[Mike_Cirba]

Back in the 70s, I recall reading a book where there were some USGA guidelines as far as the designation of "par", which were strictly yardage based.

I'm sure my memory is faulty, but I believe it went something like this...

up to 250 yards - Par three
250 - 474 yards - Par four
475 - +            - Par five

Now, remembering that par is simply a "measuring" concept to describe what "an EXPERT golfer should routinely expect to make" on a given hole, and also remembering that there are other factors beyond yardage that go into that determination, I would propose that these numbers NEED to change.  

Let's face it, I don't think these yardage numbers would have been accurate in, say 1910, although "par" as a concept was not routinely used back then.  

So, in the spirit of looking forward, I would suggest the following are more accurate as a measuring tool for today's game.

Up to 275 yards - Par three
276 - 550 yards - Par four
550 - +            - Par five

Of course, adoption of this new standard would mean that "total par" for many existing courses would need to change.  For instance, NGLA would probably be a par 70, ANGC would be about the same, Merion would be a par 68, etc.

On the plus side for the USGA, "par" would be better preserved as a standard, which seems to be important to them.

Isn't this a more accurate view of today's reality than continuing to wear rose-colored glasses and romantically pretend that existing courses are somehow statically immune from the effects of technology changes, better conditioning, and improved play?

What do you all think?

[Joe_Stansell]

The problem here, if there is one, is not that technology has allowed everyone's game to improve; rather, only the expert players seem to be playing significantly better.  I wouldn't discourage the masses by changing the concept of par to accomodate the skills of so few.  I would instead change the definition of par to be "what a better player is capable of shooting with a series of well executed shots, allowing for two putts on the green."  

[JohnV]

The yardage for a par 4 in the US is 251-470.

There has been discussion of changing this, but a lot of older clubs like their short par 5s and don't want it changed.

Technically, it is related to the yardage that the proverbial scratch golfer hits the ball in course rating.  Tee shot goes up to 250 and second shot goes 220.  Therefore 250 is the max for a 3 and 470 the max for a 4.

It is unlikely that it will be changed any time soon.  But that doesn't prevent a club from changing their own par numbers.  But, in the long run, par is immaterial.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Mike

In reality, "pars" (even under the narrow definition of what a good golfer "should" score) are only approximations.  The real "par" of a 120 yard hole with a punchbowl green is far different in reality than a 240 yard hole with a crowned green.  These realities are taken into account in the establishment of course ratings (or Standard Scratch Score over here in the UK).

I would argue that it doesn't make a damned bit of difference what "par" you assign to any given hole or even why.  For me the 2nd at Dornoch (170 yards) is a "par" 4, and for Dave Schmidt the 8th at Pebble (430 yards) is a "par" 3.  All that is important (in competitive gofling terms) at the end of the day is what you score, against the standard for that course, and in the context of your own capabilities and ambitions.

The fact that GCA archies have to even think about "par" is one of the reasons that the profession is still very narrow minded in its thinking.  IMHO, of course.

[A_Clay_Man]

While I can see numbers being used as guidlines, as rules, I think it shows no respect for a well designed hole. It's topography or other strategic features seems to have no relevance, or at the least, demeaning to the hole and us golfers.

Could these past guidlines have contributed to the "dumbing down" of GCA from the 40's - 90's ?

[A.G._Crockett]

Mike Cirba,
Is there any definition of an "expert" player?  It makes a difference, I think.  Does expert mean only scratch?  Or would a 5 handicap be an expert, since only a tiny percentage of all golfers reach that level?  Even a 5 handicap, on a 475 yd. hole, is going to make 5 much, much more often than they make 4.  This may even be true at lower handicaps than 5, and is certainly true if the hole has significant hazards/difficulties, rather than just a flat runway.
Anybody know an actual number-based definition of "expert"?

[Mark_Fine]

I just played two holes at Oakmont that are over 500 yards long and listed as par fours from the Championship tees!  The new scorecard is not ready yet so some may not know this.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

A.G. Crockett,

The USGA defines par as:  "The score that an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole". Read that back to front and an expert golfer is expected to make par.
This number is refined by individual course ratings.

I don't think there is any other numerical way to measure who is an expert.  

JohnV,
What would be the problem with overlapping the yardages?  

[Doug Siebert]

I hope they never change it, if they do they are just admitting they don't really plan to do anything to control the runaway influence of technology.

Anyway, I don't believe the USGA (or R&A) exert much influence in this regard.  Par 4s have crept up above 470 in the last 15-20 years, and are now hitting 500, in both new designs and established courses that have added length.  I'm sure some courses have changed short par 5s into par 4s over the past 20 years, but I don't think the number of times that happens would increase much at all if the USGA adjusted the distance tables.  So what's the point?  If you do that, then you have the argument that since the definition of scratch golfer, to which this is tied, has changed that all courses should be re-rated based on that.  Not gonna happen.

[Willie_Dow]

Mike???
We missed you today, and it wasn't too bad out there weatherwise.
We played the tips, and I drove the ball better than I have in months.  But we couldn't reach the short grass on but six of the 18 holes.  Is this giving players a true access to his handicap?  Shouldn't a golf course be playable from the tips by all its members, and be so rated?
Mowing patterns should also be a consideration.

[TEPaul]

AG Crockett:

You know in a way you ask two very interesting questions;

"Is there any "definition" of an expert player?"

"Does expert mean only scratch?"

If you really consider those questions in the context of "par" you start to see how much par really is only a relative measure to base certain things on--most particularly handicapping! Then that evolves to "course rating" (completely based on the relative measure of "par") and also "slope" (basically also based on the relative measure of par).

But is there any exact definition of "expert" in a numbers sense? Yes and no! In the mindset of the USGA (and all that they're basing ON "PAR") technically these days an expert would be someone who normally shoots not par but right around any course's "course rating"!!

What about a player like a Tiger Woods? Would he be considered an "expert" in the mindset of the definition of the term to the USGA? Not really. He'd have to be considered a "super expert" in their numbers sense!! And that's what "plus" handicaps are all about (off a relative number and "expert" designation!).

That's why Woods would be approximately a plus 6-7 in a handicap context!

That's how we can start to see better that "par" is just a relative number measure to base a bunch of things on and nothing much more!

But you can see from Dean Knuth's historical article on "par" that once there actually was a definition of "par". Originally it was what Strath and Anderson thought the best players were likely to play the 12 holes of Prestwick in (49). And they only came to that conclusion because Doleman asked them!

And later in the US (USGA establishing their original handicap system) "par" was what the current US Amateur champion was "expected" to play any golf course in! How did they figure that out? Good question!

So again is there an exact defintion of expert? Not really! And at the least it's become sort of "definitively" redundant as in the mindset of the handicapping bodies an expert is a scratch player and a player is a scratch player because he's an expert!

If there is a an exact definition it sounds to me like one that keeps on chasing it's tail!

But in effect it's no more than a relative number to base a whole bunch of stuff on!

So is "par" truly realistic for everyone as a relative measure? Not really!

All it is is apparently the best they've been able to find!

[A.G._Crockett]

TEPaul,
Thanks for the post.  That's exactly what I was wondering.  I agree with you about both the definition "chasing its tail" and the fact that the system is the best we can come up with.  Kind of reminds me of somebody's quote (Churchill??) to the effect that democracy is the worst form of government ever devised, except for all the others!

Certainly leaves a dilemma today, when it appears that the gaps between the super-expert, expert, and average golfers is wide and growing.  

It does seem, though, that we are worrying a lot about the scores that super-experts are making on par 5's.  I play a lot of golf with a scratch player who doesn't hit it any farther than I do with my 7 handicap, but he always beats me straight up.  I also play a lot with an 11 who can hit it pro distances, but doesn't really have a clue where its headed, and I usually beat him.  None of this has anything to do with whether we call a hole a par 4 or a par 5.  Changing par only seems to be an issue because we don't want to see pros shoot 28 under for 4 days on vintage courses that the rest of us can't break 75 on!

[Jim_Kennedy]

A.G.,
Here is good article on the elements of expertise. http://www.coe.uga.edu/sportlab/labresearch/completed/expertise/cielements.html

[A.G._Crockett]

Jim,
I printed it out, and will read it tonight.  I have a feeling that it is going to make me feel bad about my level of expertise!

[Jim_Kennedy]

A.G.
I read it, I did, you will.  

[TEPaul]

A.G.

I'm pretty dumb but I'm beginning to think that all this stuff like par is there really solely for basic handicap purposes, period.

I mean look at that example in Knuth's article. Doleman asked Strath and Anderson what would be the winning score at Prestwick's 12 hole course in the 1800s in a tournament of the best. They said 49 and Old Tom won with three over that. In effect that became the "course rating" of Prestwick.

Some years later in the USA the current US Amateur champion became the relative measure of an "expert" and what he was "expected" to shoot on any course became it's "course rating".

It sounds to me like no more than those early guys just trying to find a reasonable "relative measure" to calculate everything off of--like everyone's handicap!

Well, guess what? Today we have something that can do that for us and we don't even have to understand all that it's doing or even what it's doing! That's called the computer, the greatest data collection and data analization method ever known!

Just let the damn thing work for all of us! That to me is the answer.

We can find any relative measure for excellence we want to and one we think the most realiable and reasonable. Use Tiger if we want to--he probably has the lowest known recorded scoring average in the world!

Let scoring be based off of him! Courses are rated relatively and could continue to be so even if he never came to play on most of them. Slope rating is the same--just looking for any reasonable relative measure--again Tiger--the true expert!

All we need to do then is create a system of easy input that works for us AUTOMATICALLY. That to me would be GROSS HOLE BY HOLE score inputting!

That's all we need for as perfect a system and as equitable a system as could be conceived of. Of course honest data going in is a consequence but the system this way would be as reliable that way as could ever be acheived. As you said one can only use the best system conceivably available!

Golfers wouldn't have to understand ESC--it would be in the system--just post their gross hole by hole scores--the computer could do the rest.

It could collect and analyze anyone's handicapping needs against anyone else if we wanted it too by just analyzing any two players gross hole scores against each others. That could create completely numbers based individualized handicap allocations against any other player if you think about it .

The gross hole scores would be totaled automatically! That could create a far more reliable "stroke play" handicap (distinct and different from a match play handicap) for anyone against anyone if you think about it because gross score handicap play really doesn't need ESC!

There absolutely nothing the computer could not do for us if we'd let it, in a handicap context!

And then we really wouldn't even need that middleman relative measure called par would we? It truly would become irrelevant and golf then would just become the numbers it's always been anyway but applying only as need be to the two extremely different formats of golf--match play and stroke play.

And at the base of it all as the true indication of what an "expert" is in golf in scoring, would be the one who really is the most expert--Tiger Woods, the best scoring player in the world!

Maybe I'm crazy but this makes sense to me and then the relative measure for holes wouldn't be needed so much--you just play them the best you can in the lowest number you can!

And then maybe architecture wouldn't have to conform to some weird perception (par)!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I meant my initial essay on this thread to be provocative enough to stir the pot of discussion in hopefully creative ways.  

I also meant to satirically point out the fallacy of "hole par", which is just basically completly assigned by total hole yardage in 99.9% of cases....as Rich points out, it's an approximation based on some pretty wide room for manuevering.  

Then, if the situation isn't comical enough, we have the USGA step in each June to shorten 550 yard holes to 490 and call them par fours.  

I'm starting to believe that the concept of par, whether hole by hole, or total course par, is becoming a destructive force in architecture.  

Rich is right when he claims that its very structure is inherently limiting to the imagination of the architect, and now how many classic courses are being changed under some ghastly concept of "protecting par", with the USGA leading the charge, inadvertently or not.  

I was shocked last night to read that Shinnecock, for instance, measured about 6,600 yards in the mid-1980s.  

According to USGA officials, it will likely measure 500 yards longer for the '04 US Open.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

#1, I would not be too concerned about Shinnecock and it's yardage in the 1980s and now. The fact is to the largest degree I've ever seen Flynn designed that golf course and most all it's holes to be what they need to be for whatever and whenever!

Basically that's called some of the best "planned elasticity" I've ever seen! It's definitely not unlimited but its pretty damned accomodating! The next mission is that the USGA identify how to use it properly and that's definitely not guaranteed.

But don't worry too much about that course--because iterations of the exact same holes that are there today were longer individually and in total card yardage in some of Flynn's plans than what you're looking at from the 1980s! And when you consider the "planned elasticity"--a lot longer!

And I'm not even saying that this (the planned elasticity) should be looked at as a good thing in the overall scheme of things. There are definitely problems for golf and its future this way.

All I'm saying is in this case (Shinnecock) and some of his other courses he apparently saw the extent of this problem coming, a long long time ago!

When he made that remark in 1927 about the need some day for 8,000 yd courses if they didn't control 'the elusive pill' I guess he was serious and I guess also that he figured they probably never would. So on some of his courses apparently he got them ready for that day--and remarkably that day WAY into the future!

That's why in a way I think Shinnecock might deserve to go to the top because architecturally from tee through green it's so solid but basically what it was in 1930 in fact and in elasticity is the same course that you'll see in the 2004 Open!

[Dan King]

Tuesday got me thinking there can't be anyone in the world more gullible than the American voting public, and then I'm reminded of golfers, taking the voters off the hook.

Could anything in golf be more meaningless, yet more talked about, than par?

I have my own method of deciding something like par.

If I'm happy with my play on the hole I made par.
If I'm very happy, and probably won some money on the hole, I made birdie.
If I'm going to bore my friends with how I played a hole for weeks I made eagle.
If I'll remember the shot forever, and bring it out in conversation a few times a year I made double eagle.
If I'm unhappy with my play on a hole I made bogey.
If I'm upset about my play on a hole I made double bogey.
If I'm pissed, then I made the dreaded other.

Simple, easy to remember, and I don't have someone who doesn't even know me dictating my happiness.

I can't believe there are people out there that you can hit a good drive, a 7-iron and make a putt and call that an eagle.

To me an eagle has to be a good drive, a driver off the deck or a fairway wood -- if it is one of those rare times I'm carrying one -- or a long iron if I plan it to hook and run a long ways, and then a make putt. Either that or some sort of miracle shot such as a hole-in-one or a jarred shot from the fairway.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

"Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker."
-- Willie Nelson

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()