Why reduce the par rating for a course for a tournament?

[3puttshakur]

Why par 72 to par 70? Doesn't the lowest score always win?

On occasions I noticed that a particular course hosting a PGA event or a major would have its par rating go down from a 72 to a 70 (a couple of par 5's converted to par 4 holes). Maybe b/c the longer par 4's would be more challenging and in doing so the par rating would have to drop accordingly? But why would it matter? If Tiger birdies the "new" par 4 and Phil pars the same hole (as opposed to an eagle for Tiger and birdie for Phil if the hole stays a par 5) there would still be only a one stroke difference. It's not as if extra credit is given for each eagle/birdie made. In the end he with the lowest score wins. Why not leave the par 5's as is, use more difficult pin placements to offset the distance issue, and encourage more players to take more risk (for more reward) and add excitement to the touney?

[GolfDunnyGolf]

On occasions I noticed that a particular course hosting a PGA event or a major would have its par rating go down from a 72 to a 70 (a couple of par 5's converted to par 4 holes). Maybe b/c the longer par 4's would be more challenging and in doing so the par rating would have to drop accordingly? But why would it matter? If Tiger birdies the "new" par 4 and Phil pars the same hole (as opposed to an eagle for Tiger and birdie for Phil if the hole stays a par 5) there would still be only a one stroke difference. It's not as if extra credit is given for each eagle/birdie made. In the end he with the lowest score wins. Why not leave the par 5's as is, use more difficult pin placements to offset the distance issue, and encourage more players to take more risk (for more reward) and add excitement to the touney?

 

 

I totally agree.. :nyam:

[golfortennis]

You are right, it's an arbitrary number. While the wheel(leaders in relation to par regardless of the hole they were playing) has been good overall, it has created some misperceptions among the unthinking people. I recall when Woods held all four majors, Nike sold boxes of golf balls with a picture of each win on them. On them, though, they had US Open, 12 under. British Open(it's the Open Championship!!) 19 under. Seriously that's what they said.

 

So then you have this mentailty to "protect par" and set up the course like USGA does, where they move a par tee up 5 feet, and call it a par 4. Does it make for better golf? Who knows, it just lessens the - symbols on the leaderboard. People have been dumbed down enough I guess that you ned to say -10 instead of 278.

[mikec222]

They don't want to make the course look like a joke mainly. No one likes seeing a winner at 25 under.

 

Also it makes the scoring system not as relevant if the pars aren't set to what the pros will make most of the time.

 

ie. you can't compare two people on different holes very well.

[Rusty2228]

I don't understand the two hole comparison. And I agree with the OP.

 

But I realistically think the winner of every tournament should be around 8-12 under. That means the course was hard enough, but you still had to make birdies every day.

 

I am sure a lot of people here read Sobel's blog on ESPN.com, and he talked about how Ben Curtis was better in tournaments where par is a good score. That doesn't make him a top notch player though. It means he stays out of trouble. But it also puts him in contention at the majors...which seems disparate to me.

 

I think that "scoring" should be an essential part of a major, and if par is the goal that isn't the case.

[SUBPARJ]

I see what your saying but difficulty course wise and mentaly is tougher. Say for example it's an easy 3 shot par 5 they convert but not an easy hole getting to in two, well off the tee your mental approach may be different knowing your hitting to a 520 4 instead of 5 that you have to hit the fairway on instead of bomb and gauge.

 

All in all I agree with the OP, but it's all perception, a 5's a 5

[tarheel140]

As a state association tournament coordinator, The reason I change the pars is not so much for the number but more for the difficulty of the hole. If more than 50% or so of the field is going to be on the green in two, the hole is not a par 5, its a par 4. This also works vice versa.

 

Another reason I do this is because of the mental aspect. As one poster sort of stated above, a short par 5 is easier to make birdie (4) on than a long par 4. This creates the feeling that "i have to hit the green in regulation or I may risk losing a shot to the field." In reality its the same hole and a 4 is a 4 or a 5 is a 5. In essence, the pars do not matter on any course or any hole. They're just a number.

[SNIPERBBB]

While at the end of the day, the score will be the same, you will know who has a better grip on their mental game after they walk off 18.

[Birdman of Alcatraz]

Err. Tradition?

 

It's always been done than way, to change would be to disrespect what has gone before?

[Clugnut]

I personally think that it is a head game. If you turn a 510 yard par 5 into a par 4, all of the sudden people think they should be hitting it in 2. I know that I feel like I should be hitting par 4's in 2, regardless of the length. If it is a 5 par, I am more likely to consider a laying up in front of a green, or back to 80-100 yards for my third. Given the same length and set-up, a change of the par will make players play the hole differently.

 

 

Also, I know for USGA events that par 70, and 7000 yards is a standard. I'm told they do this because they can get most any course to play to this par/length. Its just a matter a practicality.

[neilc]

The Par at my local course is 88.

 

shot 3 under last week!

[dhabomb]

Well if you think about it many tour pros don't always go for the green in 2. Say a pro has 220 yards to the hole for a second shot on a par 5. They might lay up and know they will have a pretty good chance of making a birdie and at worst a par. Now if that hole was a par 4 they must go for the green to even get a chance to make a birdie. If they would lay up at best they are making par. This forces bogeys of worse to come into play and puts pressure of the player. It could make the easy short par 5 that every one birdies into the hardest hole on the course.

[Big A HG]

I agree, yet disagree with the OP. If you think about it, you don't need a "par for the course" at all. All you have to do is play each hole and count strokes with no relation to par. But, think about what par means. It stands for what a golfer should get on the hole. If a tour pro is playing what is a typical par 5, yet darn near every player birdies it, it's really more of a harder par 4 for them, hence the change. Also, oftentimes at the tournaments, these converted par 5's will play a bit shorter to accomodate the par change.

 

 

Just my $.02.

[dlygrisse]

This is just the opposite of the womens British Open when they made the greatest par 4 in golf, the 17th, a par 5 for the ladies.

 

the reason they do it is because often times there are par 5s for the members that arent much over 500 yards, or even less than 500 yards, these are not par 5;s for world class players. Often they will take a 520 yard par 5 and actually shorten it by 30 yards and call it a par 4. While the whole process is really more psychological than anything, I do understand the OP's point, the hole is what it is, just play golf, however courses rarely play the same in a major as they do for everyday play, from the rough to the speed of the greens to the width of the fairways.

[JRS]

the mental thing is quite interesting. with amateurs, i reckon if you changed a 450+ meter par 5 into a par 4 the stroke avaerage for the hole would actually go up.

 

something to think about for us handiccappers next time we play a long par 4 that is out of reach unless you really smoke a drive. is it better to hit an easy 3 iron 30 meters shot or try to smash a 5 wood there?

[housey63]

I wonder if it's about playing the hole in regulation. Some par fives are too short for the average hitting pro. So they change them to par 4s. IMO. If someone to emails the USGA or R&A let us know the answer.

[JRS]

good point. it's probably to keep the stats accurate.

[roll - gybe]

How angry were Oakmont members when Johnny Miller tore up their course?
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a bit of deference to members' pride in changing the arbitrary number down 2.

[ButterCutter2]

part of it is mental. at our golf course, in the last decade or so, we changed a 463 yard par 5 into a par 4. it was an awful, tree lined par 5 that had stupid moguls infront of the green to protect shots reaching in two, and because of the trees, the slight dog leg right made the hole alot longer. simply put, knocking down all the trees (and exposing the natural wetlands that align the holes right side) have made into one of the hardest par 4's i ever play. the wind either plays right to left from the tee and then dead into your face with the 2nd shot. in that case, even the longest hitters at our club (myself included, not to be brash) have trouble getting home in 2. when the wind plays left to right off the tee (thus bringing the out of bound wetlands on the right into play), the approach is down wind, but the tee shot becomes much more difficult as you can't try and cut as much off.

obviously, this is a bit different because the hole was drastically altered and not just shortened, but it can show you how a mediocre par 5 can become a fantastic par 4.

lastly, i recently played the black, where they turn 7 into a par 4. we played it into the wind, and nobody had less than 125 in for their second shot, hole playing from 550ish. however, i can understand why they shorten the hole and play it is a par 4, and the reason being is that if your drive doesn't go far enough and is in the right part of the fairway and not the left, your approach is over hanging trees, making the hole much more difficult.