The problem is “integer”.

[mike_malone]

The reason we argue so much about par is the requirement that it be expressed in an integer. We talk about half par holes and whether women should be able to reach a par five in two but we should just try to understand what distinguishes a hole from another.





Wayne Morrison showed me an early iteration for Rolling Green by Flynn which had the 15 th hole ending at the 16th green then keeping the present 17 as 16, creating a Flynn long three toward the present 15 green and then a straight shot 400+ 18 hole.
The course would not have ended with two gettable par fives.


This year there has been much discussion that we should convert the 18th hole to a par four for all.


For me the distinctiveness of the hole is the reverse camber of the dogleg. Possibly that’s what Flynn realized as well. His earlier concept for 18 would have lost that feature.


So when I engage in the discussion about this hole I try to see what possibilities exist based on the land and the trees that Flynn used to place the hole in the space. For me the reverse camber is the distinguishing feature of the hole. He even had interrupted fairway designed for the second shot which today would affect big hitters. (Wayne sees the rough in early photos but I don’t. I love different interpretations from the same data!).


I also appreciate the short wedge game as a differentiator not the forced layup to a full wedge but the chance for different third shots on a hole. It can be a putt for some or all kinds of short pitches or bunker shots. I think it was at Royal Melbourne in the President’s Cup that an early short four separated the players on their second shot.


If our par three six at 170 is our par three standard then 16 at 125 is a par 2.74 and the 214 yard 10 is a par 3.26 .  That’s more realistic.


The full number dilemma has ruined the psyche of the average golfer.



Each hole should have options for creative shotmaking as well as skill challenges and that’s what golf architecture is to me.




What examples can you share that tell us to abandon the integer and play the hole?

[Kyle Harris]

I wish this were true as integers also include zero and their counter negatives. Perhaps Prfsr. Bausch can chime in on the implication of the Regan Rule.


I think you mean “natural numbers”.



But really it all boils down to:


Hit ball
Find ball
Hit ball again.


Nothing more complicated than that, Mike.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Par allows audiences to know something “good” and something “bad” happens without being an expert on the game.


Growing up in Texas and going to graduate school in Scotland really clued me into the importance of this when they would show American football games. The Brits watching the games would cheer, not understand, when junk pass was thrown after an offensive foul, or how to even tell from the o-line whether the play was a running or passing play.


Meanwhile, those of us who grew up with the game argued about whether the lost traditional running game could be recaptured with running quarterbacks.


My point is that par isn’t for “us” (those of us in these threads). It’s a meaningless distinction to help the casual fan, but it does help them.

[mike_malone]

What is your favorite hole that epitomizes the problem of integer par?

[Carl Johnson]

When and why did "par" happen?  If we assume that golf began as what we call match play today, then no need for "par."  The only question is who finished each hole in fewer strokes.  When stroke play began as a serious competitive game, "par" wasn't necessary, either.  The only question is who finishes the course in the fewest strokes.  Today it's useful for handicapping, but there must be other ways to handicap.  It's also useful for keeping track of who's "leading" during the course of a stoke play event.  We also play "games" were par comes into play in scoring.  For myself, "par" is overrated as an element of the game, although surely I'm in the minority.  Back to the "when and why" question.  I'm sure there's been lots written about this.  Here's one brief explanation. https://www.scottishgolfhistory.org/origin-of-golf-terms/bogey/#par

[Sean_A]

Par is very useful for tracking relative field scores/position. Without par, determining how specific players are doing relative to the field would be cumbersome.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

    Is a 480 yard par 4 harder than a 520 yard par 5? No. It’s easier to shoot a lower score on the shorter hole. And if your goal in life is to shoot your age, or “break” 100, or 90, or 80, or 70, nobody asks when you do what was the par on the course. PAR IS IRRELEVANT, unless, as Sean A observes, you’re trying to keep track of how competitors are doing relative to each other.

[Jim_Coleman]

    I don’t know how to delete this. I posted it twice by mistake.


Is a 480 yard par 4 harder than a 520 yard par 5? No. It’s easier to shoot a lower score on the shorter hole. And if your goal in life is to shoot your age, or “break” 100, or 90, or 80, or 70, nobody asks when you do what was the par on the course. PAR IS IRRELEVANT, unless, as Sean A observes, you’re trying to keep track of how competitors are doing relative to each other.

[David_Tepper]

You can't play Stableford without knowing what par is on each hole.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Sure you can, David. You can declare the holes whatever par you want. Or you can call them all par 4’s - as long as it’s the same for everybody.

[David_Tepper]

Jim -

Try running a Stableford tournament with 60-80 golfers or teams with using either of the options you suggest. Let me know how that turns out.

DT

[Jim_Coleman]

   David: I’d do what everyone does today, let the computer do it.
   Also, I’m not saying the scorecard shouldn’t designate a par for each hole. All I’m saying it it doesn’t make any difference for playing the game. The goal is always the same - shoot the lowest score you can or beat the person with whom you have a match.

[David_Tepper]

Jim -

In fact knowing what the par is on a hole you are playing in Stableford can sometimes make a big difference in deciding how you are going to play the hole.

Playing a 460 yard hole that is a par-4 means you have to make a net 5 to score a point. At some point you may have to play the riskier shot to save a 5, knowing that making 6 scores you 0 points.

If the same length hole is labeled a par-5, you can chose to play the more conservative option, knowing a 6 on your card scores you 1 point.   

DT

[Charlie Goerges]

I generally agree with the thought that par is meaningless, or at best a mental hazard (Sean's example standing apart). That said, par can sometimes tell you more than just the yardage could. On the course I grew up on there was a 479-yard par 5 and a 480-yard par 4. A reasonably clever golfer would know the two holes would play very differently by looking at the card and using both pieces of information.

[Sean_A]

You can't play Stableford without knowing what par is on each hole.

You don't really need par. You need 1-18 indexes to determine shots. Each hole could be easily be treated as a 4. Some easy 4s and some hard 4s. There would be some courses where 32 is good, some where 40 is good and so on. 36 is simply another construct of par...in the current case of stableford, net par. 


Ciao

[Daryl David]

I have played in some stableford like events where the base number is 4. Points derived based on your net score as it relates to 4 on every hole. Worked fine.


The whole “what is par argument thing” is strange to me. I play a hole every day that for 10 years was a 4. Now it’s a 5.  Same tee, same fairway, same green.  I approach it the same each time. I try to make the lowest score possible. I don’t care if a 4 is called a birdie or called a par. It’s just a 4.


Many years ago I hosted a very good player at my club. (He ended up shooting 68 having never played the course)  On the second hole after looking down the fairway, he asked if the hole was a par 4 or par 5. I couldn’t help it and said, “what difference does it make”?  He gave me a look of confusion and said, “how the hell do I play it, if I don’t know”?   

[Steve Lang]

 

'Each hole should have options for creative shotmaking as well as skill challenges and that’s what golf architecture is to me. What examples can you share that tell us to abandon the integer and play the hole?'

I'm reminded of a certain par 15 hole played from the southwest corner of Cheltenham and Pelham Roads, across to the Old Orchard schoolyard and around or thru the baseball diamonds, down to Darlington Road to cross the railroad tracks and briar bushes and then down pure muni-fairway to the 5th hole's green at Ottawa Park, in Toledo, Ohio...  The alternative routing past the back end of Wright's Greenhouse was sometimes utilized if b-ball games were in progress, though it brought in additional risk of discovery by real golfers and potential penalties by the local officials, generally mitigated by evening play.
[/size]All a far cry from my current Sr Golf thursday playdays using Venmo and Golf Genius with handicaps reported to hundredths of a stroke to eliminate ties.  Humble beginnings, perhaps the purest...

[Ira Fishman]

Steve,


Post of the year. I remember using empty baked bean cans as cups across neighborhood yards. The hedges were not quite the same as CPC 1, but they were hedges, and we did not know any better. I probably regret hitting 7 irons over the freeway, but thankfully no one ever got hurt. All generations think that life was truer, but, once again, post of the year.


Ira

[Steve Lang]

   Ira,


I've told that story before about playing our hybrid Par 15.  When my best friend Bud & I figured out how to hit waffle balls over and around our two story houses, and got in trouble for leaving divots on lawns, we had to branch out to new fields where a real golf ball was best..  We could play Ottawa Park (aka The Country Club) for 50 cents before 10am and would play 4-5 holes walking home if we avoided the Marshals... but days when other stuff had first priority, we'd typically head out after dinner to play, and make what turned out to be  good memories.


Best