On Par

Everyone is talking about the course changes at the Arnold Palmer Invitational (a.k.a. Bay Hill). The contours of many greens have been softened to allow for a greater variety of pin placements, bunkers have been rearranged, some greens and tees have been moved, and the course has been slightly lengthened. But what seems to be drawing the most attention is that the course will once again be playing as a par 72, for the first time since two par-5 holes were changed to par-4s in 2007.

     Last night on the Golf Channel, analyst John Hawkins was downright dismissive of the change in par, calling it "meaningless." And I understand his logic: that how you play a hole is – or at least should be, especially for pros –  unaffected by whether you call it a par-4 or -5.

     But is it really?

     I remember having this discussion with a buddy of mine way back when at the beloved Orange Course at the University of Illinois. The 13th hole was a ridiculously short par-5 – I think the card said something just shy of 450 yards (this was back when they only had one set of men's tees, and woods were still made from trees). But it was fairly tight, with OB all the way down the right and a big, yawning bunker pinching off the left side of the fairway. The steep, sloping green was also well protected by two big bunkers in the front. That never kept me from trying to hit the green in two every time, however. In retrospect, this was very bad strategy, as I'm sure I ended up with far more 7s than 4s. Playing for a safe 5 every time would have made much more sense. But I really wanted that eagle! (Image: the 13th at the Orange Course has since been lengthened to just over 500 yards.)

     Then one year the powers-that-be decided the hole should be a par-4. I don't think they shortened it any, and they certainly didn't scale back the sand traps. It was really and truly the exact same hole, just with a new standard for measuring success. I found the change annoying, in part because I couldn't quite decide whether a nice 11-over-par 82, for instance, was as gratifying as a 10-over 82. And also because if I ever did get that 3 (nope), I could no longer legitimately call it an eagle. And I still played the hole the same way.

      My friend, however (let's call him "Rob"), who was more apt to lay up, commented that he now felt compelled to go for the green in two. "Why?" I asked. "Because it's a par-4 now," he replied. "So?" "So on a par 4 you try to hit the green in two." "But it's the same hole!" "No it's not, it's a par-4 now." And so on ...

      And that was the gist of Hawkins's argument on the Golf Channel, that par is just a number.

      But I think Hawkins was missing a couple of things. For one, the holes have been lengthened – hole 4 by a lot, from 460 to 561 yards; hole 16 by a little, from 485 to 511. So they are not the "same holes."

     Even beyond that, I think he's underestimating the psychological difference. Especially at 16; especially on Sunday. Yes, the total number of strokes is what ultimately decides the championship, regardless of the "to par" score. But par is how we keep track during the competition. And to a contending player on Sunday, the difference between facing an easy par-5 instead of a hard par-4 is potentially huge. (Image: pgatour.com "Shot Tracker")

     Ultimately, I don't think it makes a big difference. I've always liked holes where the stroke average is somewhere approaching halfway between 3 and 4, or 4 and 5. It's why I like that drivable par-4s seem to be making a comeback (as long as there's some true risk involved in going for the green). If a hole averages 3.5 strokes, I don't think it makes a huge difference what par is, as long as the golfer has to carefully consider the risks vs. the rewards of "going for it."

     On the whole, I think it's a great idea to return Bay Hill to par 72 – if only because it suits my sense of symmetry.  But also because "birdie opportunities" are more exciting to watch, more crowd-pleasing, than what you might call "bogey-opportunities."

     And that's a big part of what makes Augusta National so appealing – at least before they started trying to hard to "Tiger-proof" the course. Have the efforts made to make the home of The Masters a more difficult test detracted from the tournament? Have they strayed too far from the way Bobby Jones originally intended the course to be played?

     We'll examine that in an upcoming post.

On a marginally related note, I like tidbit of information a lot: "Steve Stricker, No. 2 in the world, returns [to the Arnold Palmer Invitational] for the first time since 2005, mainly because his daughter's spring break in Wisconsin changed by a week." (emphasis added.)