Par 72 as standard?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does anyone here in the golf biz have any real stats that would suggest or prove that par 72 actually is more popular with golfers?

I work with a business consultant who says that his work proves par 72 courses are nearly always more popular than 70 or 71.  I actually have one client who believes it, at least to the degree that his course is percieved as "weak" because it tips out at 6700 yards, but no one realizes that its a par 70, which makes it the equivalent to 69-7000 yards.

Just a general question, although I have a few remodels going where I really think a lower par makes a better golf course.

Thanks in advance for any info.

[Nigel Islam]

This may sound weird but when I play a modern course with a par of 72, my first thought is the course will be boring. Sorry if that makes me sound ridiculous, but it the way I feel.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,

I've just finished a major redesign of an existing club course up here, in Canada. Part of the plan is a change from par 72 to 71. This resulted in a bit of an 'uproar' from a faction of club members, there! So, I did some research - which I don't have with me at the moment - to show that par 72 is in fact NOT a standard, by any means. Of the top-10 courses in the world, I recall that only Augusta and Pebble Beach play to par 72 (and, of course, Pebble is par 71 when the Open is played there these days). There are other interesting stats relative to this subject. I'll try to remember to dig some out and post, later.   

Hasn't it been established that any 'standards' in golf architecture are bad for the game

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am pretty sure that in the eyes of the masses 72 is the best number. That can relate to all sorts of things like easier to market memberships, real estate, outings..... so basically everything that 99% of modern new golf clubs would want.  Someone will say I prefer par 70 or 71. If its a stand alone golf course I think 70, 71 or 72 is pretty much acceptable, if its 69 or less its a big negative. Course quality and best routing still beats moving the mountain to hit that 'standard number' though.

[JMEvensky]

Does anyone here in the golf biz have any real stats that would suggest or prove that par 72 actually is more popular with golfers?

I work with a business consultant who says that his work proves par 72 courses are nearly always more popular than 70 or 71.  I actually have one client who believes it, at least to the degree that his course is percieved as "weak" because it tips out at 6700 yards, but no one realizes that its a par 70, which makes it the equivalent to 69-7000 yards.

Just a general question, although I have a few remodels going where I really think a lower par makes a better golf course.

Thanks in advance for any info.

I'd have thought par 70 more popular since it's easier to break 80.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Are they a member of the golf course appraisers group?

Unless they are a world renowned economist - I don't believe them.


This is from Tom Doak:

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

[Garland Bayley]

This may sound weird but when I play a modern course with a par of 72, my first thought is the course will be boring. Sorry if that makes me sound ridiculous, but it the way I feel.

+1

[Bill Seitz]

I'd have thought par 70 more popular since it's easier to break 80.

Actually, I kind of think this is the only drawback of a non-par 72 course.  If I shoot a good round, I feel like I need to fully disclose that my 75 (or what have you) was really five over and not three over. 

[Ben Voelker]

This may sound weird but when I play a modern course with a par of 72, my first thought is the course will be boring. Sorry if that makes me sound ridiculous, but it the way I feel.

+1

Well, so much for the popular edict around here that par should be irrelevant.  It is a shame that some are so critical that they cannot just enjoy golf and instead of being turned off because par is 72.

[Matthew Essig]

This may sound weird but when I play a modern course with a par of 72, my first thought is the course will be boring. Sorry if that makes me sound ridiculous, but it the way I feel.

+1

+2

[Tom Walsh]

Count me as part of the "masses" that don't believe 72 is standard. In fact when I see 72 I think boring, conventional, and long. Of course it's just a number. Watched Peter Alliss on Feherty and Alliss recommends doing away with par altogether. Low gross wins    I agree.

[Joey Chase]

I'd have thought par 70 more popular since it's easier to break 80.

Actually, I kind of think this is the only drawback of a non-par 72 course.  If I shoot a good round, I feel like I need to fully disclose that my 75 (or what have you) was really five over and not three over. 

Wow, you've just ruined me, I've been bragging about my 75 at Harlech for two years now!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff M,

Well anything you can provide might be of help.  I think my standard is that non Par 72 will actually cost rounds at a public course.  I wonder if that is really old school thinking or not, or just someone re-trumpeting "conventional wisdom."

I might ask someone at the golf course appraisal group.  Seems like they should know!

[Joey Chase]

I've yet to hear someone say "let's play Course A instead of Course B because Course B is a par 70 and Course A is a par 72".  I am surprised that anyone would ever consider the merits of a course based on the configuration of par be them gca nuts or not.  Are there really a good number of golfers that think this way?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think as long as a course is 70, 71 or 72 then largely its going to stand on its own merits as a golf course.

Real estate sells better on a 'named' design course or that 'championship' tag, so I think developers often have this two nines of two short holes and two par 5s and 7200 yards.

If 19 out of the top 50 are par 72 and 16 are 71 and 15 are 70 then those are pretty much the facts..... theres not a lot in it but there are more nods to the 72. Its the same sort of stats when you look at the GB and Ire top 300.

[David Whitmer]

I remember reading in Pete Dye's Bury Me In A Pot Bunker that he (and I'm paraphrasing here as I am at work and the book is at home) will typically build a golf course that has four par 5s, ten par 4s, and four par 3s. I wondered then and now why he would go looking for that breakdown of holes prior to starting his design...it seems limiting.

I've played ten or so Pete Dye courses, and I can't remember thinking about the configuration of holes. But looking back every Pete Dye course I have played has the 4-10-4 breakdown. I guess since it didn't occur to me as I was playing them it's not a big deal, or he just did a great job with the design and I didn't notice.

I wonder if he's designed any or many courses that deviate from the 4-10-4 breakdown. If he has not, has there ever been an instance where he settled or built a hole he otherwise didn't want to build, but had to to get to the 4-10-4?

[Duncan Cheslett]

I am pretty sure that in the eyes of the masses 72 is the best number. That can relate to all sorts of things like easier to market memberships, real estate, outings..... so basically everything that 99% of modern new golf clubs would want.  Someone will say I prefer par 70 or 71. If its a stand alone golf course I think 70, 71 or 72 is pretty much acceptable, if its 69 or less its a big negative. Course quality and best routing still beats moving the mountain to hit that 'standard number' though.

Adrian,

Are you saying that from a marketing point of view a par 70 course will be more attractive than a par 69? If so would redesignating a par 4 hole of 460 yards a par 5 hole (which it is for all but sub 2 handicappers) potentially increase visitor numbers?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am pretty sure that in the eyes of the masses 72 is the best number. That can relate to all sorts of things like easier to market memberships, real estate, outings..... so basically everything that 99% of modern new golf clubs would want.  Someone will say I prefer par 70 or 71. If its a stand alone golf course I think 70, 71 or 72 is pretty much acceptable, if its 69 or less its a big negative. Course quality and best routing still beats moving the mountain to hit that 'standard number' though.

Adrian,

Are you saying that from a marketing point of view a par 70 course will be more attractive than a par 69? If so would redesignating a par 4 hole of 460 yards a par 5 hole (which it is for all but sub 2 handicappers) potentially increase visitor numbers?

I think there are two answers to this. Yes Par 70 is easier to market than 69 but this is more important at the opening and early stages of a course. I dont think if you just convert a hole now into a 5 you will get the same mileage at RV by calling it a 70. A UK course needs to have a SSS that is the same as the par to attract and keep good golfers, somewhere like Painswick suffers as the SSS is 4 less than the par so a 5 handicapper has to go round in under to drop a shot. I would not think RV is held back because of its par. What is the SSS?

[Duncan Cheslett]

SSS is 70

There has been talk for some years of extending the hole in question by 20-30 yards by moving the white tee back. The problem is that this would bring a ditch into play 170 yards from the new tee - this would not go down well with many seniors who are accustomed to seeing their drives land well onto the fairway.

However, in the current climate the main concern is attracting visitors and new members to ensure the club's future. If a par of 70 for the course instead of the current par 69 would help in this then it must be a consideration.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Might be worth doing then bearing in mind the SSS is one more already. Could the new tee just be extended for compettions so as not to bugger it for the seniors.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Yes it could. The existing tee would remain untouched.

Would there be a chance that the SSS would be increased to 71? I have to confess a complete ingorance of how the SSS is calculated.

[Sean_A]

I am pretty sure that in the eyes of the masses 72 is the best number. That can relate to all sorts of things like easier to market memberships, real estate, outings..... so basically everything that 99% of modern new golf clubs would want.  Someone will say I prefer par 70 or 71. If its a stand alone golf course I think 70, 71 or 72 is pretty much acceptable, if its 69 or less its a big negative. Course quality and best routing still beats moving the mountain to hit that 'standard number' though.

Adrian,

Are you saying that from a marketing point of view a par 70 course will be more attractive than a par 69? If so would redesignating a par 4 hole of 460 yards a par 5 hole (which it is for all but sub 2 handicappers) potentially increase visitor numbers?

I think there are two answers to this. Yes Par 70 is easier to market than 69 but this is more important at the opening and early stages of a course. I dont think if you just convert a hole now into a 5 you will get the same mileage at RV by calling it a 70. A UK course needs to have a SSS that is the same as the par to attract and keep good golfers, somewhere like Painswick suffers as the SSS is 4 less than the par so a 5 handicapper has to go round in under to drop a shot. I would not think RV is held back because of its par. What is the SSS?

I agree with Adrian.  In the UK, it helps to have minimum par of 70 and the SSS no less than one below par.  I have known good players to switch clubs from short par 70 course with an SSS of 68 because its easier to keep a cap low on long modern courses with SSS over par.  This is mainly driven by handicap requirements to enter events and even go through the PGA system.  I have long held the policy of fancying players from short courses over those from long courses (same handicaps) for this reason.

Ciao 

[Adrian_Stiff]

There is a chance. In general terms the SSS would increase say every 230 yards, it just depends where your assessment was last time. Length of course is the general way SSS gets rated but these days they take other things into account like difficulty from the tee at say 220, the width of the fairways, normal depth of rough, green slope. You may already have had a recent SSS reassessment, if not contact your county. If you want good players the Par 67 SSS 63 is exactly what not to do and a par 70 SSS 72 allows good players a chance to keep their hcp low. There is some guide notes on the EGU site and I think you would enjoy reading them.

[Jim_Kennedy]

It's been 20 years since the USGA used 72/288 as par for their championship.

I have no 'info' other than personal, but the majority of players I know care more about the yardage than the par (although they do get a little squirrely if it's under 70).

72 must be a marketing thing.

edit: 5s do offer most players a chance to make more pars, so they have that going for them. 

[Nigel Islam]

My earlier comments notwithstanding, I DO think there are lot of great courses with par of 72, but I think s formula of 2 par 3s, 2 par 5s, 5 par 4s a nine is, shall I say, overused as is the term "Championship Golf Course."