To the Par is Irrelevant Crowd

[tannyhoban]

Reading through this thread pretty obvious Par is relevant.

[golfortennis]

> @"Terry Gold" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Lodestone said:

> > > I remember, years ago, reading a story in Rolling Stone on Willie Nelson. This was back a ways, before he ran afoul of the IRS, and while he was making it BIG, after years of making it in the industry, but not BIG....Anyway Willie had just found golf, and had bought a course. The interviewer was interviewing him while he was playing on his course. He asked Willie,

> > > "Say, what is par on this hole." To which Willie responded, "I own the place so par is what I say par is. This hole happens to be a par 13. Yesterday I birdied the sucker".

> >

> > And that sir is a great illustration of why this is the greatest game there is and will ever be. No other game has ever hooked such a wide demographic.

>

> No question Golf and Willie are both uniquely great. That said, If it's Willie's braids and politics and lifestyle/view that compel you to exemplify golf as a uniquely popular and seductive sport across the widest spectrum of demographics on earth,. Well...it's a fools' errand. He's cool. But also a very rich white man from the southern United States.

> If you want to make that argument by choosing a multi-millionaire, canonized celebrity /musician/entertainer who builds his own course and treats par as 'arbitrary'...I'm not sure you could have done worse, about how par should be relevant or about golf's place in demographically diverse popularity of participants.

> Your zeal got the better of ya, but futbol/soccer, man.for starters, Isn't even close and the reasons are plain to see.

 

SJW's gonna SJW.

[Roadking2003]

> @"Terry Gold" said: But also a very rich white man from the southern United States.

 

Why would any of that have anything to do with the topic?

 

[bladehunter]

> @"Terry Gold" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Lodestone said:

> > > I remember, years ago, reading a story in Rolling Stone on Willie Nelson. This was back a ways, before he ran afoul of the IRS, and while he was making it BIG, after years of making it in the industry, but not BIG....Anyway Willie had just found golf, and had bought a course. The interviewer was interviewing him while he was playing on his course. He asked Willie,

> > > "Say, what is par on this hole." To which Willie responded, "I own the place so par is what I say par is. This hole happens to be a par 13. Yesterday I birdied the sucker".

> >

> > And that sir is a great illustration of why this is the greatest game there is and will ever be. No other game has ever hooked such a wide demographic.

>

> No question Golf and Willie are both uniquely great. That said, If it's Willie's braids and politics and lifestyle/view that compel you to exemplify golf as a uniquely popular and seductive sport across the widest spectrum of demographics on earth,. Well...it's a fools' errand. He's cool. But also a very rich white man from the southern United States.

> If you want to make that argument by choosing a multi-millionaire, canonized celebrity /musician/entertainer who builds his own course and treats par as 'arbitrary'...I'm not sure you could have done worse, about how par should be relevant or about golf's place in demographically diverse popularity of participants.

> Your zeal got the better of ya, but futbol/soccer, man.for starters, Isn't even close and the reasons are plain to see.

 

Appalachian Americans are a widely uncelebrated demographic I’ll have you know. ( sarcasm)

 

Sure. My zeal often gets the better of me , but Soccer ? Eh. It fails the Appalachian american market miserably , so no dice !!

 

( also sArcasm ).

[bladehunter]

> @Titleist99 said:

> At the end of the day, everyone plays the same course and a champion is crowned……..so stop whining.

 

 

Let’s stop whining about the whining. And I’ll stop whining about the whiners who whine about the whining.

[North Texas]

> @"Terry Gold" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Lodestone said:

> > > I remember, years ago, reading a story in Rolling Stone on Willie Nelson. This was back a ways, before he ran afoul of the IRS, and while he was making it BIG, after years of making it in the industry, but not BIG....Anyway Willie had just found golf, and had bought a course. The interviewer was interviewing him while he was playing on his course. He asked Willie,

> > > "Say, what is par on this hole." To which Willie responded, "I own the place so par is what I say par is. This hole happens to be a par 13. Yesterday I birdied the sucker".

> >

> > And that sir is a great illustration of why this is the greatest game there is and will ever be. No other game has ever hooked such a wide demographic.

>

> No question Golf and Willie are both uniquely great. That said, If it's Willie's braids and politics and lifestyle/view that compel you to exemplify golf as a uniquely popular and seductive sport across the widest spectrum of demographics on earth,. Well...it's a fools' errand. He's cool. But also a very rich white man from the southern United States.

> If you want to make that argument by choosing a multi-millionaire, canonized celebrity /musician/entertainer who builds his own course and treats par as 'arbitrary'...I'm not sure you could have done worse, about how par should be relevant or about golf's place in demographically diverse popularity of participants.

> Your zeal got the better of ya, but futbol/soccer, man.for starters, Isn't even close and the reasons are plain to see.

 

Been awhile since I read a post on golfwrx that was as full of crap as this one. Thanks.

[Lodestone]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @powerpushfade said:

> > > @"North Texas" said:

> > > While you might confuse the players a little, you will completely and thoroughly confuse the "paying customers".

> >

> > Lowest number is winning. Pretty sure they could figure that out.

>

> The guys who haven't started playing yet are winning?

>

>

Many days, that's as close as I'll get.

 

 

[Gautama]

> @cdnglf said:

>

> **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

 

That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

[imakaveli]

So yeah, only USGA cares about par.

[Terry Gold]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @"Terry Gold" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @Lodestone said:

> > > > I remember, years ago, reading a story in Rolling Stone on Willie Nelson. This was back a ways, before he ran afoul of the IRS, and while he was making it BIG, after years of making it in the industry, but not BIG....Anyway Willie had just found golf, and had bought a course. The interviewer was interviewing him while he was playing on his course. He asked Willie,

> > > > "Say, what is par on this hole." To which Willie responded, "I own the place so par is what I say par is. This hole happens to be a par 13. Yesterday I birdied the sucker".

> > >

> > > And that sir is a great illustration of why this is the greatest game there is and will ever be. No other game has ever hooked such a wide demographic.

> >

> > No question Golf and Willie are both uniquely great. That said, If it's Willie's braids and politics and lifestyle/view that compel you to exemplify golf as a uniquely popular and seductive sport across the widest spectrum of demographics on earth,. Well...it's a fools' errand. He's cool. But also a very rich white man from the southern United States.

> > If you want to make that argument by choosing a multi-millionaire, canonized celebrity /musician/entertainer who builds his own course and treats par as 'arbitrary'...I'm not sure you could have done worse, about how par should be relevant or about golf's place in demographically diverse popularity of participants.

> > Your zeal got the better of ya, but futbol/soccer, man.for starters, Isn't even close and the reasons are plain to see.

>

> Been awhile since I read a post on golfwrx that was as full of crap as this one. Thanks.

 

How so, wise one? Tell us.

[golfortennis]

> @"Terry Gold" said:

> > @"North Texas" said:

> > > @"Terry Gold" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @Lodestone said:

> > > > > I remember, years ago, reading a story in Rolling Stone on Willie Nelson. This was back a ways, before he ran afoul of the IRS, and while he was making it BIG, after years of making it in the industry, but not BIG....Anyway Willie had just found golf, and had bought a course. The interviewer was interviewing him while he was playing on his course. He asked Willie,

> > > > > "Say, what is par on this hole." To which Willie responded, "I own the place so par is what I say par is. This hole happens to be a par 13. Yesterday I birdied the sucker".

> > > >

> > > > And that sir is a great illustration of why this is the greatest game there is and will ever be. No other game has ever hooked such a wide demographic.

> > >

> > > No question Golf and Willie are both uniquely great. That said, If it's Willie's braids and politics and lifestyle/view that compel you to exemplify golf as a uniquely popular and seductive sport across the widest spectrum of demographics on earth,. Well...it's a fools' errand. He's cool. But also a very rich white man from the southern United States.

> > > If you want to make that argument by choosing a multi-millionaire, canonized celebrity /musician/entertainer who builds his own course and treats par as 'arbitrary'...I'm not sure you could have done worse, about how par should be relevant or about golf's place in demographically diverse popularity of participants.

> > > Your zeal got the better of ya, but futbol/soccer, man.for starters, Isn't even close and the reasons are plain to see.

> >

> > Been awhile since I read a post on golfwrx that was as full of crap as this one. Thanks.

>

> How so, wise one? Tell us.

 

You need us to tell you you got political?

[LICC]

> @Gautama said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> >

> > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

>

> That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

 

At the PGA Tour level, these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter. The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that gives them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

[bladehunter]

> @"Terry Gold" said:

> > @"North Texas" said:

> > > @"Terry Gold" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @Lodestone said:

> > > > > I remember, years ago, reading a story in Rolling Stone on Willie Nelson. This was back a ways, before he ran afoul of the IRS, and while he was making it BIG, after years of making it in the industry, but not BIG....Anyway Willie had just found golf, and had bought a course. The interviewer was interviewing him while he was playing on his course. He asked Willie,

> > > > > "Say, what is par on this hole." To which Willie responded, "I own the place so par is what I say par is. This hole happens to be a par 13. Yesterday I birdied the sucker".

> > > >

> > > > And that sir is a great illustration of why this is the greatest game there is and will ever be. No other game has ever hooked such a wide demographic.

> > >

> > > No question Golf and Willie are both uniquely great. That said, If it's Willie's braids and politics and lifestyle/view that compel you to exemplify golf as a uniquely popular and seductive sport across the widest spectrum of demographics on earth,. Well...it's a fools' errand. He's cool. But also a very rich white man from the southern United States.

> > > If you want to make that argument by choosing a multi-millionaire, canonized celebrity /musician/entertainer who builds his own course and treats par as 'arbitrary'...I'm not sure you could have done worse, about how par should be relevant or about golf's place in demographically diverse popularity of participants.

> > > Your zeal got the better of ya, but futbol/soccer, man.for starters, Isn't even close and the reasons are plain to see.

> >

> > Been awhile since I read a post on golfwrx that was as full of crap as this one. Thanks.

>

> How so, wise one? Tell us.

 

Well. It’s impossible to do without breaking forum rules really. So nice try. But.

[PappyVanWinkle53]

> @LICC said:

> > @Gautama said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > >

> > > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

> >

> > That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

>

> At the PGA Tour level, these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter. The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

 

Agreed. Quite frankly speaking, the US Open is the Mt. Everest of golf tournaments. It's the hardest test in golf and it is (and should be) treated differently.....just like "mountain climbing" and reaching the summit of Everest are viewed in a different light. I don't think it's too much to ask that one week out of the PGA Tour season be geared more toward survival than shooting 20 under. Watching how the best in the world manage the most difficult of conditions, under such pressure is real entertainment.....and a testament to earning the distinction of US Open champion. It seems that a lot of the guys complaining about how hard the USGA makes the US Open want the honor of climbing Mt. Everest.......having not climbed Mt. Everest.

[golfortennis]

> @"Crazy About Golf" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Gautama said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > >

> > > > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

> > >

> > > That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

> >

> > At the PGA Tour level, these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter. The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

>

> Agreed. Quite frankly speaking, the US Open is the Mt. Everest of golf tournaments. It's the hardest test in golf and it is (and should be) treated differently.....just like "mountain climbing" and reaching the summit of Everest are viewed in a different light. I don't think it's too much to ask that one week out of the PGA Tour season be geared more toward survival than shooting 20 under. Watching how the best in the world manage the most difficult of conditions, under such pressure is real entertainment.....and a testament to earning the distinction of US Open champion. It seems that a lot of the guys complaining about how hard the USGA makes the US Open want the honor of climbing Mt. Everest.......having not climbed Mt. Everest.

 

But again, what is "shooting 20 under?" The score you shot compared to an arbitrary standard. On your imaginary course I've just changed 2 par 5s to par 4s. Now your guy is 12 under. See what I did there?

Over/Under is only useful for during competition. If you think 268 is too low a score, that is one thing. But the fact it is too low because of reasons, well, that's what the issue is.

 

How about we declare Pebble Beach, as it is right now, a par 76 for this week? Winner will be 30 under par. Were they not difficult conditions? But since it's 30 under, it was easy? There's the folly in it.

[LICC]

.> @Bluefan75 said:

> > @"Crazy About Golf" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Gautama said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > >

> > > > > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

> > > >

> > > > That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

> > >

> > > At the PGA Tour level, these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter. The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

> >

> > Agreed. Quite frankly speaking, the US Open is the Mt. Everest of golf tournaments. It's the hardest test in golf and it is (and should be) treated differently.....just like "mountain climbing" and reaching the summit of Everest are viewed in a different light. I don't think it's too much to ask that one week out of the PGA Tour season be geared more toward survival than shooting 20 under. Watching how the best in the world manage the most difficult of conditions, under such pressure is real entertainment.....and a testament to earning the distinction of US Open champion. It seems that a lot of the guys complaining about how hard the USGA makes the US Open want the honor of climbing Mt. Everest.......having not climbed Mt. Everest.

>

> But again, what is "shooting 20 under?" The score you shot compared to an arbitrary standard. On your imaginary course I've just changed 2 par 5s to par 4s. Now your guy is 12 under. See what I did there?

> Over/Under is only useful for during competition. If you think 268 is too low a score, that is one thing. But the fact it is too low because of reasons, well, that's what the issue is.

>

> How about we declare Pebble Beach, as it is right now, a par 76 for this week? Winner will be 30 under par. Were they not difficult conditions? But since it's 30 under, it was easy? There's the folly in it.

 

If the hole is long but the fairways are wide, the rough is short and thin, and the green is soft, the pros will make 4 more often than not. If the same long hole has narrower fairways, thicker longer rough, and fast greens then it will more likely be a 5-shot hole. That is what the difference should be between a US Open and a normal PGA Tour birdie fest

[Gautama]

> @LICC said:

 

> At the PGA Tour level, **these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter.** The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

 

Exactly! (And precisely what I was trying to say). But I think there have to be solutions other than just creating penal setups. So many of these USGA setups seem to require a smaller toolset if anything, and often bring chance into play to such a degree as to be the main differentiator. There have to be better solutions to creating that ultimate test once a year than skating rink greens and penal fairways. I miss those risk/reward decisions on Sunday, and knowing player's games and how'd they'd make those decisions under pressure. I'm old, though, and might even be starting to into Jack's luddite calls to roll the ball back, lol.

[LICC]

> @Gautama said:

> > @LICC said:

>

> > At the PGA Tour level, **these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter.** The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

>

> Exactly! (And precisely what I was trying to say). But I think there have to be solutions other than just creating penal setups. So many of these USGA setups seem to require a smaller toolset if anything, and often bring chance into play to such a degree as to be the main differentiator. There have to be better solutions to creating that ultimate test once a year than skating rink greens and penal fairways. I miss those risk/reward decisions on Sunday, and knowing player's games and how'd they'd make those decisions under pressure. I'm old, though, and might even be starting to into Jack's luddite calls to roll the ball back, lol.

 

There isn't another good way to do it. Mike Davis tried with Erin Hills and it was a birdie fest. They widened the fairways at Shinnecock and when scores went low the first two rounds they killed the greens on Saturday. These are the pros. Make it a test of execution. The player still needs a well rounded game to win. Distance, accuracy, ball-striking, chipping, putting. Some skills will be required more than others based on the different courses.

[PappyVanWinkle53]

> @Bluefan75 said:

> > @"Crazy About Golf" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Gautama said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > >

> > > > > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

> > > >

> > > > That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

> > >

> > > At the PGA Tour level, these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter. The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

> >

> > Agreed. Quite frankly speaking, the US Open is the Mt. Everest of golf tournaments. It's the hardest test in golf and it is (and should be) treated differently.....just like "mountain climbing" and reaching the summit of Everest are viewed in a different light. I don't think it's too much to ask that one week out of the PGA Tour season be geared more toward survival than shooting 20 under. Watching how the best in the world manage the most difficult of conditions, under such pressure is real entertainment.....and a testament to earning the distinction of US Open champion. It seems that a lot of the guys complaining about how hard the USGA makes the US Open want the honor of climbing Mt. Everest.......having not climbed Mt. Everest.

>

> But again, what is "shooting 20 under?" The score you shot compared to an arbitrary standard. On your imaginary course I've just changed 2 par 5s to par 4s. Now your guy is 12 under. See what I did there?

> Over/Under is only useful for during competition. If you think 268 is too low a score, that is one thing. But the fact it is too low because of reasons, well, that's what the issue is.

>

> How about we declare Pebble Beach, as it is right now, a par 76 for this week? Winner will be 30 under par. Were they not difficult conditions? But since it's 30 under, it was easy? There's the folly in it.

 

Excellent point, and I totally get what you're saying......my comments were in response to another comment to foot stomp the point that the US Open is different and should be made more difficult.......and I admit it's a bit off topic from the "is par relevant/irrelevant" discussion, so I should have been more specific.

 

 

[CrushSticks]

> @Bluefan75 said:

> > @"Crazy About Golf" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Gautama said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > >

> > > > > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

> > > >

> > > > That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

> > >

> > > At the PGA Tour level, these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter. The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

> >

> > Agreed. Quite frankly speaking, the US Open is the Mt. Everest of golf tournaments. It's the hardest test in golf and it is (and should be) treated differently.....just like "mountain climbing" and reaching the summit of Everest are viewed in a different light. I don't think it's too much to ask that one week out of the PGA Tour season be geared more toward survival than shooting 20 under. Watching how the best in the world manage the most difficult of conditions, under such pressure is real entertainment.....and a testament to earning the distinction of US Open champion. It seems that a lot of the guys complaining about how hard the USGA makes the US Open want the honor of climbing Mt. Everest.......having not climbed Mt. Everest.

>

> But again, what is "shooting 20 under?" The score you shot compared to an arbitrary standard. On your imaginary course I've just changed 2 par 5s to par 4s. Now your guy is 12 under. See what I did there?

> Over/Under is only useful for during competition. If you think 268 is too low a score, that is one thing. But the fact it is too low because of reasons, well, that's what the issue is.

>

> How about we declare Pebble Beach, as it is right now, a par 76 for this week? Winner will be 30 under par. Were they not difficult conditions? But since it's 30 under, it was easy? There's the folly in it.

 

I think that’s my one issue with this whole thing though. Everyone arguing “Par is irrelevant” keeps giving me a par number. I just really can’t imagine you’d watch a golf tournament and be satisfied seeing one guy is on his 43rd hole at 172 and one is on his 52nd hole at 202. And I understand the fan experience isn’t everything, but it still has meaning. But if it’s irrelevant, then why is everyone’s argument to change par? I started this thread, and I just think the argument is beyond pointless.

[Shilgy]

What it seems most people want is a good fair test and a competitive tourney. If a player shoots 272 to win does it really change your opinion of the event if that is 8 under or 16 under?

[imakaveli]

> @Shilgy said:

> What it seems most people want is a good fair test and a competitive tourney. If a player shoots 272 to win does it really change your opinion of the event if that is 8 under or 16 under?

 

YES YES BECAUSE WE THE TOUGHEST TEST WE MATTER WE IMPORTANT LOOK AT US


[golfortennis]

> @CrushSticks said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > @"Crazy About Golf" said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Gautama said:

> > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

> > > > >

> > > > > That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

> > > >

> > > > At the PGA Tour level, these guys have blown past classic course strategic choice options off the tee. They hit it so far it doesn't matter. The US Open should be that one tournament geared to the best players in the world that give them a tough test. It shouldn't be like any other PGA Tour event.

> > >

> > > Agreed. Quite frankly speaking, the US Open is the Mt. Everest of golf tournaments. It's the hardest test in golf and it is (and should be) treated differently.....just like "mountain climbing" and reaching the summit of Everest are viewed in a different light. I don't think it's too much to ask that one week out of the PGA Tour season be geared more toward survival than shooting 20 under. Watching how the best in the world manage the most difficult of conditions, under such pressure is real entertainment.....and a testament to earning the distinction of US Open champion. It seems that a lot of the guys complaining about how hard the USGA makes the US Open want the honor of climbing Mt. Everest.......having not climbed Mt. Everest.

> >

> > But again, what is "shooting 20 under?" The score you shot compared to an arbitrary standard. On your imaginary course I've just changed 2 par 5s to par 4s. Now your guy is 12 under. See what I did there?

> > Over/Under is only useful for during competition. If you think 268 is too low a score, that is one thing. But the fact it is too low because of reasons, well, that's what the issue is.

> >

> > How about we declare Pebble Beach, as it is right now, a par 76 for this week? Winner will be 30 under par. Were they not difficult conditions? But since it's 30 under, it was easy? There's the folly in it.

>

> I think that’s my one issue with this whole thing though. Everyone arguing “Par is irrelevant” keeps giving me a par number. I just really can’t imagine you’d watch a golf tournament and be satisfied seeing one guy is on his 43rd hole at 172 and one is on his 52nd hole at 202. And I understand the fan experience isn’t everything, but it still has meaning. But if it’s irrelevant, then why is everyone’s argument to change par? I started this thread, and I just think the argument is beyond pointless.

 

But that is what everyone is saying: the only value of par is so you can show where guys at different stages are in comparison to each other. But as the poster following you said, at the end, it's 272. Does it matter if it's 8 under or 16 under or 4 over?

[aliikane]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @aliikane said:

> > > @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.

>

> Everyone plays the same course and the PGA doesn't do what you suggest that often.

 

It can make a difference because long par 4s play harder than short par 5s especially for the shorter hitters. Compare the tournament scorecards and let me know what you find. Most tournaments are par 70. Par 72 is less frequent.

[buckeyefl]

> @aliikane said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > > @aliikane said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > Everyone plays the same course and the PGA doesn't do what you suggest that often.

>

> It can make a difference because long par 4s play harder than short par 5s especially for the shorter hitters. Compare the tournament scorecards and let me know what you find. Most tournaments are par 70. Par 72 is less frequent.

 

They play the same unless you consider par in the equation. Same yardage, same shots required with an arbitrary number assigned to them which the only difference. Once again most tournaments are not par 70.

[CrushSticks]

To slightly counter above, a study was done (heard it on Fried Egg ) about venues that have a converted par 5. They used scoring from past championships that it was not converted and took into account length and other factors to get a true result. They determined that players do have a different mindset based on the par value and actually scored lower when it was a par 4. This is a single study, but it actually does give one factual example of relevancy of Par, especially in the circumstances this post is about. This might feed the beast, but if you converted every par 5 at a US Open to a par 4, scoring would actually be lower across the board, the players would just hate it.

[James the Hogan Fan]

If you wanted to eliminate par you could just report average score. Woods has played 44 holes in 174 for an average of 3.9545 strokes, whereas Kaymer has played 38 holes in 154 for an average of 4.05... ergo Woods is beating Kaymer on average, and that will hold true up until the tournament is over. The downside is it is not as intuitive to determine what someone’s score on a given hole will do to their average, but television could show if a player makes a 2-3-4-5 on the next hole, their average would go to ___ . They could also show what the field has done on the hole thus far to give an idea of a likely outcome.

 

(Personally I like par, but I was trying to invent an alternative)

[GolfChannel]

> @Gautama said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> >

> > **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 completely agree with this. To me, the ultimate test of golf should not be "who can hit it the straightest" (yes, more like long and straight) for four days. It also has to include strategy and decision making, something classic course design offered historically but has been lost in this era, a sad problem which the USGA seems to make worse by essentially second guessing and/or overriding the intentions of the original architect. There are whole facets of the game that have been kinda lost at the highest levels, so it's almost like all that's left for the USGA is to take a overly penal approach to setup where for all intents and purposes there is mostly only one shot to be played and executed perfectly, which personally I agree is dull.

>

> That said I read the comments and can see there are a lot of people who like that penal style of golf, which is certainly a fair position to take...personally I don't enjoy watching it as much.

 

First, I am not a huge fan of Pebble as a course and especially as a “tough” US Open venue. It presents for beautiful scenery which makes for a great experience, but there are more interesting courses to play for a challenge. I get how it’s perfect for the “Majors only” golf fan, because who wouldn’t wax poetic over those views, but I am likely just being an elitist ***** since I have been fortunate enough to play it enough times that it’s not really special to me as it was when I was a kid.

 

Second, no offense, not actually trying to be mean so apologies if that’s what you get from this, but you have obviously never played Pebble. On some of the holes hitting it straight is about as good as hitting the wrong shape into the hole so it’s basically useless. Is it better than missing the correct shape completely? Yes, but straight is not ideal on many holes into the fairway let alone into the green.

 

Last, I am a self avowed fan of carnage, so my opinion probably means nothing to you. While I enjoy the opportunity to watch golf anytime it’s presented, especially in prime time, this hasn’t really felt like a US Open so far but that could all hopefully change today.

[Roadking2003]

> @CrushSticks said:

> They used scoring from past championships that it was not converted and took into account length and other factors to get a true result. They determined that players do have a different mindset based on the par value and actually scored lower when it was a par 4.

 

I don't believe it at all.