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

[Pete Lavallee]

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.

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.

Not true. By definition a scratch golfer averages even par for his best 10 out of 20 rounds. PGA Tour players have handicaps tear range from +4 to +6. A scratch golfer would finish dead laser in every event on the Tour.

[Mark_Fine]

Most things go in cycles and golf is no different.  Right now the game is expensive, time consuming and for most who participate - quite hard.  The game, the sport, the business (call it what you want) could benefit from more participants. 


Very few clubs/courses out there would argue with this and most all are trying to get as creative as possible to attract more golfers. 


If there is one thing I am doing more than anything else these days it is adding shorter tees (big change from ten years ago).  I wonder why that is?  I see it happening all over.  Could it have something to do with par and making the game more fun 😊

[V. Kmetz]

Par ought not matter to architecture and that is the point.


With no relief from technology in near sight, par is an aggravating factor in disturbing old architecture and an impediment to the full expression of what THIS era can produce for the future...and that is the point.


The question points in the right direction, but rather than lower par...eliminate it.  Certainly for the individual hole.


Because courses have most often accommodated 18 holes over 6000 - 7500 yards for more than 100 years, and there's only so many yardages to whack that up in 18 parts, and only so many who can hit the ball so far, that a generic par of "72" can be offered to 18 hole tracks, as just a basis of sound play...not pro..not expert...just good play for all but the tournament golfer (like the way a bowling score of 200+ is excellent for a great preponderance of bowlers on any set of lanes).


I'm not hung on that though, and if it cost the generic 72, I'd trade it for the concurrent elimination of hole par, which would be the next liberating boost for GCA...


Yet, this and like discussions are bs puffery; this has got to come from an architect or group of architects that believe in it, will convince paying clients to believe in it, and let the results influence wider and wider circles... until then, this is just so much theory that the current climate (investment, technology, stagnant leadership) will not test.


The game will bifurcate into tournament/recreational sooner, because eventually all stakeholding parties will see there is more money to be had in that "solution" (even they even think there isn't a problem TO BE solved).


cheers    vk

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, VK, and more insightful than I can muster on this topic.

I’m still trying to figure out what everyone in the industry means when they talk about average golfers having “fun”.

Like “peace” for UN bureaucrats, “love” for spiritual leaders and “truth” for philosophers, I think it has more meanings than those who use the word are willing to acknowledge — or maybe can afford to acknowledge.

Personally I like strategy, but I also like scrambling for a hard-fought 4 on a long brutish hole; or being called to land my drive on a specific spot to have the best line in; or hitting a great shot to a scary-looking green where the penalty for a misfit is certain death. All of that is fun for me, but does it qualify as “fun”?

Also fun is having very short green to tee walks, which must be harder to come by when architects are building 6 sets of tees so that, ironically, everyone can have “fun”. Does “everyone” actually mean “no one”?

Maybe “fun” is the new “par”, ie we’d all be freer and better off if both concepts went right out the window.

[Thomas Dai]

Is the suggestion about eliminating par in relation to Pro and scratch amateur medal play tournaments?
If you were to eliminate par for the individual hole in amateur golf would it not effect SI, handicap stableford and handicap matchplay and even auto handicap readjustment in handicap medals in some parts of the world?
atb

[Sean_A]

Is the suggestion about eliminating par in relation to Pro and scratch amateur medal play tournaments?
If you were to eliminate par for the individual hole in amateur golf would it not effect SI, handicap stableford and handicap matchplay and even auto handicap readjustment in handicap medals in some parts of the world?
atb

ATB

How would not having par effect any of the things you mention?  It would be easy to use SSS as a sort of par and for comp purposes such as Stableford it is easy to set a Stableford par.  Handicaps are measured to SSS anyhow...In many ways using SSS is a better reflection of the concept.  Of course, if folks could simply severe any imaginary connection between par and architecture then this dicussion wouldn't be taking place.  To me it is incredible that people think of earning that tough up n' down 4 as something better because they matched par.  I will never understand that because at heart I agree with VK...this sort of thinking that par and architecture are related is ultimately bad for architecture.  It leads to formulaic design, design of which we have all seen and not enjoyed. However, this imaginary connection has been around for probably 75 years or so...so maybe it is time to say it is no longer imaginary...especially as par has definitely influenced architecture and I think partly responsible for the dark ages of golf design. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

That your mentioning using other approaches indicates to me that there would be an effect.
Have to ponder the par-n-architecture issue a bit more.
And the challenge of making an up-n-down to keep a score going is just that, part of the challenge with par a try-hard as against not really fussed target.
atb

[jeffwarne]

Is the suggestion about eliminating par in relation to Pro and scratch amateur medal play tournaments?
If you were to eliminate par for the individual hole in amateur golf would it not effect SI, handicap stableford and handicap matchplay  in some parts of the world?
atb

Very valid point
Holes could still be handicapped(as they are and should be) by differential between expert and bogie golfer, as well as by where they fall in the match.
Which should always be factored in when assigning handicaps to holes


As stated on the other thread..
If holes did NOT have a par attached, Stableford could still be played
How about "Stableford level 4's?"  i.e. all holes are played as par 4's[net or gross (or both)
5 points for a 1
4 for a 2
3 for a 3
2 for a 4
1 for a 5
Has players picking up on long slog par 5 holes
[/color]makes short holes more exciting with a lot on the line and more people in play[/size]
[/color]pars not needed-no silly holes where the back tee is in front of the forward with a different par[/size]
[/color]If an old school UK 480 yard par 5 is 480, 470 and 450 from its respsctive tees as a par 5 (very common)and is changed to a par 4, suddenly at least one, if not two shorter tees are needed in order for the average and senior play to reach "in regulation  "With "Level 4" Stableford, no new tees are needed as there are no "pars"

[V. Kmetz]

Is the suggestion about eliminating par in relation to Pro and scratch amateur medal play tournaments?
If you were to eliminate par for the individual hole in amateur golf would it not effect SI, handicap stableford and handicap matchplay and even auto handicap readjustment in handicap medals in some parts of the world?
atb

TD... I don't see the need for any course designed/stripped of its individual/course par to abandon rating the holes for handicap. Both course rating and handicap rating have almost nothing but incidental connection to par...as a matter of fact that is part of the twain meeting in my mind...I think all individual hole design should have a touchstone of 4 in mind...easy 4s, unstrenuous 4s, honest 4s, hard 4s, impossible 4s...


In the case of Stableford/point competitions/traditional wagering terms...I think a course can make a Stableford card and groups of players know what constitutes a birdie or a bogey for their own matches (but if they require help, a birdie score can be put on the tee plates/sign/card)


cheers   vk

[Ken Moum]

If you were to eliminate par for the individual hole in amateur golf would it not effect SI, handicap stableford and handicap matchplay?

Well, it shouldn't, because par is not supposed to be a factor in stroke index.


Here's the USGA's recommended method:


Common sense should be used to ensure that the handicap strokes are used as an equalizer and should be available where it most likely will be needed by the higher-handicapped player in order to obtain a halve on the hole.

When starting out, the Handicap Committee should remember a few basic guidelines:

-Allocate strokes based on the tees played most often by a majority of the members.

-Allocate the odd-numbered strokes to the front-nine holes and the even-numbered strokes to the back-nine holes—unless the back-nine is decidedly more difficult than the front—you can reverse the allocation.

-Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes

A method for allocating your handicap strokes is to collect 200 hole-by-hole scorecards from two different groups of golfers. Group A consists of golfers with a Course Handicap™ of 0-8 for men or 0-14 for women. If there are very few members within this range, take the low 25 percent of its golfers as group A.

Group B consists of middle-to-high Course Handicap golfers, ranging 15-20 strokes higher than group A (20-28 for men and 26-40 for women).

The next step is to compare the average score per hole for group A against the average score per hole of group B. Rank the differential of hole scores between group A and group B from high-to-low (1 highest, 18 lowest) differential. Allocate odd and even numbers to front and second nine. The last step is to make sure low numerical holes are not at the beginning or end of each nine.
The Handicap Committee should use good judgment when allocating handicap stroke holes. The club makes the final determination.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Not true. By definition a scratch golfer averages even par for his best 10 out of 20 rounds. PGA Tour players have handicaps tear range from +4 to +6. A scratch golfer would finish dead laser in every event on the Tour.

I didn’t suggest that a scratch player could do squat on the PGA Tour.

I simply pointed out that scratch golfers and PGA Tour players, on the courses they play normally, average around par on the holes. This par still has meaning.

Even PGA Tour players as a group don’t average closer to 4 than 5 on par fives.