Can a hole be really good if it has the wrong par on the scorecard?

[Wade Whitehead]

All of this has an effect on play of the hole, yes, but also impacts subsequent play.

If a player walks off a "par four" with a six he's much more likely to be hanging his head and, I think, to hit poor shots on the next (trying to make up lost shots).

If he's just bogeyed a "par fve" instead, he's less likely to do so.  It's just easier to swallow.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of raising par.  I'm just saying.

WW

[Mac Plumart]

Lots of tremendous food for thought on this thread.  Great stuff guys!

[Dan King]

It's a bit bothersome to me that so many people in this group still believe a good golf hole has an optimal way to be played. The job of the golfer is to play as close to that optimal line as possible and the difference between great holes and non-great holes is the quality of the obstruction put in the way of those that deviate from the optimal line.

IMHO, a great golf hole will have countless ways to be played. It will be a worthy hole for the tiger and the rabbit. A great hole wouldn't have any realistic par because it is a hole that welcomes the slicer who hits a maximum of 180 yards and the golfer who can hit a power fade 340 yards. You can stretch the crap out of the course so that there will be really far back tees but that is expensive and hurts the routing of the course. Better just to eliminate par and let both the rabbit and the tiger make the lowest score they can make.

Either that or have a more realistic number. Change the GHIN to input hole scores and have an average stroke taken number. It will give golfers a realistic idea how they are doing against the average rather than some mystical Colonel Bogey.

Cheers,
Dan King

But I winna' speak o' gowf, oh no. I can only tell ye about my teacher, for 'twas he ha showed me the way. 'Twas he taught me a' the graces o' the geeme, to hold my temper when retreatin' from par or bogey, to use the inner eye to make the game a very prayer.
 --Evan Tyree (Golf in the Kingdom)

[Mac Plumart]

Dan...

I agree with your post and its comments.  But where on this thread do you get the feeling that many on this site feel a hole has an optimal way of being played?  (FYI, I am not trying to be confrontational or challenging you...I just didn't see it or read the comments and get the same thing you got out of it)

[Ulrich Mayring]

Ok folks, you're in for a shock now, but I can't spare you: in "Stableford Countries" the par makes a ton of a difference for playing strategy.

Yes, we are playing Stableford here in Germany at the club level - it's our golf tradition, just like in England they're playing foursomes. I'm not saying I like it, but it is the reality. And that means a typical Handicap 15 player would have a target score of bogey on any hole, as that would net him two stableford points. So par 5 vs. par 4 makes a world of a difference: you give or take an entire shot on that hole.

Very often I have seen players standing 200 yards out from the green and say: "I'll have to attack now, not enough shots left for laying up. I don't care whether I make a 7 or a 10 on that hole, because both mean the same: zero Stableford points. So, I need to make 6 or else."

Ulrich

[Scott Warren]

Ulrich,

We play a lot of stableford here as well.

If a hole is 440m and a par 4, almost everyone will get a shot. If the same hole is a par 5, its likely to be rated so low that very few people get a shot.

Either way, most players need to make a 5 to get their 2 points.

[Sean_A]

Ok folks, you're in for a shock now, but I can't spare you: in "Stableford Countries" the par makes a ton of a difference for playing strategy.

Yes, we are playing Stableford here in Germany at the club level - it's our golf tradition, just like in England they're playing foursomes. I'm not saying I like it, but it is the reality. And that means a typical Handicap 15 player would have a target score of bogey on any hole, as that would net him two stableford points. So par 5 vs. par 4 makes a world of a difference: you give or take an entire shot on that hole.

Very often I have seen players standing 200 yards out from the green and say: "I'll have to attack now, not enough shots left for laying up. I don't care whether I make a 7 or a 10 on that hole, because both mean the same: zero Stableford points. So, I need to make 6 or else."

Ulrich

Ulrich

In Stableford "par" is par plus handicap.  So in effect par isn't the goal - Stableford two points is the goal.  Essentially, Stableford works as a bogey score with the added benefit of being to pick up.  Its a great game for large groups.

Pietro

Its not par which causes any great alarm in golfers, its the reaction to the concept of par.  That is a huge difference because "par" doesn't actually have any architectural effect.  The reaction to par is borne out of expectations and the more honest most golfers are about their ability the less par matters.

Ciao

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Its not par which causes any great alarm in golfers, its the reaction to the concept of par.

Well put, Sean.

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course it's well put, Mac - it comes from Sean Arble. He always puts things well. It's starting to bug me, actually.  Or should I say, the "concept" of Sean always being right is starting to bug me!
 

 

[Mac Plumart]

Of course it's well put, Mac - it comes from Sean Arble. He always puts things well. It's starting to bug me, actually.  Or should I say, the "concept" of Sean always being right is starting to bug me!
 

 

I agree Peter.  But I always just fall back on a phrase that continues to get me through life, "Don't fight it.  You'll just make it worse."   

[Tom MacWood]

IMO par is irrelevant. The 16th at CPC is a very difficult par 3 with par-4 concepts. Over the years the 17th St. Andrews has fluctuated between being a hard par-4 and tempting par-5. The 13th at ANGC has always been a tempting par-4.5/par-5, but I don't think it would less fascinating if they made it a par-4 tomorrow.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sorry, but whether you get two stableford points for par or (par + 1) or (par +2) is a function of your handicap. In all cases the par is a determining factor for your strategy. If you play for two stableford points, that is. It's the same situation as in match play, when you know you probably can't pull the shot off, but have to try, otherwise your opponent wins the hole. It's "do or die", only that in stableford competitions you have this do or die situation much more frequently.

There is no "-1" in stableford scoring and in match play it doesn't matter by how many strokes you lose the hole.

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Sorry, but whether you get two stableford points for par or (par + 1) or (par +2) is a function of your handicap. In all cases the par is a determining factor for your strategy. If you play for two stableford points, that is. It's the same situation as in match play, when you know you probably can't pull the shot off, but have to try, otherwise your opponent wins the hole. It's "do or die", only that in stableford competitions you have this do or die situation much more frequently.

There is no "-1" in stableford scoring and in match play it doesn't matter by how many strokes you lose the hole.

Ulrich

Ulrich

I don't know what you call Stableford, but it happens all the time where someone can choose the safe route, take bogey and collect 2 points because his par is par +1 (essentially ignoring par and playing for points).  Additionally, when in trouble I see it all the time where guys play safe and accept the 1 point.  Your line of reasoning is much less the case unless one plays with really bad golfers, guys without a clue of course management or guys just having a bad day. 

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Ulrich,

The fact remains that regards of the par assigned to it, most people will have five shots to make two points on a 440m hole because as a par four it will rate most difficult or second most difficult, while as a par five it's likely to be the easiest or next to easiest hole on the course, so anyone handicapped from 1 or 2 to 17 or 18 is going for 5/2.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Scott, I don't agree with your assessment, perhaps the raters in Australia do things differently than around here. But our par 5s never rate as the easiest holes, when short they come in the 10-14 range. Usually they're around the 6-8 mark and the long par 4 would be 1-2. It's always the par 3s (unless exceptionally long) and short par 4s that monopolize the stroke indexes upwards of 14. So essentially the number of players for whom it makes no difference whether a hole is a par 4 or a par 5 is small.

@Sean:
Whether you are aiming for two points or settle for one doesn't make a difference. At a certain point you will be in the situation where you have to take an exceptional risk in order to make your target score - be it 1 or 2 points.

Ulrich

[Jud_T]

Just once I'd like to play 18 holes in a foursome where everyone is just having a blast and no one has any idea what their medal (or stableford) score is...

[Sean_A]

Ulrich

Sure at some point the player is forced to make a decision because of what should have been poor execution of the right shot to play, but that isn't or shouldn't be the norm if a guy is using his shots as he should in Stableford and ignoring par.  The choice of risk (and its consequences) in and of itself is entirely of the golfer's making and has nothing to do with par.  It has everything to do with ambition and correctly assessing one's level of ability.  I suggest that curbing ambition and honesty about skill level will lead to far less do or die choices and that is precisely why handicapping exists.  Swashbuckling play by 18 cappers has failure written all over it and a very minimal success rate for medium to high single figure players.  

Jud

I just did this last week at Yelverton. Although, driving home I did try and figure out how well I played against my handicap.  Usually this sort of analysis doesn't work (too many times picking up) and I end up figuring out if I played a good matchplay game.

Ciao  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Jones,

What determines a hole having the wrong par ?

[Paul Jones]

Paul Jones,

What determines a hole having the wrong par ?

Pat, I wish I knew the definitive answer.  There is no written rule on what Par is or is not.  That is why these discussions come up.

Paul

[David Harshbarger]

As a high handicapper I have many a round where precious few holes come in par or better. So, I'm trying an experiment this year by coming up with my personal par-bogey card.  So, for instance, the 540yd 9th is a 6-7 on my card, and the 210yd Par 3 17 is a 4-5. 

In effect I've given myself permission to play to my own expectations.  If I were to play to my par, I would play the Par 70 course in 79, which would be my best round ever by miles.  97 then becomes my threshold for a bogey round. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean, your analysis is entirely correct, that is exactly what should happen. My point is just that it doesn't happen that way, at least around here the norm seems to be different. And really, I don't see why I should blame people wanting to play in a certain way. One question in this thread was whether a hole's par influences the playing strategies and I say yes it does for many people. It shouldn't be an issue for most folks on this board, but across the general golfing population I believe it is.

But another question: suppose everyone was enlightened enough to not care about par and just play his game - then why have par values at all? What is the function that we are prepared to attribute to par? It must be something outside the actual playing of golf, because we already said that it should not influence the way people play a hole.

Ulrich

[Carl Johnson]

My vote: Par on the scorecard is just about the most irrelevant thing thing in golf.  No, it is the most irrelevant thing.

[Jason Walker]

I agree with Pat Mucci here.  What exactly is the 'wrong' par for a hole, and what in the world does it have to do with a hole being really good?
The original question is flawed in this context.  In the initial post, would every 'reachable' par five be wrong (or reachable par 4, or long par 3), because the assumption is the 490 yard hole is reachable and that makes the par 'wrong'? 

Now that being said, par definitely impacts play.  Consider a shortish (485y) par 5 on the 17 hole of a golf course where most proficient golfers can reasonably expect to have a crack at the green in two, albeit with some bunkers and tree issues.    If it's a tourney situation and someone is one back of the lead, a decision will have be made as to the best route at attaining a birdie given these circumstances, especially since the 18th yields few.  Also consider that this 17th green is diabolical and narrow so a short-side miss will result in a near-impossible up and down, making par or worse likely.  So even though this hole is pancake flat, golfers will play this hole a variety of ways.  In tournaments it will be an attack relative to their position in the field, and to the average golfer it's one of those holes where you play each shot for the hole itself, i.e. most folks play it as a  three shot hole.   It's a great concept.

[Scott Warren]

Jason,

Is that scenario not exactly the same if the hole is labelled a par four?

The golfer is still going to be trying like hell to make a 4 and he will still have to decide if that is best achieved by getting to the green in two shots or by laying up and pitching close enough to one-putt.

[mike_beene]

isn't par really just the way tv executives have decided is the most interesting way to keep viewer attention.To say Watson is at 54 and Jones at 70 doesn't compute when they are on different holes.