What has the idea of "par" done for the game?

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
How do you think course ratings are determined?  How do you think handicaps are determined?  How do you think strokes from handicaps in a match are allocated to each player?  It all comes back to the individual holes and the “expected” score a player of a certain caliber would be expected to achieve on that particular hole!  If you don’t like calling that relative score par, call it something else.


As far as “evidence” of “par” for early scoring; when golf was first conceived, even before formal courses were developed, golfers had a good idea what a good score or an expected score was for each hole.  That number might have been 6 or 7 or 12,…   They knew and whatever they called that number it was essentially what we call par today.  Again, par is a just a relative term.  I have no idea why everyone is so hung up on it as a good or bad influence on the game.


To everyone else; I say hogwash to those who think “par” is limiting the innovation and creativity of architects!  I just played two of the greatest “par 3” holes in the world.  One is barely a flip wedge - #7 at Pebble Beach and the other can sometimes barely be reached with a full driver - #16 at Cypress Point.  They vary in length by nearly 150 yards but both are considered by the golfing world as “par threes”!  Talk about flexibility of design for golf architects!!! It doesn’t get any more varied than that.  Just think if you were designing playing fields for most other sports like tennis courts or bowling alleys or soccer fields or … the list goes on.  Architects can design holes that vary in look and strategy and length (by hundreds of yards) and still call them the same par.  I think many here are making a mountain out of a mole hill


Is there some “standardization” in golf as a result of “par", sure there is, but it pales compared to the playing fields for almost every other sport.  Par is just a relative number. 


Note:  Also, the Warren Course at Notre Dame designed by C&C originally didn’t have par designated for each hole.  It does now.  I wonder if they designed the holes any differently as a result?  I don’t think so  

[V. Kmetz]

Hi


Mark, the process of course rating/sloping is too exacting to go into here, with all sorts of plus/minuses (hole by hole that is) for features, terrain, hazards, sizes, tee boxes, location of penalty, grades of slopes, etc...it has only a coincidental connection with par.


Player's particular handicaps come from the relationship of one's running average scores against the aforementioned slope/rating, not par.


Handicapping/Re-handicapping individual holes (in which I've personally participated for a handful of courses) starts off scientifically and then is (traditionally) balanced anecdotally for each nine of the course - - vis a vis you don't want "shot" holes in any one cluster or weighted to any one side of the course.


The process starts by taking a survey of 700-1200 scorecards and seeks to measure the differential between what a "scratch" player scores on any hole, and what an "18" handicap scores on a hole, and then allots the handicap strokes to where the "18" handicap needs them most... after those results are surmised, then the handicap committee eyeballs where the "truth" of the survey lies and then makes the closest apportionment between the nines.


The latter part of the process, however, is usually where the human element comes in, and committees (who are only given guidelines, not official mandates) then "stroke" their courses as they see fit, with apportionment among the 9 holes "sides" and seeking to avoid a cluster of potential "shot" holes in a row.


cheers


vk

[BCowan]

Garland,
How do you think course ratings are determined?  How do you think handicaps are determined?  How do you think strokes from handicaps in a match are allocated to each player?  It all comes back to the individual holes and the “expected” score a player of a certain caliber would be expected to achieve on that particular hole!  If you don’t like calling that relative score par, call it something else.


As far as “evidence” of “par” for early scoring; when golf was first conceived, even before formal courses were developed, golfers had a good idea what a good score or an expected score was for each hole.  That number might have been 6 or 7 or 12,…   They knew and whatever they called that number it was essentially what we call par today.  Again, par is a just a relative term.  I have no idea why everyone is so hung up on it as a good or bad influence on the game.


To everyone else; I say hogwash to those who think “par” is limiting the innovation and creativity of architects!  I just played two of the greatest “par 3” holes in the world.  One is barely a flip wedge - #7 at Pebble Beach and the other can sometimes barely be reached with a full driver - #16 at Cypress Point.  They vary in length by nearly 150 yards but both are considered by the golfing world as “par threes”!  Talk about flexibility of design for golf architects!!! It doesn’t get any more varied than that.  Just think if you were designing playing fields for most other sports like tennis courts or bowling alleys or soccer fields or … the list goes on.  Architects can design holes that vary in look and strategy and length (by hundreds of yards) and still call them the same par.  I think many here are making a mountain out of a mole hill


Is there some “standardization” in golf as a result of “par", sure there is, but it pales compared to the playing fields for almost every other sport.  Par is just a relative number. 


Note:  Also, the Warren Course at Notre Dame designed by C&C originally didn’t have par designated for each hole.  It does now.  I wonder if they designed the holes any differently as a result?  I don’t think so

Mark,

   Thank you, i want to hit the like button.  Plus I want to commend you on your endurance in patience. 

[Garland Bayley]

Mark,


Handicaps are not determined by par. They are determined by the difference in strokes between players. If there was time and money, they could take the same set of players to all courses and determine their average score for that course. Then players handicaps would be calculated from the difference between their average, and the experimentally determined average. Without the time and money to get an actual average for each course, they have devised a method of course ratings to estimate the average score a set of players would make on the course.


When a group of players that regularly play together that do not participate in official handicap systems want to adjust their scores for a match, they use their match history and the difference between how they do to handicap their matches.


Handicapping depends on score differentials between players. They could make the basis be the average scores for average golfers. Average golfers do not score "par".


Handicapping is not based on par.


As for original scoring in golf, according to a Darwin book I read scoring was match play with the difference in strokes taken on each hole by the two players being tracked to determine the winner of the hole. They may have had an idea what they took in total, but they weren't explicitly keeping that total.

[Garland Bayley]

If par is not limiting architects, why don't we have a vast number of courses with hole lengths more similar to those proposed by Tom Doak for the Olympic course that he referred to above?


Good green sites are randomly found throughout the landscape. Why are hole lengths not randomly spaced, instead of aggregated around something like 160, 380, and 540 yards?


It seems to me that logically it appears that architects are limiting what they do to the concept of par!

[Doug Siebert]

Why do we assign a par number to holes? Is there anything gained, as far as the game is concerned? Personally, I could care less.

Thoughts?

A concept of par was inevitable. Players who reach a certain skill level quickly recognize how many "good shots" it takes to reach the green on a hole, and two putts is a reasonable expectation for shots that reach the green from some distance. If golf from time immemorial was always played on courses without yardages or pars shown on either scorecards or markers, every golfer would have mentally assigned a par to every hole on their regular course.

The only difference might be that different golfers would mentally assign different pars based on their own abilities - so I guess par would lose its ability to mess with some golfer's minds, i.e. making them think they should go for the green on a 470 yard hole because it is listed as a "par 4", but feel better about laying up if it is listed as a "par 5".

[Joe Hancock]

Doug,

Thanks for that. Understandable and un-opinionated.

[JESII]

"The only difference might be that different golfers would mentally assign different pars based on their own abilities - so I guess par would lose its ability to mess with some golfer's minds, i.e. making them think they should go for the green on a 470 yard hole because it is listed as a "par 4", but feel better about laying up if it is listed as a "par 5"."


This is the value of par to me. If an owner/architect isn't able to create a hole outside the normal box of what constitutes par yardages...and sell it to the masses, that's on them. The players will play what's there if it's enjoyable.


The other part of this, self determining par, is no different than today anyway. Why would a 24 handicapper think of a 430 yard par 4 as a two shotter? The value of par is how interesting is the 75 yard shot so that it entices the 24 to take a little bit of a chance on that shot to maximize their chance of making a par 5?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim -- Your last example/question highlights another great aspect of "par":  while it is seemingly a fixed/static concept, i.e. one that works for and is applied to all golfers in the same objective way, I think it is actually experienced very individually and subjectively.  For me, that 430 yard Par 4, after my usually tepid drive, offers an exciting chance for me to redeem myself with a terrific 5 wood that lands somewhere around the green followed by an elegant up and down to "save par".   Who wouldn't want to "save par"? It is the sporting equivalent to saving a damsel in distress...

[paul cowley]

...great last analogy Peter. I love the image of gallantry in the game!