Jim - neat story. We all remember as kids being told by teachers that if we cheated on a test we were 'only cheating ourselves'. None of us could ever really understand what that meant. But golfers know. I think that, in terms of the game, the concept of par is older than Adam. If we try to fudge it (by cheating) or ignore it, we're only cheating ourselves out of one of the great pleasures of the game. In terms of architecture, however, I think the concept of par works in the completely opposite way -- ie it cheats the designer out of the complete freedom to create a golf hole, any and all golf holes, in all its potential glory. As per my last analogy: if you tell a musician beforehand that he only has 1 minute for his solo instead of 2 or 3 or 10, he immediately -- if unconsciously -- starts restricting himself. Neither he nor we will ever know what he might have produced without that 'pre existing condition'. It might still have been a 1 minute solo, but if so it would be that naturally, not artificially.
I think that analogy is pretty close, but how it's influencing "current/immediate future" design is only one part of the impact; I think it also influences our "regard" of design already there (almost the entire de facto mission statement of this board and our interest in it)... I think some really fine, fine holes on very fine fine courses are ignored, not modeled, not appreciated because of that par assignment.
I do want to remark about Jim's last post, now that I see it, in that I see he used the language of "one shot, two shot and three shot holes" which is crib for "arriving on the green" as opposed to 3, 4, 5 Par, which is the ultimate score one will/ought to achieve on the hole... evenso, that doesn't have to go away from an architect's intent as he or she plans for the range of golfers that will experience the course... In my scheme, a 600 yard hole, without a par assignment is still designed and mostly played as a "three shot" hole; it simply means that it is a difficult and long "4," probably the most difficult four on the entire course, but balanced in its "difficulty" by other shorter holes, like a 110 yard hazardless hole, that might be the easiest 4 on the course...with all the other holes, we stand to obtain a diverse experience across play... doesn't mean we will, just means we might...this round...or the next... or for the next guy who plays.
I wish to make some responses to Mark and other interim posts in light of what's been already said and proposed...about slow play considerations...about combo/multi tees...about design intents... but I've already used enough thread oxygen to get out my own point. But unless some feels its valuable to continue publicly, I'll let you message me, and otherwise end with this general statement.
I think removing/de-coupling an individual hole par is something "easy" and lo-disruption for breathing life into the challenges of contemporary GCA, both building and assessing it critically. In design and building, it may lead to greater variety and innovation in the types of holes we encounter and what recreational joys it offers to the main tackles of the sport. In assessment, it may help us realize some fundamental things about what makes a golf hole "worthy" no matter what it's yardage or particular features. (I'm also searching for that Clement Greenberg "fundamental" of what something/art is)
I don't offer it as a cure-all nor something that has to be adopted with fascist adherence; we can still locally (and on TV) keep the familiar adjuncts/language sense of a hole's par and that holes place in a scheme of 18.
I think the basics of golf design and our historic experience cast 4 as a competent (not excelling or matched to a scratch standard, just competent) "par" score for any hole and 72 as a competent, skillful score for the navigation for most any 18 hole course. I've put those two observations to anecdotal and physical experience tests and they can stand as true.... This makes me say this interim closing piece:
That While Individual Hole Par May Make a Difference to How ONE's think about OWN fortune; it is inanimate and voiceless as to whether or not the hole, the architecture, is a good hole, soundly designed, fun, memorable, challenging and consensus-gathering among cognoscenti. All of the great holes and the courses they appear on, which we discuss, are impervious to what their own Par is... 10 at Riviera is not better or worse because it's a 3, 4, 5, 6 on the card; it is a good hole, period... so it is for thousands of holes hi or lo.