Question concerning "par", re: Oakmont 70

[danielfaleman]

Seems to me that Oakmont should have played at par-71 for the 2007 U.S. Open.

In 1994 the course was a par-71 at 6946 yards, with the average score for the field at 74.25.  This year, 2007, the course played at par-70 at 7230 yards (the 500 yard 9th  reduced from a par-5 to a par-4) and an average field score of 74.91.

If the course had played at par-71, with say, the par-4 9th having remainrd a par-5, the winning score would have been, +1.

Are we just fooling ourselves for no real reason here - or is this just USGA propaganda for those "ooh-and-ahh-ers" watching on television?

[Rob_Waldron]

Considering that the course rating is something in the neighborhood of 78.5 I guess par should be 78. Therefore the winning score of 285 was actually a Bob Hope Classic-like 27 under par. Take that Mr. Driver!

[Matthew Hunt]

Daniel, if you add up the 'half-pars' it adds up to 74.

[Dan Herrmann]

Who cares?

The winning score was 285.  Par was unimportant.

[Michael Blake]

Who cares?

The winning score was 285.  Par was unimportant.

Agreed.  Oakmont could be par 60 or par 80.  The winning score will be the winning score, regardless of what "par" is.

[Mike Wagner]

Considering that the course rating is something in the neighborhood of 78.5 I guess par should be 78. Therefore the winning score of 285 was actually a Bob Hope Classic-like 27 under par. Take that Mr. Driver!

Since when does par correlate to course rating?

[danielfaleman]

Hmm... the point is that for the casual television watcher par IS important, as the announcers are always stating the current "leaders" relative to par. That, and there aways seems to be an emphasis made to the viewer that the course is "playing hard" because no one is in "red numbers". And so on.

I know that the sophisticated golfing viewer sees total scores... oh well, I'll ask about this somewhere else...

[JR Potts]

Daniel:

I'm glad someone mentioned this.  I am sick of tournament courses altering the "par" requirement for events.  Although at the end of the day there is no difference as total score wins, there is something to be said about tournament set-ups mirroring everyday play.

[Doug Siebert]

Considering that the course rating is something in the neighborhood of 78.5 I guess par should be 78. Therefore the winning score of 285 was actually a Bob Hope Classic-like 27 under par. Take that Mr. Driver!

Since when does par correlate to course rating?

Especially given that course rating is a totally bogus number these days, assuming as it does that scratch players only drive 250.  Update that to reality and make it 290 and 250 for first and second shots, and the course rating would be about 4 shots less.

[Jim Nugent]

And yet, Doug, I think the real course rating -- what a scratch golfer should score at Oakmont -- is probably a few strokes higher than 78.5, not four strokes lower.  That is, given U.S. Open style rough, greens, fairway widths, firmness and pins.  

By my count, five of the world's top ten players didn't even make the cut.  7 of the top 12 missed the cut.  They averaged something like 77 or 78.  How could your typical scratch golfer average 74 or so there?  

[Doug Siebert]

What's a scratch golfer, someone with a 0 handicap?  If the course ratings were based on reality, a scratch golfer is someone who today has a +4 handicap.

[Jim Nugent]

What's a scratch golfer, someone with a 0 handicap?  If the course ratings were based on reality, a scratch golfer is someone who today has a +4 handicap.

That's a key question.  I don't know the answer.  You're suggesting scratch is pretty close to PGA touring pro, or at least Nationwide pro.  

My sense is that the difference between touring pro's and the rest of us gets magnified on real hard courses, that are set up real tough.  The world's top amateurs almost always struggle nowadays in the majors.  They rarely make the cut, often shoot in the 80's.  Yet these guys, I think, would kill the local scratch hotshots at most courses.    

[Doug Siebert]

That's why slope was created.  The so-called scratch players of today are immune to slope because they have a 0 handicap.  If they had the 4 they really ought to, slope would affect them and give them an extra couple strokes on a really nasty layout with 150+ slope.

Not that I believe slope is anything like a perfect model for the difference between scratch and bogey, let alone between scratch and almost scratch.  Nor is it necessarily going to properly account for the effects of a really tough setup, even if you believe it does work well for the difference between "pretty easy" and "kinda hard".

I also think that a lot of the reason the top amateurs shoot a pair of 80s and go home in the majors has a lot more to do with their lack of ability mentally to handle the pressure, crowds, playing alongside the world's best, etc. than it does their skill.  Some of those "local scratch hotshots" can match the scores of touring pros (at least on more normal courses) in a friendly game.  I know one myself....if he maintained a handicap he'd probably be a plus handicap (and ahead of Tiger in driving distance) but he's beat several touring pros in friendly games, including a recent major champion.

If you sent him to Oakmont to play the course last Monday in US Open conditions with no one around, I don't know what he'd shoot, but I'd be willing to bet big money it'd be 10+ strokes better than he'd shoot if you tossed him on the first tee the previous Thursday!

[Jim Nugent]

That's why slope was created.  The so-called scratch players of today are immune to slope because they have a 0 handicap.  If they had the 4 they really ought to, slope would affect them and give them an extra couple strokes on a really nasty layout with 150+ slope.

Is slope used to determine strokes?  I thought if they had a four handicap, they would get four strokes, no matter what slope is.  

 

[Doug Siebert]

Slope helps determine your handicap by altering the differential you get for a given score.  If you shoot an 80 on a CR 72 slope 115 course you might get a differential of 7.7 or so, if you shoot an 80 on a CR 72 slope 145 course you might get a differential of around 6.1.  So a guy shooting 80 on an easy course will have a handicap index a couple strokes higher than a guy shooting 80 on a hard course.  So if they played the same place, the guy playing the easy course would get two strokes from the guy playing the hard course.

[Matt_Cohn]

I think #9 at Oakmont was labeled as a par-4 because guys like Angel Cabrera were hitting it with a drive and a pitching wedge, or a hybrid and a middle iron.

[Jon Wiggett]

I would have thought slope is irrelevant for such tournaments or atleast lets hope so. If the USGA were to start to try and protect the slope rating god help us! It would be better if commentators would refer to a players position in relation to the leader and so remove par from the equation. Lets face it par was originally only intended to be relevant for handicap in strokeplay.  

[Jim Nugent]

Slope helps determine your handicap by altering the differential you get for a given score.  If you shoot an 80 on a CR 72 slope 115 course you might get a differential of 7.7 or so, if you shoot an 80 on a CR 72 slope 145 course you might get a differential of around 6.1.  So a guy shooting 80 on an easy course will have a handicap index a couple strokes higher than a guy shooting 80 on a hard course.  So if they played the same place, the guy playing the easy course would get two strokes from the guy playing the hard course.

If I did the multiplying right, your differential is 7.86 on the 115 course...and 6.23 on the 145 course.  

I think I understand now what you meant in your earlier post.  Slope does indeed affect handicap, unless you are scratch.  Those guys who are now scratch, but who you think should be a four, would see their handicaps affected by slope, if course ratings were lower.  

I dig what you are saying about what is scratch.  Hard for me to see that only Nationwide-quality players are scratch, though.  Have to admit, the definition is a bit arbitrary.  

[Doug Siebert]

Well, go back to the 20s, or whenever the term "scratch" originated.  I'll bet there were precious few plus handicappers, certainly not enough to fill the field of the US Amateur, which would in those days have had a stronger field (relative to the rest of the golf world) than today's Nationwide does.

The reason you have trouble wrapping your head around the idea of having to get the Nationwide level to before you hit scratch is because the meaning has been diluted over the years by equipment advances that increased the length players hit it (thereby causing increases in the length of the courses) while the distances an "expert" player hits it has remained constant which increased the course rating even though a player hit the same or less club into those lengthened holes.

Scratch is no longer the elite of skill, it is just a guy who is one better than a 1 handicap.  You have to get down into the mid single digit plus handicap before you really hit the elite in golfing skill.


I just googled an article about the early history of handicapping on the USGA web site which has a couple of interesting tidbits.  One is that the first Amateur championship required only a 6 handicap to enter (are they playing on a private course I couldn't otherwise access this year?  If so sign me up!)  The other was that they originally based the concept of course rating on the expected score of the US Amateur champion.  Clearly we are a long way from that today!

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/survival_kit/history/early_history_2.html

[Jim Nugent]

Well, go back to the 20s, or whenever the term "scratch" originated.  I'll bet there were precious few plus handicappers, certainly not enough to fill the field of the US Amateur, which would in those days have had a stronger field (relative to the rest of the golf world) than today's Nationwide does.

The key words there are "relative to the rest of the golf world".  That golf world was much, much smaller than today's.  There are vastly more players now -- I've seen estimates that we now have around 60 times more players world-wide -- and vastly more strong players.  With the whole world playing golf, with performances in every sport improving dramatically since then, it would be bizarre if we did not have lots more scratch golfers today.  

Equipment advances are not the only changes.  Courses are harder, greens are faster.  Back in the 1920's, didn't most greens stimp around 5 or 6?  Now don't they stimp at 8, 10, or in the case of Oakmont, 13 or higher?  

The world's best players averaged over 75 on this course.  Sounds like they didn't do any better during the practice rounds, either.  Do you believe 74 is the proper course rating?  That means even the average PGA touring pro is only around scratch, and most par 70 courses probably should be rated around 65.    

[michael j fay]

When Oakmont opened in 1903 it was about 6,600 yards long and sported a par of 81.

Par really doesn't mean much, although it seems to be important to the USGA.

Oakmont could well be considered a par 72 or 73. Who cares?

[JESII]

Considering they were plunking it on #4 in two all week, and #17 in one I would say the USGA would have every right to call it a par 68 and the winning score looks like a turn of the last century 13 over par.

I say roast the USGA for not having the balls to play a US Open on a course with less than par 70...

[Jim Nugent]

Sully -- #4, the world's first 609 yard par 4.  

[JESII]

Now we're talking'...

330 yard drives and 270 yard 2-irons...easy game!