A Thread for Contrarian Takes


Par is relevant


Now this is just an abolutely awful take, par 70’s are great challenges. 4 par 5’s makes it too easy!


Bunkers are too well-maintained on tour. They are meant to be hazards and should be difficult to play from them. I would love to see furrowed bunkers/rakes make a come back as Nicklaus tried in 2007.


Next time I play golf with a buddy and they are excited about their birdie, I’m going to shit all over their parade.



Imagine if they cut some trees down! You’d be some overcome with options you’d have a panic attack!


I’ll never forget when Tiger shot 272 in the 2000 US Open and the rest of the field shot 287 or worse. Truly iconic numbers, etched into the minds of golf fans forever!


How about when Charl Schwartzel finished with a 4, 2, 3 and 3 at the 2011 Masters becoming the first ever winner to do that!


Couldn’t agree more. I think guys like TFE are great for educating people about history and architecture concepts. But they lose me with all of the judgmental takes on players, courses, tournaments and “how golf is supposed to be played”.


Sean makes an invaluable point here (without actually making it). Par as we know it is simply another way to keep score. The “par is irrelevant” crowd just needs to pay attention to a course’s RATING and they’ll be happy. Their solution already exists…


This post will be under appreciated.


Tiger’s chip-in in 2005 was iconic, but people forget that he took 10 strokes over the next two holes to golf his ball into the cup…


Does anyone know what the Masters gives out crystal for? It seems random. Sometimes guys get it for making a 1, sometimes for a 2, and other times for a 3. I can’t freaking figure out why though. Like I know you get crystal for making a 3 on 15, but you don’t if you get a 3 on 16 or 17.


There’s some nuance here that you’re deliberately missing.


That par is relevant?


It’s my own fault… I buried it in a thread that’s soon to be 400 posts…


Criticizing the “par doesn’t matter crowd” for being pedantic about par/strokes taken loses a bit of its distance when you’re taking this many strokes yourself:



Ah well I guess we can’t talk or joke about it anymore. Darn.


What if I told you that par can be both a useful tool for tournament scoring but also an arbitrary number that doesn’t take into account the conditions of the course, the skill of the field, or the variances caused by teeing off at different times of day on different starting holes?

Fansplaining: The Distance Debate

I would agree with you. But something that you acknowledge as “a useful tool” is hardly irrelevant.

Par might not be the most important thing in the world, but its not irrelevant.


lol, you’re friends with Chads.