1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Par scores v scores

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by skip2mylou, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. skip2mylou

    skip2mylou New Member

    Why run par scores?
  2. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Because they cost you pretty much nothing in terms of space and give a quick glimpse of how tough a course is playing.

    Seeing a Masters leaderboard (or scores list) that includes . . .

    Woods +1
    Johnson +3
    Furyk +4
    Harrington +5

    . . . tells me a lot more about the tournament than simply seeing the individual scores followed by . . .

    Woods 217
    Johnson 219
    Furyk 220
    Harrington 221
  3. Hustle

    Hustle Guest

    My question would be, why run straight scores? For the exact reasons BT mentioned.

    +8 tells you a lot more about the golfer's outing than 296.
  4. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

    The only time running par scores is tougher is on Monday, when the earnings and FedEx points make it impossible to fit in one of our agate columns. So we just go 2 on 3 for golf and all is well.
  5. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    That's true, but there are a couple of ways around it:

    1. Don't run FedEx points. We edit copy; we can (and should) edit agate.

    2. You can still run Monday golf scores with FedEx points in one column (or even a little less) if you do it like this:

    -12 ($900,000)
    Tiger Woods, 4,500......72-68-68-68-276
    -10 ($450,000)
    Phil Mickelson, 4,000....72-70-68-68-278
    Fred Funk, 4,000.........69-69-71-69-278
    -7 ($250,000)
    Sergio Garcia, 3,650.....72-72-70-67-281
    Retief Goosen, 3,650....69-74-71-67-281
    Jim Furyk, 3,650..........72-71-66-72-281
    Jesper Parnevik, 3,650..68-73-71-70-281
    +15 ($0)
    Michelle Wie, 0............87-WD

    The length will be longer, but it will still take up much less total real estate than running 2 on 3 (which is probably too wide, since the scores usually just barely break over in one regular column).
  6. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    We run them 3 on 4 on Mondays, and it doesn't look too bad. It breaks them out of the regular agate and makes the golf fans happy because the scores look more important that way.
  7. ogre

    ogre Member

    Why is it that people always refer to a poor outing in every sport other than golf as "sub par," when that is a good outing in golf, the sport where the term actually means something?

    Not an acutal question. I just get a kick out that.
  8. chazp

    chazp Active Member

    Nice format, I'm stealing your idea.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page