The relativity of par

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,
Having a bad day are we?
Atb

No, not at all.  Still waiting for an explanation as to how I misread your quoted paragraph.

[Tom_Doak]

100 years ago par was a good score for the best players in the world. Par today equals a struggle to keep your card.

It seems that way from watching the weekly tournament fare, but one of the magazines consistently runs an end-of-year feature on what even par would have earned for the year, and even last year, it was much better than I had imagined.  It's usually worth one or two top tens in the majors, even today (though not this past week).

[Jeff Schley]

100 years ago par was a good score for the best players in the world. Par today equals a struggle to keep your card.

It seems that way from watching the weekly tournament fare, but one of the magazines consistently runs an end-of-year feature on what even par would have earned for the year, and even last year, it was much better than I had imagined.  It's usually worth one or two top tens in the majors, even today (though not this past week).

Now take out the TPC courses and recalculate.

[Jason Thurman]

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.

+1. Excellent use of the word "codswallop," though.

[Sean_A]

100 years ago par was a good score for the best players in the world. Par today equals a struggle to keep your card.

It seems that way from watching the weekly tournament fare, but one of the magazines consistently runs an end-of-year feature on what even par would have earned for the year, and even last year, it was much better than I had imagined.  It's usually worth one or two top tens in the majors, even today (though not this past week).

Majors are usually the exception in that they are more difficult tests of golf. Even so, real par for the toughest major Champ venues is usually less than the card indicates.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Some stat maven can correct me, but I am pretty sure that the average score for all tournaments has never dipped below 71. When you throw in the Par 70s and Par 71s they play, that is pretty close to Par.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

If I'm remembering correctly, the year that Byron Nelson had 11 wins in a row he also had a scoring average a little over 68 for the season. I think what we've been seeing is an exponential growth in the number of elites, i.e. there are simply many times more golfers today (compared to 50 and 70 and 100 years ago) who can routinely shoot a 68 -- based on whatever combination of training, talent, time and technology. We don't need to re-examine the concept of 'par' (and lower it) as much as we need to redefine the notion of 'elites' (and narrow it).

[David_Tepper]

While the distance that PGA Tour pros hit the ball in theory does reduce "par" for them, the reality is playing these courses with tucked pins and very fast greens makes these course far harder than we might think. The fact that these pros are mostly +5 and +6 handicaps likely understates just how good they are relative to the general golfing public.

[JESII]

That's really point in my initial response on this thread David.


For a standard 10 handicap player to think they could go around in 70 strokes four days in a row, the course would have to be about 4,500 yards with few if any hazards and fairly flat greens rolling about 9.

[Scott Warren]

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.

That is overly simplistic. Calling the 16th a par three because they can reach the green with a driver is daft, and applying a par of four to any hole than can be reached (green not necessarily held) in two shots is similarly wayward, not least of all because as soon as you miss the fairway with your drive on many such holes, reaching the green with your next shot becomes far less likely than should be the case for a professional on a par four.

[John Kavanaugh]

That's really point in my initial response on this thread David.


For a standard 10 handicap player to think they could go around in 70 strokes four days in a row, the course would have to be about 4,500 yards with few if any hazards and fairly flat greens rolling about 9.

Jim,


I don't know if you have played a full round from the "ladies" tees. No 10 handicap is going to shoot 70 four days in a row. The doubles still come. They always come.

[Ira Fishman]

That's really point in my initial response on this thread David.


For a standard 10 handicap player to think they could go around in 70 strokes four days in a row, the course would have to be about 4,500 yards with few if any hazards and fairly flat greens rolling about 9.

Jim,


I don't know if you have played a full round from the "ladies" tees. No 10 handicap is going to shoot 70 four days in a row. The doubles still come. They always come.

True dat!

[JESII]

John, that simply emphasizes my point. This thread is about the relative par of Major Championship level courses for the guys on TV...and that relative par still being a couple under par at 7,200+ with major issues in the way.


Relatively, for a 10 handicapper to shoot par, they might as well start on the apron.


Why do we waste any energy talking about the guys on TV with respect to golf course architecture?

[John Kavanaugh]

Why do we waste any energy talking about the guys on TV with respect to golf course architecture?

Because any able bodied man willing to put in the work can hit pro level shots on an inconsistent basis. I can confidently say that at least once a round I hit a shot at a skill level as high as anyone in the world could replicate. Thats why we want to be given the opportunity.

[JESII]

Right...but we don't need to add 400 yards to the course because you chip in once in a while.


We don't even have to do it when a kid hits it 330 on his way to 75.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In reality, this is done with the handicap system, no?  If the pros had handicaps, they would undoubtedly be plus players, maybe up to plus 5.


And, just like we tend to think best scoring average on tour is really the average scoring average (huh? ) is really 71.21 last year, right around par.  Oddly, it is a bit less before the cut, so again ?


Similarly, the average drive distance is now 295.6 yards, up from 291.3 just a few years ago after being steady awhile, not the 340 yard drives occasionally hit by the top dozen driving distance leaders.  There are 63 guys on tour whose drives average under 290.  As Notah Begay once told me, 290 drive, 260 3 Wood, and a 550 yard par 5 is certainly not a giveaway for the bottom half of the field!


Average fw being hit is 62.63%.


I could go on, but I don't think too many courses ought to be designed for the top 1% of the top 1% of golfers, nor par altered for that small minority.


As to the idea of relative par, it already exists in their minds.  I was at breakfast with a pro at a tournament once, when a competitor and leader said he felt like he had a final round 68 in him.  My guy, two strokes back, muttered, "Well, I guess I'll have to shoot an even par 65 to win today."

[Ira Fishman]

Someone calculated that the average handicap for Touring Pros is +5.4 so Jeff's estimate pretty accurate. If I remember correctly, Ricky Fowler had the best handicap for a time at +8.1.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Ira,


I've always thought even those aren't as accurate as they should be.  I may be wrong but do courses have thier own rating for how the course is typically setup for an event?  With narrowed fairways, tucked pins, greens stimping at 13, and high rough?  If these guys showed up to a course on any normal day and played from the tips, I could see some of them eventually dipping into + double digits with how low they would go.

[John Kavanaugh]

Right...but we don't need to add 400 yards to the course because you chip in once in a while.


We don't even have to do it when a kid hits it 330 on his way to 75.

It's not as simple as just a chip. How many golfers in the country do you think could have driven 16 just like Morikawa if given 100 chances in perfect conditions? Sometimes we hit that shot on the first try just like I did on the 10th at Riviera.

[Sean_A]

Right...but we don't need to add 400 yards to the course because you chip in once in a while.

We don't even have to do it when a kid hits it 330 on his way to 75.

I think the exact opposite. If par was significantly lowered, maybe the "need" to mess with courses is reduced.

Besides, back in the day, level 4s was a good score. Today, level 4s is rarely a good score from the best 50 players in the world...which really should be the standard because these are the true experts. The idea of par as 70 or 71, for a score an expert player can shoot when he executes properly is laughable.

Ciao

[JESII]

Sean,


Your approach would be to lower the actual par figures for a hole/course to maintain the descriptor of par being what en expert player can expect to make...whereas the world has decided to chase the idea of adding distance to try to keep that expert player in check...while occasionally reducing par by a stroke or two.


Why not just ignore that expert player?


Why not create and maintain your course for the people that actually play it?


Regarding that expectation of par...when do we drop the notion that an expert player will take two putts on every hole?

[Sean_A]

Sean,


Your approach would be to lower the actual par figures for a hole/course to maintain the descriptor of par being what en expert player can expect to make...whereas the world has decided to chase the idea of adding distance to try to keep that expert player in check...while occasionally reducing par by a stroke or two.

Why not just ignore that expert player?

Why not create and maintain your course for the people that actually play it?

Regarding that expectation of par...when do we drop the notion that an expert player will take two putts on every hole?

I don't have an issue ignoring par or elite players. Unfortunately, many people controlling the many of the best courses do make architectural decisions based on the play of the 50 best golfers.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Regarding that expectation of par...when do we drop the notion that an expert player will take two putts on every hole?

Now there you have it. I have lately been wondering if I could make a living on Tour if I was the greatest putter in the world. I think I could on the Senior Tour. The Pga would be difficult.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Regarding that expectation of par...when do we drop the notion that an expert player will take two putts on every hole?

Now there you have it. I have lately been wondering if I could make a living on Tour if I was the greatest putter in the world. I think I could on the Senior Tour. The Pga would be difficult.

Short game would have to match your newly acquired world class putting skills......When I have played with pros, their uncanny ability around the greens contributes to the 1.7 or what have you putting stroke per green average.

[John Kavanaugh]

Chipping is easier if you aren't worried about making the next putt. It's like chipping for bogey.