Is PAR more of a problem than just shooting it?

[Badams69]

YOUTUBE TV AND YOUTUBE are down ......SO forgive me ahead of time

 

A friend of mine (best golfer I will ever know ..... 15 rounds of 62 or below including 6 rounds sub sixty) and myself discuss this topic often .....

How "par" and your standing relative to it, is not helpful to most golfers while quite possibly wholly irrelevant and even anti-good-golf.

Heck even TV golf is based around score relative to par, "going for it in two", BIRDIE PUTT, .....on and on rarely touching on the actual score of 270 or such.

If .......(humor me) the total strokes is all that matters, then why do so many people allow par (a somewhat arbitrary dictator of a reasonable score on a hole) to dictate what they will or won't try on a give hole.

If the total strokes are what really matters ......and some holes are 25% longer or more difficult than others and there are 18 of them ....... then why whole numbers for an expected score?

Why not 4.25 for x,y or z hole and 3.75 for another??? 

230 yd par three over a gorge?

Is it really???? .......................Probably more 5's made on that hole on any given day than on the easiest par 5 that day. (see I fell into the trap myself)

As some of you know all too well ...... it is difficult to stand on a par 4 where you know you shouldn't hit driver --- BUTTTT it is the longest par 4 ..... so what do most of us do - likely because it says PAR 4? When this is absolutely counter productive to achieving our best overall score that day. 

 

My point is simply ....... why do we fall into the trap?  Why don't we all focus more on the final tally than how we stand relative to this arbitrary number which so few attain over the course of all 18, 36, 54 or 72 holes?

 

 

[Rusty1885]

Well back in the days, bogey was the gold standard for golf the Scottish or Brit even wrote the song about it. It’s not til us Yankees start messing about. 

 

Ive never had an issue with reaching fairways because when I’m playing on a public courses, I tee from whites unless I’m playing with my 4some and even that half the time we play from white tee, and 3 of us are low single and a 12 hc. Yes, we’d all messing about on the challenging par 3s but only the first time around.  

 

I don’t know of any courses that put white tee 225+ yard on par 3s so I’m pretty safe there:)

[Badams69]

Good points.

 

Example of what I'm trying to say:

How many golfers do you see sweat their hindquarters off trying to make that 6 foot par putt ..... yet obviously see a similar putt for bogey or double as far less worth their full attention.  Or grind a birdie but see eagle as a treat.

None of these strokes are any less vital than another, yet psychologically they obviously are valued as such.

[DaveP043]

I understand the question, and agree that we should always try to make the best score we canon each hole, rather than being concerned with "par".   I've heard lots of guys say "This is too long for a par 4", but I've never heard anyone say that a hole is too short to be a par 5.  yet it can be the identical hole, with a different "label".  A player will try an ill-advised 3-wood to reach that hole in two when its a par 4, but will lay up and wedge it on if you call it a par 5.    For better or for worse, we're stuck with these labels.  Its up to each of us as individuals to ignore the label when we're deciding the prudent play.

[Mr. 82]

10 hours ago, Badams69 said:

My point is simply ....... why do we fall into the trap?  Why don't we all focus more on the final tally than how we stand relative to this arbitrary number which so few attain over the course of all 18, 36, 54 or 72 holes?

I don't.  And I believe I have argued this very point multiple times here on MGS.  And if not here, I know I have certainly commented on it over at Geoff Shackelford's blog.

Count the strokes up at the end of the round, and the lower number always wins.  Par is irrelevant.

[Mr. 82]

11 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I understand the question, and agree that we should always try to make the best score we canon each hole, rather than being concerned with "par".   I've heard lots of guys say "This is too long for a par 4", but I've never heard anyone say that a hole is too short to be a par 5.  yet it can be the identical hole, with a different "label".  A player will try an ill-advised 3-wood to reach that hole in two when its a par 4, but will lay up and wedge it on if you call it a par 5.    For better or for worse, we're stuck with these labels.  Its up to each of us as individuals to ignore the label when we're deciding the prudent play.

In my round on Monday, playing in a one-day event on a course I had never seen before, I took creative liberty on a few holes, where I intentionally missed greens, so that I might have the opportunity to chip the ball closer to the hole than a 60+ foot putt would afford me the best opportunity.

Par is a mind game.  Focusing on par on holes will often times destroy confidence in a golfer if they miss that number.  It also serves as a barometer against fellow competitors in a match, but nothing more.  I'd love to see a player at the US Open quote their strokes per round in a press conference, rather than how many over or under par they are.  Because to a man, they all know that the USGA manipulates every course they contest their championships on to a par 70 number.  And often times the announcers will make a mention of the fact that a few holes are "par 5 for the members" when the USGA lists that hole as a par 4, even though that hole might be upwards of 525 yards.

I will point the finger at the USGA only in saying that they've contrived the par barometer to the point where it has become a running joke.  Go out and hit the ball, and get it in the hole in the least strokes possible.  I guess the only thing par is good for identifying is whether or not you made an eagle, birdie, par, bogey, or worse on a hole.

[Angry Yeti]

I like to think that mental battle of beating "PAR" on specific holes is part of the fun. It divides the game from a single large test of skill to a series of smaller challenges building to the whole. It may be my personal preference, but I think that helps me enjoy the game. If I play the same course multiple times I almost develop a relationship with specific holes. "#5 bested me today" or "I managed to one up #7 yesterday". How often is a high scoring day eased by getting a birdie on a hole that normally gets your goat? 

 

Sure, it may artificially inflate the importance of specific shots. That's a good thing in my book! It's a lesser form of sinking a put to take a hole in a skins game (and without the potential loss of $$). Some people will like it, others may grow to hate it.

 

As to why people allow PAR to dictate what they personally expect, I think there is a substantial population of golfers who are misinformed or carry unrealistic expectations. I grew up with my father saying "PAR is what the professionals aim to hit" and playing bogey golf is a good day. I don't expect to be knocking down 3's like Steph Curry, why would I expect to score as well as pro's in golf? For the folks I've played with though, that is way outside the norm. They watched the Masters on TV and think the pro's winning a tourney at 12 under translates to the average Joe hitting single digits on a single round.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The handicap system gives us all our own realistic par for each hole individually.

However, the USGA leaving the ratings to the state associations doesn't help,

and the USGA itself isn't impressive as a sanctioning body in and of itself.

The undue influence of pro golf, a sport which should be of  virtually no interest to the USGA just because they conduct a few "open" events,

brings the absurd 470 yard par 4s into play.

I recommend the following maximums.

Par 3....220 yards to middle of green.

Par 4....450 yards to middle of green.

Par 5....540 yards to middle of green.

The maximums should only apply to the longest holes on the course.

I don't care if the tour guys shoot too many 62s and 63s.

Freaks should card freaky scores.

It makes no sense to oversee a recreation sport with standards relevant only to elite players.

 

 

[StrokerAce]

you need a marker/boundary post/set point, etc. to measure yourself against in order to see improvement.

but golf is a funny game in a way that the same 'PAR' number you speak of is for every living breathing person who plays the course - from the first time amateur to the 18 time major winner.... sure, there are separate tee boxes and make 'PAR' a bit more difficult but I'm not sure that is enough to differentiate skill levels.

Perhaps it should be different so that you don't feel so bad for bogeying a 455 par 4....maybe they should make the size of the cup 5 1/4 inches instead of 4 1/4 for amateurs?

[fixyurdivot]

I'm really not getting this thread.  You play holes one at a time.  For me, shooting a scorecard with pars across the board is a goal each time I play a round - because that would yield the lowest total score of my golf life.  For the vast majority of amateur players, making par on a course of average difficulty is a challenge.  I don't stand on the tee thinking par only.  On par 3's (your 230 over a gorge the exception), I'm always thinking birdie.  Same goes for shorter par 4's and 5's.  

[null]

Like everything in life - people need to learn that golf is relative.  You need to make your own "par".  Just like one shouldn't spend money outside of his or her means, a golfer shouldn't worry about what the Par is on a scorecard if it is an unrealistic score.  The moment a golfer starts playing from the correct tees and worrying about their own score relative to their own ability is when he or she will begin enjoying the game more.

Just another example of how golf is a microcosm of life in general.

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, GSwag said:

In my round on Monday, playing in a one-day event on a course I had never seen before, I took creative liberty on a few holes, where I intentionally missed greens, so that I might have the opportunity to chip the ball closer to the hole than a 60+ foot putt would afford me the best opportunity.

Par is a mind game.  Focusing on par on holes will often times destroy confidence in a golfer if they miss that number.  It also serves as a barometer against fellow competitors in a match, but nothing more.  I'd love to see a player at the US Open quote their strokes per round in a press conference, rather than how many over or under par they are.  Because to a man, they all know that the USGA manipulates every course they contest their championships on to a par 70 number.  And often times the announcers will make a mention of the fact that a few holes are "par 5 for the members" when the USGA lists that hole as a par 4, even though that hole might be upwards of 525 yards.

What you call creative liberty is just what I suggest, making the decision that is likely to get you the lowest possible score, no matter what the "par label" says.  For me, however, I'd almost always rather be putting than chipping.  To each his own.

I don't have a problem with the USGA, or the PGA Tour, changing par 5s to par 4s.  For most tour pros, hitting a 520 yard hole with an iron second shot is relatively easy, so it SHOULD play as a par 4.  Par only really enters into the equation as a measuring stick for televised stroke play tournaments.  It would be tough to figure out relative standings when Joe has taken 48 strokes through 13 holes, while Fred has taken 62 through 17.  

2 hours ago, NiftyNiblick said:

However, the USGA leaving the ratings to the state associations doesn't help,

and the USGA itself isn't impressive as a sanctioning body in and of itself.

The undue influence of pro golf, a sport which should be of  virtually no interest to the USGA just because they conduct a few "open" events,

brings the absurd 470 yard par 4s into play.

As far as I know, each golf course determines the par it writes on the scorecard, not any of the "Associations".  The USGA, working with the local associations, may ask a course to revise par designations that are not in general accordance with its guidelines, which can be found here:

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14401

The USGA Course Rating manual is pretty detailed and relatively user-independent, so I don't believe that leaving the Course and Slope Ratings in the hands of state and local associations is really a problem.  Each hole is rated separately for both CR and Slope, so a single hole may rate as 4.5 from a Course Rating standpoint.

And I really don't understand what influence you think pro golf has had on the par that's listed for each hole on your course.  From what I can find, the current guidelines for par vs yardage have been in effect since 1956.

[TheWahoo]

From my perspective, "par" is just a number that is what you perceived it to be or need it to be.   That is to say, my game is a matter of "personal pars".    Typically, they relate to what the scorecard may label a Par 4.   On occasions, a scorecard Par 3, due to length.  For example, if a scorecard Par 4 relates to a hole where I know I cannot reach it in two strokes, for me, it becomes a "personal Par 5".    If I score a 5, I feel like I made par, if I happen to score a 4, that's a personal birdie for me.  Even, using "personal pars" my objective is not to make a bogie.  A scorecard that reflects a total par of 72, could be a personal total of 82.  That's not to say that I am not going to score an 82 and most times I don't, but it is a better personal goal and a means to evaluated my game.  

[palvord]

Par is irrelevant in my game.  I always try to score the lowest total possible.  If I so happen to par or birdie a hole according to the label, that typically helps me have the lowest score possible. 

My strategy on a hole is always dependent on the yardage and the hazards rather than the label of par.  

Par is also irrelevant in a professional stroke play event because the winner is always the player with the least amount of strokes.  It just so happens that we identify who that player is by their relation to par. 

For example, if par is 72 at a professional event, it may be easier for the television viewer to understand that Player A won because they shot -14, rather than Player A won with a 274.

[GB13]

I agree with @TheWahoo, however, I always make my personal Par72. On my home course, 10 and 11 are par 4's but I look at them as par 3's. Likewise, 12 is a par 3, but I call it a par 4, 14 is a par 4 but I call it a par 5. I always want my personal Par to be par for the course, so I still focus on par as the goal, I just ignore what someone else thought the par should be. 

[NiftyNiblick]

57 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 

I don't have a problem with the USGA, or the PGA Tour, changing par 5s to par 4s.

I do...big time.

 

[DaveP043]

28 minutes ago, NiftyNiblick said:

I do...big time.

Why?  Par is intended to be a measure of the score a good player should be expected to achieve most of the time.  For these players, who can almost always reach a 520-yard hole with an iron second shot, they should be expected to make a 4 most of the time.  In many cases (#8 and #16 at Pinehurst #2 some to mind), there's not enough room on the golf course to make these holes long enough to be played as par 5 by these outstanding players.

[Kenny B]

3 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

I'm really not getting this thread.  You play holes one at a time.  For me, shooting a scorecard with pars across the board is a goal each time I play a round - because that would yield the lowest total score of my golf life.  For the vast majority of amateur players, making par on a course of average difficulty is a challenge.  I don't stand on the tee thinking par only.  On par 3's (your 230 over a gorge the exception), I'm always thinking birdie.  Same goes for shorter par 4's and 5's.  

I'm not really getting this thread either.  Maybe I would if I was closer to a scratch player, but I never will be.  

I always try to play each hole to achieve the best possible score.  I never get on a tee and think that this is a birdie opportunity.  For me I just like to string a few good shots together.  If I make a birdie, great!  If I make a par, fine.  If I make a bogey, well I know I'm going to do that too.  It's doubles that are hard to take.  Sometimes on the longer par 4's, I know I can't reach the green if I have a headwind.  However, unlike what others have said, I don't think about playing the hole as a par 5.  I treat the hole as an opportunity to show off short game skills.  Doesn't always work, but I gave it a shot.  I almost never play holes differently depending on hazards.  I can't remember the last time I teed off with less than driver thinking I would be better off laying up.  I need to get as close as I can!!  When I don't think about par or my score on each hole, I have a much better time and usually score better.

[NiftyNiblick]

26 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Why?  Par is intended to be a measure of the score a good player should be expected to achieve most of the time.  For these players, who can almost always reach a 520-yard hole with an iron second shot, they should be expected to make a 4 most of the time.  In many cases (#8 and #16 at Pinehurst #2 some to mind), there's not enough room on the golf course to make these holes long enough to be played as par 5 by these outstanding players.

I think par should represent the abilities of typical good players at USGA member clubs, not the abilities of genetic freaks on the PGA Tour. 

I go further to think that courses built to challenge that small group of players are a difficult to defend waste of real estate.

We'd better see their actual abilities if they were shooting 61 or 62 on courses meant for us. The guy who sticks in a 59 wins.

I freely admit that it's nothing more than a personal opinion, but we're all allowed to have those.

The PGA Tour has its own authority body.

The USGA should belong to us. 

Their handful of "open" events are simply an invitation for the pros to show us what they can do against the best amateur players,

and those invitees, other than former champions,

should have to play against amateurs in qualifier tournaments every year without their tour earnings being a factor of any kind.

And there should also be a limitation on how many of them can play.  I'm good with 72 amateurs and 72 pros,

with a specified number of the latter being PGA club pros.

The US Open shouldn't be treated like a PGA Tour Event because it's the USGA's tournament and the pros are merely invited.

It should be treated just like the US Amateur only pros are allowed to compete.

If they want to be National Open Champion, the pros will comply with those stipulations.

If they don't, they don't have to play.

 

But the USGA itself doesn't want to do that because they want to be a major influence in tour golf as well.

 

 

 

[DaveP043]

34 minutes ago, NiftyNiblick said:

I think par should represent the abilities of typical good players at USGA member clubs, not the abilities of genetic freaks on the PGA Tour. 

I'll only quote and respond to the part of this that has to do with "par".  Par on your course, and on mine, is based on the USGA recommendations, and those numbers DO relate to what "good" players should be able to shoot on each hole.  And I really don't care if the winner at Pinehurst shoots a 280 (-8) or a 280 (-4) or a 280 (even par).  The only thing that the stated par in a PGA or USGA event effects is the few scoring records that are maintained relative to par.  

The rest of your response really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, as far as I can tell.

[NiftyNiblick]

28 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'll only quote and respond to the part of this that has to do with "par".  Par on your course, and on mine, is based on the USGA recommendations, and those numbers DO relate to what "good" players should be able to shoot on each hole.  And I really don't care if the winner at Pinehurst shoots a 280 (-8) or a 280 (-4) or a 280 (even par).  The only thing that the stated par in a PGA or USGA event effects is the few scoring records that are maintained relative to par.  

The rest of your response really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, as far as I can tell.

I guess that I'm not understanding, Dave.

If the members play the hole as a 502 yard par 5, making it a par 4 for the pro tournament doesn't makes any sense to me.  It's not the PGA Tour's hole to change the par. it's the members' hole.  If the tour pros all make fours and threes on it, those fours and threes should be regarded as birdies and eagles because the pros make a lot more birdies and eagles than we do on the same holes. 

And if the winner of a major tournament wins with 280,

then I just can't understand the purpose of a course setup making the winner among the best players in the world shoot 280. 

280 should be what the club champion cards.  If the tournament winner--he being a PGA Tour player--doesn't average in the sixties for his four rounds,

especially in good weather,

then the course setup was ludicrous.

I guess it's why I don't like to watch pro golf.

I'd like it more if the pros were shooting lights out on a course that the club champion can play in 70 or 72 strokes.

The way it is now, it's a completely different game as opposed to the one I played and have interest in.

We don't get to see what the pros can do under our conditions. That's what would be more interesting to me.

 

[DaveP043]

17 minutes ago, NiftyNiblick said:

I guess that I'm not understanding, Dave.

If the members play the hole as a 502 yard par 5, making it a par 4 for the pro tournament doesn't makes any sense to me.  It's not the PGA Tour's hole to change the par. it's the members' hole.  If the tour pros all make fours and threes on it, those fours and threes should be regarded as birdies and eagles because the pros make a lot more birdies and eagles than we do on the same holes. 

And if the winner of a major tournament wins with 280,

then I just can't understand the purpose of a course setup making the winner among the best players in the world shoot 280. 

280 should be what the club champion cards.  If the tournament winner--he being a PGA Tour player--doesn't average in the sixties for his four rounds,

especially in good weather,

then the course setup was ludicrous.

I guess it's why I don't like to watch pro golf.

I'd like it more if the pros were shooting lights out on a course that the club champion can play in 70 or 72 strokes.

The way it is now, it's a completely different game as opposed to the one I played and have interest in.

We don't get to see what the pros can do under our conditions. That's what would be more interesting to me.

Two separate issues, I think.  As I said before, I don't have a problem with the :definition" of par being altered slightly for the PGA Tour, expanding the recommended length for a par-4 to 500 yards or even more.  Obviously you disagree.  The second issue regards scoring and course set-up on tour, which seems a separate topic, so I started another thread:

 

[Mr. 82]

2 hours ago, Kenny B said:

I never get on a tee and think that this is a birdie opportunity.  

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but every time I tee it up on a "par 3" I'm hoping I finally end the "he's never had a hole-in-one" lifetime drought.  Heck, I might even quit the game if I ever canned one for an ace.

 

 

 

Nah, I'll just keep playing and hoping I can repeat the feat on the next par 3, and the next one, and the next one.  Yeah, wishful thinking all the way around.

[Badams69]

4 hours ago, Kenny B said:

I'm not really getting this thread either.  Maybe I would if I was closer to a scratch player, but I never will be.  

I always try to play each hole to achieve the best possible score.  I never get on a tee and think that this is a birdie opportunity.  For me I just like to string a few good shots together.  If I make a birdie, great!  If I make a par, fine.  If I make a bogey, well I know I'm going to do that too.  It's doubles that are hard to take.  Sometimes on the longer par 4's, I know I can't reach the green if I have a headwind.  However, unlike what others have said, I don't think about playing the hole as a par 5.  I treat the hole as an opportunity to show off short game skills.  Doesn't always work, but I gave it a shot.  I almost never play holes differently depending on hazards.  I can't remember the last time I teed off with less than driver thinking I would be better off laying up.  I need to get as close as I can!!  When I don't think about par or my score on each hole, I have a much better time and usually score better.

Actually you guys sound like you "get it" entirely!

My exact point is related to shooting YOUR BEST SCORE!  

My issue is not with anyone or any entity it revolves around what I sense is a general approach that often stems from the concept of par.  Making some feel they should or shouldn't do something that is outside their true wheelhouse.  Every stroke counts equally yet relation to par seems to cause a higher portion of the golfing world to lose sight of this.

[fixyurdivot]

4 minutes ago, Badams69 said:

Actually you guys sound like you "get it" entirely!

My exact point is related to shooting YOUR BEST SCORE!  

My issue is not with anyone or any entity it revolves around what I sense is a general approach that often stems from the concept of par.  Making some feel they should or shouldn't do something that is outside their true wheelhouse.  Every stroke counts equally yet relation to par seems to cause a higher portion of the golfing world to lose sight of this.

I knew their was an upside to just being slightly better than a bogey golfer. 

[buddyrich8]

Like the thinking of this post. Par, IMHO, IS most definitely an irrelevant concept.  Makes too many people think some strokes carry different values, last I checked they do not.  Although - I've made a fourteen on a hole, and know that last putt to avoid a 15 was as important to me psychologically as any I've ever made.  Otherwise I was headed to the funny farm! 

For the record, I injured my achilles the hole before, but I 'held on' to shoot 84 that day.

 

[GolfSpy_BNG]

As a slightly better than bogey golfer, I stand on the tee thinking fairway or green on a par 3.  After the tee shot I let my location and lie dictate if I am thinking birdie, par, or at worst bogie.  From time to time I will try a miraculous shot through the trees to spice things up but for the most part I play fairly conservative.  However if there is no par then there can't be birdie, eagle, or anything else for that matter.  

[srooch2]

3 things:

That's what makes golf golf. The nerves we suffer standing over a 6 footer for par or birdie. It adds pressure to the situation. It's what separates the weak from the strong. It's part of EVERYTHING in golf, it's why it's an extremely difficult game. It's why the pros are so good and were not... the mental toughness. 

That being said I get your reasoning, for us golfers we shouldn't think like this, an example I had recently during a round is good for this thread. I made an incredible eagle on a tough par 5 on my course, I then carded a 6 on the final par 3. It was devastating! I looked at it like a wiped out my eagle score(which I did). Now if I'd made a 6 on the par 5 and a 3 on the par 3 I wouldn't have felt as bad as I did...weird when you think of it like that, same strokes but it completely changed everything in the round.

This thread made me think of something kind of fun, what if you had a course with NO pars on any hole but rather just a final par. Each hole was no specific length either, just a tee box, fairway, and a green. How would that change someone's mentality when approaching a course? It's hard to picture I know but is actually not a bad idea the more I sit here and type. 

[Badams69]

12 minutes ago, Brewmaster said:

That being said I get your reasoning, for us golfers we shouldn't think like this, an example I had recently during a round is good for this thread. I made an incredible eagle on a tough par 5 on my course, I then carded a 6 on the final par 3. It was devastating! I looked at it like a wiped out my eagle score(which I did). Now if I'd made a 6 on the par 5 and a 3 on the par 3 I wouldn't have felt as bad as I did...weird when you think of it like that, same strokes but it completely changed everything in the round.

This thread made me think of something kind of fun, what if you had a course with NO pars on any hole but rather just a final par. Each hole was no specific length either, just a tee box, fairway, and a green. How would that change someone's mentality when approaching a course? It's hard to picture I know but is actually not a bad idea the more I sit here and type. 

Now you guys are onto what I am trying to say !!!  The scores are what they are - what they are called is just a goose chase  or eagle chase.

Love that concept - it is one myself and the initially mentioned friend, discuss all the time.  What if par didn't exist and we all just navigated the holes as we saw fit.

That makes me think of the following:

Most fun my golf buddies and I ever had in golf was on our home course - 9 hole small town CC. 

6 green resides in a hollow in the far east corner of the course and 2 green in the far West.  

There were four to seven reasonable (depending on who's reason you use) routes to navigate your ball across all the other holes between through and around trees and a predominant winding creek, not to mention a few houses.  We would tee it up and just play for score from 6 green to 2 or the reverse.

None of us ever thought to imagine a "par" for this hole given that 7, 9, 11, or higher could win the hole depending on the day, luck, direction or other.  Yet we loved it as much as any golf we ever played and hit more spectacular shots than we can recall while playing this extraordinary hole !!!

Thanks Brewmaster for hitting the nail on the head!!!

[revkev]

Actually you guys sound like you "get it" entirely!
My exact point is related to shooting YOUR BEST SCORE!  
My issue is not with anyone or any entity it revolves around what I sense is a general approach that often stems from the concept of par.  Making some feel they should or shouldn't do something that is outside their true wheelhouse.  Every stroke counts equally yet relation to par seems to cause a higher portion of the golfing world to lose sight of this.

I get your point and think it’s well taken. As a mid to mid upper single digit handicapper my current average score is 78. But some of that is at my club which is very difficult and includes par 4’s that are 5’s for me. My best scores there are when I ignore par on the ones that play into the wind and play them to make a 5.

It’s a mental test - focusing on making the lowest score possible is always best - but can the golfer succeed in doing that?

That’s a part of the equation for us as well as for guys on tour.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy