We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Should par be achievable?

wadesworld

wadesworld

Well-known member
Albatross 2024 Club
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
10,878
Reaction score
3,930
Location
Nashville, TN
Handicap
11
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.
 
Should par be achievable?

I could see par being somewhat of a median or mean score per hole for an average golfer.

When you take handicaps into consideration, a par 4 might actually be a par 5 for a lot of players with a handicap adjustment if you apply the same median or mean thinking for a higher handicap.

I might be way off but it absolutely should be achievable based upon this thinking but the issue with tour players is that virtually all of them are plus handicap but the level of par is not adjusted on the course for tournaments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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’d echo this sentiment. Watching the US Open did not make me want to go play 18, while that is my reaction after watching most other tournaments. A challenge is enjoyable but I prefer watching the best golfers in the world make birdies not bogies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I may be in the minority here, but I like watching the best players in the world struggle on occasion. I'm not saying I want to watch it every weekend, but watching this years Open was enjoyable to me.
 
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.
 
If the US Open is out "national championship" then promoting good play should be the key, not punishing it
 
jlew2144 said:
I may be in the minority here, but I like watching the best players in the world struggle on occasion. I'm not saying I want to watch it every weekend, but watching this years Open was enjoyable to me.
Click to expand...

I put it out there last night, I was more entertained on Saturday at the US Open than I was on Sunday.

All of that, I do think Par should be attainable on every hole.
 
jlew2144 said:
I may be in the minority here, but I like watching the best players in the world struggle on occasion. I'm not saying I want to watch it every weekend, but watching this years Open was enjoyable to me.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% with you.

On one hand, people complained about Erin Hills, but now are also complaining about Shinnecock. Yes, Saturday was a bit over the top with how the greens were behaving, but it was awesome seeing the best in the world struggle the way they did. I want the Pros to have an ultimate struggle ahead of them to crown the winner of a Major.

I don't buy into that people get discouraged with their game by watching the best struggle. If anything it makes me personally feel better.
 
Par doesn't need to necessarily be achieved, and certainly hasn't always been at the US Open. The winner shot +1. Golf should test all facets of the game I think this championship did.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
MWard said:
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.
Click to expand...

What's a well-struck shot though? I think a lot of people would say "if you're hitting a lob wedge into a green, you should be able to hold the green."

But on a lot of links golf courses, particularly in bad weather, there's no way you're going to be able to fly a wedge in. You're going to have to pull out your seven-iron and run it up there. If you choose not to, you're going to pay the price.

I think course design plays into it. On traditional course with elevated greens protected by bunkers, running it up is not an option. So in that case, it would be incumbent on the committee to ensure a wedge can hold the green (or at least part of it). On a links course, I don't think they have any responsibility to ensure a well-struck wedge is rewarded - only that you have a method of getting there.
 
Yes, but it doesn't have to be easily attainable. I think it is perfectly fine for par to be really hard for just one weekend a year for the golf's greatest players.
 
Par should be achievable but I also think that wayward shots should be punished much more severely than they are on the majority of tour stops. I would much rather watch a tournament that finishes with the winner around even par than around 20 under par.
 
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.
 
wadesworld said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Absolutely, because par sets the expectation of how a hole should be played. The way a hole is played relative to those expectations directly influences enjoyment of the game whether playing or watching.

If you're playing or watching a par 4, it's enjoyable to have a good drive, a good second shot, and then two putts for par. It's fun to see an excellent approach or putt rewarded with a birdie. It's not very satisfying watching or playing golf when there's no reasonable expectation for scoring (i.e. a par 4 that's unreachable, or a pin that guarantees three putts).
 
The thing for me is par doesn't matter. I don't care what the +/- score is. i want it to be golf played as it should be and this weekend is supposed to be the most challenging week of the year for these guys. It was. The only issue on saturday were a few of the pin locations. you put those pins in better spots and it becomes a good test. I don't think they "lost" the course.

I still saw people making pitch marks in the afternoon. I still saw mid and short irons stopping. The shots that seemed unfair were shots that were hit to a mediocre to poor spot. The shots that were good shots but the result didn't reflect it was due to pin locations. Again, fix that, and you have a fantastic saturday.

Sunday was a tad too bleh in my opinion, but it created the chance for two or three guys, who decided to step up and play their ball well, to charge up and have a shot at winning. Brooks just played out of his mind scrambling.
 
jlew2144 said:
I may be in the minority here, but I like watching the best players in the world struggle on occasion. I'm not saying I want to watch it every weekend, but watching this years Open was enjoyable to me.
Click to expand...

I’m in the minority also, I enjoy watching the top players struggle if their game is just a fraction off. I wouldn’t want to see it every week, but once a year to decide our Country’s National Championship, it is great.

The penal set up of the US Open gives it a character that is different than the 3 other majors, and that is a good thing. I enjoyed this US Open way more than last year at Erin Hills when the AT&T broke out. Par is a good score and it is attainable, 280 should win the US Open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wadesworld said:
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.
Click to expand...

Par the way it's done today is a flawed concept. In thew beginning par wasn't a number on the scorecard. Par was calculated by the scoring average for THAT day under THOSE conditions. So there are certainly going to be situations where the exact same set up varies depending on weather and other factors.
 
wadesworld said:
What's a well-struck shot though? I think a lot of people would say "if you're hitting a lob wedge into a green, you should be able to hold the green."

But on a lot of links golf courses, particularly in bad weather, there's no way you're going to be able to fly a wedge in. You're going to have to pull out your seven-iron and run it up there. If you choose not to, you're going to pay the price.

I think course design plays into it. On traditional course with elevated greens protected by bunkers, running it up is not an option. So in that case, it would be incumbent on the committee to ensure a wedge can hold the green. On a links course, I don't think they have any responsibility to ensure a well-struck wedge is rewarded - only that you have a method of getting there.
Click to expand...

To be fair about a lob wedge being able to hold a green, I don’t recall very many situations where the open championship was blasted for sketchy pin placements and course conditions hehe

I would classify a well struck shot as one hit at the proper trajectory and spin rate that should be capable of holding a putting surface. On 13 and 15, luck was more the factor in play than skill. Hell, the prudent play on those holes may have been purposefully miss short of the green so you had the ability to chip/pitch/putt all uphill to have the best chance at par. That’s what the USGA deems fair?
 
joebute said:
Absolutely, because par sets the expectation of how a hole should be played. The way a hole is played relative to those expectations directly influences enjoyment of the game whether playing or watching.

If you're playing or watching a par 4, it's enjoyable to have a good drive, a good second shot, and then two putts for par. It's fun to see an excellent approach or putt rewarded with a birdie. It's not very satisfying watching or playing golf when there's no reasonable expectation for scoring (i.e. a par 4 that's unreachable, or a pin that guarantees three putts).
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
MWard said:
To be fair about a lob wedge being able to hold a green, I don’t recall very many situations where the open championship was blasted for sketchy pin placements and course conditions hehe

I would classify a well struck shot as one hit at the proper trajectory and spin rate that should be capable of holding a putting surface. On 13 and 15, luck was more the factor in play than skill. Hell, the prudent play on those holes may have been purposefully miss short of the green so you had the ability to chip/pitch/putt all uphill to have the best chance at par. That’s what the USGA deems fair?
Click to expand...

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...
 
wadesworld said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you have a 2 or 3 shot lead as he did, yes. But playing a difficult hole prudently because of a lead is not the same as having to play a course or a hole that has been perverted beyond its design or normal maintenance to achieve an abnormal and artificial degree of difficulty.

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.
 
yes it should. A course should never be so difficult that a player can't obtain it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top