[Tom Kelly]

Because of this obsession with par the tours seem only willingly to use courses with they think can protect par. This forces any new course being built with tour event aspirations to have this in mind when designing it and old courses need often major renovation work. The result more often than not is boring, long and penal architecture.

If they didn't surely it would open up the possibility of playing some events on fair more interesting courses?

Two examples of this come to mind;

Firstly the changes at Wentworth, in trying to make the course harder, they have taken all the fun from the event. This year and last was like watching paint dry. Previously the thought of a number of players coming down 17 and 18 two or three shots behind with two par 5's where 3 is a realistically possible score on both was always great to watch. Now we just see players pitching to 12 foot on the last and settling for a par. being scared to take on the green in two by that god awful ditch across the front of the green which looks like it should be on some "stadium" TPC course.

Castle Stuart at this years Scottish Open. The player tore the course to pieces if you just look at the scoreboard yet every player who came off the course said they loved the course, the challenges it posed and that they wish more courses like this were used on the tour calendar. Even with the weather problems it made for great viewing. Also although the numbers made it look easy you also got to see Graeme McDowell take a 9 and watching Phil Mickelson take 4 to get down from about 3 yards off the green was a nice moment (?!).....a winning total of over 20+ under doesn't mean every body will shoot 20+ under.

[Carl Johnson]

Patrick, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.  I'll take one more shot, then you can take yours.

Carl,

Par isn't an artificial construct, it's a function of the spacial relationship of the architectural features.

Huh?  Par is a function of the spacial relationship of the architectural features?  Is there a mathematical formula for that?  Not that I know of.  By "artificial" I mean that it's based solely on how we golfers want to define it.  The relationships between the features, spacial or whatever, are going to be there and create the excitement and interest regardless of what numbers we put on them.  E.g., no. 18 at TPC Boston.  They could have called it a par four -  a tough par four, instead of a five.  In any case, Reavie needed to make a five or better on the hole to win - didn't matter whether it was a par on a five or a bogey on a four.  The apparent design of the hole, the spacial relation of the architectural features, created the opportunity for the finish of the 72 holes that occurred.

The golfer's goal is to get from point "A" to point "B" in as few strokes as possible.

That's one way of looking at it.  But as at least one other member has said, and with which I agree, I see the golfer's goal as being to finish, be it a hole in match play, or the 72 or whatever holes in medal play, in fewer strokes than his opponent(s).  Without going into detail, Stapleford competitions are no different, in my view.

It's the architect's function to thwart that effort through the placement of architectural features, features that the architect intended the golfer to interface with, mentally and physically.

I'm not sure how that relates to the issue of par.  In the context of our present discussion, I see the architects function as to provide an interesting and competitive field of play for the competition between/among players through the placement of architectural features, features that the architect intends the golfers to interface with, mentally and physically, in the battle against each other, not against par.

When the golfer is able to ignore those features their function becomes vestigial and the challenge of par diminished.

Again, I'd agree that the features should come into play in the competition, they should help define the competition, or otherwise they're useless.  Still, I'm not sure what they have to do with par.. . . .

In sum, I think our difference has more to do with semantics and how we look at the "game" than about architectural issues/features, as such.

[Brian Stewart]

There are many perfectly valid and well thought out reasons listed here already to care about it but I can say with absolutely certainty that I couldn't possibly care less about it than I do.  I struggle with the concept of being concerned about what 0.01% of the people that play golf do vs what the other 99.9% do. 

[paul cowley]

Its interesting that the best players games are reflected in their Vardon scoring and the USGA/GHIN handicapping where they are +3's +4's etc., and then tournament courses are manipulated to get them back up to a level (Par) that the are already below.

[Jud_T]

It'd be really interesting if they scrapped par and the USGA handicap system altogether...

[Bill Brightly]

Paul,

I partially agree with your premise. 98% of golfers can't come near to hitting it as far as the pros, so why should alter our golf courses.

However, show me a touney where the winning score is 25 to 30 under and I'll show you a course that the pros overpowered and turned the event into a putting contest. From am enjoyment standpoint, those events are crappy to watch. That hurts ratings, bad ratings hurt the game, and on it goes.

I am not a fan of "Tiger Tees" and have no desire to play them, even though I am a good player. But I am starting to think that they are a good thing. I've not yet played Bethpage Black, but maybe they have it right: build a set of black tees that only pros and fools play. The rest of us can play more forward tees and at least have some connection to playing the same course (and similar approach shots) that the pros play.

[Wade Whitehead]

It's not the scores they shoot.  It's that they hit wedge into every other hole.

WW

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Let's face it, on those courses(the birdie festivals) where the top pros score -20 or lower, the actual par is probably 67 or 68. I certainly don't care what they shoot. After all, they play a different game. Now, if the winner at Oakmont scores -20 or lower, then there's a problem.

[PCCraig]

Who's we, Tonto?

[Ken Moum]

To me, the place of par in competitive golf is mostly about playing with the competitor's mind.

I do appreciate the competition between players, whether they are even par, 10 under or 20 under.... but I REALLY enjoy watching top-level golfers deal with that while simultaneously fighting their egos as they tackle difficult pars.

In my own game, I am playing shorter courses because I want the game to be fun, and that struggle I described above it NOT fun.

We all know that stroke-play golf tournaments are not about beating par, and that winning by one stroke with a 75 is no different from winning by one with a 65. 

But even the pros are WAY more likely to get their emotions and egos twisted in knots when faced with half-par holes that play a half-shot over par, compared to holes that are a half-shot under par.

K

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()