The relativity of par

[Thomas Dai]

Pondering last nights US PGA and other elite men’s pro golf we watch on TV and the relatively of par to the participants in comparison to par as played by the average amateur on the kind of courses average amateurs usually play.

At Harding Park the par was reduced from 72 to 70 for the event.
There were still two par-5’s reachable in two shots.
There was also a drivable par-4.
The realistic par for the level of player participating was thus not 70 but 67.
There were also a bunch of par-4’s that were reachable with wedges and short irons, but I won’t go there.
Other courses that we watch the elite and lessor elite men play on TV are not dissimilar.

If we, that is average amateurs, were intending to play a course and we discovered it was only a mere ‘par-67’ what would our reaction be?
Would we rejoice?
Would we turn our noses up at the thought of playing a mere ‘par-67’ course, “to easy”, and go and play somewhere else more in line with our ego, vanity and macho-ness?

And what does this say for the elite we watch on TV having to turn up and play week after week on titchy little, easy-peasy unrealistically high par courses!

The elite guys we watch on TV etc are good, incredibly good, and their skills and gross scores are amazing, but they ain’t as good as their scores in relation to realistic ‘par’ suggest.

Atb

[JESII]

The elite guys we watch on TV etc are good, incredibly good, and their skills and gross scores are amazing, but they ain’t as good as their scores in relation to realistic ‘par’ suggest.

Atb

Unless you actually think of the course that would enable us to actually get around 4 times in par or slightly better. No need to match the winning score, but what would a course look like that you could play well and shoot 70 on 4 days in a row? How long? How penal? How difficult are the greens (speed, slope etc...)?


I think the comparisons between the Tour guys and us are fruitless for a host of reasons and maybe turning your question on its head will be another illustration.

[John Kavanaugh]

I hated when Streamsong Black came out as a par 73. Nobody wants to hear I shot X, but. As a kid I would search out par 70’s while on vacation. My best round in competition was a 66. It’s the same course where a guy who was mentioned yesterday during the broadcast shot his age at 59.

[Ryan Van Culin]

I have always felt that par, in reference to Tour players, is that round's scoring average. They can move the tees, have varying conditions of play, weather changes, etc. and the scoring average will change.


Which, to me, is why I consider the differential score when looking at my best rounds. The lowest differential is the best round. I've shot 80 on a 7200 yd course from the tips, and it was a better differential than even par from the whites at the local muni.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have always felt that par, in reference to Tour players, is that round's scoring average. They can move the tees, have varying conditions of play, weather changes, etc. and the scoring average will change.


Which, to me, is why I consider the differential score when looking at my best rounds. The lowest differential is the best round. I've shot 80 on a 7200 yd course from the tips, and it was a better differential than even par from the whites at the local muni.

At what point in that round did breaking 80 enter your mind? What happened?

[Ira Fishman]

I have always felt that par, in reference to Tour players, is that round's scoring average. They can move the tees, have varying conditions of play, weather changes, etc. and the scoring average will change.


Which, to me, is why I consider the differential score when looking at my best rounds. The lowest differential is the best round. I've shot 80 on a 7200 yd course from the tips, and it was a better differential than even par from the whites at the local muni.

At what point in that round did breaking 80 enter your mind? What happened?

John, I don't want to preempt Ryan's answer but your question prompted a memory of one of my most embarrassing episodes in golf. Many years ago, we played Cog Hill 4 from the Blues. I had never broken 80 when it occurred to me on the 18th tee that I needed a bogey to do so. Or maybe it was one of my playing partners who pointed it out. I hit my first two drives onto the roof of the maintenance shed. You never heard three other guys laugh harder.


Ira

[Sean_A]

Pondering last nights US PGA and other elite men’s pro golf we watch on TV and the relatively of par to the participants in comparison to par as played by the average amateur on the kind of courses average amateurs usually play.

At Harding Park the par was reduced from 72 to 70 for the event.
There were still two par-5’s reachable in two shots.
There was also a drivable par-4.
The realistic par for the level of player participating was thus not 70 but 67.
There were also a bunch of par-4’s that were reachable with wedges and short irons, but I won’t go there.
Other courses that we watch the elite and lessor elite men play on TV are not dissimilar.

If we, that is average amateurs, were intending to play a course and we discovered it was only a mere ‘par-67’ what would our reaction be?
Would we rejoice?
Would we turn our noses up at the thought of playing a mere ‘par-67’ course, “to easy”, and go and play somewhere else more in line with our ego, vanity and macho-ness?

And what does this say for the elite we watch on TV having to turn up and play week after week on titchy little, easy-peasy unrealistically high par courses!

The elite guys we watch on TV etc are good, incredibly good, and their skills and gross scores are amazing, but they ain’t as good as their scores in relation to realistic ‘par’ suggest.

Atb

WW

It's obvious the notion of par as the expert score is total nonsense. Par for many of these courses is really something like 4 or 5 shots less if the definition of par is to have meaning. It's probably best to do away with par for expert golf and simply have a course number experts would be expected to shoot.

Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

Pondering last nights US PGA and other elite men’s pro golf we watch on TV and the relatively of par to the participants in comparison to par as played by the average amateur on the kind of courses average amateurs usually play.

At Harding Park the par was reduced from 72 to 70 for the event.
There were still two par-5’s reachable in two shots.
There was also a drivable par-4.
The realistic par for the level of player participating was thus not 70 but 67.
There were also a bunch of par-4’s that were reachable with wedges and short irons, but I won’t go there.
Other courses that we watch the elite and lessor elite men play on TV are not dissimilar.

If we, that is average amateurs, were intending to play a course and we discovered it was only a mere ‘par-67’ what would our reaction be?
Would we rejoice?
Would we turn our noses up at the thought of playing a mere ‘par-67’ course, “to easy”, and go and play somewhere else more in line with our ego, vanity and macho-ness?

And what does this say for the elite we watch on TV having to turn up and play week after week on titchy little, easy-peasy unrealistically high par courses!

The elite guys we watch on TV etc are good, incredibly good, and their skills and gross scores are amazing, but they ain’t as good as their scores in relation to realistic ‘par’ suggest.

Atb

WW

It's obvious the notion of par as the expert score is total nonsense. Par for many of these courses is really something like 4 or 5 shots less if the definition of par is to have meaning. It's probably best to do away with par for expert golf and simply have a course number experts would be expected to shoot.

Ciao

If you guys keep putting your heads together, you might just realize that net competitions and course ratings already exist.

[Thomas Dai]

Maybe no real answers to this one?

However, when TV commentators and the like whitter on about elite pros making birdies and eagles and how a zillion under par is an utterly amazing score their talking codswallop and that those outside the pro-business/media loop really ought to take such ‘under-par’ scores by elite pros with a large dose of skepticism if not outright laughter.

As an aside, two players of equal ability.
For whatever reason, one hits it 300 yd’s in the air. The other hits it 200 yd’s in the air.
A 6,000 yd course for one equates to a 4,000 yd course for the other.
Or a 6,000 yd course for a 200 yd hitter equates to a 9,000 yd course for a 300 hitter.
And the elite pros are achieving their zillion under-par on courses of only around 7,500 yds. If we say they are 300 yd hitters that would equate to an equal ability 200 yd hitter playing a 5,000 yd course.
Now there’s a thought for the average amateur ......

There was once a film, not necessarily that good, but wonderfully titled ... ‘Its a mad, mad, world.’
 
Atb

[Sean_A]

Pondering last nights US PGA and other elite men’s pro golf we watch on TV and the relatively of par to the participants in comparison to par as played by the average amateur on the kind of courses average amateurs usually play.

At Harding Park the par was reduced from 72 to 70 for the event.
There were still two par-5’s reachable in two shots.
There was also a drivable par-4.
The realistic par for the level of player participating was thus not 70 but 67.
There were also a bunch of par-4’s that were reachable with wedges and short irons, but I won’t go there.
Other courses that we watch the elite and lessor elite men play on TV are not dissimilar.

If we, that is average amateurs, were intending to play a course and we discovered it was only a mere ‘par-67’ what would our reaction be?
Would we rejoice?
Would we turn our noses up at the thought of playing a mere ‘par-67’ course, “to easy”, and go and play somewhere else more in line with our ego, vanity and macho-ness?

And what does this say for the elite we watch on TV having to turn up and play week after week on titchy little, easy-peasy unrealistically high par courses!

The elite guys we watch on TV etc are good, incredibly good, and their skills and gross scores are amazing, but they ain’t as good as their scores in relation to realistic ‘par’ suggest.

Atb

WW

It's obvious the notion of par as the expert score is total nonsense. Par for many of these courses is really something like 4 or 5 shots less if the definition of par is to have meaning. It's probably best to do away with par for expert golf and simply have a course number experts would be expected to shoot.

Ciao

If you guys keep putting your heads together, you might just realize that net competitions and course ratings already exist.

I am not really talking about course rating.  That stuff is for handicap golfers. I am talking about a new new expectation for par which gets it closer to its original intent of expert play. 


Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

I actually think that the premise for the thread may be misplaced a bit. The Pros do play a game "with which we are unfamiliar." But the best Stroke Average ever is Tiger at slightly under 68. We do tend to forget that we watch the leader boards and not the bottom or the scores of the Pros who do not make the cut.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

A useful corrective from Ira.
But I suppose that in this context it is relative in the same way Time is: ie a half hour stuck in traffic while trying to make your tee time seems a lot longer than a half hour on the golf course when you're in the zone and gone par-birdie-par.

[Ryan Van Culin]

I have always felt that par, in reference to Tour players, is that round's scoring average. They can move the tees, have varying conditions of play, weather changes, etc. and the scoring average will change.


Which, to me, is why I consider the differential score when looking at my best rounds. The lowest differential is the best round. I've shot 80 on a 7200 yd course from the tips, and it was a better differential than even par from the whites at the local muni.

At what point in that round did breaking 80 enter your mind? What happened?

Hey, Mr. Kavanaugh. In this particular round, I did not think about my score until after the round, while we were eating. It was a rare occasion where I didn't track my score at all because it was a course I was very excited to play and was immersed the entire round in my surroundings. It's a very rare thing, especially for me. When I was told of my score after 18, the first thing I thought about were the three 3-putts, haha.

[Sean_A]

I actually think that the premise for the thread may be misplaced a bit. The Pros do play a game "with which we are unfamiliar." But the best Stroke Average ever is Tiger at slightly under 68. We do tend to forget that we watch the leader boards and not the bottom or the scores of the Pros who do not make the cut.

Ira

That means that many tour players are not the experts par should be based on. The very elite if elite should determine par. Just as it was 100 years ago, playing to par should be a very, very good score. Why do you think the USGA is so hell bent on protecting par int the Open?

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

I actually think that the premise for the thread may be misplaced a bit. The Pros do play a game "with which we are unfamiliar." But the best Stroke Average ever is Tiger at slightly under 68. We do tend to forget that we watch the leader boards and not the bottom or the scores of the Pros who do not make the cut.

Ira

That means that many tour players are not the experts par should be based on. The very elite if elite should determine par. Just as it was 100 years ago, playing to par should be a very, very good score. Why do you think the USGA is so hell bent on protecting par int the Open?

Ciao

I actually do not what this means. I assume that you would concede that Tiger is the most elite of the elite.


Ira

[SL_Solow]

I am one who believed that the USGA and R&A dropped the ball on equipment regulation and I have said so for a long time here and elsewhere.  But I am bemused by those who suggest that the scores on tour are distorted because the players can hit the ball further and want to compare them to scores by ordinary players on shorter courses.  One of the main reasons the touring pros are on tour is precisely because they can hit the ball that far and, incidentally, they can find it.  I agree that the equipment makes it easier but we mortals have access to modern equipment too.  I don't like what the equipment has done to the game because it has made classic courses less interesting at the highest levels and because it has reduced the need for top players to use "all the clubs in the bag".  But the current crop of players are taking the game as it is presented to them and doing wonderful things

[Tom_Doak]

When the TPC at Sawgrass was hosting its first event and the players all said it was impossible, Mr Dye was asked to predict a winning score, and he predicted minus-8.  It shocked me so I asked his reasoning, and he replied that three of the four par-5's were reachable in two, so he expected they would reach two of them on any given day, and that he thought someone would be able to shoot par otherwise.


Jerry Pate birdied the last three holes to win by three and finish 8-under. 


BUT, it is not quite as easy for the pros as it sounds.  They may be hitting 9-iron to most par-4's, but their 9-iron from 175 has less margin for error than my 9-iron from 135.

[Ira Fishman]

When the TPC at Sawgrass was hosting its first event and the players all said it was impossible, Mr Dye was asked to predict a winning score, and he predicted minus-8.  It shocked me so I asked his reasoning, and he replied that three of the four par-5's were reachable in two, so he expected they would reach two of them on any given day, and that he thought someone would be able to shoot par otherwise.


Jerry Pate birdied the last three holes to win by three and finish 8-under. 


BUT, it is not quite as easy for the pros as it sounds.  They may be hitting 9-iron to most par-4's, but their 9-iron from 175 has less margin for error than my 9-iron from 135.

You must have de-lofted your clubs.


Ira

[Rob Marshall]

I have always felt that par, in reference to Tour players, is that round's scoring average. They can move the tees, have varying conditions of play, weather changes, etc. and the scoring average will change.


Which, to me, is why I consider the differential score when looking at my best rounds. The lowest differential is the best round. I've shot 80 on a 7200 yd course from the tips, and it was a better differential than even par from the whites at the local muni.

At what point in that round did breaking 80 enter your mind? What happened?

I wish someone could teach me to play a round of golf and not know my score until I add up the card.....

[Peter Flory]

The usefulness of the concept of par for a pro golf tournament is so that we have an estimate of where the contestants are in relation to each other when they in different stages of the course.  For that to function well, par should be somewhere near the field average for each hole- say rounded to the nearest whole number. 

If a par 5 averages 4.55 strokes for the field, then calling it a par 5 is the best for the leaderboard purpose. 

From that perspective, every single hole at Harding Park had an average score for the tournament that rounded to the stated par for that hole.  Par served it's purpose and allowed us to know that 7 players were effectively tied for the lead.  Unless you want to call #16 a par 3.66, this is the best that we're going to do.  For the final round, it averaged 3.46, but it's weird changing the par for just 1 round because the tees were moved.  And even if you did change the par to a par 3, it would only improve the precision from 0.54 to 0.46. 

If you're looking for a perfect estimate of where all the players stand at any point in time, you probably want to look at their win probability, which would include exact calculations of how hard the holes in front of them are playing.  That might actually be a neat way to supplement a leaderboard on TV. 

[Sean_A]

I actually think that the premise for the thread may be misplaced a bit. The Pros do play a game "with which we are unfamiliar." But the best Stroke Average ever is Tiger at slightly under 68. We do tend to forget that we watch the leader boards and not the bottom or the scores of the Pros who do not make the cut.

Ira

That means that many tour players are not the experts par should be based on. The very elite if elite should determine par. Just as it was 100 years ago, playing to par should be a very, very good score. Why do you think the USGA is so hell bent on protecting par int the Open?

Ciao

I actually do not what this means. I assume that you would concede that Tiger is the most elite of the elite.

Ira

100 years ago par was a good score for the best players in the world. Par today equals a struggle to keep your card. Its simple, par needs to be shifted to much lower numbers to reflect modern scoring. If this was done, maybe clubs would stop doing stupid shit to their courses.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

However, when TV commentators and the like whitter on about elite pros making birdies and eagles and how a zillion under par is an utterly amazing score their talking codswallop and that those outside the pro-business/media loop really ought to take such ‘under-par’ scores by elite pros with a large dose of skepticism if not outright laughter.

Rubbish.  However much you dislike the absurd hyperbole that surrounds the two major professional tours that doesn't stop it being astonishing quite how good so many of the very best elite players (and that's who we are talking about) are.  The average club scratch player would get nowhere near these scores and par would be respectable.  I'm all for some limitation on equipment etc. but let's not unfairly demean the skill demonstrated by the world's best players.

[Thomas Dai]

Mark,
You have obviously not read what I've written within this thread.
Might be an idea to read thoroughly before clicking the 'post' icon!
atb

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,
You have obviously not read what I've written within this thread.
Might be an idea to read thoroughly before clicking the 'post' icon!
atb

You're going to have to explain how I have misread the paragraph of yours I quoted.  Because it looks pretty clear to me what it means.


Oh, and if we're going to start giving each other advice, it's "they're", not "their".

[Thomas Dai]

Mark,
Having a bad day are we?
Atb