to settle the NBA championship by substituting that game.  Rather, I just want players in major golf championships to  have something other than just drivers and short irons in their hands.

[ForkaB]

Tim

I have the same wishes as you.  However, I would prefer that we identify and nurture courses that will put a short iron in your hand if you find the "fast lane" off the tee, but will require a long iron if you stray from that "line of charm."

Such courses do exist.

[Jason_Henham]

Bob,

I've posted before on the concept of par and why this arbitrary measure is redundant (if it ever wasn't in the first place). The only possible reason I could come up with for maintaining par (an understandable reason, not necessarily justifiable) was so that comparisons could be made between between pros at any given stage in a tournament. So, I'm not quite sure merely posting scores would work. With Brad Faxon letting us all know that ratings are soaring and the money's flowing, I'm don't think we'll be seeing the widespread removal of par for a long time.

Jason

[Jeff_Mingay]

Rich's comments above emphasize a question I've pondered lately: In the history of the game, has their ever been a bigger gap between the abilities of the very, very best and the rest? I don't think so, and it's totally attributable to today's equipment.

I mean, was Ben Hogan hitting the ball nearly 100 yards further than the average 2 or 3 handicapper in 1953... as Tiger Woods is today?  

I don't know for sure, but I suspect not.

With that, it's becoming increasingly more difficult for architects to layout golf courses that will aequately challenge the "very, very best" and, at the same, "the rest" without incorporating rarely employed back tees that stretch to 7,100 total yards plus.

While a 6,700 yard course is still, in most cases, enough for even low handicap players, it's not enough for the very, very best. By that, I mean, superior players rarely, if ever, encounter a situation requiring a long iron on a 6,700 yard layout... even following a bad drive by that caliber of player.

Rich, I agree that Lytham provided a relatively exiting Open this year, but none of the "notables" hit a long iron from the fairway. And I'm a firm believer in that an ideal "test of golf" should include at least one approach demanding a long iron, or preferably a  fairway wood.

It's sadly come to the point where in order to present such a situation to Woods, Duval, Mickelson, et.al., "we" need more 530 yard plus holes.

Hogan wasn't hitting driver/7-iron to 530 long holes at anytime in his career. He had the opportunity to show off his command of the long game with his "old" equipment.  None of his predeccessors on the PGA Tour have the same oppotrunity today thanks to the genius engineers that have come to work for golf equipment manufacturers and the governing bodies inablility to protect the integrity of the game.

In defense of the USGA and the R&A, perhaps it all happened too fast? But, it's time something is done to limit the capabilites of the ball... and clubs.

[JamieS]

As I read all of the above posts and agree with much, I can't help but further an example of the length debate and today's technology:

Above my fireplace hangs the famous photo of Ben Hogan on #18 at Merion striking his "1 iron" at the US Open, presumably after a pretty solid tee shot. Earlier this year in a tourney at Merion, I was fortunate enough to hit an equally solid tee shot and then an 8 iron. Meanwhile a friend of mine(maybe part Gorilla) hit Driver..."SAND WEDGE" to the famed 18th.(Both with Titanium Head, Graphited shafted drivers and the Pro V1)

Now you tell me what needs to be reigned in?

Also, with all due respect to Tiger...he is not hitting hit 100 yards by the top amateurs, or most 2-3 HDCPS.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

"Par is a totally useless concept in golf" ??

For who

What standard would you set ?

[jglenn]

Jason,

Par is in fact such an arbitrary, inacurate, and thus meaningless concept that it doesn't even serve a useful purpose in comparisons between players in a tournament.

For example, Player A is standing on the 16th tee at Augusta National at five under "par".  Player B is on the 13th tee, at 3 under.  So A has a two shot lead, right?

Well, no.  As we all know, 13 and 15 are much easier holes than is reflected by this number called Par.  B is likely to birdie at least one of them, if not both.  So A really has something like a half shot lead, more or less.

A more accurate way to compare players would be to use each hole's scoring average instead of its par.

Patrick,

Yes.

For everyone.

As for your third question, I'm not sure what you believes needs to be standardised, nor how Par achieves this today.  I would be quite tempted to say that we don't need a standard.  But I'd prefer if you'd elaborate so we can discuss this further.  Thanks.

[Mike O'Neill]

Par is a part of the language of golf. It is also part of the thinking that goes into the design of a golf hole. Like it or not, par is poured into the mix. For example, if you have a 280 yard hole, do you design it so that a good drive to the green is rewarded and a two-putt yields a "birdie"? Or do you design it so that it is so well protected that the golfer must rather choose which part of the fairway to land his/her tee shot in for the best approach? There a two-putt yields a "par"?  Everything is altered by what the designer wants for a given hole in terms of when and how the golfer should reach the green. It would be very difficult to remove "par" as a goal from the thinking of today's golf designers.

And is it not possible that the game of golf evolved the concept of "par" for the better? Aside from the way new golf equipment technology has rendered some holes too short for their "par", what is really so wrong with having a goal to guage one's play by?

Do we really want to blame "par" for the downside of excessive technological advances in golf??? Just because golf balls fly further off the tee, doesn't mean that the theory behind "par" is flawed. It seems like the issues are being confused.

By the way, is it not accepted that the standard is a "two-putt" on each green? Is that not also "par"t and parcel of what goes into the design of a golf hole--two putts per green? Maybe two-putts as a standard should be replaced by three-putts or one-putts? Do not kid yourselves, the two-putt is exactly what is on the mind of every golf hole designer out there when he/she designs a green. And if that is what is on his/her mind, then so is "par".

One last thing. If you don't have "par", you don't have "birdie". Isn't it fun to have a goal and then exceed it?

[joe zaepfel]

I think it is great to have a website like this where intelligent discussion can take place regarding what we all love, good golf courses. Generally these are older and some have limited length, but I enjoy the hell out of them. I don't see any of the young stud amateurs tearing up my golf course and it plays 6700-6800 yards. These are state amateur champions,etc. I can also tell you that the quality of play from the PGA touring pros is at a vastly different level even at the mid level. I believe we are witnessing better athletes aspiring to careers in golf.  The woods are full of fellows in the amateur ranks who hit it 300plus and can't make the cut at a Hooters event. Lets leave the courses alone and savor them. Better yet lets have Doak or Hanse or Eckenrode restore them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Your analogy, or example is seriously flawed.

You can't compare the scores of two golfers when one is three holes ahead of the other.
You can just compare their scores, relative to par, relative to their position on the golf course.

Since player B is three holes behind, he could play the next three holes in ten (10) over par, four (4) or five (5) under par, or somewhere in between, hence any comparison between players three holes apart is ill advised since the score for player B on those upcoming three (3) holes is unknown.  At the conclusion of the round, you will have the ultimate comparison, based on their score, or relative to par.

STANDARD = something established by authority, custom or general consent as a model or example : criterion.

STANDARD = something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value or quality.

[jglenn]

Patrick,

You certainly seem to be one who is willing to go “toe to toe” with an architect.

The concept isn't "seriously flawed", it's just that you didn't understand it.  And I do understand what the word "standard" means, as  I also have a dictionary at home.  I'm just not sure why you'd want to "standardise" golf courses, if that is actually what you wish to do.  Is it?

Par is a meaningless concept because it is innacurate, as I stated before.  It does not reflect the difficulty of the golf hole.  In theory, it is supposed to represent a "likely" score by an expert golfer, but is an expert golfer as likely to get 4 on a 280 yard hole and on a 465 yard hole?

Heck, an expert golfer is more likely to get a 5 at the par 4 17th at TOC, and a 4 at the par 5 13th at Augusta...

To compare a player's position who is, say, three holes behind another player, we now use "par".  Jean Van de Velde is on the 16th at 5 under, whereas Tiger Woods is on 13 at three under, and we assume that Jean has a two shot lead.

But he doesn't.  Tiger will probably get one or two birdies on the "easy" (relative to par) 13th and 15th.

To compare golfers on different holes, we need to estimate what the golfer playing behind will likely shoot on the intervening holes.

That is why you'd replace the vague concept of "par" with the hole's average score for players in that tournament.

Essentially, it's a form of "par", but with a few decimal points added.

As such, "par" or "average" (or whatever you want to call it) for 13, 14 and 15 would be, say, 4.20, 4.10, and 4.40.

Now, the viewer's will know that, if Tiger gets a 4 on the 13th, he gained a little bit of ground on the field, but if he gets a 5, he's lost serious ground.  That's exactly the way it is.  Ken Venturi always says it, "You get a par at 13 and you've given up a shot to the field".

Anyway, comparing golfers’ relative positions in a tournament is not really what “par” is all about.

Essentially, I'm stating that "Par" is an extremely useless - if not detrimental - concept in golf because:

- it can't be used to accurately compare golfers in a tournament.  Not as well as we might think, anyway...

- it doesn't necessarily reflect a golfer's goal for a given hole (that's why we are always told to find a "personal" par, which is essentially a personal goal).

- it doesn't accurately reflect the difficulty of the hole.

- it is not used for handicap purposes.

- it restrains architect's creativity by forcing her to adapt the golf course to an arbitrary predetermined number (such as 72) rather than to the land.

- it limits one’s thinking of individual holes by coercing us to categorise the hole into neat compartments of “par 3”, “par 4” and “par 5”.

- it has led to the “card and pencil” mentality and to cries of “unfair”, rather than fostering the “spirit of adventure”.

It’s those last three that bother me, which is why I stated that Par “has done far more too harm golf course architecture than just about anything else around”.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Again, what would you use as a standard ?

How would you determine handicaps ?

And, how would you alot shots in a match between two different players ?

Would someone get .2 shots on one hole, 1.6 shots on another hole ??

Please explain your new standard, and how you would establish a handicap system, and how you would alot shots ?

[jglenn]

Patrick,

Par isn't used to calculate handicaps (as I stated earlier).  
http://www.usga.org/handicap/manual/index.html

Since nothing would change, hat should hopefully answer your last four questions.

As to the first, I still don't know what you want to standardise.

A standard for WHAT?

[Mike O'Neill]

By the way, "par" has been assaulted throughout the history of the game. It is not something new to this time and place. One hundred years ago golf courses had to change to keep up with technological advances. It is the same in many of our games. Again, it is not "par" that is the problem. If, in bowling, technological changes were such that balls were causing more "action" and thereby more "strikes", would the concept of a "strike" be called into question?

We would not have the problem of a golf hole's "par" needing to be changed and/or protected if golf equipment and maintenance equipment had stayed the same for the last 30 years. We wouldn't even be having this discussion, as fun as it is.  

Anyone want to talk about whether golf greens should be designed to be played with an average of two putts? Why if "par" is useless, do we take for granted that a proper green ought to yield to two putts?