Should Classics Just Remove Par From Their Scorecards?

[PCCraig]

On classic golf courses on tighter pieces of property, it's inevitable that technology has rendered holes that were formerly "short" for their par, are now too "easy" but perhaps would also be too hard with a lesser par. For example, a 480-yard hole that is an easy 5 but a very difficult 4.
What's the point of listing par on the scorecard anyway? Wouldn't most classic clubs be a lot more interesting from a strategic standpoint if "par" didn't dictate how the hole is played for most golfers?


Wouldn't removing par help keep a classic golf course more "relevant" in the face of advanced equipment technology??

[Mark Chaplin]

I've never read such drivel, you clearly haven't played Swinley Forest or New Zealand.

[Josh Stevens]

I think perhaps we are confusing the professional game with the real world.
Even on classic courses that may from time to time host professionals - 99.9999% of rounds played are still by ordinary people who have not benefited as much from technology and for whom the course remains as relevant today as it did 30 years ago.

I confess the Par concept is often overplayed,  but purely from a logistical point of view we need it.  I don't know what you do in the US, but down here, most member rounds are going to be Stableford or something similar and so we need the Par number as it forms the basis of our scoring, not only for the club competition but more importantly our side bets.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Would be about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit.

[Terry Lavin]

Uh, no.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I confess the Par concept is often overplayed,  but purely from a logistical point of view we need it.  I don't know what you do in the US, but down here, most member rounds are going to be Stableford or something similar and so we need the Par number as it forms the basis of our scoring, not only for the club competition but more importantly our side bets.

Exactly.


Golf without Stableford scoring would be unthinkable in the UK. It forms the basis of most competitions.


The par figure given to a hole is largely irrelevant.  Tough par 4 or easy par 5 makes no real difference other than for birdie side bets.


The main reason for making 480 yard holes par 5s is to bring the overall par of the course over the magical 70 mark.


Thankfully we have resisted this temptation and proudly play a par 69 course with a couple of very long par 4s.

[James Brown]

What'd ya shoot?


...I'm not keeping score.

[Mike Treitler]

I actually think this is an interesting concept.  He is not suggesting that we don't keep score, but to play devil's advocate what really is the point of par on some of these courses?   


I had the good fortune of playing Wannamoisett last month and it was an absolute blast. Just a fantastic golf course and I played it right after the Northeast Amateur.   


However, the second hole there is a PERFECT example of par being somewhat irrelevant and was clearly turned into a par 4 over time, specifically for the elite players that sometimes play there.     


The hole is a 505 yard par 4 from the back tees with water in front.   I played it into a 25 mph wind and had to hit 6 iron for my 3rd shot.  I am a 2 handicap and only hit it about 260 off the tee but still!   


With Wanny being a par 69 anyways... whats the point of making this a par 4?   


So while I don't entirely agree with the basis of the post, I do see some merit in it as many old courses are changing par specifically for the elite players which leaves the good but not elite amateurs in the lurk.

[Mike Treitler]

After re-reading some of the posts I can answer my own question on what the point is.   The point is for stableford scoring. 


However, for stroke play, par on some of these courses is somewhat irrelevant.

[BHoover]

How about two scorecards--one with par and one without?

[V. Kmetz]

What's the point of listing par on the scorecard anyway? Wouldn't most classic clubs be a lot more interesting from a strategic standpoint if "par" didn't dictate how the hole is played for most golfers?


Wouldn't removing par help keep a classic golf course more "relevant" in the face of advanced equipment technology??

Maybe agreement with me is cause for reconsideration, but..."Hallelujah!...Someone else understands!"

I really don't envision it for older courses, but as a new paradigm for design future. Despite my desire for a golf world without individual hole pars I still maintain that a total course par of (whatever) ought to be listed...for me it's pretty hard to shake off the level fours number of 72, but I leave that to the architects and operators.


As to Stableford and like competitions, there's no reason they cannot have a card/common understanding of what the numbers are.


cheers
vk

[Tim Gavrich]

Why not just try to hit the ball as few times as possible and tip your cap when someone hits it fewer times than you?


Par is just a ruler. Human beings have gotten taller over time as diet and lifestyles have become healthier. Thank goodness we haven't made rulers bigger.

[John Kavanaugh]

Patience. Par changes with time. If you eliminate par you may find yourself playing the same holes year after year.

[BCowan]

I've never read such drivel, you clearly haven't played Swinley Forest or New Zealand.

  , it's the putt putt scorecard folks and no tee markers hipsters trying to be hip.  Good golfers don't pay the bills, the 18 cappers do and they aren't hitting it 270+.  It's the everyone's a winner mindset taught over last 20 years and thats why we have threads like this. Oh well

[Mike Treitler]

I don't understand those comments,  nobody said to eliminate score keeping.   Some one can still get their butt whipped without par being assigned to each hole.

[Matthew Sander]

I've never read such drivel, you clearly haven't played Swinley Forest or New Zealand.

  , it's the putt putt scorecard folks and no tee markers hipsters trying to be hip.  Good golfers don't pay the bills, the 18 cappers do and they aren't hitting it 270+.  It's the everyone's a winner mindset taught over last 20 years and thats why we have threads like this. Oh well

Good lord, could you have interpreted the original post more poorly? I actually think Pat's suggestion, in many ways, is right in line with what many here value. Granted, a stated par allows for handicapping and certain competitions (stableford included) and isn't going away any time soon...or ever.


However, so many get hung up on a hole's/course's par and judge said holes/courses based on difficulty as it relates to that given number. I think that is Pat's point. Play (and consider) the damn hole according to its architecture and merits.


In regards to the "everyone's a winner mindset" you reference. My 71 beats your 80 every day of the week whether it's -1, +1, or -20. Better yet, and even more removed from a par relationship, I beat you 8&7. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[Tim Martin]

How about two scorecards--one with par and one without?

One with hole # and handicap # only will take care of everything.

[BHoover]

How about two scorecards--one with par and one without?

One with hole # and handicap # only will take care of everything.

Currently, I have to use a marker to black out the par #s for each hole. Such a hassle. I need a par-free scorecard!

[Tim Martin]

How about two scorecards--one with par and one without?

One with hole # and handicap # only will take care of everything.

Currently, I have to use a marker to black out the par #s for each hole. Such a hassle. I need a par-free scorecard!

It's hard. I know.

[BCowan]

I've never read such drivel, you clearly haven't played Swinley Forest or New Zealand.

  , it's the putt putt scorecard folks and no tee markers hipsters trying to be hip.  Good golfers don't pay the bills, the 18 cappers do and they aren't hitting it 270+.  It's the everyone's a winner mindset taught over last 20 years and thats why we have threads like this. Oh well

Good lord, could you have interpreted the original post more poorly? I actually think Pat's suggestion, in many ways, is right in line with what many here value. Granted, a stated par allows for handicapping and certain competitions (stableford included) and isn't going away any time soon...or ever.


However, so many get hung up on a hole's/course's par and judge said holes/courses based on difficulty as it relates to that given number. I think that is Pat's point. Play (and consider) the damn hole according to its architecture and merits.


In regards to the "everyone's a winner mindset" you reference. My 71 beats your 80 every day of the week whether it's -1, +1, or -20. Better yet, and even more removed from a par relationship, I beat you 8&7. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

You are not correlating what everyone's a winner to the point I'm making. You are also using group thought on here. I love stroke play and feel it's superior to match play.  Just like a 90 or 93% is an A in school we have metrics in golf.  We have been doing this for 100+ years is my guess but some folks think the wheel needs to be Re invented.  Everyone's a winner relates to children being told they are the most important and every idea they have is genius. That golf scorecards have been wrong for 100 years until the enlightened ones show us how ignorant we are. If said person judging course doesn't understand half pars I think one can determine that from listening or reading. People that like resistance to scoring are going to rate the same way whether it's a 4 or 5 imo.

[JJShanley]

I'll take this opportunity to ask how the bogey system worked, because it hasn't made sense so far. 


Did ANGC not come up with par as a tool to help spectators figure out the leader across an entire field?

[Sean_A]

I don't pay attention to par unless I have a stableford score going.  I am often surprised when I discover the par of some holes. Handicap players hung up on par for Medal Play don't understand the "game" very well.  Thats not surprising as the concept of level 4s was all but dead when I started playing.  Guys under the age 40 don't have a chance to get it.

Ciao

[PCCraig]

The design of the Warren Golf Course is reminiscent of the classic, walkable Irish and American courses built in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with short distances between the greens and tees. Winding its way through 250 wooded acres, the course incorporates traditional elements of the great golf courses of the early 1900s and - unlike many modern layouts - is built on subtleties rather than special effects.
An even more distinguishing - and extremely unusual - characteristic is that there is no par for the course. Like one of the world's most traditional golf courses, Muirfield in Scotland, only the yardage is posted for each hole - allowing players to attack the course from their own perspective and without the preconceived notions inherent to par.

[Mike Treitler]

"Everyone's a winner relates to children being told they are the most important and every idea they have is genius."


What an absurd comment... someone starts a fun and legitimately viable discussion on here and you suggest that they are someone who was spoiled as a kid and that he thinks he's a genius?   


I personally think its an interesting thought.  It won't ever happen, and each player can treat par however they want, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the discussion. 

[V. Kmetz]

You are not correlating what everyone's a winner to the point I'm making. You are also using group thought on here. I love stroke play and feel it's superior to match play.  Just like a 90 or 93% is an A in school we have metrics in golf.  We have been doing this for 100+ years is my guess but some folks think the wheel needs to be Re invented.  Everyone's a winner relates to children being told they are the most important and every idea they have is genius. That golf scorecards have been wrong for 100 years until the enlightened ones show us how ignorant we are. If said person judging course doesn't understand half pars I think one can determine that from listening or reading. People that like resistance to scoring are going to rate the same way whether it's a 4 or 5 imo.

That snarl behind your exaggerated claims "the wheel needs to be reinvented" "told every idea they have is genius" "the enlightened ones show us how ignorant we are," constantly says more than anything you have say on any particular subject.


The phase-out of a hole par is not some gift to a player who makes sevens or a snark against the man who makes threes, it's merely a simple step that might free up a greater number of players to enjoy, appreciate and derive value from the course architecture they encounter. And in the case of extant classic architecture and elite competition, may reduce the oft-harmful alteration strain put on proven, historic venues wherein we like to see competition. The third component is that going forward, architects may find a liberty in routing, yardages and green characteristics that are on the fringes of taboo now...three sub 220 holes in a row... three 450+ holes in a row... 2 or 20 holes... more (traditionally) half-par yardages...260, 270...400...450..460...


If there is any "genius" in it, it is that it is a simple thing to do... uncostly, not a federal command, doesn't need lawyers, equipment-maker sign-offs, sycophant promoters nor headlines to happen. If there is any demonstration of ignorance to be made, you're making it by resisting the notion that you, your fellow competitors and recreational familiars can't come up to any hole of any yardage or character and with a glance determine success...that lowest score still wins... for a hole in match...for a medal round of 18 holes.


But I'm not a course designer, nor likely to own/operate a golf course to the extent that will matter, so you needn't worry...I'm just posting on a board about an aspect of Golf and Golf Course Architecture.


cheers
vk