To the Par is Irrelevant Crowd

[buckeyefl]

> @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.

[powerpushfade]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @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".

 

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

[North Texas]

> @powerpushfade said:

> > @"North Texas" said:

> > > @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".

>

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

 

But not until the tournament is pretty much over.

[hollabachgt]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @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.

>

 

If you've never come across someone who's strategy is influenced by par I'd be greatly surprised. Either you play with a very small circle of astute golfers or you have not noticed the changes in a players decision making.

 

From my observations and experiences par has a strong bearing on the decision making of many players. This is also not something that is specific to average players, I've even seen par dictate play at pretty high levels. My former club has hosted a D1 collegiate event for the past decade. The 10th hole for the members is a 490 yard par 5. The first year of the event they played it as a par 5, but for the second year they moved the tee up 10 yards and played it as a par 4. Between the two years the field recorded a similar number of 3's and 5's, but in year two there was a 27% increase in 4's, a 24% increase in 6's, and a 55% increase in 7's or higher! With a par of 4 the field was more inclined to gamble on their first two shots. For some it paid off, for many more it cost them strokes. The end result was that the scoring average when the hole was played as a par 4 was .03 strokes higher than it was when played as a par 5!

[North Texas]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @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.

>

 

Maybe we should play a round of golf together or get to know each other because I don't remember the last round I played where I didn't have at least one hole where I determined my strategy for a hole based on par. And it's multiple holes quite often.

[wmblake2000]

This debate about ‘par’ being outdated is off-base. It is an essential tool to track where players stand relative to each other at different stages of a tournament.

 

The real question is about USGA’s understanding of how to ‘identify the best player.’ This is where the focus should be for them. This is not an easy question but some approach to it should drive course setup. It’s not the final score relative to par that defines this but the full examination of all kinds of shots and creating exacting scenarios in pressure-packed situations where decisions must be made...

[Ferguson]

> @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

 

 

Don't forget the Newspaper Par.

[Kookaburra1966]

Prefer tournaments where the **cut line** comes in at par rather than the **winning score**. Seems to always be the best balance between risk and reward at this level, which is so far beyond anything I've experienced personally as to be almost beyond belief.

[Roadking2003]

> @Kookaburra1966 said:

> Prefer tournaments where the **cut line** comes in at par rather than the **winning score**. Seems to always be the best balance between risk and reward at this level, which is so far beyond anything I've experienced personally as to be almost beyond belief.

The USGA handicap manual tends to agree with you. Par is what scratch golfers shoot. Tour pros shoot much lower. So par should be a lot higher than the average tour pro score. If the best players in the world shoot around par, then par is too low.

 

USGA:

"Yardages for guidance in computing par are given below. **The effective playing length of a hole for the scratch golfer determines par.**(See Section 13-3b.) These yardages may not be applied arbitrarily; the configuration of the ground and the severity of the obstacles should be taken into consideration."

[Roadking2003]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @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.

> >

>

> Maybe we should play a round of golf together or get to know each other because I don't remember the last round I played where I didn't have at least one hole where I determined my strategy for a hole based on par. And it's multiple holes quite often.

 

I play every hole to shoot the lowest score possible without taking on undue risk. The exception is when there is another influence such as a match where I am leading and I might play for safety, not the best score, or just the opposite when trailing and needing to take more risk than normal. Even then, par would not change how I play the hole. My choice of risk would influence how I play the hole.

 

Why would I ever choose how to play a hole based on par?

 

I do agree that the psychology of reaching a par five in two changes my attitude, but the par designation wouldn't change my strategy.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @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.

> >

>

> Maybe we should play a round of golf together or get to know each other because I don't remember the last round I played where I didn't have at least one hole where I determined my strategy for a hole based on par. And it's multiple holes quite often.

 

Give me some examples, please. And we are talking only par, not the length of the hole.

[melo]

Wouldn't this argument be completely irrelevant if the USGA just stopped making Open courses where the ball won't stay on the green and rough that people get injured playing out of? I'm personally in the camp of, "I watch golf to be entertained and amazed by how good they are," which means I'd prefer a golf course that is tough, but has opportunities for a great player who is playing well to shoot around their handicap. Since these guys are all +4 or better, a few people should be shooting 68 every day. If we are setting up a course where the winning score is par or worse, we are saying we made a golf course intentionally where the winner was 20-30 strokes worse than their handicap - that flies in the face of everything about the USGA.

[Roadking2003]

> @melo said:

> Wouldn't this argument be completely irrelevant if the USGA just stopped making Open courses where the ball won't stay on the green and rough that people get injured playing out of?

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

> I'm personally in the camp of, "I watch golf to be entertained and amazed by how good they are," which means I'd prefer a golf course that is tough, but has opportunities for a great player who is playing well to shoot around their handicap. Since these guys are all +4 or better, a few people should be shooting 68 every day. If we are setting up a course where the winning score is par or worse, we are saying we made a golf course intentionally where the winner was 20-30 strokes worse than their handicap - that flies in the face of everything about the USGA.

 

Their obsession with protecting par has ruined a few US Opens.

 

[North Texas]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"North Texas" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> >

> > Maybe we should play a round of golf together or get to know each other because I don't remember the last round I played where I didn't have at least one hole where I determined my strategy for a hole based on par. And it's multiple holes quite often.

>

> Give me some examples, please. And we are talking only par, not the length of the hole.

 

Well, the reality is that we are saying the same thing but using different thought processes to arrive there. My thought process is to play a par 4 in the best way in order to birdie it. That's just how I think. You are trying to play in 3 shots. Or if I get out of position, what is the best play to give me a chance at par and at worst make a bogey. You're thinking how do I make a 4 and no worse than 5 on this hole.

 

Bottom line, we're doing the same thing when you think about it. Neither approach is better or worse than the other approach.

 

[Shilgy]

> @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.

>

>

 

Very well said. ?

[Shilgy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @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”.

 

Ok, that pass a different discussion than the one we are having.

 

For professional level tournament golf we need a target to know where players stand against each other. That is really all "par" is good for on tour.

The whole idea of having the US Open, for instance, be judged year to year by how close to par the winning score is is really ludicrous. We have a different course in a different part of the world and it seems some want the same score. And then they complain if the score is level par but they don't like how the USGA made that happen.

[GLF4EVR]

Guess I go with the par is irrelevant crowd. My thinking is golf is a test of skill. Rather that watching the normal weekend of them bombing the crap out of a course. I enjoy the accuracy that you need for the open. Now I can use the excuse of I am old (60), so I have been brainwashed by what the commentators have said for years.

[Shilgy]

> @melo said:

> Wouldn't this argument be completely irrelevant if the USGA just stopped making Open courses where the ball won't stay on the green and rough that people get injured playing out of? I'm personally in the camp of, "I watch golf to be entertained and amazed by how good they are," which means I'd prefer a golf course that is tough, but has opportunities for a great player who is playing well to shoot around their handicap. Since these guys are all +4 or better, a few people should be shooting 68 every day. If we are setting up a course where the winning score is par or worse, we are saying we made a golf course intentionally where the winner was 20-30 strokes worse than their handicap - that flies in the face of everything about the USGA.

 

Most of the courses that the US Open goes to are rated well over par. Set up for a Tour event they would be even more difficult. So the pros are better than +4. But really that just moves the number back to 68 or so with a better cap but higher course rating.

In my opinion set the course tough but fair for our Open. Rough can be higher but not the "only choice is hack it out". People slam Mike Davis for many things but his policy of throwing unexpected challenges at them was awesome. Moving tee boxes around.... Including making one hole an unexpected drivable par 4 in most of the events. That's the best way to challenge the pros, make them think. Unknowns are not their forte.

[challengers]

US Opens are my favourite majors by far. Love it when the winning score is around par and love it when they have ridiculous set ups. The reason I love it so much is because variety is the spice of life. One of these a year is perfect. They have created something unique and special - imagine if we played the same type of courses all the time.

 

A hard, fast, tough setup that is near unplayable is part and parcel of golf. Something even us hackers can relate too - sometimes we play in tough conditions (for us) and hack it all over the place. This is part of golf. Golf is not always pretty, sometimes its just hanging on for dear life. Is one tournament a year with insane conditions really too much?

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @"Aviador Naval" said:

> > @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.

 

Seriously, get a better dictionary.

[HitEmTrue]

> @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?

 

 

[CrushSticks]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> 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.

>

I agree with you to a certain extent, and I should have been more specific. Years back, a hole that long pushed the envelope because a significant amount of players had to hit a fairway wood second shot, or at least a long iron. I think you would agree that very, very few players ever have to pull a fairway wood on a 500 yard par 4, and it is this fact that has forced the USGA and many other course setup agencies to find every bit of yardage available to make scoring difficult.

 

Like I said, you make a great point, but add a rock hard US Open fairway, and rock hard green, and we are talking about someone like Zach Johnson hitting Driver/short iron into this exact type of hole. His 270 carry drive just rolled out to 310 and I bet you he still carries a 7 iron in the 160-170 range. Bounce that thing up there 15 yards, and boom, 500 yards for one of the noted short hitters on tour.

 

[CrushSticks]

> @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 ?

 

I was hoping you would jump in here. I always enjoy and respect your comments, regardless of which side you fall on.

[golfortennis]

> @challengers said:

> US Opens are my favourite majors by far. Love it when the winning score is around par and love it when they have ridiculous set ups. The reason I love it so much is because variety is the spice of life. One of these a year is perfect. They have created something unique and special - imagine if we played the same type of courses all the time.

>

> A hard, fast, tough setup that is near unplayable is part and parcel of golf. Something even us hackers can relate too - sometimes we play in tough conditions (for us) and hack it all over the place. This is part of golf. Golf is not always pretty, sometimes its just hanging on for dear life. Is one tournament a year with insane conditions really too much?

 

And this is exactly why there is a "par is irrelevant" crowd. "Love when the winning score is around par." Why the heck do you care where the winning score falls? The winning score is the lowest one. Just declare the course a par 66 and it's never an issue.

[Lodestone]

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".

[bladehunter]

> @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.

[Titleist99]

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

[A.Princey]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> 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.

>

I still don't get why this change of pace vs normal tour stops is so bad? Is it that damaging to the ego of the typical 5hcp, weekend warrior, because they'd be lucky to scrounge out a sub-100 score, or is it because they need to be spoon-fed birdies and eagles to appreciate good pro golf? Miller's 63 at Oakmont is forever immortalized due to the *challenge* expected of the US Open, and if you cannot understand that it's an equal test of all involved, then rarities like that 63 will never separate the great ones from the exceptional. Perhaps your favorite horse in the race fares poorly at this event due to the increased difficulty?

 

[OrangeGravy]

> @Shilgy 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.

> >

> >

>

> Very well said. ?

 

I agree as well. I watch sports for the competition. In golf the best way for that to happen is for scores to ebb and flow for every player. One minute a guy makes a double and you think he's out of it, then he comes back with an eagle or 2 birdies and he's right back in it. When scores are mainly going one direction for players in a golf tournament whether that be up or down, it's boring. Augusta still gives us this wide variance from hole to hole. The problem is it's getting harder to find courses that offer that naturally to today's players, hence the USGA's problem. I don't have a problem with it personally. I'd rather watch a shite show vs a birdie/putt fest. I enjoy it most when the challenge is achieving the birdie putt, not who can make the most. I don't need to see tons of bogeys either. I like courses that are set up to make it hard to get it close, but not necessarily hard to get in on.

[Terry Gold]

> @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.