If "Par" does matter, shouldn't we be universally lowering it?

[MCirba]

As a slight twist on my friend Mayday Malone's recent thread where he argues that par is irrelevant and meaningless, there is no question that it has a historical and generally accepted basis for its existence.   

In fact, given its definition loosely paraphrased as "the score an expert player should make on a given hole", I would argue that par should not be static but dynamic to reflect changes in scoring in the game of golf over the years.

While we strive to make existing courses longer and narrower in some attempt to "protect par" wouldn't it be much more practical to simply change par to reflect the historical definition?

If an expert player on average plays a 500 yard par five in 4.385 strokes, I believe it should be a par four.   Given that the same player may play a 475 yard par four in roughly the same average these "half shots" should balance out.

In truth, the par of most courses should not be 72 these days, but probably something closer to 67 or 68.   

After all, isn't that the measuring stick most expert golfers would measure themselves by?

[jeffwarne]

I would begrudgingly agree with the title and premise of this thread as it relates to experts and not having to bastardize courses to "protect par" against elite players (which always happens whether we agree or not)


But I'm afraid we would merely choose different ways to bastardize courses as the current world can't endure a 76 year old player being unable to reach a hole in regulation with something longer than a 7 iron.....

[Ken Moum]

As a slight twist on my friend Mayday Malone's recent thread where he argues that par is irrelevant and meaningless, there is no question that it has a historical and generally accepted basis for its existence.   

In fact, given its definition loosely paraphrased as "the score an expert player should make on a given hole", I would argue that par should not be static but dynamic to reflect changes in scoring in the game of golf over the years.

While we strive to make existing courses longer and narrower in some attempt to "protect par" wouldn't it be much more practical to simply change par to reflect the historical definition?

If an expert player on average plays a 500 yard par five in 4.385 strokes, I believe it should be a par four.   Given that the same player may play a 475 yard par four in roughly the same average these "half shots" should balance out.

In truth, the par of most courses should not be 72 these days, but probably something closer to 67 or 68.   

After all, isn't that the measuring stick most expert golfers would measure themselves by?

I've thought that for some time.


In fact it would be simplest way to bifurcate, while solving the problem Jeff mentions.


We have a women's par, why not a par for elite competitions.  We can simply add it to the rulebook under the Conditions of Competition section.


Allow the committee to use par as the following  PAr 3s - up to 300 yards.  Par fours up to 550 yards.


And if I were in charge, I'd also change the yardages for women, making allowable to call holes a short as 200 yards a par four and holes as short as 375 or so par fives.


Hell, I'm 70, let's do the something for any male 65 or older.


K

[jeffwarne]

As a slight twist on my friend Mayday Malone's recent thread where he argues that par is irrelevant and meaningless, there is no question that it has a historical and generally accepted basis for its existence.   

In fact, given its definition loosely paraphrased as "the score an expert player should make on a given hole", I would argue that par should not be static but dynamic to reflect changes in scoring in the game of golf over the years.

While we strive to make existing courses longer and narrower in some attempt to "protect par" wouldn't it be much more practical to simply change par to reflect the historical definition?

If an expert player on average plays a 500 yard par five in 4.385 strokes, I believe it should be a par four.   Given that the same player may play a 475 yard par four in roughly the same average these "half shots" should balance out.

In truth, the par of most courses should not be 72 these days, but probably something closer to 67 or 68.   

After all, isn't that the measuring stick most expert golfers would measure themselves by?

I've thought that for some time.


In fact it would be simplest way to bifurcate, while solving the problem Jeff mentions.


We have a women's par, why not a par for elite competitions.  We can simply add it to the rulebook under the Conditions of Competition section.


Allow the committee to use par as the following  PAr 3s - up to 300 yards.  Par fours up to 550 yards.


And if I were in charge, I'd also change the yardages for women, making allowable to call holes a short as 200 yards a par four and holes as short as 375 or so par fives.


Hell, I'm 70, let's do the something for any male 65 or older.


K

If it will get us to stop altering courses?
I'm in

[Sean_A]

Mike

I have been banging this drum for years.  Lower par and it essentially solves the obsession with trying to protect par by altering courses. 

That said, I am in favour of bringing bogey score back to the fore.  I think a main reason folks became obsessed with par in the way JakaB is, is because achieving pars became easier over the years.  Make the par score more difficult (and the great mass of pretend experts will recognize how hopelessly far they are from true expert standard) now and introduce a more realistic bogey score for non-experts and maybe, just maybe, we can stop the madness without having to rely on rules bodies. 

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 Cirba is presumptuous calling us friends but I’ll comment anyway.


 My problem is that a whole number does not capture golf as played. Change is one of the elements of golf. Pins, firmness, wind, temperature and more constantly change not just technology. So let’s just play the course.


I agree with anything that saves the course and it’s playability instead of moving earth to save par.


I tell the guys at my club that a 500 yard downhill hole with the prevailing wind behind you is already a par four for the best players.


Collect scores on holes for a month and then decide where shots are needed.

[jeffwarne]

Collect scores on holes for a month and then decide where shots are needed.
[/quote


or maybe use that date to figure out what shots to practice.....
Never understood the whole process of numbering holes.
If I'm giving you 9 shots, they're going to fall every other hole.
Statiticians that dilegently use differential data to rank holes, or worse yet those who erroneously simply use hole toughness, end up with situations where you might get a shot on three or four holes in a row, on each side.
Takes the fun out of any kind've nassau with presses-both for the guy giving and the guy getting shots.
Space them out evenly, or better yet use 1/2 shots-which makes for very interesting games.

[MCirba]

Cirba is presumptuous calling us friends but I’ll comment anyway.


 My problem is that a whole number does not capture golf as played. Change is one of the elements of golf. Pins, firmness, wind, temperature and more constantly change not just technology. So let’s just play the course.


I agree with anything that saves the course and it’s playability instead of moving earth to save par.


I tell the guys at my club that a 500 yard downhill hole with the prevailing wind behind you is already a par four for the best players.


Collect scores on holes for a month and then decide where shots are needed.

My arch-enemy Mayday Malone nevertheless makes some good points.   

[Tim Martin]

Collect scores on holes for a month and then decide where shots are needed.
[/quote


or maybe use that date to figure out what shots to practice.....
Never understood the whole process of numbering holes.
If I'm giving you 9 shots, they're going to fall every other hole.
Statiticians that dilegently use differential data to rank holes, or worse yet those who erroneously simply use hole toughness, end up with situations where you might get a shot on three or four holes in a row, on each side.
Takes the fun out of any kind've nassau with presses-both for the guy giving and the guy getting shots.
Space them out evenly, or better yet use 1/2 shots-which makes for very interesting games.

The Red, White and Blue 9th or 18th hole bet in a Nassau where three new bets were optional to the team that was down going into said holes is a fun variation using half shots. New bets where both players who are down get a shot, a half shot and another at even are at risk. If you accepted then all three bets were in effect as well as anything else already riding. The new bets are the same dollar amount as the original Nassau. When I have played everyone was even so these bets were the only time anyone got any shots. The half shots create plenty of drama for sure.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If an expert player on average plays a 500 yard par five in 4.385 strokes, I believe it should be a par four.   Given that the same player may play a 475 yard par four in roughly the same average these "half shots" should balance out.

The math there doesn't work out. If both of those holes are par four, then you're 0.385 strokes over par. They don't cancel each other out, they add to each other. You'd play two holes the "expert" plays in 8.77 but par would be 8.

"Expert" is a scratch golfer. PGA Tour pros are "better than expert."

This whole topic makes no sense to me. All you're doing is fictitiously changing the final score relative to par. Who cares? Is the 10th at Riviera going to be a par 3 suddenly, because pros can reach it? Why?

It's not like PGA Tour pros average 4.3 on par fives. Tiger Woods in 2000 still averaged 4.37, but second place was already at 4.5 (Robert Allenby of all people), and the median value that year was still 4.7 - so you'd round that to 5. And that was in 2000.

In 2017, the leader was Hideki at 4.48. The median was 4.67.

Artificially protecting "par" this way is no better than a golf course that tricks up something to protect par, or shortens a par five by 20 yards and calls it a par four. You're both doing the same thing - manipulating par. Just let the field make "birdies". Who cares?

[Pete Lavallee]

This is why the pre ProV1 era made so much sense. Par was stated at:

Par 3 up to 250 yards
Par 4 up to 480 yards
Par 5 480 yards and higher

A scratch golfer was defined as one who could drive the ball 250 yards and hit his 3 wood 225 yards. So they could reach the longest par 3's and par 4's in regulation. The beauty was that the average PGA Tour Pro hit the ball the same distances. Sure they were more accurate and had better short games but there was an intrinsic balance between par length and driving distance that made golf work.

Now on Tour we have par 3's up to 280 yards and par 4's exceeding 500 yards. Yes I realize that Tour Pro's carry a  handicap in the +6 range. I often wonder what the average handicap of a Tour Pro was before the distance explosion of 2000?

[Rich Goodale]

I'd flip this to changing the handicap system to base it on the true "expert" golfers of today--the top 100 in the world professional rankings  So......


......Dustin and/or Hideo, or Tommy or Jordan or Rory or Tiger on a good day would be +2 or +3 and the guys from 10-100 would all be scratch.  The next 1000 or so would be scratch to 3 or so and the top 1000 amateurs would average out at 6 or so.  The average local "scratch" player at most clubs would be 9 or 10.  The rest of us would be our current handicap plus 10 more shots.  The guys now playing off 8 would be playing off 18--the ideal Colonel Bogey for today's golf.


Let's stop pretending we are better than we are.  We a'int.  Let's just enjoy the game and the camaraderie and the architecture and the cold beverages in the clubhouse.


End of rant.

[Sean_A]

"Expert" is a scratch golfer. PGA Tour pros are "better than expert."

This whole topic makes no sense to me. All you're doing is fictitiously changing the final score relative to par. Who cares?

Keep up.  The idea of lowering par is an attempt to reduce the chances of courses being altered to make them "tougher". 

I disagree about what an expert is.  It is my understanding that when par was created it was a measure of the best players who were tournament pros and tournament amateurs (ie experts).  Level 4s would not have been the routine score a club pro or very good player would have been expected to score on a daily basis.  Scores for the best players back then hovered much more around level 4s for the best players compared to today. 

Ciao

[James Brown]

Doesn’t the handicap system sort of take care of this?  Or at least the notion of relative difficulty. 



The strokes gained metric would seem to offer another way to measure difficulty that would seem to sidestep some of the “make it more difficult” momentum.  I mean, we can define “par” many different ways if we wanted. 


If my view, all the push to lengthen courses goes away if we can make the winning scores look like a few strokes from some arbitrary number instead of 25 strokes under some other arbitrary number. 

[Peter Pallotta]

sorry, wrong thread

[Jim_Coleman]

    Call me crazy, but my goal when I begin a round of golf is to break 80, and I get no less satisfaction in doing so when par for the course (to coin a phrase) is 70 rather than 72.

[Peter Flory]

I've always thought that the concept of par has 2 main benefits.  1) it makes it easy to keep score during a round in your own head, and 2) it makes it possible to compare the relative standings of players in a tournament when they are at different points in the round. 


For #2, that purpose works best when par is close to what the field will average in a round of golf.  And even better, if par can be a reasonable estimate for what the leaders will shoot, then when you're watching on Sunday afternoon, the scores relative to par will be very useful information to you as a viewer.  You'll know who's in the hunt and who isn't. 




So, I guess I'm all in favor of making par realistic for the pros.  In some sense, they already do that when they turn par 5s into par 4s and they stretch par 3s out to 280 yards. 

[Jim_Coleman]

Funny.  When I was a kid trying to break 100, then 90, I always kept score by how many over or under 5's I was.  I still do.

[MCirba]

Eric,


Some par fours will average 3.78 or 3.52 for true"experts"   That was my point about decimals evening out if we make par a more realistic number reflecting expert golfers.

[Mark_Fine]

Like it or not, most golfers love to talk/brag about how many pars or birdies or eagles they had.  Golf needs the game to be more fun.  If you are going to mess with "par" it should be raised not lowered in my opinion. 

[MCirba]

Like it or not, most golfers love to talk/brag about how many pars or birdies or eagles they had.  Golf needs the game to be more fun.  If you are going to mess with "par" it should be raised not lowered in my opinion.

Mark,


I think folks can have just as much fun or glory making one-putt pars if par is known to be a difficult challenge and achievement.

[Jack Carney]

Par should not be determined by the elite or best player. Par was originally defined as a "good score for the average player". Still a proper concept IMO

[Tim Martin]

Like it or not, most golfers love to talk/brag about how many pars or birdies or eagles they had.  Golf needs the game to be more fun.  If you are going to mess with "par" it should be raised not lowered in my opinion.

Mark,


I think folks can have just as much fun or glory making one-putt pars if par is known to be a difficult challenge and achievement.

+1

[Joe Hancock]

As in most things, once the attempt is to please all people involved, worse consequences occur.


When we decide to focus on what’s best for the game of golf, and specifically its longevity, perhaps we will quit trying to make it a game “everyone” will enjoy. I don’t know that I want everyone to participate in golf any more than I think everyone deserves to own a house or that everyone deserves the privelege of driving.


Golf courses are overly green and overly striped because we are trying to please golfers instead of doing what is best for the long haul.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Some par fours will average 3.78 or 3.52 for true"experts"   That was my point about decimals evening out if we make par a more realistic number reflecting expert golfers.

Very few par fours average even 3.78 let alone 3.52. And so what? Both round up to 4, just like a par four that averages 4.38. Call them par fours. Some are a bit tougher than others. But they're still going to average about 4.

Again, even on the PGA Tour, the average scoring is not that far below par on the courses they play. PGA Tour players, scratch golfers… they're not shooting very different than par most of the time. Occasionally a guy gets hot and shoots a 66, and then occasionally he shoots 76.