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

[JESII]

Mark, do you think there are any holes that rate under par?


Standing on the tee of the 7th at Rolling Green, I am expecting to make a 4 if I hit all good shots. On #9, I know I have to hit all good shots to make a 5.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim, 
Yes, many courses are rated under par just like a par 72 course that has a 69.7 course rating.

[David Ober]

Some variation of rating golf courses' difficulty is necessary in order to assign handicaps. Could that be done without giving individual holes a "par"? Sure.


Why doesn't someone do that? Build a golf course. Give it a rating and a slope. Refuse to assign par to any of the holes.


Am I missing something here? I very well may be.


People would absolutely play that course and very quickly would get over the "novelty" of the course not having holes assigned a "par."

[Mark_Fine]

Again all par is is somebody putting on a scorecard the expected score for a scratch player. I’m sure Garland has expected pars for the holes he plays. If we put those expected scores on a scorecard we could call them Garland’s pars for these holes :-). 

[Garland Bayley]

Again all par is is somebody putting on a scorecard the expected score for a scratch player. I’m sure Garland has expected pars for the holes he plays. If we put those expected scores on a scorecard we could call them Garland’s pars for these holes :-).

I don't even remember my scores on holes. I remember the match status. The former accountant who keeps the card gives me a number for posting at the end.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
What do you do when you don’t have a match, not play?  Do you bring someone to count your strokes so you can post your score for your handicap for when you do have matches?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
What do you do when you don’t have a match, not play?  Do you bring someone to count your strokes so you can post your score for your handicap for when you do have matches?

You are not allowed to post when you play by yourself.

If I end up by myself, I practice some chipping and putting at some greens so I am not breathing down the necks of the group in front. Also, might rehit when I muff a shot.

[V. Kmetz]

Just to re-state, my main rail is...


1. Simply remove individual hole par from the card, without comment.
2. The "fours" thing is just my own idea, an analysis of how I approach the nature of golf holes, if it bears on how the world can think about their playing golf or GCA, mores the better.
3. The current course rating/slope/handicap/hole handicap are not based on "Par" in any sense:

• there's a 10-12 element criteria the USGA directs to be used per hole
• the tally of those 18 different "criteria scores" makes the course rating
• Slope considers the 0 vs the 18 hcp...
• ...As does the hole's HCP  rank

Par has nothing to do with any of these important "Play Establishment" numbers.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
I just played today as a single with three guys I got paired up with and didn't know.  We didn't have a match.  Can I post my score?  Also what do you post if you play a match and you close out your opponent after 13 holes? 


VK,
You can answer the same above question I posed to Garland.  What and how do I post my score?


Also, if a made a 7 on one of the holes can I post it or must I adjust it?

[V. Kmetz]

Garland,
I just played today as a single with three guys I got paired up with and didn't know.  We didn't have a match.  Can I post my score?  Also what do you post if you play a match and you close out your opponent after 13 holes? 

VK,
You can answer the same above question I posed to Garland.  What and how do I post my score?

Also, if a made a 7 on one of the holes can I post it or must I adjust it?

Mark, this is only my current understanding, because things have changed some in the last 12 years
1. An attested card ought to be acceptable for putting in the score, whether you played a match or not.
2. I believe the cutoff line for creating an unfinished 18 hole or 9 hole postable score IS indeed at 13 holes, you would add the number of shots remaining on the card (by HCP)... "Add them to what?" yes, the remaining par (which might recommend that you need par for this purpose... but since we're talking about 5 holes, I'll bet it's safe to say that there are 19-20-21 "par" shots remaining in the round...I think we can figure it out).
3. i thought ESC was clear on this... if you're HCP is 0 to _____ you take a 6 for an unfinished hole.... if you're hcp is _____ to ____  you can take no more than 7 on any hole; if you're hcp is over that you take no more than 8....

[Mark_Fine]

VK,
The maximum number of strokes a single digit handicap player can take is net double bogie.  What is a net double bogey if there is no par? 


I think par is needed for handicapping?  Someone who knows more than me about this can comment. 


I will say though that while I do think par has a role I can emphasize why some don’t think it is important.  Many of you have done a good job of convincing me why.  I am still wavering about how it hinders design. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
I just played today as a single with three guys I got paired up with and didn't know.  We didn't have a match.  Can I post my score?  Also what do you post if you play a match and you close out your opponent after 13 holes? 

...

Why don't you just read the handicap manual? Seems to me that if you are using the handicap services of the USGA you should be responsible for adhering to their regulations.

[V. Kmetz]

VK,
The maximum number of strokes a single digit handicap player can take is net double bogie.  What is a net double bogey if there is no par? 

I think par is needed for handicapping?  Someone who knows more than me about this can comment.

A. In all things, I'm hoping that good sense applies in that I expect the administration and players of a course to understand the translation of nomenclature like double bogey to the honest reporting of an ESC limited pickup score.  I don't see the minute controversy over whether an X on a hole should be recorded as a 5, 6, 7 or 8 lasting long into the Grill room, the committee room or the board room. Anyone who sticks to their guns in that argument, "because there is 'no par' to establish my ESC X-pickups," will quickly find:

• he or she will get the score they want... "go ahead, give yourself two 7s"
• their next partners will know what to get square on the first tee
• or their partner opportunities will dwindle.
• or they oughtn't to be so petty, trying to get an edge, against the herd

B. Even so, if this is truly an identified "need," it is for one portioned aspect (ESC) of player handicapping, not course rating or hole handicapping... and it is marginal, infinitesimal in application towards what we want...honest handicaps and how they are established. Consider:

• this is about about the X+1/-1 reported score of a pickup hole in a match round
• Which is/are in a sea of one's 20 best 18 scores...
• Averaged...
• and applied at .92%(?) to derive an index
• which will be used at different courses/ratings/terms of play

C. And if still rankling, abusable the proportionate remedy of which could include:

• the creation of an ESC "par" for each hole... (probably identical to the older card pars)
• posted, like rating/HCP conversion charts are, near the first tee and the HCP entry in the shop
• which would be readily known/anecdotally by that club's citizens

D. If it deemed to be a larger problem, beyond local remedy, it still could be addressed by:

• the evolution of ESC language to turn away from "double bogey" to a hard number, according to handicap class. 0 -9 HCP = 6 max any hole, 10-21 = 6 max any hole+1 off the green, 22 - 36 = 7 any hole +2 off green.
• to distinguish ESC scores "pickups OFF the green" from "pickups" ON the green, still for handicap class.

But I think the latter remedies would be an increasing complication to treat a minor, easily established local matter...and all this gets away from the origins of the GCA questions/principles I say are at issue.






 

[Mark_Fine]

VK and Garland,
You guys obviously want to get rid of par.  I may have missed this but are you ok with keeping course ratings and slope ratings?  I trust you do agree we need some way to measure hole and course differences and difficulty to determine handicaps?

[V. Kmetz]

Absolutely...


As rating is derived as a cumulative 18 hole number from a 10/12 pt criteria per hole, not any par... and Slope as well as hole HCP are derived by the differential impact from scratch to 18... they are absolutely untainted and unaffected by a hole par.


Your (rightful) mention of ESC in establishing player handicap is perhaps that only area where a newer organic sense/nomenclature will have to companion stripping the holes of individual par.

[Jeff Schley]

Your (rightful) mention of ESC in establishing player handicap is perhaps that only area where a newer organic sense/nomenclature will have to companion stripping the holes of individual par.

Yes the ESC is needed, but not just to establish, to maintain your handicap. Unfinished holes as Mark pointed out.
Another I just thought of is how do you play a Stableford without par?

[V. Kmetz]

But Jeff, you must concede that the worries about ESC are minute and easily, locally quelled... and as to Stableford, as I mentioned for ESC, there can simply be posted a chart which describes the par for these special purposes...


I'm not assailing the question, but on a big world view, what percentage of golf is being played on a Stableford basis.  Outside of a few one-off occasions, I've just about not seen it in 40 years immersed in golf.... Would it really be that hard or controversial to have a back up par...


And, why can;t Stableford change ITS nomenclature/schema?  Why can't:


A score of  -
1 = 7 pts
2 = 6 pts
3=  5 pts
4 = 4 pts
5 = 3 pts
6 = 2 pts
7 = 1 pts
8+ = 0 pts... or some such?


Just the same, I return to the idea that Stableford isn't so ubiquitous that it couldn't bear its arrangement locally for those who wish to play at one of my courses that doesn't have a hole par.  I promise I'll make a chart for your game, if you come.

[Jeff Schley]

But Jeff, you must concede that the worries about ESC are minute and easily, locally quelled... and as to Stableford, as I mentioned for ESC, there can simply be posted a chart which describes the par for these special purposes...


I'm not assailing the question, but on a big world view, what percentage of golf is being played on a Stableford basis.  Outside of a few one-off occasions, I've just about not seen it in 40 years immersed in golf.... Would it really be that hard or controversial to have a back up par...


And, why can;t Stableford change ITS nomenclature/schema?  Why can't:


A score of  -
1 = 7 pts
2 = 6 pts
3=  5 pts
4 = 4 pts
5 = 3 pts
6 = 2 pts
7 = 1 pts
8+ = 0 pts... or some such?


Just the same, I return to the idea that Stableford isn't so ubiquitous that it couldn't bear its arrangement locally for those who wish to play at one of my courses that doesn't have a hole par.  I promise I'll make a chart for your game, if you come.

I agree that our examination of why par is needed is prime is not central, but on the fringe. However, from a golf point of view having the terms of birdie, par, bogey are so synonymous with the game, is removing them in it's best interest? When I was young I remember getting my first birdie on a par 3. To change the culture of the game to remove par do you think that would lose some cache from its historical roots? I see the benefits of removing par, but from a historical point of view I see a little less luster in it's appeal. Which side wins, is not 100% clear as there are pluses and minuses without a clear winner IMO. Thus, it is fun to examine the topic certainly. You and Garland's argument is strong.

[V. Kmetz]

I agree that our examination of why par is needed is prime is not central, but on the fringe. However, from a golf point of view having the terms of birdie, par, bogey are so synonymous with the game, is removing them in it's best interest? When I was young I remember getting my first birdie on a par 3. To change the culture of the game to remove par do you think that would lose some cache from its historical roots? I see the benefits of removing par, but from a historical point of view I see a little less luster in it's appeal. Which side wins, is not 100% clear as there are pluses and minuses without a clear winner IMO. Thus, it is fun to examine the topic certainly. You and Garland's argument is strong.

I have to stress that I do not think that such a thing needs complete obliteration of our familiar nomenclature and historic appeal.  I think those things (TV, local terminology) will come last in our cultural adoption, way down the line after many new courses adopt the policy, after older courses finally give it a try... I also re-stress that there's not any one of you I could plop out there that won't see any yardage of hole and know what to call a birdie or an eagle or a bogey.


But it's the easiest f'n, lo-cost thing to re-vitalize, re-essentialize our practice and regard of GCA in the face of an era where the trade and the art have so many pressures... from technology and too many years of elite Tour leadership, to economics and markets, to a need for sustainable land, water and labor practices that result in beautiful, amusing and broadly accommodating courses for quick, enjoyable diverse play.


I've said "lastly," in this  thread 346 f'n times (sorry) but, lastly, isn't this no par program a honest return to the the fundamental thing you're doing when you golf a hole, and appreciating it unto itself?  You're just looking ahead, matching a yardage to that view, remembering previous plays, watching opponents and fellow competitors play it, assessing it all through your imperfect predictions of imperfect swing, wind, lie, stance...that day's feeling, the feeling of the last hole, what you're going to have for a meal later... Doesn't a lot of the nonsense about what you can't and can do, how you ought or ought not play it, how good or not good it is... go away when you take off par... the nettlign debates about fairness of a bunker or blindness are dampened when they are not cast against the par of the hole.


And lastly, (348), I want to see a slew of 240 - 280 yard holes made; the more I go on, the more I see that this almost-absent class of yardages are frequently the best holes on the courses where they appear.  That goes for first class joints, like Blind Brook (5) WFE (17), WFW (3) Myopia (1&3), Fenway (1& 6)and Riviera (4) or scrubby pub-munis I encounter locally... such holes can be brilliant, drivable for many, but awkward for the bomber....one amusing, unconventional hazard can so prey on the mind... but they augur "good things" on the tee.

[Mark_Fine]

VK,
Fun discussion.  You as well Garland. 


One thing you do have to remember and I just went through it on one of my projects - those “drivable” holes (I won’t say the par  ) have challenges beyond the golf itself.  They slow up play because almost always there is someone in the group who thinks they can knock it on so they wait till the group ahead finishes the hole or they don’t wait till the group clears because they don’t think they will reach and they drive into them.  On the one hole we purposely made the green surrounds tougher adding a formidable front bunker which we located slightly short of the green and offset to the right and we also left a large tree on the left all to discourage the bombers.  But as I said to the GM, with this length hole most will still have a go but it might deter some and help play at least a little bit from backing up so much.


I have played most of those holes you mentioned (Fenway had another one I think it might be #15 that is awesome) but this is something you have to think about (especially on public courses).  And also remember as much as many here don’t seem to like the idea there are almost always tees in these yardage ranges you talked about - play them!!!

[Garland Bayley]

VK and Garland,
You guys obviously want to get rid of par.  I may have missed this but are you ok with keeping course ratings and slope ratings?  I trust you do agree we need some way to measure hole and course differences and difficulty to determine handicaps?

I would have to collect more data to determine if I need those. Length may be the only thing necessary.

[V. Kmetz]

VK,
Fun discussion.  You as well Garland. 


One thing you do have to remember and I just went through it on one of my projects - those “drivable” holes (I won’t say the par  ) have challenges beyond the golf itself.  They slow up play because almost always there is someone in the group who thinks they can knock it on so they wait till the group ahead finishes the hole or they don’t wait till the group clears because they don’t think they will reach and they drive into them.  On the one hole we purposely made the green surrounds tougher adding a formidable front bunker which we located slightly short of the green and offset to the right and we also left a large tree on the left all to discourage the bombers.  But as I said to the GM, with this length hole most will still have a go but it might deter some and help play at least a little bit from backing up so much.


I have played most of those holes you mentioned (Fenway had another one I think it might be #15 that is awesome) but this is something you have to think about (especially on public courses).  And also remember as much as many here don’t seem to like the idea there are almost always tees in these yardage ranges you talked about - play them!!!

Just a follow up to your post, Mark...


1. Though I'm a regular critic of 7 - 12 there, I love 1-6 and 13-18, and 15 at Fenway is only "off" the list, because it has a regular tee over 280.


2. Trust me, I do/did play those tees that best reflect what I want; it's one exposure of how I started noticing the value of that one particular ignored yardage/half par range.  When I played more golf 10 -30 years ago, we used to do all sorts of formats/games, where it could best ball from the reds for one team on the front vs. scramble for the other team from the blues...then switch on the back.  On those (now-completely dormant) rarer occasions when I deigned to just play myself at the local ghost town, I would invariably have the course to myself and play holes from crazy spots, challenging myself to make 3s and 4s from here or there.


3. In citing the honest practical GCA concerns that you do (speed of play, safety, flow of routing), you are precisely doing the thinking that I hope will happen among working GCAs... YES, it is a problem to consider and I want you to consider it...tap your creativity, your imagination, your planning and judgement.  This is one portion of the thing when I say "removing par will refresh the contemporary art to a degree"...this is what I mean. GCA's lead, and innovate as much as react or rely, I would wish.


4....bearing in mind, when I say "slew" of 240 - 285 holes, I know only so many can be apportioned to any one course, depending on its character... I mean slew of them appearing in more and more design or resto-vation.


5...bearing in mind that the 240 - 285 hole is just ONE distance (which I feel is way, way underrepresented, owing a lot to the strictures of hole par)... I also would like more 450 - 485 holes on a "No Indy Hole Par" course


6. ... bearing in mind that the entire program will re-calibrate what you might do with everyday yardages we DO see a lot of already... 320 - 430... 500 - 540...

[Mark_Fine]

VK,
It is fun to play all different tees.  Too many golfers are hung up on not mixing up the color of the tees they play.  It is of course a handicap thing.  Otherwise all those different yardages you like such as the 450-480 yard holes are already out there.  Think about it, there probably isn’t a hole anywhere that has a back tee of 520 yards and nothing shorter.  Most will have formal tees in your 450-480 range for those holes and even shorter if you like.  Play those other tees or just pick the yardage you like.  I honestly don’t see a yardage gap issue and if someone does please explain.  Let’s put it this way, almost any hole on the planet can play shorter.  Just find the yardage you want and start from there.  However, not every hole can play longer as not all holes have the luxury of extra real estate to extend them. 

[David Ober]

VK,
It is fun to play all different tees.  Too many golfers are hung up on not mixing up the color of the tees they play.  It is of course a handicap thing.  Otherwise all those different yardages you like such as the 450-480 yard holes are already out there.  Think about it, there probably isn’t a hole anywhere that has a back tee of 520 yards and nothing shorter.  Most will have formal tees in your 450-480 range for those holes and even shorter if you like.  Play those other tees or just pick the yardage you like.  I honestly don’t see a yardage gap issue and if someone does please explain.  Let’s put it this way, almost any hole on the planet can play shorter.  Just find the yardage you want and start from there.  However, not every hole can play longer as not all holes have the luxury of extra real estate to extend them.

In our club championship, we play day one from the Red tees at ~5800, day two from the White tees at ~6200, and the final round from the Blues at 6570.

[Mark_Fine]

David,
Love it!  Mix it up.  It's ok