To the Par is Irrelevant Crowd

I’m trying to start a healthy discussion on the “par is irrelevant” theory that’s been flying around for a bit. I hear it discussed from all the experts, the podcast guys, and plenty of members on this forum, and I honestly just don’t get it. A lot of the US Open discussion revolves around people saying “if you don’t like -20 winning a tournament, what if it was a par 68, then the winning score would be -4.”

I understand that we don’t need to think about par so much, but no one has really put out there is if we are trying to keep scores higher, how to actually achieve changing par. Are we converting holes that were designed to play as par 5s and 4s, to 4s and 3s? Are we taking 385 yard par 4s and just looping 150 yards off and calling it a par 3? Because tour pros will just keep shooting 8 under on that course. Or are we talking about leaving a course exactly as it is, and just making reachable par 5s into par 4s?

I just don’t get it. It seems like a pointless argument.

There would be no par 3, 4 or 5 holes. Just a golfer and the amount of shots he's taken.

The USGA has a huge insecurity complex about the US Open being the toughest test in golf, so they often manipulate par by taking one or two relatively easy par 5s and calling them par 4s.

What they don’t seem to understand is that risk/risk golf is boring and that their tournament is the crappiest major; essentially just the PGA Championship done worse.

I know this: the winner of a golf tournament is the man who takes the fewest strokes.

> @cdnglf said:

> The USGA has a huge insecurity complex about the US Open being the toughest test in golf, so they often manipulate par by taking one or two relatively easy par 5s and calling them par 4s.

>

> What they don’t seem to understand is that risk/risk golf is boring and that their tournament is the crappiest major; essentially just the PGA Championship done worse.

Most tournaments turn two par 5s into par 4s to get par 70. Courses are just way too short for the pros now.

Par is indeed irrelevant. If the USGA would stop behaving like rich kids trying to show they are better than the other (Majors) the US Open would be a much better tournament to watch.

Count me in “the winner is guy with fewest strokes on a difficult but fair course” crowd. However, for those to whom par matters, I’ve never understood the goal for that to be the winners score. Seems to me, if you aspire to a number to assess the difficulty of the test for accomplished players, par should be the average or most frequent score with the winner around 6 under or so.

> @"Aviador Naval" said:

> However, for those to whom par matters, I’ve never understood the goal for that to be the winners score.

Perhaps you should look in the dictionary for the definition of par. Par is not what a typical person scores on a hole. Par is meant to be the score that an accomplished (or expert) golfer would score on a hole.

I don't like the way the USGA conducts its business at the Open, but their goal of having the winning golfer finish around par is a worthy one.

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > @"Aviador Naval" said:

> > However, for those to whom par matters, I’ve never understood the goal for that to be the winners score.

>

> Perhaps you should look in the dictionary for the definition of par. Par is not what a typical person scores on a hole. Par is meant to be the score that an accomplished (or expert) golfer would score on a hole.

>

> I don't like the way the USGA conducts its business at the Open, but their goal of having the winning golfer finish around par is a worthy one.

>

Per your request...

“An amount taken as an average or norm”

“an accepted standard”

“the score standard for each hole of a golf course”

“not unusual : NORMAL”

We’re not talking about weekend bogey golfers here. The masses should be ‘standard’ or ‘normal’. Some will be below standard. The winner should be exceptionally above standard.

How long until a PGA stop or major will do away with any mention of par anywhere and just have a leaderboard showing the leader with total strokes played and all others as "strokes behind".

Surprised that the USGA has not done that yet, it would solve their obsession with "under par proofing" courses.

> @pmadden86 said:

> How long until a PGA stop or major will do away with any mention of par anywhere and just have a leaderboard showing the leader with total strokes played and all others as "strokes behind".

> Surprised that the USGA has not done that yet, it would solve their obsession with "under par proofing" courses.

how would you compare golfers on different holes? ... they'd use par somehow to identify "strokes behind" ...

"par" also allows, it seems to me, a way for pros and amateurs to compare themselves to some degree ...

i like par ... leave it alone ...

Thanks for the comments so far. To those who said just tell me how many strokes a player took: won’t we just complain that there are too many players shooting scores in the 270s (on a par 72) over time? I wouldn’t say I’m a USGA apologist, but I do appreciate the goal of having a higher score win the US Open. What never gets mentioned in these anti USGA, course is too tricked up arguments, is that players and equipment are so much better than they were 30+ years ago. A 500 yard par 4 used to be a questionable thing. Now it’s driver/short iron for most of the field. And frankly, I don’t think one of these historic clubs will actually sign off on the USGA calling their course a par 66 for a week.

Narrow the fairways, thicken the rough and hope for wind.

The wheel system(over/under par" is just a way for TV to show where guys stand during a tournament when they are on different holes. It doesn't matter whether a guy is -2, -22, or +12, all that matters is what the other guys' scores are. 276 beats 278, whether the "par" is 288, 280, or 262.

People have been trained to see the wrong thing as important.

> @Bluefan75 said:

> The wheel system(over/under par" is just a way for TV to show where guys stand during a tournament when they are on different holes. It doesn't matter whether a guy is -2, -22, or +12, all that matters is what the other guys' scores are. 276 beats 278, whether the "par" is 288, 280, or 262.

>

> People have been trained to see the wrong thing as important.

it's a lot easier to know where folks stand if the scoreboard relates to par, than if it were just a tally of total strokes. For example, Tiger is on the 14th hole on Sunday and is at -6, and the leader in the clubhouse is at -10, we know he has to pick up 4 to par to tie the leader. If the scoreboard said the leader in the clubhouse was in at 270, and Tiger is hitting his 244th shot, it would be difficult to know what was going on, especially when you'd have 15 other players on the last 7 holes with numbers out there.

I don't think fans really care about the number, -20 or +3, so much as it is an indication of how the course is set up. The old Bob Hope Classic in the dessert was boring to me because it was a "putt-fest", -26 or whatever...very little trouble, very little risk.

The US Open layouts that are strictly punitive, with zero chance to hit a recovery shot, where the rough gives no chance for a shot, is just as boring to me. I don't care if they want to call it -8, or +2, whatever makes them feel better about themselves, but to me, the quality of the lay-out determines the fan appeal. Yes there should be some risk, and some reward. Some chance to redeem a bad shot (at least some of the time), but to set it up so that the only way to win is to never miss a fairway, never miss a green, and two putt your way home, is a recipe for a good nap.

I find it funny that people that complain about a par 5 being converted to a 4 are the same people who say par doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter to you, then nothing could be more irrelevant than converting the par score of a hole- just play it in the least number of strokes.

Reality is par does matter, for two reasons:

- it makes the game easier to track for both the player and the viewer

- It has a mental impact on the player that influences how they approach holes and their momentum on the course. We a know a 7 foot par put is 3x harder than a 7 foot birdie putt.

Removing par is literally one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard.

> @pmadden86 said:

> How long until a PGA stop or major will do away with any mention of par anywhere and just have a leaderboard showing the leader with total strokes played and all others as "strokes behind".

Because if just showing a total score you'd see the names plummeting off of the leader board as compared to those who haven't teed off, it would confuse people as to who the leader is, the guy on 210 who doesn't tee off till 2pm or the guy who's on 270 on the 18th, not to mention some jackass would question why the guy who shot 150 hasn't won.

It also won't help the narrative of the days play who's surging, who's falling, who's grinding away.

Par is a useful figure for comparing the relative performance across many holes at once easily, and gives us a bit of reference against our performance on the same courses.

All the USGA needs to do is stop mutilating courses in order to produce a manipulated score.

If a golf course can't produce a good championship by simply narrowing the fairways a bit and growing out the rough, it doesnt deserve to be in a major championship rota. This idea that the scorecard has to be changed on multiple holes or greens have to be basically dead by Friday in order to make sure nobody makes any birdies on the weekend to "protect par" is the most ridiculous line of thinking ever. Its not golf. Birdies happen. Eagles happen. Touring pro's happen to make a lot of them. The sooner the USGA realizes this and lives with it, the better off the US Open will be.

> @CrushSticks said:

> Thanks for the comments so far. To those who said just tell me how many strokes a player took: won’t we just complain that there are too many players shooting scores in the 270s (on a par 72) over time? I wouldn’t say I’m a USGA apologist, but I do appreciate the goal of having a higher score win the US Open. What never gets mentioned in these anti USGA, course is too tricked up arguments, is that players and equipment are so much better than they were 30+ years ago.****** _A 500 yard par 4 used to be a questionable thing. Now it’s driver/short iron for most of the field_****. And frankly, I don’t think one of these historic clubs will actually sign off on the USGA calling their course a par 66 for a week.

This statement in italics is simply not true. That's a driver and short iron for probably about a dozen guys. For everyone else, that's a monster hole.

The average GIR for touring pros from outside 200 yards is well under 50%. From 175-200, its in the low to mid 50% range. So on the PGA Tour, if a touring pro has 175+ left for his second shot, he's scrambling at least half the time.

People need to stop thinking that everyone in a tour field hits the ball like Koepka, McIlroy or DJ. They don't.

It is a pointless argument.

Almost a chicken or egg scenario.

That logic only works if you can magically make a 1 at will. Otherwise you play it one hole at a time and try to make birdies. Or pars with the idea that par is based on what the best should make most of the time on that hole. You need a measuring stick. Hole by hole in my opinion. Nobody plays flat out every hole. Why ? Some par 4s you play for a 4. Some you play for 3 and some you are actually ok with 5 as a worse case scenario. Doing away with the idea of par ruins scoring and any comparison data that we have.

That idea is simply a mind trick some weak minds use to make bogeys ok in their minds. It lessens the blow. But it also lessens birdies and eagles as far as boost , unless you’re actively counting backward from a target score and calculating it against your place in the round at that moment.

Never made sense to me why anyone would say par didn’t matter IF par is rated accurately. Of course it matters. It’s a great gauge of skill level and expectation vs actual score. How would the handicap system you guys love so much survive without it ?

Par for me is like swing weight value. Just a relative number that you can manipulate to suit whatever outcome you were already trying for in the first place.

Much like for ME, static weight of a club is much more relevant, so is total strokes for a golf score. The winner could shoot +15, but if he's taken the fewest strokes over 4 days to get the ball in the hole, then he wins, regardless of his score to par.

The truth of the matter is that par IS in fact irrelevant. However, I think when people argue about par, the true argument is whether we think par is insignificant. Let's take this to another sport that's pretty pure in its evaluation of a winner, the 100 meter dash. Some time long ago, we believed that the 10 second barrier for the 100 meter dash was a special mark. At the time there weren't many who could do it, and that arbitrary number, signified that if a runner did, something special had happened. For the outcome of the race, it was irrelevant. The first person who crossed the finish line, above or below 10 seconds, was the victor. As athletes got better and people got faster, more and more people could cross the finish line in the same race under 10 seconds. But only one still won the race. Nowadays, even a high schooler has managed to break 10 seconds in the 100 meter dash. We still see the number as significant, because it tells us just a small baseline of athletic prowress or ability, even if the actual number is irrelevant to the race and doesn't tell the full story like "what were the conditions that day?" and "was it wind-aided or were they running straight into a headwind?".

This is very similar in golf. Somebody set the bench mark for each of the 18 holes and we add them up and equal to par. The number is irrelevant because it decides and determines nothing. If we change the par to every hole in history, it doesn't affect the outcome of the winners in any capacity. The record books would still look exactly the same. But it might be significant because in the moment, it gives us an idea of how a player is doing both against his/her peers and the entity who set up the difficulty of the course.

> @Lodestone said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> > The wheel system(over/under par" is just a way for TV to show where guys stand during a tournament when they are on different holes. It doesn't matter whether a guy is -2, -22, or +12, all that matters is what the other guys' scores are. 276 beats 278, whether the "par" is 288, 280, or 262.

> >

> > People have been trained to see the wrong thing as important.

>

> it's a lot easier to know where folks stand if the scoreboard relates to par, than if it were just a tally of total strokes. For example, Tiger is on the 14th hole on Sunday and is at -6, and the leader in the clubhouse is at -10, we know he has to pick up 4 to par to tie the leader. If the scoreboard said the leader in the clubhouse was in at 270, and Tiger is hitting his 244th shot, it would be difficult to know what was going on, especially when you'd have 15 other players on the last 7 holes with numbers out there.

>

This pretty much nails it. It's mostly irrelevant to the players who are just trying to shoot the lowest score possible over 4 rounds. But, it's a way for fans to relate how close the competition is when players are in different stages of the competition. Fans have become accustomed to this scoring system as a way to relate where everybody stands at any given moment. It's a snapshot of where everybody stands in relationship to each other that the average viewer can quickly assess....as well as the players.

> @pheenomz4774 said:

> The truth of the matter is that par IS in fact irrelevant. However, I think when people argue about par, the true argument is whether we think par is insignificant. Let's take this to another sport that's pretty pure in its evaluation of a winner, the 100 meter dash. Some time long ago, we believed that the 10 second barrier for the 100 meter dash was a special mark. At the time there weren't many who could do it, and that arbitrary number, signified that if a runner did, something special had happened. For the outcome of the race, it was irrelevant. The first person who crossed the finish line, above or below 10 seconds, was the victor. As athletes got better and people got faster, more and more people could cross the finish line in the same race under 10 seconds. But only one still won the race. Nowadays, even a high schooler has managed to break 10 seconds in the 100 meter dash. We still see the number as significant, because it tells us just a small baseline of athletic prowress or ability, even if the actual number is irrelevant to the race and doesn't tell the full story like "what were the conditions that day?" and "was it wind-aided or were they running straight into a headwind?".

> This is very similar in golf. Somebody set the bench mark for each of the 18 holes and we add them up and equal to par. The number is irrelevant because it decides and determines nothing. If we change the par to every hole in history, it doesn't affect the outcome of the winners in any capacity. The record books would still look exactly the same. But it might be significant because in the moment, it gives us an idea of how a player is doing both against his/her peers and the entity who set up the difficulty of the course.

But. As a runner who totally gets what you’re analogy means to that sport , suppose you could erase the 10 second mark for the 100 or the sub 49 mark for the high school level 400m runner. All you’d be left with is a “ yea Johnny won “ with no idea how well the race actually was. In other words if every guy runs 52 second 400 with no wind and you win at the stripe , it’s not exactly a day to celebrate. Just like golf if it’s a soft course on a calm day and you win with a score of 12 over par , you’re not going to be thrilled with your performance. Maybe you take the win with a smile. But you are secretly mad inside. You’re not really playing against the other players. You’re playing against the course. And in the end you hope your time or score happens to beat the field as well.

I never once looked to beat any runner specifically in the 400m I simply was trying to take my personal best lower and lower. And usually that was a good bit better than the rest. You have to have a benchmark. And a total score doesn’t do that. Not when every course is different.

Relation to par is irrelevant in some ways and necessary in others.

As far as the USGA wanting their tournament to be the toughest test of golf, I say that’s a good thing. To me one of the majors has to carry that mantle. Whether they achieve that by targeting “par” or a score in the 280 range I don’t see the difference. I’ve been fortunate enough to play the USGA, PGAA, and R&A’s major championship setup within a day or 2 of tournament play and there’s no doubt in my mind that the USO setup was the most advanced test of all phases of golf especially the mental side.

> @Lodestone said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> > The wheel system(over/under par" is just a way for TV to show where guys stand during a tournament when they are on different holes. It doesn't matter whether a guy is -2, -22, or +12, all that matters is what the other guys' scores are. 276 beats 278, whether the "par" is 288, 280, or 262.

> >

> > People have been trained to see the wrong thing as important.

>

> it's a lot easier to know where folks stand if the scoreboard relates to par, than if it were just a tally of total strokes. For example, Tiger is on the 14th hole on Sunday and is at -6, and the leader in the clubhouse is at -10, we know he has to pick up 4 to par to tie the leader. If the scoreboard said the leader in the clubhouse was in at 270, and Tiger is hitting his 244th shot, it would be difficult to know what was going on, especially when you'd have 15 other players on the last 7 holes with numbers out there.

>

I think this is right. Par scoring is the best way to compare scores in round. I do think tournaments should be open to adjusting par when warranted and not wrapped up in it needs to be 72 or 70. Hypothetically if a par 5 hole plays to an average of 4.3 over a couple years then amend the par to 4; not because it arbitrarily makes it a hard hole but because 4 is a more accurate reflection of the hole's difficulty.

> @Cincy_Ken said:

> > @Lodestone said:

> > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > The wheel system(over/under par" is just a way for TV to show where guys stand during a tournament when they are on different holes. It doesn't matter whether a guy is -2, -22, or +12, all that matters is what the other guys' scores are. 276 beats 278, whether the "par" is 288, 280, or 262.

> > >

> > > People have been trained to see the wrong thing as important.

> >

> > it's a lot easier to know where folks stand if the scoreboard relates to par, than if it were just a tally of total strokes. For example, Tiger is on the 14th hole on Sunday and is at -6, and the leader in the clubhouse is at -10, we know he has to pick up 4 to par to tie the leader. If the scoreboard said the leader in the clubhouse was in at 270, and Tiger is hitting his 244th shot, it would be difficult to know what was going on, especially when you'd have 15 other players on the last 7 holes with numbers out there.

> >

>

> I think this is right. Par scoring is the best way to compare scores in round. I do think tournaments should be open to adjusting par when warranted and not wrapped up in it needs to be 72 or 70. Hypothetically if a par 5 hole plays to an average of 4.3 over a couple years then amend the par to 4; not because it arbitrarily makes it a hard hole but because 4 is a more accurate reflection of the hole's difficulty.

When the LPGA held an event near my town, The Corning Classic, they played a par 4 that I could reach with a driver and a 9iron (and I was never a long hitter) as a par 5. The card said 400+ yards, but it was slightly down hill, and almost always significantly down wind, and usually hard as a rock. But they liked to say the leader was "X" under par.

I realize it's "in" to bash the USGA, but their stated objective is to have the best golfer win. Look at the list of recent winners. It looks like they're accomplishing their objectives, as the winner's list is as strong as any tourney in the world.

The last 2 years, Koepka won at -16 and at +1, I think he's proven the cream will rise to the top either way.

Par is a wonderful tool in the context of a spectator at a stroke play golf tournament. Giving a viewer the chance to compare players at relative positions when they are scattered all over the golf course is much easier to understand than saying 1 players is at 280 strokes through 70 holes while the other player is at 228 strokes through 56 holes.

Beyond this specific scenario, par is not overwhelming helpful for the average players. For the most part this is due to the anchoring bias par puts on the average player. If the average male golfer carries a handicap of 16, then even on their best day they'll be shooting a score in the high 80's. At no point is par truly relative to their score, but when they play they are almost always keenly aware of it. Their strategy is frequently dictated by that number. Face with a 460 yard par 4 or a 470 yard par 5, the par number will have a greater impact on their perspective of the hole than the distance. In both cases they may choose to play a first and second shot intended to reach the green in two, but their psyche could be polar opposite. On the long par 4 they feel they must reach the green in two to give them the best chance at par, risking the chance of making a larger number. On the short par 5 they relish the chance at potentially reaching the green at two, as they know they have a stroke to recover if they're unsuccessful.

Rarely if ever will a player, when faced with a long par 3, willingly choose to layup off of the tee. They will almost always see the listed par and believe they must hit the green with their tee shot in order to give them their best chance at par. In this case their more concerned with the location of their tee ball in relationship to par scoring than they should be. Instead their focus should be on the proximity of their ball to the hole after 2 shots. It's this measure that will be the greater determinant as to their potential to make a 3. For the average golfer, Attempting a long shot to the green may leave them playing a much lower percentage recovery shot from the greenside rough or bunker than a save tee shot to the fairway short of the green.

If par was removed tomorrow, it will most likely make little difference in the average golfers play. The concept is too ingrained into their way of thinking for them to forget it that quickly. But a generation of golfers to follow may very much play the game in a different way without that measuring stick hanging over their heads.

Being that this anchoring bias is in existence, the better choice may be to re frame the bias. For the average player restore the notion of playing off of a score of bogey, which was common ~100 years ago, and for tournament play adjust scoring to be based upon a score of birdie. For the average golfer, playing to bogey is much more aligned with their current ability level and can better influence their decision making. Using a score of birdie on the PGA Tour will also help to re frame the perspective of the viewer. On his way to victory last weekend at the Canadian Open, Rory shot a final round 61. As we look at it today that is considered 9 under par. If par is not the point of measurement, but rather birdie, that same score of 61 would then be viewed as 9 over birdie, his winning score for the week of 258 would now be 50 over birdie. it sounds harsh, but if you tell someone that Rory won at -22 vs +50, the connotations are dramatically different.

Which circles us back to par. Looking at scoring around a measure like par, bogey, and birdie can only act as a comparison tool between a group of players and does not effectively grade how a particular player played the course.

> @pmadden86 said:

> How long until a PGA stop or major will do away with any mention of par anywhere and just have a leaderboard showing the leader with total strokes played and all others as "strokes behind".

> Surprised that the USGA has not done that yet, it would solve their obsession with "under par proofing" courses.

Have always thought that showing a players position relative to par was the only way to have an insight into who is doing what on the golf course. If it's just the number how does a player or spectator have an idea of who's leading or how many shots your favorite player is ahead or behind?