Does Par Matter in a Pro Tournament?

[Naptime]

A lot of comments about what par should be for various tournaments.  And on some courses par 4s for normal folks are par 3s, and a normal par 5 becomes a long 4.  Since the winner is the guy with the lowest score agains the field, does it really matter what the par number really is?  For example, on a straightish 525 yard hole, would they choose different clubs if the labeled par was 4, 5, or even 6?

[Dr. Block]

Absolutely it matters.  It determines their strategy for playing a hole in relation to gaining a stroke versus not losing a stroke to par. 

[MUNIGRIT]

It seems to me when they talk about past Champs they say the record was 268. Par really doesn't matter.

[davep043]

As long as the lowest score wins, par is only a reference point.  Does a player make a different decision on a hole because the number written on the scorecard ways 4 instead of 5?  "I'm 270 out, its a par 5, I should lay up".  

[ray9898]

Par is just a segmented measuring point, the total score is what counts.

Edited September 23, 2020 by ray9898

[smashdn]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Absolutely it matters.  It determines their strategy for playing a hole in relation to gaining a stroke versus not losing a stroke to par. 

 

Yes it matters, but not because of your second statement.

 

14 minutes ago, davep043 said:

As long as the lowest score wins, par is only a reference point.  Does a player make a different decision on a hole because the number written on the scorecard ways 4 instead of 5?  "I'm 270 out, its a par 5, I should lay up".  

 

No it doesn't matter, but not because of your second statement.

 

Players do base strategy around whether it is 4 or 5.  Mostly from a psychological standpoint.  (I think we'd all agree that making a 4 on a ~450 yard uphill par four is quite a feat but not as satisfying as making a birdie! on that ~450 yard uphill par 5.)

 

So, realistically, it does not matter, but psychologically (sub-consciously?) it does have an impact, so it matters.

 

 

 

From a viewer or golfer on the course standpoint, score in relation to par allows you gauge where you stand in relation to the field that has not played the same number of holes.

[Dr. Block]

9 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Yes it matters, but not because of your second statement.

 

 

No it doesn't matter, but not because of your second statement.

 

Players do base strategy around whether it is 4 or 5.  Mostly from a psychological standpoint.  (I think we'd all agree that making a 4 on a ~450 yard uphill par four is quite a feat but not as satisfying as making a birdie! on that ~450 yard uphill par 5.)

 

So, realistically, it does not matter, but psychologically (sub-consciously?) it does have an impact, so it matters.

 

 

 

From a viewer or golfer on the course standpoint, score in relation to par allows you gauge where you stand in relation to the field that has not played the same number of holes.

Of course it matters because of my second statement.  It determines the way a pro player approaches a hole to make their best score while minimizing the risk of losing strokes to par.  A tour pro is going to play the percentages to give the best chance to guard against losing strokes while still having an opportunity to gain them. Lets say a pro is playing a long par four with OB left and water short of the green. They are going to work the drive away from the OB so they don't lose 2 shots to par, and then they will error on the side of more club and accept a longer birdie putt from behind the hole so they don't lose a stroke to par in the hazard fronting the green. Decisions are made using par as a barometer. 

 

If there isn't an accurate measuring point for how a hole should be scored and what its relationship to par is for the entirety of the round, then golf as we know it doesn't exist. If the OP is suggesting par is arbitrary, I would counter that generally speaking, in tournament golf, par on a hole is reduced to make it even more challenging, which also makes it far more significant strategically. 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dr. Block

[GSDriver]

only thing that really matters is lowest score

[davep043]

25 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Players do base strategy around whether it is 4 or 5.  Mostly from a psychological standpoint.  (I think we'd all agree that making a 4 on a ~450 yard uphill par four is quite a feat but not as satisfying as making a birdie! on that ~450 yard uphill par 5.)

 

So, realistically, it does not matter, but psychologically (sub-consciously?) it does have an impact, so it matters.

 

From a viewer or golfer on the course standpoint, score in relation to par allows you gauge where you stand in relation to the field that has not played the same number of holes.

I think at the top level, the players are largely past the psychological issues you describe.  They expect to make a 4 on any hole that's 450 yards long, no matter what par is.  Players don't worry about losing strokes to par, they worry about losing strokes to the other players.  In essence, the field determines "par" for each hole.  If the field average is 4.2 on that 450-yard uphill hole, someone making a 4 gains just a bit, someone who makes a 5 loses a significant bit.  

As you say, par is a convenient measurement when players have completed differing numbers of holes, but that's about it.

[cristphoto]

That's right - low score wins (unless its the Tour Championship).  Sorry Xander.

[tgoodspe1991]

What would you rather look at on a leaderboard if you flicked on the TV:

 

Player #1: -5

Player #2: -5

Player #3: -2

Player #4: E

 

or

 

Player #1: 127

Player #2: 127

Player #3: 125

Player #4: 123

 

The lowest number of strokes is obviously what literally "matters," but golf is a game at the end of the day, and a game without some sort of scoring or point system is boring.

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, tgoodspe1991 said:

What would you rather look at on a leaderboard if you flicked on the TV:

 

Player #1: -5

Player #2: -5

Player #3: -2

Player #4: E

 

or

 

Player #1: 127

Player #2: 127

Player #3: 125

Player #4: 123

 

The lowest number of strokes is obviously what literally "matters," but golf is a game at the end of the day, and a game without some sort of scoring or point system is boring.

Golf does have a scoring system, strokes. 

Golf is pretty unique, in that different players are at different points in the game, so par is indeed a useful tool in comparing their relative positions, but its also a tool with serious flaws.  Score in relation to par tells only a bit of the story, the number of holes remaining for each player matters, as well as the "typical" scoring in relation to par for those remaining holes.  But you could compare each player's score to something like "straight 4s", and the resulting numbers would need to be evaluated with the same other factors (holes remaining, and typical scoring on those holes) in mind.

[llewol007]

You said it yourself. Par fives that become long par 4's affects the field tremendously. But the field all plays the same hole. I think the difference would then become what the second shot into the hole then becomes. A lot of the adjustment in what is par for the course is how many Par 5's there are on the course so switching a couple of par 5's into long par 4's creates a different challenge. 

[DFS PFD]

This is like defining the "spirit of the game" or the "essence", strokes might be how the game is played in the most literal sense, but it's always been related back to par. Par matters. Is this course par 70 or 72? 

[Barfolomew]

Absolutely does not matter.... It is just a reference point WHILE playing to know where you stand compared to the field. But they could eliminate par and just give yardages for each hole and wouldn't effect outcome.

[gvogel]

Of course, if you are leading a tournament by 1 stroke over a competitor who is in the clubhouse, and you have 3 holes left, par becomes psychologically important.  And much more difficult psychologically, I might add.

[Dr. Block]

26 minutes ago, Barfolomew said:

Absolutely does not matter.... It is just a reference point WHILE playing to know where you stand compared to the field. But they could eliminate par and just give yardages for each hole and wouldn't effect outcome.

You don't think it has any effect on strategy and calculating risk and reward?  Especially at the end of a tournament if one is protecting a lead?  I'm getting the feeling that some of the responses in this thread are being made by some high handicap players.  Course management has everything to do with your performance compared to par - breaking it (or trying to meet it) while not letting it break you.  

Edited September 23, 2020 by Dr. Block

[EDT501]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

You don't think it has any effect on strategy and calculating risk and reward?  Especially at the end of a tournament if one is protecting a lead?  I'm getting the feeling that some of the responses in this thread are being made by some high handicap players.  Course management has everything to do with your performance compared to par - breaking it while not letting it break you.  

As someone who has played a good amount of competitive golf, I think par is a useful metric in that it allows players and spectators to quickly compare their performance relative to the field and I absolutely do not think it determines the the optimal strategy for getting the ball in the hole in the fewest numbers of strokes.

 

For example, if I am in a tournament and see that I am even par with 5 to play and my competitor is +3 with 3 to play, I know I have an advantage and have room to choose a more conservative strategy. I can use par as a way to adjust my risk-reward calculations.

 

Going back to the OP's original question, a hole's individual par should not change the baseline strategy for each hole. For instance, there is a course near me that has a very short par 5 that occasionally plays as a pay 4 in tournaments. Regardless of whether or not the scorecard has that hole labeled as a par 5 or 4, my initial strategy is the same. The hole hasn't changed, the way I play the hole shouldn't change (assuming that I was playing smart golf before hand). A less realistic but equally valid example would be a 150 yard straight away par 3 with the pin in the middle of the green. The optimal strategy on that hole is to hit your tee shot to the middle of the green and putt as few times as possible. If one morning the score card changed and had that exact hole listed as a par 4 or par 2, the optimal strategy to get the ball into the cup in the fewest strokes possible wouldn't change. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by EDT501

[davep043]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

You don't think it has any effect on strategy and calculating risk and reward?  Especially at the end of a tournament if one is protecting a lead?  I'm getting the feeling that some of the responses in this thread are being made by some high handicap players.  Course management has everything to do with your performance compared to par - breaking it (or trying to meet it) while not letting it break you.  

I don't think par matters to these players.  If they need to go 1-under or better over 3 holes to win, that's fine.  If they need to play those same 3 holes in 11 strokes or less, that's fine.  They'll look at those three holes and figure out the best way to achieve the goal.  Relating it to par or relating it to the number of strokes results in the same choice.  Its the same three holes, its the same goal, and the player can only hit one shot at a time.  He makes a choice on where to hit THIS shot.  If he has 12 shots to play with, or 13, he might pick a more conservative target.  I don't believe that a "label" changes the right choice for any particular hole.

[Dr. Block]

Well, this thread his given me a new perspective, maybe I am approaching golf the wrong way.  I kind of feel like it may be semantics though.  If I encounter a reachable par 5 say that is short, but is tight with out of bounds on it.  I am going to consider that I can play conservatively off the tee and leave myself a wedge so that I can have a chance to make birdie while making sure I don't lose a shot to par on the hole and on the round by making worse then five.  If you want to say that you look at that scenario as just the best way to get the ball in the hole, I can't really argue with your logic, but I have a hard time believing that making no worse then a par isn't a thought that crosses your mind. 

[Barfolomew]

It does matter to know where you stand in a tourney..... par does make it easy but you could learn to think in strokes.  But it doesn't matter what reference label is given to a hole.... you could make every hole a par 4 and wouldn't change anything or even make every hole par 10 it doesn't matter...

[caniac6]

I matters more than bogey.

[smashdn]

3 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

Of course it matters because of my second statement.  It determines the way a pro player approaches a hole to make their best score while minimizing the risk of losing strokes to par. 

 

Except they probably don't or shouldn't care about par.  As @davep043 points out it doesn't matter in relation to par, it matters in relation to the field.  If the field is playing a par five hole in an average score of 4.5 (half make 5, half make 4) making a 5 loses you half a stroke to the field.  Par doesn't matter, except potentially psychologically and potentially, in some cases, for understanding he architectural intent and giving you a hint out how you play the hole best.

[Fairway14]

I do believe par 68 is the future of pro Tour golf. There is no sensible reason to label a hole a par 5 if the entire field may reach the green with two shots.

 

[smashdn]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Well, this thread his given me a new perspective, maybe I am approaching golf the wrong way.  I kind of feel like it may be semantics though.  If I encounter a reachable par 5 say that is short, but is tight with out of bounds on it.  I am going to consider that I can play conservatively off the tee and leave myself a wedge so that I can have a chance to make birdie while making sure I don't lose a shot to par on the hole and on the round by making worse then five.  If you want to say that you look at that scenario as just the best way to get the ball in the hole, I can't really argue with your logic, but I have a hard time believing that making no worse then a par isn't a thought that crosses your mind. 

 

I think in blocks of three holes.  Make 13 on each three hole block and you shoot 78 in 18 holes.  Some times you have two par fives in a three hole block.  It makes it more difficult but doesn't change the math.

[WalterSlovotsky88]

1 hour ago, Dr. Block said:

Well, this thread his given me a new perspective, maybe I am approaching golf the wrong way.  I kind of feel like it may be semantics though.  If I encounter a reachable par 5 say that is short, but is tight with out of bounds on it.  I am going to consider that I can play conservatively off the tee and leave myself a wedge so that I can have a chance to make birdie while making sure I don't lose a shot to par on the hole and on the round by making worse then five.  If you want to say that you look at that scenario as just the best way to get the ball in the hole, I can't really argue with your logic, but I have a hard time believing that making no worse then a par isn't a thought that crosses your mind. 

 

Okay, now play that same hole as a long par 4. Do you approach differently? Why? Nothing about the hole has changed, just a number on a piece of paper.

[straightshot7]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

I don't think par matters to these players.  If they need to go 1-under or better over 3 holes to win, that's fine.  If they need to play those same 3 holes in 11 strokes or less, that's fine.  They'll look at those three holes and figure out the best way to achieve the goal.  Relating it to par or relating it to the number of strokes results in the same choice.  Its the same three holes, its the same goal, and the player can only hit one shot at a time.  He makes a choice on where to hit THIS shot.  If he has 12 shots to play with, or 13, he might pick a more conservative target.  I don't believe that a "label" changes the right choice for any particular hole.

Par definitely matters to pro players, because that's the way they've been raised to play for the past 20+ years.

All competitive golf is played in relation to par. "Beating old man par" is the foundational goal for golfers who aspire to play well. 

 

Tiger has always says that he hates making bogies.

 

Sure they would adjust to a new way of thinking if par were eliminated, but currently it is still the benchmark by which they measure their performance. 

 

And par is how a course designer sets the benchmark for what a player should aspire to beat and how hard he believes each hole should play. 

 

 

[ChaosTheory]

If they didn't use par, for tourneys there would still have to be an in-round scoring method that allowed players to compare their position no matter how many holes they had put behind them.  Par works for that.  But I get the general point.  I think maybe Rotella or Pelz wrote about this years ago, using the example as stated above, a long par 4 versus the same hole as a short par 5.  Logically your strategy should be the same either way.  But it's not because we are slaves to par.

[Dr. Block]

2 hours ago, WalterSlovotsky88 said:

 

Okay, now play that same hole as a long par 4. Do you approach differently? Why? Nothing about the hole has changed, just a number on a piece of paper.

Well yeah, it’s changed.  I now need to make a 4 to make a par. I’m now hitting a driver to give myself an approach shot to the green.  

Edited September 23, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

Well, this thread his given me a new perspective, maybe I am approaching golf the wrong way.  I kind of feel like it may be semantics though.  If I encounter a reachable par 5 say that is short, but is tight with out of bounds on it.  I am going to consider that I can play conservatively off the tee and leave myself a wedge so that I can have a chance to make birdie while making sure I don't lose a shot to par on the hole and on the round by making worse then five.  If you want to say that you look at that scenario as just the best way to get the ball in the hole, I can't really argue with your logic, but I have a hard time believing that making no worse then a par isn't a thought that crosses your mind. 

So you’re playing the hole with the effort to make the best score possible while hedging your bet a bit and avoiding the blowup hole? What does that have to do with par? If the par five is easily reachable for your length do you really lay up but would go for it if called a par 4?