Par 70

[Danny Goss]

At my Club we are in the middle of trying to convince some of our members we should alter a horrible par 4 into a terrific par 3. Most are convinced (so we should be OK) however a small but noisy group is not convinced. I can refute most of the arguments but one keeps coming up.
That is, the par of the course will now be 70 instead of the current 71. Why this is an issue to them, is a mystery. It's just a problem they say and I suspect that it covers the real reason.....that change is difficult for some people.
However it is the one point I am having trouble with. It seems they have a problem in our course having a lower par. I have pointed out all the benefits that the alteration will bring in making our course better. These benefits are hard for the opponents to against. However the par 70 is still an issue they say.
Can anybody on GCA assist me with some points as to why a par 70 is not an issue at all?

[Tim_Weiman]

Danny,

Why not simply remind them that Pine Valley's rating was never hurt by being a par 70 course?

[corey miller]

Danny- good luck.  Not sure why par 70 is such a concern.  Par 69 seems to be the kiss of death in my book where it would become highly unlikely to convine the membership to change too.  In fact, my course is a par 70 and the two par fives are most often sited as not being up to "par".  One in fact is a dogleg over a ravine that was 420 yds  par 4 and was extended to 460 and really is a 4.5.  The other is a wide open 520 yards punchbowl hole that plays about 460 yards though it is generally into the wind. Again, sometimes a 4.5 thus a lot of complaints. Do you have a respected archie suggesting this change???

[Justin_Zook]

Anything above 70 is good. Anything below is a border line exec. course.  If it is for the good of design, go for it.  Don't let the few in the minority, who bought into the stereotype that a golf course can only be a "good course" because of the it's par, change your plans.  A golf course is meant to be fun to play, not an ordeal, so if the change makes a positive impact on the enjoyment you get out of playing the course, then there is absolutely no reason you should hold back.  Id like to hear about some of the changes made.  Will the new par 3 be a Reden???  What changes will be made?  Keep us updated on your progress.

[Justin_Zook]

Nevermind the face. I'm not sure why that came up.

[wsmorrison]

You did not mention the number of par 3s on the course prior to any changes that might be made nor did you mention the history of the course and other previous changes.  Assuming that this would be the first major renovation and it wouldn't result in an unbalanced layout, par 70 is not to be avoided in and of itself.

At my home course, I am trying to influence those that can effect change that our 18th hole should be played as a par 5 for members and as a par 4 for tournaments.  Our course finishes with back to back par 5s, both of which are scoring opportunities.  In fact William Flynn did not denote the 18th as a par 5 at all, but noted it as a 4/5.  As a par 4 from the forward tees it would be an outstanding finishing hole on an outstanding course; 475 yards dogleg right with a dramatic rise in elevation to the green.  In fact, the green is quite large relative to the rest of the course, more in line with a long second shot than a short approach if played as a par 5 from the men's or championship tees.  The course would then be a par 70 rather than 71.  If this change were instituted, the course would be close to perfect!

All things being equal, better to play an outstanding par 3 in place of an inferior par 4, but only if it fits in to the course's design scheme and retains a good routing flow.  

[Justin_Zook]

Very true Mr. Morrison.  I never thought of the balence of the course.  If the front nine is out in 34, and the back nine is out in 36, many would protest.  Not that par must always be balenced, but I have never heard of a par 70 course with nines of 34-36, or 36-34.  While I wouldn't chastise a course that has such a combination of pars, it would seem a bit odd.  Does such a course exhist?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Danny,

It's basically an objection and resistance to change.

At some courses I'm familiar with, a recommendation was made to enhance a hole, which would alter par.

Everyone agreed that the hole should be enhanced, but many people objected to changing par from 72 to 71.  When asked why, they said balance, because it had always been 72, etc., etc..

Fix the hole, and one year from now, par for the golf course will be inconsequential in the minds of the membership.
In fact, I'd bet, the naysayers will now claim they championed the cause.

Good Luck.

P.S.  Cite the great par 73, 72, 70 and 69 golf courses.

[ChipOat]

Justin_Zook

Merion Golf Club
36+34=70
2 very good par 5's on the outward 9
0 par 5's and a bunch of great par 4's on the inward 9

That's what the land offered and that's what Hugh Wilson built.

4 U.S. Opens and 5 U.S. Amateurs later, it's still as pure a golf course as you'll find.

Good luck.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Justin,

Here are some other so-called "odd" balances:

Alwoodley (McKenzie's first design): 36-34
Carnoustie: 36-34
Royal Aberdeen: 36-34
Cruden Bay: 36-34

Danny

Here are some other famous courses with a par of 70:
Pine Valley
Shinnecock Hills
Merion
Royal Dornoch
Crystal Downs
Prairie Dunes
Royal St. Georges
Oak Hill (East)
Colonial
Yale University
Firestone (South)

I've said it before.  Par is the most detrimental concept in golf course architecture.  Let's do away with it for good.

Let's make the course fit the land, not some number.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Par is the standard for excellence and the standard to measure one's proficiency with respect to the play of a hole.

The establishment of par provides the foundation for the architectual design of the hole.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Patrick,

The course rating is the standard for excellence and individual ability is the standard to measure one's proficiency with respect to the play of a hole.

The land provides the foundation for the architectual design of the hole.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy Glenn,

And the course rating is a compilation of 18 seperate holes, each having a relative value, and since strokes are not fractional, the number for par is the standard on each hole.

Will the land provide the foundation for a 600 yard par 4 ?
Or a 435 yard par 3 ??

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

The Course rating is the score a scratch golfer is expected to shoot for the round under normal conditions.  It has nothing to do with par, and is not a compilation of it.

The land provides the foundation for a 600-yard hole and a 435-yard hole.  What's that got to do with par?

[Danny Goss]

Thanks guys,
There is some good stuff in here. Yes we do have a respected architect involved - Mike Clayton - but that is not going to sway some members. Remember that their sole objection is to the alteration of par......logic is not really apparent in their argument.
The alteration will alter the par to 35 on each side with one par 5 and two par 3's on each so the balance is OK from that point of view.

Our course is not great at all - in fact to be honest it's nowhere near it - but its our home and for AUD$330 pa membership its good value. Its so undercrowded that you can check the weather Saturday at 11.00 am and still get a time on the first tee before 1.00pm. Membership is 550.

Justin makes a good point that the course should be fun to play and not an ordeal and the hole that is going is an ordeal.....Mike Clayton once called it one of the worst three he has seen anywhere!! Still, some old time members think that its great. Nobody in their right mind could think that but still some do.
Jeremy - thanks for the list. I will have it with me tonight when I meet some of the objectors.

[Paul Daley]

Danny: good luck with this assignment; it is only a number, but people do cling onto their scared par figures. Jeremy has provided all the amunition you need, and you confidently chime in with ... "And this list is only for starter's". The UK is littered with excellent par 70s.

[Peter Goss]

Danny
If I may quote from Peter Thomson in the Jounal of the Society of Golf Course Architects Issue 2 Dec 1998:(when Royal Birkdale nominated a club par 5 as a par 4 for the Open)

"Are we heading for championship courses of Par 70? It seems so. If it is good enough for Royal Birkdale it would seem good enough for anywhere else. Seventy is an all-round good score"

He goes on to develop his argument about courses having a Professional Course Rating in addition to standard course rating - quite a good theory in my view.

Just another bit of ammunition. Good luck!

[Peter Goss]

Sorry, that downcast smiley is not supposed to be there!

[Tyler Kearns]

Danny,
           this whole scenario reminds me of something Donald Ross said in his book, "Golf has never failed me". he felt it was better to construct a great nine-hole course than an indifferent or mediocre eighteen-hole layout. this perfectly relates to the situation at your club, why include a "horrible par-4", when replacing it with a good par-3 would amerliorate the overall design of the course? par figures are rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and should never compromise architectural intent. quality before quantity?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Chechessee Creek and Yeamans Hall are both par 70's.

It seems as if just about every U.S. Open course is set up for a par 70, where the short par 5's are converted to long par 4's.

Swinley Forest is a par 69.

[Herb Flood]

Quaker Ridge (Tillinghast) in Scarsdale, NY is a pretty good par 70 golf course too!

[GolfCourseSuper]

One of my nines is a par 36 with a 465 yard par 5 (trully a par 5?) and when I mentioned changing it to a par 4 you thought the world was coming to an end.  They basically told me to stick to maintaining and leave important decisions to the board of directors......WOW

[Jeff_Lewis]

Not only is Quaker a par 70, but 9 and 10 are back-to-back 3s....With the equipment increasingly making par 5s less and less strategic, isn't there a possibility we will start to see par 69 and 70 courses become the norm?

[Paul Perrella]

 Those of you that have stated that anything above 70 is a legitimate par have obviously not played Wannamoisett. At a par of 69 this is one of the strongest courses you will play anywhere and loses nothing with a sub 70 par.

[JohnV]

A few thoughts.

Just got back from playing Pasatiempo with Rich, Tom H and BarnyF with Pete Galea along as an observer.  They converted the first hole from a 5 to a 4 a while back and it is now a par 70 (5 3s and 3 5s).

San Jose Country Club is par 33-37 and is a pretty good course so balance isn't an issue.

Remind them that if it is a 70, it becomes that much easier to break 80, 90 or 100.