Par Is Best Defended....

[Mike Hendren]

a)  Around the greens
b)  On the tee box
c)  Everywhere
d)  Nowhere

What sayeth you?

[Kyle Harris]

Around the greens.

[PThomas]

everwhere, because that makes it a more complete test

[Jim_Kennedy]

e) getting between the player's ears.

[Bill Gayne]

on the greens

[Dan Kelly]

Some holes (a), some holes (b), some holes (c), some holes (d).

Variety is the spice of golf -- as well as of its subset, life!

[Brian_Gracely]

by match-play format....

[Mike Benham]

by match-play format....

Par is best ignored ... by match-play format ...

[Marc Haring]

......By the greens, keep them very firm. If a top golfer is shooting over a greenside bunker with a lake behind the green out of semi rough onto soft greens, he goes for the pin and makes a birdie. Same scenario with solid greens and he’s laying up short of the green every time and fighting for his par.

It doesn’t matter how long and tight the course is, with soft greens they shoot the lights out. Firm greens and it’s a different story.

[RJ_Daley]

.. from the approach shot to the cup, via design, and maintenance meld to design.

[Phil Benedict]

Playing a par 72 as a 70.  Saves 8 strokes in relation to par.  The USGA has been doing this for decades at the Open, years before the equipment revolution.

[A_Clay_Man]

Par is best defended by the USGA, and Mark Michaud with the keys to the system. Oh yeah, and Mutha Nature!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Combintaion of a-b and c..much in the way Nick Faldo has been preachng for the past few years.

My personal disdain are the comments from Vijay Singh regarding the unimportance of driving accuracy..that has to change.
Growing up it meant something to be an accurate driver of the ball, that needs to be restored...as at Merion this week...TPC this year..Baltusrol..you get my drift.

[ForkaB]

By those without a clue.......

[Paul Carey]

"Between the Ears" is absolutely correct and is accomplished everywhere.

[rgkeller]

By firmness throughout the course.

[Bob_Huntley]

My personal disdain are the comments from Vijay Singh regarding the unimportance of driving accuracy..that has to change.
Growing up it meant something to be an accurate driver of the ball, that needs to be restored...as at Merion this week...TPC this year..Baltusrol..you get my drift.

Michael,

I would love to see Mr. Singh dismiss the rough at Muirfield and Carnoustie, when the officials of those clubs decided that a hayfield and fertilized rough would be just the answer to such a cavalier attitude.

The hay at Muirfield that year looked like some Soviet planner's propaganda idea of the benefits of collective farming.

[Scott_Burroughs]

by my lack of practice, ability, mental toughness.....

[Philippe Binette]

By wind....

no design required...

[Bob_Huntley]

By wind....

no design required...

Philippe,

How do you muster up the wind for a certain period of time; prayer, ritual dances or or just wishing?

Bob  

[JESII]

d, the idea of defending par is dopey.

Ciao

Sean

Don't you think the real intent of the question is - How is each hole best defended? - The notion of par is the base line for golf so that's how the question is posed, but Mr. Bogey is probably wondering which aspect of the golf course, or hole, should/could/does provide the best defense against the players (of any caliber). I trust you do feel each hole needs its defenses because that is what this site is really all about, isn't it?

My answer to the original question is A) - at the green. You can set up sorts of deception and obstacle along the way, but if the greens (and surrounds) are less than challenging, the course is less than exhilirating, but if you have world class greens in the middle of a wide open flat field you can sign me up to play any day.

[JESII]

Really?

If we're going that way my question might be - How does the architecture/course challenge the golfer?

In this day and age trying to make players happy is a very dicey proposition if you have the original character of the game firmly in mind. Then again if you don't, maybe challenging the player is not necessary.

I do agree with your vision of unlimited possibilities in golf and architecture, I just think the game is so great because of the challenges provided.

[JESII]

Sean

Absolutely, re: the balance of difficulty.

What I see as the "fun" as you put it is looking at a shot or hole or course in hindsight and realizing that certain times I outsmarted the course and certain times I was outsmarted. By "challenged" I mean confronted with interesting shots that force your consideration.

Easy holes are great Sean, so long as they are interesting and thought provoking, wouldn't you agree?

Jim