[Bill Gayne]

I don't obsess with par but it's always nice to make birdie and win $2 from the field.

There's a theory with investing money that the pain of losing is greater than the satisfaction of gaining the same amount of money. For me the inverse is true in golf, I feel a lot more satisfied with a birdie than I'm disappointed with a bogey or a double bogey for that matter.

[JMEvensky]

For me the inverse is true in golf, I feel a lot more satisfied with a birdie than I'm disappointed with a bogey or a double bogey for that matter.

Pure speculation,but I'd guess that the better player one is,the bogey aggravation factor is higher than the birdie satisfaction.It probably has to with expectations.The better the player,the higher expectation of birdies.

[PThomas]

wouldnt be great if the pros played an event on a course set up with a lot of half par holes and there was no formal par stated for each hole?  scorekeeping would just be total strokes (for ex,"Woods is at 47 after 12 holes"...)

oh wait, that's something original so none of the tours would ever do it

[JMEvensky]

 scorekeeping would just be total strokes (for ex,"Woods is at 47 after 12 holes"...)

Doesn't ANGC get the blame/credit for this?

[PThomas]

 scorekeeping would just be total strokes (for ex,"Woods is at 47 after 12 holes"...)

Doesn't ANGC get the blame/credit for this?

think you are correct, a Clifford Roberts idea I believe

[George Pazin]

There are and have been many members of this site that do not play golf. Billy Casper and others who have won the U.S. Open have the ability to hit many shots.  The lay up on a par 3 is beyond the scope of the amateur golfer.

I know my game is weird, but I've laid up on par 3s more than a few times before. It happens most often if I'm faced with a large carry over water, where there is a bailout. I know I can make the carry, but I also know the more prudent play is to take my 7 iron and hit it into the bailout area and be satisfied with guaranteeing no worse than bogey.

Ironically, I'd be less likely to try this strategy on a great course like ANGC, where the greens mean I'd almost never be guaranteed a bogey if I laid up. Well, that and the old, "I didn't come here to lay up" thing.

[JESII]

It all comes down to whether or not you're trying to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible. One hole at a time is all that matters when it comes to the architecture because if you're not standing on the tee working on how YOU can best play that hole on that day then you're shortchanging the architect. Some days it means taking it over the tree on the corner for a 1 in 20 shot, and some days it's tying to hit the ball down the middle and to the fat part of the green. There's actually satisfaction in the efficient execution of that on certain days. If you can't hit the ball 150 yards you have more to think about and do, and the consequences of slightly missing your tee shot ideal line is less, but the focus, the goal is the key!

[Niall C]

Par is for people that want to keep score rather than play golf.  I don't feel sorry for any idiot that decides a shot choice based on the par of the hole and I would love to get these same fools around the poker table.  Folks, par is an easy way for excellent players to keep score - nothing more other than what dopes allow it to be.  In other words, if one is influenced by par they are taking the notion of suspending disbelief a tad too far.   What is bound to follow this suspension of disbelief is the idea that one competes against par.  I don't know if I have ever heard such nonsense from people that are meant to be smart.  

Ciao

Sean-Guys that decide on a shot choice in an effort to make the designated par on a hole are idiots and fools? Expound please. Thanks.

Tim

I have expounded on this many times.  Par is a number.  Why not just as easily pick 84 as the magic number?  One cannot compete against par.  One competes against one golfer or against a field.  In either case, par is irrelevant.  Sure, folks may find a way to make themselves feel good when scoring a 4 on a long two-shotter, but then many folks can feel the same way about making a 5 on the very same hole.  In some circumstances, one can even feel good about making 6 on the very same hole.  The idea is not to play to par, but the best score one can given each situation after the previous shot.  If someone is foolhearty enough to allow a number rather than their skills and what the course allows to dictate their play - then they are playing with half a brain. 

Ciao     

Sean

I fundamentally disagree with you on this one. Par is a benchmark that you measure yourself against. It might not be the only benchmark but its the main one for most people. It sets the challenge. If anything its more relevant when playing a bounce game than when playing a medal. In a medal you are more concerned about your total score and therefore you may back off a challenge in order not to compromise the round whereas in a bounce game its the score you are trying to beat.

Niall

[Tim Martin]

Par is for people that want to keep score rather than play golf.  I don't feel sorry for any idiot that decides a shot choice based on the par of the hole and I would love to get these same fools around the poker table.  Folks, par is an easy way for excellent players to keep score - nothing more other than what dopes allow it to be.  In other words, if one is influenced by par they are taking the notion of suspending disbelief a tad too far.   What is bound to follow this suspension of disbelief is the idea that one competes against par.  I don't know if I have ever heard such nonsense from people that are meant to be smart.  

Ciao

Sean-Guys that decide on a shot choice in an effort to make the designated par on a hole are idiots and fools? Expound please. Thanks.

Tim

I have expounded on this many times.  Par is a number.  Why not just as easily pick 84 as the magic number?  One cannot compete against par.  One competes against one golfer or against a field.  In either case, par is irrelevant.  Sure, folks may find a way to make themselves feel good when scoring a 4 on a long two-shotter, but then many folks can feel the same way about making a 5 on the very same hole.  In some circumstances, one can even feel good about making 6 on the very same hole.  The idea is not to play to par, but the best score one can given each situation after the previous shot.  If someone is foolhearty enough to allow a number rather than their skills and what the course allows to dictate their play - then they are playing with half a brain. 

Ciao     

Sean-What happened to competing against the golf course? Not everyone is playing against another player or the field. You assume too much when taking this point of view. It really is all about getting it in the hole in the fewest strokes possible and if nothing else par certainly is a benchmark.

[BCrosby]

As with economics, love and literature, what matters is what happens at the margin.

Par sets scoring expectations that affect the risks you are willing to take at the margin. That's why half par holes show the effects of par so clearly. Such holes tend to force those marginal decisions more often.

Whether a hole is nominated as a par 3 or a par 4, as in Shackelford's example, it affected the shot choices of the pros at the Aussie Masters last week. The par number seemed to affect the scoring expectations of the field. Which means - if a player wants to be competitive against that field - it affects how he approaches the hole as well.

A little bird tells me par affects the rest of us in similar ways.

I might have more sympathy with the "par is meaningless" crowd if par were an arbitrary number. But it's not. You don't see 185 yard par 5's for the simple reason that par is not concoted out of thin air. It is supposed to correspond to the expected score of a scratch player. That hypothetical scratch player is the 'field' for the everyday golfer like us.

You are a better man than I if you are able to ignore the expectations that creates.

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

Sean-What happened to competing against the golf course? Not everyone is playing against another player or the field.

I've heard that canard repeated since, I dunno, my first month of playing golf. Who the heck made that up anyway? You can't compete against a golf course, it's just a playing ground for whatever game (if any) you are actually engaged in. I'll buy that sometimes golfers are competing against their own past and future scores. In which case a second person as an opponent is not part of the game. But the course is not an opponent because it is passive.

When you go out and shoot a basketball by yourself, you are not competing against the rim. If you practice your baseball swing in a batting cage you're not competing against the machine that spits balls at you. Only golfers have the idea they they are "competing" when they go out and knock the ball around by themselves, write every stroke down on a scorecard and type it into a computer when they get back to the proshop. It's a nonsensical reduction of the term "compete" to a meaningless bit of pseudo-mysticism.

You assume too much when taking this point of view. It really is all about getting it in the hole in the fewest strokes possible and if nothing else par certainly is a benchmark.

Par is an OK benchmark for halfway decent players engaging in medal play or practicing for the same. It's flawed in that there are Par 72 courses which are, what, 8-10 shots harder for a six-handicapper than some other Par 72 courses? But it is useful for anyone who makes par or better on the majority of the holes on a typical day. For a 15-30 handicapper it's not a particularly useful benchmark. You don't really want an overall benchmark (Par 72) that you'll never even approach on the best day of your life but Par 4 for a given hole is a semi-reasonable benchmark for any player who can get the ball in the air and keep it in play a couple times in a row.

Still, a bogey golfer who typically shoots around 86-92 on his home course could probably size up a new course as being pretty similar to what he used to and figure "breaking 90" is a more useful benchmark than Par 72. And on a given hole that 420 yards uphill with bunkers in the front of the green and trees on both sides of the fairway, a short-hitting high handicapper would be better served by a benchmark of "try to make 5 or better" than by Par 4.

Benchmarks are optional altogether, of course. It's a perfectly normal way to enjoy the game to leave off the benchmarks and make ones goal to take a couple bucks from your usual four-ball group on Saturday morning. Benchmarks are only needed to monitor ones "progress" if engaged in the game as some sort of self-improvement ritual rather than a simple competitive pastime. Not all golfer view the game as a life-long set of pop quizzes and exams to measure out attainment of an ever-lower handicap index. Or do discover some sort of deep inner truth about ourselves mumbo-jumbo. It can also be just a game in which case Par has no more relevance to the golfer than the number of feet in length a particular basketball court happens to be when playing a pick-up game of 3-on-3.

[Brent Hutto]

You are a better man than I if you are able to ignore the expectations that creates

Now you've hit on the Real Meaning of Par. As friend Sean alludes to, the function of Par is to provide a mental trap into which weak minded golfers will frequently fall. And in my experience all of us are "weak minded" to one extent or another. Overcoming expectations is a central obstacle to making ones performance match ones physical capabilities. And as you say, the "better man" is the one who can do what gets the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes without regard for potential mind-jobs like Par.

It's not that different than the old "playing with a lead" difficulty that young, elite golfers talk about. By any rational reckoning, to be three shots ahead of the field going into the final round makes winning the tournament easier, not harder. Yet I don't think those dudes are lying when they say it's a mental minefield that has blown up many a promising round.  By any rational line of thinking, moving up the tees 20 yards on a 240-yard Par 4 and calling it a Par 3 makes the hole easier, not harder. Yet otherwise supremely skilled players find that it add an element of perceived difficulty just because at their level hitting the ball 20 yard farther is trivially easy but putting the expectation of "Par 3" out of their mind is tougher.

[jeffwarne]

You are a better man than I if you are able to ignore the expectations that creates

Now you've hit on the Real Meaning of Par. As friend Sean alludes to, the function of Par is to provide a mental trap into which weak minded golfers will frequently fall. And in my experience all of us are "weak minded" to one extent or another. Overcoming expectations is a central obstacle to making ones performance match ones physical capabilities. And as you say, the "better man" is the one who can do what gets the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes without regard for potential mind-jobs like Par.

It's not that different than the old "playing with a lead" difficulty that young, elite golfers talk about. By any rational reckoning, to be three shots ahead of the field going into the final round makes winning the tournament easier, not harder. Yet I don't think those dudes are lying when they say it's a mental minefield that has blown up many a promising round.  By any rational line of thinking, moving up the tees 20 yards on a 240-yard Par 4 and calling it a Par 3 makes the hole easier, not harder. Yet otherwise supremely skilled players find that it add an element of perceived difficulty just because at their level hitting the ball 20 yard farther is trivially easy but putting the expectation of "Par 3" out of their mind is tougher.

been saying that for years.
Moving the tees up 40 on a par 5 and calling it a 4 makes it easier, not harder.
until the first thing people ask is  "How many over were you?"
Which has NEVER happened.

It's --"What did you shoot"?
or "who won all the money?"

[Tim Martin]

Sean-What happened to competing against the golf course? Not everyone is playing against another player or the field.

I've heard that canard repeated since, I dunno, my first month of playing golf. Who the heck made that up anyway? You can't compete against a golf course, it's just a playing ground for whatever game (if any) you are actually engaged in. I'll buy that sometimes golfers are competing against their own past and future scores. In which case a second person as an opponent is not part of the game. But the course is not an opponent because it is passive.

When you go out and shoot a basketball by yourself, you are not competing against the rim. If you practice your baseball swing in a batting cage you're not competing against the machine that spits balls at you. Only golfers have the idea they they are "competing" when they go out and knock the ball around by themselves, write every stroke down on a scorecard and type it into a computer when they get back to the proshop. It's a nonsensical reduction of the term "compete" to a meaningless bit of pseudo-mysticism.

You assume too much when taking this point of view. It really is all about getting it in the hole in the fewest strokes possible and if nothing else par certainly is a benchmark.

Par is an OK benchmark for halfway decent players engaging in medal play or practicing for the same. It's flawed in that there are Par 72 courses which are, what, 8-10 shots harder for a six-handicapper than some other Par 72 courses? But it is useful for anyone who makes par or better on the majority of the holes on a typical day. For a 15-30 handicapper it's not a particularly useful benchmark. You don't really want an overall benchmark (Par 72) that you'll never even approach on the best day of your life but Par 4 for a given hole is a semi-reasonable benchmark for any player who can get the ball in the air and keep it in play a couple times in a row.

Still, a bogey golfer who typically shoots around 86-92 on his home course could probably size up a new course as being pretty similar to what he used to and figure "breaking 90" is a more useful benchmark than Par 72. And on a given hole that 420 yards uphill with bunkers in the front of the green and trees on both sides of the fairway, a short-hitting high handicapper would be better served by a benchmark of "try to make 5 or better" than by Par 4.

Benchmarks are optional altogether, of course. It's a perfectly normal way to enjoy the game to leave off the benchmarks and make ones goal to take a couple bucks from your usual four-ball group on Saturday morning. Benchmarks are only needed to monitor ones "progress" if engaged in the game as some sort of self-improvement ritual rather than a simple competitive pastime. Not all golfer view the game as a life-long set of pop quizzes and exams to measure out attainment of an ever-lower handicap index. Or do discover some sort of deep inner truth about ourselves mumbo-jumbo. It can also be just a game in which case Par has no more relevance to the golfer than the number of feet in length a particular basketball court happens to be when playing a pick-up game of 3-on-3.

Brent-It`s obvious that PAR represents a concept that you are not a fan of. Regardless of what a golfer`s ability or expectation might be that does not change the fact that the architect assigned a number of strokes on the scorecard that represents PAR. Again we go out with the idea of putting the ball in the hole in the fewest amount of stokes possible. At least I do. If that`s not a consideration for you so be it. Your analogies to the other sports that you mentioned have little bearing on the game of golf. I guess I should be careful with my terminology as maybe the word game is also a sticking point with you. Happy holidays.

[BCrosby]

Brent -

Trying my best not be be offended by being among those you call "weak-minded", I think, to the contrary, that the persistent shadow of par that hovers over all golfers is one of the game's greatest glories.

Bob 

[Brent Hutto]

Bob,

For what its worth I have no doubt that yours is the stronger "golf mind" between the two of us. But in recompense the game is much more interesting since we can't figure on going out and hitting nothing but our best shots for 18 holes. That would probably get boring after a while although I'd like to try it for, say, a year or two and find out.

[jeffwarne]

Brent -

Trying my best not be be offended by being among those you call "weak-minded", I think, to the contrary, that the persistent shadow of par that hovers over all golfers is one of the game's greatest glories.

Bob 

Bob,
That was actually me
Brent and I just give our shots back in other ways. (I think it's called LOFT disease)
Happy Holidays,
Jeff

[Lou_Duran]

As with economics, love and literature, what matters is what happens at the margin.

You've just blown past the vast majority.  Next you'll be warning of the strategic blunders resulting from using static analysis to evaluate pin positions, wind direction, and atmospheric and ground moisture levels.   And here I thought that it was just me that was stuck in the same old, tired thinkin'.

We might understand par better if we looked into the psychology of goal setting (one often suggested approach is to set objectives so they are very difficult, but not impossible to reach).  Par has meaning through time and provides structure, which, I suppose, is uncomfortable for those who subscribe to a lifestyle of spontaneity and reaction.  But, as a card and pencil type, what could I know?    

[Brent Hutto]

Tim,

For me golf is definitely a game. Not that I'm averse to knocking the ball around for a few holes when there's no game to be had but my whole reason for owning the equipment and belonging to a club is to make a game of it. Winners and losers, something (however trivial) at stake, all that jazz. Far more fun than a tennis match or sitting around a card table.

My only hangup with the word "game" is the use of it to describe non-competitive activities that happen to take place on a golf course. Those are great too but they're not "games" per se.

[BCrosby]

"We might understand par better if we looked into the psychology of goal setting (one often suggested approach is to set objectives so they are very difficult, but not impossible to reach).  Par has meaning through time and provides structure, which, I suppose, is uncomfortable for those who subscribe to a lifestyle of spontaneity and reaction.  But, as a card and pencil type, what could I know?"

Lou -

Par is a fascinating concept. As you suggest, it's actually pretty mysterious if you drill down into it. First, no other sport has anything similar. Second, what is the ontological status of par? In what realm(s) does it exist? And if your answer is that it doesn't really exist (as many on this thread insist) then why is it nonetheless so resilient? Why doesn't it just go away? Where is Ludwig Wittgenstein when we need him?

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Like memory and desire, Bob, inaccessible to the five senses yet contextualizing all our looking forward and looking back.  But perhaps we have an unusual number of saints on this board who live not in the past or future but in the ever-Now.  Who knew?

Peter

[Sean_A]

Bob - I am certainly not saying that par doesn't exist - merely that it is a concept which is only given meaning by golfers (its a choice - not in the least mandatory); there is no inherent value in shooting par as a golfer.  It doesn't win any prizes nor is it a perfect game - indeed, far from it.   

As Brent points out, the course is not a competitor.  One can neither best it nor lose to it.  Unfortunately (or not), folks fall for some of the lore of golf which is far from accurate.

Most of the time I play golf my goal is to win the match.  There is a subtle, but very real difference between this and trying to score as low as possible.  

I might buy the par is king argument if 95% of golfers were capable of shooting par on anything close to a consistent basis.  Since reality tells me it is more like 95% of golfers never have a chance of shooting par, I can't accept this as anything remotely close to an accurate measuring stick.  So yes, Brent is absolutely correct that par is for weak minded club golfers and totally irrelevant for the best golfers.  So what are we looking at here?  Par being truly meaningful (not some sort of "I hope to play to par, but will be lucky to break 80" attitude) for second tier amateurs.  Thats not a ringing endorsement to base one's game on if you ask me.  

I say weak minded (par only has as much effect on a player as that player allows) above and don't include myself among that group because I have no illusions about my game or why or I play.  From a card in the hand PoV, if I have any chance at all (assuming I have enough balls in the bag) I am gonna go for a shot.  My score rarely matters because I play golf as a game.  I am not gonna lose sleep over a missed putt or a lost match because I am a recreational handicap player (in others words, far too many folks who have no business talking golf seriously take it far too seriously!)  From a match PoV I will usually be more cautious because I believe keeping one's ball in play puts some sort of pressure on the other guy to perform.  There is nothing worse than a gift due to a rash decision.  In either case, par is not my driving force.

Ciao  

[John Kavanaugh]

95% of golfers can not shoot par for 18 holes but 95% can par any single hole.  George said above that he only plays great courses like they are great courses.  I find that really sad.  I don't go nowhere to lay up. I need par to assure myself that I ain't doing it.

[JESII]

What?

[Lou_Duran]

"We might understand par better if we looked into the psychology of goal setting (one often suggested approach is to set objectives so they are very difficult, but not impossible to reach).  Par has meaning through time and provides structure, which, I suppose, is uncomfortable for those who subscribe to a lifestyle of spontaneity and reaction.  But, as a card and pencil type, what could I know?"

Lou -

Par is a fascinating concept. As you suggest, it's actually pretty mysterious if you drill down into it. First, no other sport has anything similar. Second, what is the ontological status of par? In what realm(s) does it exist? And if your answer is that it doesn't really exist (as many on this thread insist) then why is it nonetheless so resilient? Why doesn't it just go away? Where is Ludwig Wittgenstein when we need him?

Bob

Wow, Bob, I can't remember the last time someone here had me scurrying to the dictionary (probably Huntley with one of his delightful Old English expressions).  "Ontological"?  My, my.  Largely a product of a small rural German-Catholic community and a very large land grant university, I hardly think in those terms.  Ludwig who?  Nah, I'm more simpatico with the Christine Lagardes of the world ("Enough thinking, already. Roll up your sleeves.”).

Par makes imperfect sense to me.  As a sport which enables direct competition among players of very different abilities- ok, not without considerable difficulties and grief- it is different than nearly all others (you ever watch 60 year-olds playing organized basketball?).  I used to play ping pong with my son left-handed, until switching to my dominant hand when I couldn't beat him any more.  I only quit playing with him when we weren't competitive any longer and he would start playing me left-handed.  In golf, he might play half-dozen times a year, so I give him a couple strokes depending on my handicap, and we have our match.

http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/bogey_par.htm

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()