Do the USGA and R&A

[Patrick_Mucci]

have an obligation to protect par for the Opens ?

Were the R&A right when they abandoned Prestwick ?

How else do you present a thorough examination of the golfer's game ?

How else do you prepare an examination intended to produce a deserving champion if you don't make it difficult for him to break par ?

[Michael Felton]

No I don't think so. I think it's okay for winning scores to be below par. I think the US Open has its place where par is concerned, but I'm happy that the R&A don't necessarily aim for that.

That said, the course should be long enough to present enough of a challenge to all parts of a player's game. So yes, I think so.

I think of par as just a number. US Opens (and others these days) have holes that are normally par 5s, but are played as par 4s. The only real difference is the number on the scorecard. If you think about it, that's the easiest way to protect par.

The R&A have to be cognizant of the vagaries of the weather. If they set up the course so par would be a good score even when it's benign and the wind blows, then scores are going to be very high and you end up with Carnoustie in 1998. If you set it up so that par is a good score if it's windy and it ends up being benign, then you get low scores and you have Hoylake in 2006. I think that Hoylake in 2006, even though it ended up being easy relative to its par, resulted in a better test of the players' skills than did Carnoustie in 1998 (possible exception of Tiger's driver, but that was a choice that he made rather than the course's issue). Not harder, but better. I think any time a course requires players to hit all the shots it does a good job of producing a deserving champion.

[Jud_T]

Change Par to 68.  Voila- problem solved, manhood intact...

[Garland Bayley]

have an obligation to protect par for the Opens ?

Heck NO! There should be no par.

Were the R&A right when they abandoned Prestwick ?

How else do you present a thorough examination of the golfer's game ?

By having a variety of lengths, widths, heights. My suggestion in the past has been round 1 French Lick Dye. Round 2 French Lick Ross, Round 3 Front 9 French Lick Ross, back 9 French Lick Dye. Round 4 Front 9 French Lick Dye, back 9 French Lick Ross.

How else do you prepare an examination intended to produce a deserving champion if you don't make it difficult for him to break par ?

Par has no relevance. The rules of medal play golf have always been the winner is the one who shoots the lowest score.
Of course, if you were to get rid of medal play, then holes could be varied even further, and make golf interesting again.

[Nigel Islam]

The USGA coined the term "par" in 1911 to indicate a round of perfect play. For what that is worth.

[Bill_McBride]

The USGA protects par at the US Ope, the R&A doesn't seem to care, which is great.   Let the chips fall where they may.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The USGA protects par at the US Ope, the R&A doesn't seem to care, which is great.   

Bill,

How did you draw that conclusion ?
The R&A added back tees and narrowed fairways for the Opens, same as the USGA.

[Nigel Islam]

I think both the R & A and PGA try to protect par to a degree, but I would think it is fairly evident the USGA takes it a step further. If they would just accept 272 as a winning score then we would have seen fewer 2003 or 1998 debacles. Olympia is forever shunned because it gave up double digits. Congressional probably is too. That is where I think the USGA could be a little less rigid. I think they have moved in that direction, but not very many steps.

[Matthew Mollica]

Is there a difference between "protecting par" and lengthening a course?

[Tom_Doak]

My answer would be that they obviously think they should protect par, but a close reading of their bylaws indicates no such obligation.

Their executives have taken it upon themselves to meddle with tournament set-ups.

[Chris DeToro]

I'm not sure that they have to protect par per se, but I do think that their goal is to present an entertaining golf event.  For the US Open to carve it's niche, it seems the path they have decided is to present the most difficult course setup possible

[Bill_McBride]

The USGA protects par at the US Ope, the R&A doesn't seem to care, which is great.   

Bill,

How did you draw that conclusion ?
The R&A added back tees and narrowed fairways for the Opens, same as the USGA.

I agree about the lengthened tees on the Open Campionship courses, that's routine these days, but I have never seen claustrophobic fairways there the way you see on US Open courses.  It's difficult to compare a Winged Foot layout with say a Hoylake layout.  I feel the USGA gets artificial where the R&A lets the courses defend themselves with their usual defenses. 

I'm sure you'll point out that I'm completely wrong.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Their executives have taken it upon themselves to meddle with tournament set-ups.

And an arrogant bit of meddling it is.
They don't seem to realize that they get to meddle because the offer a big name tournament, not because they are any good at meddling.

[Jim Nugent]

Since 1960, winning score at the British Open has been over par only 4 times.  (Twice at Carnoustie.)  A number of times the winner has finished double digits under par.  Some of the other competitors has as well. 

So if the R&A is trying to protect par, they don't usually succeed. 

I don't think that should be their goal anyway.  Take 1977 at Turnberry.  Watson shot 267 to win.  13 under par.  A failure, if par is the goal.  But the tournament was thrilling, with spectacular golf, that required the absolute best from the two best players of the day.  That seems to me a successful tournament.

The actual scoring evidence proves to me the R&A does NOT care much about protecting par.  The USGA is probably another matter though.     

[Chris Kane]

Were the R&A right when they abandoned Prestwick ?

Regardless of the winning score against par, do you think Prestwick is a suitable facility for hosting a modern major championship?

[Sean_A]

Were the R&A right when they abandoned Prestwick ?

Regardless of the winning score against par, do you think Prestwick is a suitable facility for hosting a modern major championship?

I don't really know.  If we take TOC as an example, then yes, Prestwick is just fine, but TOC is of course a sacred cow in this matter.  The obvious logistically problems aside, do you think Prestwick would be an entertaining venue?

I think the R&A make attempts to keep the concept of par not a joke where the Open is concerned - TOC is quite plainly the poster boy.  They are sometimes successful in this endeavour and sometimes when par is nowhere to be seen we have extraordinary circumstances such as at Turnberry in 77 and Hoylake in 06.  Still, in the 90s there was an awful lot of shooting the lights out at the Open, but the funny thing is, that is not what I remember from those events.  It just seems as if the reporting of the Open doesn't centre around par nearly as much as the US Open.  They are really different animals and always have been.  IMO, the Open is generally far more entertaining because birdies can be had.  The one major set back was Carnasty in 99, but that meltdown was immensely entertaining - one of the most entertaining Opens since 77.

Ciao

[Martin Toal]

In the recent past, say the 80s and 90s, many US Opens were dull slogging matches because the course set up had narrow fairways, hideous rough and fast greens. Players hit 2 irons off the tee, had to hack out sideways from rough if they missed etc etc.

Dull, dull, dull.

And there was all that nonsense about no player having ever got to -10. Who. Cares.

Recent US Opens have been a lot better.

The Open was always a bit different, probably partly because of the unpredictable effect of the weather, but also because the R&A knew that the examination paper should be set to identify the best golfer and that sometimes meant low scores.

[Ally Mcintosh]

They abandoned Prestwick because of safety and spectator control.

[Niall C]

My answer would be that they obviously think they should protect par, but a close reading of their bylaws indicates no such obligation.

Their executives have taken it upon themselves to meddle with tournament set-ups.

Tom

Surely they actually set the standard rather than meddle ? I'm not convinced that actual numbers come into it, particularly with the R&A since the Open is played over links and therefore any score is much more susceptible to the prevailing weather conditions at the time, but I'm sure that both organisations want to set a test that is befitting of the caliber of players playing in the comp. I suspect that a shorter, softer wider open course will only prove who the best putter is.

Toughening up the course in some form doesn't seem to me to be an unwarranted thing to do but the question is how do they do that ? Adding length is obviously one option as is thicker rough and narrower fairways however maybe not the most inspiring or imaginative way of doing it.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

I think there's a false framework involved here, both in terms of what the R&A and the USGA do and in terms of how we discuss those actions.

For professional golfers, there are well over a hundred tournaments a year on the PGA, European, Asian tours etc. Every single one of those tournaments is held on courses that have already been modernized and updated (whether they are new courses or older courses that have been lengthened and renovated over time).  

In other words, the Open or the US Open could -- as two tournaments amongst a hundred every year -- be played on any of those courses, just as they are presented week-in and week-out, with minimal additional preparations/changes. The reason this isn't the case is that the R&A and the USGA believe, rightly I suppose, that the US Open and the Open are not regular tournaments, ie that they are special and unique.

Okay, let's grant that - these two championships/majors are special and unique. The question is, why does it seem that the R&A and  (especially) the USGA have over the last several decades only been able to think of this specialness-uniqueness in terms of toughness?

Why the lack of imagination and insight and nuance? Is being harder (i.e. protecting par) the only form of specialness and uniqueness that the governing bodies can think of or imagine?  

For courses that have been around for nearly and sometimes more than a hundred years, is being a tough test for the pros the only measuring stick of their greatness, specialness and uniqueness?

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is there a difference between "protecting par" and lengthening a course?

NO

[Patrick_Mucci]

The USGA protects par at the US Ope, the R&A doesn't seem to care, which is great.   

Bill,

How did you draw that conclusion ?
The R&A added back tees and narrowed fairways for the Opens, same as the USGA.

I agree about the lengthened tees on the Open Campionship courses, that's routine these days, but I have never seen claustrophobic fairways there the way you see on US Open courses.  It's difficult to compare a Winged Foot layout with say a Hoylake layout.  I feel the USGA gets artificial where the R&A lets the courses defend themselves with their usual defenses. 

I'm sure you'll point out that I'm completely wrong.

Bill,

No need to point out the obvious.

If you've been watching the Opens then you know that they narrowed the fairways.

As to the degree, I think you have to consider the disparity in the weather patterns that affect the different venues.

[Tom_Doak]

My answer would be that they obviously think they should protect par, but a close reading of their bylaws indicates no such obligation.

Their executives have taken it upon themselves to meddle with tournament set-ups.

Tom

Surely they actually set the standard rather than meddle ? I'm not convinced that actual numbers come into it, particularly with the R&A since the Open is played over links and therefore any score is much more susceptible to the prevailing weather conditions at the time, but I'm sure that both organisations want to set a test that is befitting of the caliber of players playing in the comp. I suspect that a shorter, softer wider open course will only prove who the best putter is.

Niall:

You were right to correct me.  It's the governing bodies' role to set up the course for a championship.  I meant to say that I didn't think they should meddle with the design of the course in the process.

Your theory that s shorter open course would only prove who the best putter is, is only a theory, because it's been so many years since they left a course alone.  Is that why John Daly won at St. Andrews in 1995, or Faldo before him?  I don't think so.  They "prove" that they need to do work to these courses by never letting anyone see what would happen if they didn't.

[AKikuchi]

Is there a difference between "protecting par" and lengthening a course?

NO

Isn’t redesignating a par 5 as a par 4 a simple counterexample?

I’m not sure whether asking a question of Mr. Mucci is an auspicious choice for my first post, but I suspect it may be…

-Alan

[Michael Felton]

Is there a difference between "protecting par" and lengthening a course?

NO

Isn’t redesignating a par 5 as a par 4 a simple counterexample?

I’m not sure whether asking a question of Mr. Mucci is an auspicious choice for my first post, but I suspect it may be…

-Alan

Welcome to the site Alan. Given that holes are often shortened to make them par 4s, I would be inclined to agree.