Jump to content
IGNORED

Should we change how we define par?


Note: This thread is 1839 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Should we change how we define par?   

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we change how we define par?

    • Yes
      1
    • No
      55


Recommended Posts

http://www.golfwrx.com/367952/in-memory-of-par-ending-an-era-of-exasperation/

The author of this article proposes that there should be a tier system based on your average carry distance which defines what par is on the hole. 

By his chart, a guy who hits the ball 250+ would have a par 3 up to 275 yards. While a guy who hits it 190 off the tee would have a par 3 up to 175 yards. 

Here are a reason why I think we should not change what par is.  

It allow you to compare yourself to what a scratch player would shoot on that hole. If you are an 18 handicap and you get a birdie then you did really good. If you change par to match the golfers ability it really devalues what par is. I rather keep par as a hard achievable goal.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Here are a reason why I think we should not change what par is.  

It allow you to compare yourself to what a scratch player would shoot on that hole. If you are an 18 handicap and you get a birdie then you did really good. If you change par to match the golfers ability it really devalues what par is. I rather keep par as a hard achievable goal.

I agree with this, par is a standard across the board, for all skill levels.  There's no reason to change it just to make golf SEEM easier.  I fully support the practice that many higher handicappers use, that of defining a "personal par" for themselves on every hole, I think it offers them a goal that they can meet and occasionally exceed.  Net par is also there for a player to measure himself by, assuming he's avid enough to want to establish a handicap, official or otherwise.  Some changes just don't need to be made.

As an aside, bogey was the original standard score for a hole.  Par came to be used a bit later, and eventually superseded bogey as the standard score. 

http://www.scottishgolfhistory.org/origin-of-golf-terms/bogey/

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Bad idea, this makes the game even more complex to understand. Plus it does not change how many strokes I need to get the ball in the hole or something. There is already a handicap system that gives people strokes based on their ability. Besides, they can always tee it forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Par is par.  Changing what that means is like taking a yardstick but instead of 3 feet, sometimes calling it 4 feet or 5 feet.  Stupid idea.  Like MrDC said, we already have a perfectly functioning system for adjusting to players' ability, and one that doesn't muck around with what we all understand.  While I grant that many courses could do a better job of offering a greater variety of tee boxes, with a wider spread from the longest to the shortest, that is a shortcoming of the individual course, not the game itself.  

All this would do is have 30 handicappers playing from the back tee because now par is 85, so they take their 103 strokes of "bogey" golf, and spend 5½ hours hacking around a course that is 1000 yards too long for their ability.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

This is just an extension of everything that is happening today in this country, likely from the same people that brought us participation trophies.  

Some people feel bad not scoring par, so let's change par so it's easier for them to feel good about themselves.  As @David in FL said, we have different tee boxes to make up for the distance gaps between players.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

http://www.golfwrx.com/367952/in-memory-of-par-ending-an-era-of-exasperation/

The author of this article proposes that there should be a tier system based on your average carry distance which defines what par is on the hole. 

By his chart, a guy who hits the ball 250+ would have a par 3 up to 275 yards. While a guy who hits it 190 off the tee would have a par 3 up to 175 yards. 

Here are a reason why I think we should not change what par is.  

It allow you to compare yourself to what a scratch player would shoot on that hole. If you are an 18 handicap and you get a birdie then you did really good. If you change par to match the golfers ability it really devalues what par is. I rather keep par as a hard achievable goal.

Agree with this. I would not be in favor of a change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Oh, I thought this was another PEZGolf thread. :-D

 

 

 

Looks like most people don't like the idea based upon the GolFWRX ratings"

Your Reaction?
  • LIKE25
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW2
  • LOL2
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP7
  • OB6
  • SHANK52
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The world is changing to one where people aspired to challenging goals and failure was an incentive to do better or approach things differently to a culture of everyone should get a trophy and everyone is a winner. 

I try and par every hole. Right now I only par about three a round. But that keeps me aiming for a goal and benchmark. I'd probably be worse than I already am if I played this feel good par proposed system. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I voted yes, but only for one reason. I play on a very long course, with  very long holes. My suggestion would be to re-look at the length of any par. We have a par 4 on my course that can't be reached by the club pro unless it is summer, so surely that is wrong. Maybe the answer is to look at what tees are used by which golfers ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no. Current par is the number everyone is tested by, and/or compared to. 

Now I think it's ok for the individual to have their own reference number. In my case, when I go out, I am always looking at the number 80. That's the number I am aiming at. Sometimes I am a little better than 80, most times I am not

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

46 minutes ago, paininthenuts said:

I voted yes, but only for one reason. I play on a very long course, with  very long holes. My suggestion would be to re-look at the length of any par. We have a par 4 on my course that can't be reached by the club pro unless it is summer, so surely that is wrong. Maybe the answer is to look at what tees are used by which golfers ?

The club pro not reaching the hole in the winter is not necessarily a good metric. We have three par 4 that are not reachable in the winter by 99.97% of the players from the tips. 474 , 506 and 468 yards where the first and last ones are against a wind in the winter time. There are only a couple players I know who can reach with driver and iron in 40F weather, and I know of a few more. Many mid-cappers are playing their hybrids and fairway woods from the blue tees which are about 20-30 yards shorter. The rest of the golfers just don't expect to make a regulation par in the winter. Most even have trouble in the summer, but that doesn't make them par 5 holes. It just means they should be playing the shorter course or the red (ladies) tees which are still 6000 yards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

19 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The club pro not reaching the hole in the winter is not necessarily a good metric. We have three par 4 that are not reachable in the winter by 99.97% of the players from the tips. 474 , 506 and 468 yards where the first and last ones are against a wind in the winter time. There are only a couple players I know who can reach with driver and iron in 40F weather, and I know of a few more. Many mid-cappers are playing their hybrids and fairway woods from the blue tees which are about 20-30 yards shorter. The rest of the golfers just don't expect to make a regulation par in the winter. Most even have trouble in the summer, but that doesn't make them par 5 holes. It just means they should be playing the shorter course or the red (ladies) tees which are still 6000 yards.

By pretty much anyone's standards that hole is extremely long for a par 4 and actually hovers right around what most courses would consider a typical par 5. However, having a par 4 that long probably goes a decent way towards a higher course rating, and on a course with a higher rating I'd expect to have either longer hole lengths, more trouble via hazards and OB, or both.That being said, he said the course Pro couldn't reach unless it was summer, not that he couldn't reach it in the winter. So that sounds to me like that hole probably plays longer than it should for a par 4. It would be helpful if we knew which hole it was on what course so that we could make an evaluation of it ourselves though.

Edited by Jeremie Boop
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I fully support the practice that many higher handicappers use, that of defining a "personal par" for themselves on every hole, I think it offers them a goal that they can meet and occasionally exceed.  Net par is also there for a player to measure himself by, assuming he's avid enough to want to establish a handicap, official or otherwise.

I agree that net par is basically the same measure since HCPs already track pretty accurately by driving distance. The guy's system also makes your expected score all about distance, which does not reflect reality. Distance is a bit more important, but accuracy is a significant part of scoring. Better players tend to be both longer and more accurate than higher HCPs, but not all long players are accurate enough to score up to their distance potential.

Also it seems that the suggested system would require extra signage on each hole describing the par from each tee for each player tier. This extra signage could just as easily convey the net par for their HCP for each tee. If no extra signage is provided than some math on the tee is required to figure either 'new par' or 'net par'. So no real advantage that I see.

The whole tee-it-forward campaign is about moving up so that you will be playing closer to your 'personal par' based on your HCP / tee distance. IMO the lack of a decent range of tees for a wide range of skills is more the issue than 'par' itself. Focus new golfers on their reduction in total score and HCP improvement, which is usually encouraging. If you've plateaued, you've plateaued under any scoring system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

By pretty much anyone's standards that hole is extremely long for a par 4 and actually hovers right around what most courses would consider a typical par 5. However, having a par 4 that long probably goes a decent way towards a higher course rating, and on a course with a higher rating I'd expect to have either longer hole lengths, more trouble via hazards and OB, or both.That being said, he said the course Pro couldn't reach unless it was summer, not that he couldn't reach it in the winter. So that sounds to me like that hole probably plays longer than it should for a par 5. It would be helpful if we knew which hole it was on what course so that we could make an evaluation of it ourselves though.

First of all, it's crazy to play the tips in the winter. You'll even find me on the ladies tees when the temperatures are in the 30s, if I'm even on the course.

IIRC, the hole he is talking about is right around 475 yards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1839 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasfeb21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Let's see... how many things can you do on a golf course?  Uh, fling golf, foot golf, regular golf, sled in the winter, ice skate on the ponds, cross-country ski, have keggers, have parties, have sex... the list goes on.  Mary Queen of Scots is turning over in her grave.
    • Tiger’s driving could be more erratic than Jack’s.    Driving: Jack (I think they were equal in distance relative to the equipment they were  playing, but Jack stayed out of the shit) Approach (75-250 yards): Wash. Jack takes the longer end (mainly because of some amazing 1 and 2 iron shots). Tiger takes the shorter end. Short Game: Tiger not close. Putting: Wash. Both of them in pressure situations.    Recovery: Tiger Mental: That’s a wash. Performance under pressure: Both How much better than everyone else was Tiger in his prime vs Jack on his prime? Tiger set the bar so high when he was in his prime that most guys behind him weren’t even in the same time zone let alone, the same tour. Jack was pretty damn good but he wasn’t as dominant as Tiger and that’s where Tiger is so much greater than Jack and that’s what makes him the GOAT.  
    • It seems it would be difficult to get the ball to stop on the green. Bump and run can be judged. But let’s say a 150-170yd…it’d be hard to hurl the ball far enough to get there but with a high enough trajectory to stay on the green. Seems like every shot outside 100yds would have to be a bump and run.
    • For those who have tried golf a few times and find it too frustrating(like my wife), I can see where this might be fun for some. Consider me open minded. But that is coming from a snow boarder and someone who also enjoys disc golf as well.  🙂
    • They probably have to pay the same rates so it won’t hurt the course in that aspect.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. BC-to-MI
      BC-to-MI
      (27 years old)
    2. dannyh
      dannyh
      (35 years old)
    3. Greg 504
      Greg 504
      (50 years old)
    4. Rukus43
      Rukus43
      (35 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...