Directions for Computing Par, 1931

[David Druzisky]

So, I picked up this paper back book at the used bookstore entitled Spaldings Athletic Library - How To Play Golf.  It was published 1931 by American Sports Publishing Company, New York.

In the foreward it states that it was meant as a follow up to the successful how To Play Golf that was done by Vardon and Braid.  This one was compiled by Innis Brown "wel known in the field of golf Journalism and associate for years of Grantland Rice.  In addition to instructural swing and stance photos of Bobby Jones and some neat swing illustrations by Sol Metzger, there are photos of another golfer.  He was "the well known golf course architect and professional" Maurice J. McCarthy.

After the sections pertaining to how to play, there is a section of Spaldings curent cutting edge equipment and a section on "Golf Physical Culture."  Grantland Rices list of "Twenty Golf Dont's" is also published.

in addition though is a page committed to "Directions for Computing Par."  It states as follows:

Holes up to 250 yards inclusive......par is 3
Holes 251 to 445 yards inclusive....par is 4
Holes 446 to 600 yards inclusive....par is 5
Holes 601 yards and upwards........par is 6

"Par means perfect play without flukes and under ordinary weather conditions, always allowing two strokes on each putting green."
"The above figures are not arbitrary, because some allowance should be made for the configuration of the ground and any other difficult or unusual conditions.  So also should be considered the severity of the hazards, especially on a hole where the par is doubtful."

For Womens golf the following are the generally accepted distances:

Holes up to 175 yards inclusive......par is 3
holes 176 to 325 yards inclusive....par is 4
Holes 326 to 450 yards inclusive....par is 5
Holes 451 to 575 yards inclusive ...par is 6
Above 576 yards............................par is 7


Interesting old stuff that I thought I would post for fun and I am not sure how much this book was distributed back in the day and how many are still around.  The fact that it is a paper back - and I am not sure it was ever hard bound - it is suprising it is still in good shape I guess.

Brad K may have know more on this little publication.

DbD

[TEPaul]

It is interesting to note that par 3 yardage stayed the same for almost seventy five years while maximum par 4 yardage and minimum par 5 yardage got pushed out pretty far over the years and I believe they basically dropped the par 6.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, that's why the Road Hole was considered a par 5 back then ... its length hasn't changed in the intervening years.

If I remember correctly, Cape Breton Highlands had one or two of its longer holes listed as par-6 holes for the ladies.

[JohnV]

The current standards from the USGA are:

Men:
Par 3 up to 250
Par 4 251 to 470
Par 5 470 to 690
Par 6 691 and over

Women:
Par 3 up to 210
Par 4 211 to 400
Par 5 401 to 590
Par 6 591 and over

When it comes to course rating, the standard yardages for the scratch golfer match these numbers.  Men hit it 250 on the tee shot and 220 on every shot after.  Women are 210 and 190.

Obviously when it comes to championships where the players are substantially better than scratch (US Open etc), the distance for par can be adjusted upwards, yielding 288 yard par 3s and 505 yard par 4s.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I find the ladies tees interesting.
The par 7 must have been when there were only one set of tees.
Could you imagine mrs. havercamp playing a par 7?

Here is what I came up with for Wolf Point:

3   99
3   112
3   138
3   146
4   184
4   196
4   207
4   243
4   259
4   266
4   275
4   299
4   303
4   315
4   332
5   362
5   380
5   407
71          4523

From the forward tees I'm more like the 1931 scorecard vs. today's.
400 seems too long to be a par 4 for a 4500 yard course - I went with 350.
210 seems too long for a 3 also.
So technically it is a par 66.
I disagree.

John what is the average course length for ladies tees?
Did the USGA get Alice Dye's recommendations?
Teeth of the Dog's are under 5,000 by a fair bit - maybe 4,700?

[RSLivingston_III]

I wonder how these compare to Stanley Thompson's yardages.
I know I have that chart somewhere, but can't remember what book it's in.

[David Druzisky]

TEPaul - I agree on that observation.  Heck, 250 is is still pushing it today for 99% of the golfers out there.  When you read other stuff from that era there seemed to be a broader acceptance of the reality that you may not make it to the green surface on the tee shot on the longest of par 3's.  Today everyone feels as though they should have a fair shake at it no matter what.  Of course, everyone can play "perfectly".

If distance stats were available from 1931 equipment, it would be interesting to compare the percentage change in distance from then and today to the percentage distance in par computation.  Would it be in the ballpark or has the equipment change distance change been far greater?

Mike N - I bet you are correct in saying that tee variety had a big impact on this.

[Bill_McBride]

Given the "improvements" in technology, 250 yards was a long whack back in those days.

I remember playing in a college medal play tournament at Yorba Linda CC in the early 60's.  Can't remember where in the routing they fell, but do recall there were 250 yard par 3s bracketing a lengthy par 5.   250 yards was a long shot in 1962 just like in 1931, not such a big deal today.

I guess that's why nobody bitched when #8 Oakmont was par 3 at 300 yards in the Open last summer.....

[TEPaul]

"When you read other stuff from that era there seemed to be a broader acceptance of the reality that you may not make it to the green surface on the tee shot on the longest of par 3's.  Today everyone feels as though they should have a fair shake at it no matter what.  Of course, everyone can play "perfectly".  "

DavidD:

I don't believe the difference is that people today are under the impression they play perfectly or play better than they did back then, I believe the real difference is back then there really wasn't such a locked in perception and expectation of what we now call GIR.