Can a hole be really good if it has the wrong par on the scorecard?

[Sam Morrow]

isn't par really just the way tv executives have decided is the most interesting way to keep viewer attention.To say Watson is at 54 and Jones at 70 doesn't compute when they are on different holes.

I like that theory but isn't par older than TV? I just think par is a number and nothing more than that.

[BCrosby]

For you stalwarts who are immune to the effects of the par of a hole, you've a leg up on Tiger Woods. He isn't immune:

"Psychological biases influence decision-making by players as well as officials. “Loss aversion”, the tendency for people to care more about avoiding a loss than about making a similar-sized gain, is rife even among the greatest champions. Evidence from a huge database of near-identical putts shows that, along with all the other golfers studied, Tiger Woods is more likely to hole a putt if it is to save par (in golf, an over-par hole feels like a failure) than if he had the identical putt to make a birdie (a gain). The authors argue that this is because he tries harder to avoid the loss than he does to make the gain. That makes no sense—the score versus par on an individual hole is not what matters in golf, but the number of strokes taken over the course of 18 holes. Each putt counts exactly the same, yet players treat them differently."

Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played And Games Are Won, by Tobias Moskowitz. There are several other studies that come to the same conclusions.

Par sets scoring expectations for a hole. That in turn will alter how you think about taking risks. If none of that rings a bell, then you play a very different game from the one I am familiar with.

Bob

[Sean_A]

Bob

I never said par didn't matter for expert players - thats what the concept was invented for.  Although I think its value as a measuring bar is greatly reduced compared to 60 years ago.  My argument centers around handicap players.  Even so, par is a self inflated mental issue and not anything to do with gca. 

Ciao

[BCrosby]

"... par is a self inflated mental issue..." (Do you mean self-inflicted?)

Indeed it is. It is also inescapable - at least psychologically for us fallible human beings. Which is why it matters to Tiger and the rest of us. 

Bob

[Jud_T]

Bob,

Once again you're focusing on medal play...In match play par is completely irrelevant...

[BCrosby]

Jud -

Of course I'm talking about medal play. This conversation doesn't get off the ground unless we are talking about medal play.

If someone says Tiger "is putting for par" in a match play format, they are not conveying any useful information.

Bob

[Sean Leary]

I think that even in match play par matters for most players even if logic says that it shouldn't.

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Maybe. In the sense that the par of a hole might help you predict how your opponent will attack it. But once first shots are hit, what matters is how you stand relative to you opponent. How you stand relative to par is largely irrelevant.

For example, if your opponent has jacked a couple of balls o.b. and a safe double bogey will win the hole, that's the smart way to play it. Your opponent has, in effect, changed par on the hole from the scorecard number to the number needed to win the hole.

Bob

[Matt Waterbury]

These conversation always make me crazy, and I realize there is no "winning" this one.

My enjoyment of golf became much greater when I realized "par" is meaningless. Happened around the time I moved to my current club, which has 3 very strong par 4s to finish. Objective of the game is to get from tee to bottom of the hole in as few shots as possible. The distance and scenery between the two often change the strategy and potential range of outcomes, but never the objective. And a number on a piece of paper has bo impact at all.

When I started thinking about 12 foot putts as 12 foot putts (instead of 12 foot "birdie" putts, or 12 foot "bogey" putts) guess what? I started making more 12 foot putts.

Interesting data in one of the golf magazines this month on pace of play. Shows that amatures take less and less time over successive shots. Indicates once making "par" becomes less likely, they care less. Which equates to throwing shots away. Which is why we have day jobs...

Cheerio,
Matt

[Dave_Miller]

I was playing a great golf course this week and we get to a 490 yard Par 5 uphill.  My friend makes the comment that this is a good hole, but not great since it should be a Par 4.  I really thought it was great, but he disagreed.  Should a number on the card make or break a hole?

We are both single digit handicaps <5 and hit it a decent way.  We both hit good drives, then both hit hybrids pin high (both slightly missed the green).  He went on to say that the club members argue over this as the older members do not want to change it, but the younger members do.

Thoughts?

Who really cares what par is. Low score wins.  Par is simply a mechanism for saying the score in an easy manner so much under; so much over. Plus members set the par. They can follow the USGA guidelines or not.
Par does not define a golf hole as good or bad.
Best
Dave

[Mark Pearce]

I was playing a great golf course this week and we get to a 490 yard Par 5 uphill.  My friend makes the comment that this is a good hole, but not great since it should be a Par 4.  I really thought it was great, but he disagreed.  Should a number on the card make or break a hole?

We are both single digit handicaps <5 and hit it a decent way.  We both hit good drives, then both hit hybrids pin high (both slightly missed the green).  He went on to say that the club members argue over this as the older members do not want to change it, but the younger members do.

Thoughts?

Who really cares what par is. Low score wins.  Par is simply a mechanism for saying the score in an easy manner so much under; so much over. Plus members set the par. They can follow the USGA guidelines or not.
Par does not define a golf hole as good or bad.
Best
Dave

What Dave said.

[Doug Siebert]

I was playing a great golf course this week and we get to a 490 yard Par 5 uphill.  My friend makes the comment that this is a good hole, but not great since it should be a Par 4.  I really thought it was great, but he disagreed.  Should a number on the card make or break a hole?

We are both single digit handicaps <5 and hit it a decent way.  We both hit good drives, then both hit hybrids pin high (both slightly missed the green).  He went on to say that the club members argue over this as the older members do not want to change it, but the younger members do.

Thoughts?

While its true there are a few par 4s over 500 yards these days, aside from doctored US Open courses these are still mostly either at elevation, downhill, with the prevailing, etc.  A 490 yard hole that's uphill is certainly playing easily over 500 yards unless there is some contravening factor.

The fact your friend hit a hybrid to it makes me wonder why he thinks it should be a par 4.  Is it because he sees holes longer than 490 yards that are par 4 on tour, thus this hole isn't up to tour specs (whatever those are)  Is it because one time when he really crushed his drive with the wind he reached it with a 9 iron, and thinks any hole you reach with a 9 iron can't be considered a par 5?  Or does he believe he averages less than 4.5 shots on it?

One of my favorite courses around here has a 549 yard par 5.  Its flat after the first 150 yards, but in those 150 yards your tee shot drops perhaps 80 or 90 feet.  It also plays with the prevailing wind.  I have a feeling that if the US Open were held on this course (not that they ever would) they'd play it as a par 4.  Perhaps one set up at the 525 area, just to avoid the howls of protest from people about a 549 yard par 4...  I'll typically go at the green with a 4 to 7 iron, but have hit as little as a pitching wedge.  While its an interesting hole strategically, aside from losing your ball in the unmaintained grass on the mounds left of the green with a pulled approach, there isn't much that's going to create a big number on it.  I probably average under 5, though certainly not 4.5.

I suppose I could make an argument that it should be a par 4 - it probably plays at least as short if not shorter than your 490 yard uphill hole.  But like you, I don't see the point of changing par on it.  There are two other par 5s on the nine, both run in the opposite direction (and thus into the prevailing wind)  One plays halfway up the hill from which you tee off in this one and measures 565 yards, and the other goes even higher up that hill than where this teebox is located (those last 150 yards are one HELL of a climb) and measures 552 yards.  So even if one was convinced the easy one should be made a par 4, it isn't like there aren't two par 5s that are in no danger of getting any argument from anyone about their par fiveness.  If you have "hard" par 4s, don't you also want to see "easy" par 4s to make up for it?  Shouldn't it be the same with par 5s?  Or is any par 5 that you are in a position to reach more often than not something that should be considered a par 4?  I don't agree.

I won't even get into the par on the scorecard issues, I've made my feelings about that known often here

[Bill Brightly]

Paul,

I think there has to be a correlation between the architectural features, the golfer's ability to interface with them and par.

A major problem created by high-tech and distance is that the golfer no longer interfaces with many of the INTENDED features

Here is a Par 5 on the card 489/503 from Pat's home course. I have no doubt that he plays it like a par 4. I can't explain it, but I think this is a very strong par 4, but a weak par 5...  The play is a draw around or over the tree on the left, but there is OB left. A blocked drive to the right finds the bunkers.



A properly placed drive presents a reasonable play to the green. The only weakness is relatively flat and benign hazards on the right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who really cares what par is. Low score wins. 

I'd disagree.

Par is supposed to be a function of the cummulative archtictural features, with distance the primary feature.

When golfers are allowed to avoid architectural features, like the Maginot Line, it has a negative impact on the architect's ability to position the features when defending the hole.

The main problem is that the architect's product is static, while the golfer's efforts aren't.
Unlike the centerfielder, the architect can't move his bunkers back when a big hitter steps up on the tee.

So, par is relevant when the architectural features have been orchestrated to defend par.
When the architectural features have been rendered irrelevant, par suffers.

Remember too that "par" applies equally to alll golfers playing from the same tees.
And that the challenge of the architectural features differs greatly today since High Tech has allowed a certain cadre of golfers to avoid those static features, and I'm not talking about the pros.




Par is simply a mechanism for saying the score in an easy manner so much under; so much over. Plus members set the par. They can follow the USGA guidelines or not.
Par does not define a golf hole as good or bad.
Best
Dave

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I agree that the hazards need to be placed appropriately to one's abilities.  But is this to defend strategy and interest or par?

[Matthew Petersen]

Since par does influence the way most golfers play and think about a hole, I think it's a fair consideration of how good a hole is.

I actually had this discussion with a couple gentlemen I was paired with yesterday while playing #12 on the Saguaro course at WeKoPa.

It's currently a par 4, about 480 from the tips, uphill slightly if anything, and has probably the narrowest fairway/playing corridor of any of the two-shotters on the course. There's a huge bunker in front of the green that from the fairway looks to be nestled right up against the putting surface, but is actually 20 yards or so short.

My feeling is it would be a better hole is made a par 5. The tee has room to move back 10-20 yards, and there's a front portion of the green that could be cut as fairway, making the green more of a small par 5 target. (Also the back nine is already a par 35.) I think you give players a lot more options if the hole is a par 5. Hitting driver is much more of a choice from the tee, for the player who wants to try to get home in two.

Of course playing the hole like a par 5 is an option for any player right now, but since it says 4 on the car most do not play it that way. They hit driver, complain about the tight fairway, and then hit fairway wood into the front bunker when they know full well they should be laying up instead.

The gentlemen I was discussing this with thought the hole would make a good par 5, but thought it would be odd to have a par 5 that played shorter than the 18th, which is a 500+ yd par 4. 18 too has some characteristics of a par 5, except that there aren't really options on the drive--you have to hit everything you can. To that extent, I think 12 would make a better par 5.

[Sean_A]

Of course playing the hole like a par 5 is an option for any player right now, but since it says 4 on the car most do not play it that way. They hit driver, complain about the tight fairway, and then hit fairway wood into the front bunker when they know full well they should be laying up instead.

Matthew

Is this in fact true or just among folks you know of?  In any case, I would think there is a significant percentage of golfers who can't even reach the bunker in two.  Is this then a par 5 for them?

Ciao

[Michael Dugger]

I don't think par should matter when evaluating if a golf hole is great or not.

I can well imagine it matters to the pencil and scorecard types.

The argument here is the same argument for a hole being unfair.

Everyone plays the same course, call it a par 100, it doesn't matter for competition.

As for "measuring yourself vs par"  If this is the case, how can you compare a par 67 course with a par 73?

[Ken Moum]

Of course playing the hole like a par 5 is an option for any player right now, but since it says 4 on the car most do not play it that way. They hit driver, complain about the tight fairway, and then hit fairway wood into the front bunker when they know full well they should be laying up instead.

Matthew

Is this in fact true or just among folks you know of?  In any case, I would think there is a significant percentage of golfers who can't even reach the bunker in two.  Is this then a par 5 for them?

Ciao

Sean, I'm smart enough to know better, and I even work hard to stop thinking like that, but it's hard as hell.

Just yesterday, I told a couple of people that taking 29 strokes on the middle six holes at my home course is a reasonable score for me, despite the fact that it's 6 over par.  The holes are a par three, par five and four par fours that measure 208, 506, 446, 383, 432 and 402 from the tees I play.

Now, a couple of them shouldn't be THAT tough for me at an 11 index, but the 506, 383 and 402 play into the wind, and the last one is a very uphill tee shot. And I am a short hitter for my handicap averaging only 205 or so.

Despite the fact that I know a bogey is a reasonable score on each of them, I tend to overreach on at least one shot, leaving myself open for making a double bogey or worse.  The problem, to my mind is partly that I know what par is, and partly that I can par or almost par them every time I play.

I am weak, and so are 99% of the golfers I play with.  Heck, I play with a bunch of 20+ handicappers who hit it 160-170 yards off the tee and EVERY one of them is trying to make par on those holes.

Ken

[Matthew Petersen]

Of course playing the hole like a par 5 is an option for any player right now, but since it says 4 on the car most do not play it that way. They hit driver, complain about the tight fairway, and then hit fairway wood into the front bunker when they know full well they should be laying up instead.

Matthew

Is this in fact true or just among folks you know of?  In any case, I would think there is a significant percentage of golfers who can't even reach the bunker in two.  Is this then a par 5 for them?

Ciao

Well, first we have to be clear that we're talking about the (probably relatively low percentage of) players who actually consider strategy when playing. There are some guys who will always hit fairway wood if they're not in range of the green, damned whether they'd be far better off by hitting 5-iron and wedge. They're obviously a lost cause.

But in my experience based on the golf I have played with others, par really does determine how most people play the hole. Frankly, older guys tend to get it a bit more. Perhaps the fewer holes you're able to hit in regulation the more you start to consider what a good score is for your own game on a given hole. But for most other guys, they'll do whatever they can to reach a par 4 in two, even if there's trouble near the green that could make them pay, and even if they know it would take a career shot to actually reach the green. But on a par 5 that same player would be comfortable with the idea of laying up and checking distances to cross bunkers or other trouble so that they avoided them.

I mean, to some extent we're questioning something there aren't hard numbers on. But in my experience par really does influence how golfers play a hole. Since that's true, I'd argue that the number of the card does play some role in how good a hole is.

[Sean_A]

Ken

Presumably these guys you write of think of par as the best score they can hope for and that achieving it can be done without the standard on in two, two putt.  If so, we are really saying the same thing.  If not, these guys are deluded.  

Ciao