The Inanity of Par

[Bryan Izatt]

Well,at least sometimes.  Case in point, the Kings Course at Gleneagles.


We recently played there not so freshly off red-eye flights from North America and late because of a missed connection at Heathrow.  So rushing to the tee to try to finish before dark we rapidly chose the tees to play.


My companion chooses to play the second from the back tees at par 70 and 6452 yards. He's a good player and likes to be challenged.


I usually try to choose tees that are around 6200 yards for a par 72 course and 100 to 150 yards shorter for each stroke par is under 72.  So for a par 70 course I'd look for a yardage 5900 to 6000 yards. So the next tee up is 6057 - sounds good in my jet-lagged haze.


I also usually try to look at the rating or SSS to see how difficult it is going to be.  This time there was no time for such study.  So, off we go.


Now, the Kings course is a fine and challenging course with lots of elevation change and difficult elevated greens.


After running up a few bad scores and finding the 10 yard differences between our tees off-putting, it's time to look more closely at the card.


First thing to note, my companions tees are par 70, but have a SSS of 73.  Oooops, a very difficult course at 3 over par for the scratch golfer.  Second oooops, my tees have a SSS of 71 to a par of 68, also 3 over par and very difficult even for the scratch golfer (which I am not).  I missed the different par for my tees on the very complicated scorecard. 


To add insult to injury, my playing companion gets two par 5's while I get none - including one egregious one where I got a 455 par 4 to his 476 yard par 5.  My tees included 7 par 4's that were over 423 yards up to two beauties of 453 and 455 yards, 4 par 3's and NO par 5's.


Now I know par is meaningless in some ways, but this was ridiculous.  I know that the SSS should sort out the disparity between the two tees, but in this case par was inane.

[JESII]

Par absolutely matters in my opinion. The fact that it made you feel the arrangement was an “egregious” mistake and that the attempt by the course was “ridiculous”.


Those terms display a level of passion all architects and course managers should hope to engender.


If you and you friend had each made a four on the 455/476 hole, did you feel you’d accomplished the same thing?  Did those feelings carry on to the next hole? Or the next half par hole at least?

[MCirba]

We are slaves to par.  Mindless slaves. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Like Jim I believe par matters. I note that Bryan didn't mention water hazards or ridiculously high rough or forced carries -- so why/how else would he describe the course as 'very difficult' except in relation to an expected score, ie in relation to par? So what I read him saying is: 'Par does matter, so much so that a course needs to get it right -- and the Kings course got it wrong'.

[Sean_A]

Well,at least sometimes.  Case in point, the Kings Course at Gleneagles.

We recently played there not so freshly off red-eye flights from North America and late because of a missed connection at Heathrow.  So rushing to the tee to try to finish before dark we rapidly chose the tees to play.

My companion chooses to play the second from the back tees at par 70 and 6452 yards. He's a good player and likes to be challenged.

I usually try to choose tees that are around 6200 yards for a par 72 course and 100 to 150 yards shorter for each stroke par is under 72.  So for a par 70 course I'd look for a yardage 5900 to 6000 yards. So the next tee up is 6057 - sounds good in my jet-lagged haze.

I also usually try to look at the rating or SSS to see how difficult it is going to be.  This time there was no time for such study.  So, off we go.

Now, the Kings course is a fine and challenging course with lots of elevation change and difficult elevated greens.

After running up a few bad scores and finding the 10 yard differences between our tees off-putting, it's time to look more closely at the card.

First thing to note, my companions tees are par 70, but have a SSS of 73.  Oooops, a very difficult course at 3 over par for the scratch golfer.  Second oooops, my tees have a SSS of 71 to a par of 68, also 3 over par and very difficult even for the scratch golfer (which I am not).  I missed the different par for my tees on the very complicated scorecard. 

To add insult to injury, my playing companion gets two par 5's while I get none - including one egregious one where I got a 455 par 4 to his 476 yard par 5.  My tees included 7 par 4's that were over 423 yards up to two beauties of 453 and 455 yards, 4 par 3's and NO par 5's.

Now I know par is meaningless in some ways, but this was ridiculous.  I know that the SSS should sort out the disparity between the two tees, but in this case par was inane.

If par is an issue why not move back and make a few long 4s 5s? There are forward tees as well which are sub 6000 with higher par.  I don't see where it is written that the daily tee should be easier to play to one's handicap than the medal tee.  All courses can't suit everybody's game to a tee...and that too is a good thing.

I just played Crail and I reckon the medal tee is easier to score to one's handiap than the daily tee.  The course is still harder from the whites regardless of what par is.  Par is simply a number...don't worry about it and just accept that no matter what the tee is, sometimes there will be par 4s which are basically par 5s.  Thats a good thing so long as the course isn't a slog.

I agree, the Kings is a very fine course, one of a handful of best inland courses in GB&I that should be on the itineraries of all who all visit the general area and can afford the fee. 

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Par "Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green. Par is not a significant factor in either the USGAHandicap System or USGA Course Rating System.

The only inane thing in regard to par is that the vast majority of players consider themselves experts.

[JESII]

But that’s the hook that makes “PAR” completely relevant in the playing of a hole...we are certain we can do something that might be just beyond our reach...

[Peter Pallotta]

...or what else is a Heaven for, but that a man's reach should exceed his grasp.

There. I think we can wrap this up now, don't you think...?

[JESII]

Yep

[Jon Wiggett]

Bryan,


I am glad that you have cracked the game to the extent that this is your only problem when playing a great course such as 'Kings'. Why not forget about par and just play the course in front of you.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

In my head I operate a personal par system.
Essentially it’s -


Can I reach a green in 1 shot - it’s a par-3
Can I reach a green in 2 shots - it’s a par-4
Can I reach a green in 3 shots - it’s a par-5
Etc


It might not be a perfect method but it usually helps me keep things in perspective.


Atb


PS - now transfer this system to the TV pro game and the scores posted on TV relative to statutory ‘par’ don’t seem so impressive. Smoke and mirrors golf is what we see on TV.

[JESII]

Thomas, how do you think about the in-between holes? The ones you can almost reach but not quite unless you have a bit of wind helping or the ground is firm?  Do you lower your personal par? Or do you try to beat ‘par’ by a stroke?

[Garland Bayley]

In my head I operate a personal par system.
Essentially it’s -


Can I reach a green in 1 shot - it’s a par-3
Can I reach a green in 2 shots - it’s a par-4
Can I reach a green in 3 shots - it’s a par-5
Etc


It might not be a perfect method but it usually helps me keep things in perspective.


Atb


PS - now transfer this system to the TV pro game and the scores posted on TV relative to statutory ‘par’ don’t seem so impressive. Smoke and mirrors golf is what we see on TV.

Jerry Kluger was complaining about not being able to drive drivable par 4s at Buda. I gave him the same message. If you can drive it, it is a par 3. In Jerry's case, anything over 180 would be a par 4.

[Carl Rogers]

I am in the camp that says "par" is relevant.
Would anyone like playing a 1000 yard par 8 hole?

[Garland Bayley]

I am in the camp that says "par" is relevant.
Would anyone like playing a 1000 yard par 8 hole?

I would like playing a 1000 yard hole, and I don't care if there's a par as it is irrelevant.

[Niall C]

Wow !!!

Bryan – hopefully this doesn’t sound like a knock, or at least if it is maybe you can accept it as a gentle chide, but I’m astonished at the mental contortions you go into before you tee it up. I wonder if this highlights the difference in the golfing cultures of north America and the UK ?

I consider myself reasonably design literate but even so I can’t tell you the yardages at any of the courses I’ve been a member of, some of which I’ve played hundreds of times. I could probably hazard a guess and might get to within a 100 yards or so but even then I’m not so sure. I suspect I’m fairly typical for golfers in the UK.

It should be said that most of the courses I’ve been a member at are links so the yardage is relative to the conditions and indeed much the same can be said about inland courses between summer and winter. I wonder if that’s why most UK golfers are happy just to play the tee box they are given and then categorise the courses as hard, easy or whatever without the need of evaluating them in a numerical fashion. A sort of “play it as it lies” approach.

It seems to me that that kind of mind-set would mitigate the need for umpteen tees per hole. Just saying 

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Anybody who cares about "par" is an idiot.

[Kalen Braley]

Par is meaningful in only one context, in that it utilizes psychological warfare on the fragile ego that most just can't seem to shy away from.  Sure if you've given up on your golf game, its easy to dismiss as unimportant, but as long as you're still trying, it will always matter.  Its in our nature.


Its no different than an attractive person walking by (male or female, depending on our preferences)...you just can't resist taking a look.

[JESII]

I wonder if there is a single feature on any golf course as influential at dictating play as the stated par of that hole...


Yours,


Idiot

[John Kavanaugh]

I wonder if there is a single feature on any golf course as influential at dictating play as the stated par of that hole...


Yours,


Idiot

Jim,


It's idiots like you that could have made a living at the game if you could only stroke birdie putts with the same confidence as ones for bogey. Just another example of why great players don't "get it".

[JESII]

Ha, yes maybe. Although, I’ve always wondered what it means that your perspective on that phenomenon is opposite to mine. I’ve always felt putts got more difficult as the score went up.

[Jim Nugent]

Par "Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

Is that from the USGA?  Wherever, I don't think it's a good description.  For one thing, expert players expect to score better than 5 on most par 5s.  Also, plenty of golfers who aren't experts make pars on plenty of holes. 

If most golfers can drive the hole, it's usually a par 3.  If most golfers require two strokes to reach the green, it's usually a par 4.  If the majority requires 3, it's a par 5.  Of course there are exceptions, and distances/situations can vary, both over time and between courses.  But that general guideline serves pretty well IMO. 

Modify slightly the definition above to say, "par is the score an expert would be expected to make for the entire round."  That's more accurate and more useful to me.  Par as a measure of expert play is a glorious dream or goal 99.9% of all golfers can aspire to.   

[Kyle Harris]

Par "Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

Is that from the USGA?  Wherever, I don't think it's a good description.  For one thing, expert players expect to score better than 5 on most par 5s.  Also, plenty of golfers who aren't experts make pars on plenty of holes. 

If most golfers can drive the hole, it's usually a par 3.  If most golfers require two strokes to reach the green, it's usually a par 4.  If the majority requires 3, it's a par 5.  Of course there are exceptions, and distances/situations can vary, both over time and between courses.  But that general guideline serves pretty well IMO. 

Modify slightly the definition above to say, "par is the score an expert would be expected to make for the entire round."  That's more accurate and more useful to me.  Par as a measure of expert play is a glorious dream or goal 99.9% of all golfers can aspire to.

Expertise and mastery are two different things to me. Furthermore, the plural of anecdote is not "data."
Yes, there is wiggle room, but if anything that will drive the concept of par for a hole or round lower - not higher.

[Mark Pearce]

No-one has picked up what, for me, is the oddest thing about the OP.  I cannot, for the life of me, understand why two friends would choose to play golf together and then choose to play a different set of tees.  That leads to a disrupted, rhythm less game.  Agree the set of tees you're going to play and have a game of golf.  And compare your scores on each hole, adjusted, if you want, by handicap.  Simples.

[Thomas Dai]

No-one has picked up what, for me, is the oddest thing about the OP.  I cannot, for the life of me, understand why two friends would choose to play golf together and then choose to play a different set of tees.  That leads to a disrupted, rhythm less game.  Agree the set of tees you're going to play and have a game of golf.  And compare your scores on each hole, adjusted, if you want, by handicap.  Simples.

Husbands and wives play together from different tees......but then again do H&W’s count as friends!


Being serious for a moment, some clubs in the U.K. have started to adopt an approach in men’s amateur medals and stablefords where guys can play in the same 2-3-4-ball but play from different coloured tees (different prize divisions). I think this approach has been adopted in parts of Europe for a while.


Atb