[thakitt]

I don't think it would be that hard to figure out if 1 guy is finished at 280, another guy is on the 15th hole and is at 270, he needs to play the last 3 holes in less then 10 strokes to win.


I have established what par for me is on my course for each hole. After keeping track of my scores for 3 months and what I score on each hole, I can tell you my par is quite a bit different than par on the card. There are just certain holes that I either always play less then par or over par when compared to par on the card. Knowing this when I step on each tee box has really helped me, as I am now not trying to beat a number on a card but my own personal number.

I'm confused youve created your own par? Based on what, your average score per hole? How do you get better if you've adjusted para way from what was already called out. Just because you make a 7 on a par 5 doesn't mean that's your par. It means you need to work to get to a 5. Not saying you make 7s but you get what I am going after. And unless you are rounding up or down your par should have percentage points.
This line of thinking with out par means you count the number of strokes from the first tee to the 18th hole. All that does is do away with under par or over par rounds. What do you do with penalty shots?

[duceswild]

As stated several times before, par is useful to understand the relative position of players at different points during a tournament. How would I know who is leading if Tiger is at 144 and Ernie is at 138 with Tiger two holes ahead?

Par is useful in quota point games and stableford games and an easy way for me to know my score without adding the total each hole,

What annoys me is changing par on a hole from 5 to four "to make the hole harder". The hole is the hole, a 4 is a 4, its even or one under. It also bugs me to hear that a par 4 is the "hardest hole on the course"; this is unlikely; the hardest hole is the one on which the highest average score is posted.

Don't do away with par; it has valid uses.

I agree with this completely. In tournament golf, we need par in order to understand the relative position of dozens of players at any given time. Par is not going away for tournament golf. I have read that The Masters was the first tournament to post the players' current scores relative to par, and it quickly caught on as a way to keep track of things. Maybe The Masters was just the first major tournament to do so.

Anyway, I also agree that you do not make a hole harder or easier just by changing value of par. The first hole at Olympic in the US Open was a prime example. The last time the US Open was there, it played as a par 5, and was considered the "easiest" hole on the course because the average score was 4.6, or 0.4 under par. This year, the same exact hole was declared a par 4, and players actually shot a little lower by averaging around 4.5 on that hole....making it one of the "hardest" holes on the course, even though the players scored lower on it this year than last time.

The real problem is that the pros pay too much attention to par. In tournament golf, par should be for the viewers to be able to keep track. The pros shouldn't pay any attention to it at all. Just shoot as low as you can on every hole and move on.

I always think of Billy Casper in the 1959 US Open at Winged Foot. The Par 3 third hole was long and tough, and Casper thought that trying to reach the green made bogey come into play. He laid up, all four rounds, just short of the green, and got up and down for par all four rounds.

[thakitt]

I agree with this completely. In tournament golf, we need par in order to understand the relative position of dozens of players at any given time. Par is not going away for tournament golf. I have read that The Masters was the first tournament to post the players' current scores relative to par, and it quickly caught on as a way to keep track of things. Maybe The Masters was just the first major tournament to do so.

Anyway, I also agree that you do not make a hole harder or easier just by changing value of par. The first hole at Olympic in the US Open was a prime example. The last time the US Open was there, it played as a par 5, and was considered the "easiest" hole on the course because the average score was 4.6, or 0.4 under par. This year, the same exact hole was declared a par 4, and players actually shot a little lower by averaging around 4.5 on that hole....making it one of the "hardest" holes on the course, even though the players scored lower on it this year than last time.

The real problem is that the pros pay too much attention to par. In tournament golf, par should be for the viewers to be able to keep track. The pros shouldn't pay any attention to it at all. Just shoot as low as you can on every hole and move on.

I always think of Billy Casper in the 1959 US Open at Winged Foot. The Par 3 third hole was long and tough, and Casper thought that trying to reach the green made bogey come into play. He laid up, all four rounds, just short of the green, and got up and down for par all four rounds.

Had the first hole at olympic played as a par 5 it would have played easier then it did the last time out. They changed it to a par based on how easy it was in the past. So it didn't play easier then it did because it was no longer the same hole.
Having hole designation allows officials to trick up the course one way or the other.

[deackatera]

I dont think its a good idea. Casual viewers relate to certain terms and those terms get reused on a golf course.

My thought exactly, there are terms and comfort with the existing culture. You would have to learn almost everything all over again. A 3 on a par 3 would be weird rather than a par on a par 3.

[duceswild]

Had the first hole at olympic played as a par 5 it would have played easier then it did the last time out. They changed it to a par based on how easy it was in the past. So it didn't play easier then it did because it was no longer the same hole.
Having hole designation allows officials to trick up the course one way or the other.

No, they changed it to a par 4 just for the mental challenge it presents to the pros....even though it shouldn't change the way they played the hole at all. In addition to changing the first hole from a par 5 to a par 4, the USGA changed the 17th hole from a par 4 to a par 5, without making any other significant changes. In past US Opens, it had always been a par 4, and hardly anyone could birdie it. By making it a par 5, they opened up some birdie chances, but they didn't really change the overall scoring on that hole at all.

The first hole played slightly easier this year than the past Open. That could have been due to course conditions, or it could have been the little mental nudge all the players' had to try to reach the green in two even if their drive wasn't that great. If was the mental nudge, then that's not very smart golf.....tournament players should not let the par designation effect their course management decisions.

[thakitt]

No, they changed it to a par 4 just for the mental challenge it presents to the pros....even though it shouldn't change the way they played the hole at all. In addition to changing the first hole from a par 5 to a par 4, the USGA changed the 17th hole from a par 4 to a par 5, without making any other significant changes. In past US Opens, it had always been a par 4, and hardly anyone could birdie it. By making it a par 5, they opened up some birdie chances, but they didn't really change the overall scoring on that hole at all.

The first hole played slightly easier this year than the past Open. That could have been due to course conditions, or it could have been the little mental nudge all the players' had to try to reach the green in two even if their drive wasn't that great. If was the mental nudge, then that's not very smart golf.....tournament players should not let the par designation effect their course management decisions.

so what you saying is that the first hole should have been played the same way no matter it used to be a par5. So they should have played for bogie. When the usga changes a par 5 into a par 4 it's not to give the players a mental nudge. It's to make the course harder. It requires two solid shots instead of three to achieve the new par. Play three shots and one putting for par is not the way the hole and it's difficulty we're designed. The reward for one putting is birdie, on this hole.

[enasseneiff]

so what you saying is that the first hole should have been played the same way no matter it used to be a par5. So they should have played for bogie. When the usga changes a par 5 into a par 4 it's not to give the players a mental nudge. It's to make the course harder. It requires two solid shots instead of three to achieve the new par. Play three shots and one putting for par is not the way the hole and it's difficulty we're designed. The reward for one putting is birdie, on this hole.

Changing par from 5 to 4 does NOT make the hole harder. The pros don't want to make 5 on a par 5 any more than they want to make 5 on a par 4. Except fo being able to compare relative scores of 70 players at the same time par has no value in a medal play event.

[thakitt]

Changing par from 5 to 4 does NOT make the hole harder. The pros don't want to make 5 on a par 5 any more than they want to make 5 on a par 4. Except fo being able to compare relative scores of 70 players at the same time par has no value in a medal play event.

What! 540 par five gets tuned to a par 4, it's not harder. Please explain.....

[Phouepou]

How else do you decide a winner?

Lowest strokes over 4 days wins. No matter whether it's par 92637373 or par 72.

[D6b2v1HA]

What! 540 par five gets tuned to a par 4, it's not harder. Please explain.....

Im interested as well. That's once less shot that the pros have to worry about.