[Zac Blair]

I would be really interested to hear some thoughts on why par does or does not matter to people.


I sit on the fence in this debate and can appreciate both sides ... some days I truly believe it doesn't matter and other days I think it does have a some sort of purpose.


Any thoughts?

[Peter Pallotta]

Zac, I'd sum up my thoughts this way:

Good golf architecture doesn't depend on par, but our appreciation of it probably does.

I consider myself an average golfer. A great risk-reward short Par 4 wouldn't mean the same to me unless a par was attached to set my expectations and goals.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Unfortunately, enough golfers, developers, and so called experts seem to be obsessed with par 72 or at least 71.  Nassau CC once ruined a couple of very good par4's in order to have a second par 5 hole, and the vote for the change was a heavy majority.  Over the years I have played so many poor at best courses in SoCal that could be pretty good par 68 or 69s, but instead they have terribly fitting par5s.. 

[Kalen Braley]

The longer I've been on GCA, the more I lean towards the notion of: par only matters as a mechanism to get in the head of the player on 1/2 par holes.

Call a 490 yard hole a par 4 and it conjures up an entirely different set of feelings and apprehension than if you call it a par 5 where it all flips on its head.  And I think this affects better players far more than lesser ones.

[Matthew Mollica]

I don't think it matters all that much.


If I were in your position Zac, I'd love to have a tiny scorecard for my course that comprised the hole number, hole length, and a box for the number of shots it took to complete. No par, no index, nothing.

[Peter Flory]

I would be totally comfortable playing a course for fun, in a friendly match, or in a tournament if par wasn't published.  We all are so used to yardage ranges being associated with par 3/4/5 that any yardage would basically just signal a par in our heads.  If you get to a hole and it says 420, that's all you need to know.  If it says 268, then it gets trickier and I'd actually welcome having it be open ended. 


However... I do love scotch games and I don't know how that game functions without the concept of the birdie. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Par matters only for a few reasons.


Depending on their ability level, golfers love to get an eagle, a birdie, or even just a par. It can be the highlight of a golfer’s day. Without “par” such delights are removed.


Performance relative to par is how we monitor the performance of contestants in a pro tournament at whichever stage of their round they are at.


Stableford scoring is absolutely dependent on the concept of par. In the U.K. at least, Stableford is probably the dominant system among club golfers.


Otherwise, par is completely meaningless.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree with Duncan.


But I like Peter’s response in the first post that good architecture should be completely divorced from Par whilst the appreciation of it isn’t.


If golf courses were only about good architecture, then it wouldn’t matter. But golf courses are there as playing fields for a game. And different forms of that game (e.g. Stableford) need a framework.


I had my first eagle on Saturday for about a year. I was delighted. I shot +1 at Portmarnock which was my best round there for the about 3 years. I was delighted. I struck the ball pretty poorly but the score sent me home happy.


Both of these things wouldn’t really have existed (or at least had context) without Par.


All that said, Matthew’s suggestion of leaving Par off the scorecard is one I’ve always liked… But leaving the index off rules out Matchplay as well. How about having a Par and an Index but leaving out the yardage?

[Thomas Dai]

In the amateur game par is fundamentally a comparative measuring tool. No par (or equivalent), no handicaps, no comparative scoring system, no competitive golf unless gross score is used.
In certain aspects of the game like marketing and in the Pro game it’s evolved into something a bit different.
Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

It eliminates the need for a scorecard.

[Anthony Gray]

 It’s a way to judge performance with yourself and against others

[Bill Gayne]

The 18 hole par total of 69-74 really doesn't mean much to me but the individual holes par have meaning. If it doesn't add up to 72 because the course has five par threes or five par fives doesn't matter. I know people who think if a course doesn't have four par threes, ten par fours, and four par fives then it's defective in some way which is crazy.


I like finishing the individual hole and knowing how I did against a standard.

[Sean_A]

Par is helpful so far as keeping score in big events...its easy to see how players are doing.

Par should have no place in architectural decision making. It isn't an accident that the vast majority of courses hang around the 36 or 72 mark and there is no reason for it. I hope we are devolving away from the concepts of par and 9/18 holes because there is a ton of good unbuilt courses out there if we do.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Par is helpful so far as keeping score in big events...its easy to see how players are doing.

...
Ciao

That's it. And, that could be overcome by an alternative measurement.

If you make two on a hole that requires you to take two shots to reach the green, then you will be excited. You don't need a label of eagle to get you excited. If you tell someone you made a 2 on the hole and they know the hole, they will realize your accomplishment.

If you are 80, and the hole is 250 yards long, your joy should not be diminished by there being an artificial standard of 3 on the card.

If you are 20, and the hole is 500 yards long, your joy should not be increased by there being an artificial standard of 5 on the card.

[Dan_Callahan]

Wasn’t it the Warren Course st Notre Dame that opened with no par assigned to any of the holes? And very quickly they brought C&C back to change that because people couldn’t deal.


I don’t think par should matter, but it does out of habit. If we had all been raised to keep score by simply counting the total number of shots taken over 18 holes, I don’t think our enjoyment of the game would be diminished. However, par is now a fixture in our brains, which makes it difficult to think in any terms other than birdies and bogies.

[Colin Sheehan]

Par is totally meaningless.

The game existed for four hundred years before the bloody English (in their infinite pursuit of order and making sense of things) felt the need to assign an estimation of strokes to the holes at Great Yarmouth & Caister. Golf holes can be anywhere between 90 and 650 yards and yet they are supposed to fall into three categories? That doesn't make any sense.

I do think a course should have a Standard Scratch Score for those who wish to measure themselves against par, they can do so by playing the totality of the course. For example, the scratch golfer should be expected to "go round the course in 71 strokes." 

[Ken Moum]

Par matters only for a few reasons

Stableford scoring is absolutely dependent on the concept of par. In the U.K. at least, Stableford is probably the dominant system among club golfers.


Otherwise, par is completely meaningless.

I've thought about that a bit as my group plays Stableford about once a week and skins off the low handicapper the other two times we play.


IMHO,  Stableford and every other "relative" accounting could be done off "level fours" with strokes allocated by yardage.


Making the longest hole #1 handicap and shortest #18 has few disadvantages.


But, as has been said, calling a 300-yard hole a par three or a 590-yarder a par four seems to be a lovely way to get in a Tour Player's head.

[Ken Fry]

We did this at The Warren GC at Notre Dame when we opened.


Course rating and slope don’t take par into account so no issues getting the course rated.  We handicapped the holes on overall difficulty not relative to any par.


What was interesting is how some people really embraced the idea and others flat out lost their mind.  Too many complaints lead to bringing par back.


Ken

[Sean_A]

Par matters only for a few reasons

Stableford scoring is absolutely dependent on the concept of par. In the U.K. at least, Stableford is probably the dominant system among club golfers.


Otherwise, par is completely meaningless.

I've thought about that a bit as my group plays Stableford about once a week and skins off the low handicapper the other two times we play.


IMHO,  Stableford and every other "relative" accounting could be done off "level fours" with strokes allocated by yardage.


Making the longest hole #1 handicap and shortest #18 has few disadvantages.


But, as has been said, calling a 300-yard hole a par three or a 590-yarder a par four seems to be a lovely way to get in a Tour Player's head.

Level 4s is basically another name par for score keeping.

Ciao

[Paul Jones]

Par does not matter until someone puts it on a scorecard.


If I was playing a course and came to a 375 yard Par 3 - I would say this is not a Par 3 and goofy.  If I was playing a course with no Par defined at each hole, I would not think the hole is goofy relative to Par. Either way, I might love or hate the hole, but it would not be based on a Par definition.


Problem is golf course have been using Par as a reference for a long time.  People that like change or trying new things will love it, while others might not.

[John Kavanaugh]

Birdies don't hurt anyone. I like birdies.


One of my buddies told me the other day that he had never made an eagle. He did make a 2 on the 12th at Augusta. Is that better than if he had made a 3 on the 13th? What is wrong with you people?

[Sean_A]

Birdies don't hurt anyone. I like birdies.

One of my buddies told me the other day that he had never made an eagle. He did make a 2 on the 12th at Augusta. Is that better than if he had made a 3 on the 13th? What is wrong with you people?

Would you feel cheated if you scored a 3 on a 285 yard par 3?

We all know when we played a hole well. Well done is plenty of accolades.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf stories are the worst. Thank God the popularity of poker has waned and the poker hand story is a thing of the past.


Par, birdies and eagles make golf stories shorter and more interesting. The difference between a story of 8 threes or or one of three birdies is night and day.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I had a conversation with a young pro years ago who has since become one of the better tournament players in Philadelphia. He told me he laid up on #10 at Hidden Creek, even though he could reach the green, because it was playing as a par 5. He said if it were a par 4 he’d have gone for it. I opined that I thought this was silly thinking, but he stuck to his guns. I wonder if he would answer the same way, now that he has more experience.

[Sean_A]

Golf stories are the worst. Thank God the popularity of poker has waned and the poker hand story is a thing of the past.


Par, birdies and eagles make golf stories shorter and more interesting. The difference between a story of 8 threes or or one of three birdies is night and day.

Ever heard of Bernard Darwin?

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()