[Jim_Coleman]

Peter: Funny, my mindset is pretty much the opposite. I want to shoot a score, and that score has pretty much always been 79 (or, more accurately, to break 80).  When I do (it used to be maybe 25% of the time; now much less) I don’t care one iota whether it’s at a par 70 or par 72 course. I suppose that’s pretty stupid, but that’s where my head is.

[Neil Davis]

As others have said, making birdies is fun. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter: Funny, my mindset is pretty much the opposite. I want to shoot a score, and that score has pretty much always been 79 (or, more accurately, to break 80).  When I do (it used to be maybe 25% of the time; now much less) I don’t care one iota whether it’s at a par 70 or par 72 course. I suppose that’s pretty stupid, but that’s where my head is.

Jim, no not so stupid at all, and I too aim to break 80 (regardless of the course's total par) -- but on a hole by hole basis, I sure do like to *also* get the little thrills of making par after par after par, or even a birdie! I know this sounds silly to better golfers, but I'll remember for a long long time how good making that many pars in a row felt to me.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, good post.
I think you may very well be right about the codification of design (and the game) that came with Par. I suppose the question is, on balance has that been a negative or a positive for gca, and/or for golf?

[JESII]

Sean, of all these cool courses you see and play, how many were also conceived after par and bogey became widely used?

[Sean_A]

Sean, of all these cool courses you see and play, how many were also conceived after par and bogey became widely used?

I don't know, my guess is the majority were originally conceived prior to par becoming firmly established. But most of these courses were altered as well. I don't know how much cool architecture was lost when Colt and the boys started coming through. A lot of it was lost prior to par. Its been a steady codification of design for probably 120 years, if not more.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

As others have said, making birdies is fun.

Translation: hitting your approach shot close enough to one putt and making it is fun. The word birdie is a convenient way to tell someone not familiar with the hole how you did on it.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Why would any of you meanies want to take that away from me? What kind of sick twisted minds would instead have me say 'I've taken 56 strokes so far, and I so hope I need take only 16 more in order to finish the last 4 holes'?
...

Why do you need someone else's standard for high performance to set your own? Are you telling me you wouldn't know you were excelling that day if there were no definition of par? I would suggest that defined par caused you to crash and burn the last few holes. We're just trying to suggest that par ruined your day. Instead of just feeling your optimal performance and carrying on with it you focused on an artificial standard that ruined your day. If you don't believe me, ask Bob Rotella.

Besides, how many times have you heard a tour winner say the had no idea how well they were doing until they finished and added it up? Focus on performance, not numbers!

[Mike Wagner]

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?

For gambling

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In a head to head match?

If you're giving me 10 shots, I will absolutely back load them.

Statistically, that'd be an unwise choice. You'll lose more often than you would if you took your strokes where they should be, and even more often than that if you took them on holes 1-10. More matches would end before you got your full allotment of strokes the later you choose to take them.

Odd numbers are usually on the front to help reduce the gap (the better player wins head-to-head matches just over 50% of the time). You'd be better off taking all of your strokes on holes 1-10 and then just trying to tie a few holes coming in. "You" would win over 50% of your matches that way.

As for the topic… I don't really understand. Whether you put par on the scorecard at the Tree Farm or not, Zac, people will generally all figure out what par "would" or "should" be. If it's between 250 and 480 (effective playing length), they're probably going to think of it as a par four in their heads and strategy will back that.

This whole topic of par strikes me as navel-gazing or something… it's not going away. The average golfer is always going to kinda care about par. Heck, even mini golf courses sometimes have "par" listed. It's built into golf. And without par, there are no birdies, no bogeys… no eagles.

[Tom_Doak]

The complaint on here is that owners won't let architects build 100, 300 or 500 approximate yard holes from the back tees. Nobody is suggesting 18 of them for a course is a good idea.

My question is, why can't an architect make the case to their client that a 300 yard hole is extremely valuable and 2 or 3 of that 'in-between' type in the course of a round will add tremendous interest?

Jim:


I am not sure that it is the always the client objecting to us building holes of those lengths, although Mike Keiser [who can do no wrong  ] was hesitant about the 6th hole at Pacific Dunes until I pushed a tee back to 316 yards instead of 288.


Likewise, I've had a lot of clients who wanted me to "just build more tee space [further back]" on my shortest par-3 holes, basically any that were under 150 yards.  And dealing with the PGA Tour, they just don't want to have half-par holes that could result in back-ups on the tee, when they are trying to cram through a full field of players who are slower than molasses.




But I do think you're partly right, that after a few such conversations, most architects just avoid the uncomfortable conversation by conforming to the norm and avoiding certain lengths.


Some of it just comes down to numbers, too.  Between Barnbougle, St. Andrews Beach, Tara Iti, and The National (Gunnamatta), I have built a total of seven par-4's that are under 300 yards, and every one of them is a great hole.  But down there they measure in meters, not yards, so whether it's over 300 or under doesn't even come up.  [They also don't give a crap about whether a course is over 6400 m, the metric equivalent of 7000 yards.]


But, back home in the USA, I have not yet once built a par-4 hole that's under 300 yards from the back tees!

[Thomas Dai]

And then we come to those sometimes sneaky deliberate, sometimes accidental situations where a hole right on the yardage divide between a par-3/par-4 or a par-4/par-5 plays either uphill or downhill or there’s a softer or firmer area of the fairway or approach or the wind is usually with or against or some combination of all the above whereupon irrespective of yardage a p3 plays more like a p4 or a p4 plays more like a p5 or vice versa. And then you add-in SI for amateur handicap play plus the likes of temperature and altitude.
Atb

[Zac Blair]

The complaint on here is that owners won't let architects build 100, 300 or 500 approximate yard holes from the back tees. Nobody is suggesting 18 of them for a course is a good idea.

My question is, why can't an architect make the case to their client that a 300 yard hole is extremely valuable and 2 or 3 of that 'in-between' type in the course of a round will add tremendous interest?

Jim:


I am not sure that it is the always the client objecting to us building holes of those lengths, although Mike Keiser [who can do no wrong  ] was hesitant about the 6th hole at Pacific Dunes until I pushed a tee back to 316 yards instead of 288.


Likewise, I've had a lot of clients who wanted me to "just build more tee space [further back]" on my shortest par-3 holes, basically any that were under 150 yards.  And dealing with the PGA Tour, they just don't want to have half-par holes that could result in back-ups on the tee, when they are trying to cram through a full field of players who are slower than molasses.




But I do think you're partly right, that after a few such conversations, most architects just avoid the uncomfortable conversation by conforming to the norm and avoiding certain lengths.


Some of it just comes down to numbers, too.  Between Barnbougle, St. Andrews Beach, Tara Iti, and The National (Gunnamatta), I have built a total of seven par-4's that are under 300 yards, and every one of them is a great hole.  But down there they measure in meters, not yards, so whether it's over 300 or under doesn't even come up.  [They also don't give a crap about whether a course is over 6400 m, the metric equivalent of 7000 yards.]


But, back home in the USA, I have not yet once built a par-4 hole that's under 300 yards from the back tees!

Not true - you’re gonna get 2 at the tree farm 😂


7 - 299
18 - 284


The tree farm is shaping up really cool.
The par 3 are pretty challenging
There are several “short” par 4s
And a handful of really long par 4s

[Pete_Pittock]

Because par manifests "in regulation", a terminology which beggars belief. 

[Mark_Fine]

No one wants to address it but if par didn’t or doesn’t matter, why are there no 6200 yard 18 hole championship (great tests of golf for all playing abilities) golf courses being designed (yet)?  When that happens then we will start to look at par differently. 

[Brad Lawrence]

It’s a completely meaningless number on which too much emphasis has been placed. It distorts people’s minds to the point that they believe you can make a course 100 yards shorter, turn it into a par 70 and it’s somehow a more difficult course. No, you just made the same course 100 yards shorter and therefore it’s easier.

[Mark_Fine]

Brad,
Why does par for an 18 hole championship course need to be at least par 70?  Why not much less like 65 or 66?

[Garland Bayley]

No one wants to address it but if par didn’t or doesn’t matter, why are there no 6200 yard 18 hole championship (great tests of golf for all playing abilities) golf courses being designed (yet)?  When that happens then we will start to look at par differently.

Probably for the same reason there are no 7800 yard 18 hole championship (great tests of golf for all playing abilities) golf courses being designed. 

[Joe Hancock]

It’s a completely meaningless number on which too much emphasis has been placed. It distorts people’s minds to the point that they believe you can make a course 100 yards shorter, turn it into a par 70 and it’s somehow a more difficult course. No, you just made the same course 100 yards shorter and therefore it’s easier.

Interesting concept. If I were to compare an 18 hole golf course of hazardless holes averaging 200 yards and flat as a pancake to another golf course with 18 replica’s of the 17th at Sawgrass…….

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
Erin Hills played close to 7800 yards for the U.S. Open.  The Ocean Course was close to 7900 yards for the PGA, and quite a few others can be stretched to those lengths.  8000 yards is not far away for PGA events   

Mark

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
Erin Hills played close to 7800 yards for the U.S. Open.  The Ocean Course was close to 7900 yards for the PGA, and quite a few others can be stretched to those lengths.  8000 yards is not far away for PGA events   

Mark

I know. Point is you were forcing the best players to play from 6200 yards, so analogously you need to force the worst players to play from 7800 yards.

I found your intended point to be unrealistic.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
What is wrong with forcing the best players to play from 6200 yards and what if the course still allowed someone like Bryson to hit his driver a half dozen times or more if he wanted?  I am not talking chip and putt for these guys, I am talking about a real test. 

[Mike_Trenham]

Garland,
What is wrong with forcing the best players to play from 6200 yards and what if the course still allowed someone like Bryson to hit his driver a half dozen times or more if he wanted?  I am not talking chip and putt for these guys, I am talking about a real test.

Mark - Thinking about this, I bet if you set up Merion at 6,200 yards PGA Tour Players would hit driver off the tee more not less with  US Open conditions. It’s basically 40 yards less per hole than in 2013.

[Ken Moum]

Not true - you’re gonna get 2 at the tree farm 😂


7 - 299
18 - 284


The tree farm is shaping up really cool.
The par 3 are pretty challenging
There are several “short” par 4s
And a handful of really long par 4s

That gets my stamp of approval.  It took playing at Sugarloaf Mtn., a NLE Coore and Crenshaw for me to realize that as a painfully short hitter, my chances against a longer hitter with a similar handicap were essentially zero on holes in the 370-400 range.


And far too many courses have an abundance of them.


K

[Ken Moum]

Why would any of you meanies want to take that away from me? What kind of sick twisted minds would instead have me say 'I've taken 56 strokes so far, and I so hope I need take only 16 more in order to finish the last 4 holes'?

Sean always makes good points, as per above. But he's played golf his whole life and was once a 2 -- so he long ago stopped 'measuring himself' against such an outside and arbitrary concept as par.

I'm not yet either that good or that sophisticated. Standing on the 15th tee at even par after starting with 12 straight pars was very satisfying indeed!

Peter, Since I have been playing in 5 to 15+ organized competitions a year for 60 years, I stopped keeping my score relative to par decades ago. When playing different courses all the time, I realized it was just easier to look at the card and count over and under fours.  My mother is likely who got me started because she counted hers over and under fives.


Even now, when I pull the scorecard out during the round to check my progress, I count over and under fours across the card.


It is not one bit less satisfying than comparing to par since these days I'm lucky to break 80 once or twice a year.


And will still argue that using six as the zero basis for every hole in Stableford, with strokes allocated exclusively based on yardage makes at least as much sense as what we do now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()