Par 72 as standard?

[Tom Yost]

Not in the golf biz and I have no real stats... but from observation, it would appear that 72 is some sort of sacred number to a vast majority of Joe Average Golfers.

On another golf forum that I frequent, there was a long debate about the recent rounds of 59 posted on the PGA Tour and how "valid" was Appleby's 59 shot on a par 70 course vs. Goydos' (par 71) vs. the others on par 72 tracks.

The majority view was based purely on math:  13 under par is better than 12 under par which is better than 11 under par.

As well, a remarkable number of posters expressed the belief that a par 70 course must simply be easier that a par 71 or par 72.

[Nigel Islam]

Not in the golf biz and I have no real stats... but from observation, it would appear that 72 is some sort of sacred number to a vast majority of Joe Average Golfers.

On another golf forum that I frequent, there was a long debate about the recent rounds of 59 posted on the PGA Tour and how "valid" was Appleby's 59 shot on a par 70 course vs. Goydos' (par 71) vs. the others on par 72 tracks.

The majority view was based purely on math:  13 under par is better than 12 under par which is better than 11 under par.

As well, a remarkable number of posters expressed the belief that a par 70 course must simply be easier that a par 71 or par 72.

I will never ever get that logic. So if someone shoots 59 in the final round at Merion next year it will be less impressive than Duval's 59 at the Palmer course because Duval was -13?

[Mike Nuzzo]

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.

Adrian
For you to make this as a statement, I'd like for you to prove it.
Are you sure it isn't the advertising budget, wider sidewalks, more green space, lot configuration, ritzy neighbors, security guard entrance, better lighting, more cobblestone, pretty faucets, high speed internet...

[mike_beene]

Growing up in Dallas,almost every course was a 71(Tenison West,Cedar Crest,Northwood,Lakewood,Brook Hollow,Preston Trail,Shady Oaks,Stephens Park,LB Houston,Oak Cliff)Then you have Colonial and Dallas CC at 70.It was the newer real estate courses that started going to 72 as the years went.Maybe it is a regional and generational thing but 72 seems more rare to me than 71.

[John_Conley]

On another golf forum that I frequent, there was a long debate about the recent rounds of 59 posted on the PGA Tour and how "valid" was Appleby's 59 shot on a par 70 course vs. Goydos' (par 71) vs. the others on par 72 tracks.

The majority view was based purely on math:  13 under par is better than 12 under par which is better than 11 under par.

As well, a remarkable number of posters expressed the belief that a par 70 course must simply be easier that a par 71 or par 72.

This is interesting to me.  Kinda scary.  When scores get real low in professional golf, they generally get there when guys devour the par 5s.  It gets a good bit harder to shoot under par on a 71 or 70.  

[Stephen Davis]

I can only speak for myself, but I actually prefer par 71 courses. I would trade a mediocre lar 5 for a fun or exciting par 4 any day. I also this that the average golfer (one not like us) who just looks at his scorecard and says "I broke 80...  90... 100..." or whatever the score might be, might actually prefer a lower par, as it brings with it the potential for a lower score.

[mike_beene]

It seems that the golfers who obsess about par 72 are actually playing a par 96 with lateral OBs , 3 mulligans aside and their special putting ball.

[Adrian_Stiff]

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.

Adrian
For you to make this as a statement, I'd like for you to prove it.
Are you sure it isn't the advertising budget, wider sidewalks, more green space, lot configuration, ritzy neighbors, security guard entrance, better lighting, more cobblestone, pretty faucets, high speed internet...

Mike I would say it could be proven if you could get the real estate stats for a like to like situation with a Mike Nuzzo golf course versus the Arnold Palmer golf course. Ultimately I think more people will buy the Palmer than wat to say 'we live on a Mike Nuzzo or Adrian Stiff course', ultimately that square footage would trade at a higher price per square foot. A Nuzzo course could still be better than the Palmer as a stand alone course, its just the perceived situ. The things you mention count also, but those kind of things are the gravy that goes will a Palmer rather than a Nuzzo. Someone hires a Palmer for the glitz n glamour, someone hires you for the value and belief his golf product will good without the 'rip'.

[Matthew Rose]

I can only speak for myself, but I actually prefer par 71 courses. I would trade a mediocre lar 5 for a fun or exciting par 4 any day. I also this that the average golfer (one not like us) who just looks at his scorecard and says "I broke 80...  90... 100..." or whatever the score might be, might actually prefer a lower par, as it brings with it the potential for a lower score.

It has been a personal goal for a very long time to break 70. To date I have not done it, though I've been very close twice in recent weeks.... I've shot 70 twice on the same golf course which is a par 71. Obviously it's a little easier on a par-70 course, since all I need to do is be -1 to get to that elusive 69.

I don't make bunches of birdies..... generally I'm good for just one or two. I'm one of those guys who just makes a ton of pars and shoots very close to even a lot of the time but I rarely go under par. On a par-72 course, I have to be -3 instead of -1 and that's a tough ask. For most good players, the presence of more par-fives would theoretically make that easier. But I tend to screw them up So those two extra par-fives never seem to help me all that much.

I think more par-70 courses with less par-fives would be good for munis and high public access courses. High handicappers and women tend to struggle on the long holes anyway, so why not have two less?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I tend to agree that for general play we need shorter and easier to make people enjoy the game. I dont think your reasons are enough that its easier to break 70 is valid for the purpose of 'standard'. Most PGA courses were 72, anything other than 72 was quite rare until they decided they needed to reduce the under par scoring. I also think its kinda nutty to like a par 71 and not a 72 or a 70, because in reality only someone completely mental would say 'I am only playing courses par 72, or par 71' . I will check the UK stats later and pull up what % are par 72s 71s etc... I know there are not many 74s!!!!

Like a lot of things STANDARD means something different to each situation, if you want a new course and only have 80 acres you probably cant have par 72, but with big acreage, most architects tend to think of 72 as a rough target, but if theres a great hole shorter 71 or 70 is probably not a problem, though they may well look at future situations where the client could extend. Mr Doak would be best to explain how he would think this because if one of his courses (and I think he said most of his) came out at 71 and not 72 I dont think he would see it as a minus... but I am guessing what he thinks.

The interesting situation is reverse would we have a par 73 or 74 if the land was better or would we see 73 or 74 as a negative and then do our sums, to change/shorten or keep 73/74.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I believe Tom has said before on this site that the next radical step in GCA is to get owners and thus the public accepting a par-69 as normal...

I think everyone accepts Par-70 to Par-73 as normal, especially in Britain & Ireland where we have much more variety in our older course setups... I suspect the par 70 & 71's are becoming more widely accepted in the US now that the USGA and other majors are reducing par to keep scoring under at a minimum...

It is the new markets where we need to make sure that Par-72's don't get set as "the norm"... The far east are in love with a 72, perhaps through their connection with the number 8 and symmetry...

It's about changing people's perception of what a "balanced" golf course means...

[Brett_Morrissy]

There is also nothing wrong with 72, is there? Surely only those involved in the original routing really know the limitations and parameters that dictated the length and the par, and more importantly how well, balanced and naturally the holes fit the land available to establish par. 

Or does the term 'standard 72' imply manufactured and unbalanced?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brett,

I agree there is nothing wrong with a 72.  In general, 10 par 4's is better than 11 or 12 for variety.  On a specific course, the design of the par5's needs to be interesting.

Also interesting discussion about length perception.  While stats wise, 60% play at 6300 yards, why is it that they believe (or we believe they believe that there must be two sets of tees behind them that they will never see or use?  Has tee it forward, and reality about our own golf games set in enough to where someone could max out at say 6800 (suitable for all but about 1% of players, if not more) and tell the big sticks to go play somewhere else?

The courses in question are being told that this is coming, but its not wise to be the market leader in that new trend.  I understand that, but wonder what it would take to market a 6600-6800 yard course against equal quality courses that are longer?

[Jason Topp]

I would love to see the research.  There may be some truth to the statement.  My club is a 6600 yard par 70 and when recruiting members I think some see the par and scorecard length as a drawback.  We have room to increase the par and lengthen but it would screw up one of the best holes on the course.  The club has wisely declined to change.

[Matthew Petersen]

I can only speak for myself, but I actually prefer par 71 courses. I would trade a mediocre lar 5 for a fun or exciting par 4 any day. I also this that the average golfer (one not like us) who just looks at his scorecard and says "I broke 80...  90... 100..." or whatever the score might be, might actually prefer a lower par, as it brings with it the potential for a lower score.

It has been a personal goal for a very long time to break 70. To date I have not done it, though I've been very close twice in recent weeks.... I've shot 70 twice on the same golf course which is a par 71. Obviously it's a little easier on a par-70 course, since all I need to do is be -1 to get to that elusive 69.

I don't make bunches of birdies..... generally I'm good for just one or two. I'm one of those guys who just makes a ton of pars and shoots very close to even a lot of the time but I rarely go under par. On a par-72 course, I have to be -3 instead of -1 and that's a tough ask. For most good players, the presence of more par-fives would theoretically make that easier. But I tend to screw them up So those two extra par-fives never seem to help me all that much.

I think more par-70 courses with less par-fives would be good for munis and high public access courses. High handicappers and women tend to struggle on the long holes anyway, so why not have two less?

I'm a similar-type player (or was before my game began deteriorating). I first broke 70 on a par 70 course and wasn't even really aware it was in play until I birdied 17 to go -1 on the day and it occurred to me that if I parred the last -1 would actually be 69.

Second time I broke 70 was a par 71. It definitely helps if you're not a player who makes birdies.

On the other end, I was over the green on #18 at Kapalua Plantation in two shots the first time I played there. I needed birdie for 79 and failed to get up and down. So, +7, but still didn't break 80.

[Garland Bayley]

Think about how we got where we are with par.

Before machinery and watering greens were located by the lay of the land. Then with TOC as the dominant model we standardized on 18 hole courses. With this kind of background for laying out courses, you will find a certain percent fall into categories 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74. Of those 70, 71, and 72 were probably the most common. What the actual par was depended on the land.

Now with machinery and irrigation many architects choose not to be dependent on the land. Since 73 and 74 are so rare, but bigger is better, they probably try to do 72.

It would be interesting to see what pars Jones, Jones, Jones, Fazio, Nicklaus, Palmer, etc. come up with vs. what pars Hanse, Doak, Coore and Crenshaw come up with. I suspect you will get quite different distributions.

This is why 72 can have bad connotations. It suggests the possibility of something forced upon the land.

[Greg Tallman]

I would love to see the research.  There may be some truth to the statement.  My club is a 6600 yard par 70 and when recruiting members I think some see the par and scorecard length as a drawback.  We have room to increase the par and lengthen but it would screw up one of the best holes on the course.  The club has wisely declined to change.

Jason, There was a good article back in 2005 that elaborated on and quantified this very topic. The list, as I recall, started out...

1. Fazio
2. Nicklaus
3. Weiskopf

Riding in the car with TW I noted the article and his position, stating it in very positive terms. He seemed offended that he was not #1 and called the entire article into question. I will try to dig it up but cannot recall what publication it was in at this time.

[Carl Rogers]

My observation is that after many years of playing w/ 15 to 25 handicappers, that they would rather play more par 3's than par 5's.  Par 68 would be my standard at 5700 yards from the middle tees ...  faster play, less grass to cut.

[Philippe Binette]

The answer to that, when changig the par on an existing course, is simple:

you ask the players: what is your average score

the guy answers 92...

your answer: why would you care if the par is 65, or 75... you're shooting 92

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
If the 60% of players who play at 6300 yards were faced with an examination like Rye (par 68), would 68 have a better chance of becoming the 'new 72'?
  

[Greg Tallman]

To Mike's argument, to some degree I agree but only in an established community. That is to say I  believe that at Cabo del Sol our thrid course would be just as successful if it were designed by say Jim Lipe & Kurt Bowman as if it were designed by Tom Fazio so long as the product was of excellent quality. We hope to get to prove this out one day but one never knows.

Conversely, and I write this with a bit of a heavy heart, Diamante is going the opposite direction, instead of having Paul Cowley design their second course they went after the name brand in Tiger Woods. Given their situation and how the second course will be operated I would have to say they made the right call. I am not saying they will get a better product, I honestly think it would be inferior to what a completely engaged Paul Cowley would have created but I believe the buzz of Tiger's name is a must for a resort/public course sitting alongside The Dunes Course. Our situation would be quite the opposite as a third CDS course would be ultra private and members would have access to the resort courses if they so desired.  

The days of writing off a huge design fee to marketing are largely over but not completely dead.

[Tony Ristola]

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.

No proof that Par-72 is more popular than 71, but I went through The World Atlas of Golf, the Three Majors (sans Augusta) for 15 or 20-years, and a couple Top 100 lists, and the majority of courses in each were not Par-72. The majors, especially in the US cut out a  par-5 or two to keep scores high; but the other lists also had par-72 in the minority.

The number crunching was the result of (often) hearing from folks about the need for par-72. You can see some courses where they shoe-horned in a par-5 to get the needed stroke, and in the process created a dog of a hole or more in the process.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Here are the UK stats;

If you look at the Golf World
GB&Ire top 200:               All 2563
Below 63                      108   4.21%  
Par 63 - 1      0.5%         23   0.89%
Par 64 - 0                       56   2.18%
Par 65 - 0                       43   1.67%
Par 66 - 1      0.5%       114   4.45%
Par 67 - 0                     101   3.94%
Par 68 - 3      1.5%        219   8.54%
Par 69 - 8      4.0%        352  12.73%
Par 70 - 25    12.5%      552  21.53%    
Par 71 - 54    27%        460  17.9%
Par 72 - 99    49.5%      460 17.9%
Par 73 - 8      4%          61   2.38%
Par 74  -1      0.5%       13  0.5%
Par 75 - 0                     1   0.39%

Some course may have changed their par, Waterville I have at 74, not sure if thats right and the Par 75 course is Five Lakes, I dont know if thats still the case.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony and Adrian,

Thanks for the stats and perspective, esp the GBI top 200, since US Open, top 100, etc. aren't really the benchmark for a resort or muni course.  Actually, in both cases, there are places where I might shoe horn in a short 5 rather than long 4 just to get that par72 requested.  And, maybe the average Joe would prefer the short par 5 as a birdie or par hole, rather than a challenging par 4 for the long player.

A dilemma really, in that making a resort or muni course harder for the long hitter probably plays to the wrong audience.  At the same time, the image of a course being a real challenge for better players still seems to drive marketing, so you end up touting a course for a small group, in hopes of making it more popular with a lesser group of players.

Doesn't really make sense to me.  Haven't golfers figured out that they need to find a set of tees that provides them a pleasant test? 

[Niall C]

Brett,

In general, 10 par 4's is better than 11 or 12 for variety. 

Jeff

Interesting thread but I'd like to challenge your statement above. If you move away from what is standard for a par 4 eg. greater variety in length, size and shape of green in relation to approach shot etc, and generally mix it up a bit, then the number of par 4's becomes less of an issue and so does the overall par, except of course in terms of perception of the course to those that don't know it which I think is what this thread is about.

To give an example, Moray Old, off the normal tees has 14 par 4's, 3 par 3's and 1 par 5. I've played there with someone playing it for the first time and they were surpirsed when I told them on the 17th tee that they had just played 13 par 4's and 3 par 3's. They simply weren't conscious of the number of par 4's because of the variety. Of course it does help that its a links with a great variety of terrain and wind direction but still I think the principles the same.

Niall