Does Par Matter in a Pro Tournament?

[Dr. Block]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

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? 
 

I originally described the hole as being tight With OB.  So If it’s a five I can play the percentages and still have a birdie putt. 

[Shilgy]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

I originally described the hole as being tight With OB.  So If it’s a five I can play the percentages and still have a birdie putt. 

I get what your saying but question the strategy. The only was that would occur to me would be if I hit a poor tee shot. Perhaps I would be more likely to go for it if it were a par 4. 
But the thread is talking about the pros. At WF I saw quite a few guys laying up on par 4’s going for it from questionable spots on par 5’s . That leads me to believe it is more the odds of each shot rather than using par as a barometer. 

[EDT501]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

I originally described the hole as being tight With OB.  So If it’s a five I can play the percentages and still have a birdie putt. 

Lets do what you say and play the %s on a hole a little over 500 yards with OB tight up the right side. I try and think of my plan off the tee in terms of expected outcome across an infinite number of plays (eg - if I played this hole 1000 times w/ x strategy, what would my average score be compared to playing this hole 1000 times w/ y strategy). The below is a simplified breakdown of the %s of all the shots I'd likely come across while playing. I'll list out the %s (roughly based on my real data) but won't do the full decision tree calculations here (let me know if you want to see an excel). 

 

Aggressive strategy - tee off with driver w/ intent of hitting the green in 2.

Drive - 50% chance of finding the fairway, 40% miss the fairway but in bounds, 10% OB

Approach (fairway) - from 225 yards away, 30% chance of hitting the green

Approach (rough) - from 225 yards away, 10% chance of hitting green

Green (hit green in 2) - 15% chance of 1 putt, 80%  2 putt, 5% 3 putt

Green (miss approach) - 40% chance of up and down, 55% up and 2 putts, 5% 4 shots to hole

Conservative strategy - take a hybrid or long iron off the tee and play the hole as a 3 shotter

Drive - 70% chance of finding the fairway, 29% finding the rough, 1% OB

Lay-up (fairway) - 85% chance of finding the fairway, 15% rough or other

Lay-up (rough) - 75% chance of finding the fairway, 25% rough or other

Approach (fairway, 75 yards) - 90% chance of hitting the green

Approach (rough, 75 yards) - 80% chance of hitting the green

Green (GIR) - 10% 1 putt, 85% 2 putt, 5% 3 putt

Green (missed GIR) - 40% chance of up and down, 55% up and 2 putts, 5% 4 shots to hole

 

Expected score (aggressive): 4.69

Expected score (conservative): 4.93

 

This indicates that even though I am 10x more likely to go OB with the aggressive play, my improved expected score is worth the risk. Whether the hole was listed as a beefy par 4 or a shorter par 5, the optimal path, to me, is clear if my goal is keeping my total number of strokes across the round as low as possible. Of course, if I feel like I am driving the ball poorly or there is a strong left to right wind I'd need to adjust the probabilities, but there are limits to an illustrative example...

 

I'm obviously not out there day-to-day running these types of calculations in a spreadsheet as I play, but it is the way I try and think about approaching each hole and I am considering making these types of decision trees for the courses I play frequently and feed live data into them to help inform my game plan before a round. I think this is one of the more interesting discussions I've seen on the boards in awhile. I love hearing different people's approaches to managing the golf course - always something to learn. 

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Dr. Block said:

I originally described the hole as being tight With OB.  So If it’s a five I can play the percentages and still have a birdie putt. 

 

You keep digging the hole you've made deeper.

 

You should've stopped with your first silly post - when you were only a little behind.

[Dr. Block]

1 hour ago, EDT501 said:

Lets do what you say and play the %s on a hole a little over 500 yards with OB tight up the right side. I try and think of my plan off the tee in terms of expected outcome across an infinite number of plays (eg - if I played this hole 1000 times w/ x strategy, what would my average score be compared to playing this hole 1000 times w/ y strategy). The below is a simplified breakdown of the %s of all the shots I'd likely come across while playing. I'll list out the %s (roughly based on my real data) but won't do the full decision tree calculations here (let me know if you want to see an excel). 

 

Aggressive strategy - tee off with driver w/ intent of hitting the green in 2.

Drive - 50% chance of finding the fairway, 40% miss the fairway but in bounds, 10% OB

Approach (fairway) - from 225 yards away, 30% chance of hitting the green

Approach (rough) - from 225 yards away, 10% chance of hitting green

Green (hit green in 2) - 15% chance of 1 putt, 80%  2 putt, 5% 3 putt

Green (miss approach) - 40% chance of up and down, 55% up and 2 putts, 5% 4 shots to hole

Conservative strategy - take a hybrid or long iron off the tee and play the hole as a 3 shotter

Drive - 70% chance of finding the fairway, 29% finding the rough, 1% OB

Lay-up (fairway) - 85% chance of finding the fairway, 15% rough or other

Lay-up (rough) - 75% chance of finding the fairway, 25% rough or other

Approach (fairway, 75 yards) - 90% chance of hitting the green

Approach (rough, 75 yards) - 80% chance of hitting the green

Green (GIR) - 10% 1 putt, 85% 2 putt, 5% 3 putt

Green (missed GIR) - 40% chance of up and down, 55% up and 2 putts, 5% 4 shots to hole

 

Expected score (aggressive): 4.69

Expected score (conservative): 4.93

 

This indicates that even though I am 10x more likely to go OB with the aggressive play, my improved expected score is worth the risk. Whether the hole was listed as a beefy par 4 or a shorter par 5, the optimal path, to me, is clear if my goal is keeping my total number of strokes across the round as low as possible. Of course, if I feel like I am driving the ball poorly or there is a strong left to right wind I'd need to adjust the probabilities, but there are limits to an illustrative example...

 

I'm obviously not out there day-to-day running these types of calculations in a spreadsheet as I play, but it is the way I try and think about approaching each hole and I am considering making these types of decision trees for the courses I play frequently and feed live data into them to help inform my game plan before a round. I think this is one of the more interesting discussions I've seen on the boards in awhile. I love hearing different people's approaches to managing the golf course - always something to learn. 

Agreed, and thank you, that was an interesting read.  I’ve enjoyed the new perspective you guys have been explaining.   I imagine you’re a far stronger player than I am, not to mention light years better at math. 
 

I frequently find my game in a state where par is part of my management strategy.  In particular, like my handle on this forum would suggest, wildness with the driver. So my perspective is at times, when it matters, to manage a hole with par in mind. Getting it in play and assuring I leave the ball on the correct side of the pin or removing the likelihood of catching hazards around the green.  I guess at your level, or a tour players level, they don’t have to think that way unless they are really leaking oil that day.  

 

Still, it seems weird for me to think that players aren’t at least thinking a little about par at times. If a tour player is four deep and the cut is -2, and he’s facing 2 tricked up finishing holes, he’s not strategizing around making par on those holes?  

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Dr. Block]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

You keep digging the hole you've made deeper.

 

You should've stopped with your first silly post - when you were only a little behind.

Fair enough, but at least it’s produced some interesting discussion

 

Do you have anything else to add? 

[nsxguy]

1 minute ago, Dr. Block said:

Fair enough, but at least it’s produced some interesting discussion

 

Do you have anything else to add? 

 

Guess it depends on what's considered interesting. But nope, nothing to add.

 

Just to reiterate though, as Dave(?) mentioned early on, fewest total strokes WIN, par is irrelevant. It's just a placeholder, an easy reference to know where each golfer stands in relation to one another; just like top of the 6th, Dodgers 5, Giants 3.

[Dr. Block]

36 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Guess it depends on what's considered interesting. But nope, nothing to add.

 

Just to reiterate though, as Dave(?) mentioned early on, fewest total strokes WIN, par is irrelevant. It's just a placeholder, an easy reference to know where each golfer stands in relation to one another; just like top of the 6th, Dodgers 5, Giants 3.

“Interesting” certainly is subjective, but for me, this thread beats the half dozen or so about Bryson on the first page.  
 

I hope you won’t mind too much if we continue to discuss the grayer areas of strategy and course management and pars effect or lack-of on a hole by hole basis.   

 

and please, if you want to weigh in on that, go ahead 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dr. Block

[iBanesto]

You want to improve your golf game?

 

Just hit fewer shots.

 

In the end the lowest score will win regardless if par is 72 or 82.

[grm24]

Who invented over and under par golf scores?
https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2018/03/18/who-invented-over-under-par-golf-scores-108818/

Every week, golf fans look to the leaderboard to see which golfers are at the top, in contention or maybe near the bottom. And on those leaderboards, we see whether players are under par or over par, as well how many holes they've played in their round.

 

But for hundreds of years, golfers and golf fans didn't know or really care about their score in relationship to par. It didn't matter if a tournament golfer was under par, over par or even par. Golfers and fans pretty much had to wait to see every player's scores and then figure out who had the lowest total score to see who won. That's not really convenient for golf fans watching in person or on TV, however. It takes quite a bit of mental math to figure out where all the golfers on the course are relative to each other given how many holes they have left to play. So, it took a television guy to figure out a simple system for golf fans to understand the leaderboard in real time.

 

Former CBS Sports lead golf producer Frank Chirkinian invented what we know today as under and over par. He wanted golf fans to understand where players were in relationship to par through the number of holes they had played in a tournament. The under or over par total, indicated by red numbers for under par and black numbers for over par, that is shown gives a fan an idea of how a tournament would end at that point in time if every golfer with holes remaining to play makes pars into the house.

 

Ultimately, a score of under par or over par doesn't really matter. Par is relative, and it's decided by who created the course, or who owns it, or who presents the tournament. The winner of a golf tournament is the player with the lowest aggregate score after all players have completed play. That's it. But, Frank Chirkinian's approach made golf instantly more watchable for millions of people, helping them know quickly what was happening on a sprawling property as the action unfolds.

[Dr. Block]

47 minutes ago, grm24 said:

Who invented over and under par golf scores?
https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2018/03/18/who-invented-over-under-par-golf-scores-108818/

Every week, golf fans look to the leaderboard to see which golfers are at the top, in contention or maybe near the bottom. And on those leaderboards, we see whether players are under par or over par, as well how many holes they've played in their round.

 

But for hundreds of years, golfers and golf fans didn't know or really care about their score in relationship to par. It didn't matter if a tournament golfer was under par, over par or even par. Golfers and fans pretty much had to wait to see every player's scores and then figure out who had the lowest total score to see who won. That's not really convenient for golf fans watching in person or on TV, however. It takes quite a bit of mental math to figure out where all the golfers on the course are relative to each other given how many holes they have left to play. So, it took a television guy to figure out a simple system for golf fans to understand the leaderboard in real time.

 

Former CBS Sports lead golf producer Frank Chirkinian invented what we know today as under and over par. He wanted golf fans to understand where players were in relationship to par through the number of holes they had played in a tournament. The under or over par total, indicated by red numbers for under par and black numbers for over par, that is shown gives a fan an idea of how a tournament would end at that point in time if every golfer with holes remaining to play makes pars into the house.

 

Ultimately, a score of under par or over par doesn't really matter. Par is relative, and it's decided by who created the course, or who owns it, or who presents the tournament. The winner of a golf tournament is the player with the lowest aggregate score after all players have completed play. That's it. But, Frank Chirkinian's approach made golf instantly more watchable for millions of people, helping them know quickly what was happening on a sprawling property as the action unfolds.

Good stuff.  Frank Chirkinian was a sharp guy.  Makes ya wonder about the history of who created the hole to hole par designations

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dr. Block

[freowho]

Par doesn't matter for strategy or total score. If it does then you are doing yourself a disservice.

At the club level it matters for the game of par. No need to birdie a hole you get a shot at.

It helps work out a players standing in the field at any one point. It's very handy. I think they should change par each day of a tourament. If the scoring average is 4.49 it becomes a par 4 and at 4.5 it is a par 5.

[2bGood]

To a pro it does not matter at all. At lower levels I could see it influencing strategy for some players.

Edited September 24, 2020 by 2bGood

[Dr. Block]

Alright then, I guess it’s time for a paradigm shift in my thinking on the golf course.  I think I may have gotten into some bad habits out of the laziness of not wanting to bother with a scorecard.  I keep my score in my head - in relation to par.  I appreciate the learnin fellas 

[imakaveli]

Only USGA is interested in par because they want to show they are the "tough guys"...

[davep043]

11 hours ago, Shilgy said:

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? 
 

 

9 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

Agreed, and thank you, that was an interesting read.  I’ve enjoyed the new perspective you guys have been explaining.   I imagine you’re a far stronger player than I am, not to mention light years better at math. 
 

I frequently find my game in a state where par is part of my management strategy.  In particular, like my handle on this forum would suggest, wildness with the driver. So my perspective is at times, when it matters, to manage a hole with par in mind. Getting it in play and assuring I leave the ball on the correct side of the pin or removing the likelihood of catching hazards around the green.  I guess at your level, or a tour players level, they don’t have to think that way unless they are really leaking oil that day.  

 

Still, it seems weird for me to think that players aren’t at least thinking a little about par at times. If a tour player is four deep and the cut is -2, and he’s facing 2 tricked up finishing holes, he’s not strategizing around making par on those holes?  

Rather than thinking about making par, or birdie, think about making the lowest score (on average) from wherever you right now.  This way of formulating strategy is informed by the moderately new Strokes Gained analysis, and is the basis for the DECADE system, and the book Lowest Score Wins.  Its applicable to players at every level, but the percentages change because the "shot patterns" change with differing skill levels.  This type of strategy still works to limit risks (not removing but limiting) while getting all the advantages possible by getting closer to the hole.  

[Naptime]

Another reason to like match play scoring and the Ryder Cup formats.  If I win the hole doesn't matter if it was 2-3  or 11-13.  ?  When we play casually (all hackers lucky to break 90) we keep score both ways for fun.

[gvogel]

9 hours ago, grm24 said:

Who invented over and under par golf scores?
https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2018/03/18/who-invented-over-under-par-golf-scores-108818/

Every week, golf fans look to the leaderboard to see which golfers are at the top, in contention or maybe near the bottom. And on those leaderboards, we see whether players are under par or over par, as well how many holes they've played in their round.

 

But for hundreds of years, golfers and golf fans didn't know or really care about their score in relationship to par. It didn't matter if a tournament golfer was under par, over par or even par. Golfers and fans pretty much had to wait to see every player's scores and then figure out who had the lowest total score to see who won. That's not really convenient for golf fans watching in person or on TV, however. It takes quite a bit of mental math to figure out where all the golfers on the course are relative to each other given how many holes they have left to play. So, it took a television guy to figure out a simple system for golf fans to understand the leaderboard in real time.

 

Former CBS Sports lead golf producer Frank Chirkinian invented what we know today as under and over par. He wanted golf fans to understand where players were in relationship to par through the number of holes they had played in a tournament. The under or over par total, indicated by red numbers for under par and black numbers for over par, that is shown gives a fan an idea of how a tournament would end at that point in time if every golfer with holes remaining to play makes pars into the house.

 

Ultimately, a score of under par or over par doesn't really matter. Par is relative, and it's decided by who created the course, or who owns it, or who presents the tournament. The winner of a golf tournament is the player with the lowest aggregate score after all players have completed play. That's it. But, Frank Chirkinian's approach made golf instantly more watchable for millions of people, helping them know quickly what was happening on a sprawling property as the action unfolds.

The article is somewhat incorrect.  For years, particularly in the 19th century, golfers measured their scores against bogey.  Bogey was described as "an average golfer's score used as a standard for a particular hole or course."  It was also described as "a numerical standard of performance set up as a mark to be aimed at especially in competition." 

 

If you were playing St Andrews with hickory shafts and gutties, bogey or better would be the score that you sought on any particular hole.  As equipment and golfers got better, par replaced bogey as the standard.  By the time that Bobby Jones was competing, he sought to play against "par" rather than his opponent in match play.  He figured he would win most of his matches if he shot par, so that's what he played against.  So par was a concept before Frank Chirkinian developed a method of matching players scores at different points during a round of golf.

[King_Slender]

21 hours ago, davep043 said:

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.

 

In order to prove it we'd need to know holes on Tour that played as Par 4's one year and as Par 5's in another year.  Or similar lenght holes might do as well as long as they weren't too different in layout. 

 

Best I can come up with is data from 2018-19 on the 20 Most Difficult holes and the 20 Easiest Holes

 

The hardest holes (primarily Par 4s) played an average of 0.34 over par or to a 4.34 average.  The 20 easiest holes, all Par 5s played 0.67 under par, or an average around 4.33.

 

So what does that tell us?  To the pros, hard par 4's play almost the exact same as easy par 5's in average score.

 

 

[Kilo1545]

It's really quite simple.  It's a matter of what your "score relative to" is defined by.  

 

If you're playing all by yourself against only the scorecard/course, then par matters.  Shooting a 72 "relative to" a Par 72 course is better than shooting a 71 "relative to" a Par 70 course.  The lower number (71 vs. 72) is not better in that case.

 

If you're playing against another golfer, then the only thing that matters is your score "relative to" their score.  In that case, the lower score always wins.

 

Score..."relative to"...what?

[smashdn]

11 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

Alright then, I guess it’s time for a paradigm shift in my thinking on the golf course.  I think I may have gotten into some bad habits out of the laziness of not wanting to bother with a scorecard.  I keep my score in my head - in relation to par.  I appreciate the learnin fellas 

 

As a complete generalization with no context taken into consideration, the aggressive play (shaving off as much distance to the hole with the next shot as possible) is the play that will lead to lower scores.  With context in consideration, your ability to make the next shot as close to the hole as possible is only trumped when you run the risk of taking a penalty or dropping a shot.

 

That is why the "lay up" strategy is rarely if ever the play that yields the lowest score, over time.  So, relating back to par, the thought that, "This is a par five, I can afford to lay up or play conservative to ensure I play in par or better," is a bit of a fallacy.  Not that it is necessarily a bad play, but that A) relating it to par flaws the logic and B) probably wouldn't be the play that results in the lowest score over time.

 

^That is coming from a guy that doesn't really get much enjoyment in playing "drive it far and wedge it close" golf.  I like tacking it around and hitting every club in the bag.  I get more enjoyment playing that way, but I don't score as well.  Also why I play fairly often with persimmon woods and old blades and walk.  I enjoy it and it makes it easier when I go back to the modern clubs for a scramble or score round or something like that.

[ChaosTheory]

Without looking it up, I think the word bogey is sometimes used to mean a target or goal or benchmark.  I’ve heard it now and then.  So that supports the idea above.

[nsxguy]

16 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

“Interesting” certainly is subjective, but for me, this thread beats the half dozen or so about Bryson on the first page.  
 

I hope you won’t mind too much if we continue to discuss the grayer areas of strategy and course management and pars effect or lack-of on a hole by hole basis.   

 

and please, if you want to weigh in on that, go ahead 

 

Why would I mind ?

 

But thanks anyway for your permission to participate.

 

Appreciate it. ?

[Dr. Block]

You're welcome. Thanks for the pot-shots from the cheap-seats.  Its been a gas. 

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

You're welcome. Thanks for the pot-shots from the cheap-seats.  Its been a gas. 

 

[Juice1121]

For any tournament that holds any weight par is irrelevant. Sure, it's useful to people learning the game or when people are watching and trying to keep track of the scores. Outside of that, any real tournament, with professional players, it doesn't matter. Dating back to Billy Casper laying up on number 3 at winged foot all 4 days, it has not mattered.

[Dr. Block]

20 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

That’s pretty good, but I think you’re better at emoji’s. 

[MUNIGRIT]

One proof that par doesn't matter is USGA takes a Par 72 course and makes it par 70 to "protect" par. It fools most of the people too. 

[RobertPaulson]

Looks like it's gonna be a long off-season/winter.

[OrangeGravy]

16 hours ago, davep043 said:

 

Rather than thinking about making par, or birdie, think about making the lowest score (on average) from wherever you right now.  This way of formulating strategy is informed by the moderately new Strokes Gained analysis, and is the basis for the DECADE system, and the book Lowest Score Wins.  Its applicable to players at every level, but the percentages change because the "shot patterns" change with differing skill levels.  This type of strategy still works to limit risks (not removing but limiting) while getting all the advantages possible by getting closer to the hole.  

this approach really helps your mental game as well. It keeps you from getting too down on yourself for making bogey from certain spots and gives perspective on putting from a make/miss percentage from longer distances.