For the Pro Open:
You could calculate that the total par of 376 for 6 rounds was based on the expected score of a player rated 957. (The only player who scored even par was rated 953.)
That seems too low on its face. The result was that after 6 rounds, the leading score was 68 under. The top 10% of players were 55 under or better, the median was 27 under par. Each birdie gained only 0.81 throws on the leader, and only gained a full throw on the 85th percentile player. Each par lost 0.19 throws to the leader, and .08 to the cash line.
If the par were set based on the expected score of a player rated 1000 (par=345), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 37 under. The top 10% of players would have been 24 under or better, the median would have been 4 under par. Each birdie would have gained 0.89 throws on the leader, and would have gained a full throw on the 41st percentile player (roughly the cash line). Each par would have lost 0.11 throws to the leader, and nothing to the cash line.
If the par were set based on the expected score of the highest rating of 1048 (par=310), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 2 under. The top 10% of players would have been 11 over or better, the median would have been 39 over par. Each birdie would have gained 0.99 throws on the leader, and would have gained a full throw on second place. Each par would have lost 0.01 throws to the leader, and gained 0.11 on the cash line.
So, it seems more rational to me that the total par should be the expected score of some specified rated player. I'm OK with anything 1000 or higher. Say we pick 1030 and that results in a total par of 323. Then, the individual course and hole pars should be determined by allocating these 323 parlecules (trademarked by me) to each hole, based on expected SSA.
Oops, I calculated the value of a birdie wrong. The following is corrected.
For the Pro Open:
You could calculate that the total par of 376 for 6 rounds was based on the expected score of a player rated 957. (The only player who scored even par was rated 953.)
That seems too low on its face. The result was that after 6 rounds, the leading score was 68 under. The top 10% of players were 55 under or better, the median was 27 under par. Each birdie gained only 0.37 throws on the leader, or .71 on the cash line, and only gained a full throw on the 85th percentile player. Each par lost 0.63 throws to the leader, and .29 to the cash line. (No wonder people don't think par is useful.)
If the par were set based on the expected score of a player rated 1000 (par=345), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 37 under. The top 10% of players would have been 24 under or better, the median would have been 4 under par. Each birdie would have gained 0.66 throws on the leader, a full 1.00 throw on the cash line, and would have gained a full throw on the 41st percentile player (= the cash line). Each par would have lost 0.34 throws to the leader, and nothing to the cash line. (That's the most useful definition of par for players who are hoping to cash.)
If the par were set based on the expected score of the highest rating of 1048 (par=310), the results would have been that after 6 rounds, the leading score would have been 2 under. The top 10% of players would have been 11 over or better, the median would have been 39 over par. Each birdie would have gained 0.98 throws on the leader, gained 1.32 on the cash line, and would have gained a full throw on second place. Each par would have lost 0.02 throws to the leader, and gained 0.32 on the cash line. (That's the most useful definition of par for players who are hoping to win.)
So, it seems more rational to me that the total par should be the expected score of some specific rating. I'm OK with anything 1000 or higher. Say we pick 1030 and that results in a total par of 323. Then, the individual course and hole pars should be determined by allocating these 323 parlecules (trademarked by me) to each hole, based on expected SSA.