Is “par” and/or tallying average scores good or bad for golf?

[Mark_Fine]

The concept of par (or the score a proficient player would expect to achieve on a given hole) has been around for a very long time. Very early on golfers did count the number of shots it took them to complete a hole (even in match play) and over time golfers knew that good players would typically make certain scores on certain holes.  You can call that what you want (it was called a bogie score at one point) but it was called something. 


Not sure about all of you but it is rare to meet a golfer who doesn’t set a target (again call it what you want) for each hole they play.  Of course there a few who claim to not care at all and are just out for a stroll but the far majority of golfers are trying to reduce their number of shots per hole not increase it.  If their personal target or par for a hole is 7, they are probably pretty happy if the make that score and even happier if they make something lower like the posted par on the card which is what a proficient golfer would be expected to make. 


I know some here don’t care to keep score (they feel the card and pencil mentality is bad for the game as it all should just be match play) but if no one ever kept any kind of score there would be no equitable handicaps (which I think is one of the positives that has come out of score keeping).  As a result, all of us can play all over at different courses and then come together and play a match with our adjusted handicaps. 


So why is the concept of par or tracking typical scores on a hole a bad thing?  Seems the positives far outweigh the negatives? 

[Phil Burr]

Mark, I hope what I'm about to contribute gets at what you're saying.  In short, I agree a target score (par for the scratch player) is a good thing.  I'm a career 6 handicapper who peaked at a 3.8.  From the time I was in high school, I broke a round into six thee-hole segments, each with a personal par of +1.  I found it kept me from getting ahead of myself in good rounds while allowing the opportunity to rebound in bad ones.  When I acquired the physical strength to reach par fives in two, I modified my "par" with the goal of playing a round with no 6s on the card.  As a reasonably accomplished player and somewhat lengthy hitter, I saw no reason why I should be throwing away shots on holes where conservative play would leave me with a short iron approach and a decent chance to make birdie.  It's so easy to shoot in the 70s when your highest score on any hole is 5.  Having said that, I think my approach may have kept me from going low against my par.  There are obviously countless 4 handicaps who have broken par or even broken 70, whereas my career low round is level par.  Was I more afraid of going low than I was of blowing up?

[Garland Bayley]

Of course par is bad for golf. We have reached the point where architects are providing enough different tees so that babies still in the womb can reach the green in regulation, and have a chance for birdie.

I will start another thread that I think will get at the crux of the matter better.

[Sean_A]

I am sure that if par didn't exist, handicapping would have developed. Handicapping has been around a long time.

Par is part of the codification of golf which is connected to fairness. This eventually meant that courses were developed along the lines of a balanced par course, which is awful on few levels. So much lay of the land golf was laid to waste and architects designed courses to meet a par parameter. It is a completely unnecessary straight jacket for design. I can only imagine how many cool courses could have been built without par parameters in place. The irony of it all is that the vast majority of golfers shouldn't be thinking in terms of par because they are not good enough.

I have no doubt that par has been bad for golf.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Targets, aspirations, achievements and par.
I was fortunate enough to play Kington last year with Messrs Muldoon and Cheslett and Mrs C. Wonderful game/match.
The highlight for me though was the smiles, the high-5’s and the whooping with glee when Mr C made a birdie on the par-3 5th. And it was recorded on video. Wonderful!
Atb

[Mike Sweeney]

I know the new World Handicap System is supposed to measure "abnormal weather and course conditions". I like the idea of it as The Old Course sounds pretty reasonable to score on a warm and windless day vs a cold and windy day -


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/videos/2019/10/07/world-handicap-system-golf-usga-abnormal-weather-and-course-conditions-6092937342001.html


Since I have not posted any scores yet, I have not seen it work. I personally think it is a good idea, and it is another unique quality of golf. My son and I can play Marikawa and Tiger in a match at any course at any time. You really can't do that with other sports. You have to play evenly matched players.


Sure, fancy guys like Ran like to OVER-negotiate their strokes on the first tee by using the "I don't have a handicap" system. For the rest of us, there is the imperfect, but equally flawed for all of us handicap system.


I recently played with Mr Mayday on a 42 degree and windy and sunny day. No real interest in keeping score on those days, but I will continue to try to break 80, beat my handicap, and take his money on a warm day in June...

[Mark_Fine]

I don’t think par has anything to do with fairness.  Golf is not meant to be fair and I for one have always said the word fair or unfair should never be used to describe a golf hole.  Why does par limit golf architecture? Holes come in all kinds of shapes sizes styles locations .... Architects can build what they want.  I have played “par threes” that are 75 yards long or less to almost 300 yards long to par sixes that are over 700 yards. Some holes are so hard they’re hard to finish and others are simple. Seems lots of latitude for variation. 


I sometimes compare golf courses to ski resorts. Just think if at every ski resort you had to always go all the way to the top and just figure out a way to get to the bottom. Wow wouldn’t that be fun for most people!

[jeffwarne]

Of course par is bad for golf. We have reached the point where architects are providing enough different tees so that babies still in the womb can reach the green in regulation, and have a chance for birdie.

LOL
I used to swear I was going to put the tees on the fringe for certain events.....


There are some good quotes already in this thread.
Like Mark's ski analogy as well.


and Mike is 100% correct about those with no handicap(see caddie tournaments) who ALWAYS overnegotiate their handicap, conveniently forgetting that a handicap is based on the 8 BEST ADJUSTED scores of the last 20 rounds.
Shooting a 90 at Shinnecock form the back tees your last round out doesn't make you an 18...


I think par HAS been bad for golf, if nothing else to eliminate some cool holes not built due to trying to get to a certain balance of holes, or a certain length.
But as Sean said, I think handicaps can, should and could've been developed without the shackles of par.


Counting one's strokes IS a part of the game for nearly all, but being made to feel bad (or sometimes good) about it due to an arbitrary "par" that few can achieve, is a silly trapping/expectation the game can do without.

[Terry Lavin]

Of course par is bad for golf. We have reached the point where architects are providing enough different tees so that babies still in the womb can reach the green in regulation, and have a chance for birdie.

I will start another thread that I think will get at the crux of the matter better.

Ever hear of “8 or 80” bunkers located close to a tee?  Only in play if you’re 8 or 80 is the phrase that pays but the game can tempt you from the cradle to the grave that’s for sure.


As for Mark’ question, par is key to the game, something that serves as a relative measure of competence.

[Joe Bausch]

One of my long-time golfing buddies (a mathematician, FWIW!) would drive crazy another of my buds (an education guy) as the math fellow figured a way out to tally his score quickly that was practical and worked for his brain (but not the EDU guy!): 

My numbers friend frequently shot right around 90, hence every hole was a par 5 to him.  He then figured out his score at the end of the round by using that as his "par".  If he was 2 under at the end of his count, he shot 88.

Easy-peasy!

[Garland Bayley]

I am sure that if par didn't exist, handicapping would have developed. Handicapping has been around a long time.

...

I would remind everyone that the handicap system developed by Dean Knuth for the USGA did not make any use of par. Only the WHS, which is a little over a year old, added par as an adjustment factor after the true calculation of the handicap index was done. So your handicap still does not use par. Just your course handicap does. They could have declared 72 was the standard for par, and adjusted all handicaps to that. That would be essentially equivalent to what they did for the WHS.

[Garland Bayley]

...
As for Mark’ question, par is key to the game, something that serves as a relative measure of competence.

 
Your score is a measure of competence. Par is only an adjustment to that measure.
 

[MCirba]

I really go back and forth on this question.   A couple of random thoughts...

If "par" is really defined as the score an "expert player" should make on a hole, then most courses should be par 70 or less these days.

The 8th hole at Torresdale-Frankford (Union League at Torresdale these days I believe) is about 475 yards with a green behind a creek, and it's called a par four.   I guarantee every day people in-advisedly try to reach the green with their second shot with I'm sure a high failure rate.   In fact, I'd bet more attempts unintentionally end up short of the creek than actually reach the green.   Yet, if it was a par five a large percentage of those folks would lay up to best position their third shot.   Make of that what you will, but it definitely seems to me that par has a strategic importance.

[mike_malone]

Mike Cirba,


8 at T/F is much better as the original where the green is before the creek.


  As for par whole numbers cause the problem. At Rolling Green we have two par threes that were originally designed at 260 and 130 yards. Those are the same par?


Much of the desire to change holes is to fit the par rather than the other way around.


I think it works for keeping score.

[jeffwarne]

One of my long-time golfing buddies (a mathematician, FWIW!) would drive crazy another of my buds (an education guy) as the math fellow figured a way out to tally his score quickly that was practical and worked for his brain (but not the EDU guy!): 

My numbers friend frequently shot right around 90, hence every hole was a par 5 to him.  He then figured out his score at the end of the round by using that as his "par".  If he was 2 under at the end of his count, he shot 88.

Easy-peasy!

As a kid, I even did this with even 7's(126) and even 6's (108).
fortunately I quickly got down to your friend's area.


have a couple more interesting anecdotes about "par" and its importance/balance that will be revealed at a later date

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think it is anyones business what I shoot so I use a code to keep score. A vertical dash for bogies, a blank for pars and a horizontal dash for birdies. It also provides an instantaneous final score at a glance. I also use a diagonal dash for putts picked up out of haste. For posting purposes you gotta figure I wouldn't make em all.


But my favorite thing about par is making birdies. Almost everyday I play there is a financial incentive for a birdie. Absolutely everyday I play I can remember how many birdies I made. I love birdies and now at my age I cherish eagles and wonder if every eagle putt might be my last.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Par had always been important to me. When I played to a two I had a target score every time I played. Now not so much. at 74 I play courses at around 6200 yards. I hate it. It doesn't seem like golf anymore but if I play back too many par fours are par fives and I make too many bogies, so par does matter. With my waning skills I'' like to be able just to enjoy the round without regard to score, I just can't and my enjoyment has gone down appreciably.


I also had a friend who made 5 par on every holes. When we played a match, there were no strokes given we just played against our par. The par threes and fours just averaged out.

[MCirba]

Par had always been important to me. When I played to a two I had a target score every time I played. Now not so much. at 74 I play courses at around 6200 yards. I hate it. It doesn't seem like golf anymore but if I play back too many par fours are par fives and I make too many bogies, so par does matter. With my waning skills I'' like to be able just to enjoy the round without regard to score, I just can't and my enjoyment has gone down appreciably.


I also had a friend who made 5 par on every holes. When we played a match, there were no strokes given we just played against our par. The par threes and fours just averaged out.

Tommy,

I'm curious why you say you "hate" playing at 6,200 yards?   Thanks.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Do you really think Flynn cared about both those 130 and 260 yard holes being called par threes?  I don't think so.  He was designing holes to present different challenges.  He liked for example long short holes if you know what I mean and incorporated them on many of his designs. 


Look at the variety of length of golf holes.  They go from several dozen yards in length to almost 1000 yards (I know one hole that is 960 yards in Japan).  I think they call it a par 7.  Architects have all kinds of flexibility. 


Tommy,
I am surprised you don't like playing at 6200 yards at least some of the time to mix it up?  I often play back but sometimes when I move up it becomes more challenging as more trouble is in play.  Variety is the spice of golf.


John,
The only time it should be anyone's business what you shoot is if you are playing a match or in a tournament.  We have people who come as guests to play in some of our events and when they shoot 59 net for 18 holes on their own ball, you realize why it is important to know what they shoot. 




I think we all know, Par is just a number and as pointed out, we all can and have our own definitions.  It is just a measure to gauge performance against (if one wants to do so). 


I still remember someone interviewing Ben Crenshaw about his favorite holes at Shinnecock Hills.  He said one of the best was the 11th which he described as the shortest par five on the golf course   Even the pros have their own pars for golf holes.  For those who don't know, I believe the 11th hole is 159 yards from the back tees. 

[Steve Lang]

   Tommy, can you break par from the forward or next back tees?   Sorry , but as a 68 yr old former 5 with a repaired right shoulder rotator cuff, I have no empathy for a 74 yr old former 2, hating 6200 yds...  Just tough love, wondering is it time for a 12 step program?


I'll play from any tees.  To me, its all relative in the big stick and ball picture, I could shoot 120's when I started at 9 and will probably return there if I play till 90, which is my goal, as my dad played till nearly 85...   


Good luck

[Ira Fishman]

As it relates to establishing handicaps, Par is not necessary. The system is based intentionally on course rating and not Par.


As it relates to playing the game, I agree with JK that having a measure of success is emotionally positive for most players. I get great joy seeing my wife get joy from a birdie or even a Par, and the same is true to a slightly lesser extent regarding my playing partners.


As it relates to golf course architecture, I am in Sean A’s camp that it provides an unnecessary constraint on good design. Not just because Par 72 is ingrained as the norm but because too many players, at least in the US, look askance at courses with “out of the norm” numbers of various Pars or sequencing of them. But I doubt we can do much to change perception.


Finally, I have now figured out why Ran refuses to improve the Search Function. A better one would tell us exactly how many times that we have a thread about Par. My guess is that only Magazine Ratings and Bunkers might surpass it.


Ira

[JohnVDB]

LOL
I used to swear I was going to put the tees on the fringe for certain events.....

One of the USGA Handicap staff starts talks with this story:


He went to a club and the first hole was a downhill 145 yard par 5 on the scorecard.  Of course he asked the pro about it.  The pros response was, ”I like my members to get off to a good start.”

[JohnVDB]

One of my long-time golfing buddies (a mathematician, FWIW!) would drive crazy another of my buds (an education guy) as the math fellow figured a way out to tally his score quickly that was practical and worked for his brain (but not the EDU guy!): 

My numbers friend frequently shot right around 90, hence every hole was a par 5 to him.  He then figured out his score at the end of the round by using that as his "par".  If he was 2 under at the end of his count, he shot 88.

Easy-peasy!

That’s how I was taught to add scores on a scorecard by the USGAs main calligrapher.  Just match the 3s and 5s. 2s and 6s and see how far above or below 36 you come for 9. Don’t car about par, only total strokes.


4 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 = two 5s and one 3 = 37.


Gets a little tougher when there are a few big numbers on a card, but I’ve adjusted to above/below 5 (45) or 6 (54) at times.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I agree with you about repetition of threads and knew this one had been discussed in the past.  However, there is a lot of repetition on this site and that is ok because there are new people lurking and only a few who have been on this site for years and years.  I recall a training video on quality and customer satisfaction years ago.  The topic was a guest asking a staff member at Disney World where the closest restroom was.  The training person noted that the Disney staff member was probably asked that same question 100 times each day but they needed to realize that each time it was asked it was the first time that that particular guest had asked the question and it needed the same level of respect   

I am sure golf architects would love to have complete freedom with no rules.  Maybe someone should start a thread about what golf architects would do if they didn't have to worry about par.  Someone mentioned Friar's Head.  Is that course so vastly radical and different from every other because it has no hole distances on the card (it does have pars on the card)? 

[Jason Thurman]

It'd be damn near impossible to follow a golf tournament without the concept of "par" being present.


I also think we underestimate how much of a little dopamine rush players get when they achieve something like "making a par." My mother is a terrible golfer. She certainly doesn't expect to make par very often, and it doesn't crush her when she fails to. But when she makes one? It's the most exciting moment of the round. Birdies are incredible...


I think our rigidity with it sucks a bit though. Like, the part where a par 65 course would just never be taken seriously probably hurts the game's potential variety and ability to adapt to different types of properties.