What has the idea of "par" done for the game?

[V. Kmetz]

VK


Peter is right, these holes were created and then they evolved so I suppose you could say that as far as your Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan discussion goes that it was a draw. However as far as the creation of these holes is concerned I'm very doubtful they were designed as one shotters, in fact I'm sure they weren't.


I think we do tend to give the ODG's too much credit sometimes and not enough credit to the tinkerers that came in between then and now. These ODG's designed as much to par as modern architects do. While I'm at it we don't give enough credit to improved technology in creating these half par holes, indeed we don't give it any credit at all (eg. the Road Hole). Each successive generation, ever since the gutta percha ball was invented, have bemoaned advances in golf equipment yet if it wasn't for those advances the game wouldn't have become so popular and some of the holes we now recognise as classics wouldn't be quite what they are now.

Niall

As to this chicken or the egg at the heart of the sport and its playing field design, I'm firmly in the camp of the chicken, humankind, who superimposed his conjured activitity and fitted it to what his amusement wished, even before formal design.


I enthusiastically agree with you NC, about the Loop holes not being designed as one shotters, but I disagree that they were thought of as any particular par..they were just one of the (eventually) 18 tasks that comprise the round...I'll have to brush up on my pre-Robertson history, but I doubt the Eden hole was even thought of as a one-shotter...more like "this is tricky one" and "holes" like the Road Hole and Long and Cartgate were thought of as dragon-like beasts, where so much could go wrong in the 400+ yards of them.


..look at the organic development (and concordant reputation) of Prestwick over the years...things like the Cardinal and the Alps hole could absolutely result in a 12, or more likely, a match pick-up... who ever really gave a rats ass about the stated par of the hole in even this beginning of the "modern" game?


It's only the medal iteration of the sport started when parties started to inquire..."Say, we ought to know who is the best golfer in toto, the fortunes of a particular day and particular match be damned, we'll determine it by who can go round' the lowest over X amount of holes." this is all fine (I like it too, and it can still be retained by all the parties in their provincial and international control)...


But for architecture's progress and the sports' broadest appeal, I simply would like a few architects/clients to lay out a course with 18 yardages and a total par (if that's even needed) of 72 in the last box. I surmise that the stranglehold in the imagination of "hole pars" would loosen to have holes of (now) unique yardages and greater variety within one course, and if the reputation of same would spread to a greater movement and liberation of what is competent and vital in design.


cheers


vk

[paul cowley]

This is Diamante Dunes first 10 holes on the score card from the back tees...it hasn't changed at the Top 50 World course since opening 8 years ago. Not sure where this fits in the commentary but I think its interesting for a few items...the 4 deliberately designed half pars* that didn't evolve over time...and their lengths and ease or resistance to scoring. I feel the course is well received as a consequence of these holes and their relationship to each other.


1 - par 5/534 yds
2 - par 3/229 yds
3 - par 4/392 yds
4 - par 4/358 yds
5 - par 3/154 yds
6 - par 5/475 yds*
7 - par 3/295 yds*
8 - par 4/374 yds
9 - par 4/484 yds*
10 -par 4/535 yds* (modified this year and now plays 510 yds)

[Mark_Fine]

This topic of "par" always amazes me???How many games or sports are played that have no form of measurement?  I can't name one!

For those who are don't like the concept of par or measurement, why for example even bother counting anything including the number of strokes it takes to get your ball in the hole?  Who cares?  And regarding strokes and their measurement value, why should a shot hit 300 yards count exactly as much as a shot hit 3 inches?  Why should a swing and a miss count as anything, the ball didn't move? Why do we even measure the length of holes.  Who cares how long or short they are?  I could go on and on with measurement examples. 

Par is just a relative term of measurement.  It is nothing more or nothing less.  It means different things to different people as it should.  But like in any game or sport there is always some form of measure and that form of measurement is always given a name.  In golf we happen to use names like hole in one, birdie, bogie, triple, double, eagle, yards, meters,...., and Par 😊

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - thanks for posting that, it does seem like a terrific stretch of holes, for the reason you mention, but also (from my perspective) a terrific use by the architect of "par" and the concept of par that just about every golfer brings to the table, whether he is keeping score or not. Looking at that card, I would have a whole bunch of "assumptions" and "expectations" re the holes I might score well on or score poorly on...and I have a feeling that you will have taken precisely that into account and figured out a way to mess with my head!

Peter

[BCowan]

BC...Despite the emoticon of "cool" you inserted, I perceive such "heat" in your condemnation and gross generalizations. And in THIS thread, the tenor of "you put all us Par-lovers in a box" type swipes, was inaugurated by JK (from whose "Ring of Power" you have received momentary corruption) in his "Par-Haters are an extension of the everyone-wants a trophy crowd" statement.

   I agree completely with him. 

But to address what you said this recent occasion:
1. Putting Par in a Box? Clever attempt at reversal, but what box, or how I am putting Par in what box that it isn't in right now...3, 4, and 5...am I missing something? I don't think so, in fact, its PAR that is putting architecture in a smaller box than it already is...already feeling the pressure of having to satisfy a wide range of golfers with sustainable practices and disposable income to prosper, while competing against the wide swaths of degree that modern equipment affects those client's own games and the tournament golf and champisnship courses they observe through voluminous media.

   Having par determined by said Architect and possibly owners watchful eye is there doing.  You are basically saying that if you like par, you like par 72 and strict yardage parameters of setting par.  It's classic GCA stereotyping.  Architects can design a 50 yard par 2, then can also design an 800 yard par 6 hole for all I care.  Please stop with the sustainable practices nonsense, par has nothing to do with that.  You have an agenda you role out with your ideas.  Those equipment manufactures provide Jobs.  Also people of lesser means don't buy equipment very often or buy older models and they can't afford Hickories.   If you don't like championship golf don't watch it.  I think deep down you want to control it to your liking.    Society just hasn't given the enlightened people like you enough power to help us dumb folk out and remove the chains of par from our life. 

2. And if you will look past the "typical GCA rhetoric" to other threads, you have Tom Doak of all people talking about a clever 265 yard hole carded as a Par 4...that people would "lynch" him if he called it a "3," but is dismissively called silly as a "4" I asked and am waiting for response...don't you think getting rid on the stipulated par of all the holes, takes the "lose-lose" in terms of such hole's reception, and frees up architects to design holes of this length in greater practice, and to greater effect?

There isn't anyone stopping Tom from building that hole except maybe an owner.  If Tom wants to design one so badly I'm sure an owner would let him have his way and if not Tom can raise funds and be part owner of a course.  BS they would lynch him for a 265 yard par 3, Oakmont 8th hole is like 285-295.  You want a 265 yard par 4 go to Tamaron or Ottawa Park in Toledo, OH.  It's funny you say that because drive-able par 4's are very popular.  Sylvania CC a WPJ track originally had 7 par 5's.  I guess Willie was ahead of his time!


3. It seems obtuse that in any game in which you would be comfortable to gamble at all, that the participants cannot agree among themselves what a birdie or an eagle is in their game as pertains the action...and this idea of that "birdie" is marginalized and can't roll on, without one of three numbers under the yardage is nearly the greatest obfuscation of all such protest...no one is preventing you or Dan Hicks from envisioning, thinking of, conceptualizing a "3" on a 400 yard as a "birdie." Feel free to reward it in any manner one sees fit...just don't put it on the card; are you worried that there will be panic and emergency meetings in the Men's Card Room...anarchy? And I suspect that if you are, as you seem to profile, an honest and authentic lover of the game and its traditions, then I suspect you would come back if you never made a "birdie" again. Please tell me that tired old mantra is just that, a tired old mantra and the least of the reasons you "return" to the game seasonally.

That paragraph is utter rubbish.  No I wouldn't return to the game because of people attempting to change the game in the disguise of ''Progress'',  I run from people that think like that.  The enlightened one's.  Every game has measuring parameters, so they must be obtuse      You probably think keeping score in little league is wrong.  Please convince a course owner/members to remove par from their scorecard.  One minute you are for traditions, the next you make fun of it.  You don't see the inconsistencies of most of your stances? 

4. As to your stereotypical list of things people who hold/share THIS opinion of mine also think... First off, I ask,what do YOU think? I'll bet you don't like courses over 8000 yards, I'll bet you don't like uniform 12 yard wide fairways...I'll bet you don't prefer the playing condition of most native clay courses (And I too, could go on and on)...so what are we talking about here, degree? And your degree is so much finer and more worthy of respect than that of ours?

I'm the one who looks forward to a 9,000 yard golf course!  I love playing on clay, I don't like jetting all over the globe for courses built on sand, Jez we should bulldoze Oakmont Tomrw.   Degree, what are you talking about  ?  I'm saying that you thoughts are like a pre written 3 by 5 note card and you know I'm right.   

And that is perhaps the desultory thing about yours and JKs contributions to this topic (and some form of it is on 4 threads right now), so strong is your orthodoxy and certitude, that when engaged or merely answered, it turns into these wide swaths of wholesale generalizations... and precious aspects of the game that you hold so dearly and cannot imagine the game without, when the entire history of this wee thing and human history itself is the wholesale (even radical) evolution of its character, sometimes cyclical, sometimes slow, sometimes progressive, sometimes fast...that which doesn't stay in motion, stops and withers, that which doesn't change, adapt... dies...

I can't speak for Jkava but we are tired of pseudo Intellectuals over-analyzing the most minuet things.  You are stereotyping people who like par set on a hole, with Archies who don't take chances with design and set strict par length parameters.  Your achies of choice aren't taking enough chances IMO.  Most change isn't always for the better as Golden Age archies took much braver risks in their designs and par sent ups.  You are practically calling for a change to older times which is rather Conservative in nature.  I like par 4's that are 250-510 yards in length.  I'm up for a par 2 or a par 6.  I doubt you like stout par 5's. 
 
You're not playing the 13 original rules either, you're playing steel and/or composite shafts, and I'll bet you haven't teed up a Featherie, a Haskell, an Acer or a Balata Tour 100 in many many thousands of strokes ago...but here the line is to be drawn in sharp relief, as it is but one gateway to the destruction of the game and your enjoyment of it?

This is the irony with the whole thing, you talk earlier about sustainability and of affordability, then you ask if I have used a Featherie, Haskell, or an Acer which sound very expensive like playing Hickory Golf which is for the affluent type  .  I play Steel shafts in my irons and they are 15 year old blades.  I believe in Freedom and Voluntary actions.  If I decide to play golf with old school equipment I will on my own desires, not some top down USGA forced down method.  That is your opinion in regards to the destruction of the Game, that is what you fail to see.
To me, that's a contribution borne not of fair exchange about the particulars, but the conceit that your orthodoxy is the one true path..."God tells Brady and Brady tells the world..."

Wow, that last paragraph pretty much tells me all I need to know. 

cheers

vk

[paul cowley]

Paul - thanks for posting that, it does seem like a terrific stretch of holes, for the reason you mention, but also (from my perspective) a terrific use by the architect of "par" and the concept of par that just about every golfer brings to the table, whether he is keeping score or not. Looking at that card, I would have a whole bunch of "assumptions" and "expectations" re the holes I might score well on or score poorly on...and I have a feeling that you will have taken precisely that into account and figured out a way to mess with my head!

Peter

Thanks Peter...I guess my point is that a recognized modern course of substance has a five hole stretch where two par 4's  are longer than a previous par 5 by 9 and 60 yards...and a par 3 that is 35 yards longer than the norm....by design, not evolution. Wind and terrain all play a part in this...not fluke or random guirk.


...and it works...at least for the raters.

[Sean_A]

This topic of "par" always amazes me???How many games or sports are played that have no form of measurement?  I can't name one!

For those who are don't like the concept of par or measurement, why for example even bother counting anything including the number of strokes it takes to get your ball in the hole?  Who cares?  And regarding strokes and their measurement value, why should a shot hit 300 yards count exactly as much as a shot hit 3 inches?  Why should a swing and a miss count as anything, the ball didn't move? Why do we even measure the length of holes.  Who cares how long or short they are?  I could go on and on with measurement examples. 

Par is just a relative term of measurement.  It is nothing more or nothing less.  It means different things to different people as it should.  But like in any game or sport there is always some form of measure and that form of measurement is always given a name.  In golf we happen to use names like hole in one, birdie, bogie, triple, double, eagle, yards, meters,...., and Par 😊

Mark


If par was merely a form of measurement such as it was in the old days it wouldn't be a big deal.  However, courses are now designed to the idea of par...ever hear of par 72, four 5s, 4 threes and twelve 4s?  Ever hear that a green is too msall for a long par 4?  Ever hear that a green is too big for a short 3?  Par is far more invasive than merely an easy way to keep score. 


Ciao

[Dave Doxey]

I think that par is a useful benchmark, especially when playing alone against only the course.


What I don't understand is the need for courses to "defend par" against pros in tournaments.  As equipment changes, let them shoot in the 50's.  Per has no meaning in competition.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Of course we have all heard those comments and many more about par.  But par is not the problem and it is no more invasive now than it was when the term was first coined.  There has always been a "Par" ever since the game's first formal courses were conceived and a method of scoring/measurement was introduced.  "Par" might have had a different name back then but it was there.  Par is still just a relative form of measurement, nothing more.   

What you and others are confusing par with and what has changed and become invasive over the years is the need for "fairness".  Fairness is a term that has dramatically changed the game and not for the better.  I won't hijack this thread but the concept of par is not the problem, it is the concept of fairness that has made the game suffer and lead to many of the comments you raised above.

[Sean_A]

Mark


I don't think you are correct as Par is directly linked with medal play.  The modern idea of par wasn't really conceived until the USGA created a distance chart with associated par.  I think that was around 1900. Previously, par was used as an overall score for course..."par for the course" and each course was very different.  For instance, Prestwick's 12 hole course was probably about 48-50 par for the very best players of the day...in championship golf.  We now have taken the concept far further in designing holes to meet preconceived notions of par.  And yes, "fairness" is part and parcel of that concept, but I don't think the two can now be separated...it is so ingrained in the modern golfer psyche.  If an archie fools around too much with the concept, most golfers will say the course is goofy or tricked up...there is no denying that. 
[size=78%] [/size]


Ciao

[BCowan]

I guarantee that if Arcadia Bluffs was a par 68 and had 265 yard par 4's and 489 yard par 5's there still would be a line down the street to play it.  Now we are attacking Stroke play.  My ''buffet line'' analogy is being proven spot on as well.  Instead of people seeing their local PGA pro and working on their game to become better, we have people wanting to change the game. 

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
I don't think we are that far off in our opinions but if you did root cause analysis on this, the underlying issue is really fairness.  I played a 445 yard "par 5" the other day (back tee yardage).  That is what it said on the card so it is what it is.  Some people would say if you made a 3 on that hole (an eagle as we call it), that it wouldn't really be fair as the hole is too short to be called a par 5?  I also played a 515 yard "par 4" recently.  Most would call that an unfair hole as a "par 4".  Again, it is all relative and the holes are what they are.


I have these kind of discussions routinely with clients about what par to call holes.  Forrest and I built one at Mira Vista in California that measures 250 or so yards from the back tee.  On the card the golf committee call it a par 4 (makes the members feel good about making a birdie or even a rare eagle).  But honestly they can call it what they want, it is just a fun and very interesting golf hole

[paul cowley]

...at Orchard Creek I designed a 255 yd par 4 followed by a 260 yd par 3....and they are two of the most popular holes on the course.


If I reversed the par of these two holes to be more PC (par correct), they would not be happy with me at all. Go figure...

[Tom_Doak]

...at Orchard Creek I designed a 255 yd par 4 followed by a 260 yd par 3....and they are two of the most popular holes at the course.


if I reversed the par of these two holes to be more PC (par correct), they would want to cut my nuts off. Go figure...

Paul:


Can you be a little more specific [if less graphic ] about why the par of these two holes is settled the way it is, and everyone would be upset the other way around?


One of the interesting parts of this discussion only lightly touched upon is how HAVING TO DESIGNATE PAR changes what we design as architects on these in-between holes:  that even we ourselves have a hard time just being neutral.  If we call such a hole a long par-3, we are less likely to make it difficult around the green, or make the target very small; whereas if we call it a par-4 we seem compelled to make the up-and-downs difficult.


One of my ideas for the Olympic course was to have the holes spaced out in even, thirty-meter increments, which would have produced holes at 210, 240, 270 and 300 meters ... all distances that the pros rarely play.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I don't think we are that far off in our opinions but if you did root cause analysis on this, the underlying issue is really fairness.  I played a 445 yard "par 5" the other day (back tee yardage).  That is what it said on the card so it is what it is.  Some people would say if you made a 3 on that hole (an eagle as we call it), that it wouldn't really be fair as the hole is too short to be called a par 5?  I also played a 515 yard "par 4" recently.  Most would call that an unfair hole as a "par 4".  Again, it is all relative and the holes are what they are.


I have these kind of discussions routinely with clients about what par to call holes.  Forrest and I built one at Mira Vista in California that measures 250 or so yards from the back tee.  On the card the golf committee call it a par 4 (makes the members feel good about making a birdie or even a rare eagle).  But honestly they can call it what they want, it is just a fun and very interesting golf hole

We shall have to agree to disagree.  I certainly think the concept of par has weaved its way into a codifying/standardizing design and as part of that designers make allowances for the par number.  We can all name exceptions, but my point is there really shouldn't be a concept of exceptions.  I should see a lot more holes in the vein of Foxy, Sea Hedrig and St Enodoc's 10th...holes which don't neatly fit the box of one par number..not because of yardage, but because of the design concepts.  I think designers go out of their way to avoid these types of holes for daily play and instead include them for back tees...which is one more excuse for mega back tees or six sets of tees. 

Ciao

[BCrosby]

One of the interesting parts of this discussion only lightly touched upon is how HAVING TO DESIGNATE PAR changes what we design as architects on these in-between holes:  that even we ourselves have a hard time just being neutral.  If we call such a hole a long par-3, we are less likely to make it difficult around the green, or make the target very small; whereas if we call it a par-4 we seem compelled to make the up-and-downs difficult.

One of my ideas for the Olympic course was to have the holes spaced out in even, thirty-meter increments, which would have produced holes at 210, 240, 270 and 300 meters ... all distances that the pros rarely play.

If the par of a hole affects how golfers play a hole, it makes sense that the par of a hole also affects how an architect designs the hole. Interesting. So maybe the two effects are different sides of the same coin.


Bob   

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
[/size]I think most architects (at least the best ones) would take exception to your comment that:[/color]

[/size]"the concept of par has weaved its way into a codifying/standardizing design and as part of that designers make allowances for the par number".    [/color]

[/size]Yes there are some "standards" in golf but that is typical of most sports (it is part of the measurement and scoring discussion stated earlier).  Could architects design holes that are 1200 yards long, sure they could.  Do they worry about the mix of holes and their various lengths, etc - of course they do.  Should there be more courses that are 13 holes in total or 15 holes or 7 holes???  Maybe?  But golf is a sport and the playing fields do need to reflect and allow for some kind of scoring and handicapping system so competitions can exist and different players of different abilities can compete against one another.  The concept of par allows this to happen.  [/color]

[/size]I have played a lot of courses all over the world and I don't think architects are suffering too much because they are sooo constrained by having to deal with par    I think they manage just fine![/color]

[Sean_A]

One of the interesting parts of this discussion only lightly touched upon is how HAVING TO DESIGNATE PAR changes what we design as architects on these in-between holes:  that even we ourselves have a hard time just being neutral.  If we call such a hole a long par-3, we are less likely to make it difficult around the green, or make the target very small; whereas if we call it a par-4 we seem compelled to make the up-and-downs difficult.

One of my ideas for the Olympic course was to have the holes spaced out in even, thirty-meter increments, which would have produced holes at 210, 240, 270 and 300 meters ... all distances that the pros rarely play.

If the par of a hole affects how golfers play a hole, it makes sense that the par of a hole also affects how an architect designs the hole. Interesting. So maybe the two effects are different sides of the same coin.


Bob

But par is only relevant to a very small percentage of golfers...by its very definition.  So now we are back to square one, designing and discussing courses for and about the best players. 


Mark


I don't care if archies take exception to my statement.  It is my firm belief that arnhies are influenced by a par number.  To a large degree the concept of fair is wrapped around par and tons of archies want their courses to be seen as fair...whether like or agree with te concept or not...fairness is a marketing tool which helps sells courses. 


Golf isn't like any other sport so I don't see why it needs to be codified. 


I don't know who mentioned it, but I fail to see how par makes handicapping possible. 


I too have seen many courses and very few are not wanting for some creativity 


Anyway, we are different sides of the fence.  You think par is a positive element for golf and I have serious doubts as to this.  No worries.


Ciao

[paul cowley]

...at Orchard Creek I designed a 255 yd par 4 followed by a 260 yd par 3....and they are two of the most popular holes at the course.


if I reversed the par of these two holes to be more PC (par correct), they would want to cut my nuts off. Go figure...

Paul:


Can you be a little more specific [if less graphic ] about why the par of these two holes is settled the way it is, and everyone would be upset the other way around?


One of the interesting parts of this discussion only lightly touched upon is how HAVING TO DESIGNATE PAR changes what we design as architects on these in-between holes:  that even we ourselves have a hard time just being neutral.  If we call such a hole a long par-3, we are less likely to make it difficult around the green, or make the target very small; whereas if we call it a par-4 we seem compelled to make the up-and-downs difficult.


One of my ideas for the Olympic course was to have the holes spaced out in even, thirty-meter increments, which would have produced holes at 210, 240, 270 and 300 meters ... all distances that the pros rarely play.

Tom, I modified my original post...they don't call me PC for nothing


The 14th hole is a uphill par 4 that has a split upper and lower fairway that runs diagonally left to right...can't call it a dog leg at 255 yards long, but it feels like one. The fairways are separated by a dropoff of about 8' in elevation which is cross bunkered. A small creek runs the entire left side of the hole and is hard to the collar of the green...the green also runs left to right and is longer than wide. favoring a fade if going for the green...long goes in the creek. Lower fairway is a easy lay up but wedge is more difficult due to narrower green. Front guarded by a high bunker and left is in the creek....probably the best short 4 I've designed. Just the right amount of risk...I've played the hole dozens of times and never once layed up...although the lower handicaps usually do. It would be a terrible par 3. A Par 3.5


The next hole, #15, is a par three of 260 yards...dropping about 40' to a large 3/4 punch bowl green, in an amazing setting/view that allows for the extra air time to watch the ball....you can land 30 or 40 yards short and still bounce on the green. It would be a poor par 4, but a fun and well earned par 3. A par 3.5.


It gets better actually because these two hole are in the center of the finishing 5 hole sequence that is the most memorable of the the 18.


-# 13 is the most difficult par 4 at 475 yards to a large and green that allows for 30 yards of forward kick. A good par 4.5.
- # 14, as described. A par 3.5
- # 15, as described. A par 3.5
- # 16 is the 'signature' par 5 at 600+ yards. A very good par 5.5
- # 17 is a solid medium length par 3
- # 18 is a great risk/ reward par 5 of 475 yards...easily reachable in two by many but guarded at the green by water on both sides and in the rear and tucked into the bend of a curving curving creek built for the purpose. A great closing 4.5


I could break these holes down to quarter pars....which is how I think....but I won't. I think you get the image/idea of how I relate my design to 'par'. I struggled with it earlier on until I began to use half pars as a way to add exciting and thinking man's accents in the sequencing of a round, and for special interest and strategy. It's why I prefer North Berwick over Muirfield. All my best Tom!

[Garland Bayley]

...
For those who are don't like the concept of par or measurement, why for example even bother counting anything including the number of strokes it takes to get your ball in the hole?  Who cares? ...

Your opponent! Duh!!!

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
Good point.  For those golfers that play match play you are correct.  But how do you propose figuring out the match if your opponent is a different skill level than you?  Without the concept of par, how would you determine handicaps?  If you are the better player you probably would just say lets play even up 😊.  If you belong to different courses you might not know who the better player is?  What is your suggestion?

Sean,
Positive is too strong a word.  Par is a necessity for some of the reasons I described.   

Paul,
In the examples of your holes you seem to be concerned with fairness as to whether a hole should be called a par three or a par four?  Am I mistaken about that?  Are you deciding on the "par" for the hole based on the anticipated or expected score the average golfer would achieve on the hole?   Doesn't this go back to the fairness concept?   

[Garland Bayley]

... There has always been a "Par" ever since the game's first formal courses were conceived and a method of scoring/measurement was introduced. ...

What evidence do you have for that? "ever since the game's first formal courses were conceived"? It sounds as if you believe golf has always been a medal play game. I don't think you are correct on that.


EDIT: I hate this version of the website.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
Good point.  For those golfers that play match play you are correct.  But how do you propose figuring out the match if your opponent is a different skill level than you?  Without the concept of par, how would you determine handicaps?  If you are the better player you probably would just say lets play even up 😊.  If you belong to different courses you might not know who the better player is?  What is your suggestion?

Sean,
Positive is too strong a word.  Par is a necessity for some of the reasons I described.   

Paul,
In the examples of your holes you seem to be concerned with fairness as to whether a hole should be called a par three or a par four?  Am I mistaken about that?  Are you deciding on the "par" for the hole based on the anticipated or expected score the average golfer would achieve on the hole?   Doesn't this go back to the fairness concept?

Handicaps are computed from course ratings not par.
Before medal play people like OTM computed handicaps for their members from match results.

[paul cowley]

Garland,
Good point.  For those golfers that play match play you are correct.  But how do you propose figuring out the match if your opponent is a different skill level than you?  Without the concept of par, how would you determine handicaps?  If you are the better player you probably would just say lets play even up 😊.  If you belong to different courses you might not know who the better player is?  What is your suggestion?

Sean,
Positive is too strong a word.  Par is a necessity for some of the reasons I described.   

Paul,
In the examples of your holes you seem to be concerned with fairness as to whether a hole should be called a par three or a par four?  Am I mistaken about that?  Are you deciding on the "par" for the hole based on the anticipated or expected score the average golfer would achieve on the hole?   Doesn't this go back to the fairness concept?

Mark...I absolutely put fairness first...in a tie with fun and strategically stimulating.


I guess I look at 'par' similar to how the PGA produces the player averages after a tournement....the 16th hole averaged 4.42 strokes and was the toughest par 4 of the 18....or the same 16th hole averaged 4.42 strokes and was the easiest par 5 of the 18. Same hole, same length but as the designer I get to make the decision on how to cloak the hole...make it fair/fun...or unfair/this hole sucks...and I can do this just by assigning the 'par'...which I tried to explain in my previous post. Am I making any sense? Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to myself here...

[V. Kmetz]

Hello,

After many years of interjecting it into vector threads and many, many posts about it, I'm pleased this exchange has finally come to a healthy adolescence.

Now, we're hearing the stories I knew existed, of (currently)funky-yardaged holes and now it seems a few persons are harboring the idea, that "Hey, I'd like to see a course with just yardages...maybe some 72-like total for the whole thing...I wonder how I'd feel about playing such a course" I'm now hearing posters and working architects talking about just how design is limited by the individual hole par, how it can leech in, to shut down possibilities.

As far as new design goes, the land and the project will still always dictate, but could it possibly be that we can have a course wherein a 258 yard hole that has the old "2 or 20" green to greet the brave and trouble the short, that worries even the cautious, lurks? And have that hole be valued for its cheek? Can we have a 470 yard bunkerless hole featuring a double-wide Biarritz green?

And just to make sure, no one, at least not me, is saying we must have a course larded with such holes...again, the land and the project will rule, but it seems clear that individual hole par hectors the freedom of the design process. And the first benefits of stripping the card and the tee plate of the "Par" is that we'd see more of them and holes considered anew when the architect, if he must think of any number, can think just on "4"...Easy ones, hard ones, beguilng 4s,, dangerous 4s, long 4s, short 4s, impossible 4s, "damn me I should have easily made 2 or 3" fours (like the best iterations of the "Short" template in the latter case)...


I understand and have little rancor for those who find par valuable; I would simply make the appeal that the value is mostly (at least promulgated as such by par-defenders) psychological...This is only a shift in that delicious portion of psychology, not an abandonment...Each player will still feel the tug of what he "ought" to do and "ought not" to do on a hole of any distance...70-700...he will still feel "what is possible" on a hole of any yardage...his friends, companions, competitors, and opponents will feel and know it for themselves and conjure it for him too...by removing the number 3, 4 or 5 nearby the yardage, we are putting an added bit of doubt, secret and mystery into the enterprise...should I be frightened of this 258 yard hole, or licking my chops?

Well, it's just about enough talk from me on this, one of my favorite subjects, I hope both posters and on-lookers will give succor to the idea that the sun will still rise in the East if we remove individual pars from the holes, in fact, it may shine brightly. With some of today's architects and builders and visionaries in the field, I feel it could be a mini-Renaissance of a sort, a zephyr of fresh air that adds just that much more to some of the fine work that is being done, in  new building, in revision and in restoration.


cheers


vk