For the Last Time, Par Does Not Matter
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 29, 2009 5:45 PM EDT
Email
PrintFor years, I have complained about the ridiculous notion that the USGA keeps trying to identify the best player in is Open tournament by keep scoring conditions as true to the par on the card as is possible.
I was incredibly peeved several years back when Arnold Palmer changed his Bay Hill to a par 70 from 72 in order to make his course seem more difficult in relationship to par.
Well, three years after the experiment began, the AP is reporting that Palmer and the Arnold Palmer Invitational are restoring Bay Hill to par 72.
Par does not matter. Honestly. It doesn't. Kapalua is a par 73 with the widest fairways in the universe and no one seems to care that Ernie put up -31 there. Why? Because we all know that par is a relative number. The winner of the golf tournament is the guy that shoots the lowest aggregate score, not the guy that is the lowest relationship to par.
Yes, I realize that is the same thing, but it should be a point of emphasis that golf is about aggregate score relative to the field - not to the course. While golf may be promoted as a game between a player and the course, tournament victories are determined with someone else in mind.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ryan, the USGA has beat
you to it.
They have set par for the 2013 U.S. Open at Merion to 63. They said they are not trying to embarrass the best players in the world, just trying to identify them. Where have we heard that before?
If they have it at my club, they set par at 54.
540 yard par fours suck. 570 yard par fives rock. Let’s go to New Jersey and kick some ‘bowtie’ ass…
...from the land of pleasant living, Baltimore.
by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Sep 29, 2009 6:08 PM EDT reply actions
I urge you
Don’t come to New Jersey unless absolutely necessary. It’s not as pleasant as all of the positive press makes it out to be.
by Double Eagle on Sep 29, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Amen
While I don’t mind Par winning at the Open, tricking up courses such as changing par is silly, especially for anything less than a major. I’m sure you all have seen pictures of how long the rough was at Open’s in Hogan’s day, lets see today’s players hit out of that.
If they want par to win, then they can make par whatever they want it to be. Heck, they could change it everyday just based upon the scoring conditions.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 29, 2009 10:51 PM EDT reply actions
Tricked Up
Or change Par 5’s into 4’s like #2 at Pebble. The USGA was none too pleased when Dr. Gil Morgan broke -10 on Saturday at the ’92 Open.
The second will be a par 4 again next year, although that was never a birdie gimmie hole anyway.
by Ron Juckett on Sep 30, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
“Par” is a psychological bar that one tries to hurdle. Any competition renders it irrelevant, and for most any amateur golfer, their “par” is whatever their index is for a given course.
There is a Par 4 on our home course I always play as a five. Why? Well, theoretically, I can get the ball home and in the hole in four strokes, but doing so carries the risk of a #$#$ing nine or ten for me. That’s because of a forced 200 yard carry, water all the way with winds that always seem to be in my face. In short, that’s an incredidly risky shot for me and my game, even though I can and do hit 200 yard approaches but thos one can be suicide. Discretion is the better part of valor and I lay up and play for bogey. The heck with what the card says.
Harry Callahan would agree...
“A man’s go to know his limitations.” :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
True dat, Court.
And I have screwed up more scorecards trying to be a hero there than I have put good marks. I’ll play for a par and not get a snowman there, thanks.
BTW, that hole is becoming known as “waterloo” because it has ended a lot of tight match play games in a splashing fashion. And I wasn’t in but two of those, and was the victor in both. Thakfully!
by Charles Boyer on Sep 30, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Smart play usually wins the day – good job !
What hole # is this you’re talking about ? Must be late in the round if losing one hole ends a lot of tight matches.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
It’s #18.
Course designer Tom Kite took a six on it the only time he played it; he was wet on a tight approach shot too.
Yeah, I know Kite would birdie or par the hole nine of ten times, but it is good folklore and a good cheer-me-up when one takes a big number there.
by Charles Boyer on Sep 30, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow – the membership must not be real happy with that for a closing hole. A risk-reward par 4 is supposed to be more of a drivable hole – not one you have to choose between making par, bogey, or a snowman.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
It’s ~290 yards to the end of the fairway, which is effectively a peninsula. You can drive it and leave yourself a PW or SW over to the green, but you better be darned straight. If you go right, you are in “The Valley of Death” – a sharp drop to a creek where you are just as dead after a drop. You go left or long, you are wet. Short and you have to lay up. It’s a tough hole, and one I always love to get on the card. Oddly enough, it is only the 6th handicap hole, but I think it is really 1 or 2.
by Charles Boyer on Sep 30, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Was the layout limited by the natural wetland ?
One of my favorite courses has a hole like that – trouble left and right, and if you can’t get all the way down to the creek, you’re left with a long iron to an impossible green with water long, deep rough short, and three bunkers front and back.
I can understand why it isn’t a par 5 – but it’s a ridiculously difficult par 4 with the green a minimum of 150 yards if your ball stops 3 feet short of the hazard. They weren’t allowed to reroute the creek – thanks EPA.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
It's a two-way street
I completely agree that par doesn’t matter. The USGA trying to protect it is really kind of foolish.
However – at the same time it’s lame to hear pros lament about how they’re being made to look bad by course setups that are ridiculous. If the winner of a tournament is +2, then I make the same argument. Par doesn’t matter, and it’s clear that the course was extremely difficult. One thing matters: +2 was better than what anyone else carded. It doesn’t make the field look bad. The difficulty is obvious and everyone plays the same course.
I’m not saying that sometimes the course setups aren’t over the line. After all, there must be attention paid to fairness – i.e. if you lag a put up to a foot and it rolls back at you 40 feet, then there’s a problem. But I cringe when I hear the pros complaining about looking bad.
Everyone has to face the same obstacles, so you are 110% correct. But at the same time, the USGA has gone crazy oveboard at times, as you also mentioned. The 18th at Olympic several years ago is probably Exhibit A.
by Charles Boyer on Sep 30, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
There’s probably a historian out here who will confirm or deny this – but didn’t this whole + / – to par thing start getting public acceptance when CBS started broadcasting golf at The Masters ? The heads of CBS Sports wanted a scoring system that viewers could keep track of easier than the traditional total score that would be reported in the paper – so they came up with the + / – system using par as even.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
The old films of the Masters always had Jack Whittaker saying that the Men of the Masters were the ones who dreamt up the scoring system, but that would be a great question to ask Frank Chirkanian, the old CBS golf producer from that time.
Technically, “par” was officially added to the golf lexicon in 1911 when the USGA formally defined it. They said at the time that it was “perfect play without flukes and under ordinary weather conditions, always allowing two strokes on each putting green.”
I have read various attributions to Scottish golfers, but offhand I do not remember who it was.
Handicaps were interesting back then, they were based on the club pro’s assessment of your game, and he alone assigned a handicap. Since most games were match play back then, par was irrelevant. It was lowest man wins. Only later, in annual club championships at St. Andrews was medal play (stroke play) used. The reason it is called medal play is because the winner received a medal for victory. The reason they used stroke play was because it was far too complex to have a single or two day event with match play given the number of players participating.
by Charles Boyer on Sep 30, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I thought. I knew that CBS came up with the red and black on the scoreboard so viewers and people on sight could quickly tell where players were in relation to par. It sure is easier to change a single digit on a manual scoreboard than it is to have to constantly add on to a total after every hole.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Also more difficult to tell relative scores since golfers can’t be compared on total score if they’re on diff parts of the course
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 30, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe Chrik came up with the +/- system – at least that’s the legend.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 30, 2009 11:39 AM EDT reply actions
True
I’m certain I read that and/or heard him say it in a TV interview. It might have been in “The Making of the Masters” by David Owen, but don’t hold me to that. It’s about how the tournament started and then evolved over the years, and I think that was discussed.
by Double Eagle on Sep 30, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I completely agree. As long as everyone is playing the same course it does not matter what under you shoot. While birdies are great to watch, a guy shooting 30-under and winning would certainly not be preferred over five guys slugging it out on the last day with three strokes separating them, and a course where mistakes are penalised and good play rewarded. Everyone wants to see a competition, not a stroll in the park. Courses were being made tougher because technology was improving at a far greater pace, but there are other ways of getting the challenge up, and the new groove rule will contribute to that or maybe not but that is another issue altogether. Plus, if I was a Bay Hill member, I would like to see the pros play the two par-fives that were made into par-fours for the tournament exactly how I have to play them! That would be the right thing to do.
I am all for those teasing par-4s which gives the player an opportunity to go for the green with a dirty hazard by the greenside, so while it maybe an easy birdie hole, it could be an important hole in terms of its significance to the tournament with players choosing to take the dangerous route, either pulling off a good eagle or ending up bogeying, but that bait has to be offered.
If you’re playing the same course – the ONLY thing that matters is what you shoot. Doesn’t matter if you use the + / – to par system or just count strokes. The “to par” system was set up for scoreboards and viewers. The players don’t much care how far under or even over “par” they are as long as they finish ahead of everybody else.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
