[John Chilver-Stainer]

Most Par 5’s on the PGA Tour are birdies nowadays . Isn’t it time the courses were reduced to Par 68 and the pseudo « Par 5 » taken out?

[Brian McElveen]

Why?  Par isn't  relative for the boys on tour from day to day anyway.  The guy who shoots the lowest score on that   day shot par, everyone else was essentially over par.  It doesn't matter if a course is a par 68 or 72, except that the rest of the world won't think that 65 is as impressive because someone said par was 68 instead of 72, so your leader is going to be -3 instead of -7. These guys are still going to shoot in the 60's regardless of what the courses "par" is deemed to be.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think many classic courses should consider taking one or two of the par 5's and converting them to long 4's with some green changes to create the proper risk balance. Ther eis nothing wrong with a par 70 course.

[ChasLawler]

I think many classic courses should consider taking one or two of the par 5's and converting them to long 4's with some green changes to create the proper risk balance. Ther eis nothing wrong with a par 70 course.

Are you being serious? That's a mighty dangerous suggestion. I agree there's nothing wrong with a par 70...or a par 68 for that matter, but to alter a golf course to protect "par" is silly. "Par" is irrelevant in any competition.

You can change the scorecard if you'd like, but seems like a waste of paper to me.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I really think we are too conerned about par.  I would just as soon have the scorecard list only the hole and distance.  The pros need it so we can determine where they stand in relatioship to each other.  But who cares if they are 6 under or 16 under?  They are only numbers.  It is the same every week--the one with the lowest score wins.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I agree with you all – Par itself has no significance – just the score in the end – but what can be more insignificant than calling a hole a Par 5 when it is inherently not one ?
One should scrap the lot but that’s not going to happen. However correcting a falsehood should be mandatory.

[Phil Benedict]

The USGA has played member par 5's as par 4's in the Open for a long as I can remember.  Winged Foot was a par 70 in 1974 and Olympic was a par 70 in '66 as was Baltusrol in '67.  Their goal, I suppose, has been to protect par (in a contrived way, to be sure) and get in the players' heads.

It always struck me that the biggest reason why the Masters produces a lower score relative to par than the Open is the fact that it's a par 72.  Make 13 and 15 par 4's, which they would be under the USGA philosophy before the latest lengthening of these holes, and the winning score versus par in the Masters would usually been pretty close to the Open score.  Looked at another way, the gross score in the Masters is usually about the same as the Open - 276 to 280.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Cabell, It is to protect the playability and design of the course. Par 5 which play driver 5 iron are not anywhere near the hole they were designed to be. Yet a hole similar to that can fit into the flow of the course as a 4.

[peter_p]

What about this week at The International with the modified stableford system? Would changing #s 8 and 17 to 4s affect the midset of the players for very long? Is the only negtive a
lesser chance of a double eagle.

[Matt_Cohn]

If short par 5's were played as par 5's, winning scores would be lower, of course, relative to par. And, as discussed here already, a lot of tournament committees wouldn't like that. If someone can change their mind and convince them that -22 is an OK winning score, then great.

But isn't it easier to let them change par on the scorecard so they're happy with -14, when the alternative might be forcing these committees to find other tactics to influence scores relative to par? These tactics could include narrower fairways, deeper rough, and of course, lenghening courses even further.

If the committee wants scores closer to par, isn't it better to allow them to change the number on the card rather than grow the rough another 2 inches higher and add another seven back tees?

[peter_p]

Matt,
   My point about the International changing some 5s to 4s does change the overall score, but more about the strategy being employed by the pros.
   Changing the par on 8 and 17 would bring the 3 point deduction for a double bogey or worse much more often.
A hole which promotes aggression would be changed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()