In Defense of Par

[Adam Clayman]

Par matters less to the sportsman. And is virtually everything to the game mind. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

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


Par doesnt matter as much in match play.

On the contrary, it is in strokeplay that par matters the least.


In strokeplay the aim is to complete the whole course in as few shots as possible. The number of shots taken on any one hole is irrelevant - it is only the total that matters.


In pro tournaments the only significance of par is as a yardstick of relative performance of players at different stages of their round.


Par matters in matchplay in that it contributes to the handicap or stroke index of holes on the cusp of par. A long par 4 will have a low number; the same hole redesignated as a par 5 will have a much higher handicap or SI, leading to a very different distribution of shots in a match. This might or might not make a significant difference to the eventual outcome.


Where par really matters is in the Stableford competitions and social games which make up a large proportion of golf in the UK. The whole scoring system is predicted on the par of each hole.

[David Harshbarger]

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

That is an interesting point. 


If you were make this distinction:


Penal architecture punishes the weak player (think topped-shot bunker)
Strategic architecture confounds the strong player (think extremely wide fairways that matter?)


Then wouldn't the assignment of par on par-cusp holes be a strategic architectural element? The study quoted suggests that the number on the card has a measurable influence on the numbers returned on the cards.  And Speith's quote confirms that even elite golfers are receptive to the expectations that the assigned par establishes.

[David Harshbarger]

Par matters in matchplay in that it contributes to the handicap or stroke index of holes on the cusp of par. A long par 4 will have a low number; the same hole redesignated as a par 5 will have a much higher handicap or SI, leading to a very different distribution of shots in a match. This might or might not make a significant difference to the eventual outcome.


Where par really matters is in the Stableford competitions and social games which make up a large proportion of golf in the UK. The whole scoring system is predicted on the par of each hole.

I agree with your point here.  The expectations that come out of the assignment of par are projected onto the order of assignment of strokes for handicap play.   Even though we all know that par doesn't actually matter, yet again, that is belied here by actions taken based on the assignment of par.

[Duncan Cheslett]

In matchplay it isn’t the par of a hole that matters, it is whether or not one is receiving or giving a shot.


If I’m playing against a better player and am receiving six shots, I will tend to get those shots on long par 4s or possibly on a very long par 3. This enables me to play conservatively and be in a position to battle out the hole on the green.


If such a hole is redesignated as a par 5 I will likely not receive a shot. This inevitably influences the way I play the hole, although the wise move is probably to play it exactly as before and hope that I can put my approach wedge as close as my opponent’s lag put.

Of course, for every shot lost on such a hole having its par changed I will gain one on a hole where previously I did not receive a shot. Swings and roundabouts.


All in all though, I think that par as a concept has gained far more importance than it merits.