question for golfers ??

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:43 pm

I'm not a golfer--never have--never will be
---but that's not important--
I do pay passing attention to professional golf
--I watch some matches just to see real pros
doing what they do best--
my question is:
what significance is "par" on a course that the best in
the world can't even match--
I mean I'm watching this thing on today and only one guy--
one in the whole world is EVEN !!!
Who the hell sets "par" and what does it mean
if no one can reach it ??

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:49 pm

it's a whitey establishment thing to keep minorities in their place

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:59 pm

Par is determined by a federation which maintains a sizeable monopoly on interstellar trade and holds considerable sway in the Galactic Republic, even managing to gain a seat in the Senate on the same level as a member world. In particular, they hold maps of hyperspace routes closely rather than sharing them, enabling them to cement their hold over trade routes. Only the Jedi and the Office of the Chancellor are able to maintain maps of similar quality.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:28 pm

somehow I knew you guys would
come through with some great insight !!
thanks

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:34 pm

These guys don't have a problem reaching the green in regulation. This U.S. Open is being played on a tight course. If these guys don't hit the fairway with their tee shots, then they are in deep trouble. It doesn't help much when some holes only have about 50 across to land your ball within.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:52 pm

Par is the score that a scratch or better golfer would be expected to shoot on a hole. Simply put, it is assumed that a scratch golfer averages 250 yards or better off the tee. Therefore, any whole that is 250 yards or less would be a par 3 (one stroke to reach and 2 to putt). Any hole less than 500 yards would be a par 4. Any hole over 500 yards (major championships excepted) is a par 5.

What par does not factor in is the difficulty of the course itself. That is where the USGA course ratings come into play. Winged Foot West is, from the blue tees, par 72 and measures 7,229 yards with a course rating of 73.2 and a slope rating of 138. For the US Open, two of the par 5's are shortened just enough to be called par 4s. Therefore, the par value for the course is 70 for the US Open Championship.

The rating is the true assessment of what a person holding a scratch or better handicap is expected to shoot. The slope is an estimation of what an average hacker would shoot. As you can see, the course rating for Winged Foot is a full 3 shoots over the par value for the course. Which explains why nobody is breaking par.

Well, that and the evil Trade Federation spaceships.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:54 pm

so--
my point is that if the best in the world can't
make this "par" then what's the purpose of
par being so low--
why not just make par for every hole 1 and
keep score that way ???

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:34 am

Wolfman wrote:so--
my point is that if the best in the world can't
make this "par" then what's the purpose of
par being so low--
why not just make par for every hole 1 and
keep score that way ???

The players are paring plenty of holes. In fact, they par more holes than they bogey. The reason the scores are so high is that they are not scoring a lot of birdies. Which would support the argument that the par values for the course are in line.

lk_pick1 · Post by **lk_pick1** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:37 am

Keep in mind, that in professional tournaments, the par isn't really an issue.

However, in the world I live in, the man I live with is basically an 8 to 10 over par here at home and I'm an 80 to 100 handicap.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:44 am

Par, in a nutshell, is based up on how many shots it takes an "expert player" to hit the green(assuming no errant shots), plus two...the "plus two" being putts.

For example, a par 4 requires a properly placed tee shot(usually, but not always a drive), and then the second shot (known as an "approach") is hit on the green, and then you are allowed two putts to put it in(all "par" scenarios allow for two putts).

But to a casual fan, it might seem odd. The whole idea and tradition behind the US Open (and all of the other major championships), is to put the best players in the world on the toughest course possible. Under different grooming conditions, those same guys might all hit several strokes under par. But for Open purposes, they're looking for (numerically) high scores. To do this, they leave the rough much longer, which makes it much more difficult to get errant shots back into a good position. They also, as a general rule, make the greens as "slippery" as possible, and try and place the pins in locations that often make it inadvisable to try and place the approach very close to the pin.

So, just because they make it hard to putt out in two shots every time, and just because they maintain the rough to cause errant shots to be punished more severely than they would be under "non-Major" conditions, it still doesn't affect the par rating.

There are actually other course rankings that indicate difficulty. "Rating" and "Slope" are the two commonly used one, "slope" probably being the more important of the two. You can have two different Par 72 courses, and they could be of very different Slope, and one would expect that a given group of players would score (numerically) higher on the one with the higher(more difficult) slope. (Winged Foot is a Par 70 -- missing one Par 5 from both front and back sides. Par 5's provide the big-hitting pros with an opportunity to put their second shot onto the green, creating an eagle opportunity, or at least an easy birdie, so a par 70 course is often harder to put up quite the low scores than a par 72).

Hope that helps.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:54 am

lk_pick1 wrote:I'm an 80 to 100 handicap.

For God's sake, please shut the fuck up.

Last I fucking checked, the USGA doesn't give out handicaps that cover a 20 stroke span, you flaming tard.

Probably best to not come in here talking about your "handicap," when you don't know what a "handicap" actually is.

The only "handicap" you have is your fucking face and your brain.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:57 am

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:15 am

^^^^^

best answer yet !!
(-:

Qbert · Post by **Qbert** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:45 am

Roach

its NOT cheating to use a low compression ball.

they FLY very Far.

however, low compression balls DON'T Spin around the Greens.

so, Pick your Poison.

the Precept MC Lady has some Men's Tournament Wins...on lower Tours---->those guys are STILL better than us.....fyi.

the CORRECT # of dimples on a golf ball = what the MFG. says it is....if it conforms to the USGA Rules for "distance?"--->then its Legal.

not speaking for Dins--->i think he's fishing this weekend.

just trying to help the sheep over the fence.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:25 pm

Roach wrote:Is it cheating top use a 80 compression "woman's ball" in a man's tourney?

I dunno --

Is it "cheating" God/Darwins plan to have sex with other men?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using an 80 compression ball -- as long as it doesn't say "Lady" on the cover, you flaming homo.

Newsflash, faggot -- you can buy that same Lady ball without the "Lady" and pink writing on it. It's called a "Laddie"...tell me you knew?

Nothing inherently wrong with low compression balls...DT So/Lo, Loco Crazy Long, Nike Mojo Soft...there's a bunch of them out there. And it certainly isn't "unmanly" to use them.

BUT...go ahead and assume if you retreat to that Shrine Of Manhood, the golf course...with any piece of equipment that says "Lady," or "womens" on it...you're about 3 fuzzy navels with a lemon twist away from frequenting bathhouses.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:49 am

Wolfman wrote: my question is:
what significance is "par"

I am most qualified to answer that question; however I am not composed enough at the moment....I'll get back to you....

Sincerely,

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:50 am

The Seer wrote:
Wolfman wrote: my question is:
what significance is "par"

I am most qualified to answer that question; however I am not composed enough at the moment....I'll get back to you....

Sincerely,

What he said...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:12 am

Roach wrote:If you were a true healthy male, this wouldn't worry you so, and you wouldn't pull the homo card.

Uhh...you ARE familiar with Dinsdale's posting career, right?

Dude's been teetering for a long, long time now.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:57 pm

Roach, Roach, Roach...

Normally, I'd write a 40,00 word essay as to why you're such a flaming homo, but in this case, it really isn't warrated(but...it's me -- it'll probably turn into one by the time I get to "submit").

So, based upon the primise that it's totally cool and manly to play golf with a women's ball, because you're so "secure in your sexuality," and I'm not...

Instead of debating the ins and outs of this, let's merely follow your statement to its logical conclusion --

So, Roach -- are those panties you're wearing comfortable?

Women say they are, and if they are in fact more comfortable, I'm assuming you're "comfortable enough in your sexuality" to wear them?

Where are we drawing the line here?

Do you carry your set of women's clubs in one of those spiffy pink PING bags(which you invariably transport in your pink Jetta)?

Are you "comfortable" enough in your sexuality that experimenting with a little fellatio in high school was "no big deal?"

Do you sit when you pee?

I mean, where exactly are we drawing the line between androgenous "comfort with our sexuality" and not being a faggot?

You'll blow a dude to completion, since you're comfortable enough with your devout heteroness, but you have to draw the line at swallowing, because that would be "gay?"

Do you join Ken for a rousing round of golf from the red tees?

Me? Unlike yourself, I'm looking to define the lines between men and women, whereas you're apparently bound and determined to blur them.

NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT, ROACH!!!!

But, let the record show that you attempted to smack me by defending (and even hinting that you endorse, and possibly practice) womanly behaviors by men. Nice ruse...but don't try and pass it off as anything but that...a ruse.

Your secret is out, bud. I hope that weak drive-by was worth it.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:17 pm

e wrote:
In the world you live in, 11 year olds bounce colored golf balls off your face trying to win a free round of putt-putt.

:)

Rack the hell outta this thread.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:44 pm

You see Phil, you want to hit the ball over there, AWAY from the hospitality tent.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:27 pm

BSmack wrote:You see Phil, you want to hit the ball over there, AWAY from the hospitality tent.

RACK!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:33 pm

Roach wrote:But yeah you could say he is teetering. At least sexually.

So, see if I'm following your logic here --

YOU play with women's golf equipment, and this somehow leads to some logical conclusion that I have issues with my sexuality?

Ohhhhhhkay.

Do you get confused when trying to decide which restroom is appropriate for you?

T1B

question for golfers ??

question for golfers ??

Re: question for golfers ??

Re: question for golfers ??