The 19^th Hole

March 19, 2007

It’s Just a Number

The Bay Hill Invitational, Arnold Palmer’s invitational event on the PGA Tour schedule, underwent a facelift prior to this season.  First, Arnie’s name was slapped on the event and the tournament was renamed the Arnold Palmer Invitational.  That seems like a minor change, but it really did seem to exhibit a greater level of respect and recognition of what Mr. Palmer has done and continues to do for the game.

The second change, though, almost seems insubstantial by comparison – depending on who you ask.  Bay Hill, the host course for the tournament, had its par lowered for this year’s event from 72 down to 70.  The course has been slightly lengthened, but the course now plays at a par of 70 for this championship invitational.

The rest of the time, Bay Hill plays to its original par of 72.  Why the change then?  Well, the change seems to come on the heels of the tournament’s history as producing champions that are at least into the double digits under par.  It may not seem like that big of a deal because this tournament is not a major.  But, apparently it either means something to the PGA Tour, Mr. Palmer, or some combination thereof.

What did changing the par manage to do, though?  An excellent player still wound up shaking Palmer’s hand and winning the event.  Vijay Singh is a more than deserving champion and the list of contenders below him were obviously excellent golfers in order to earn an invitational to the limited-field event.  So, par was not changed to yield a higher caliber champion.

That really only leaves on reason for Bay Hill to play to a new par: someone or some people were angry that Bay Hill was getting lit up by the pros each year.  The move to simply change the par almost falls in line with what the USGA is known to do when setting up their championship layouts.  The USGA likes to play to a par of 70 for whatever reason.  It is very rare to have the US Open course to play to a par other than that.  Even if a course naturally plays to a par of 71 or 72, the USGA simply coverts a short par 5 into a very long par 4, or some other modifications, and the course suddenly becomes a par 70.

The same thing happened at Bay Hill.  The only problem is that this move really did not do anything for the tournament.  Sure, it got a little additional attention because of the new par, but that was really all that happened.  By shaving eight shots off of the total par for the week, the Tour merely has a winner in the record books with a different number under par with the same aggregate total that we would expect to see at Bay Hill.

Vijay Singh won the event at -9 under this year’s new par.  Were this event played twelve months ago, he would have won on -17.  That leads to the question that has been proposed with a lot of frequency this week.  Does par really matter?

If you say yes, then you would be inclined to believe that this move is a good one.  If players are blowing away a golf course, then simply make it more difficult to break par.  That way, the integrity of a good score is restored, it becomes more challenging for the players to beat par, and the golf course maintains its reputation as a tough track. 

The next logical step, though, is to do this at any event where scoring has supposed gotten out of hand.  In a few years, if Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh or whomever wins this event on -13 (or -21 depending on how you see it), will someone make the decision to reduce par to 69 or 68?  If par really matters that much, then par should be set at any number that will keep scoring in relationship to par in check.  Everything should be done to make sure that every event ends with a winner finishing no better than -9.  That may be taking the point a little too far, but would a par of 69 really be all that far off if par matters that much?

If par does not matter, then this move seems just a bit ridiculous.  That’s where I stand on the issue.  It does not matter what the par of the golf course is.  Vijay Singh still shot 271 this week at Bay Hill and won the Arnold Palmer Invitational.  He did so against a strong field on a great golf course.  At the end of the day, I felt very entertained and I do not think that happened because the par was 70.

There are very few instances where it seems appropriate to go this far in an effort to keep players closer to par.  The USGA has a pass on this issue because the tradition of the US Open is to do anything within reason (and sometimes out of reach of reason) to keep the champion at par or worse.  For the rest of the tournament universe, though, maybe it is best to take the R&A approach to scoring.  Let the players and the course naturally decide who wins the golf tournament and not get too concerned about the number on which they win.  Golf can be entertaining when par is tough to break and when it is obliterated. 

The beauty of the golf tournament is that everyone plays under the same conditions on the same layout over four days to determine a champion.  No where in that statement is there a mention of how close the champion is to even par.  And it should stay that way.  Restore Bay Hill to a par of 72 because, really, tradition and legacy are much more than just a number.

Ryan Ballengee is host of The 19th Hole Golf Show, found at The Golf Newsnet.com.  Having graduated from the University of Maryland in 2004 and 2006, Ballengee brings the perspective of the younger golf fan to the microphone and his columns.  Over the nearly five years he has been broadcasting and writing, Ballengee has developed a reputation for a unique interviewing style that asks both the difficult and fun questions. You can also get The 19th Hole on the go through podcasting by clicking here The Golf Newsnet Contact Ryan via e-mail at the19thholeshow@hotmail.com.