Why "Defending Par" is Backwards

[JNC Lyon]

I've been doing some thinking about this topic over the past couple of weeks.  Sometime during the last two playoff events, I had an epiphany: the whole notion of "defending par" and "testing the world's best" is completely backwards.  It is not backwards just because it costs extra money and makes courses less enjoyable for everyone, although all of that is true.  Rather, it is backwards from the standpoint of popular professional sports.  The NFL does not relax the rules on defenses to make the sport a "tough test" and "keep scores under control."  In fact, football has changed its rules to free up the passing game, leading to shootouts and high scoring.  The NFL is more popular than ever, and fans love to see teams throw the football.  Greatness, style, and fireworks are popular in other sports too, be it the slam dunk in basketball or the home run in baseball.

If all of this be the case, then why, why, WHY do golf courses and the powers that be insist on defending par for the best players in the world?  Shouldn't courses be set up to inspire greatness in the world's best.  Shouldn't great golfers be challenged to think, yet still be able to throw up a 62 now and then?  Personally, I'd rather see Rory, Tiger and Louie shoot 63 rather than 73.  What say you?

[Phil McDade]

Where do you get the impression the PGA Tour is defending par?

Rory was -20 last week; Sergio was -18 two weeks before that. Rory won the PGA at -13; some guy named Ted Potter won a PGA tournament this year at -16. You have to look hard to find a winner on Tour with a total less than double-digits under par.

[JNC Lyon]

Phil,

My point is the last few weeks, a deviation from the norm in "premier" tournaments, has been refreshing.  Why isn't this the rule rather than the exception.  Why are these low scores viewed as somehow silly?  Your comment that "some guy Ted Potter won a PGA tournament this year at -16" seems to imply that if someone you've never heard of (there are a ton of great players out there that most golf fans have never heard of, by the way) wins a tournament with a low score, the tournament, course, and game being played are somehow "less than."  Why?

[Matt Kardash]

Honestly, when courses play really easy and a golfer is losing ground to the field by shooting a 68 because the leaders are shooting 63 I find it to be really boring. Watching golfers hit fairwarys and then stuffing their approach is honestly a snoozefest for me. When the scores are really low I actually usually stop watching and go do something else. I like watching the pros sweat a little and make interesting recovery shots.

[Jud_T]

Phil,

My point is the last few weeks, a deviation from the norm in "premier" tournaments, has been refreshing.  Why isn't this the rule rather than the exception.  Why are these low scores viewed as somehow silly?  Your comment that "some guy Ted Potter won a PGA tournament this year at -16" seems to imply that if someone you've never heard of (there are a ton of great players out there that most golf fans have never heard of, by the way) wins a tournament with a low score, the tournament, course, and game being played are somehow "less than."  Why?

Because it turns into a contest of darts and putting not golf

[Patrick_Mucci]

JNC, that's because technology hasn't rendered the field of play obsolete, as it has in golf.

And, the NFL did change the field of play.

They moved the goal posts from the zero yard line to the back of the end zone.

They also moved the hash marks toward the center of the field.

Changed the kickoff line,

And they've altered the rules considerably over the last 60 years.

[Jason Thurman]

In football, offense sells. The league has relaxed rules in the last decade to really emphasize the passing game and make scoring easier. The most exciting football games are almost always shootouts. The NBA has also gotten rid of hand-checking, installed the "restricted area," and turned the 10 second rule down to 8. All this has opened or sped the game up and given the offense a certain advantage.

Golf doesn't really get more exciting to watch as it gets easier, as others have mentioned. An occasional shootout is fun, as is the occasional brutal test. But most of the time, there's a certain ideal range of scoring between -8 and -16 that creates a fair amount of entertainment with moves up and down the leaderboard.

If we get to a point where birdies and eagles are easy, they'll no longer be exciting. A certain amount of balance is necessary.

[Tom_Doak]

If we get to a point where birdies and eagles are easy, they'll no longer be exciting. A certain amount of balance is necessary.

Augusta was more exciting when there were more chances at eagle, or so it seemed to me.

Part of the reason the scoring is different on Tour to a major is that for the majors they've often turned a par-72 course into par-70 ... that is the difference between -8 and -16.  But, because of limited acreage at older courses, battling the problem that way means that the pros seldom face a long approach shot at all.  I think it's more exciting to see them go for a green with a long club and make eagle some of the time, as long as they will make bogeys when they screw up the hole.

[BCrosby]

" I think it's more exciting to see them go for a green with a long club and make eagle some of the time, as long as they will make bogeys when they screw up the hole."

What Tom D says.

I'd put it a little differently. What makes a course exciting is its ability to create scoring spreads. Lots of eagles, lots of double bogies. Less so now, but at one time that defined what made The Masters the most exciting major every year. Augusta National is special in that regard. More so these days for average golfers than the pros, perhaps. But it's still a very special course for those reasons.

Bob  

[Terry Lavin]

Game, set, match to Mucci.

[Matt Kardash]

" I think it's more exciting to see them go for a green with a long club and make eagle some of the time, as long as they will make bogeys when they screw up the hole."

What Tom D says.

I'd put it a little differently. What makes a course exciting is its ability to create scoring spreads. Lots of eagles, lots of double bogies. Less so now, but at one time that defined what made The Masters the most exciting major every year. Augusta National is special in that regard. More so these days for average golfers than the pros, perhaps. But it's still a very special course for those reasons.

Bob  

I think this is why Pete Dye has perfected tournament play course design. He has a lot of holes whereby you could play it well and make a birdie, but bogey or double is always an option. He also usually throws in a few "gimmie" holes to balance off the handfull of brutal holes.

[Terry Lavin]

Matt,

That's exactly what a Tour setup guy is looking for: a goodly handful of holes where a player thinks he could make bogey or double if he's not careful.

[Phil McDade]

There is an odd mythology growing around the alleged increased "difficulty" of Augusta National for the Masters, perhaps as a lingering result of: a) the changes made in the mid-2000s, that immediately afterwards led to some low-scoring tournaments; and b) Tiger not being the player he once was, when he won 4 Masters with a score never anything worse than -12.

In the last four years, the winning score at the Masters has averaged -13; only once in the history of the tournament (well, twice: the '94-97 period, and the '95-98 period, the point being both of those included Tiger's record -18 in '97) has that been bettered, and only once equaled, in the period between 1975 and 1978, when the four winners were Nicklaus, Floyd, Watson and Player, only four of the six or seven best players of their generation.

Much of people's view of low scoring at the Masters, I'm convinced, is associated with the period from around 1990 (Faldo at -10) though Tiger's 1997 win, when the winning score was in double digits all but one year (Olazabal, '94, -9) and -- more importantly -- Augusta still played at under 7,000 yards despite exponential betterment in club and ball technology (of the sort that allowed Tiger to hit 9-irons into par 5s in '97).

I'm of the view the folks who run Augusta have the balance pretty well figure out; last year saw 29 eagles in the tournament, not that far off the all-time record of 37 set in 1991.

[Ronald Montesano]

Lavin, do you ever take the judge robes off? JNC is not completely wrong, so I'll deny your decree of "game, set, match to Mucci"; heck, you don't even know which game you're playing when you invoke tennis terminology.

To quote the percussionist and author Neil Peart, "We will call you Cygnus, the god of Balance you shall be." For me, it's all about a little of this, a little of that. Some weeks, I hope to see darts; others, I enjoy seeing a battle well waged with a well-protected course. No other sport brings a non-human opponent like golf does. I'll admit that I'm not well-versed in surfing and its many offspring (kite boarding, et al) so I cannot speak to the influence of the ocean. With golf, it's wind and light and earth that challenge the golfer. Nature gives and golfer takes, and vice-versa.

[Tom_Doak]

I'd put it a little differently. What makes a course exciting is its ability to create scoring spreads. Lots of eagles, lots of double bogies. Less so now, but at one time that defined what made The Masters the most exciting major every year. Augusta National is special in that regard. More so these days for average golfers than the pros, perhaps. But it's still a very special course for those reasons.

Bob:

When I was working for Pete Dye on the plans for the Stadium Course at PGA West, these were exactly the kind of holes that he favored.  After thinking about it for a few days, I asked if he was looking for holes where a three-shot swing was possible, and he said yes, that was exactly what he meant. 

[Pat Burke]

Did technology force the changes to football?  Moved the goal posts, moved the kick offs back  etc.

Not picking BTW.  There are many changes that have created the current distances.  Bigger guys, better training, longer/lighter clubs and shafts, perfectly fit drivers and ball combinations, lower fairway heights etc.  In No particular order.

I do not hit the current balls as far with my year 2000 drivers, as with today's.  I do hit my 2001 Nike Tour Accuracy balls pretty damn close to my current ProV1 (which surprised me).  With my (persimmon) woods, even center hits, about 15 yards shorter.  I still play blades,
 but my new Wilson Staffs are almost a club stronger in loft, and nearly 3/4 inch longer  than my MacGregors I played in high school.

I can run under tables barely having to duck, but rarely felt terribly short in the 90's when I played.  There were a lot of us smurfs.
Big guys are not rare now.  Of course, Rory and Louie aren't exactly huge either.

I am not against an across the board roll back.  I am against bifurcation.  If I had a vote, I likely would vote against a roll back,
as I believe it would further shrink the numbers in the game.  No proof of that, just my belief.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Pete's comment is interesting.

The trick with creating scoring spreads (or swings) is making the under par choice realistic. It needs to be a choice that actually tempts players. Otherwise what you get is just another hard hole.

Striking that balance is hard to do. But it's how good golf architects earn their keep.

Bob

[Phil McDade]

Tom -

Pete's comment is interesting.

The trick with creating scoring spreads (or swings) is making the under par choice realistic. It needs to be a choice that actually tempts players. Otherwise what you get is just another hard hole.

Striking that balance is hard to do. But it's how good golf architects earn their keep.

Bob

Hasn't lengthening and tightening fairways (two attributes usually frowned upon here) done just that at Augusta National?

[JNC Lyon]

Lavin, do you ever take the judge robes off? JNC is not completely wrong, so I'll deny your decree of "game, set, match to Mucci"; heck, you don't even know which game you're playing when you invoke tennis terminology.

To quote the percussionist and author Neil Peart, "We will call you Cygnus, the god of Balance you shall be." For me, it's all about a little of this, a little of that. Some weeks, I hope to see darts; others, I enjoy seeing a battle well waged with a well-protected course. No other sport brings a non-human opponent like golf does. I'll admit that I'm not well-versed in surfing and its many offspring (kite boarding, et al) so I cannot speak to the influence of the ocean. With golf, it's wind and light and earth that challenge the golfer. Nature gives and golfer takes, and vice-versa.

Stan the Man,

I didn't even know I was involved in a metaphorical tennis match with Mr. Mucci.  In fact, I agree with everything Pat said regarding NFL rules, and I don't think his post said anything that contradicted my opening salvo.  My bigger point is that scoring is seen as exciting in other sports, so why is it not exciting in golf.  Are folks arguing that it's more exciting to see players struggle for a 73 than it is to see players shoot 59?  Would the 77 British Open or the 86 Masters have been more exciting if Nicklaus and co. were grinding out pars?

[Tom_Doak]

I didn't even know I was involved in a metaphorical tennis match with Mr. Mucci.  In fact, I agree with everything Pat said regarding NFL rules, and I don't think his post said anything that contradicted my opening salvo.  My bigger point is that scoring is seen as exciting in other sports, so why is it not exciting in golf.  Are folks arguing that it's more exciting to see players struggle for a 73 than it is to see players shoot 59?  Would the 77 British Open or the 86 Masters have been more exciting if Nicklaus and co. were grinding out pars?

JNC:  It's a matter of degree.  If lots of NFL games had scores like 63-49, offense would seem a little bit too easy, wouldn't it?  I don't think golf authorities need to defend par as a standard unto itself, but tournaments where everybody is shooting 65 are not very compelling either.  Likewise, those high-scoring games in Coors Field were leaving baseball fans with headaches.

[Matthew Petersen]

I didn't even know I was involved in a metaphorical tennis match with Mr. Mucci.  In fact, I agree with everything Pat said regarding NFL rules, and I don't think his post said anything that contradicted my opening salvo.  My bigger point is that scoring is seen as exciting in other sports, so why is it not exciting in golf.  Are folks arguing that it's more exciting to see players struggle for a 73 than it is to see players shoot 59?  Would the 77 British Open or the 86 Masters have been more exciting if Nicklaus and co. were grinding out pars?

JNC:  It's a matter of degree.  If lots of NFL games had scores like 63-49, offense would seem a little bit too easy, wouldn't it?  I don't think golf authorities need to defend par as a standard unto itself, but tournaments where everybody is shooting 65 are not very compelling either.  Likewise, those high-scoring games in Coors Field were leaving baseball fans with headaches.

So true. You can't appreciate how silly it was in the 90s unless you were there, with your team enjoying an 8-run lead in the 8th inning, and you still had that nervous-in-0the-stomach feeling that elsewhere only comes in one -run games.

(Maybe the Rockies bullpen had something to do with that, too.)