Par and Strategy, part two

[TEPaul]

It's always fascinated me how a hole can have every single thing about it remain the same, have its par changed, and the perception of the quality of the hole changes!

Isn't the point of golf and its strategies to play every hole in as few strokes as possible always weighing the risks and rewards of any hole or shot?

So how can the quality of the hole change and how can the strategy of the hole change because the par changes?

Sounds to me like what's changed is the quality of the thinking of various golfers about what holes, strategies and par is all about.

But it's something that I might find myself thinking occasionally but hopefully I would quickly remind myself that it doesn't really make any sense!

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

How true!

There was this new golf course that had a par 4.5 early in the round that was about 490 yards downhill, thus easily reachable in two. (Heck, I've reached it in two, just to tell you how easy it is to reach in two... )

Anyway, a long debate ensued between the "pro par 4" gang and the "pro par 5" gang.

The "pro par 4" gang was saying that it wasn't a "real" par 5 and that it would be "too easy" and "mickey mouse".  The "pro par 5" gang, on the other hand, was claiming that in stood amidst a series of tough par 4s so golfers needed a break, and that the golf course would better with a par of 72.

Imagine that last one!  The exact same golf course, but you change a meaningless arbitrary number relating to one hole, and the entire golf course goes from being a masterpiece to being fatally flawed!

Silly.  

[Evan_Green]

I really dont understand how par is a meaningless number. Its like saying the temperature reading outside is a meaningless number- there needs to be a par score to try to shoot at- and at least for measurement purposes. Also its useful in comparing different kinds of holes (i.e. you cant really compare 17 and 18 at Pebble for example, but you could compare 8 and 9 there because they are the same type of holes (namely par 4s)

Also the par is very important in tournaments because then players know how they are doing relative to one another.

[TEPaul]

Evan:

Par certainly isn't a meaningless number altogether. I don't think anyone meant to indicate that. It has great meaning and important uses, many of which you cited. Certainly it's useful for handicapping purposes and rating and such. Par actually has a very specific definition!

But when par alone creates a perception of the quality or architectural quality of a particular hole it doesn't take long to understand the fallacy of that. How can you logically conclude that when not a blade of grass on a hole is changed but the number of the par changes that the quality of the hole can actually change?

That makes no logical sense at all! Holes are made up of certain concepts, options creating strategies, all with particular risk/rewards considerations involved in them. If nothing about the hole changes why would the number of the par effect it? The basic idea of playing any hole is to score as well on it given risk/reward factors as you can!

Certainly there are times when touring pros, for instance, may play a hole differently on Thursday than they might on Sunday afternoon but that has nothing to do with the hole's par either--only has to do with their perception of how well anyone else they're competing against may play it in relation to them.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Evan,

Maybe Tom didn't, but I certainly did mean that par was a totally meaningless, useless number.  It serves no purpose.  None.

Using par to define the diferent "types" of holes, and then saying that par is necessary to compare these "types" is a sophism.  If par didn't exist, there wouldn't be different "types", and I would be glad to compare 17 at 18 at PB.

Nor is par useful in tournaments, because it is misleading.  Nor is par used for handicap puposes.  In fact, I don't believe it's mentionned in the rules of golf, save perhaps way in the back in the part about Stableford and Bogey competitions.  It isn't even in the Definitions section.  (Normally I'd check before stating this, but my Rules Book is packed away in a box somewhere since I'm moving next week.  Someone may wish to double-check if you want me to eat my words... )

Yes, I've been over this before.  I don't mind, call it my Personal Crusade.

[Jeff_Lewis]

How would you respond, if you were handed a scorecard and it said....hole #, yardage, handicap #, blank for score...? Would it decrease your enjoyment of the course? Would it change your score? Would you be so angry that you wouldn't even play?

[TEPaul]

Par isn't in the playing rules of golf but it's very much in the entire Handicap system and its manual and is a very fundamental factor that course rating and particularly the ever increasingly popular "slope" system is based on!

I'm only stating that and I'm certainly not about to diverge into those things on this thread and defend it. Like Jeremy Glenn, my feeling about "par's" usefulness regarding how anyone looks at or measures the strength, weakness, quality or architectural quality of a golf hole, golf course, etc, is that it's meaningless.

[Dan King]

Jeremy Glenn writes:
Maybe Tom didn't, but I certainly did mean that par was a totally meaningless, useless number.  It serves no purpose.  None.

Right on brother!

Comparing holes -- Why would you want to?  Is the claim that all par-3s have something in common, all par-4s, all par-5s?  Should they all be similar enough to compare to each other?

Handicapping -- Isn't the what rating and slope is for?

Are you playing some sort of golf game where you are playing against Old Man Par?

Tournament play -- you could keep track using level-4s or countless other, either more or less meaningful number, depending on what you want.

Shivas writes:
Isn't the trick to having a "par 4.5" to have a par "3.5" right next to it

That's what we need, formulas!  Don't let the ground dictate the course, let the ego of the players.

This is the biggest danger of par, making it important that holes fit some pre-defined definition of the meaningless number. If the land dictates two straight holes in the 240-320 range, what's wrong with that? Can we not build 490-yard holes because too many people will consider it a 4.5?  

Par
What is it good for?
Par has caused unrest
Among the younger generation
Construction then destruction
Who wants to die?
Par-huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
Par-huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Yeah
Par-I despise
'Cos it means destruction
Of innocent lives
Par means tears
To thousands of golfers how
When we go off to play
And lose their score
I said
Par-huh
It's an enemy of all golfkind
Par has shattered
Many young golfer's dreams
We've got no place for it today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord, there's just got to be a better way
It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
Par
Friend only to the telecaster
Par-Good God, now
 --Edwin Starr

[Lou Duran]

Much like a budget, par is a standard by which we measure performance.  It is a definition based on rational expectations.  Without par in mind, how would someone design and build a course?  What paremeters would we substitute for three or four one shot holes, an equal number of three shotters, and a nice variey of two shotters making 18 holes?  Changing a short par 5 to a par 4 does not make the hole or course better; it does make it harder, relative to par.      

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Isn't it all about one's comfort Zone, or about a golfer getting outside of his comfort Zone ?    

[Andy Hodson]

There is a golf course in MB, SC that has a par of 72 comprised of 6 par3s, 6 par 4s, and 6 par 5s. I can't remember the name right now, but since the design of it is such that if you played one of each of the kind of holes, you played them all (the Flintstone background golf course, red house..blue house..white house..red house, etc.) it was a very boring 18 holes. Not so much from the types of holes but from the repetitiveness of design.

[Charles_P.]

In his "Golf Central" interview about MacKenzie before the Masters, Tom Doak had a great line when Hammonds asked him what MacKenzie's style might be described as.  Tom said that MacKenzie was great at making "holes at the edge of par" (or words to that effect).  I thought that was a perfect way todescribe what makes holes like the 13th at Augusta so exciting.

The debate here, as well as on the NGLA thread about relassifying the par 5s as 4s, is how much the "par" affects the player's psychology and dictates the strategy the player employs for a given hole.

I'm with Tom Paul, that it shouldn't matter -- you play the hole to best suit your abilities and the execution of your next shot is informed by your last.  You're always trying to negotiate a hole in the fewest strokes possible.

I'm not sure where my ramble is going, but I guess I'm saying the par on the card never changes my strategy, but it does affect how I feel about the outcome.

[TEPaul]

What I'm saying is a par number shouldn't really matter to how someone feels about a hole or certainly how he plays a hole. It's completely illogical to let just a number influence your thinking about a hole!

But having said that I recognize how people feel about the quality of a hole and even how they play the hole sometimes has a lot to do with just that number alone even if you point out the illogic of that kind of thinking!

It's amazing--but it's true!