Stupid US Open stat:

[mellojoe]

Dave Koster We'll obviously see a much different Torrey Pines than we saw for the Buick Invitational. At 7600+ yards, it's long for a par 72 and even more brutal at 71. Even at that length, the conditions will bring the field back together.

What??

If the course is 7600 yards, who cares if it is a Par 71 or a Par 72. Everyone plays on the same course, so you are competing against each other and not against an ideal "par". If they said Par was 84, would that make the course "easier"? No. Because the leaders are still going to shoot a 65 or whatever. It doesn't matter what the number on the sign says; what matters is what the players ahead of you write down on their scorecard to see if you are going to win or not. Am I missing something?

[Magnus]

A par 72 would have 1 more par 5 than a per 71, thus making a 7600 par 72 a bit easier, due to an aditional par 5....usually par 5s are considered birdie opportunity holes for most pros.

[mellojoe]

A par 72 would have 1 more par 5 than a per 71, thus making a 7600 par 72 a bit easier, due to an aditional par 5....usually par 5s are considered birdie opportunity holes for most pros.

But how does that change the fact that to win the competition you must have the lowest score, regardless of the "listed" Par?

[Magnus]

Well, yes you still have to have the lowest score to win the Championship, I definitely agree you with you there. I think the point was that with Torrey both being at a par 71, and that length, there won't be as many birdie opportunities, so the field will be bunched together. So, say you go into the final round, 3 shots back, there may be 10 people you have to pass.....or some similar scenario.

[iacas]

But how does that change the fact that to win the competition you must have the lowest score, regardless of the "listed" Par?

Brutality is a mental thing in this case: thus the more birdie chances you remove, the more brutal something becomes.

Par matters. Making a 4 is making a 4, but if it's "a birdie" it feels different. I also think you chose poorly when naming this thread.

[TinCupTampa]

What??

No I agree with what you are saying. It doesnt matter if there were 18 par 3s and it playing 7600+ ... whoever has the lowest score wins. The whole premise isnt to shoot 71, 72 or whatever par may be. The objective is to shoot as low as possible... regardless of what par is. Everyone faces the same conditions so it doesnt change the competition.

[roverT7]

What??

I think you are both making solid points. With regard to your point, yes I agree that the winner could finish at +6, therefore theoretical "par" is irrelevant to final score. But I think the original speaker is also making a valid point. To complete 18 holes, you have to go a certain distance, right? You've got to go 7600 yards, and you've got 71 strokes to do it in. Par is relevant, because the pro's are going to expect to make par. Which means they will expect to be on a green in regulation, which means they will pressure themselves to make high quality shots. So par is relevant. If you make par 90 strokes, you've relieved a great deal of the pressure, because now the pro can take a shorter club to go the same distance (7600 yards) within par. For instance, if you are facing a 500-yard par 5, you've got to "average" 100 yards per shot. But if I suddenly drop par to 4, now you have to average 125 yards. You are forced to go the same distance in a fewer number of strokes. This translates to a more difficult shot somewhere on the fairway. I.e., you'll be hitting a 4-iron into the green instead of a 9-iron. So by decreasing par, but leaving the course at 7600 yards, the PGA has increased the pressure on the professional golfer, who by his very nature will gauge his play by par. So I think it's a valid point.

[TinCupTampa]

I think you are both making solid points. With regard to your point, yes I agree that the winner could finish at +6, therefore theoretical "par" is irrelevant to final score.

Pt 1. No pressure has been relieved... if you shoot par and the leaders are 36 under after two days... guess what... you get cut.

Pt 2. No they havent. Everyone has to do it... it is still a level playing field regardless of par. You are never competing against par... you are competing against the field. You have to do better than everone else no matter if par is 1 or 100.

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

But how does that change the fact that to win the competition you must have the lowest score, regardless of the "listed" Par?

I don't think it changes anything. I suppose there's a mental aspect of it being "easier" as a par 72 but I don't buy into a lot of that. These guys are pros and it's not like over par hasn't been winning this thing the past couple years. When I read that I translated it to be brutal relative to par.

I'm not sure this a US Open "stat" though...

[TinCupTampa]

I don't think it changes anything. I suppose there's a mental aspect of it being "easier" as a par 72 but I don't buy into a lot of that. These guys are pros and it's not like over par hasn't been winning this thing the past couple years.

I would agree with that translation.

[Thrash13]

What??

If I'm choosing, I'd rather shoot a 1-under 71 (if par was 72) rather than an even-par 71. It's all about the mental side of things. While I understand what you are saying, there really isn't a point for this thread. Do you feel any numbers should be used in golf? Why should we care about fairways hit, greens in regulation, etc.? The number on the scorecard is all matters right?

This just in: some of us actually enjoy breaking down the numbers in golf.

[Alex B]

Because the OP did not truly give a stupid US Open "stat," I will proffer one of my own: average driving distance. IIRC, some talking head on ESPN mentioned how Phil Mickelson averaged only 300 yards off the tee with his "3-Wood" (actually more of a driver/brassie blend), whereas Tiger and Adam Scott averaged 327 and 326 yards respectively. The commentator then went on to say the Phil's strategy made no sense because he was giving up too much driving distance.

This is a poor analysis of the statistics.

Generally, driving distance is measured on only two holes each day; the two holes are usually flat and open, so players usually rip a driver. Noting the disparity in driving distance based on two holes worth of raw numbers in foolhardy enough. If one examines the driving distance stats at the US Open's official website ( http://www.usopen.com/en_US/scores/s...rives_avg.html ), however, one will notice something odd: all players have an average driving distance ending in .00 . Usually, since two holes are averaged, half the players average distance ends in .00 and half in .50. Because every player ended in .00, I am assuming the the USGA is only measuring drving distance on one hole each round . A sample size of one does not prove anything. For example, last in the field in driving distance is Justin Hicks, with an "average" drive of 245.00 yards. If this were the case for all drives, he would not be atop the leaderboard. I am appalled that the ESPN commentators made the aforementioned points comparing the featured players' driving distance without checking what was really behind the statistics.

APB

[roverT7]

Pt 1. No pressure has been relieved... if you shoot par and the leaders are 36 under after two days... guess what... you get cut.

Yes, to win the tournament you shoot the lowest score in order to beat the rest of the field. Golf 101. I think everyone would agree to this point.

But we are talking about another concept in discussions of par. It has to do with the psychology of the game. I would try and reiterate the point, but after reviewing the thread again, I think Iacas made the point pretty well:

Brutality is a mental thing in this case: thus the more birdie chances you remove, the more brutal something becomes.

[iacas]

Pt 1. No pressure has been relieved... if you shoot par and the leaders are 36 under after two days... guess what... you get cut.

You've missed the point. All else being equal, would you rather shoot -1 or even par?

I don't think it changes anything. I suppose there's a mental aspect of it being "easier" as a par 72 but I don't buy into a lot of that.

You're not playing. Several comments have been made about the par fives the USGA tends to turn into par fours. Every year they make comments about it. They did it at Oakmont, they've done it this year.

The mentality of making a "tough" par versus making an "easy" birdie is a fairly significant factor at the top levels.

If I'm choosing, I'd rather shoot a 1-under 71 (if par was 72) rather than an even-par 71.

Exactly.

This is a poor analysis of the statistics.

Not in events like this. First, this isn't a PGA Tour event, so I don't believe these numbers count for PGA Tour stats. Maybe they co-sanction it so they can get to use the stats, I don't know. Anyway, the year-long stats are calculated using two drives, opposite directions, and driver holes, yes.

But for "one tournament" statistics, they measure drives on every hole. They can, because they have ShotLink. So the driving averages you see are the measured drives on every par four or five.

however, one will notice something odd: all players have an average driving distance ending in

Indeed, a bit odd. You're wrong about the .50 thing because 14 drives are measured, but obviously you'd get even more variation in the numbers then. Drives are measured on all 14 holes. Still not sure what the PGA Tour does with the stats, if anything, in their year-long tables, but I know the drives are measured on every non-par-three hole.

The USGA site has had some funky moments. Yesterday they showed Tiger birdieing the final two holes for a -1 score of 72, for example. So who knows.

[mellojoe]

I also think you chose poorly when naming this thread.

My brain was reeling at the time trying to figure out if I was just being stupid, so I shot from the hip... usually doesn't end well.

Maybe my mind just can't wrap itself around the fact that we are talking about the top pro's in the game. Are these guys REALLY going to be that impacted by changing one par 5 to a par 4? Just doesn't seem like it. The reason these guys are so good is because their mental game is so strong, right? Proper course management says that you want to set yourself up for an easy shot onto the green, and then an easy putt. Therefore, each player will probably be determining each hole based on that hole itself and not what the PAR on the sign says. Right? Or am I way off?

[iacas]

Are these guys REALLY going to be that impacted by changing one par 5 to a par 4?

That's already been answered: yes. It can make a big difference, particularly if you've had a string of good (or bad) holes leading up to it. Momentum is key, and the smallest of mental "victories" or "defeats" can make a big difference.

When you feel like you're going to make a putt, do you hit a better putt than you do when you're uncertain? The mental game is a powerful thing. YES it matters. Think about all the other small things that really make almost no sense, but matter greatly in terms of how things go: the 0.99 (or the 0.009 on gas) that's at the end of every price tag, "zero calorie" cola over "1 calorie" cola, the half a degree we've become accustomed to on drivers or the extra half inch TaylorMade tries to stick onto some of its drivers... the list goes on and on. Little things like that matter, yes.

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

That's already been answered: yes. It can make a big difference, particularly if you've had a string of good (or bad) holes leading up to it. Momentum is key, and the smallest of mental "victories" or "defeats" can make a big difference.

Geez... everything matters: which end of the draw you get, playing partners, thickness of rough, slope/speed of fairways and greens, which tee boxes the use, where they place galleries and stands, par 71 vs 72, etc etc but at the end of the day it is still a "little thing." Lowest score still wins. This is the US Open for christ sake, they are supposed to struggle mentally. It's not even like they made it a par 70 so we're just talking one hole here. So whatever, sure, it matters a bit mentally but not nearly as significant as it's being made out in this thread.

[JaY_B]

It *shouldn't* make a difference, Doesn't mean it won't make a difference though.