[Michael Goldstein]

From another thread on the best 9 holes in links golf, Scott McP suggested that a great nine holes of golf should be balanced, ideally with 2 par fives, 2 par threes and a variety of par fours and this balance improves the golfing experience.

I disagree that 'balance' on the scorecard (and a par of 72) is an essential component of golf, rather it is an unnecessary parameter in design.

Thoughts?

---

Obviously, as Scott points out, balance is far greater than just the numbers on the scorecard.  The individual holes on a course should also be balanced for example doglegs of different directions and holes that play differently in the prevailing winds.       
 

[Andy Troeger]

I think balance is important, but perhaps not on the scorecard. The best courses with which I am familiar tend to have a balance of really tough holes combined with some more friendly offerings. Most of them don't necessary have equally matching nines or even in yardages.

I've seen more modern courses where the front nine or even first six holes are pretty friendly, and then the back nine or "last twelve" are basically some kind of death march with tough hole after tough hole that just beat up golfers and spit them out on #18 green. I don't enjoy those courses and prefer when courses split up the tough and easy parts of the course and create some momentum opportunities later in a round.

[Mike Nuzzo]

CB Macdonald estimated that Length of holes equated to about 13% of the quality of a course
Look at the ideal scorecards of Macdonald, Thomas and Morrissette - none were balanced

This is Tom Doak's compilation:
Analysis of the Top 50 Golf Courses in the World
(GOLF Magazine, 2001)
19 are par-72 courses
15 are par-71
16 are “others,” mostly 70 or 73

Wolf Point = par 71 too
The 8th hole comes back to the clubhouse

Cheers

[Scott Macpherson]

This issue of 'balance' is an interesting question and one I'm glad Michael made it into a post of its own.

We face this question frequently with clients, critics and everyone in between. My position is that balance is important, but in seeking it, one should not sacrifice the fun, interest or challenge of the golf course. The term 'balance' of course, needs to be defined. When referring to the critical measurements of the course, (ie. length and par) most golfers and golf course owners have perimeters as to what is acceptable (or marketable). For a championship course, these tend to be par=72, and length of 7200+. (That is the pre-requisite for new designs in the emerging Chinese market)  As designers, we need to respect these perimeters – especially if they come as edicts from a client.

Most on this site will know there are a list of others design principles that many believe should feature in a 'good' golf course. e.g.

2 par 3's per nine holes,
2 par 5's per nine holes,
all the par 3's going in different directions,
all the par 5's playing in different directions.
A variety of length in the par 4's (i.e some short, some of medium length, and some longer)
Holes that dog-leg left and right
No par 3's in the first 2 holes,
No finishing hole as a par 3
etc
etc

Personally, I like to start with the formula as defined above, but move away from it as required to build the best golf course on the particular piece of land provided. So if a particular piece of property means the best possible course will end up measuring out to be a par 7050 yard, par 71 course, then I believe that's better than trying to force in an extra par 5. And I hope I could convince a client of that. As another example, if the routing features the par 3's as being back-to-back because that's the best use of the property, then this should be override the formula.  (I think we can all agree Tom Doak did that well at Pac Dunes)

The formula of designing a golf course is to me like the recipe for a great meal. You need to know it, but once you have developed some proficiency you can adapt it, and possible even improve on it. Ultimately, balance in golf course design is about more than the scorecard, it's about the rhythm of the course. This is proven in the course rankings. If you look the best courses around the world that we all know, they are balanced, and most are not formulaic.


Scott

[Sean_A]

HHHmm, no, balance to me suggests building to a piece of paper rather than to the land.  As it happens, Scott's idea of balance is exactly the opposite direction I think architecture should be heading.  I think golf should be downsizing; using smaller properties, less yardage and this necessarily means less par 5s and more par 3s.

Ciao

[Frank Pont]

"Balance nothing, if you can avoid it."     Tom Simpson, 1929

[Mark Pearce]

Doesn't all the love for Elie on another thread expose the fallacy of looking to achieve certain set patterns?  That's a course with 16 par 4s and 2 par 3s but it feels well "balanced" to me.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I do agree that it is important to achieve a balance on a golf course, however not in the context of this thread. The balance I believe is important is that of the course to its surroundings. The course should go some way to reflect the reason why the site was chosen in the first place.

As for the balance relating to size, length and Par of Holes, that should for the most part be dictated by the site (surely that would have been one of the reasons for selecting that section of land). Perhaps our selection process is wanting, but then I have always stressed the importance of Land Fit For Purpose over, ‘we have the money we can build and shape anything we wish’ mentality. I care not for the numbers of Pars as I play the land and design placed upon it, I enjoy the design by seeking to try to overcome it, never dwelling long on if it’s a Par 3 or 5 again. Perhaps this is where my game differs from many.

I take Sean’s point re more Par 3’s and shorter courses for no other reason than to get common sense back into the game. We all know that the long aerial shot is killing the game, forcing the courses to be lengthened yet limiting the possibility of playing 36 Hole in a day. That’s more my concern, 5,500 – 6500 yard courses are more than adequate for any quality golfer as long as the equipment technology reflects the same level of consistency. Golf is not a short game, it is in fact a Marathon which affords the golfer the opportunity to undertake two round in a day. Thus experiencing the course in all its glory by enjoying the light as it reflects differently, subject to the time of day. Afternoon shadows appear showing the true shape and contours of the course explaining more about the course one experienced in the mornings round.

No, the only balance should IMHO relate to the selection process allowing the course to reflect not just light but also the surrounding environment – one reason why I hate fake or faking even small sections of a new course.

Play the course stop being fixated by repetitive Pars, be they 3 4 or 5’s. Just enjoy the challenge and hopefully the second round in the afternoon (you need to start enjoying it as soon, if left to others there will not be time for 36 Holes in a day due to the lengths of some of the new courses).

Melvyn         

[Jeff_Brauer]

While I have written that balance is important - and more in distance variation, wind variation, etc., than actual par, I really believe 18 good holes is better and balance is important, all other things being equal.  If it comes to a choice of 18 good holes or 15 good ones and better balance, I go with the good 18.

I rarely design that way, focusing on the best nine or 18 holes I can find.  On most routings, there are some opportunities for tweaks.  As I write, I am debating back to back par fives vs a different configuration, and all things considered, thinking of going with the back to back fives, but if I keep thinking about it (quit last night at 5 to go to a hockey game, hoping for a fresh mind this morning) I reserve the right to change the mind.  In this case, total yardage (ex. nine that is WAY too short), circulation problems, etc. come first.

[Adam Clayman]

Balance in gca is felt. It's the ebb and flow. Pebble Beach would be an example of a great balance. Some ups, some downs, but the whole is greater for it.

[Howard Riefs]

In this case, total yardage (ex. nine that is WAY too short), circulation problems, etc. come first.

This is my primary interest when thinking of balance: total yardage. Staring at a scorecard, I rather not see the 6,600 yard tees with nines of 3,100 and 3,500 yards or the like. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think Jeff and Scott explained this in the same way I think about too. I sort of have 'Scotts rules' in the background of my thoughts but I really just look for a best routing, by the same token I guess there are some aspects I try and avoid, starting with a par 3 would be something I would try not to do, finishing with a par 3 I dont see as a negative, two par 3 holes consective I would try and avoid also and it would take an extreme parcel of land to convince me to do those things (and I have done them). I think when the par is within 3 on each nine, ie a 34 & 37 its ok, I think a 33 & 38 would probably not be. I think 34 & 36 is absolutely no problem or a 35 & 37 obviously. Sometimes I think having imbalance can create the actual interest, similar to how we perceive quirk, the really great courses though do largely conform to many of the 'rules' though the 'wind direction rule' is one rarely observed.

[Tim Nugent]

The course I am currently working on his a 36/36 but the backhas only 1 par 3 and 1 par 5.  Of course I could have shortened the 310 yard 17th and lengthened the 470 yard 15th and not ended with 5 par 4's.  Sure, the score card would look better and I wouldn't have to keep explaining WHY what I have is IMO better golf.  Even though there are 5 par 4's in a row, they are 360, 470, 460, 310, and 405.
 In this case, the course is a 6,650 members course.  Since the other 5 on the back is short (500 yds) I felt a long four added more teeth and less repetition  Plus, being able to put the 2 long par 4's back-to-back (in opposite direction) adds a daunting element in the middle of the back nine and let's me bookend them with 2 finesse 4's.  The balance is there.

[Jud_T]

Balance is very important in a golf course.  It has virtually nothing to do with par however IMO.  When I think of balance I think of variety and sequencing  (i.e. Ian's roller coaster analogy).  Play a match on a course you've never seen without a scorecard, then judge whether the course was balanced or not...

[Michael Goldstein]

"Balance in GCA is felt.  It is ebb and flow" - I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.  For example, I love the ebb and flow of a predominantly out and back links - particularly when it's howling.

I think all the 'rules' are rubbish.  Sure, you can't build something so quirky that a course will fail financially.  But, particularly at a settled members course, the goal of creating a great course should not be unnecessarily inhibited by numbers, yardages, or the 36/36 concept. 

GCA's should be leaders not followers. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()