RANT: I'm sick and tired of the USGA manipulating course par for their championships

[mvmac]

My opinion is, they will find a way to make Erin Hills a par-70 in two years, even with all 4 par 5s being over 600 yards... A 600-yard par 5 should NEVERbe allowed to be converted to a par 4.

I could be wrong but I don't think the USGA has converted any long par 5's into par 4's, just the shorter par 5's.

[Patch]

Like I have posted before, par is just a number. It doesn't mean squat, other being some sort of measuring stick. The only number that should matter to a golfer is their own final score. If the eventual winner shoots 4 rounds of 75 on a par 72 course, he/she won the tournament with a +12. The winner's check will still be the same amount regardless of what ever par is.

[Golfingdad]

I understand that he is brilliant, but what's gonna win the Open 290 in a playoff? A lot of you have said that par doesn't matter... If that's the case why does Mikey give the holes a par value... if par doesn't matter... If Mikey even attempts to convert the par-fives at Erin Hills, I'm crying foul... 605, 635, 614, and 660 sound not convertible to me... par doesn't matter... Lowest Score Wins....

They only need it so they can gives us scores during the round. Otherwise, how would we know if jb holmes is tied with spieth right now? He's hit it 240 or so times and spieth has only hit it 215 or whatever.

[onthehunt526]

I could be wrong but I don't think the USGA has converted any long par 5's into par 4's, just the shorter par 5's.

For the most part I would say that is true, I can only think of one "long" par-five the USGA has converted into a par-four is the 577-yard, par-5 16th at Southern Hills into a 490 yard par 4, but typically in the past they converted 16 to a par-four so I'm ok with that... Merion is a natural par-70, so that is ok with me... Just when they go out of their way to convert a long par-5 to a par-4... which I haven't seen yet, but they might for Erin Hills... 7,820 yards, par-72, 288 Will be a good score...

[ghalfaire]

I, to echo others, don't think how a pro scores relative to par in very important in this tournament.  They all play the same course and as the book says the lowest score wins (and I add regardless how the lowest score compares to par).  I personally enjoy the US Open as it makes an attempt to give the non-power players, e.g. shorter hitters, a chance to win.  As a rule the pros usually cannot just overpower a course set up for the US Open.

[iacas]

I wonder if Erik has played Erin Hills or anyone here played it? Can they convert any of 4 600+ par-fives into par-fours?

I haven't played it, but… I don't care. If they make a 640-yard hole a 509-yard par four, what's that matter? Why is this a thing? Does it seem odd that you're the only person who is really complaining about this? And you do realize it's something that has not happened and seems unlikely to happen.

Seriously, this stuff doesn't matter. Par is just a mechanism for understanding where players are relative to other players despite being at different points in their rounds. A hole that averages 4.48 is either a difficult par four or an easy par five. Why does it matter to you which they call it?

[onthehunt526]

I haven't played it, but… I don't care. If they make a 640-yard hole a 509-yard par four, what's that matter? Why is this a thing? Does it seem odd that you're the only person who is really complaining about this? And you do realize it's something that has not happened and seems unlikely to happen. Seriously, this stuff doesn't matter. Par is just a mechanism for understanding where players are relative to other players despite being at different points in their rounds. A hole that averages 4.48 is either a difficult par four or an easy par five. Why does it matter to you which they call it?

You are right, Erik, I'm not going to argue with you about it... par is mostly so we can follow where the players are relative to one another... I guess I'm wording it wrong... then again Lowest Score Wins, whether it's the course is set up as a par-70 or par-72... it's still the guy who takes the fewest strokes to complete the 72 holes, that gets the trophy... whether his 280 is Even Par or 8-under has no bearing... That being said if par is just a number to compare golfers at different points on the course, why does it seem like that the USGA is trying to protect par at every U.S. Open? It is Lowest Score Wins right?

[dkolo]

You are right, Erik, I'm not going to argue with you about it... par is mostly so we can follow where the players are relative to one another... I guess I'm wording it wrong... then again Lowest Score Wins, whether it's the course is set up as a par-70 or par-72... it's still the guy who takes the fewest strokes to complete the 72 holes, that gets the trophy... whether his 280 is Even Par or 8-under has no bearing... That being said if par is just a number to compare golfers at different points on the course, why does it seem like that the USGA is trying to protect par at every U.S. Open? It is Lowest Score Wins right?

Because that's the character of the tournament. It's like asking why does Augusta have lightning fast greens. It's their signature.

[onthehunt526]

Because that's the character of the tournament. It's like asking why does Augusta have lightning fast greens. It's their signature.

Agreed, though the USGA won't admit it, that they are protecting par... so if par doesn't matter, why do they cover up the fact they are doing it? I'm paraphrasing here: They insist trying to improve sight lines for spectators, and improving spectator movement, for all people to enjoy. I think it's partially true in a way... but I think that they are avoiding the question... What I want to know is, how the hell does converting a par-five into a par-four improve the spectators experience? With the exception of the natural par-70s mixed in (two times Pebble was a 71, along with Torrey and Congressional) since the 1992 Open at Pebble Beach, every and I mean every U.S. Open, except Shinnecock Hills, Merion, and Olympia Fields, has had at least one par 5 converted into a par 4, how does this improve the spectators experience? If someone explains this to me, I'll put the issue to bed...

[BallStriker]

Course set up will all depend on the weather......I think there are folks that are basing their opinion of Chambers Bay on the 2010 US AM.....well, the US AM is played in mid to late August, which produced firm, hard conditions for Chambers Bay....

Anyone that knows Northwest weather knows that June is usually a completely different story weather wise.....if May and June follow typical suit around here, the course will not be playing hard and fast and there will not be substantial runout.....if it particularly wet during tournament week (which is very possible) balls will not be running and will be stopping very close to their landing spots off the tee.....if the USGA decides that they STILL want to play the course at 7800 wiht a par 70, this will be an absolute bloodbath in relation to par....not that it matters much

Does "par" matter?  Yes, it matters....we are in a commercial world and tracking a leaderboard while golfers are on the course is part of the entertainment.....anyone who says differently is, of course, wrong........that doesn't mean lowest score doesn't win despite what "par" is, but we do need a way to measure golfers that are on different parts of hte course and "through" different parts of their round.

I've played Chambers Bay more than a dozen times.....in rain.....in sun....wet...dry.....it plays vastly different based on conditions..........gonna be great.

[Shorty]

Does "par" matter?  Yes, it matters....we are in a commercial world and tracking a leaderboard while golfers are on the course is part of the entertainment.....anyone who says differently is, of course, wrong........

They are not wrong. You are wrong.

Were you critical of players well above par when the winds blew in Texas last week in the first round?

Did you compare the morning scores to the afternoon ones relative to par or conditions?

[ChrisP]

If you've followed the US Opens since Mike Davis has taken over, it NEVER plays to its full yardage. They adjust a lot of tee positions. They'll take a 400-yard hole and make it a 300-yard hole for a day or two. They're very creative and they know what they are doing. They made me a believer when they took Merion and were able to make that winning score +1 in soft, wet conditions. Mike Davis is a very, very smart man and in the end, I'm willing to bet the winning score will be somewhere right around Even Par unless someone goes Martin Kaymer and just outplays the course itself.

Also, length does not matter anymore when it comes to how "difficult" a course is anymore. Just look at Merion and Whistling Straits as examples of that.

[iacas]

Agreed, though the USGA won't admit it, that they are protecting par...

I think they have admitted it. They want some excitement, but at the end of the day, they like the winning score to be around par.

With the exception of the natural par-70s mixed in (two times Pebble was a 71, along with Torrey and Congressional) since the 1992 Open at Pebble Beach, every and I mean every U.S. Open, except Shinnecock Hills, Merion, and Olympia Fields, has had at least one par 5 converted into a par 4, how does this improve the spectators experience? If someone explains this to me, I'll put the issue to bed...

I think you're putting words in their mouth.

But if you're not, I will say that since spectators are not able to walk in the space between tees and fairways (except where crosswalks exist), a 500-yard hole provides 100 more yards of room behind the tees than a 600-yard hole. Right? Less bottlenecks, more space for more people…

[rkim291968]

I don't really care but if I am force to provide an answer, I am for it.   Golfers hit so long these days that I think the added distance will make it more interesting.   My 2 cents.

[dkolo]

It makes the Open unique. You have birdie fests every week where a par is almost a bad thing on some holes. It's fun for variety. Having that every week would be tedious and tough to watch, probably. As long as it's fair, I'm OK with them setting it up tough, even if they have to take some liberties with the course to do it. I had to miss the Merion Open, but Pinehurst last year was great golf. Would've been spectacular if Kaymer hadn't just destroyed the field. It was bunched behind him.

[onthehunt526]

It makes the Open unique. You have birdie fests every week where a par is almost a bad thing on some holes. It's fun for variety. Having that every week would be tedious and tough to watch, probably. As long as it's fair, I'm OK with them setting it up tough, even if they have to take some liberties with the course to do it. I had to miss the Merion Open, but Pinehurst last year was great golf. Would've been spectacular if Kaymer hadn't just destroyed the field. It was bunched behind him.

I get the even par is a great score in an Open... as a matter of fact with the exception of Kaymer at 9-under last year and Rory at 16-under at Congressional in '11... since 2005 the winning scores to par the last 10 years in order to par Even, +5, +5, -1, -4, Even, -16, +1, +1, -9... the average winning score has been -1.8 (did I do my math right, Erik)... I believe that even if Chambers Bay would have been a par-71 as it was for the amateur, -1 or -2 would win... I think Even par possibly even +1 wins the Open with it as a par-70... I know the Open at Erin Hills is 2 years away, but from everything I've read... even if Mike Davis decides to move some tees around, if they play Erin Hills as a par-72, the winner will be between +2 and -2... I know if I somehow could qualify for the Open, if I posted level par even an hour and a half before the final group finished, I wouldn't be going anywhere...

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkolo

Because that's the character of the tournament. It's like asking why does Augusta have lightning fast greens. It's their signature.

Agreed, though the USGA won't admit it, that they are protecting par... so if par doesn't matter, why do they cover up the fact they are doing it? I'm paraphrasing here: They insist trying to improve sight lines for spectators, and improving spectator movement, for all people to enjoy.

I think it's partially true in a way... but I think that they are avoiding the question...

What I want to know is, how the hell does converting a par-five into a par-four improve the spectators experience?

With the exception of the natural par-70s mixed in (two times Pebble was a 71, along with Torrey and Congressional) since the 1992 Open at Pebble Beach, every and I mean every U.S. Open, except Shinnecock Hills, Merion, and Olympia Fields, has had at least one par 5 converted into a par 4, how does this improve the spectators experience? If someone explains this to me, I'll put the issue to bed...

You call it "protecting par".  I don't see that "par" needs protecting, and I don't think that the USGA does either.  What the USGA does is make par meaningful.  These days even a 600 yard par 5 is vulnerable to the top pros.  They eliminate a couple of par 5 birdie holes and once again the target that the players aim for is par.  The obvious birdie holes are minimized,  Birdie regains its role as a reward for excellence as it should be, not a standard with little meaning.

So no, they aren't protecting par, they are giving it back the meaning that it's supposed to have.  If that is protecting par, then I hope they defend it to the death.

[Golfingdad]

You call it "protecting par".  I don't see that "par" needs protecting, and I don't think that the USGA does either.  What the USGA does is make par meaningful.  These days even a 600 yard par 5 is vulnerable to the top pros.  They eliminate a couple of par 5 birdie holes and once again the target that the players aim for is par.  The obvious birdie holes are minimized,  Birdie regains its role as a reward for excellence as it should be, not a standard with little meaning.   So no, they aren't protecting par, they are giving it back the meaning that it's supposed to have.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between protecting par and maintaining its meaning. I feel like that is exactly the same thing. Regardless, I don't disagree with anything else you said and I hope OP would find it pretty telling that not a one person yet has agreed with whatever point it is he's trying to make. ;)