...Why worry about par and other dinosaurs?

[paul cowley]

....why worry about par?
    It never was meant to be fixed, but merely an expression of an ideal score......par never needs to be static,in fact it can't .....it's an ethereal concept whose form is created and measured by the perfomance of players in relation to it.
   ....now protecting a course or a tournaments historical statistical record concerning par is another matter....and a doomed one at that, but there are always some that feel threatened by change and natural progression.

    New couse design is already accomodating itself to pars new standard based on newer technology....as it always has since the guttie was in play.
    Old course design can adapt as well with additional landing and second shot strategies and adding length...creating exciting opportunities to keep pace with this ideal....or par can be lowered in comparison to the current performance standards to more accurately reflect the play levels of today...If this means a course might play to a par of 69 or lower and still include the challenges it possessed prior to technologies enevitable progression...so be it.
.....or just go the way of all things antiquated.

[Brent Hutto]

Didn't the practice of tracking ones score as over or under par gain most of its currency when television started doing it back in the 60's? Or did club-level golfers in the US already talk about it that way and television just adopted a common practice.

I certainly know if you read short stories written in the first half of the twentieth century the characters refer to "level fours" or the like more often than referring to par.

At any rate, for my part I could care less whether a major championship venue is Par 73 or Par 69. I want to see the players have to make decisions about how to play different holes and I want to see them at least have the opportunity to use a variety of clubs and play a variety of shots. I also like to see top-level players have to deal with a ball that bounces once in a while.

[Mike_Young]

I agree 100 percent.  
IMHO the problem that most have is one of "comparison"  I don't think the general golf population is willing to distinquish between a 0 handicap that shoots 69 consistently on a par 69 course from a 0 handicap that shoots 72 consistently on a par 72.  And as you say, that is because we use par as a standard instead of handicap.
 And as you know Paul, when we see some of these US Open courses changed from par 72 to either par 70 or 71, the holes they change still have a built in 5par approach strategy. So I don't know if anything is gained.
Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

Good stuff Paul.

However, there are those who feel strongly that golf 's base is the one, two, and three shot hole concepts.

I'm not married (or even dating) to that mindset, since it too was an evolution of the sport.

Fewest strokes possible, right?

[Mark_Fine]

It's not just "par" guys, its the shots that are being played into the golf holes.  

[TEPaul]

What I'd like to see done with "par" now and in the future is to essentially turn it into what is now a golf course's "course rating" which is rarely the same thing as the total of the course's hole pars. Just do away with hole par altogether. Since a lot of the "par" concept is tied to handicap posting which is nothing more than a single gross round score, what difference does it make what any hole's par is? Just total up the round's gross score (of the scratch player) and that becomes all that "par" is or needs to be.

[Bill Gayne]

Tom,

Isn't that the same as "standard scratch score" as you see in Ireland and the UK?

[TEPaul]

Bill:

I really don't know that much about SSS. What I do know is every golf course over here has a "course rating" which is what a scratch player is expected to shoot on that course!! And I do know it (the "course rating") is not necessarily the same thing as the "par" that's listed on the scorecard (which is never anything other than the total of the holes' pars)! That's what I think a course's "par" should be. A course rating doesn't contemplate how a scratch player shoots that score ("course rating") on an individual hole basis only what his gross round score should be.

If that could be accomplished it would inevitably take a huge amount of pressure off individual "hole par" (basically because there wouldn't need to be any) and consequently huge pressure off of perceived architectural requirements!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

Mark Fine got it right, it's not about par, it's about obviating the architecture intended to inferface with the golfer

[Bill Gayne]

Tom,

I don't know much about SSS either. When I look at the scorecard from Lahinch, I've always read the card that par of the individual holes is 72. The overall scratch score (what the scratch player would score) from the blue markers is 73, whites is 71, and green is 70. There are no individual pars that add up for the 73 scratch score. Just an overall score.

[paul cowley]

....no Pat, its not about obviating architecture, but obviating the pressure 'par' puts on architecture and the need for good or great courses to respond in kind....I am speaking towards preservation while allowing for the inevitable evolution of the game.
...all shots played will be still be counted the same.....and it looks like Lahinch is starting to get it.

 and maybe then we could quit lamenting technology and change.

[Doug Siebert]

Paul Cowley,

I don't think anyone in GCA is particularly concerned about protecting "par".  I certainly don't care if good players are shooting 65 or 75 on a given course.  What I do care about protecting is the strategy and interest, and like it or not, in my experience courses where there are lots of 65s being shot tend to have less of that than courses where 75s are being shot.  There's always going to be great rounds on great courses, and that's fine.  But when there is little demand off the tee other than bang it out there somewhere findable and hit a wedge, it is mostly a putting contest and I'm sorry, except at ANGC and a very very very select group of courses around the world, a putting contest is not interesting to watch and really not a whole lot of fun to take part in.

[paul cowley]

Doug, if a course is little more than driver /wedge , its needs to be labeled executive ....you miss my point.

[Doug Siebert]

No I didn't miss your point.  Unless you think that 450 yard par 4s constitute an executive course these days.  You need to watch some of the drivel that passes for golf during most of the weekly PGA tour stops.

[TEPaul]

"There are no individual pars that add up for the 73 scratch score. Just an overall score."

Bill Gayne:

So what? That's my point. In my opinion, 73 should be the par for that course from the blues, 71 from the whites and 70 from the greens.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I disagree.  This is exactly where the infamous 3.5 par flourishes.  A few of these on the older, short courses and the scratch player is forced to go under par to play to his cap.  It is a more difficult business than given credit for.  I believe it is harder for the low capper to play to his handicap on this sort of course than on a course where SS is higher than par.

Ciao

Sean

[Bill Gayne]

Tom,

You wrote

"Bill Gayne:

So what? That's my point. In my opinion, 73 should be the par for that course from the blues, 71 from the whites and 70 from the greens."

I'm not trying to make a point contrary to yours. I'm just trying to fully understand it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

In case you hadn't noticed par has been related to the architecture and vice versa for centuries.

Golf remains a game where the objective is to get the ball from point A to point B in the fewest strokes possible.

The architectural features that the architect intended the golfer to confront or interface with have been rendered useless by technology.

A bunker meant to force the golfer to plan and execute a strategy, that is now carried by 50 yards, fails to serve its architectural purpose, and, the interrelationship between successive shots will likely cause the features intended to confront the golfer on his second shot or approach, fail to serve their purpose as well.

[TEPaul]

Bill:

Then let me put it another way. Imagine a golf course that has a "par" of 69 or 70 or 71 or 72 or 73 or 74 with no pars on the individual holes. How do you suppose a golfer would play those holes and that course, compared to a course that had all the pars of its holes listed?

A "course rating" is essentially what a "scratch" player is expected to potentially shoot for a single round on a golf course!