What do you build? Par 72 or 70?

[Harmony]

You are the developer of a private club, have great site, ample acreage (275), but need to sell memberships.  What are you going to route?  Par 72, or 70?  The designer is a genius, but he doesn't have to sell the memberships.  You respect his work, and yet perception is reality to the prospective member.  What are the arguments for a 72?  Why does a 70 seem to carry some baggage in the mind of some players...even scratch guys?  We are in a variety of the entertainment business.  Our job is to put butts in seats.  Or in this case members on the tee.  What do you do?
Harmony

[Matt_Davenport]

Harmony,
You allow the architect to design the best golf course that the property will allow...  If it is a par 70, so be it!  It is ultimately the golf course, the test of golf (let's not forget the amenities, if this is important in the particular competitive marketplace), that will determine the success of the project.  If the course is truly special, par 70 will not keep members off the roles.  Many par 72's are truly competition par-70 golf courses (two par four-and-a-halfs--short par fives).

[John_McMillan]

The dozens of customers who inquire about par at Pebble Beach before playing testify to the true importance of getting this number right (a post with a little cynicism).

As a marketing idea, you might steal a page from the hitchhiker in "Something About Mary" who was convinced that his idea for "Seven Minute Abs" would steal all the market share from "Eight Minute Abs."  Perhaps a par 73 course is what you're really looking for.

Seriously, do you have any evidence - even anecdotal - that the par of the golf course design is one of the important elements to manage ?

[Scott_Burroughs]

How about a par 71?  Some of the neo-classic courses built in the last 5 years or so are par 71.  Examples are Pacific Dunes and Hidden Creek.  C&C's Warren Course and Doak's Lost Dunes are also par 71.

Regardless, shouldn't the routing of course dictate the par?  Otherwise, if would sound like placing a possible restriction on the routing could cause a compromise on the course quality.

[Jeff_McDowell]

I feel your pain. I am working with a course that is faced with the same dilemma. I keep pushing the par 70, but some members (influential members) feel they need a par 72.

What I have told the members is that I did a course a few years back with a par 70. They didn't have any other options. The members love the golf holes, and I have never heard a single negative comment about the course being a par 70. I know that if we would have forced a par 72 a couple holes would have been contrived. This would have lessened the experience they are currently enjoying.

If possible, try to focus on the quality of the golf holes. Most golfers (but not all) will be happy with 18 fun holes.

Good Luck

[BCrosby]

Harmony -

Unless the land dictates otherwise, I have a preference for par 72 courses.
  
Why?  

Because par 70 courses are usually the result of removing two par 5's.  That ought to be avoided if possible because I think well designed par 5's call for the most interesting shot choices in the game. They set up classic go/no go decsions that don't (usually) obtain on par 4's and par 3's. They are the best at creating the kinds temptations that make for memorable shot values.

A big part of why ANGC is a great course is because it may have the best set of par 5's in the world. Each forces decisions on the player that simply don't exist on shorter holes. Arguably they are the essence of the course.  

There was a discussion a couple of months ago about how to define a great hole. One useful suggestion was that a great hole has the largest spread of scores both below par and over par. This spread of scores is a sign that the hole tempted players to take risks - some of which were successfully negotiated and some of which were not.  Par 5 holes tend to have the highest "spread" of scores.  They tempt golfers to take risks.  They provide the kind of shot values that keep golfers coming back to your course.  

Par 70 courses tend to play more like big, bad USGA Open lay-outs.  They have more longer par 4's and, therefore, fewer choices for the golfer. (Standing on the tee of a 470 yard par 4, my thought is to just get on or close to the green in regulation.  I'm not taking any chances.)  For better players scores on these holes tend to be bunched around par; there is much less of a spread of scores. They may be a better "test" for the better player, they may have a higher scoring average, but they aren't as much fun to play day in and day out.  

Again, sometimes the land will dictate otherwise. Sometimes a par 70 is all the land will allow. But with 275 acres it sounds to me like you have a number of routing options.

Bob

  

[John_Conley]

Build the course you see fit.  Call it a par 72.  Any time you host any event, even the County Ladies Amateur, play it as a par 70.  The same members will be proud to boast, "the members play this as a par 5" any time they show someone their course during a tournament.

It will put them in some very elite company as most (many?) USGA venues have a par 5 or two dropped.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Bob,

Exclellent points about par 5's, they are often the most interesting holes due to the options and risks involved.  However, one doesn't necessarily have to sacrifice par 5's if par is less than 72.  You have just have more par 3's, which also often are the more memorable holes.  Pacific Dunes is par 71, with 4 par 5's and 5 par 3's.

Also, about par 70's being "brutes", they don't have to be back-breakingly long as par 70's to be high quality.  How about a 6700 yards par 70?  This describes Chechessee Creek, Yeamans Hall, Stonewall, and Inniscrone.

[ed_getka]

I think if the course is good, the par is irrelevant. Pacific Dunes is the most striking example in my mind. When I looked at the card before playing it I thought the sequence of holes was strange, but then I played it and the course flows so well that you don't even notice it.

Scott,
 I thought the Warren course didn't have any par designations.

[Stan Dodd]

Quality golf holes should be the sole determinate.  The 4 1/2 is good for members par 5 for members par 4 in big tournaments.  I think the average member enjoys putting for birdie whenever possible.

[BCrosby]

Scott -

Yes, you can add par 3's to get to 70. But par 3's, especially those longer than, say, 170 yards, tend to be the hardest holes for bogey golfers. (At least in my experience, most bogey golfers don't have a shot for a 200 yard par 3.) But to get to a reasonable overall course yardage with 5 par threes, some will have to be fairly long. Which is why, I suspect, most par 70 courses give up a par 5 or two instead of adding par 3's. Dunno.

Doak may have pulled it off at PD. I haven't played it. But PD is a special course.  

Ed -

I don't think it's just a matter of calling a hole a par 4 for one group of golfers and a par 5 for others. It's not that easy. If US Open set-ups have taught us anything, it is that flipping a par 5 to a par 4 is fraught with issues (usually ignored by the USGA) and can sometimes be disastrous. Witness #17 at Olympic a couple of years ago.

Par does matter.  Archies design holes with a par number in mind.  It matters on #13 at ANGC that you are hitting your second on a par 5 rather than on a par 4.

Bob

[Jeff_McDowell]

John,

I love it! They must teach you to be devious in FL, because us honest Minnesotans would never think of such a thing.

[Art_Schaupeter]

I agree that there does seem to be a perception issue with regards to par 70 or 71 courses versus par 72.  I don't agree with this though.  The evaluation of a golf course's merit or quality has to start and end with the quality of the individual golf holes.

275 acres is more than enough room to route a par 72 course, but it might not be possible to route a great par 72 course on your site.  The lay of the land (topography), location of site features, type of construction envisioned by the architect and developer and the dimensions of the site will all affect the type of golf course developed.  If the architect envisions routing eighteen holes that make maximum use of the existing site amenities and the better site topography, then a par 70 or 71 might yield the best course.  If mass excavation and mass shaping is the intent, then a par 72 should be a given with this much room, though the quality of the golf course will be completely different.

If you have a "great site" and your architect is a "genius", then you give him the site and let him go to work.  In the long run, the quality of the golf course is going to sell the memberships.  The marketing people just need to get prospective members to the site one time.  A truly great golf course in a wonderful setting should be easy to sell once they are there.  Maximize the unique qualities of your site.

A great point by BCrosby regarding par 5's.  I do not like giving up par 5's.  If a site is not yielding a great eighteen holes at par 72, I prefer to convert a par 4 to a par 3.  Par 71 with five par 3's gives me an opportunity to create a lot of variety with the par 3's.  Plus, you can route par 3's on some of the neat, tight site features that otherwise might not get used in the routing.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

You may have the cart in front of the horse here.  Par really depends on the type of facility you want.  Daily fee is going to dictate one thing while a country club will dictate another, to complicate matters further a private golf club like Stonewall, AGNC or Hole in the Wall in Florida are going to be something different.

What do you really wish to create?  Are you building for families, the general public or the golfing elite?  Are you the only show in town or are you a new entry into a large metropolitan area?  

As a rule of thumb I believe that as you move from public to more and more restrictive, that Par 72 may be important for the public track and becomes less important as you move down the continuum.  Decide what you want to be, then hire your architect and have him ATTEMPT to work in those parameters.  

If you are selling something, the first thing is to be sure what you are selling!  And be committed to that.

[Jeremy Glenn,]

Par does matter.  Archies design holes with a par number in mind.  It matters on #13 at ANGC that you are hitting your second on a par 5 rather than on a par 4.

Bob,

What possible difference can it make if the 13th at ANGC is a 4 or a 5?

In general, can you please tell me why Par "matters".  What is it used for?  Who/what does it benefit, and how?

[Rob_Waldron]

The size and shape of the property generally dictate the type and the length of the holes that can be fit into a site. All things being equal you would probably opt for a par 72 only to provide a good balance of holes.

A par 72 course is usually comprised of four par 3's four par 5's and ten par 4's. There are also many courses with an additional par 3 and par 5. Unfortunately many par 70 courses are limited to two par 5's. Pine Valley is a good example. Despite four par 3's and only two par 5's it is still considered the #1 by everyone.

One of my favorite courses is Manufacturers G&CC in Oreland, PA. If the 18th hole is played as a par 5 (it can also be played as a par 4 to an alternate green) then the course has five par 3's, eight par 4's, and five par 5's.

Logically, a par 70 should also play faster than a par 72 since it requires two less shots. The best courses offer a wide range of holes. If variety is truly the spice of life then it should also make for a fun an interesting round of golf!

[Michael Dugger]

That's some of the best, most well thought-out and defended discussion this site has ever seen!!!
I agree fully with letting the land dictate the par.  A part of what Tom Doak praises Dr. Mackenzie for is how he built short courses which seem to play much longer. I.E. Pasatiempo.  It is what we call shot values.  If a course plays to a 72 as opposed to a 70, I have to wonder if it is an easier test.  Of course 'easier' is a relative term, but the point is that a smaller par (70) seems more indicative of a tougher course than a 72.  Primarily for the reasons stated above.  Three-shot holes are becoming gimme birdies and pars for even the most average of players.  72 does not guarantee a 'stern test.'

[John_Conley]

Bob,

What possible difference can it make if the 13th at ANGC is a 4 or a 5?

In general, can you please tell me why Par "matters".  What is it used for?  Who/what does it benefit, and how?

Par matters because a birdie is worth two, eagle five, and albatross eight.

[BCrosby]

Jeremy -

Par matters enormously. It sets the framework for the playing strategy of a hole.

Take #13 at ANGC. You have hit your drive about 275 to the middle of the bend. You have about 215 to the green, a green surrounded by Rae's Creek.

As a par 5, you have some interesting choices. Do I risk the creek for a crack at an eagle and a fairly certain birdie? The downside side is that I may misshit my second and take a bogey, double bogey or maybe worse. An agonizing, delicious decision that makes golf the special game that it is. Think Faldo in '96 against Norman.  Great stuff.

Now imagine that the USGA got its mitts on #13 and - because of its relatively short length and because the USGA is who they are - #13 is converted to a par 4.

Back to my example. Same drive, same distance to the green. Same creek. What are you thinking? Well, if I'm playing against a strong field (say the Masters field) I have no choice. I have to go for it. Or, at a minimum, an election not to go for it is much less of an attractive option.  

In short, playing #13 as a par 4 essentially dictates my playing options. Or maybe "circumscribes my playing options more narrowly" is more precise. You could still lay up, but you would do so much more reluctantly.

In short, the delicious choices that the hole poses as a par 5 have vanished. Is this purely psychological? Damn right it is. But psychology matters when weighing the quality of a hole. It matters a lot.

And that's also why the par of a hole matters.

Sticking with holes that people know, would you play The Road Hole differently against a strong field if it were a par 5 as it used to be played 50 years ago? Depending on where my drive left me, I know I would. Has anything changed on the ground?  Of course not.  Has the way I think about my second shot changed?  Yes.

Designating par on these kinds of "tweener" holes is a tricky business. But it is not a trivial or silly business. It requires careful thought because the par designation has ramifications on how players will approach these holes. (BTW, I think the par designations for #13 at ANGC amd #17 at TOC, though both are about the same length, are exactly right.)

Bob

    

 

[Andy Hodson]

Bob

This topic was brought up in another thread a couple of months ago (whether the par of a hole matters). I will agree psychologically it matters. But that is all. Or that should be all.

Take #13 at Augusta. You're sitting 230 out with a hanging lie to a pin set way right. All that matters is whether you feel you can pull the shot off. Par, or how many shots you have taken to that point, simply should not matter in the evaluation of the shot you have at hand. The "shot" doesn't care what par is, or what you lay; it only cares if you can pull "it" off.

I faced this same situation this week in a tournament. Long par 4 into the wind. Blew the tee shot right into a lake, dropped to a sidehill lie, checked the yardage (238 to middle), pin set where it looked like it was in the water it was so far right. At that point, if I was concerned about making a double bogey, or worse, I'm cooked. That didn't matter to me. What mattered was whether I felt I could pull the shot off. Of course I didn't think that was prudent, so I layed up and wedged on. (It helped I wedged to 2 feet and made 5.)

So, psychologically it does matter. And for the excitement factor it matters. No doubt eagles are more exciting than birdies. But a 3 is a 3 is a 3, no matter what we "name" it.

Maybe I'm coming at this from the player's perspective, and maybe we've both hit on what is so great about this game. It is so psychological, and "par" does matter a great deal to us (a 3 putt on a par 5 reached in two just doesn't seem to hurt as much as any other 3 putt, right?). But one of the hardest things to do in golf is to overcome the psychological demons, and play what is in front of us, no matter the par.

And I agree that to the architect par matters, because he knows it matters to, and tempts, us. But should it?

[Gene Greco]

As stated above by Matt D. et al, simply build the best course possible no matter the par.

Sand Hills is also a par 71.

For gosh sakes C&C had an unrestricted canvas on which to work if there ever was one!

They simply built the best course possible no matter the par.

Rob W:
        
       Not "everyone" believes PV is the greatest course in the world.  Many on this site will argue strongly for NGLA, Cypress Point, Sand Hills, The Old Course, Shinnecock, County Down, Royal Melbourne and a few others along with mighty Pine Valley. However, this argument has been settled on this site by concluding there are about 15 to 20 "#1s" or "3 star" golf courses in the world.

[Dan King]

BCrsoby writes:
Par matters enormously. It sets the framework for the playing strategy of a hole.

You are obviously playing some game other than the golf games I play. When I play golf I am either trying to score the lowest possible score on each hole or beat an opponent.

What game are you playing where the goal is to score as close to a par number as possible? If if it is Stableford, the object still would seem to be to try and go low.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

"But I winna' speak o' gowf, oh no. I can only tell ye about my teacher, for 'twas he ha showed me the way. 'Twas he taught me a' the graces o' the geeme, to hold my temper when retreatin' from par or bogey, to use the inner eye to make the game a very prayer."
 --Evan Tyree (Golf in the Kingdom)

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Bob,

I still fail to see why you would play a hole differently if it was a par four or a par five.

That's like saying you'd play it differently on odd days rather than on even days.

But fair enough, to you at least "par" influences your course management decision.

In all sincerety, I must ask you WHY?  I'm not going to try to change your ways,  I'm just (in all seriousness) truly curious as to your answer.

[Donnie Beck]

I would much rather see a good 70 then a 72 with a few weaker holes.

[BCrosby]

Do you guys really mean to say that at 210 yards from the green, with water left and right, that your decision to go or not go for the green is unaffected by the par of the hole?

If you are unaffected, I would humbly suggest that you are golfers that play at a level of confidence about your shot making that I am not used to seeing.

For me, if it is a par 5, I'll think long and hard about it.  If it is a par 4, I am far more likely to try the shot because I believe -quite rationally by the way - that the field I am playing against will also be more likely to go for the green solely becuase it is a par 4 on the scorecard.

That's why par matters.  That's why the par designation that is given to a hole should be carefully considered.

Golf is rarely a simple exercise of picking a target and swinging the club back and through.  At least for me.  There is a lot more going on.

Bob

Bob