[Thomas McQuillan]

People talk of swinley forest being the best ''par 69 '' in the world. Since this is 3 shots below the accepted norm of 72, would it be acceptable for a course 3 shots more than 72 to be designed today.

People talk about how refreshing it is when someone breaks convention and building courses whith a different par is one such way. My sneaking suspicion is that par 70's and 71's would be more widely accepted than par 73's and 74's. Is this the case and if so why?

I also read the other day that courses such as Pinehurst and Oakmont started out as par 80's.What are peoples thoughts on this and why does the best routing for courses never seem to be more than 72. None of that par is just a number bullshit, I want peoples real thoughts on why so few longer holes aren't built nowadays.

[jeffwarne]

People talk of swinley forest being the best ''par 69 '' in the world. Since this is 3 shots below the accepted norm of 72, would it be acceptable for a course 3 shots more than 72 to be designed today.

People tak about how refreshing it is when someone breaks convention and building courses whith a different par is one such way. My sneaking suspicion is that par 70's and 71's would be more widely accepted than par 73's and 74's. Is this the case and if so why?

I also read the other day that courses such as Pinehurst and Oakmont started out as par 80's.What are peoples thoughts on this and why does the best routing for courses never seem to be more than 72. None of that par is just a number bullshit, I want peoples real thoughts on why so few longer holes aren't built nowadays.

If I were building a course today and housing was a component, I'd definitely consider par 75.
More on course lots without the usual distance between holes.
and in time when the USGA tells us all(again) that distance gains are negligible (when I'm hitting it farther than ever at age 65) I can make it a par 71

[Thomas McQuillan]

Thats what seems to have happened to a lot of classic courses as ive mentioned. I just haven't come across a Doak or C&C course which has the so callaed best routing for the site that has a par of much more than 72. Is having more than 3 or 4 par 5's given serious consideration when cretaing a routing or are par 5's just put in as an afterthought. Maybe its just that most modernn architechts are better at visualising shorter holes than they are longer holes. Par 5's seem to be a strong point of many of Nicklaus' designs.

[Sean Leary]

People would hate par 75s. Too hard to break 80. One of the advantages of Par 70's and 71s is that peoples end score is lower, all things considered.

[Carl Rogers]

I was under the impression that there was a growing consensus that par needs to go the other way for all the usual environmental and space issues & a shorter course with out so may par 5's is more beginner friendly.

[jeffwarne]

People would hate par 75s. Too hard to break 80. One of the advantages of Par 70's and 71s is that peoples end score is lower, all things considered.

My sophomore year we played the state championship at 2 nine hole courses-30 minutes apart!
par 39-36=75. The one course was par 39 because they had closed 9 holes (not a front or a back, but 9 random holes leaving par at 39 .
4 par 5's, 4 par 4's and a par 3.
and yes Sean is right-I hated it and of course shot......80!

[Matthew Petersen]

It might depend on how you get to par 75.

Would people be more accepting of a 3-10-5 layout vs. a 4-8-6? The one thing keeping par low is the virtual lock of 4 par3s per course. I was thinking about TOC recently and finding it odd that, while it is the classic, it never became the standard. Two 3s and two 5s. I can't imagine a new course getting away with that. I can't even imagine a new course opening with only three one-shotters.

[John Mayhugh]

Increasing par to 75 by making courses longer might work in rare cases, but generally speaking it seems an awful idea to me.  Some of the biggest issues with the game are cost (a par 75 would cost more to build and maintain) and the time it takes to play (more long holes means it takes longer to play).  Other than novelty, I cannot see any reason to do it.  And if a par 75 is the primary guiding concept for a design, I'll pass. 

Sean Leary also makes a great point about people not wanting to work even harder to break 80. 

[Ken Moum]

I want peoples real thoughts on why so few longer holes aren't built nowadays.

I suspect it's a direct result of the fact that in order to make a three-shot hole for top-level golfers, you'd need about 700yards of real estate.

300-yard drives and 270-yard three woods really screw up the math.

Of course, the folk those holes would be aimed at would cry like babies if they had to hit a 6 iron for their approach to a par five.

The fact is that I play a lot of par 75 courses, and more than a few par 78 courses.  When your driver only averages 205, and your longest fairway club only covers 190 yards, there are a lot of par fives out there.  (I sometimes wonder how I manage to keep my handicap in singe digits.)

Ken

[John Moore II]

Its been said a few times on here, but I am not certain people would really grab onto the idea of par 75. The mindset of shooting less than 80 is a big deal. Even on a par 69 course, breaking 80 is something a lot of people think about.

Also, I think a lot of well-known designers would shy away from a high par course like this because of how it would be used by the owners. Not as another golf course, but kind of like the "worlds fattest hog" or some other fair attraction, for a given area. Kind of like par 6 holes.

I'd like to play a high-par course, I've never played higher than a 72 I don't think, but it would need to be done right.

[Jim Nugent]

Par 75 means 3 more par 5s than par 3s.  (Assuming no par 6.)  That makes the course a lot harder for the average guy, and a lot easier (against par) for the real good player.  So I'll be surprised to see many courses like this. 

[Sean_A]

I don't have a problem with 75 or 80 as the target score so long as its the bogey score.  I am certainly not interested in even keeping par at 72 for most courses.  I would prefer to see this stupid number dropped to 70 and courses left alone.  The more I much about with this subject the more I think "par" has been one of the most damaging concepts in golf. 

Ciao 

[Brian Phillips]

The lower the par the quicker the round.  Speed of play (time to play the round) is killing the game.  Why increase par? 

We should be encouraging par to go down not up.

Par 75...that is at least 3 more shots that need to be played is that about 12-15 minutes to be added on the round if use 5 hours on a par 72 course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Here's the thing... Par-3's are fun to play and can be fit in to awkward areas of property... Exceptional par-5's are difficult to design, beat the golfer up more and cost more to maintain...

Plus obviously speed of play...

[jeffwarne]

The lower the par the quicker the round.  Speed of play (time to play the round) is killing the game.  Why increase par? 

We should be encouraging par to go down not up.

Par 75...that is at least 3 more shots that need to be played is that about 12-15 minutes to be added on the round if use 5 hours on a par 72 course.

Brain,
Bear with me on this.
No doubt, par 75 should take longer (more shots).
The hypothetical realestate course I was referring to would involve  longer holes that fill the space many modern architects have been leaving to create more home lots, so theoretically no longer walks than before (and no walks backward because holes haven't been stretched (or need to be as par 5's can become 4's if further golf ball gains arise.) Many shorter courses, especially older ones, involve walking back every hole which is twice the walking (think Bayonne).

So perhaps it could take longer, but it wouldn't seem as long because par 5's give room to spread out the players (the opposite effect of lots of par 3' where waiting is commonplace)
Conversely if it was 18 par threes it'd be really fast, but you'd wait every shot

But I do reserve the right to be wrong
and to stir the pot

[Thomas McQuillan]

I have to agree with jeff. At my home course, there is a par 3 as the second  hole and the pllay really tends to get clogged up early on in the round. What the club has started doing is starting play on the sixth where there isn't a par 3 until 7 holes later and they play the first 5 holes last, which include 2 par 3's. I think that while par 5's take longer to play, par 3's cause more waiting and longer tailbacks and in my opinions cause longer rounds. At least par 5's keep the play moving.

[Ally Mcintosh]

OK... I'll bite...

Thomas, Jeff, what you are talking about is flow which can depend on many things, not least the gaps given between starting times ( which has particular effect if your 2nd hole is a par-3 which admittedly should be avoided on a public course if possible)... There has been a lot of research in to this but none of it says make 18 par-5s and you won't have any slow play problems... Bear in mind that everyone and their dog waits for par-5 greens to clear from 300 yards out... This prevents slow play problems as well...

But the bottom line is, you are walking further... and it isn't as much fun...

[Kalen Braley]

Its easy.

Just turn the 3 longest par 4s into par 5s and you're set!! 

[Matthew Petersen]

I have to agree with jeff. At my home course, there is a par 3 as the second  hole and the pllay really tends to get clogged up early on in the round. What the club has started doing is starting play on the sixth where there isn't a par 3 until 7 holes later and they play the first 5 holes last, which include 2 par 3's. I think that while par 5's take longer to play, par 3's cause more waiting and longer tailbacks and in my opinions cause longer rounds. At least par 5's keep the play moving.

I grew up playing predominantly at a public course where the second and fourth holes were par 3s. It backed up a little but was rarely too bad. I suppose some of that probably had to do with the wicked difficulty of the first hole!

[John Moore II]

I can buy a lot of what we are saying here. The additional par 5's would slow down overall pace, but would likely improve flow, so long as they weren't half-par holes.

Could it be done with 4 par 5's and 1 par 3? Now that would be an interesting set-up.

Just a question to the architects out there: How often have you built a course without any regards to par or yardage and just built the 18 best holes over the best routing? Just who cares about par. Anyone ever done that?

[Brian Phillips]

Just a question to the architects out there: How often have you built a course without any regards to par or yardage and just built the 18 best holes over the best routing? Just who cares about par. Anyone ever done that?

Nearly everytime.  With so much rock in Norway nearly every course we have designed has had to fit the landscape.  You are always thinking of what par you can fit in the landscape room you are working with.  I have done a few small courses with par 3s after each other as well.

I made a huge mistake once a course that we designed and built in Norway where the client convinced me to put a green long past a ridge making the green blind just to increase the length of the hole.  I have regretted it to this day and the client has also admitted it was wrong.  The short par 4 with a green hanging on the ridge would have been much better.  It bugs me to this day. The green does not look as good as I hope either but the backdrop is pretty nice.

[Tim Martin]

People would hate par 75s. Too hard to break 80. One of the advantages of Par 70's and 71s is that peoples end score is lower, all things considered.

Sean-Does 80 have the same value when par is 75? Its just a number. I will concede that it may have a psychological effect.

[Sean Leary]

People would hate par 75s. Too hard to break 80. One of the advantages of Par 70's and 71s is that peoples end score is lower, all things considered.

Sean-Does 80 have the same value when par is 75? Its just a number. I will concede that it may have a psychological effect.

It is all psychological. Par matters. It shouldn't but it does.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()