Should par be achievable?

At Carnoustie, I believe the prudent play on #18 (as Jean Van De Velde can attest) is to hit 4-iron short of the burn, then a wedge short of the next burn, then wedge it near the front of the green and try to make your 2-putt or an incredible 1-putt.

I don't know what the right answer is. That's why I started the thread. I just struggle with the idea that a good golfer should always be assured a reasonable chance to make par. Par is just a number. The only time I think it unfair is when a ball simply won't hold the green under any circumstance, as we saw on #7 in 2004. But because you have to hit short on your 2nd and have to try to chip or putt your 3rd close to the hole to have a chance at par, does that really make the hole unfair?

Things to ponder...

Par is just a number, but a number that everyone is being scored by.

As far as having to hit it short to have a chance to chip or putt it, would anyone call that a well designed hole? How about when the area to chip to per say, is a steep, shaved bank where luck is more involved than anything to keep it there? Doesn’t seem quite fair, IMO.

In Saturday’s conditions, the famous Corey Pavin 4w shot I don’t think would be humanly possible
 
In my view scoring should follow play:

PAR - mistake-free conservative play
BIRDIE - aggressive mistake free play or exceptional shots
BOGEY - misplayed shots.

So yes, I think if every hole is played conservatively without mistakes in a pro tourney, then the score should be par. Sprinkle in some exceptional shots, or well played aggressive moves, and that's where the bird comes from.

In some of the tournaments a -17 or thereabouts doesn't even win. When birdies on 25% of the holes doesn't win, the course is not a sufficient challenge.

The tournament should be remembered for the play, not for how good/bad the course setup was.
 
If you have a 2 or 3 shot lead as he did, yes.

Not to get too far afield but how much course manipulation does the R&A do? My recollection may be wrong but I don't recall any sort of jacking the course up in reaction to low scores the year before or to meet some provincial belief that it's tournament has be the most difficult of the year. Other than periodic renovations that most all courses undergo, it's always seemed to me that the British is more of a "there's the course, boys, have at it" type deal rather than any contrived manipulation for tournament week.

While it seems that way, I think it unlikely the course is set the same for the The Open Championship as it is for normal member play. I think the possibilities are:

1) The R&A is more conservative to prevent those situations from happening

2) Golfers and fans are less prone to complaining

I think it's likely a combination of both.
 
"Seeing the pros struggle" shouldn't mean missed putts rolling 30 yards off of the green.
 
While it seems that way, I think it unlikely the course is set the same for the The Open Championship as it is for normal member play. I think the possibilities are:

1) The R&A is more conservative to prevent those situations from happening

2) Golfers and fans are less prone to complaining

I think it's likely a combination of both.

With the R&A, I think they also understand that the weatherman can be and is often wrong, so expect the worst as far as weather goes. They also don’t seem to make the greens anywhere near as fast as we do for the U.S. Open, so I think they have a much larger margin of error. They seem to be more likely to stop play due to high winds and the inability to keep a ball from being blown around on the green.
 
Par is just a number, but a number that everyone is being scored by.

As far as having to hit it short to have a chance to chip or putt it, would anyone call that a well designed hole? How about when the area to chip to per say, is a steep, shaved bank where luck is more involved than anything to keep it there? Doesn’t seem quite fair, IMO.

In Saturday’s conditions, the famous Corey Pavin 4w shot I don’t think would be humanly possible

to be fair, his shot wouldn't be humanly possible today because the equipment just didn't afford it to be haha. woods today can launch higher with lower spin. That's the reasoning lengthening courses doesn't cut it. you have to speed up greens a bit or make them a bit firmer (although greens back then were pretty firm and could roll quickly as well).

With the R&A, I think they also understand that the weatherman can be and is often wrong, so expect the worst as far as weather goes. They also don’t seem to make the greens anywhere near as fast as we do for the U.S. Open, so I think they have a much larger margin of error. They seem to be more likely to stop play due to high winds and the inability to keep a ball from being blown around on the green.

double quoted you ;)

I think that is just due to geographical differences/wants in golf courses. American stigma is that a good golf course should have really fast greens so i think that has been the biggest focus for the US open while in the UK, their greens are much less manicured. much less played with to change what comes natural (at least that is my impression as I have never played over there). Im not defending the USGA to just trick up a course, I just think there are certain differences between what we want in America, vs what they would rather see there.
Nobody really cares if the Open has a super low score, usually because it was a less than windy tournament. but yet nobody gets mad like they do here ah la Erin Hills..... Great course, good set up, the weather just didn't cooperate. It was also still playing catch up to Chambers bay. But year after year, no real complaints about the Open whether the score is +3 or -20. Maybe going to a legit rota where we have truly tested courses would be the best bet (I think they are considering this). USGA just really needs to stop manipulating so much.
 
While it seems that way, I think it unlikely the course is set the same for the The Open Championship as it is for normal member play. I think the possibilities are:

1) The R&A is more conservative to prevent those situations from happening

2) Golfers and fans are less prone to complaining

I think it's likely a combination of both.

I think #1 is true and #2 is likely true to some extent. But I don't think the R&A seeks to inflate scores to meet some preconceived belief that a winning score should be around even par by going to indefensible hole locations in several instances. With all the slopes on the greens at Shinnecock, the USGA could have had fast greens and testing hole placements - more difficult than normal member play - without going to the extremes it did.
 
IMO, people get too tied up in score versus par. What really matters is the score. Theoretically, par allows you to compare how you do on different courses but we all know that shooting par at one course is not the same as another. I'm not even sure slope ratings do it justice.

As far as "what is the responsibility of the person maintaining the course" is, I think the only requirements are that it is fair and that what you score is a reflection of how you play and not random luck. The real issue with the US open wasn't the net versus par but that the greens were so absurd that players were getting crushed by small variation.
 
to be fair, his shot wouldn't be humanly possible today because the equipment just didn't afford it to be haha. woods today can launch higher with lower spin. That's the reasoning lengthening courses doesn't cut it. you have to speed up greens a bit or make them a bit firmer (although greens back then were pretty firm and could roll quickly as well).



double quoted you ;)

I think that is just due to geographical differences/wants in golf courses. American stigma is that a good golf course should have really fast greens so i think that has been the biggest focus for the US open while in the UK, their greens are much less manicured. much less played with to change what comes natural (at least that is my impression as I have never played over there). Im not defending the USGA to just trick up a course, I just think there are certain differences between what we want in America, vs what they would rather see there.
Nobody really cares if the Open has a super low score, usually because it was a less than windy tournament. but yet nobody gets mad like they do here ah la Erin Hills..... Great course, good set up, the weather just didn't cooperate. It was also still playing catch up to Chambers bay. But year after year, no real complaints about the Open whether the score is +3 or -20. Maybe going to a legit rota where we have truly tested courses would be the best bet (I think they are considering this). USGA just really needs to stop manipulating so much.

Oakmont they had right until the issue with DJ and that putt. I almost feel like they can't mess Oakmont up, because the course is already really friggin hard before they ever get there.
 
Oakmont they had right until the issue with DJ and that putt. I almost feel like they can't mess Oakmont up, because the course is already really friggin hard before they ever get there.

oh for sure. That's why that course would/will always be a part of our nations open. Shinnecock doesn't really need anything done to it, but yet USGA didn't want to get blamed for another erin hills....
 
oh for sure. That's why that course would/will always be a part of our nations open. Shinnecock doesn't really need anything done to it, but yet USGA didn't want to get blamed for another erin hills....

Maybe the USGA should just tell the superintendent who keeps the place alive 365 days a year that they just want a hard but fair course, and let that person just do their job. I have a feeling you’d get a pretty good event.
 
Maybe the USGA should just tell the superintendent who keeps the place alive 365 days a year that they just want a hard but fair course, and let that person just do their job. I have a feeling you’d get a pretty good event.

Fairways are significantly wider now than they were at the same course.
 
Fairways are significantly wider now than they were at the same course.

So they make it reasonable off the tee to give them the best chance to control a shot into a green, then give them paint can size spots to hit it to. Guess they’ll get it right eventually right?
 
With the recent controversies around the US Open, it got me pondering on whether or not a tournament committee has a responsibility to ensure par is achievable.

I'm quite certain over the years, there have been time when the weather conditions at the British Open, as an example, have been so brutal that nobody finished under par.

If a hole or several holes, were to have a double-bogey scoring average (assuming scratch or better golfers), has the committee failed?

Is there something in golf which says par should always be reasonably obtainable? If so, is it hole-by-hole, or over the stipulated round?

P.S. Not really looking for a rehash on how incompetent you feel the USGA is. My question covers all golf, regardless of the governing organization, right down to your club member-guest.

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.

Absolutely I think it should. Well struck shots should give fair results. A hole doesn't have to be easy, it just has to be playable.

Yes, par on each hole should be able to be reasonably achieved throughout the entirety of the round, for a scratch golfer, in normal conditions. I have no problem with a scoring average .25 to .5 above par here and there, but when it gets to a full stroke or more then that is getting a bit ridiculous, kind of like the teacher who has to curve the test grades because the highest grade was 65%. I get the rating and handicaps aspect of it all in relation to par, but you can only take into account so much with that as weather, playing conditions, etc cannot be quantified accurately.

I like watching the pros grind and struggle at the US Open, but the USGA can't seem to figure out how to make a golf course play difficult except by cutting the greens way way too short and drying them out. Do they not understand there are other ways to toughen up a course like tightening the fairways and growing the rough out. They should mow the areas around the green super short and away from the green, but penalizing great shots onto the green because they are so crusty and hard is stupid golf and not fun to watch.

Absolutely it should. Otherwise, you have no measurable standard for the game.

Weather conditions, without more, are entirely different than taking a course and putting it on the very edge of the edge or beyond (when the organizing entity has a strong understanding of what the weather will be) before weather has a chance to effect play. While this is outside the bounds of your question, the whole notion that the USGA was surprised by the winds on Saturday is dodging the issue. From what I saw of the coverage post-round, the wind blew less than the speeds forecast.

I do think if scratch or better golfers average double-bogey on a hole, the hole has been wrongly classified.

yes it should. A course should never be so difficult that a player can't obtain it.

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.
 
Maybe the USGA should just tell the superintendent who keeps the place alive 365 days a year that they just want a hard but fair course, and let that person just do their job. I have a feeling you’d get a pretty good event.

Maybe haha.

I know the guys who are supers at these courses are like the best of the best but I have seen plenty of club championships get ruined by what the super considers fair but tough haha.

In general though, you’re right. Most of those supers know how to make a course ready for a major. Many members at oakmont said the pros were getting off easier as the USGA actually wanted greens a little slower than what they played normally. Not sure how much truth there is to that haha but it’s a fun thought.

I stand by my view in this year being fair for the most part. The USGA just messed on choosing pin placements where the architect definitely did not want pins. Especially at the speed they had. Sort of like pinehurst.... hmmmmm
Many of those greens looked to only have maybe 2 good pin locations with the conditions (again I wasn’t there but from the bad angles on tv that’s what I saw haha.) those holes were usually the tougher holes anyhow so why bother hanging locations. Leave them in the same spot Thursday-Saturday then Sunday make it the harder one, but not ridiculous.

Ok done with my armchair course set up haha. Obviously it’s all conjecture. I wasn’t there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

My post quoted is not about the US Open as the OP said it wasn’t about that.
 
i believe that hitting the fairway and hitting the green in the correct spot should give a player the ability to make par.

if hitting the fairway requires a certain shot shape to account for slope and elevation and the player fails to hit the shot correctly, i am ok with abandoning par at that point.

if a player does not hit an accurate second shot and finds a bunker or collection area and is faced with a nearly impossible short game shot, i am ok with abandoning par at that point.

so yes i think par should be achievable, but that doesn't mean guys should be guaranteed the chance for par with they miss fairways and/or greens.
 
I personally don't mind a tough test for the best in the world once in awhile. Granted Saturday got away from them a bit but we're talking a fine line between really tough and what we saw. Toughen up the fairways and rough but leave the greens somewhat receptive so they reward a great shot. It's subjective and many different opinions out there.
 
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.

There is not. No hole played to an average of bogey or worse. Hardest hole was 14 and 3 which average half a stroke above par. Only two holes played to an average of below par or right at it and those were par 5s.

http://www.espn.com/golf/stats/hole




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just asking an honest question, I get as a viewer why we might want to see what par should be, but as a player, shouldn’t it be distances/lines/angles/conditions/etc that matter on how a hole should be played? Knowing that info, it’s up to the player to see what best fits their game and how many shots they think is reasonable/possible.
I would love to see a tournament with no par. Just distances and of course the players have their yardage books and see how similar or different scores would be allowing the player to deem an acceptable score for their own game. Obviously this couldn’t happen. Players see a yardage for a hole they auto think a certain par. Also, it would be much more difficult for the viewers to follow overall play and comparisons. Lastly, it would totally screw with some players head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most pros and avid players do this to an extent. In the pro game, guys know that when they make par on a reachable par 5 that they're nearly giving up a shot to the field. On the flip side, I know that I'm probably not making par on a 450 yard par 4, and usually just play for 5. I just think especially as a recreational player I feel a little deflated when par isn't in play. Subconsciously it's still the standard you're trying to reach.
 
My post quoted is not about the US Open as the OP said it wasn’t about that.

I see what you did there.

Same holds true for any tournament, any day. I'd think par is always attainable. I'd be curious to see an instance where it was not.
 
There is not. No hole played to an average of bogey or worse. Hardest hole was 14 and 3 which average half a stroke above par. Only two holes played to an average of below par or right at it and those were par 5s.

http://www.espn.com/golf/stats/hole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Help me out. There is not, what? Are you agreeing with me?
 
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.

My answer was to OP's general question whether par should be attainable not a specific hole or day at the Open. It absolutely should.

As to the rest of your post, I haven't read anyone saying the Open shouldn't be difficult. I certainly haven't advocated for that.
 
I think most pros and avid players do this to an extent. In the pro game, guys know that when they make par on a reachable par 5 that they're nearly giving up a shot to the field. On the flip side, I know that I'm probably not making par on a 450 yard par 4, and usually just play for 5. I just think especially as a recreational player I feel a little deflated when par isn't in play. Subconsciously it's still the standard you're trying to reach.

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.
 
Back
Top