To the Par is Irrelevant Crowd

[KMeloney]

And what's the deal with "par" anyway? If you shoot "under par," that's a good thing. But if your dinner is "sub-par," that's a bad thing. Which is it??

 

- Jerry

[Roadking2003]

> @CrushSticks said:

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

>

It is an argument that has no right side.

 

Personally, I like the drama of a short par5 such as Augusta #13. I like holes where the range of scores by the tour pros is wider rather than narrow. Courses that have lots of holes where almost everybody makes the same score are boring. August #12 is one of the most exciting holes in golf. Just this year, four of the best golfers in the world who were on the front page of the leaderboard on Sunday afternoon hit into the water and made bogey or double bogey. A few others made birdie.

 

At Augusta #12, Koepka made double bogey on 12, then eagle on 13 to get back into contention. He lost by one stroke. That's exciting and it doesn't matter that 13 and 15 are short par fives. What matters is the possibility of big swings in scoring.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @hollabachgt said: 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.

I've played golf for almost 60 years and never in my life have I determined my strategy for a hole based on par. And I don't know anybody else who has.

 

[Lagavulin62]

I agree that par is a barometer to how someone should be doing. I always like a winning score around 8-10 under. Trying to keep it at par seems too punitive to the field and it is boring watching pros struggle same as us hackers. But on the other end with -20 or so winning it becomes too much offense(birdie seeking) and that too can be boring, not to mention it favors one mentality to victory. You need a healthy balance of offense/defense and most sports, with exception of hockey and soccer, are too skewed to the offensive side of the game. Thats what casual fans want though, not us hardcores. The USGA however has decided they will go the other extreme and there is nothing worse than watching a field of 100+ of the world’s best golfers struggle to make par. The USGA are clearly a gang of sick dudes.

[imakaveli]

Hey USGA, remember the Golf National last Fall? That is how a US Open course should play.

[Roadking2003]

> @Cincy_Ken said: 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.

At what point would you change par? Would you just round the average? Here are the 2019 Masters average scores by hole and the "New Par" computed by rounding the average. Notice that only one hole (#13) played more than 1/2 stroke under par.

 

 

 

 

 

[North Texas]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @CrushSticks said:

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

> >

> It is an argument that has no right side.

>

> Personally, I like the drama of a short par5 such as Augusta #13. I like holes where the range of scores by the tour pros is wider rather than narrow. Courses that have lots of holes where almost everybody makes the same score are boring. August #12 is one of the most exciting holes in golf. Just this year, four of the best golfers in the world who were on the front page of the leaderboard on Sunday afternoon hit into the water and made bogey or double bogey. A few others made birdie.

>

> At Augusta #12, Koepka made double bogey on 12, then eagle on 13 to get back into contention. He lost by one stroke. That's exciting and it doesn't matter that 13 and 15 are short par fives. What matters is the possibility of big swings in scoring.

>

>

 

This. Telling the audience that someone just went double-bogey, eagle is way more exciting and informative than saying they just went 5-3. Without knowing what par was on those 2 holes, the average person has no clue how significant those scores are. Was that a ho-hum 5 or did he really screw up there? Is that a ho-hum 3 or did he play that hole superbly? Bottom line, par is relevant.

 

[Shilgy]

> @bladehunter said:

> 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 ?

 

The handicap system doesn't care what par is. In the most simple terms it is how many over or under the course rating you play. Course rating does not care about par. The raters calculate how many strokes a scratch golfer and bogey golfer will take to play each hole. In fractions-not whole strokes.

 

Par matters to those that want a "tough" test. They bemoan a easy par five but love a tough par four. The difference is often the fact the tough hole is shorter/easier than the easy one. But the target number was changed and it changes perceptions.

[North Texas]

> @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.

 

For obvious reasons, as others have pointed out, good luck on training people to see total score as the "right thing" to see. It's pretty easy to see and follow that -12 beats -10.

[bb822]

I'm part of the "Par is Irrelevant" crowd. The chart below I think illustrates why I think all of the people who complain about the finishing score relative to par are missing the point. Just change one par 5 to a par 4 and you can make the score (relative to par) whatever you want. Total score has been pretty consistent given the variety of courses, conditions, etc.

 

 

[powerpushfade]

> @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.

 

I think this is great. Just set the golf course up and say, 'here you go'. Fewest strokes win. Let the players figure out how to navigate the course. Without a par number for each hole maybe it will make the players think a little more. Even confuse them a little?

[bladehunter]

> @hollabachgt said:

> 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.

 

Yes. Yes yes.

 

Exactly my point. You’ve described how the outlook of the average player should be , perfectly. And it doesn’t work when applying to the elite player. He IS playing against the idea of a scratch players likely outcome. He’s not thinking where to place the ball on a long par 3 so that his second shot is closer to the hole. He’s thinking about where to hit it to have the best chance to hole the second shot on most examples. With a few that you have to play safe. And par 5s are par 4s in their mind. Almost always. Erase the word “ par “ and the thinking for both sides of this argument is going to be identical. It’s human nature to have a target idea in your head. A goal.

[North Texas]

> @powerpushfade said:

> > @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.

>

> I think this is great. Just set the golf course up and say, 'here you go'. Fewest strokes win. Let the players figure out how to navigate the course. Without a par number for each hole maybe it will make the players think a little more. Even confuse them a little?

 

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

[bladehunter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > 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 ?

>

> The handicap system doesn't care what par is. In the most simple terms it is how many over or under the course rating you play. Course rating does not care about par. The raters calculate how many strokes a scratch golfer and bogey golfer will take to play each hole. In fractions-not whole strokes.

>

> Par matters to those that want a "tough" test. They bemoan a easy par five but love a tough par four. The difference is often the fact the tough hole is shorter/easier than the easy one. But the target number was changed and it changes perceptions.

 

Yes. In calculation. But how do you apply the strokes on the card without a base number ? How do you rate the holes ? You can change the name. Its still “ par”.

[Cincy_Ken]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Cincy_Ken said: 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.

> At what point would you change par? Would you just round the average? Here are the 2019 Masters average scores by hole and the "New Par" computed by rounding the average. Notice that only one hole (#13) played more than 1/2 stroke under par.

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

For me when multiple years of data suggest that 4 is a more likely score than 5. Or make the hole harder. This was definitely the one hole I was considering when I made my previous comment.

[imakaveli]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @CrushSticks said:

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

> >

> It is an argument that has no right side.

>

> Personally, I like the drama of a short par5 such as Augusta #13. I like holes where the range of scores by the tour pros is wider rather than narrow. Courses that have lots of holes where almost everybody makes the same score are boring. August #12 is one of the most exciting holes in golf. Just this year, four of the best golfers in the world who were on the front page of the leaderboard on Sunday afternoon hit into the water and made bogey or double bogey. A few others made birdie.

>

> At Augusta #12, Koepka made double bogey on 12, then eagle on 13 to get back into contention. He lost by one stroke. That's exciting and it doesn't matter that 13 and 15 are short par fives. What matters is the possibility of big swings in scoring.

>

>

 

12 should be a par 4, like the 13.

[dubbelbogey]

I see both sides of this one. After the round is over, par is completely meaningless - only total strokes matter.

 

During the round, however, the notion of par is far too strongly ingrained to our psyches as a measuring stick - however flawed that might be. While golf _could_ have evolved without this notion of par, and it would largely be a similar game otherwise (with another mechanism among many possibilities for tracking progress during a round), the fact remains that it didn't. So we're stuck with it as an integral mental model of how we think about the game. In some ways, it's more of an aesthetic part of the game - albeit an important one.

 

I'm racking my brain to come up with an analogy in another sport, and can't really seem to do so. The closest I've come is how tennis games are scored. Tennis could've just as easily evolved as the winner of a game is the first to four points, but you need to win by at least two points. Instead we have this bizarre form of 0, 15, 30, 40, with "deuce" as a possibility, too. Totally artificial, but it's an ingrained mental model of the scoring of the game. Far from a good analogy to golf, but it does illustrate how these quirks are an integral part of today's game.

[munichop]

The par is not relevant argument discounts entirely the nature of the layout, architecture and mental test associated with a round of golf. Every year the USGA makes par less relevant by changing at least one par 5 to a par 4. They move tees, create new ones, fabricate fairways etc. so they can "manufacture" a "par" score that has no relation to the way the course was designed or intended to be played. This is all a symptom of their utter failure as a governing body to maintain a balance between the skills necessary to play the game at the highest level. The driver distance alone has rendered 7000 yard courses inadequate as a championship test so they have to trick up the course to manufacture penalties where none existed. The greens speeds alone on pitched greens like Pebble Beach show that they have already ruined the nature of the course. Par is not relevant in Match Play but always matters in stroke play.

[King_Slender]

Par is only relevant to the fan, not the players. There would be no way to know where players stood as a spectator if par was removed as a barometer for comparing players at different points in their rounds. I both blame the USGA for wanting to "protect par" as well as the players - you never hear players (other than maybe Koepka) say that par is irrelevant. Players would complain vociferously if the winning score is +8 and say that the course was "too difficult" when the idea of "difficulty" is really only a reference to their score in relation to par.

 

It also serves as a way to generate excitement in the crowd - using the example of #13 at Augusta. Guys making 3 for eagle cause roars on that whole - converting it to a par 4 and guys making 3 for birdie would diminish that greatly.

[dlygrisse]

Why do people keep saying the course should be difficult but fair? Who said golf should be fair? Life isn't fair, yes we have fairways, but they aren't always fair. There is a fine line, and sometimes the line gets a little too fine when the USGA runs things, but sometimes you get bad breaks, sometimes you get lucky. But you play 72 holes and the breaks usually even out.

I think most of these conversations start because someone's favorite player has a bad day, then complains to Peter Kostis or someone on TV, then all the sudden the USGA is portrayed as complete and total fools. Tour pros live a pampered existence, when they get embarrassed on world wide TV , they like to whine, when they start to whine I figure the USGA has it about right. This isn't the Honda Classic, it should be tough, and a rigorous test.

Have they made some mistakes? sure. But it seems to me the person who plays the best usually wins. That being said, if the winner is even par or -4 the call the 2nd hole a par 4 doesnt matter much to me, it's more marketing and psychological than anything.

 

The 17th, the Road Hole, at St. Andrews used to be considered a par 5, back in the days of hickory, when the women played the Open it was considered a par 5, but it's always a par 4 for men, the hole hasn't changed and it's always been regarded as great. The 13th at Augusta is a par 4 by modern standards, but the members there still like to call it a par 5.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

if a player makes a 4 on the last hole to win by 1 shot, wouldn't you prefer to know whether the last hole was a par 5 or a par 3.

i get the whole argument lowest score wins and par is irrelevant, and i definitely hate when the usga tries to manufacture a certain winning number. but at the same time, if the usga attempts to make the us open the toughest test in golf, its going to be a tough sell if the winner comes in at -22. most fans will compare the weekly score relative to par and determine how tough the course played that week. its not bad way to compare compare a courses test from week to week. the problem becomes if we're only looking at the winner's score and not the average or the cut line score.

 

i'm fine with a hard setup if done properly that rewards good shots and penalizes bad. after that, if the winner goes low so be it. the usga gets in trouble when it starts manipulating the course through the week based on the current scores. if guys are too far under par they try to trick up the course and things get out of hand.

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @"Aviador Naval" said:

> > @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.

>

 

No, you misunderstand. I meant a real dictionary. Not the first one that pops up on Google.

 

For example:

Farlex: The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.

Lexico: The number of strokes a first-class player should normally require for a particular hole or course.

Collins: In golf, par is the number of strokes that a good player should take to get the ball into a hole or into all the holes on a particular golf course

Cambridge Dictionary: In golf, par is the expected number of times a good player should have to hit the ball in order to get it into a hole or into all the holes

[Darth Putter]

> @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.

 

They used to do it this way, then The Masters came up with the leaderboard showing under/ over par and that has been the standard ever since.

[Barfolomew]

Perhaps par is relevant during competition for relative comparisons but once finished irrelevant... ijs

[Aviador Naval]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > @"Aviador Naval" said:

> > > @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.

> >

>

> No, you misunderstand. I meant a real dictionary. Not the first one that pops up on Google.

>

> For example:

> Farlex: The number of golf strokes considered necessary to complete a hole or course in expert play.

> Lexico: The number of strokes a first-class player should normally require for a particular hole or course.

> Collins: In golf, par is the number of strokes that a good player should take to get the ball into a hole or into all the holes on a particular golf course

> Cambridge Dictionary: In golf, par is the expected number of times a good player should have to hit the ball in order to get it into a hole or into all the holes

 

Well, my definitions came from Meriam-Webster - a highly respected source with those for whom English is their native language - and a copy of which is on my desk at work.

 

I’m going to leave you to tilt this windmill on your own Quixote.

[Roadking2003]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @CrushSticks said:

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

> > >

> > It is an argument that has no right side.

> >

> > Personally, I like the drama of a short par5 such as Augusta #13. I like holes where the range of scores by the tour pros is wider rather than narrow. Courses that have lots of holes where almost everybody makes the same score are boring. August #12 is one of the most exciting holes in golf. Just this year, four of the best golfers in the world who were on the front page of the leaderboard on Sunday afternoon hit into the water and made bogey or double bogey. A few others made birdie.

> >

> > At Augusta #12, Koepka made double bogey on 12, then eagle on 13 to get back into contention. He lost by one stroke. That's exciting and it doesn't matter that 13 and 15 are short par fives. What matters is the possibility of big swings in scoring.

> >

> >

>

> This. Telling the audience that someone just went double-bogey, eagle is way more exciting and informative than saying they just went 5-3. Without knowing what par was on those 2 holes, the average person has no clue how significant those scores are. Was that a ho-hum 5 or did he really screw up there? Is that a ho-hum 3 or did he play that hole superbly? Bottom line, par is relevant.

>

 

I agree that some sort of reference is needed for the reasons you listed. But it could be some other reference such as average score per hole. It's difficult to think about anything except par since most of us have spent decades worrying about par.

[Roadking2003]

> @imakaveli said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @CrushSticks said:

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

> > >

> > It is an argument that has no right side.

> >

> > Personally, I like the drama of a short par5 such as Augusta #13. I like holes where the range of scores by the tour pros is wider rather than narrow. Courses that have lots of holes where almost everybody makes the same score are boring. August #12 is one of the most exciting holes in golf. Just this year, four of the best golfers in the world who were on the front page of the leaderboard on Sunday afternoon hit into the water and made bogey or double bogey. A few others made birdie.

> >

> > At Augusta #12, Koepka made double bogey on 12, then eagle on 13 to get back into contention. He lost by one stroke. That's exciting and it doesn't matter that 13 and 15 are short par fives. What matters is the possibility of big swings in scoring.

> >

> >

>

> 12 should be a par 4, like the 13.

 

Average score on 12 is 3. 053 ... why would you change it to a par 4?

[pgapromex]

Par makes it easy to keep score. If I am under par shots are going where I want them. If over par, I am making bad shots or putting like **** At end of round just subtract or add relation to par to par for course and voila you have your score, no need to add up 18 numbers.

[Roadking2003]

> @munichop said: Par is not relevant in Match Play but always matters in stroke play.

Please explain.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @HoosierMizuno said:

> if a player makes a 4 on the last hole to win by 1 shot, wouldn't you prefer to know whether the last hole was a par 5 or a par 3.

No. I would prefer to know how he made the four. Long putt? hitting a 4 iron tight? etc.