We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Should par be achievable?

OGputtnfool said:
Help me out. There is not, what? Are you agreeing with me?
Click to expand...

Haha yes sorry. I was agreeing with you. Par was certainly in play for every hole as even the hardest hole was only half a strike above par.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’m sure I’m not going to be making friends with this next comment but here we go. Don’t talk about fair. Golf is not fair it’s all about bad breaks, good breaks and luck. It’s happened at the Masters, the PGA and the Open Championship were players are on the wrong side of the draw. The weather is bad in the morning and the players in the afternoon get lucky or the other way around.
Yea, Saturday was a little bit of a mess, It was down to the USGA setting up the course to aggressively. I wasn’t happy seeing the shots run off the green when they were struck well but it can happen. We had the exact opposite problem last year. In reference to par it is an arbitrary number. How ever many shots it takes to finish a round is all that matters.
For example if I shoot an 85 I’m not going to really get to upset with what I took on a certain hole as the total score is all I’m worried about. Yea birdies and eagles are nice but 18 pars is just as good as 9 pars and 9 birdies. Weather is always a variable and unless the setup is so conservative to account for any weather this could happen.
For the people who have brought up the Open Championship, I agree they have a better track record then the US Open does, but it also doesn’t try to bill it self as the toughest test in golf. The Open Championship’s final score is the final score.
 
Mwinte86 said:
Yea birdies and eagles are nice but 18 pars is just as good as 9 pars and 9 birdies.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with it all except that part. I'd take -9 over even par any day.
 
If par is not achievable it defeats the purpose of the sport. I know golf is not easy but it should be attainable if you execute your shots. If I knew standing on the tee box that I have no shot at making par then I would not play.
 
Par is just a number. Would it have been more enjoyable is Shinnecock had been labeled a par 72 and the winning score was -7 instead of +1?
 
OGputtnfool said:
For those of you saying it should be obtainable (and I'm assuming that you're implying it wasn't reasonably attainable on Saturday or Sunday), please tell me which day it wasn't obtainable or even which hole on any given day that par wasn't attainable. I'll wait, but doubt there's an answer for that.

News flash: The US Open was hard. It's supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Well considering that the wining score of the US Open was +1 I guess that par was not obtainable. Yes it is supposed to be a hard test for the best in the world, and it did defeat them in my opinion. I don't care to watch 18 under par every week ( it is good golf though) but there was some questionable set ups to the course.
 
JB said:
Yes, it should be obtainable. Because the entire golf system that is used is based on it including ratings, handicaps, etc.
More importantly, if the organization is preaching growing the game, showing nothing but struggles, because they feel as though players are too good, is something I would have a tough time supporting.
Click to expand...

I too agree with this. I do believe par should be obtainable. I will admit it is fun to watch the pro's scramble (to a degree) and score like they did in the US Open because at those moments I can relate to them big time on how I too scramble on a course I play (quite often) but with me it is all the time. That said I do think some of that was over the top as far as just being too tough. On the other hand, I also don't like to watch a tournament where there are a bunch of pro's are 18-24 under or more as that to me means the course is too easy. If the course is reasonable for a lack of a better word and some pro's are hitting the ball real good, I would think they could or should shoot like a few under par or so for a round. Odds are that the same pro will not shoot good all weekend/rounds and end up with 12-14 or more under par for the tourney but if so it should not be the norm but a surprise!

In any tournament, bad shots should be penalized within reason like a bad tee shot gets in that deep rough so they have to lay up. I don't think it is quite fair for them to hit a short to middle iron onto the green and still get penalized and the ball has no chance of staying, unless it was not a good shot I am saying, not too long/short, not right/left side of green but some of those greens were just unfair no matter what!

I do wish I was able to get and use green maps, etc on the courses I play! It can't hurt!
 
Before I tee off on #1 at my local course, I have a good idea which holes I have a decent chance to par, and which holes I'll be happy to bogey. What is frustrating is employing good course management, leaving myself with a chance to get on the green in regulation, hitting a good shot, watch it hit the middle of the green, and roll off buried into thick 3" rough - bogey or double bogey comes into play - and I don't consider it my fault!

At the US Open, so many good shots were not rewarded with good results! 10' putts just tapped were rolling 15' past the hole, a few even off the green! Some of the best ball strikers in the world were shooting in the 80's! IMHO not a fair test of golf. Just my humble opinionl
 
Mwinte86 said:
Obviously I agree but my point is that par is par, no matter how it’s achieved.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. On that note, I think maybe a better analogy would be, "Birdies and eagles are nice but 18 pars is just as good as 9 bogies and 9 birdies."
 
Par should be attainable with decent play. It should still be something that requires some good shots, but if it’s not attainable, what’s the point of it being par?
 
Short answer: of course.
 
If a course is unplayable, as in, there is no real chance to challenge par, I think the architect and crew maintaining the course have failed at their job.

As it relates to the latest US Open sample, I bet if the greens were even halfway reasonable, plenty of guys would have been under par. it didn't take too many 'behind-the-ball' video shots to prove that poa has once again captured the spotlight (I see you, broccoli bay).
 
The United States Open has been played 118 times, and since WW2, the winning score has ranged from 268 to 290, with the majority of those winning scores being at or around 280. Setting up a difficult test is nothing new for the USGA. The total par of the courses ranged from 70 to 72.

There are 3 Opens that comes to mind when talking about outliers:
2000- Pebble Beach (Tiger laps the field and wins by 15 strokes at -12).
2011- Congressional (Rory wins with the lowest aggregate score ever at 268/ -16, when the consistent rain rendered the course defenseless. Rory stole this one, he hasn’t faired well in more traditional US Open conditions).
2017- Erin Hills (The course needed the wind to protect it and the wind never blows, and Kopeka blitzed the joint. 5 players finished the Open at -10 or better, which would have won 114 of the 117 Opens played to that point).

This -10 Number is important, because up until 2000, no one had ever finished the Open at -10 (not even Nicklaus- to quote Tin Cup). In my opinion, it’s not Par that the USGA attempts to protect, it is this -10 or better score that they don’t want to see.

Every time that this -10 Number has been breached the next year the course has been made to play extremely penal:

2001- Southern Hills (Goosen wins a playoff over Brooks at 276/ -4. It was hot and fast, but most thought it was fair)
2012- Olympic Club (Webb Simpson wins after Furyk chokes it away on the final 2 holes. Winning score of 281 restores order)
2018- Shinnecock Hills (Kopeka wins again, but this time it’s a tradition set up. Winds Saturday afternoon cause the 13th, 15th, and 18th greens to get away from them. Winning score is 281 and order is restored again)

What does the USGA need to do to prevent this type of correction and over correction from happening? I have a few ideas:

Adopt the R&A’s approach and develop a Rota. This will provide better familiarity and help with pin placement selection. Although Shinnecock has hosted the US Open 5 times, the last time before this year was 14 years ago, a lot can change on a course in 14 years.

If I was in charge this would be my Rota:

Oakmont (The beast & and the likelihood of getting blitzed is low. My favorite “US Open” course)

Winged Foot (The hardest course on my list, has the highest average winning score of any course that has hosted multiple Opens)

Pebble Beach (Hard to believe that this iconic American Oceanside course hosted the Open for the first time in 1972. When people think of an American golf course they think Pebble Beach)

Shinnecock Hills (Great course and great test. It is a shame that the last two Opens held at Shinnecock have been mired in layout and playability controversy, because it is a great course)

Olympic Club (Another Gem and the finishing holes cause havoc under the pressure of the US Open)

Merion (Short & Quirky track that rewards ball striking over power. Hogan won there, enough said)

Bethpage- Black (“The Black course is for advanced golfers only”... Public course that has held 2 great Opens)

Torrey Pines- South (Another public course than can produce drama and great visuals on TV)

Pinehurst- #2 (Another course the average golfer can play, the turtle back greens can make it play very difficult. Need to make the new native area harder when the Open returns)


That’s 9, and once a decade sprinkle in places like :
Baltusrol- Could make a case it should be in my permanent rotation

Congressional

Southern Hills

Hazeltine

Medinah






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I say keep it difficult as it was Saturday then we could invite some superstar golfers to the Breaking 80 thread.
 
I think should be reasonably obtainable with 4 well executed shots. A fair chance at par should be obtainable. Imo that means a reasonable fair chance at getting on the green in two strokes (if we play the right tees for our distances). Cant blame golf for one playing tees too long for their own game. That's not golf placing the disadvantage but is the players choice.

But a fair chance imo doesn't mean scrambling. I feel a fair chance means as long the hole offers you a fair chance at getting on in two and two putting is all one can ask for. if we miss greens in regulation (of which we had a fair chance to make) we then blew that fair chance and made it more difficult. The same applies to pros imo. Of course a fair chance for them is a whole different world than it is for us. They are a whole other world of great than even many the best among us. And so accordingly is the course they should play reflect that greatness. Imo its not meant for them to have a fair chance at birdie. Only a fair chance at par.
 
JDax said:
There are 3 Opens that comes to mind when talking about outliers:

2000- Pebble Beach (Tiger laps the field and wins by 15 strokes at -12).

2011- Congressional (Rory wins with the lowest aggregate score ever at 268/ -16, when the consistent rain rendered the course defenseless. Rory stole this one, he hasn’t faired well in more traditional US Open conditions).

2017- Erin Hills (The course needed the wind to protect it and the wind never blows, and Kopeka blitzed the joint. 5 players finished the Open at -10 or better, which would have won 114 of the 117 Opens played to that point).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Extraordinary play and weather in 2 of those Opens should’ve set those above and beyond Erin Hills.

In 2000, Woods put on a virtuoso performance to reach -12. Second place was +3 and 10 players were within 4 shots of that number.

In 2010, McIlory had 4 rounds in the 60s on a very wet course. Even with the rain, second was 8 shots back at -8 and 9 players were within 4 shots of that number.

Neither course belied the USGA’s inflated sense of being the guardian against low scores. Neither were unreasonable.
 
OGputtnfool said:
Even as an amateur, I'm not sure I've ever played a hole where par was impossible before I teed off. Definitely many where it was highly unlikely, but I don't think ever impossible.
Click to expand...

Right - that's my point. If par is highly unlikely, then you can't really hold it up as the standard of play for that hole. Isn't that the whole point of having "par"? Otherwise it's just an arbitrary number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top