The Case for Bogey
Michael Keane, Dublin, Ireland
The average golfer shoots 90. Golf insists the standard is 72.
These two numbers have spent the last century pretending not to notice one another.
In 1911, golf abandoned bogey and embraced par. The decision was made with the best of intentions, which is often how trouble begins.
Par works beautifully for golfers capable of shooting it. Unfortunately, these individuals account for a remarkably small percentage of the golfing population. The majority have trouble making par on a single hole. Golf treats it as a minimum requirement.
This arrangement has all the characteristics of an administrative error.
Par is commonly described as the standard against which golfers measure themselves. This would be a useful definition if it were true. In practice, the standard against which most golfers measure themselves is whatever score they shot last Saturday.
Golfers have far more experience with ninety than seventy-two. Yet golf continues to regard seventy-two as the standard, despite maintaining an entire handicapping system dedicated to compensating for the fact that it is not.
Millions spend decades chasing a number they will never reach, then blame themselves when they don't.
Outside of golf, the logic begins to unravel rather quickly.
Imagine a community 5K measuring every participant against Olympic qualifiers. Imagine a Saturday morning basketball league measuring every team against the Los Angeles Lakers.
Most people would recognize the comparison as unreasonable.
Golfers would simply buy another driver.
Bogey, by contrast, was an honest term.
It made no grand promises. It did not ask ordinary golfers to compare themselves with touring professionals, club champions, or individuals capable of locating their golf ball on a regular basis.
Bogey simply acknowledged reality.
Average golfers seldom have a meaningful relationship with par. Most encounter it briefly, admire it from a distance, and spend the remainder of the afternoon trying to relocate it.
Bogey lived among the people.
It occupied the same neighborhoods, visited the same bunkers, frequented the same water hazards, and maintained realistic expectations.
I therefore propose the restoration of bogey as the official benchmark for golf. Not because golfers deserve lower standards. Because they deserve accurate ones.
For more than a century, golf has recognized the exceptional while quietly ignoring the typical. This has produced a misconception on a remarkable scale.
Golfers who routinely shoot scores in the vicinity of ninety describe themselves as failures. From a statistical standpoint, this seems excessive. Ninety is already par. The scorecard simply refuses to admit it.
Golf has spent more than a century arguing otherwise. The supporting evidence remains unconvincing.
The correction is long overdue. The paperwork, however, remains outstanding.
Michael Keane is a Dublin-based golf writer and columnist. A veteran of the sport, he has spent thirty years covering the game and writing about the people who play it.
FOUNDING DOCUMENT
The Sham Revelation
The Association's official assessment of the lived experience of golf.
After nearly four decades of exposure to golf and its culture, the Association has reached a number of unavoidable conclusions. The Sham Revelation represents the GSTPA's assessment of the lived experience of golf. It serves as the foundation for the Association's observations and continuing efforts to document the game as it is actually played.
The findings presented here are based upon years of organized competition, field observations, player interviews, and recurring patterns of behavior that have proven remarkably consistent across generations
Editor's note: The views expressed herein are those of the Grand Sham Tournament Players Association and the GSTPA Tour. No attempt has been made to preserve long-held beliefs that could not be supported by the available evidence. Readers may discover that certain assumptions regarding talent, improvement, consistency, or the fundamentally fair nature of golf are not reflected in the Association's findings. This omission is intentional and should not be interpreted as an oversight.
The Sacred Guardians of Fairness
Golf's handicap system relies heavily on trust, mathematics, and periodic intervention by concerned citizens. The resulting process has produced decades of debate, occasional controversy, and an impressive number of conversations beginning with the phrase, "Something doesn't add up."
In this commentary, veteran columnist Eddie Edwards turns his attention to golf's handicap committees—the selfless volunteers tasked with determining where legitimate improvement ends and suspicious competence begins.
Scared Guardians of Fairness >
The views expressed are those of Mr. Edwards and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Grand Sham Tournament Players Association. The Association neither endorses nor disputes the findings presented herein and reminds readers that statistical irregularities are not, by themselves, evidence of wrongdoing.