"Par is just a number."

Doug Ferguson wonders why Torrey Pines South's No. 6 has to be a par 4 for the U.S. Open and gets Tiger's thoughts.

The sixth hole played as a par 5 at 560 yards last week, and it's worth noting that Woods never reached the green in two in any of his three rounds on the South Course. He didn't even make a birdie at No. 6 until the final round.

The hole will be just over 500 yards as a par 4 in the U.S. Open.

"The USGA just thrives on that,'' Woods said. "Par is just a number. What I mean by that is that Pebble could set up for a 72, and I would have been what, 16-under par? So under par doesn't really matter that much. It's just going out there and shooting a number.''

More than anything, it's a head game.

"When you have four par 5s in a U.S. Open, you always feel a little bit more comfortable because you're going to have some more birdie opportunities,'' he said. "When you get to par 70s and 71s, those opportunities are taken away.''

Comments

[jneu]

I'm always amazed by the enduring weirdness of this topic. Even Tiger contradicts himself: If par is just a number, what difference does it make that there are "birdie opportunities" available on the par-5s?

The tee is here. The hole is there. Fewest strokes wins. What else matters?

[Geoff]

jneu,
I know what you are saying, and as much as I agree, I do love some of the mind games that par plays on players. Particularly at 13 Augusta and the Road Hole. They are better holes because of their par designations tempt players to play shots they might not normally try.

[jneu]

Geoff, isn't it the hole, not the par number, that creates the option for professionals? (Different story for folks like us -- like me, anyway.) Classic half-par holes create opportunities either way, whether you call it a birdie chance as at Augusta or a chance to avoid bogey as the USGA sees it.

As recently as the 1960 Open, the Road Hole played as a par-5. Was it less strategic then? Was a 4 more helpful then, or a 5 less damaging?

[Hawkeye]

Jneu, I would say that in some cases par matters very much in the way a hole is perceived as "good" or "bad". The 15th at Augusta, for instance, is by most people's admission a great risk-reward Par 5, but the shallow, perched green is hardly designed to accept a long approach. If it were classed as a long Par 4, the green complex would likely not work in its favour and the hole would probably not be held in such high esteem - never mind that it plays as a long Par 4 for most of the Masters field. As you usually say, Geoff: thoughts?

[jneu]

To further complicate your example, Hawkeye, the approach from the layup position short of the pond is much more difficult than it appears on television because of the extremity of the downhill slope. So it's hard to say what the safe play really is, even if 5 is your goal.

For the pros, though, making 5 there is a loss to the field, or at least to the other contenders, presumably. That's true regardless of what par is. What you say about how we think about it is no doubt true; I'm just pointing out that thinking about it that way is skewed. Did the Road Hole gain in esteem when the par changed?

[Ronald Montesano]

My perspective says this: par is just a number, an arbitrary distinction in the annals of human analysis and evaluation. In terms of the mindset, then, being under par is orgasmic, while par is just OK. Above par blows bubbles. Tiger doesn't contradict himself necessarily, as long as you understand that the two concepts aren't necessarily contrary nor related.

[Hawkeye]

We seem to agree on the basic principles, jneu, objectively it surely is skewed thinking to put that much emphasis on the concept of par. However, that "head game" is a psychological factor that makes the game more fun both to watch and play, in my opinion.
As for the road hole, the change of par after 1960 didn't matter at all, since in those days the scoreboards at the British Open showed the score in relation to "level fours" and not par. That itself brings me to another great "head game" story from the 1964 Open (I know I sound like an old git, but really, I am only 32...). Tony Lema and Jack Nicklaus crossed paths as a hard-charging Nicklaus was playing the 13th and Lema was playing the 6th, and Lema saw that the score on Nicklaus' board indicated that he was only one stroke behind. Knowing that this would strike fear in the heart of his player, caddie Tip Anderson reminded him that that was the score in relation to fours, and that since Lema had the loop (holes 7-12) ahead, he was realistically three or four strokes in front. This eased him up considerably, and he went on to play the loop in five under fours. In the end, Lema won by five.

[jneu]

A good story about Lema and Jack, Hawkeye, and quick thinking by Tip Anderson. (Though in '64, Jack hadn't quite attained "He knows that you know that he knows" status yet.)

Whatever our level of golf, we play these little head games with ourselves, I guess. When breaking 90 was a big deal to me (I still can't take it for granted at times), I'd keep my running score relative to level 5s, so performance on the par-3s could have a significant effect on my mood; a 2 on the card made up for several other sins. I try not to think that way now, but old habits die hard.

You don't write like you're 32, which I mean as a compliment but when I was 32 I wouldn't have taken it as such. No reason a 32-year-old can't have a strong grounding in history and bring that perspective to understanding the present day. But relatively few do, so I salute you. (Not that I'm that much of an old fart myself, but nobody's called me "Sonny," even on the golf course, in a while.)

[Hawkeye]

Thank you for the kind words!