Should Classics Just Remove Par From Their Scorecards?

[Josh Tarble]

How about two scorecards--one with par and one without?

One with hole # and handicap # only will take care of everything.

Currently, I have to use a marker to black out the par #s for each hole. Such a hassle. I need a par-free scorecard!

I use a hole punch.  Much more efficient, plus the holes can be thrown into the compost pile for on-course fertilizer.  Very environmentally friendly!

[PCCraig]

I guess I hadn't realized that I was being insulted by Ben Cowan (Michigan) as I long ago stopped reading his posts. The spelling and grammar is so poor that it gives me a headache trying to translate.


Either way, I don't know how removing par on a classic golf course relates to the "participation trophy" generation. It's just a discussion.


A good example is the 6th hole at Town & Country in St. Paul. It's a 460-yard hole that historically had played as a par-5 but was changed to a par-4 perhaps 30 years ago. It's an easy downhill tee shot but about 175 yards from the green is essentially a 40ft tall wall/hill of rough. A few years ago a bunch of members wanted to "tear" down the wall...their reason? Well it's a par-4 and I can't hit my 3-wood from 225 over the hill. The obvious answer for that player is that the best play would be to hit a 7-iron to the top of the hill and "play it as a par-5", but the par-4 on the scorecard takes away any strategic thought for the average player. Thankfully the hill stayed after some solid consulting with Jeff Mingay.


Another hole at T&C is a good example, as well. The 13th is a 275 yard par-4. It's drivable but the defenses around the green site are impressive...huge fall 20ft fall off on the left, deep bunkering on the right, and a hard sloping green with a dangerous false front. The only thing in the way of the hole being all-world is about 3 or 4 stupid maple trees blocking the left side (inside of the slight dogleg). Darius Oliver called the hole "an 'A+' hole in 'D-' shape." Obviously, you would say it would make sense to take down those trees...well they stay because otherwise the hole would be "too easy of a par-4."


So, why not just remove par from the scorecard? Can't you just list hole numbers and hole handicaps for everyday play?

[Josh Tarble]

And to answer the question honestly, I do know that it would change people's mindset on the course.  For a little while at our course, we had two par 5s changed to par 4s on scorecard only.  It was crazy how just changing one little number altered players' approach to each hole.



I also would not support the concept for one reason: gambling.  There are many, many games where birdie/par equate to different values.

[Steve Salmen]

I think Pat has asked a very fair question. My observation, other things equal is this:
Lots of old par 5s were built to receive short iron approaches, meaning that the hole was well defended at the green, i.e. narrower entrances. Coming in from 200+ yards is much more difficult today than hitting a 9 or wedge 80-120 years ago. Those greens are also a lot faster and harder to get up and down from above the hole.
Let's be honest: how much gratification do you feel making 4 on a 490 yd par 5 vs a 4 on a 475 yd par 4? On the flip side, how much shame do you feel walking away with 5 on the same holes? My answer is not much at all.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Lots of old par 5s were built to receive short iron approaches, meaning that the hole was well defended at the green, i.e. narrower entrances. Coming in from 200+ yards is much more difficult today than hitting a 9 or wedge 80-120 years ago. Those greens are also a lot faster and harder to get up and down from above the hole.

This brings up another puzzling aspect of "par".


Why is par of a hole purely a function of its distance?


A good example is the 13th at my own Reddish Vale.


http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/reddish-vale-golf-club/



Designed and built as a par 5 hole 100 years ago, the approach shot is completely blind, the tiny undulating green located in a dell behind a ridge with a chasm to the right and jungle to the left and rear. A shot in from 200 yards is deemed even by very good golfers to be too risky under normal circumstances.


The average score on this hole in competition play is 5.9  It is tough.


Yet because it measures only 445 yards it is now deemed too short to be classed as a par 5.


If we are going to allocate a "par" to a hole should difficulty not be taken into account as well as simple distance?

[Sean_A]

Lots of old par 5s were built to receive short iron approaches, meaning that the hole was well defended at the green, i.e. narrower entrances. Coming in from 200+ yards is much more difficult today than hitting a 9 or wedge 80-120 years ago. Those greens are also a lot faster and harder to get up and down from above the hole.

This brings up another puzzling aspect of "par".


Why is par of a hole purely a function of its distance?


A good example is the 13th at my own Reddish Vale.


http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/reddish-vale-golf-club/



Designed and built as a par 5 hole 100 years ago, the approach shot is completely blind, the tiny undulating green located in a dell behind a ridge with a chasm to the right and jungle to the left and rear. A shot in from 200 yards is deemed even by very good golfers to be too risky under normal circumstances.


The average score on this hole in competition play is 5.9  It is tough.


Yet because it measures only 445 yards it is now deemed too short to be classed as a par 5.


If we are going to allocate a "par" to a hole should difficulty not be taken into account as well as simple distance?

Duncan

It still doesn't matter.  Besides, the rogue par is essentially coverered by SSS.  Having said that, I have played some holes where the yardage didn't fit the par.  Sometimes it was obvious why this was the case, sometimes not.

Ciao

[Steve Salmen]

"It still doesn't matter." This was my point with my last statement.

[BCrosby]

.... I do know that [changing par] would change people's mindset on the course.  For a little while at our course, we had two par 5s changed to par 4s on scorecard only.  It was crazy how just changing one little number altered players' approach to each hole.

If par doesn't matter, how do things like that happen?


Bob

[jeffwarne]

Par is just a ruler. Human beings have gotten taller over time as diet and lifestyles have become healthier. Thank goodness we haven't made rulers bigger.

Thank God Budweiser Guinness and Stoli have made me taller since I reached 50- 4 years ago.
All this time I thought it was my Epic.


I like the concept of no par if only to avoid the inevitable new tee building on former par 5s-when the 65 year old twenty handicap demands a new tee so he reach the now par 4 in "regulation" (because they refuse to play the "forward" tee-to say nothing of the fact that no one is "entitled" to reaching a green in regulation-especially someone getting a shot or even 2 on the hole.

[corey miller]

For whatever reason too much discussion of these sort of issues just leads to more and more tees and more and more people playing from more "standard" areas on a daily basis.  I can't get people to move around and mix in match because of "handicap" metrics.  It is very sad to play every par four 20 yards in front of back tee which is 20 yards in front of "tiger" tee. 


I have always wondered what Friar's Head is/was trying to accomplish with only "par" on the scorecard rather than yardage? Perhaps tacit approval to Pick and Play and have fun? though i am sure people won't for handicap purposes.

[John Kavanaugh]

Here is areal world example. I recently played Huntercombe from the tips and had an eagle putt. I told my host that I don't know how many more eagle putts I have left in my life so I gave it everything I had to make it. Why rob me of that moment?






I missed but it was a beautiful effort. To hell with anyone who would take that from me.

[JESII]

Or the first birdie putt someone makes...

[John Kavanaugh]

It's still a thrill...every damn time.

[JESII]

Having played today, you're right.


A 4 is not just a 4 boys, sorry...you're kidding yourselves.

[Tom_Doak]

I have always wondered what Friar's Head is/was trying to accomplish with only "par" on the scorecard rather than yardage? Perhaps tacit approval to Pick and Play and have fun? though i am sure people won't for handicap purposes.

I'm pretty sure they were trying to avoid having raters realize that the course was not over 7000 yards when built, or some such distraction.  Although it's also possible they were harking back to the scorecard I received when I played Muirfield in 1982.  It only listed hole number, par, and a blank space for your own score ... it wasn't much bigger than a business card when folded in half.  And it also distracted from the fact that you were probably playing the yellow tees at a yardage to which they didn't want to draw attention. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Having played today, you're right.
A 4 is not just a 4 boys, sorry...you're kidding yourselves.

+1
And a 3 isn't just a 3 either -- especially on a Par 5.
Yes, gents, an "eagle" for me today (but for those unmoved by the concept of par, I suppose it doesn't matter that I bettered par on this hole by 2 strokes!).
Btw, and apropos of nothing, and just for my few pals who'd be happy for me: two weeks ago I broke 80 for the first time in my life. This afternoon, I did it again!! A glittering (by my standards) 6 over par 77.
Ahem...and that would be with persimmon woods and 30 year old blades 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Well done Peter.


I broke 80 for only the second  time ever a month ago. 75 off the back tees. I know exactly how you feel!


The concept of par is completely meaningless, but take away the elation of getting birdies and eagles  (particularly for players of average ability) and the game loses something special.

[Sean_A]

I think when one really looks at the idea of below par for a hole it really is for bad players.  Bad players can take that little achievement and forget they are bad players, in some cases for an eternity  .  Pros forget about that stuff in short order because its the big picture that matters.  I guess that flips Ben's notion upside down and having said, what is wrong with small acheivements which allow us to forget about the big picture for a while?  Golf is a game so it should bring a smile to our faces once in a while.  My point about par not mattering was in how handicap players approach the play of holes.  The idea of par is for expert players, not for handicap players, so we should be looking to earn the best score and not worry about a number on a card....that is if you care about earning the best score. 

Ciao

[Matt Wharton]

If I recall correctly the original scorecard at Dormie Club only contained the hole number and the yardage, no par.  After playing the 488 yard 8th hole the first time I declared it to be a par 4.5 and although the scorecard now says par 4 I still believe it to be a great par 4.5.  Someone else more familiar with the short history of Dormie can comment but I believe par was added when the course became rated by the Carolinas Golf Association for handicap purposes.


I assume par is irrelevant if you are playing match play or medal play, but I understand the need for par to establish the benchmark for Stabelford scoring.  Still, it's pretty cool to not have par "hanging over your head" as you play a hole and you merely try to complete play in as few strokes as possible.  Such a simple game.   

[Jim Franklin]

Here is areal world example. I recently played Huntercombe from the tips and had an eagle putt. I told my host that I don't know how many more eagle putts I have left in my life so I gave it everything I had to make it. Why rob me of that moment?






I missed but it was a beautiful effort. To hell with anyone who would take that from me.

I'm with JK on this. My nephew just started playing golf. All he keeps talking about is he can't wait to make his first birdie. Why rob someone of that pure, innocent joy?

[jeffwarne]

Here is areal world example. I recently played Huntercombe from the tips and had an eagle putt. I told my host that I don't know how many more eagle putts I have left in my life so I gave it everything I had to make it. Why rob me of that moment?






I missed but it was a beautiful effort. To hell with anyone who would take that from me.

I'm with JK on this. My nephew just started playing golf. All he keeps talking about is he can't wait to make his first birdie. Why rob someone of that pure, innocent joy?

At my beloved Goat Hill there is a 226 yard up and over completely blind par 4.
Anywhere from a 3 wood to a 7 iron depending upon wind, rainfall, and time of year-with a nasty fallaway lay of the land green and a whole level of unpredictability in between.
Most recently they have changed par on the scorecard to 3.
Which of course created the need to build "forward" tees, at a club severely strapped for cash-and the tees(an elevated ugly crabgrassy hot mess) are located about where a conservative drive on the first hole goes, resulting in irritating searces for balls against the banks of the eyesore tee.


That's why I HATE reducing par as it creates a (perceived) need for new tees, on a formerly "fun" hole that created birdie and eagle opportunities for players of all levels-that was served PERFECTLY for players of all levels from ONE tee.
Now it's just a really hard/bad par 3 for those playing the forward tee.


Par WOULDN'T matter(as much) if members and those in charge didn't react to it-but they do.


I'm all for leaving par 5's at 480 on classic courses if they'll just leave the hole alone.

[Sean_A]

Here is areal world example. I recently played Huntercombe from the tips and had an eagle putt. I told my host that I don't know how many more eagle putts I have left in my life so I gave it everything I had to make it. Why rob me of that moment?






I missed but it was a beautiful effort. To hell with anyone who would take that from me.

I'm with JK on this. My nephew just started playing golf. All he keeps talking about is he can't wait to make his first birdie. Why rob someone of that pure, innocent joy?

At my beloved Goat Hill there is a 226 yard up and over completely blind par 4.
Anywhere from a 3 wood to a 7 iron depending upon wind, rainfall, and time of year-with a nasty fallaway lay of the land green and a whole level of unpredictability in between.
Most recently they have changed par on the scorecard to 3.
Which of course created the need to build "forward" tees, at a club severely strapped for cash-and the tees(an elevated ugly crabgrassy hot mess) are located about where a conservative drive on the first hole goes, resulting in irritating searces for balls against the banks of the eyesore tee.


That's why I HATE reducing par as it creates a (perceived) need for new tees, on a formerly "fun" hole that created birdie and eagle opportunities for players of all levels-that was served PERFECTLY for players of all levels from ONE tee.
Now it's just a really hard/bad par 3 for those playing the forward tee.


Par WOULDN'T matter(as much) if members and those in charge didn't react to it-but they do.


I'm all for leaving par 5's at 480 on classic courses if they'll just leave the hole alone.

Why did they have to build a forward tee?  226 is within par 3 range.  Changing par wasn't the problem...though I suggest they do so when the old cards run out   


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Here is areal world example. I recently played Huntercombe from the tips and had an eagle putt. I told my host that I don't know how many more eagle putts I have left in my life so I gave it everything I had to make it. Why rob me of that moment?






I missed but it was a beautiful effort. To hell with anyone who would take that from me.

I'm with JK on this. My nephew just started playing golf. All he keeps talking about is he can't wait to make his first birdie. Why rob someone of that pure, innocent joy?

At my beloved Goat Hill there is a 226 yard up and over completely blind par 4.
Anywhere from a 3 wood to a 7 iron depending upon wind, rainfall, and time of year-with a nasty fallaway lay of the land green and a whole level of unpredictability in between.
Most recently they have changed par on the scorecard to 3.
Which of course created the need to build "forward" tees, at a club severely strapped for cash-and the tees(an elevated ugly crabgrassy hot mess) are located about where a conservative drive on the first hole goes, resulting in irritating searces for balls against the banks of the eyesore tee.


That's why I HATE reducing par as it creates a (perceived) need for new tees, on a formerly "fun" hole that created birdie and eagle opportunities for players of all levels-that was served PERFECTLY for players of all levels from ONE tee.
Now it's just a really hard/bad par 3 for those playing the forward tee.


Par WOULDN'T matter(as much) if members and those in charge didn't react to it-but they do.


I'm all for leaving par 5's at 480 on classic courses if they'll just leave the hole alone.

Why did they have to build a forward tee?  226 is within par 3 range.  Changing par wasn't the problem...though I suggest they do so when the old cards run out   


Ciao

Sean,
they didn't HAVE to build a forward tee-but they did.
 But when 99% of  membership can't reach in regulation , that's what happens.
In truth I'd say one in six of our pros hit the green from the original tee-if that(lots of terrain,slope,and vegetation issues)


It's a really cool hole and as a par 4, a senior or woman can drive before the hill and then face an uphill blind up and over fun shot that the longer hitters face on their tee shots-and experience the thrill of hitting a green in regulation.


I see it all the time on converted par 5's to par 4's-an "easy" par 5 suddenly needs a new tee as a par 4 because a committee member can't reach in two-but was perfectly happy when it was a par 5.

[Sean_A]

Here is areal world example. I recently played Huntercombe from the tips and had an eagle putt. I told my host that I don't know how many more eagle putts I have left in my life so I gave it everything I had to make it. Why rob me of that moment?






I missed but it was a beautiful effort. To hell with anyone who would take that from me.

I'm with JK on this. My nephew just started playing golf. All he keeps talking about is he can't wait to make his first birdie. Why rob someone of that pure, innocent joy?

At my beloved Goat Hill there is a 226 yard up and over completely blind par 4.
Anywhere from a 3 wood to a 7 iron depending upon wind, rainfall, and time of year-with a nasty fallaway lay of the land green and a whole level of unpredictability in between.
Most recently they have changed par on the scorecard to 3.
Which of course created the need to build "forward" tees, at a club severely strapped for cash-and the tees(an elevated ugly crabgrassy hot mess) are located about where a conservative drive on the first hole goes, resulting in irritating searces for balls against the banks of the eyesore tee.


That's why I HATE reducing par as it creates a (perceived) need for new tees, on a formerly "fun" hole that created birdie and eagle opportunities for players of all levels-that was served PERFECTLY for players of all levels from ONE tee.
Now it's just a really hard/bad par 3 for those playing the forward tee.


Par WOULDN'T matter(as much) if members and those in charge didn't react to it-but they do.


I'm all for leaving par 5's at 480 on classic courses if they'll just leave the hole alone.

Why did they have to build a forward tee?  226 is within par 3 range.  Changing par wasn't the problem...though I suggest they do so when the old cards run out   


Ciao

Sean,
they didn't HAVE to build a forward tee-but they did.
 But when 99% of  membership can't reach in regulation , that's what happens.
In truth I'd say one in six of our pros hit the green from the original tee-if that(lots of terrain,slope,and vegetation issues)


It's a really cool hole and as a par 4, a senior or woman can drive before the hill and then face an uphill blind up and over fun shot that the longer hitters face on their tee shots-and experience the thrill of hitting a green in regulation.


I see it all the time on converted par 5's to par 4's-an "easy" par 5 suddenly needs a new tee as a par 4 because a committee member can't reach in two-but was perfectly happy when it was a par 5.

99% couldn't reach the same hole when it was a par 4  ..its the same hole.  If a number on a hole creates such added cost, why not simply have the same yardage as 226 a par 3 for medal play and par 4 for daily play?  The he-men playing the back tees will then have the seemingly important illusion of the course being more difficult and the hackers can feel like it is easier. Par is a wonderful thing when treated with the disrespect it deserves.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Par is a wonderful thing when treated with the disrespect it deserves.

Ciao

That's a great quote.




For the record we play it as a par 4 so the greenie dot occurs as closest shot in two-not one!