sunshine
Well-known member
So why argue the point then if you don’t even look at the numbers on the leaderboard
Oakmont par 3, 301 yds
- Thread starter Tashyboy
- Start date
? The point being made is that par is talked about before during and after the tournament completely. The number of shots taken is pretty much only talked about once, at the award ceremony. Stating that par is irrelevant is simply not correct. It's not irrelevant to the players, the viewers, the commentators, the media.So why argue the point then if you don’t even look at the numbers on the leaderboard
D
Deleted member 21784
Guest
To be fair they do put visuals up of scores ie this player shot 65 75 70 first 3 rounds
But let's be honest nobody pays attention it's all under par that is the focus
Exactly. I'm not saying ignore the total, just don't pretend that par doesn't play a part. Just watch a pro come off a par 5 with a 5 or 6 and tell them par doesn't matter.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Again though, that's because he's lost a shot on the field, and would be the same no matter what the par of the hole is. Par is relevant to viewers as something we can relate to and a point of reference for how well each player is doing. But it's not relevant in the mind of the pro who just wants to make the lowest number.
Backache
Assistant Pro
The absolute number of shots taken is the way the game is decided and is the most important number.
The score relative to par is a very useful way of comparing players positions with each other when they have completed different numbers of holes.
The two scores are related according to the par you have assigned holes. If a hole is completed somewhere around 3.5 strokes by tournament professionals either a 3 or a 4 can realistically be assigned and remain informative.
The score relative to par is a very useful way of comparing players positions with each other when they have completed different numbers of holes.
The two scores are related according to the par you have assigned holes. If a hole is completed somewhere around 3.5 strokes by tournament professionals either a 3 or a 4 can realistically be assigned and remain informative.
D
Deleted member 21784
Guest
Pros care about par
They don't go oh the cut is 148 ..
They work on to par not numbers as they go round
Neilds
Assistant Pro
How would the pro know if he lost a shot to the field if he didn't know/care about par?
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
He’s hardly “arguing the point” he’s just stating that during play we talk about if a player is over or under par rather than strokes.So why argue the point then if you don’t even look at the numbers on the leaderboard
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Lowest score wins - par , under or over is irrelevant as long as it’s the lowest overall score
Currently the players will be looking at how many shots they are behind the leader
They will look to ensure they are within a certain amount of shots of the leader to ensure they make the cut
When in your monthly medal do you tell people you got a net 69 or a net 2 under
Currently the players will be looking at how many shots they are behind the leader
They will look to ensure they are within a certain amount of shots of the leader to ensure they make the cut
When in your monthly medal do you tell people you got a net 69 or a net 2 under
Backache
Assistant Pro
What pros fundamentally care about is the position they finish in.
During play you can get an idea relative to par , but if a hole is playing significantly harder or easier than the pr you have to adjust according to whether or not you have played that hole.
If the scoring average of a hole is around 3.3 it makes sense to have that hole as a par 3 whatever the length for par to have utility in score comparison.
During play you can get an idea relative to par , but if a hole is playing significantly harder or easier than the pr you have to adjust according to whether or not you have played that hole.
If the scoring average of a hole is around 3.3 it makes sense to have that hole as a par 3 whatever the length for par to have utility in score comparison.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Yeah but if the hole was a par 4 instead of a three the cut is 149! So who cares!
Because everyone else is making a 4 and he made a 5!
Swango1980
Well-known member
Yup, lost a shot on the field, relative to....par
Orikoru
Tour Winner
No, relative to what everyone else got! If he bogeys a hole, you'd say he lost a shot on the field, but if everyone bogeyed it then he hasn't!
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Come on guys,does it really matter?
Just enjoy the golf & look at the score how YOU want to.
Swango1980
Well-known member
But that doesn't happen, does it?
An example from McIlroys round last night. He doubled the Par 3 8th we'd been talking about. At that point, I bet nobody, including himself, were thinking "the average score on this hole for the entire field is x, and McIlroy's score relative to that is y".
What actually happened was that his score became 2 shots worse, and he fell down the leaderboard by 2 shots, because his score relative to par was a double bogey. Conversely, when Reed holed for albatross, the impact on his score on the leaderboard was an improvement of 3 shots relative to the field. Nobody was saying "Reed has improved his score by 2.3 shots, relative to the field". Well, judging by some comments in here, there are some people that seem to do that
If par was irrelevant, then what is its purpose?
Orikoru
Tour Winner
It's relevant to our amateur games, and it's relevant in all sorts of calculations that are done with the course. The only point being made here is that it's irrelevant in the mindset of a pro and how he approaches a hole. Rory was hoping to make a 2, trying to make 3 and avoid a 4, and definitely avoid a 5.. all of which would have still be true if it was a very short par 4.But that doesn't happen, does it?
An example from McIlroys round last night. He doubled the Par 3 8th we'd been talking about. At that point, I bet nobody, including himself, were thinking "the average score on this hole for the entire field is x, and McIlroy's score relative to that is y".
What actually happened was that his score became 2 shots worse, and he fell down the leaderboard by 2 shots, because his score relative to par was a double bogey. Conversely, when Reed holed for albatross, the impact on his score on the leaderboard was an improvement of 3 shots relative to the field. Nobody was saying "Reed has improved his score by 2.3 shots, relative to the field". Well, judging by some comments in here, there are some people that seem to do that
If par was irrelevant, then what is its purpose?
sunshine
Well-known member
But that doesn't happen, does it?
An example from McIlroys round last night. He doubled the Par 3 8th we'd been talking about. At that point, I bet nobody, including himself, were thinking "the average score on this hole for the entire field is x, and McIlroy's score relative to that is y".
What actually happened was that his score became 2 shots worse, and he fell down the leaderboard by 2 shots, because his score relative to par was a double bogey. Conversely, when Reed holed for albatross, the impact on his score on the leaderboard was an improvement of 3 shots relative to the field. Nobody was saying "Reed has improved his score by 2.3 shots, relative to the field". Well, judging by some comments in here, there are some people that seem to do that
If par was irrelevant, then what is its purpose?
Oh my god, can't believe this argument is still running.
The overall score over/under par on the leaderboard serves to compare the golfers. It doesn't matter if the leader is +10 or -10, it's all about his score relative to others, i.e. is he 3 shots ahead, how many players are contending etc.
If a player birdies an easy par 5 where everyone else is making birdie, he doesn't feel he's improved his score against the field. His expected score was 4 already and the field are all expecting to score 4 too.
As a handicap golfer, I'll think the same way in the medal tomorrow. The long par 4 I can't reach in 2... I'll accept a 5 on that hole. It doesn't matter what the stroke index is, I'm thinking about the lowest number of strokes for me.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Ditto
As I've said, I already understand the point you are making. You just fail to understand mine. This is an issue you need to either resolve yourself, or just let it go, because I'm not going to change my view.
