[David Harshbarger]

Par matters!


How do we know?  Because people change behaviors based on the par of a hole, they are communicating by their actions that par matters.  And why does it matter?  Because par communicates and triggers a set of expectations on how the player should perform.  This is powerful, really powerful, and makes the assignment of par a very useful tool in the designer's toolkit.


For most holes the assigned par is not in dispute.  But, for holes whose distance is on the cusp, the par drives expectations and influences how players make play decisions and how they feel about their performance.


Take a long hole. Assign it a par of 4, and it will be seen as a ball-buster.  Assign it a par of 5, and it will be seen as a gettable birdie.  Assign it a par of 5 and card a 3?  For many people, eagles come once every long while, if ever.  That can make a player's day, week, or year!


Assign that long hole a par of 4 and there is a good chance it bubbles to the top of the handicap assignments.  Assign that long hola a par of 5 and it may trickle down a few spots.
Certainly that matters in a match.  Make the hole a par of 4, with a high handicap number and it effectively plays as a 4 for the better player and a 5 for their lesser competitor.  Make the hole a par of 5, with a lower handicap number, and now the hole plays at even for more competitions, favoring the better player.


In play, since players are likely to succumb to the desire to be on the green in regulation, the lower par value is more likely to drive riskier approach shots.  If the architect's intent is to invite that play, assigning the lower par will create pressure on many players to take the risk.  How could that not be a useful component of the architect's arsenal?

[Sean_A]

Par matters only if one chooses to allow it to matter. One can quite happily attempt to shoot the best score without ever knowing the par of any of the holes. 

Ciao

[David Harshbarger]

Par matters only if one chooses to allow it to matter. One can quite happily attempt to shoot the best score without ever knowing the par of any of the holes. 

Ciao

Indeed, one can rationalize away par.  My observed experience is that the common, unthinking response to par is that it establishes an expectation for performance that is incorporated into both the play and the emotional value of the hole. 


An enlightened player can move past that, but only the most enlightened player is completely unaffected by it.

[JESII]

One can quite happily attempt to shoot the best score without ever knowing the par of any of the holes. 

Ciao

Not true...






That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think it matters more to US-based golders who play stroke play.


Par doesnt matter as much in match play.


Had this same debate 2-3 years ago when discussing the Road Hole at TOC.


Plus, there is an increasingly popular expression "out there" that I first encountered at Whisper Rock: "No One Cares What You Shot!"

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Par matters only if one chooses to allow it to matter. One can quite happily attempt to shoot the best score without ever knowing the par of any of the holes.

This, fully. And on the PGA Tour, it's not like the guys are playing the first at Riviera as a three-shot hole, nor do most players lay up on 10 because it's a "par four."

I think the idea that PGA Tour players modify their behavior based on the par is old. Outdated. I understand the roots of it, and it does apply to many, but I think they're mostly just trying to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible.

[David Harshbarger]

To clarify:


I get that par doesn't need to matter.  I'm not trying to restart that discussion. 


My point is that many if not most players are receptive to the idea that the par assigned matters, and with it, their expectations for performance and assessment of results. 


If many to most players are going to behave like this, then par becomes a useful tool in the course architects toolkit.


On the Riviera thread someone notes that Riv-1 could be a 4 or 5.  However, the members would probably prefer their opening hole to be an easy 5, not a hard 4.  I don't what could be a more succinct statement that "par matters".


Setting the par at 5 creates a set of expectations that lead to a more positive emotional experience of the course for the membership.  That's a powerful insight.


In a different setting, knowing that, if an architect lays out a course with a par-cusp hole the architect has an opportunity to "tune the emotional journey" through the assignment of par. 


Time for a breather?  Give that par-cusp hole the higher par.
Time to crank up the challenge?  Give that par-cusp hole the lower par.


Same hole.  Different emotional journey.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Same hole.  Different emotional journey.

I'm likely an outlier, but I can safely say that it wouldn't really affect my emotional state or decision-making at all. I know what I expect to do from 495 yards, and whether that hole is a par 4 or a par 5 doesn't matter to me at all.

The course I play frequently in fact has a ~480+ yard 10th hole. If pressed to give it a "par" I'd call it a 4.5. If I'm not allowed to give it half par numbers, I'd call it a "damned tough par 4" and be mildly disappointed with a bogey, just as I would if it was a "pretty easy par 5."

Generally, the better the player, the less I think par matters to them. So regarding Riviera, and PGA Tour players, I don't think many would play 1 or 10 differently if the par was changed. Justin Thomas lays up every time, and knows if he can play it in 15 for the week, he's likely gaining shots. (I read something recently about this, and yesterday with Tiger, he made birdie doing so.)

[Peter Pallotta]

One can quite happily attempt to shoot the best score without ever knowing the par of any of the holes. 

Ciao

Not true...

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, keep sticking to it!
You know why?
Because by Sean's way of thinking (and mine too, sometimes), *nothing* matters.
If we could be as free of concepts & constraints as Sean suggests we can, we could as 'quite happily' reside in a maximum security prison as in a luxury co-op on Manhattan's Upper West side, and 'choose to' enjoy a plate of cold broccoli as much as we do a mug of espresso and a piece of cherry cheesecake.
Sure: we probably *should* strive to be as free of external rules and signifiers and artificial constructs as possible; but from what I can tell most of us (except maybe for saints) won't ever get there.
I mean: I too can *say* that 'par doesn't matter'. I could also say that I think 'money doesn't matter', and that 'age is just a number' etc.
You wouldn't believe me for a second re: the former, and when I try to swing too hard and my back aches and my shoulder makes a popping sound, even I myself don't believe the latter. 
It reminds me of the Carl Reiner-Mel Brooks 2000 Year Old Man skit:
Carl: Wow, 2000 years. You must've lived in a lot of places.
Mel: Oh, I've lived everywhere. I've lived in caves, I've lived in huts, I've lived in trees...
Carl: What was your favorite pl...
Mel: 1141 Park Avenue! That was a terrific house. Big foyer, windows that looked out onto the street...   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes, keep sticking to it!
You know why?
Because by Sean's way of thinking (and mine too, sometimes), *nothing* matters.
If we could be as free of concepts & constraints as Sean suggests we can, we could as 'quite happily' reside in a maximum security prison as in a luxury co-op on Manhattan's Upper West side, and 'choose to' enjoy a plate of cold broccoli as much as we do a mug of espresso and a piece of cherry cheesecake.
Sure: we probably *should* strive to be as free of external rules and signifiers and artificial constructs as possible; but from what I can tell most of us (except maybe for saints) won't ever get there.
I mean: I too can *say* that 'par doesn't matter'. I could also say that I think 'money doesn't matter', and that 'age is just a number' etc.
You wouldn't believe me for a second re: the former, and when I try to swing too hard and my back aches and my shoulder makes a popping sound, even I myself don't believe the latter. 
It reminds me of the Carl Reiner-Mel Brooks 2000 Year Old Man skit:
Carl: Wow, 2000 years. You must've lived in a lot of places.
Mel: Oh, I've lived everywhere. I've lived in caves, I've lived in huts, I've lived in trees...
Carl: What was your favorite pl...
Mel: 1141 Park Avenue! That was a terrific house. Big foyer, windows that looked out onto the street...   

Huh? He didn't say that "*nothing* matters."

So unless this is some weird inside joke or something… huh?

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik -
Sean's post is simply another way of saying what many have said here many a time over the years, i.e. "par doesn't matter".
I'm suggesting that if par really, really doesn't matter, then many other outside concepts and expectations etc that we all face each and every day also don't matter -- hence my "nothing (as intangible and artificial as par) matters". 
But of course we know they *do* matter, and that we are shaped/influenced by such concepts & constraints & external expectations everywhere we turn.
As I say: I can understanding striving *not* to be shaped & influenced by such things, but it is -- IMHO -- much easier said than done.
When I walk off a green with a double bogey (on a Par 3) I tend to feel less contented and more grumpy than when I walk off with a par (on a Par 5).
In both cases, I have hit 5 shots. Then why I am unhappy with one and happy with the other?
Why? Because of the concept of par.
   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sean's post is simply another way of saying what many have said here many a time over the years, i.e. "par doesn't matter".

And I have undoubtedly said the same thing, and I've probably also that for most people, it does matter.

I'm suggesting that if par really, really doesn't matter

Before we keep going, that's not what he said. There's a world of difference between these two statements:

• One can quite happily attempt to shoot the best score without ever knowing the par of any of the holes.
• Par doesn't matter to anyone, anywhere, ever.

You're replying as if he said the second.

, then many other outside concepts and expectations etc that we all face each and every day also don't matter -- hence my "nothing (as intangible and artificial as par) matters".

Hence my objection, because just saying "one can" do something isn't the same as "everyone, everywhere, always." It's an illogical extension.

But of course we know they *do* matter

They don't have to, for everyone, everywhere, and always.

As I say: I can understanding striving *not* to be shaped & influenced by such things, but it is -- IMHO -- much easier said than done.

Do you think nobody has ever achieved "not caring about par"?

When I walk off a green with a double bogey (on a Par 3) I tend to feel less contented and more grumpy than when I walk off with a par (on a Par 5).

That's you. That's not everyone, everywhere, always.

There's nothing inherent in assigning par to a hole that guarantees everyone, everywhere, always must consider it or care about it. People are capable of not caring about it. He said "can" and "one" — not "everyone" and "does" (or doesn't). There are likely situations in which even you haven't cared about the par of a hole. Match play might be such an instance.

[Thomas Dai]

No par*, then no measure to calculate handicap against?
atb


* or alternative benchmark

[Colin Macqueen]

My Dear Peter,


Thank the Lord that someone has at last deconstructed and deciphered your obscure, rambling, surrealistic and circuitous turn of Behr-esque phrase. Now I wrote Behr-esque not burlesque but burlesque will do fine if you need to paraphrase me.
Magnificently entertaining, I presume you do know that I have given up saving and recording all your bon mots as two years ago I was up to about 12 pages .... and that was only the exquisite phrases of yours that I found entrancing.  I actually felt that I was stalking you in in a "wordy" way which I found weirdy!!


Orrra best, Colin

[Peter Flory]

An interesting example that I heard of was an invitational where the Oklahoma (or maybe Oklahoma State) golf coach required his players to play the 10th hole at Butler National as a par 5.  He apparently deemed that going for it in 2 did not pay off, even though it is a par 4.  I believe that they won the tournament that year.

If you're not familiar with the hole, it is a decently long par 4 with water to the left off the tee.  On the approach, you're hitting a long shot in to a shallow green that is raised up over a creek.  If you miss short, you're probably making a double, but if you miss long it is also a problem since the rough is thick and sticky and the green pitches toward the creek. 

In amateur tournament golf, they often publish the stats for each hole.  There are many cases where the field averages lower scores on easy par 5s than they do on difficult par 4s.  It is sometime helpful to view prior years' stats for a course before playing it in a tournament because it highlights hidden difficulties on certain holes and allows you to formulate a smarter strategy on them- usually a more conservative one than you'd otherwise use. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Unwoke gentlemen still pay a premium for birdies.

[David Harshbarger]

An interesting example that I heard of was an invitational where the Oklahoma (or maybe Oklahoma State) golf coach required his players to play the 10th hole at Butler National as a par 5.  He apparently deemed that going for it in 2 did not pay off, even though it is a par 4.  I believe that they won the tournament that year.

If you're not familiar with the hole, it is a decently long par 4 with water to the left off the tee.  On the approach, you're hitting a long shot in to a shallow green that is raised up over a creek.  If you miss short, you're probably making a double, but if you miss long it is also a problem since the rough is thick and sticky and the green pitches toward the creek. 

In amateur tournament golf, they often publish the stats for each hole.  There are many cases where the field averages lower scores on easy par 5s than they do on difficult par 4s.  It is sometime helpful to view prior years' stats for a course before playing it in a tournament because it highlights hidden difficulties on certain holes and allows you to formulate a smarter strategy on them- usually a more conservative one than you'd otherwise use.

This an interesting anecdote that supports my position that par is itself a component of the architecture that influences how players perceive and engage the course in front of them.

[David Harshbarger]

Would Cypress Point #16 be different if it was a Par 4?
Would Riviera #10 be different if it was a Par 3?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Would Cypress Point #16 be different if it was a Par 4?
Would Riviera #10 be different if it was a Par 3?

For some. Not for all.

[Mark Pearce]

Would Cypress Point #16 be different if it was a Par 4?
Would Riviera #10 be different if it was a Par 3?

No, they would not.  I think the question you meant to ask is "would people's attitude to, and the way they played Cyprus Point #16 if it was a par 4?".  And if the answer is yes, that is no reflection on the hole but, rather, on the mental weakness of the golfer.

[James Reader]

I’m not sure if this research has been discussed on here before (I heard about it on an episode of The Fried Egg), but there is evidence that par does matter, even at the highest level:


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311649


The analysis is based on holes at Pebble and Oakmont which were changed from par 5s to par 4s in US Opens; the scoring improved to a statistically significant degree more than on those holes than on those that remained as par 5s.  Which would suggest that absolute scoring is better if a hole is a difficult par 4 than if it’s an easy par 5.


A criticism of this could be that it’s based on a very limited data set of only two holes but, as I understand it, there’s also clear evidence that Tour players are more likely to make a putt for par than an identical putt for birdie - this may well be one of the factors driving the improvement.


More anecdotally, to quote Jordan Spieth from the paper: “Obviously par doesn’t really matter, but it’s nice when you feel like ‘Oh, I have to lay up, but I can still hit a wedge and get a birdie putt,’ instead of ‘Oh man, I don’t want to make a bogey.’”

[Sean_A]

I’m not sure if this research has been discussed on here before (I heard about it on an episode of The Fried Egg), but there is evidence that par does matter, even at the highest level:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311649

The analysis is based on holes at Pebble and Oakmont which were changed from par 5s to par 4s in US Opens; the scoring improved to a statistically significant degree more than on those holes than on those that remained as par 5s.  Which would suggest that absolute scoring is better if a hole is a difficult par 4 than if it’s an easy par 5.

A criticism of this could be that it’s based on a very limited data set of only two holes but, as I understand it, there’s also clear evidence that Tour players are more likely to make a putt for par than an identical putt for birdie - this may well be one of the factors driving the improvement.

More anecdotally, to quote Jordan Spieth from the paper: “Obviously par doesn’t really matter, but it’s nice when you feel like ‘Oh, I have to lay up, but I can still hit a wedge and get a birdie putt,’ instead of ‘Oh man, I don’t want to make a bogey.’”

Exactly! Par matters if one allows it to. There is nothing inherently important about the labels given to scores. The importance is based on how a player mentally approaches the game. Nothing about the features or length of a hole is altered if we call it par 3 or 5. Par is, well, was, simply the expectation, on average, that an expert player would score on a hole.

Ciao

[David Harshbarger]

I’m not sure if this research has been discussed on here before (I heard about it on an episode of The Fried Egg), but there is evidence that par does matter, even at the highest level:


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311649


The analysis is based on holes at Pebble and Oakmont which were changed from par 5s to par 4s in US Opens; the scoring improved to a statistically significant degree more than on those holes than on those that remained as par 5s.  Which would suggest that absolute scoring is better if a hole is a difficult par 4 than if it’s an easy par 5.


A criticism of this could be that it’s based on a very limited data set of only two holes but, as I understand it, there’s also clear evidence that Tour players are more likely to make a putt for par than an identical putt for birdie - this may well be one of the factors driving the improvement.


More anecdotally, to quote Jordan Spieth from the paper: “Obviously par doesn’t really matter, but it’s nice when you feel like ‘Oh, I have to lay up, but I can still hit a wedge and get a birdie putt,’ instead of ‘Oh man, I don’t want to make a bogey.’”

We get to see if this effect plays out in 4 months!

"Finally, we should mention how future US Opens, or golf tournaments in general, might be able to utilize the results of this study. Organizers could choose to change short par 5s to par 4s in order to protect par. The expected result would be more pars and bogeys, but the overall golf should be played at a higher level. As a specific example, the 2020 US Open Golf Championship will be played at Winged Foot Golf Club (West Course) in Mamaroneck, New York. The fifth hole at Winged Foot is a 515 yard par 5. In other words, the hole is a relatively short par 5 by professional golfing standards. If the fifth hole’s par rating is changed from a par 5 to a par 4, we would expect a significant decrease in average scores on that hole in the upcoming US Open based on our analysis."

[David Harshbarger]

Would Cypress Point #16 be different if it was a Par 4?
Would Riviera #10 be different if it was a Par 3?

No, they would not.  I think the question you meant to ask is "would people's attitude to, and the way they played Cyprus Point #16 if it was a par 4?".  And if the answer is yes, that is no reflection on the hole but, rather, on the mental weakness of the golfer.

I like that you and Sean both are putting this back on the mental side of the golfer, for of course that's the only place any effect of using par to anchor expectations could occur. 


But aren't expectations at the heart of golf architecture?


Behr's Line of Instinct vs. Line of Charm.  MacKenzie making the course appear more fearsome than it plays.  These are just architectural responses to human proclivities and biases to achieve an effect. 


That it takes mental strength to play through the effect is the point.  And that effect is part of the hole. 

[BCrosby]

Well said David H.


I might change Mark's "the mental weakness of the golfer" to "the almost irresistible propensity of all golfers."


Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()