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

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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. ;)

I guess the way I see it, if you set up the course to give par meaning, then it's self protecting.  No other defense is necessary.

[Golfingdad]

I guess the way I see it, if you set up the course to give par meaning, then it's self protecting.  No other defense is necessary.

Yeah OK I get that. All in all, I like knowing that the winner is going to be really close to even every year. When one stands out like Rory or Kaymer, you tip your cap because you know they earned every one of those birdies.

[dkolo]

Yeah OK I get that.

All in all, I like knowing that the winner is going to be really close to even every year. When one stands out like Rory or Kaymer, you tip your cap because you know they earned every one of those birdies.

Especially because the margin of victory in those two way-under-par wins was 8 strokes each. So the field was definitely working for par, but there was just one performance that was a complete outlier.

[onthehunt526]

Especially because the margin of victory in those two way-under-par wins was 8 strokes each. So the field was definitely working for par, but there was just one performance that was a complete outlier.

Alright you guys are right it doesn't matter, who gives a damn whether the USGA sets the national championship par to 70 or occasionally 71 or whatever the hell that they feel like... You guys win, the point I was trying to make is mute... I guess it's the times and the equipment making short par-5s into par-4s... This point you guys may or may not agree with, but after some thought, I've decided the USGA is not the blame of the conversion of par-5s into par-4s for their championships... it's TECHNOLOGY the ball just goes too far, Especially when Bubba, Rory, and Company blast their drives 350 yards... So due to the fact, that most courses do not have the land (your usual rotation, Oakmont, Pebble Beach, etc) to lengthen the par-5s enough to maintain the hole's original intent they'll re-purpose the hole into a par-four... The old ABC broadcasts Jim McKay used to Open the telecast about how the U.S. Open is an examination... Would you guys agree that the USGA isn't "protecting par" by converting par-fives into long par-fours, rather they are trying to create the toughest but fair examination possible for the game's greatest players?

[Spitfisher]

Alright you guys are right it doesn't matter, who gives a damn whether the USGA sets the national championship par to 70 or occasionally 71 or whatever the hell that they feel like... You guys win, the point I was trying to make is mute... I guess it's the times and the equipment making short par-5s into par-4s... This point you guys may or may not agree with, but after some thought, I've decided the USGA is not the blame of the conversion of par-5s into par-4s for their championships... it's TECHNOLOGY the ball just goes too far, Especially when Bubba, Rory, and Company blast their drives 350 yards... So due to the fact, that most courses do not have the land (your usual rotation, Oakmont, Pebble Beach, etc) to lengthen the par-5s enough to maintain the hole's original intent they'll re-purpose the hole into a par-four... The old ABC broadcasts Jim McKay used to Open the telecast about how the U.S. Open is an examination... Would you guys agree that the USGA isn't "protecting par" by converting par-fives into long par-fours, rather they are trying to create the toughest but fair examination possible for the game's greatest players?

It's the ball, it's the materials used in clubs, the engineering & science behind those products, it's the players conditioning, diet, physique and practice facilities and faculties, it's also irrigation & drainage, grasses and the advancement of mowing methods and machinery to maintain these courses. have all contributed to it. Have all contributed to better play. I feel the worse tournaments to watch are the ones where 15 - 20+ IMO par should be meaningful at the pro level, and if the USGA needs to set up courses more difficult, tighter fairways, longer par threes, it can be done, just look at the U.S. open at Marion a few years ago.

[dbuck]

The classic definition of par is the score that an expert (accomplished in some wordings) golfer should have on a given hole allowing 2 putts. Length is probably the dominant component, but also changes in elevation, hazards, etc. can be factored. That is a simple definition, and one many, including myself. can lose sight of when the USGA starts mucking about with courses we like or don't like.

Protecting par to me would be if there was a hole that was say a 575-590 yard nominal par 5 on the card. So you grow the rough knee deep, you arbitrarily move the tee 50 yards back, you do things that make it almost impossible to cut the corner on a dogleg, and such that you make it difficult to make 5 and nigh impossible to make 4.

Maintaining the meaning of par is to look at this hole and say ok, if we move the tee up a bit, most of the field can reach it in two well executed shots. The par for that hole is 4. Or if we add a few yards or change the angle of the tee shot a bit, most of the field will take 3, either of necessity or choice. Then the par for the hole set up that way is 5.

In addition to length, the USGA has usually tried to "test" other things like driving into a certain width of landing area etc.

To me the last few years the USGA has done a good job of making par meaningful, as opposed to 1974 at Winged Foot where they probably were just protecting par, many say as backlash from Johnny Miller's remarkable 63 the year before.

I think the changes at Augusta were a little of both, but to me done in a reasonable way. They still play at a par 72 and have basically adjusted the length in most cases to account for longer drives. Most of the traditional risk/rewards are still in place. Some years the score is close to par and some years way under--the fans nor the club seems to mind which, but the par of 72 is still a reasonable number.

[Spitfisher]

The classic definition of par is the score that an expert (accomplished in some wordings) golfer should have on a given hole allowing 2 putts. Length is probably the dominant component, but also changes in elevation, hazards, etc. can be factored. That is a simple definition, and one many, including myself. can lose sight of when the USGA starts mucking about with courses we like or don't like. Protecting par to me would be if there was a hole that was say a 575-590 yard nominal par 5 on the card. So you grow the rough knee deep, you arbitrarily move the tee 50 yards back, you do things that make it almost impossible to cut the corner on a dogleg, and such that you make it difficult to make 5 and nigh impossible to make 4. Maintaining the meaning of par is to look at this hole and say ok, if we move the tee up a bit, most of the field can reach it in two well executed shots. The par for that hole is 4. Or if we add a few yards or change the angle of the tee shot a bit, most of the field will take 3, either of necessity or choice. Then the par for the hole set up that way is 5. In addition to length, the USGA has usually tried to "test" other things like driving into a certain width of landing area etc. To me the last few years the USGA has done a good job of making par meaningful, as opposed to 1974 at Winged Foot where they probably were just protecting par, many say as backlash from Johnny Miller's remarkable 63 the year before. I think the changes at Augusta were a little of both, but to me done in a reasonable way. They still play at a par 72 and have basically adjusted the length in most cases to account for longer drives. Most of the traditional risk/rewards are still in place. Some years the score is close to par and some years way under--the fans nor the club seems to mind which, but the par of 72 is still a reasonable number.

Agreed especially the very last paragraph regarding to Augusta National, the under par final scores at AN often can be traced to either a remarkable round or extremely receptive greens and conditions. it's the minus 22 at pebble beach that perhaps they should reevaluate the course or hold off putting pros on the course anf calling it a championship. " Par" by the definition above clearly is not correct, too much history I guess. (?)

[onthehunt526]

The classic definition of par is the score that an expert (accomplished in some wordings) golfer should have on a given hole allowing 2 putts. Length is probably the dominant component, but also changes in elevation, hazards, etc. can be factored. That is a simple definition, and one many, including myself. can lose sight of when the USGA starts mucking about with courses we like or don't like. Protecting par to me would be if there was a hole that was say a 575-590 yard nominal par 5 on the card. So you grow the rough knee deep, you arbitrarily move the tee 50 yards back, you do things that make it almost impossible to cut the corner on a dogleg, and such that you make it difficult to make 5 and nigh impossible to make 4. Maintaining the meaning of par is to look at this hole and say ok, if we move the tee up a bit, most of the field can reach it in two well executed shots. The par for that hole is 4. Or if we add a few yards or change the angle of the tee shot a bit, most of the field will take 3, either of necessity or choice. Then the par for the hole set up that way is 5. In addition to length, the USGA has usually tried to "test" other things like driving into a certain width of landing area etc. To me the last few years the USGA has done a good job of making par meaningful, as opposed to 1974 at Winged Foot where they probably were just protecting par, many say as backlash from Johnny Miller's remarkable 63 the year before. I think the changes at Augusta were a little of both, but to me done in a reasonable way. They still play at a par 72 and have basically adjusted the length in most cases to account for longer drives. Most of the traditional risk/rewards are still in place. Some years the score is close to par and some years way under--the fans nor the club seems to mind which, but the par of 72 is still a reasonable number.

Until Augusta added rough, for the most part it was a second shot golf course... As is Merion... I think I get why so many U.S. Open have converted par 5s... into par-4s, The pros would hit a drive and mid-iron into a lot of them, if not converted... and from Erik and Dave's book, it's just common sense, because it's a helluva a lot easier to hit a green from 190 than it is to from 275... That being said Mike Davis in the setup of courses during the championship almost always throws a prepared field a bone... for example in the '12 Open at Olympic playing the tees forward on both 16 and 17 on Sunday. Jim Furyk wasn't prepared for the forward tee on 16 so in effect it cost him the title... I think 17 was so far up on Sunday you could of argued it should been a par 4... (They played it at like 495 or something) Ernie pitched in for eagle down from jail... Another thing that bothers me is here in the United States, (The PGA is guilty too) is we set a trend for 500+ yard par fours... Even with advances in Technology, The R & A has yet to play a single par-4 in any Open Championship even at 500 yards... The longest three in the Open rotation a the 13th at Birkdale and the 12th and 18th at Carnoustie at 499 yards... two of those three are converted par-5s but they just changed the par from 5 to 4... I'm okay with converting short par-5s for the USGA to convert them into 4s... I understand technology has caught up with our 600-year-old game... maybe if the pros were still playing persimmon and balata balls, there would be absolutely no need for 500 yard par fours...

[turtleback]

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?

I think these "half-par" holes add a lot of interest and excitement, particularly when it is a case of moving the tees up on a par 4 to entice players to go for it.  I do think that there should be at least one par 5 where it is not unreasonable for a longer hitter, having hit a good drive in the fairway, to go for the green in 2.

[liquor box]

I wonder why they choose 70 as the par?

I prefer 72, it means an even 4 shots per hole and makes things nicer numerically.

Really though, I dont care what they do as long as it is fair to all players. My big concern about increased length on holes is whether it is fair to golfers who dont hit the ball as far. Creative shaping of fairways and use of bunkers and rough can even out a field so all are even.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by onthehunt526

That being said Mike Davis in the setup of courses during the championship almost always throws a prepared field a bone... for example in the '12 Open at Olympic playing the tees forward on both 16 and 17 on Sunday. Jim Furyk wasn't prepared for the forward tee on 16 so in effect it cost him the title...

No, the duck-hook Furyk hit on the hole effectively cost him the title.

[onthehunt526]

No, the duck-hook Furyk hit on the hole effectively cost him the title. :-)

True... but from your book, he said himself he didn't know where to hit it...

[iacas]

True... but from your book, he said himself he didn't know where to hit it...

Yeah, which is stupid. It's still a golf hole, with yardages mapped out, etc. :)

[Mulligan Jeff]

Maybe the USGA wants the course to dominate the field like the 2013 US Open at Merion.

[turtleback]

Really though, I dont care what they do as long as it is fair to all players. My big concern about increased length on holes is whether it is fair to golfers who dont hit the ball as far. Creative shaping of fairways and use of bunkers and rough can even out a field so all are even.

Why is that a good thing?  You want everyone t have an even chance?  Why should a longer player lose the advantage of the skill and practice he expended to become so long?  Isn't that a valuable golf skill that deserves to be rewarded as well?

Would it make sense if we translated that wish to other parts of the game?

Let's lower the lips of the bunkers, because it isn't fair for the player who isn't as good out of sand.

Let's slow the greens down, because it isn't fair to players who o not putt as well to have such fast greens.

Let's widen the fairways because is isn't fair to golfers who don't hit as accurately.

Let's narrow the fairways because it isn't fair to golfers who don;t hit as far.

Judging by this and other golf boards and golf commercials and the topics on golf lesson type shows the number one desire of most golfers is more distance.  Then why is distance the one characteristic whose benefits we then want to minimize when it is professional golfers and a major involved?  We all want to hit farther and then we turn around and resent and try to penalize professionals for being long?  Being long is just as much a skill as any other aspect of golf*.  Why course set-up people should set up a course to negate the benefits of that skill is beyond me.

With constant width fairways it is much harder to hit a 320 yard drive in the fairway than it is to hit a 280 yard drive in the fairway (simple geometry).  But that isn't enough, some folks want to make it even harder on the big hitter by having the fairway narrow as it gets into that 290-330 range.  They demand a level of accuracy from the longer hitter that is far beyond that required of shorter hitters.  If you want to (and are able to) it hit that far you should be required to be much much more accurate than a guy with less skill in distance?

Maybe by analogy they should change the rules in baseball so that any pitch that goes over 93 MPH is automatically subjected to a smaller strike zone, since if you want to throw it that fast you should be required to be more accurate than a slower pitcher.

*even back to Bobby Jones the best players generally were the longer ones and ones who could do well on par 5s.

[Lastpick]

A little comment about par fives on the pro tour.  A few years ago the Masters attempted to make the par fives more difficult.  They achieved this and the end result was that many pros laid up on holes 13 and 15 essentially turning them into short par threes.  The really great thing about Augusta National is the options available to the competitors.  I like short par fours that challenge the player off the tee.  The tenth at Rivera is a great par 4.  A course that provides options and requires all the shots is what is fun to watch.  I think that the USGA geeks up the courses to much to protect par.  Sometimes the setup brings luck into play a  little to often.

As a disclaimer, my comment about the Masters attempting to lengthen the par fives is only the way I remember it.  It was a great tournament once again this year.

[BallStriker]

I think these "half-par" holes add a lot of interest and excitement, particularly when it is a case of moving the tees up on a par 4 to entice players to go for it.  I do think that there should be at least one par 5 where it is not unreasonable for a longer hitter, having hit a good drive in the fairway, to go for the green in 2.

I don't disagree with the "half-par" holes, but I am not sure they should put one on 18......there is some historical impact when you do that to the players.....assume you have an 18th hole that is a monster par 4 that plays at 4.55 or 4.6 to the field during tournament play.....is it fair to a guy for him to take a 5 on that hole and be left with the history books saying he "bogeyed the final hole to lose the US Open" as opposed to "failing to birdie the last hole to lose the US Open".....seems unfair to me

IDK........I guess if "par" really doesn't matter, then why even have give holes a number?  For those that insist that "par" doesn't matter, please answer that question....

Why not just play the course and count em up at the end?

[Shindig]

IDK........I guess if "par" really doesn't matter, then why even have give holes a number?  For those that insist that "par" doesn't matter, please answer that question.... Why not just play the course and count em up at the end?

Par isn't for the pros' benefit, it's for ours. It's the nearest integer to the expected score, and lets us estimate how two or more players at different spots on the course are standing relative to one another.