[JESII]

Jud,

I think we hit our first shots on each hole in Match Play almost exactly the same as we do in Medal Play...there are occassional differences sure, but until the first player has played there is rarely anything to react to.

[Niall C]

Ken/Sean,

I think we are basically agreeing regarding the relevance of par ie it shouldn't make a jot of difference on scores or how players play. However I think with the majority of players, they look at the par of the hole and decide there approach from that ie. par 3 must be a one shotter, a par 4 a two shotter and so on. I think this has a bearing even if it is a sub-conscious one.

My point about Hogan was that he ignored the par and played the hole as he saw it adopting the strategy which best suited him.

Niall

[Alex Miller]

Here's a story that illustrates the effect par has:

I played in a US Am qualifier in 08 at Annandale GC. The 17th hole there is a 315 yard par 4 that was mislabeled on the scorecard as a par 3. We played 2 rounds, one of them we teed of from 300, the other 315. From the groups I saw, my own, my friends, and the ones he say, we did not see a layup shot all day long. This hole could certainly warrant a layup as the green is a reverse redan with scrub left and bunkers from 60 yards in right. I went for it both times. From the longer yardage I hit a wild drive from swinging too hard and put it in the bunkers about 40-50 yards away. Luckily I made 4. The other time I knocked it on and 2 putted for a 3. I probably beat the average for the day on that hole, but there was an uproar about it being a 300+ yard par 3 until they corrected it. Also, as a par 3 the course dropped down to a par 69 (How dare they?). Whether a par 3 or par 4 it was still a good golf hole which presented a great risk/reward option.

I'm curious to see what would've happened if it were re-labeled, as the prevailing wind is into the player.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

re-read my words...I think it's a bad idea because it removes the players ego from the architects arsenal.

Jim

The archie doesn't have the players' ego in his arsenal. This is yet another myth of par as onlky the player controls his ego. Besides, this sort of attitude presumes all players think alike - not true. 

Ciao

[JESII]

I don't think it presumes all players think alike beyond the very basic goal of trying to get the ball in the hole...to that extent the archie can/should use the players ego against him...after all, par is only a benchmark, a jumping off point and for each person has a different meaning...but it does mean something.

[Sean Leary]

Here's a story that illustrates the effect par has:

I played in a US Am qualifier in 08 at Annandale GC. The 17th hole there is a 315 yard par 4 that was mislabeled on the scorecard as a par 3. We played 2 rounds, one of them we teed of from 300, the other 315. From the groups I saw, my own, my friends, and the ones he say, we did not see a layup shot all day long. This hole could certainly warrant a layup as the green is a reverse redan with scrub left and bunkers from 60 yards in right. I went for it both times. From the longer yardage I hit a wild drive from swinging too hard and put it in the bunkers about 40-50 yards away. Luckily I made 4. The other time I knocked it on and 2 putted for a 3. I probably beat the average for the day on that hole, but there was an uproar about it being a 300+ yard par 3 until they corrected it. Also, as a par 3 the course dropped down to a par 69 (How dare they?). Whether a par 3 or par 4 it was still a good golf hole which presented a great risk/reward option.

I'm curious to see what would've happened if it were re-labeled, as the prevailing wind is into the player.

Ding Ding Ding. Exactly. It does matter for psychological reasons.

At the US Am qualifer at my club, they played the 12th hole as a 504 yard par 4 instead of a par 5. It messed with everybody's heads, and was all everyone was talking about.

Its psychological for everyone except the high handicappers, who are using 90 or a hundred as their "par"...

[Brent Hutto]

I can't speak for the thought processes of good players (or even halfway decent ones for that matter) but it seems to me the few elite players I've been around consider a round with zero birdies to be a complete and abject failure. So I can only imagine that shooting 70 with "no birdies" on a course that's Par 69 gets under their skin worse than shooting the same 70 on the same course with "two birdies" because the scorecard says it's Par 71. Even if the field averages 70.5 strokes in both cases. Or so it would seem if you listen to good player complaining about their bad rounds.

[Wade Whitehead]

A local course has a 240+ yard downhill par 3 to a very small green.

A good player I know says of the hole: If it's a "Par 3," I'll make 4 almost every time.  If it's a "Par 4," I'll make 3.

Par matters, psychologically at least.

WW

PS This is a stroke play argument.  Match play dictates no par necessity for me whatsoever.

[Brent Hutto]

PS This is a stroke play argument.  Match play dictates no par necessity for me whatsoever.

Well in USA nowadays it's all stroke play anyway or close enough as makes no difference. From a golf course architecture perspective you've got to design for a stroke play mentality in this country because that mentality is nigh universal. Even the people playing better ball Nassaus with gimmes and mulligans are also keeping a scorecard and it is always the scorecard that is foremost in their mind. Pity.

[Kyle Harris]

Before I contribute - could someone please offer up a workable definition of par to discuss?

[JESII]

Even the people playing better ball Nassaus with gimmes and mulligans are also keeping a scorecard and it is always the scorecard that is foremost in their mind. Pity.

Brent, you must not play your Nassaus against anyone you would really like to beat...like a good friend...

PS This is a stroke play argument.  Match play dictates no par necessity for me whatsoever.

WW, how about the first shot of each hole in match play? Some holes may dictate the player with honor plan for what their opponent MAY[/i] do, but not many...in my opinion. Do you agree?

[Brent Hutto]

Even the people playing better ball Nassaus with gimmes and mulligans are also keeping a scorecard and it is always the scorecard that is foremost in their mind. Pity.

Brent, you must not play your Nassaus against anyone you would really like to beat...like a good friend...

Well, not as much as I'd like as I don't have any regular games set up. Most of the games like you're talking about are with guys I know from this forum and/or on trips to England and such. At my club the guys I hang around with have a pretty bad case of that match play/scorecard bastardized mentality I was describing.

Some of my favorite games are when I fill in occasionally as a fourth in a regular game at my game. These guys are first off the tee on Saturday morning and the guy who runs the foursome likes to play fast. It's a dollar a hole, rotating partners 6/6/6 and once a hole is settled (better ball) you just keep walking. Nobody even thinks about finishing a hole that's decided so they can write down a score and if you hit two balls in the woods off the tee the rest of the guys will be halfway down the fairway before you can tee another one up.

But really, a few times a year with those guys is about the only time I don't play either by myself or with a bunch of guys finishing every hole and writing down every stroke. When I play in the 9:30 weekend dogfights (Stableford scoring, more or less) there are actually a couple guys who will give me grief if I don't putt out for a double-bogey that's worth zero points. I've gotten lectures on how I'm sandbagging if I pick up in the fairway after five strokes and give myself the ESC limit (you never know, I might just hole out for a six I guess). Maybe I just play with some nutjobs but I think the attitude is rampant.

[Alex Miller]

Here's a story that illustrates the effect par has:

I played in a US Am qualifier in 08 at Annandale GC. The 17th hole there is a 315 yard par 4 that was mislabeled on the scorecard as a par 3. We played 2 rounds, one of them we teed of from 300, the other 315. From the groups I saw, my own, my friends, and the ones he say, we did not see a layup shot all day long. This hole could certainly warrant a layup as the green is a reverse redan with scrub left and bunkers from 60 yards in right. I went for it both times. From the longer yardage I hit a wild drive from swinging too hard and put it in the bunkers about 40-50 yards away. Luckily I made 4. The other time I knocked it on and 2 putted for a 3. I probably beat the average for the day on that hole, but there was an uproar about it being a 300+ yard par 3 until they corrected it. Also, as a par 3 the course dropped down to a par 69 (How dare they?). Whether a par 3 or par 4 it was still a good golf hole which presented a great risk/reward option.

I'm curious to see what would've happened if it were re-labeled, as the prevailing wind is into the player.

Ding Ding Ding. Exactly. It does matter for psychological reasons.

At the US Am qualifer at my club, they played the 12th hole as a 504 yard par 4 instead of a par 5. It messed with everybody's heads, and was all everyone was talking about.

Its psychological for everyone except the high handicappers, who are using 90 or a hundred as their "par"...

Where was that Sean? They did the same thing at local qualifying for the US Open at North Ranch CC, also the 12th hole with the same length. Hopefully it was on purpose though 

[Adam Clayman]

Before I contribute - could someone please offer up a workable definition of par to discuss?

3

4

&

5

Does that work?

Ok, How about this?  The number of strokes taken on a hole that disappoints a professional, elates a high handicapper, and, is an acceptable  outcome for anyone between a 5 and 15 handicap. Unless of course during the playing of a hole, (one or more) strokes were squandered, or wasted, in the eyes of the golfer's expectations. Then, par is a gift for everybody but the pro, and, is likely the result of a fine play on one or more of the other shots taken during the playing of a hole.
 

[Alex Miller]

If there was something wrong with how Par was assessed when building and playing golf courses, something drastic would have been done within the last 400 years.

Under "normal" or "common" playing conditions Par

3s are any yardage up to what Jim Furyk hits 3-wood.

4s are up to Jim Furyk's driver plus Jim Furyk's 3 iron.

and 5s are anything more than that to a reasonable point.

I use Jim Furyk because the guy hits the ball so straight and solidly. So, it's reasonable to assume that anyone who hits the ball farther than Jim may stray offline to give each shot more value than just distance.

The 8th at Oakmont I think is the perfect example of what a long par 3 should be, and anything more probably blurs the line. I know he hit 3-wood there at least one of those days. It may be longer than Jim's typical 3 wood, but the course was firm and the ball releases on greens that are stimped at 14.


Obviously not all people should play the "Furyk" tees  .

[Jud_T]

What exactly is wrong with blurring the line? Some of my favorite holes are really par 3+ or 4+

[Troy Alderson]

Before I contribute - could someone please offer up a workable definition of par to discuss?

3

4

&

5

Does that work?

Ok, How about this?  The number of strokes taken on a hole that disappoints a professional, elates a high handicapper, and, is an acceptable  outcome for anyone between a 5 and 15 handicap. Unless of course during the playing of a hole, (one or more) strokes were squandered, or wasted, in the eyes of the golfer's expectations. Then, par is a gift for everybody but the pro, and, is likely the result of a fine play on one or more of the other shots taken during the playing of a hole.
 

Adam,

I really like your definition of par and the honest truth behind what golfers expect when playing.  According to your definition then the US Open is setting up the layouts appropriately to test the professional golfer for disappointment since the US Open is won around Par (though I do not like the ultra tall rough lack of cut).  I am a 13 handicap and am elated when I par the hole, mostly because I am playing to a 20 these days.  So when we do par the hole, we should gives thanks and walk to the next tee with a smile.

As for par value, what if golf (USGA and R&A) got rid of the value and went  back to strictly match play for tournaments or any other format of play.  Stroke play is a test against the golf course, match play is against your opponent.  I would like to see more match play on the tour.  With match play, the par of the hole does not matter, only the number of strokes of your opponent.  Of course then the later holes on the golf course will not see as much play and wear and tear as the early holes if matches are won before the 18th hole.

Troy

[Alex Miller]

Before I contribute - could someone please offer up a workable definition of par to discuss?

3

4

&

5

Does that work?

Ok, How about this?  The number of strokes taken on a hole that disappoints a professional, elates a high handicapper, and, is an acceptable  outcome for anyone between a 5 and 15 handicap. Unless of course during the playing of a hole, (one or more) strokes were squandered, or wasted, in the eyes of the golfer's expectations. Then, par is a gift for everybody but the pro, and, is likely the result of a fine play on one or more of the other shots taken during the playing of a hole.
 

Adam,

I really like your definition of par and the honest truth behind what golfers expect when playing.  According to your definition then the US Open is setting up the layouts appropriately to test the professional golfer for disappointment since the US Open is won around Par (though I do not like the ultra tall rough lack of cut).  I am a 13 handicap and am elated when I par the hole, mostly because I am playing to a 20 these days.  So when we do par the hole, we should gives thanks and walk to the next tee with a smile.

As for par value, what if golf (USGA and R&A) got rid of the value and went  back to strictly match play for tournaments or any other format of play.  Stroke play is a test against the golf course, match play is against your opponent.  I would like to see more match play on the tour.  With match play, the par of the hole does not matter, only the number of strokes of your opponent.  Of course then the later holes on the golf course will not see as much play and wear and tear as the early holes if matches are won before the 18th hole.

Troy

I think it's hilarious that no one has realized that when defining par as "an acceptable outcome for anyone between a 5 and a 15 handicap" that the whole idea of a handicap is to relate one's score to the actual par of the course and other scores. Without par as it's currently defined, the notion of a handicap would change drastically. This means that the 5-15 handicap would now be around scratch, and we would once again have to redefine par.

This is not just semantics. All you guys are really asking for with this definition is to make par higher and make people's handicaps lower. To me, this marginalizes the value of par and does nothing but applaud a player for mediocre play. Besides, an acceptable outcome for mid handicappers is bogey on many holes. We shouldn't have to tell ourselves we parred when it's just a different name for the same thing: a bogey.

[Jud_T]

Troy,

Almost to a man, we'd all love to see more match play on tour.  I'd love to see the PGA championship in particular, revert to match play, then it might no longer be the red-headed stepchild of the majors (nothing against redheads per se).  But it ain't gonna happen....

[Adam Clayman]

All you guys are really asking for with this definition is to make par higher and make people's handicaps lower. To me, this marginalizes the value of par and does nothing but applaud a player for mediocre play. Besides, an acceptable outcome for mid handicappers is bogey on many holes. We shouldn't have to tell ourselves we parred when it's just a different name for the same thing: a bogey.

Alex, I was sort of teasing Kyle when I wrote that definition.

As stated earlier Par should be elastic for any given hole on any given day. It's relative to what the field shoots. Isn't it? No where is there a prejudice to make par a higher number. Although, It seems like a natural progression to make par lower, since 100 years ago, Bogey use to be what Par is now for the mediocre player.

Par for the course implies a median.

Personally, I feel should be lowered since the good players make it look so easy, nowadays, unless they have to combat real elements and/or a decently firm canvas.

[Troy Alderson]

Troy,

Almost to a man, we'd all love to see more match play on tour.  I'd love to see the PGA championship in particular, revert to match play, then it might no longer be the red-headed stepchild of the majors (nothing against redheads per se).  But it ain't gonna happen....

Hi Jud,

I know it won't happen, but we shouldn't stop thinking that way.

As golfers, we should all strive to better ourselves with our game for the quest of shooting par for the course.  But how many of us are frustrated at times with our play because we are stuck on the number 70 and we shoot a 90?  Why does par for the low handicapper have to be the same number for the high handicapper?  Why can't we have a golf system where an 18 hole golf course is a par 70ish for the low handicapper and 85ish for the mid handicapper and 100ish for the high handicapper?  I am just attempting to think outside the box and live within the confines of our current golf society.

Troy

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()