Par Matters

[BCrosby]

Par matters. It is not just an arbitrary number:


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311649

[Tom_Doak]

I just browsed that study quickly, and it looks as if they base a lot of their finding on the fact that scoring averages were much lower on particular holes at Pebble Beach and Oakmont in the last two Opens, compared to Opens past . . . while heavily discounting the fact that 100% of the players can easily reach those holes in two now, compared to less than 50% in the latter 20th century.



Big data is not science.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I remember having some issues with that paper when I read it a few months ago, too. It may have been like what Tom just said, or something more, but yeah…

[V. Kmetz]

I just browsed that study quickly, and it looks as if they base a lot of their finding on the fact that scoring averages were much lower on particular holes at Pebble Beach and Oakmont in the last two Opens, compared to Opens past . . . while heavily discounting the fact that 100% of the players can easily reach those holes in two now, compared to less than 50% in the latter 20th century.

Big data is not science.

To wit, watching the recent YouTube video of the official film, Nicklaus (en route to his 1972 USOp victory at PB) was the only player in the field to reach the 2nd in two all four days...each day with a 2-iron. (I can;t find it now, but JN's Golf My Way lists the yardages he hit clubs then...I think the 2-iron was 220-230) so on a 505 (then) hole he hit a 280 yard drive, followed by a 225 2-iron...today that could be easily be a 315 yard drive followed by a 190 yard 7/8-iron.

The realization that (from a medal or scoring perspective) every hole ought to be a solution of "4"...long ones, short ones, easy ones, cautious ones, ones that are penal, ones that are generous...from 88 yards to 688...will breath life into GCA.

Removing individual hole par (but leaving 72 as a nominal marker for any 18 hole course) will open up architecture and what is possible at all levels of design..a little bit... without par, we can reclaim yardages, distances and design breathing space that is challenging... our best designers are already pushing that envelope, but the number needs to go, so they can take the next design step... the necessary reaction to explosive tech, a simpler game, a game that takes less time, that has more amusement, less mimickry of pro challenges (that few if any public players are up to)and is thought of in different terms...still well identified by the 150 years of "modernity" preceding it.

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting but without specific par (or equivalent) for each individual hole could there still be handicap stableford and handicap match-play etc? Indeed would the current handicap system(s) be able to operate at all ... and similarly the new worldwide hcp system when it comes into effect? Just curious.
Atb

[Jim Nugent]

To add on to Tom Doak's comment, in the Opens before year 2000 the 2nd at Pebble played a lot longer, when it was a par 5.  According to Wikipedia, the distance on the scorecard in both 1992 and 1982 was 502 yards.  In year 2000, as a par 4, the hole measured 484 yards.  18 yards shorter.

That's only half the story.  By 2000 the players were hitting the ball much further.  In 1982, the median drive on tour was 256.6 yards, while in 2000 the median drive was around 272.  (Actually the longest average drive in 1982 was only a few yards more than the median drive in 2000.) 

So counting technology, #2 at Pebble probably played 30 to 40 yards shorter in year 2000.  No surprise the players might average less, making more 3s/4s and fewer 5s/6s.   

In 2010, the USGA bumped the distance on #2 back to 502 yards.  But by then the players were hitting the ball even further: the median drive was nearly 288 yards.  Over 30 yards more than in 1982.  As in 2000, the hole played far shorter as a par 4.

The authors say scoring did not fall on Pebble's other par 5s, and even rose on 14 and 18.  But I'm pretty sure that through year 2000, both #14 and #18 were 3-shot holes for nearly the entire field.  The longer ball wasn't long enough to give much advantage on those holes.  In 2010,  scores on #14 soared due to the setup: the green was nearly impossible to hold, even with sand wedge.  It was shocking to watch the world's best players bounce their little flop third shots over the green.  I think we even had a thread about it here on GCA.  IIRC, #14 averaged way above 5 for the tournament, maybe in the 5.4 range. 

it also seems to me the sample size is pretty small.  Conditions can vary wildly year to year, greatly impacting scores.  Again take year 2010.  The last round was a matter of survival.  McDowell shot 74 but still won.  Tiger shot 75 and lost by 3. 

It's a real interesting question.  Not sure if this study really resolved it though. 

[Jim Nugent]

Just took a quick look at Oakmont.  #9 is a little shorter now, as a par 4, than it was when they set it up as a par 5.  But the ball goes so much further than it did back then.  e.g. in 2016 the median drive on tour was just shy of 290 yards.  That's about 12 yards longer than the LONGEST average drive in 1983.  The players now hit such shorter clubs into the green, I think it pretty well nullifies the scoring comparisons. 

[Joe Zucker]

This study is not perfect and the criticisms are valid, but it is another data point pointing in the direction that par changes how golfers play holes.  Rarely (if ever) are people's minds changed by one amazing study in the research world.  When minds shift, it is usually the result of dozens, if not hundreds, of studies with different strengths/weaknesses and approaches that suggest the same finding.


Pairing this research with others, like Mark Brodie's findings that players make more par putts than birdies from the same distance, suggests par does matter.  I agree with the criticisms here, but we can still learn from an imperfect study. 


These professors were on the Fried Egg podcast a few months back, episode 124: https://thefriedegg.com/category/fried-egg-podcast/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Pairing this research with others, like Mark Brodie's findings that players make more par putts than birdies from the same distance, suggests par does matter.  I agree with the criticisms here, but we can still learn from an imperfect study.

Mark Broadie actually found that, when you adjust for first putts or second putts, the difference is almost negligible. It's nowhere near as high as is commonly cited.

It's at the end of Chapter 7 IIRC.

Par does matter, though. Call a barely reachable hole (in two) a par four and even golfers who should play to 50 yards short (because of a not-so-great lie or something) will often play more club and try to get their GIR. You see it all the time, par affecting things. It can also work in reverse, though, too: a drivable hole can lead to more people who should to play it with two shots because it's called a par four.

[Ken Moum]

Interesting but without specific par (or equivalent) for each individual hole could there still be handicap stableford and handicap match-play etc? Indeed would the current handicap system(s) be able to operate at all ... and similarly the new worldwide hcp system when it comes into effect? Just curious.
Atb

IMHO, we spend far too much time worrying about which holes get stroke allocations for match play.  If we simply called the longest hole #1 handicap and the shortest #18, people might finally get over the misapprehension that those stroke allocations somehow indicate which holes are harder.


I played for about 15 years in a nine-hole match play league every Wednesday night (from May through Sept.) that had a full-course shotgun. So there were almost 50 matches every week.  But our stroke allocations were done almost completely wrong.


A long par three was #1...


In the end it made virtually no difference in the matches.  The guy who played well relative to his handicap usually won, and nobody complained about the stroke allocations.


As for Stableford, taking VK's thoughts to the extreme, if every course is par 72, we could make the target score on every hole four or five. I'd bet a dram or two of something with a sherry finish that the results would hardly vary from what we have now.


And as far as the "new" system, as generally worthless as I think the GHIN system is, it will be more than up to the task.


In case you're wondering why I think our system is worthless, I'll just say that is fails to measure one of the primary skills in the game.  If your goal os to allow reasonable games between players of different abilities, then leaving out a primary skill is an egregious oversight.


That skill is the ability to play well when you want to most.  Including casual rounds means that a player's handicap is mostly based on rounds with no pressure.  Ignoring the almost epidemic cheating that goes on in much of the US, that oversight alone makes our system unacceptable in my opinion.


K

[Thomas Dai]

Don’t disagree with Ken’s thoughts but there are lots of aspects to the game.
And to reinforce a point mentioned a couple of times above, the par of a whole does get into the head of many a player and expectations and sometimes, maybe often, screw-ups occur as a consequence. What’s between a players ears and how it effects their play and behaviour is maybe not given the enough emphasis in the game.
Atb

[V. Kmetz]

Interesting but without specific par (or equivalent) for each individual hole could there still be handicap stableford and handicap match-play etc? Indeed would the current handicap system(s) be able to operate at all ... and similarly the new worldwide hcp system when it comes into effect? Just curious.
Atb

I don't believe the individual hole par is part of the HCP allocation process now...just the gross variance between the "scratch player" and the 18 hcp player's returns during a measured period (?).

And I'd love to see course raters (in my model of NO hole par) publish their rating of each hole individually, as part of their compilations.


IMHO, we spend far too much time worrying about which holes get stroke allocations for match play.  If we simply called the longest hole #1 handicap and the shortest #18, people might finally get over the misapprehension that those stroke allocations somehow indicate which holes are harder.


Also allocations are bound to be flawed if we are
1. Keep to the idea of odds on one side/evens on the other
2. Amend the test results so that shots don't fall in a cluster
3. Amend results, so that 18 is not a high ranked shot hole


I played for about 15 years in a nine-hole match play league every Wednesday night (from May through Sept.) that had a full-course shotgun. So there were almost 50 matches every week.  But our stroke allocations were done almost completely wrong.

A long par three was #1...

In the end it made virtually no difference in the matches.  The guy who played well relative to his handicap usually won, and nobody complained about the stroke allocations.

As for Stableford, taking VK's thoughts to the extreme, if every course is par 72, we could make the target score on every hole four or five. I'd bet a dram or two of something with a sherry finish that the results would hardly vary from what we have now.


I wouldn't bet you...because I think you're correct...and of course, my insinuation is that every hole is a "sort" of 4...that for all but professional, elite players and competitions, 4 is a fine score on any hole...and on most any course 72 represents happiness, success, achievement with an 18 hole round...


And as far as the "new" system, as generally worthless as I think the GHIN system is, it will be more than up to the task.


In case you're wondering why I think our system is worthless, I'll just say that is fails to measure one of the primary skills in the game.  If your goal os to allow reasonable games between players of different abilities, then leaving out a primary skill is an egregious oversight.


That skill is the ability to play well when you want to most.  Including casual rounds means that a player's handicap is mostly based on rounds with no pressure.  Ignoring the almost epidemic cheating that goes on in much of the US, that oversight alone makes our system unacceptable in my opinion.


K

[Erik J. Barzeski]

IMHO, we spend far too much time worrying about which holes get stroke allocations for match play.  If we simply called the longest hole #1 handicap and the shortest #18, people might finally get over the misapprehension that those stroke allocations somehow indicate which holes are harder.

As always they're not about which holes are "harder," but which holes the higher handicapper is likely to need strokes on versus the lower handicapper. This is done by inputting several hundred scorecards, and then balanced somewhat so that odds and evens are on different nines (ideally with the odds on the first nine).

Par threes are often the "easier" holes for higher handicappers and the "harder" holes relative to par for the lower handicappers, so these are often higher numbered handicap holes. The opposite is often true of par fives.

I played for about 15 years in a nine-hole match play league every Wednesday night (from May through Sept.) that had a full-course shotgun. So there were almost 50 matches every week.  But our stroke allocations were done almost completely wrong.

They may have been correct.

[Tom_Doak]

IMHO, we spend far too much time worrying about which holes get stroke allocations for match play.  If we simply called the longest hole #1 handicap and the shortest #18, people might finally get over the misapprehension that those stroke allocations somehow indicate which holes are harder.


In the end it made virtually no difference in the matches.  The guy who played well relative to his handicap usually won, and nobody complained about the stroke allocations.

Agreed - for matches, it makes no difference [except psychologically] which holes are the stroke holes.


In fact, in Australia, the handicap strokes for match play are spaced evenly throughout the round, regardless of the design.  If you get one stroke, you get in on #8.  Two strokes, they're on 8 and 12 -- even if they are both par-3 holes!  Three strokes, you also get a stroke on #4, etc.  Bottom line, it evens out:  if you get a stroke on a hole where it seems unnecessary, you then don't get one on the hole where you really want it.

[Tom_Doak]

This study is not perfect and the criticisms are valid, but it is another data point pointing in the direction that par changes how golfers play holes.  Rarely (if ever) are people's minds changed by one amazing study in the research world.  When minds shift, it is usually the result of dozens, if not hundreds, of studies with different strengths/weaknesses and approaches that suggest the same finding.

No, this is not another "data point", it's b.s., and it's scary to think it has been passed off as scientific when it is actually a business school [b.s.] paper.  They try to make it sound like a controlled study because they are using the same golf holes, and they minimize the impact of time, of equipment changes, and of players' attitudes toward strategy which have changed drastically over the past 40 years.  A real scientist would laugh at the methodology. 


I am not saying that par does not matter, psychologically, to most golfers.  It absolutely does; it causes them to take stupid risks or to play more conservatively, depending on the nature of the hole, when they don't have an opponent to create that pressure for them.


I would be surprised, though, if it mattered as much to the best players in the world.  Perhaps they change how they play when they are really in trouble, to avoid double bogey, but I really don't think Brooks Koepka changes how he plays the 9th hole at Oakmont because of what they said par was.  Hell, he's going for the 600-yard holes in two, never mind the 500-yard holes.

[Sean_A]

There is no inherent or objective importance of par.   Par only matters in so much as a player wants it to matter.  imagine if there was an inherent importance to par...millions of golfers would realize how badly they suck and quit playing the game.


Ciao

[BCrosby]

We can quibble over the "scientific" status of the paper if you want. It is, however, one of a long line of psychological studies on risk aversion in contexts ranging from investments, hiring, career choices and so forth. Those studies are not quantum mechanics. They are psychological experiments with all the flaws endemic to that discipline. Notwithstanding their flaws, they can convey useful information about risk averse behaviors. (That has been the case with such studies regarding buying or selling securities, for example.)


The real value of study is that it challenges views - often heard here - that par is just an arbitrary number. An idea taken to be so obvious that it is assumed to be beyond dispute. This study - for all its flaws - suggests that at least for top tier golfers in some limited cases such assumptions are questionable. Or, indeed, might be simply wrong.


The study also aligns with my own intuitions. In a couple of ways. Least important is that I measure how well I play a hole against its par. Par sets my scoring expectations.


More important is that the par of a hole and its architecture are deeply intertwined. How a hole is designed is inescapably bound up with the par to be assigned to it. That's one of the reasons why you won't see a 160 yard par 5. It's not just because the USGA recommends holes of that length be shown on the scorecard as par 3s. It's because a hole like that would make no sense architecturally (absent unusual circumstances).


Bob     










     

[BCrosby]

Sean -


Just saw your post. I think most bad golfers know exactly how bad they are. Knowing how much over par they are at any point in a round will not add or subtract from their understanding of that basic fact.


Bob

[Sean_A]

The study also aligns with my own intuitions. In a couple of ways. Least important is that I measure how well I play a hole against its par. Par sets my scoring expectations.

More important is that the par of a hole and its architecture are deeply intertwined. How a hole is designed is inescapably bound up with the par to be assigned to it. That's one of the reasons why you won't see a 160 yard par 5. It's not just because the USGA recommends holes of that length be shown on the scorecard as par 3s. It's because a hole like that would make no sense architecturally (absent unusual circumstances).

Bob     

All of this doesn't alter the fact that the relevance of par is a personal choice. Because an archie designs a hole with a par number in mind for expert players in no way means a hole must be played based upon the par. Doing so is a choice. Hence one reason why the best golden age and modern architects offer choices in how to play holes. In a large measure strategic architecture is anti-par thinking.

BTW...a huge percentage of players measure how they did against their handicap and the smart ones will often use their shots and gladly accept 5-4s.
 
Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Really interesting discussion.
It brought to mind:
- that I never hear tour pros talk about their rounds in terms of 'par': it's always 'That was a 67 that could easily have been a 63, so I'm pleased but I know I left some shots out there'.
- conversely, the two friends I introduced to the game think in
terms of par all the time, both on individual holes and at the end of the round. I'll total them up and say 'you shot 97', and their very first question is always 'How much over par is that on this course?'
It's been hard for me to accept for many years but I now think it's so true: the most fundamental freedom we have and the most personal choice any of us can make in life is deciding whether or not 'par matters' -- metaphorically speaking.

[Joe Zucker]

This study is not perfect and the criticisms are valid, but it is another data point pointing in the direction that par changes how golfers play holes.  Rarely (if ever) are people's minds changed by one amazing study in the research world.  When minds shift, it is usually the result of dozens, if not hundreds, of studies with different strengths/weaknesses and approaches that suggest the same finding.

No, this is not another "data point", it's b.s., and it's scary to think it has been passed off as scientific when it is actually a business school [b.s.] paper.  They try to make it sound like a controlled study because they are using the same golf holes, and they minimize the impact of time, of equipment changes, and of players' attitudes toward strategy which have changed drastically over the past 40 years.  A real scientist would laugh at the methodology. 


I am not saying that par does not matter, psychologically, to most golfers.  It absolutely does; it causes them to take stupid risks or to play more conservatively, depending on the nature of the hole, when they don't have an opponent to create that pressure for them.


I would be surprised, though, if it mattered as much to the best players in the world.  Perhaps they change how they play when they are really in trouble, to avoid double bogey, but I really don't think Brooks Koepka changes how he plays the 9th hole at Oakmont because of what they said par was.  Hell, he's going for the 600-yard holes in two, never mind the 500-yard holes.

The criteria needed to run a true controlled experiment that a technical scientist would like are never satisfied in the real world.  All of the social sciences rely on natural experiments that are imperfect because of the controls noted are not accounted for perfectly.  Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean there isn't something that can be learned here.  If we required laboratory level conditions, none of the social sciences would exist, but we have learned things from that research.


Do these guys overstate their case? Probably.  But it is certainly a more rigorous approach to the question than any of us give when expressing our opinions on this question here.

[Mark_Fine]

Par has been discussed on this site many many times.  For many golfers, the par for a hole won't impact how they play the golf hole.  Most will do what they have to do the make the best score they can.  If for example a hole is 300 yards long and is called a par 3, does it matter to a golfer who can only hit the ball 250?  They are probably going to play the hole the same way regardless of whether that hole is called a par 3 or a par 4 or a par 5 for that matter.  But the fact is that par DOES matter particularly in the age of stroke play.  Without designated par on each hole, there would be no practical way to measure/compare golfers playing in a tournament or any kind of stroke play event.  I could see the announcer saying, “Rory has 26 strokes and Tiger is at 42 but Jordan has 19 and Dustin is at 35   Yes we could all wait till everyone finishes playing the same number of holes and tally up the total but that kind of sucks. 


Someone’s expectation for what they score on a particular hole can vary dramatically from “par” but that does not mean that par doesn’t matter.  It is simply a standard to be measured against (however you would like to do so).  Deal with it 

[Tom_Doak]

More important is that the par of a hole and its architecture are deeply intertwined. How a hole is designed is inescapably bound up with the par to be assigned to it. That's one of the reasons why you won't see a 160 yard par 5. It's not just because the USGA recommends holes of that length be shown on the scorecard as par 3s. It's because a hole like that would make no sense architecturally (absent unusual circumstances).

Well, doesn't that depend on the designer's view?


As an example, one of my most controversial half-par holes is the 13th at St. Andrews Beach.  It's a 495-yard hole with an uphill drive to a crowned fairway, and a long second shot over a shoulder of a ridge forty yards short of the green.  We called it a par-4 when we built it, partly because there is a very short par-4 immediately following, but both Michael Clayton and I believed that a scratch player would think of it as a two-shotter.  Nevertheless, we built a small green for it [with a lot of short grass around the green]


A lot of designers I know would have insisted on a big green for a long par-4, as you suggest, but we did not.


There have been many complaints about how difficult that hole is, and I've told the new management that it would be fine with me if they called it a par-5 instead, to mute some of the criticism.  The bottom line is, I don't really care what they call par.  The hole a difficult four, whether you call that par or birdie.

[Sean_A]

Par has been discussed on this site many many times.  For many golfers, the par for a hole won't impact how they play the golf hole.  Most will do what they have to do the make the best score they can.  If for example a hole is 300 yards long and is called a par 3, does it matter to a golfer who can only hit the ball 250?  They are probably going to play the hole the same way regardless of whether that hole is called a par 3 or a par 4 or a par 5 for that matter.  But the fact is that par DOES matter particularly in the age of stroke play.  Without designated par on each hole, there would be no practical way to measure/compare golfers playing in a tournament or any kind of stroke play event.  I could see the announcer saying, “Rory has 26 strokes and Tiger is at 42 but Jordan has 19 and Dustin is at 35   Yes we could all wait till everyone finishes playing the same number of holes and tally up the total but that kind of sucks. 


Someone’s expectation for what they score on a particular hole can vary dramatically from “par” but that does not mean that par doesn’t matter.  It is simply a standard to be measured against (however you would like to do so).  Deal with it 

Mark


All you say may be very true for You. That in no way implies that par has a intrinsic value. Get over it, par is a completely unnecessary concept to play golf.


Ciao

[Daryl David]

This discussion reminds me of my Dad when he was teaching me the game. At a course we had not played before, I asked on the tee whether the hole we were about to play was a par 4 or 5. After an exasperated sigh, he replied “what the hell difference does that make”?  He then told me my goal should be to try and get the ball in the hole in the least number of strokes and then add them up at the end. “It’s not rocket science, dumb ass”!