[Darren_Kilfara]

The responses in the thread I started on the par-73 Old Course are so far pretty much what I expected to see from this group - par doesn't matter, the hole still plays the same way, etc. etc. However, I've come to believe that the label bestowed by the par of a hole patently *does* matter: it conditions golfers' expectations regarding how they should approach the hole. You can say a thousand times that it *shouldn't* matter, but it undoubtedly does - most notably by making people go for a par-4 green in two where they'd be better off laying up and trying to reach it in three.

Rather than rail against this state of affairs, why don't people on this site embrace it? Visual deception is already an important tool for the good architect; wouldn't the use, or alleged misuse, of par be a form of mental deception as well? Why don't we see more 250-yard par 4s or 460-yard par 5s (outside of the UK, anyway)? Particularly on PGA Tour setups, why not have the odd 550-yard par 4, or play e.g. the 10th at Riviera as a par 3 and watch the carnage that ensues? Why are par-6 holes so rare and hopelessly out of vogue? Surely such labels would only serve to confuse the weak of thought and mind, which is part of what good golf course architecture does anyway, no?

Cheers,
Darren

[BCrosby]

The responses in the thread I started on the par-73 Old Course are so far pretty much what I expected to see from this group - par doesn't matter, the hole still plays the same way, etc. etc. However, I've come to believe that the label bestowed by the par of a hole patently *does* matter: it conditions golfers' expectations regarding how they should approach the hole. You can say a thousand times that it *shouldn't* matter, but it undoubtedly does - most notably by making people go for a par-4 green in two where they'd be better off laying up and trying to reach it in three.

Darren -

I've made that point several times here. Par sets scoring expectations for a hole. That matters in shot selection. Believing that The Road Hole is a par 4 means you are more likely to attempt to reach the green in two.

A corrollary is that par matters because it conditions how your competitors will apporach the hole. If you think other players in the field will play the hole as a par 4, that conditions how you will play it. Just to keep pace with the field.

The final argument is the H.D. Thoreau argument. When people say par is irrelevant, it suggests that golf for them is something separate from how they perform. That golf is primarily an aesthetic experience, like a walk in a garden. They are out to enjoy the clouds, the sky, the green grass, etc.

I think that is bs. People care tremendously about how well they play. Even when not in competition. And there is only one way to measure how well you play. Whether you like it or not.

Bob

P.S. BTW, it's this internalization of par that is, I think, the root of the notion that you can talk about golf courses as being "fair" or "unfair". As they say in Phil. 101, using "fair" in that sense is a pretty clear category mistake. But I think that is where the mis-use of the term comes from.

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Whoa, my comments on the other thread were for the pro players. Idiots like me slavishly play to the card par rather than personal par. What different-sized flagsticks do for others, scorecards do for me.

Which is why The Addington is always so flummoxing, with its bogey references and asterisks...
http://tinyurl.com/2cplfh

If the pros are so stupid to rise to the bait of a par-3 Riviera 10th, then so be it.  I'm all for making mental challenges, even simple addition, part of the game.

Mark

[Ken Moum]

If the pros are so stupid to rise to the bait of a par-3 Riviera 10th, then so be it.  I'm all for making mental challenges, even simple addition, part of the game.

Mark

There's little doubt that all the kvetching and whining that takes places shortly before Father's Day most summers is a direct result of the USGA lowering par to 70 on a course with four par fives.

How anyone can suggest that shortening two holes makes a course "harder" is beyond me.

I am reminded of Tom Meeks's reponse to Payne Stewart when he complained about a 5/4 par green that wasn't "receptive" to long shot.

Meeks said, he'd lengthen the hole a few yards and change it back to par five if Stewart could get all the players to agree not to go for the green in two.

If the average par five green makes a poor target with a long iron or fairway wood, how come so many good players are trying to hit one?

The answer is simple, golfers are no smarter than sheep. I, as you can see by my sig., am aspring to sheephood.

K

[Chris Cupit]

Whether we admit it or not, Par does matter to golfers.  BCrosby is dead on when he talks of a players expectations being set by what par is.

Of course, we are supposed to play in a bubble, "one shot at a time" and all that stuff, but......Par does matter and even the best in the world get sucked in by it.

[TEPaul]

Darren:

It's a most interesting subject, particularly the way you presented it in the initial post.

I call this kind of thing "par skewing" and one of the best examples I've seen of it with new courses is Doak's treatment of the par 5 3rd and the par 4 4th at Pacific Dunes. C&C's treatment of the 17th at Easthampton this way is brilliant too.

But the thing that gets most confusing in this vein to golfers is when a shortish par 5, for instance, gets dropped to a par 4.

Is it completely the result of just a par number that gets in their head?

It is that but I think there's another element of it that really gets in their head and that's the idea of GIR. That's the thing that really confuses them. Most golfers seem to think they should have some kind of constitutional right to be able to reach a par 4 hole in two (GIR). Of course if it's a short par 5 that kind of mindset is not particularly applicable (to hit a short par 5 in two shots).

In the old days, pitching or chipping for a one putt par was a whole lot more accepted than it is today. But back then there wasn't such a thing as GIR, and if there was it was not such a locked-in mindset as it is today.

This is precisely what we were trying to analyze/overcome the other day at Shinnecock when the green chairman recommended that we play the course from the US Open tips. He obviously wanted to see how the course would treat us from that length and how we went about playing strategically from that length.

[BCrosby]

The concept of "par" is endlessly fascinating. It's more than a little bizarre. I think it raises hard, quite sophisticated questions, in both theory and practice. You could write a book ....

In fact the concept of "par" is so bizarre, I can't think of any other human activity (let alone any other sport) that has a concept that operates in the same way.

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

This is a bit off-topic but this all reminds me of the scoring "controversy" (too strong a word) in the 9.30am weekend game at my club. Generally we form random teams and play a little pseudo-Stableford game with full handicaps. Two weeks ago the organizer declared we were playing the following game:

1) Keep the team stroke-play score with a limit of triple-bogey on any hole for any player.
2) Subract the sum of the team's handicap strokes.
3) Low net team score wins.

Total pandemonium. Too much math, too hard to keep up with, nobody knows where they stands, too many mistakes. Every excuse and bellyache you can think of and then some.

So the next morning we played the following game:

1) Use pseudo-Stableford scoring with 3 points for birdie, 2 for par, 1 for bogey, 0 for double, -1 or triple or worse.
2) Total up the team points and add the sum of the team's handicap strokes.
3) High team score (point+handicap strokes) wins.

Massive relief. Everyone agreed it was much simpler, I heard someone say "At least that's a fair game", no bellyaching after the round.

What the heck? The scores work out exactly the same, there is no possible situation where the first game and the second game lead to different outcomes. You can literally get the scores for the first game by adding 144 to the scores from the second game or vice versa.

As far as I can tell, it's because virtually nobody out of these couple dozen guys ever writes down a score on a hole. They all are accustomed to keeping score with "-1, 0, 0, 2, 1, -1" and so forth relative to par. They can not be convinced that it works out the same to keep a stroke-play score and subtract the handicaps as to keep score relative to par and then add in handicaps. And these are CPA's, physicians, lawyers, business owners, etc.

There is something deeply sacred in the American golfer's psyche about ones score relative to par. A birdie on the easiest, shortest Par 5 on the course is worth more to most golfers than a par on a brutally difficult long, uphill Par 4 with a OB left, water right and a green completely surrounded by bunkers.

[BCrosby]

"There is something deeply sacred in the American golfer's psyche about ones score relative to par. A birdie on the easiest, shortest Par 5 on the course is worth more to most golfers than a par on a brutally difficult long, uphill Par 4 with a OB left, water right and a green completely surrounded by bunkers."

Agreed.

It's as if "par" creates a counter-factual golfer who plays alongside our actual golfing selves as our oldest, best, most annoying friend who you can't conceive of playing without.  

[Ken Moum]

It's as if "par" creates a counter-factual golfer who plays alongside our actual golfing selves as our oldest, best, most annoying friend who you can't conceive of playing without.  

I know that guy, but I had to quit playing with him.... he finally wore me down.

K

[Paul Stephenson]

I read the book "Going Low" a couple of years back.  The common theme was that every player interviewed about their low rounds (tour players shooting 62, 63) had no idea what they were shooting during the round.

Not only may par be an offensive weapon...it may be a limiter.

[Tom Huckaby]

My point has always been this:  if one plays smart, par SHOULDN'T matter.  Outside of stableford, no tournament or match is won by how many birdies or bogeys are made, but rather by the number of strokes made or number of holes won.  So par SHOULD be irrelevant.

BUT... par most definitely DOES matter, to the vast majority of golfers.  In fact I'd say most are a slave to it.  Change TOC 17 to be a par 5 and most play it quite differently without a doubt.  Evidence I've given is #1 at Pasatiempo, which a few years ago was changed from being listed as a par five to a par 4, without changing the distance one bit.   Way way back tees were closed, but other than that, the only real change if anything has made the hole play effectively easier - trees were removed in front of the green, trees were thinned to the right.  But ask most golfers if it's a tougher and easier hole today and most will say "much tougher", although the number of strokes they take today has to be less than they took 10 years ago!  And why?  Because they relate to par, not to number of strokes.

SO... darn right par can be used as an offensive weapon.  The folks at Pasatiempo have proven it.

TH

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

    I think your Pasa story ought to be in one of my favorite books "  Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds ".

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

    I think your Pasa story ought to be in one of my favorite books "  Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds ".

I gotta get that book!

[Eric Franzen]

Yes, Huckaby nails it.
...but Pasatiempo's 1st is still much tougher now.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Eric - the funny thing is, even though my mind reassures me of the folly of it all, I still fall prey to this myself.  I stand on that tee feeling like I need to make 4, whereas I sure as hell never did that before.  And it ain't because of the lack of trees.

Par is a powerful weapon for sure... even we who wan't to deny it can't seem to do so completely!

TH

ps - it's us against Huntley Sunday at Emirates. A win would be very nice.  

[Peter Pallotta]

A good discussion on an interesting question - thanks. It really is a neat window into trying to understand our motivations out there.

For me, it might not be par AS par that matters as much as it is the term's implied relationship to good shot-making, or the explicit relationship to "standard good play".

I played last week for the first time in a year. I warmed up with a bad cup of coffee and two Advil. I had no reason to expect anything good to come out of the round (it didn't). But on the first hole I hit a long and fairly good drive, but to the wrong side of the fairway: what I had left was a shortish approach but over a big, deep bunker guarding an elevated green with the pin tucked right behind.

So, why did I fire right at the pin? Am I dull-witted? Am I driven by a desire for "par". Well, yes. But also, I was 130 yards away for my second shot on a Par 4, and I had 8 iron in my hands. And I think I was thinking this: "I know I'm rusty, but if I can't hit an 8 iron 130 yards and give myself at least a decent chance to make par (see, I wasn't even thinking birdie) then I don't know why the hell I still play this game, and I shouldn't be out here."  I hit it in the bunker and made bogey.

In other words, "par" tells me that a short approach shot is a "green light" for a decent player, and I want to think of myself as a decent player, and so I treat it as a green light even when it isn't.

Peter

[Darren_Kilfara]

OK, let me revisit one of the ideas I suggested at the start of the thread: suppose #10 at Riviera was labelled as a par 3 during the Nissan. What do the pros do? Do they all fire at the green (and complain bitterly about the hole, even though it's exactly the same hole it was the year before)? Is anyone man enough to lay up? Suppose you move the tees forward so that the hole plays nearer 270-280 yards, so that the hole yardage looks slightly more like a par 3...does that make any difference? How would all of this affect *your* enjoyment as a spectator?

Personally, I'd absolutely love to see this happen one year. I'm sure it never will (until the pros start hitting their 2-irons 310, anyway), but as a debunking of the myth of "par", it would be really wonderful...

Cheers,
Darren

[Tom Huckaby]

Darren:

My sense is that pros don't fall for this NEARLY to the extent that amateurs do.  They know darn well that 275 wins the Nissan, not -9 (assuming I have the par correct!).  And a 3 on #10 is no better next year (if they decide to call if a par 3) than it was last year (when it was a par 4).

BUT... some would fall prey to it, I think.  But keep the distance the same and just change the par and it's only the truly stupid ones who then think they MUST fire at the green.

However, move the distance up to 275 and it doesn't matter what par you call it - at that distance, the pros would figure basically every player has that well within range (heck, some will reach with low irons if it's dry), so 3 is a must score.  That will change the thinking.... 4 losing shots to the field.  But again, this has zero to do with par, but with the distance.

In any case I'd love to see it either way, just to see how this plays out.  Maybe I overestimate the smarts of tour pros.

TH

[Andy Hughes]

Tom (and Darren), I think the problem with changing 10 at Riveria is the pros have played there for so long they would already know how best to play the hole for them.  

But if they were faced with the same scenario at a new course (hole configuration, distance etc), I bet the number would be higher.

[Tom Huckaby]

AH:

Agreed.  So that goes even more against changing the par (without distance change) making any difference in their play.

But I do think shortening it to 275 would have the effect I stated.

In any case yes, playing history does have a lot to do with this... at least for smart players!  And rare is the dumb tour pro - in terms of golf smarts anyway.

[Ken Moum]

Darren:

My sense is that pros don't fall for this NEARLY to the extent that amateurs do.  They know darn well that 275 wins the Nissan, not -9 (assuming I have the par correct!).  And a 3 on #10 is no better next year (if they decide to call if a par 3) than it was last year (when it was a par 4).

BUT... some would fall prey to it, I think.  But keep the distance the same and just change the par and it's only the truly stupid ones who then think they MUST fire at the green.

TH

Tom,

You cannot have been listening to the wailing that goes on when the USGA shortens a par five and calls it a par four for the US Open.

Not once in all the years that has been going on have I heard a pro say, "Well, that's not a factor, as we aren't playing against par."

What you hear is, "That's not fair, that green was never designed to accept such a long shot."

Never mind that more than half the field would try to reach it in two regardless of what par is.

It's been a long time since a pro thought about his score in anything other than over or under par.

If anything, I think pros are MORE likely to be affected by it, because they can reach all the par fours in two.

Many of the guys I play with can't reliably reach anything over 400 yards in two, so changes like that have ZERO effect on their thinking.

Ken

[Tom Huckaby]

Ken:

Hmmmm... I was ready to concede, but how much of this is distance related and how much is par-related, as pertains to the pros?  That is, if a hole is 490 yards, they damn well know that the whole field can reach it, so they know they damn well better try... and assuming no hazards, that's the case no matter what the par is.  Oh, they do bitch as you say - at least some do - but I really think it's more of an issue of an awkward distance - a shot where god forbid they actually do have to hit a longish club into a green - more than a par issue.  And they feel they have to not because it's a par four, but because of herd mentality and the competitive need to keep up with the field.

Or at least that's one explanation.  You could be right and the pros could be idiots.

But you and I are on the same page... my Pasa example goes right along with you when you say:

How anyone can suggest that shortening two holes makes a course "harder" is beyond me.

It boggles my mind how people say Pasa #1 is now harder.  But they do.

As for how pros think, well of course it's just speculation for me, being a non-practicing 3.6 index.

So my feeling is of course they do think of their score in relation to par... but that's just because it's tracked that way for them to see, to see how they stand.  In the end they do know that 275 wins, and wins if that's recorded as -9 or -13... and a 68 remains a 68 whether it's -3 or -4.

In any case, what this all proves one way or the other is that par is a potent weapon.  I am convinced though that for players who don't make many pars, it has less relevance tactically.  Oh, they still do want to make pars and birdies, and it matters to them big time what you call that 475 yard hole so they when they tell their friends about their achievement, they feel better about it if they can say it's a birdie... But I'm with you, when one can't reach holes over 400, what the par is doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot tactically.  It's typically gonna be two or 3 shots are far as one can hit it, then get to the green.

TH

[Ken Moum]

Ken:

Hmmmm... I was ready to concede, but how much of this is distance related and how much is par-related, as pertains to the pros?  That is, if a hole is 490 yards, they damn well know that the whole field can reach it, so they know they damn well better try... and assuming no hazards, that's the case no matter what the par is.  Oh, they do bitch as you say - at least some do - but I really think it's more of an issue of an awkward distance - a shot where god forbid they actually do have to hit a longish club into a green - more than a par issue.  And they feel they have to not because it's a par four, but because of herd mentality and the competitive need to keep up with the field.
TH

What you say makes perfect sense, but it's pretty easy to see that pros love 525-yard par fives, and hate 510-yard par fours. They talk about it all the time, but never juxtaposed like I just did.

This very factor is why Bobby Jones loved half-par long holes, like 13 and 15 at ANGC.

The pros also hate three-shot par fives, because they consider the first two shots to be layups. But they love short par fours that present EXACTLY the same shot value off the tee as 650-yard par fives do on the second shot.

This can only be a product of thinking about your scores relative to some standard.

Now, I know I said that average players don't feel that way about par, but the same phenomenon exists. It's just that they have their own "good score" to compare to.

I play with a friend who hits it 120 yards off the tee, and she's thrilled with a 92 and despondent over a 102. Nevermind that the 90 came on a course that's 600 yards shorter.

Her goal is to have a putt for par on every hole, and if it takes her four get aboard on a par four, she's POed--regardless of whether it's 270 yards or 395 yards.

(Edit... It's not only the Joneses of the golf world, ALL golfers lover half-par holes, ie. those that give them a good chance at beating their "good score")

Golfers are the most illogical, emotional, demented thinkers I know of.

And the best architects play with those characteristics like they're the keys on a piano.

[Tom Huckaby]

That works for me, Ken.

Truer words have never been spoken than the last two sentences there.  Love it.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()