[Matt_Cohn]

Of course, the Old Course has only two par-5's, despite being a par 72.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think if its 70- 71 or 72 theres; not a lot in it (72 is slightly best). A par 69 is a significant disadvantage if you are assessing great courses. If I have a course where I am strugging to make it 70 I am really trying to stretch a long 4 into a 5, I don't think that way going from 70 to 71 or 71 to 72. Courses of par 68, par 67 dont seem to have a chance.

[Jud_T]

Anything other than the standard 10,4,4 par 72 has an advantage in my book, for variety if nothing else.  However,  for the average golfer it's probably a disadvantage.  A buddy of mine who just got the golf bug a few years ago was raving about Ravisloe after I suggested his group check it out, yet he suggested it would be better if it weren't a par 70 and had another par 5....

[Tim Martin]

I think if its 70- 71 or 72 theres; not a lot in it (72 is slightly best). A par 69 is a significant disadvantage if you are assessing great courses. If I have a course where I am strugging to make it 70 I am really trying to stretch a long 4 into a 5, I don't think that way going from 70 to 71 or 71 to 72. Courses of par 68, par 67 dont seem to have a chance.

Adrian-What is the disadvantage of a par 69? Country Club of Waterbury in Connecticut is a Don Ross gem with no weak holes in my opinion. A fabulous collection of 4 pars on a great site. Nothing seems squeezed in or do I ever feel cheated. Just sayin.    

[Scott Warren]

Adrian Stiff: I think if its 70- 71 or 72 theres; not a lot in it (72 is slightly best). A par 69 is a significant disadvantage if you are assessing great courses. If I have a course where I am strugging to make it 70 I am really trying to stretch a long 4 into a 5, I don't think that way going from 70 to 71 or 71 to 72. Courses of par 68, par 67 dont seem to have a chance.

I dunno, Adrian. Swinley Forest, The Addington, St Enodoc, West Sussex, New Zealand... they all seem to do alright for themselves.

Can you go that far wrong if you just build great golf holes that are engaging and fun to play?

[Carl Johnson]

The Golf House Club (Elie) does pretty well at par 70 with 16 par fours, 2 par threes, and no par fives, at least according to the card when I played it about 10 years ago.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Scott-Tim.  It all depends on how you value 'your' greatness, but the courses you mention would perhaps be even better if they were 72 par. Swinley IMO is better as a golf course than Wentworth, but length in the eyes of most of the golf world seems to elevate courses in status, maybe the cuteness would go for some people, but too many cute holes are unusual in great courses and whilst you mention 4 or 5 courses with sub par 70s and Rye is another, do you think that the 68-69 par halts it 20-30 places in the GB&Ire 100?
I am not saying you cant have a great course if you have a low par but there is a disadvantage when you lose a natural 700 yards of length on par 69 versus a 72 par. When the GB & Ire rankings come out in two weeks time it will be interesting to count how many are 68,69,70,71, 72 and 73 and how many courses are 7000 yards now and how 7000 yards seems to figure as a % so much higher in the top 30 than the bottom 30.

[Scott Warren]

If you add 700 yards to any of those courses you change them completely. I'm not sure I can go along weith that. With another half mile in length Rye isn't Rye. The entire routing would be altered.

As far as gauging the new Golf World Top 100 as proof of what you say above, my faith in a panel unable to locate Huntercombe and recognise its merits is not particularly rock solid. I realise the panellists can't see every course, but it has been there for 109 years! Or maybe they just view its par of 70 as a disadvantage...

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

I do not think par 70 is a disadvantage at all.  There are certainly some who see it that way, but that does not make them right.

In your hypothetical about Bandon, you did not mention that Pacific Dunes is par 71, as is Bandon Trails, I believe.  I've never heard anyone mention that or care that they are par 71 while Bandon Dunes is par 72.  Old Macdonald is also par-71 ... I just had to count on my fingers to check, that's how much I really care ... and no one has said a word about it to me.

In fact, I think I've built something like four par-72 courses out of 30 to date, and it hasn't held me back.  I have only done a couple of par-70 courses, but a lot at par-71, sometimes with three par-5 holes and sometimes with four plus an extra par three.  I'm even going to do a renovation of a course in Japan where we wind up with par 70 ... a lot of people think it's nuts, but the client is confident that it will work and that we will really shake things up by doing it.

That's the key ... you just need a client who is unafraid of "conventional wisdom".

Does anyone actually know of a course which failed to impress because it was a par 70?

[Mac Plumart]

Would it be fair to say that something other than par 72 is C&C's standard operating procedure?

I've only played 3 of their courses (Cuscowilla, Cheschessee Creek, and Sand Hills) and not one of them is par 72...but yet they are all fairly highly regarded.

So, I don't think it is a disadvantage at all...in fact, I find that it piques a lot of people's interest.  At least that is my experience.

[Adrian_Stiff]

If you add 700 yards to any of those courses you change them completely. I'm not sure I can go along weith that. With another half mile in length Rye isn't Rye. The entire routing would be altered.

As far as gauging the new Golf World Top 100 as proof of what you say above, my faith in a panel unable to locate Huntercombe and recognise its merits is not particularly rock solid. I realise the panellists can't see every course, but it has been there for 109 years! Or maybe they just view its par of 70 as a disadvantage...

Scott - Adding length to those courses now is not what I mean at all. Length may not be a factor how you analyse your greatness, but the majority do. Look at it this way, are there better holes at Swinley or Wentworth, do a matchplay hole versus hole in your head. I dont think Huntercoombe is anywhere near the top 200 but that just shows how we like our courses, and has not made any top 100 lists, are all those lists wrong? Golf World may not be perfect but it does involve 100 collated opinions, its the only one I care about.

[Scott Warren]

I know you meant back when they were built. The fact is those courses would not be what they are were they 700 yards longer, so I don't see value in speculating. I mean, If Cinque Ports was on a wider band of linksland it might be better than George's, but that's a huge leap into the unknown that isn't really worth discussing. Courses are what they are and where they are.

I've not played Wentworth so I can't play it against Swinley, but I guess we just worship at different altars, especially if you don't think Huntercombe is one of the best 200 courses in th British Isles.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I know you meant back when they were built. The fact is those courses would not be what they are were they 700 yards longer, so I don't see value in speculating. I mean, If Cinque Ports was on a wider band of linksland it might be better than George's, but that's a huge leap into the unknown that isn't really worth discussing. Courses are what they are and where they are.

I've not played Wentworth so I can't play it against Swinley, but I guess we just worship at different altars, especially if you don't think Huntercombe is one of the best 200 courses in th British Isles.

Scott - Argueing with anothers opinion on best, better, not so good is always fruitless because it is opinion, I suppose my top 100 is not so far from Golf Worlds, I am rarely a point different from what Tom Doak scores in CG, I am absolutely light years away from what what Sean Arble likes and dislikes. Just a different evaluation process on what we mark high or low. If you did a UK poll amongst 'Everybody' and said name 10 courses in the UK you want to play, The Belfry would be very high, yet it hardly scraped home in the top 100 and many dont think it belongs there.

[mike_beene]

Austin Golf Club  70,Plantation 73

[JNC Lyon]

I know you meant back when they were built. The fact is those courses would not be what they are were they 700 yards longer, so I don't see value in speculating. I mean, If Cinque Ports was on a wider band of linksland it might be better than George's, but that's a huge leap into the unknown that isn't really worth discussing. Courses are what they are and where they are.

I've not played Wentworth so I can't play it against Swinley, but I guess we just worship at different altars, especially if you don't think Huntercombe is one of the best 200 courses in th British Isles.

Scott - Argueing with anothers opinion on best, better, not so good is always fruitless because it is opinion, I suppose my top 100 is not so far from Golf Worlds, I am rarely a point different from what Tom Doak scores in CG, I am absolutely light years away from what what Sean Arble likes and dislikes. Just a different evaluation process on what we mark high or low. If you did a UK poll amongst 'Everybody' and said name 10 courses in the UK you want to play, The Belfry would be very high, yet it hardly scraped home in the top 100 and many dont think it belongs there.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, sure.  However, aren't some opinions more "informed" than others?  How many of those who would vote the Belfry into the 10 actually know anything about golf course architecture.  When judging great golf course architecture, I'm probably not going to put too much stock in those opinions.  Most of these opinions are based in ignorance: Belfry and Wentworth are the two British courses that appear on television the most for championships, whereas Swinley Forest and Huntercombe don't hold anything known to anyone.  People assume that Belfry and Wentworth must be better because they are "known" and hold championships.

As an aside, I would challenge you to name 200 courses in the UK better than Huntercombe.  There are objective ways to judge Huntercombe's greatness.  For instance, Huntercombe might one of the five most influential inland courses in the UK ever built.  It was one of the first, if not THE first course designed with modern architecture principles.  Huntercombe, not Sunningdale, was Willie Park's prized possession.  From my understanding, Huntercombe is very well preserved to this day.  By objective standards, these factors make it a crucial and great inland course in England.  That, and it is a great layout and highly strategic that doesn't rely on repetitive sand hazards.  A list of the ten best inland courses around London wouldn't be complete without Huntercombe.

[Dan King]

If a par-70 course is at a disadvantage to a par 72, wouldn't a par-72 be disadvantaged to a par 73, par 74, par 75, etc...  Is there something magical about par 72?

Cheers,
Dan King

"Tis amazin' to me how these forms, these bodies, these ideas float in this emptiness . . . strange gravity. Just kites in the wind.
 --Shivas Irons

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

In certain Asian countries there does seem to be something magical about the number 72.  I don't believe it has anything to do with golf tradition; they are just way more into numerology than we are.  It is a very big deal to do a course in Asia which isn't par 72, and most clients won't even discuss the possibility.

By the same token, this has prevented anyone from building a really good par-70 or 71 course there.  And the only way they will ever learn is by example.

[Jud_T]

Is it OK to do a 72 that has 5 3's and 5 5's in Asia?

[Steve Salmen]

Mac,

Interesting about C&C.  I've played 5 of their courses and none are par 72.  It it were random, I believe playing 8 courses in the US without any being par 72, it would be a statisitical outlier.

[Trey Stiles]

Interesting question from an operating business perspective    I doubt if it makes a lot of difference long term.

From a real estate perspective , my take is that developers prefer safe , easy to sell , Par 72 / 7000 yds ... It's hard to get the sales team to explain Par 70 they way a golf person can explain Par 70

From a golfers perspective , I love Par 70 ... Gives me a better chance to shoot a better score ( yes , I'm still hung up on score ) ... Give me 2 or 3 solid / non goofy Par 5's ( I may be biased because my home club has the worst Par 5's on the planet )

On the course I own , I'm considering conversion to Par 70 included in a renovation.  I have a couple of problem holes that would require major work to fix and I'm thinking it's going to work better to convert one Par 5 to a Par 4 and one Par 4 to a Par 3.

Bottom Line : I like Par 70

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You said, "By the same token, this has prevented anyone from building a really good par-70 or 71 course there.  And the only way they will ever learn is by example."

Do you think a possible solution that would set an example is to design a course there with one or two very short par-5's (475-490) that would have to be played as 4's during any tournaments down the road? There are many courses with holes of this type that is often spoken as "really being a long par-4." It could certainly be sold to a client as a hole similar in concept to the 13th at Augusta where birdies are common enough to be expected by good players...

[Sean_A]

I don't think there is any question that from a business perspective, par 72 is far more desirable than any other par number.  Although, imo, we should be looking to design sub par 70 courses and even courses with par around 62-65.  I think this is a much healthier future if we are looking to keep the game affordable, quick enough to play and welcoming for new players (juniors and women).  However, I admit to loving short courses with short par, but ones which give up very little in terms of difficulty for the good club players.  So no, architecturally, I don't think a par 70 is at any disadvantage to a par 72, but from a business perspective, quite possibly.

Adrian

I don't think we are so different in our likes.  I accept that your take is from a more practical business end and that mine is from the niche user end.  What really separates me from you is based on two things.  Second, I am differeent from most everybody because I insist on value for money and furthermore I can't see why $100 shouldn't buy one a ticket on just about all the good and great on offer.  There are far too many good, very good and great courses out there to be taken for a chump by folks who control 125 acres and 18 flag sticks.  Second, most champsionship courses don't bowl me over because for the most part, they are homogenized and much of what made them cracking courses to begin with has been either taken out or made irrelevant by toughening measures.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - We like golf courses so we have that in common and I am sure we could chat for hours. I think that when anyone selects their best, each has a different scoring criteria and a golf course's rating will be an add up of those components, I think you wont put much weight on length and I think many on here will be the same. If you look at lists in the magazines, books, websites they do and there is a pattern that emerges, one of those components is length. Almost without exception the great golf courses are 7000 yards, there are very few great golf courses below 6000 yards. The ones still in the list are often older ones that were once mighty but perhaps can no longer extend. Another component is conditioning and poorly conditioned courses suffer from lofty ratings. We have discussed Pennard before and it does not make the top 200. Quirk, unusual bounces, blind holes are often reducers too. Those components have to be the reason for Pennards non inclusion.

[Jerry Kluger]

Perhaps a par 70 course is not at a disadvantage but does it mean that there needs to be more variety in the par 4s?  A good short/drivable par 4 usually has a risk/reward feature to it which is what some par 5s have as well.  Let's say the par 70 course has only one or maybe no risk/reward par 4s, will that make it less interesting.  I played a really top notch par 70 course last week and that was what brought this to my mind - would I really miss the other two par 5s if I played that as my home course - I don't know. 

[John Moore II]

I have a few thoughts on this. The most recent two courses I have played have both been par 71 (I haven't played a 70 in a while). One has 4 par 5's and 5 par 3's. The other has 2 par 5's and 3 par 3's. The key to a course being good from a golf perspective is the routing and the greens. In the 2-3 design, the routing is superb and the greens have some fair interest. In the 4-5 design, the routing stinks and the greens are fair. The 2-3 course is the better design. A par 5 should not be forced into the design if it does not fit well. Same goes for a par 3. Courses that are par 70 are not inherently lacking. Par 72 courses are not always superior. What matters is the way the course is laid out and what interest it provides. A par 68 can be just as interesting at a par 80 if the holes are layed out properly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()