Par 72 as standard?

[Tony_Chapman]

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?

Firethorn GC in Lincoln, NE is a par-71. Only one par-5 on the back nine. It's a fantastic golf course.

[David Davis]

Played West Sussex a few weeks ago. Par 68 but a great course. Remember thinking afterwards if I have a great day there it might be one of my only shots to have a round in the 60's. Just so I could answer the question, what's your best round ever with like 69 or 68 with a big smile and and a bitten tongue yet still speaking every bit of the truth :-)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

I fully understand that on any individual design it may be possible to create more variety with one combo of holes over another.  That said, in theory, if ll things being equal - like designing in a cornfield rather than a spectacular site that give more design cues - that the pure numbers by virtue of playing 10+ of them vs 2-4 par fives suggests it would be easier to create variety with 4 par 5's and 10 vs 11 par 4 holes.  

I can easily think of 4 very different par 5 holes in concept.  And, I can think of way more than even 12 par 4 concepts, but feel they tend to run together a bit no matter what you do in that cornfield.  

I also believe that for the most part, par 3 and par 5 holes were introduced solely to provide variety from par 4's.  Par 3's have no shot related strategy and par 5's may have strategy, but it can be created in two shots, and the third was a bit unnecessary.  I just imagine some old Scottish bloke looked around, got tired of similar holes and got an idea for 3 and 5's, maybe even 6,7 and 8 par holes, which was given the thumbs down......

[Nigel Islam]

I also believe that for the most part, par 3 and par 5 holes were introduced solely to provide variety from par 4's.  Par 3's have no shot related strategy and par 5's may have strategy, but it can be created in two shots, and the third was a bit unnecessary.  I just imagine some old Scottish bloke looked around, got tired of similar holes and got an idea for 3 and 5's, maybe even 6,7 and 8 par holes, which was given the thumbs down......

Now that would be a par 72 that would be far from the standard. 18 par 4s=Par 72!

[Tony Ristola]

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? 

You can appeal to both by having the short par-5 listed as 4/5. What would really confuse them is to make the par-5 for "members" (and getting to par-72) around 500-yards, and the par-4 back tee in front at 480.

[Tom_Doak]

You can appeal to both by having the short par-5 listed as 4/5. What would really confuse them is to make the par-5 for "members" (and getting to par-72) around 500-yards, and the par-4 back tee in front at 480.

Tony:

I have seen that tried several times -- Cuscowilla was one such course where I believe both the ninth and eighteenth holes were planned as par fives for the members and par-4's for the big boys.  However, the set-up is usually panned by golfers.  Really, the big boys can play those holes easily at 500 yards, whatever par you call them, so why would you shorten the holes for them?

When I first visited, Woodhall Spa was a 6800-yard par-73 from the back tees and a 6600-yard par-70 from the whites, because they were strict interpreters of the 470-yard cutoff for a par 5.  Don't know if it is still that way.

[Mark Saltzman]

You can appeal to both by having the short par-5 listed as 4/5. What would really confuse them is to make the par-5 for "members" (and getting to par-72) around 500-yards, and the par-4 back tee in front at 480.

Tony, many examples of this here...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47773.html