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

[phan52]

Par is irrelevant.

The competition is all about who can finish 72 holes.....the same 72 holes as everyone else, in the fewest number of strokes. That's all.

Tell that to Mike Davis. The things he did to try and protect "par" at Merion was ridiculous. It really wasn't necessary as the greens there would have stood up to par very well on their own. As it was, they made some holes virtually unplayable. How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3? The width of the fairways of some of the short par 4's was absurd, especially with no first cut.

They may deny it, but I firmly believe that "par" is important to the USGA and particularly to the members of the private clubs that accommodate them. I know the talk around Philly in the lead-up was that the Tour players would annihilate Merion and the membership was filled with dread of what might happen to their "masterpiece". The thing is, it IS a masterpiece, particularly because of the greens and I doubt that the Tour players would have gone very far under par if they just left it alone. It's not like they play it every year and get to learn the greens over time. Anybody who has played Merion knows what I am talking about.

[Lastpick]

As far as the comment about widening the fairways to benefit stray balls I wish they could have graduated rough.  The further from the fairway, the more penal.  Last year at Pinehurst, the rough looked like a crap shoot to me.  Even with graduated roughs, one can still hit it wild enough to get a break if they hit it where the crowds have trampled down the rough.

[Shindig]

How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3? The width of the fairways of some of the short par 4's was absurd, especially with no first cut.

Please remind me which subset of the participants had to play these holes.

[Phil McGleno]

Tell that to Mike Davis. The things he did to try and protect "par" at Merion was ridiculous. It really wasn't necessary as the greens there would have stood up to par very well on their own. As it was, they made some holes virtually unplayable. How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3? The width of the fairways of some of the short par 4's was absurd, especially with no first cut. They may deny it, but I firmly believe that "par" is important to the USGA and particularly to the members of the private clubs that accommodate them. I know the talk around Philly in the lead-up was that the Tour players would annihilate Merion and the membership was filled with dread of what might happen to their "masterpiece". The thing is, it IS a masterpiece, particularly because of the greens and I doubt that the Tour players would have gone very far under par if they just left it alone. It's not like they play it every year and get to learn the greens over time. Anybody who has played Merion knows what I am talking about.

Oh goodie @phan52 talking about Merion again. The short holes you could tee off with an iron. Why do they need wide fairways? Edit: I see @Shindig already addressed this.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Tell that to Mike Davis. The things he did to try and protect "par" at Merion was ridiculous. It really wasn't necessary as the greens there would have stood up to par very well on their own. As it was, they made some holes virtually unplayable. How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3? The width of the fairways of some of the short par 4's was absurd, especially with no first cut.

They may deny it, but I firmly believe that "par" is important to the USGA and particularly to the members of the private clubs that accommodate them. I know the talk around Philly in the lead-up was that the Tour players would annihilate Merion and the membership was filled with dread of what might happen to their "masterpiece". The thing is, it IS a masterpiece, particularly because of the greens and I doubt that the Tour players would have gone very far under par if they just left it alone. It's not like they play it every year and get to learn the greens over time. Anybody who has played Merion knows what I am talking

about.Originally Posted by Shindig

Please remind me which subset of the participants had to play these holes.

You totally missed the point. I wasn't talking about "subsets" of participants and their relative merits in relation to the golf course. I was talking about the USGA and their obsession with par, particularly with the older tracks. My point was that it wasn't necessary to do what they did to Merion. They didn't play a Hugh Wilson design, they played a Mike Davis design.

[Golfingdad]

You totally missed the point. I wasn't talking about "subsets" of participants and their relative merits in relation to the golf course. I was talking about the USGA and their obsession with par, particularly with the older tracks. My point was that it wasn't necessary to do what they did to Merion. They didn't play a Hugh Wilson design, they played a Mike Davis design.

Actually it was you who missed the point.  You said "How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3?"

@Shindig rhetorically asked about the subset that's playing these holes, but he could have also asked which subset of the field is NOT playing those holes.

Point being, when everybody in the tournament plays the exact same course by the exact same rules, fairness is inherent.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

You totally missed the point. I wasn't talking about "subsets" of participants and their relative merits in relation to the golf course. I was talking about the USGA and their obsession with par, particularly with the older tracks. My point was that it wasn't necessary to do what they did to Merion. They didn't play a Hugh Wilson design, they played a Mike Davis design.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Actually it was you who missed the point.  You said "How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3?"

@Shindig rhetorically asked about the subset that's playing these holes, but he could have also asked which subset of the field is NOT playing those holes.

Point being, when everybody in the tournament plays the exact same course by the exact same rules, fairness is inherent.

Excuse me, but I think I know what MY point was. I never said anything about "subsets" of players. I don't think it was fair to ANYBODY to have a 270 yard uphill par 3 because of an unnecessary attempt by the USGA to protect par. The course would have stood on it's own.

I repeat. The point is the USGA's obsession with par.

[iacas]

Excuse me, but I think I know what MY point was.

You said fair. Nobody had an advantage. It was even for everyone. It was fair. @Shindig 's comment exposed this in your post.

You didn't mean fair. You may have known what you wanted to say, and what your "point" (let's not confuse "points" with opinions, please, as you seem to have done here) was, but you didn't type it. You typed "fair." You meant something else.

FWIW, Oakmont has a 300-yard par-3. Heck, it's 250+ from member tees.

The USGA is obsessed with par? Even if that's true… so what? FWIW #2, I think the USGA knows more about what it wants to see from its championships than you do. I had no problem with their setup at Merion. We got a great champion and had a thrilling final round. That's my opinion, not my point.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Excuse me, but I think I know what MY point was.

Originally Posted by iacas

You said fair. Nobody had an advantage. It was even for everyone. It was fair. @Shindig's comment exposed this in your post.

You didn't mean fair. You may have known what you wanted to say, and what your "point" (let's not confuse "points" with opinions, please, as you seem to have done here) was, but you didn't type it. You typed "fair." You meant something else.

FWIW, Oakmont has a 300-yard par-3. Heck, it's 250+ from member tees.

And that's what happens when you cherry pick and take what people say out of context (which Shindig did), something you in particular are very good at, BTW.

The point was about the USGA and their obsession with par. I know because I WROTE IT!

sheesh. you people.

[iacas]

And that's what happens when you cherry pick and take what people say out of context (which Shindig did), something you in particular are very good at, BTW.

Uhm, okay. You wrote it. It's the part to which he wanted to respond. Maybe, just maybe, you could say "okay, you got me there. What I meant to say was…".

The point was about the USGA and their obsession with par. I know because I WROTE IT!

You also wrote that a 270-yard par three wasn't fair .

Cool it for the rest of the day.

[iacas]

As it was, they made some holes virtually unplayable. How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3?

Gave this a bit more looking into…

So, your claims of a 270-yard three isn't really super accurate, as the third played at 266 for one round… during which the front nine played its shortest yardage of the week (i.e. the slightly increased distance on the third hole was made up for by shortening other holes).

Average distances of the par threes:

3: 240

9: 233

13: 111

17: 233

Average scoring:

3: 3.35

9: 3.39

13: 2.833

17: 3.385

So… except for the 111-yard (average) hole, the "270 yard par three," your "270-yard uphill par three" played the easiest of the remaining holes. Not by much (probably a few strokes in total), but… this also doesn't meet the definition of "unfair" when comparing it to other par threes on the golf course .

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

As it was, they made some holes virtually unplayable. How fair is it to have a 270 yard uphill par 3?

Gave this a bit more looking into…

So, your claims of a 270-yard three isn't really super accurate, as the third played at 266 for one round… during which the front nine played its shortest yardage of the week (i.e. the slightly increased distance on the third hole was made up for by shortening other holes).

Average distances of the par threes:

3: 240

9: 233

13: 111

17: 233

Average scoring:

3: 3.35

9: 3.39

13: 2.833

17: 3.385

So… except for the 111-yard (average) hole, the "270 yard par three," your "270-yard uphill par three" played the easiest of the remaining holes. Not by much (probably a few strokes in total), but… this also doesn't meet the definition of "unfair" when comparing it to other par threes on the golf course.

It's amazing how the picture changes when you have all of the data to look at, isn't it?

[iacas]

It's amazing how the picture changes when you have all of the data to look at, isn't it?

Yeah well… let's not let facts get in the way of a deeply rooted conviction, eh?

And… I get that that a single hole is not even the "main" opinion he keeps sharing, but it represents a bit of a hole in his thinking.

In my opinion, Merion played great and was fun to watch. It presented a different kind of challenge to modern PGA Tour pros, just as I am hoping Chambers Bay might this year, and just as Pinehurst did last year. The USGA under Mike Davis is seemingly more open to trying out different things, despite what @phan52 seems to think, than it was under people prior. After all, the 1974 U.S. Open earned the nickname "The Massacre at Winged Foot." This idea of "protecting par" is not "new." And again, Mike Davis actually seems less wedded to the idea than his predecessors.

[Billbill13]

I don't have a problem with them making holes longer or play differently if it sets the course up. I like to see long par 3's once in a while.  The guys are so long any way that it doesn't matter. DJ hit a 253 yard 4i up hill at Augusta so pretty sure a 270-300yd par 3 is reachable.

I personally like it when the pro's struggle to make birdies and have to work for pars. Makes things really interesting vs a shout when they are just firing at pins on every shot like the master's recently.  it was a good tournament but the scores were like watching the John Deere Classic, I like when level par or -1 or 2 or +1 or 2 wins. Means the course was set up really good and good shots won.

[Lastpick]

There is nothing wrong with long par threes if the greens are designed appropriately.  They need to be big and receptive to long irons.

[MEfree]

There is nothing wrong with long par threes if the greens are designed appropriately.  They need to be big and receptive to long irons.

Makes sense IF you think PAR (as written on the scorecard) is relevant.  i.e. a 270 yard hole with a big receptive green is called a par 3 while a 270 yard hole with a smaller green and greater risk/reward trade-off is called a par 4.  The same distinction could be made for many 500 yard holes.

Unfortunately, I did not watch the Merion US Open and am not sure how these holes played (and was not aware of this thread until after I started my 3.5 Par thread http://thesandtrap.com/t/81358/should-courses-have-more-3-5-par-holes#post_1129536), but I like the way the USGA mixed up the distance of the holes which would seem to test players accuracy and distance control for a variety of yardages

Yard	Hole	Ave (wk)
203	3	3.35
206	17	3.39
219	9	3.39
229	17	3.39
231	9	3.39
237	9	3.39
243	17	3.39
245	3	3.35
246	3	3.35
246	9	3.39
254	17	3.39
266	3	3.35
280	10	3.92
290	10	3.92
301	10	3.92
313	10	3.92
340	1	4.01
340	7	4.13
342	1	4.01
356	1	4.01
356	11	4.23
360	1	4.01
363	7	4.13
363	11	4.23
368	7	4.13
370	11	4.23
375	11	4.23
382	7	4.13

[turtleback]

There is nothing wrong with long par threes if the greens are designed appropriately.  They need to be big and receptive to long irons.

I think this is a great point and certainly applies to par 3s.  But I think it is even more of an issue when they repurpose a par 5 as a par 4.  And I see that as more of a course architecture issue than anything having to do with protecting par.   Would a course architect design the same green where the approach shot is expected to be made with a wedge and where the approach shot is expected to be made with a hybrid or long iron?  I don't think that would be their normal practice.  So we end up with the US Open course being played on a course that no course designed ever would have designed from scratch.

But I think it has a lot more to do with the USGA losing control of distance than par protection.

[BallStriker]

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.

This is exactly the point I made in comment 28 above, and immediately told I was wrong in comment 29 (by Shorty....which is a shocker..LOL).