[Tim Gavrich]

I've shot a small handful of rounds under par this year, but none in the 60s yet, after having had probably my best year on the golf course in '16.


FWIW, re: the whole ball-striking vs. short game argument, I can pretty much say that when I hit 13+ greens in a round, I'm much more likely to break par. Those "greasy" low rounds are generally few and far between for all but the pros, whose short games are on a different level than ours.


Would be interested to hear recent new GCAer Zac Blair weigh in here.

[Josh Tarble]

I've got 3 under par rounds.  2 at my home course, 6600 yards.  1 away at 6800. 


I personally find it easier to shoot a decent round at a par 70, but easier to shoot a really good round at a par 72

[Carson Pilcher]

Yes, I have several times.  Depending on the tees played, my home course sets up between 6,600-7,030 yards.  I usually play the tees for either 6,800 or 7,000 yards for a par 72.  I have done it at other clubs too with my low round being 66 at another Atlanta course from 6,700 yards.

[Kalen Braley]

One of the fundamental premises of this thread seems flawed, as its my understanding less than 3% of golfers can break par or threaten to do so on a semi-regular basis.  So we're looking for variance between an already very small group, even more so if bringing Pros into the discussion.


While I would agree that in this small subset, distance is likely the key differentiator.. the average golfer aka 16-18 gets it done in many different ways.

[John Kavanaugh]

I got all disillusioned with the "play it forward" crap and moved back a set of tees this year. No 60's for me but a barrel of monkeys of fun.


Bogey hates golf, he just wants to rank...he is ranking you right now.

[Bob Montle]

It seems obvious to me that low scoring has a much greater correlation to length than it does to par.
That is why the course ratings are different from each tee. 

But I submit scoring is still more correlated with distance than it is to even course rating.

Take Heritage "links" in Georgia.   
The White tees:   Par 72      Rating 68.6    length 5750 yds
The Blue tees:     Par 72       Rating 74.3    length 6875 yds
Ratio:                     Par 1.00   Rating 108%  length 120%

Whether you take a 5 handicapper or a 15 handicapper, the ratio of their scores from the blue tees vs the white tees would be closer to 120% than 108%

Course "par" is meaningless.    Just tell me the length and the slope and I know how I will shoot.

[Josh Tarble]

It seems obvious to me that low scoring has a much greater correlation to length than it does to par.
That is why the course ratings are different from each tee. 

But I submit scoring is still more correlated with distance than it is to even course rating.

Take Heritage "links" in Georgia.   
The White tees:   Par 72      Rating 68.6    length 5750 yds
The Blue tees:     Par 72       Rating 74.3    length 6875 yds
Ratio:                     Par 1.00   Rating 108%  length 120%

Whether you take a 5 handicapper or a 15 handicapper, the ratio of their scores from the blue tees vs the white tees would be closer to 120% than 108%

Course "par" is meaningless.    Just tell me the length and the slope and I know how I will shoot.

Completely disagree, for a variety of reasons. But Let me ask you this: if we were playing a match, would you forego 6 shots to play from the white tees? Do you really think you'd be 6 shots better from the white tees than the blue?

[Kalen Braley]

It seems obvious to me that low scoring has a much greater correlation to length than it does to par.
That is why the course ratings are different from each tee. 

But I submit scoring is still more correlated with distance than it is to even course rating.

Take Heritage "links" in Georgia.   
The White tees:   Par 72      Rating 68.6    length 5750 yds
The Blue tees:     Par 72       Rating 74.3    length 6875 yds
Ratio:                     Par 1.00   Rating 108%  length 120%

Whether you take a 5 handicapper or a 15 handicapper, the ratio of their scores from the blue tees vs the white tees would be closer to 120% than 108%

Course "par" is meaningless.    Just tell me the length and the slope and I know how I will shoot.

Completely disagree, for a variety of reasons. But Let me ask you this: if we were playing a match, would you forego 6 shots to play from the white tees? Do you really think you'd be 6 shots better from the white tees than the blue?

Josh,


I would.  Its over 1000 yards shorter from the whites in this scenario.


 In a more typical scenario like 6200 - 6600, probably wouldn't give up 6 shots.

[Mike Hendren]

Bogey hates golf, he just wants to rank...he is ranking you right now.

John, somehow I feel like I should be paying you $300/hr.  I have indeed fallen out of love with the game.  I hate that I can't execute a golf shot when it was once as simple and thoughtless as breathing.  But like over-eating (Shel says I'm a +1 with a knife and fork!) I can't seem to do a damned thing about it.  New clubs ain't helping much.  As Trevino says, "it's time to move some dirt."

Your pal,

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it. 

[John Kavanaugh]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

The hopes and dreams of breaking par are more important than the number of executions. In other words...Used to be is the currency of an old golfers spank bank. The number is the image.

[Tim Gavrich]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

Agreed. Heck, it's usually irrelevant even if you can, because most players who can are playing in some competitive events, where at the end of the day the lowest score wins, regardless of par.


Which brings me back to my earlier assertion that par is just a sort of ruler. It's arguably the most made-for-TV aspect of the professional game.

[Thomas Dai]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

Comes in useful when you're playing in a stableford event though!
Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Jason - it was clear where this thread was going even before anyone posted.
AG - next Broadie will be suggesting the average golfer lay up on every par 4 and come in with a wedge....

Pete,
Broadie suggests just the opposite; his data shows that the strategy of laying up to a particular distance is a loser at ever level of golf.  Closer is better.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


In reply #3, Thomas equated the ball striking skills of two players that hit the ball 20% - 25% different distances but of the same quality of strike. I disagree with that notion.


In a conversation about breaking par, he said it was unreasonable to ask the shorter hitter to one-putt a few times if they were going to break par.


Clearly the communication here is not flowing and I'm happy to take the blame but we are talking about breaking par and I'm quite clear on how it can be done by just about any distance hitter.


Maybe we should figure out what he meant by "once a reasonable level of skill has been achieved" and what you mean by "once one is able to make consistent, solid contact and hit the ball reasonably straight, then distance becomes really critical"


There are scratch players that hit the ball like a 10 handicap and chip and putt like a +6 and the inverse type player.
I'm kind of confused about what I'm misunderstanding.




Jason,

Bogey disagrees with the concept that par matters...and several posts or threads recently have discussed it. He's wondering just how many of us actually flirt with par. I imagine it was not an accident that he asked about a full round as opposed to a single hole...which is really where the concept of par impacts a players mindset.

How many people have made a birdie this year?


Edited to try to fix font issue...

Deleted; no point in arguing this.

[Jim Nugent]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

Even then it's a thrilling goal you can aim for.  At first on individual holes, then as you get better (perhaps) for an entire round. 

[Greg Chambers]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

Are you kidding me?  How many times have you heard a not-so-great golfer say...well, I shot 90, but I made two birdies!  Par is indeed relevant.  Without the concept of par, there is no joy in the game.  Especially for those that love to play JUST for that opportunity to break par...if even on but one hole.

[JESII]

AG - happy to discuss offline if you'd prefer.

[Garland Bayley]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

Are you kidding me?  How many times have you heard a not-so-great golfer say...well, I shot 90, but I made two birdies!  Par is indeed relevant.  Without the concept of par, there is no joy in the game.  Especially for those that love to play JUST for that opportunity to break par...if even on but one hole.

No joy in the game?!?!? When I finish a round, my buddy who keeps score is amazed that I don't know what I've scored and whether I had pars, bogeys, or others. I do know if I've won 1 up, 2 up, 2 and 1, etc.
I get a lot of joy, and par is irrelevant to it.

[Ari Techner]

I've broken 70 once this year on a par 71 course that was about 6700 yards and once on a par 68 that was 6400 yards. 

[Greg Chambers]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

Are you kidding me?  How many times have you heard a not-so-great golfer say...well, I shot 90, but I made two birdies!  Par is indeed relevant.  Without the concept of par, there is no joy in the game.  Especially for those that love to play JUST for that opportunity to break par...if even on but one hole.

No joy in the game?!?!? When I finish a round, my buddy who keeps score is amazed that I don't know what I've scored and whether I had pars, bogeys, or others. I do know if I've won 1 up, 2 up, 2 and 1, etc.
I get a lot of joy, and par is irrelevant to it.

We both know medal v match are two entirely different things.  And most golfers I play with are familiar with medal.  But even in a match, you're still thrilled to win a hole with a birdie, versus what, a three?  Oh joy

[BCowan]

My whole premise is this:  Par is irrelevant if you can't break it.

The hopes and dreams of breaking par are more important than the number of executions. In other words...Used to be is the currency of an old golfers spank bank. The number is the image.

Brilliant.  Mr Bogey has started a thread that is like a bad hangover.  He just made me count that it's been around 16 years since I've been in the 60's.  I'm not giving up on hope.  I just received a great old Master Plan from a Langford course, he had par listed.  That should end it right there.  John, are there hipsters disguised as intellectuals on here?     

[Thomas Dai]

My objection to Thomas' comments is that he takes distance out of the equation that computes ball striking quality.


I happily admit and agree that there are plenty of good (great) ball strikers who don't hit it as far as some. I'm sorry, but if two players each hit the ball square and straight and the correct distance but one hits it 20% - 25% further, that one is a superior ball striker. It is so because, as you say, the rest of the game becomes easier for him. On the driving range, we can call it a draw.


Jordan Speith came into it because he's an example of something that happens at all levels of golf. Thomas suggested one putting doesn't matter in a conversation about ones ability, or likelihood, of breaking par. He says scoring is all about distance. I didn't suggest Speith was short among the worlds golf population but among those he beat at Birkdale, he is both short and crooked.


Success against relatively equal overall golfers...say, the B flight in a club competition sorted by handicap, or The Open Championship is about getting the ball in the hole quickly for your caliber. This might mean two putting where others three putt.

I think you should reread what Thomas wrote.  I read it exactly the opposite way; that once one is able to make consistent, solid contact and hit the ball reasonably straight, then distance becomes really critical.  And so if you're hitting long clubs into greens because you are short off the tee, you won't be close enough to make very many putts, and you won't break par.

Am I reading him incorrectly?

AG,
No, you're reading me quite correctly. And nothing I've read in this thread has changed my views.
Atb

[JESII]

Thomas,


Nobody argues that among equal quality ball strikers, the importance of distance is elevated...edit in...that's what makes the longer hitter better.


My question is, in a conversation about breaking par, why would you say it's unreasonable for a shorter hitter (yet high quality strike) to one putt on occasion to achieve par?

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas,
Nobody argues that among equal quality ball strikers, the importance of distance is elevated...edit in...that's what makes the longer hitter better.
My question is, in a conversation about breaking par, why would you say it's unreasonable for a shorter hitter (yet high quality strike) to one putt on occasion to achieve par?

Because they are unlikely to do so with sufficient frequency and consultancy to make up for the bogies that will be on the card when they don't get up-n-down.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()