Balanced Nines

[Jeff_Lewis]

There has been some discussion on the Matt Ward NJ 18 thread about his choosing to create balanced 9s for an imaginary golf course. Some architects have more of a tendency than others to create balanced 9s on real golf courses. Tom Doak has been praised for his willingness to take what the Oregon coastline offered him and create an extremely unbalanced course (and a wonderful one!) at Pac Dunes.

If an architect building real golf courses has a tendency to stamp out par 72s, does that say anything about their overall approach to design? Would an architect who is more likely to interpret the environment be less likely to come up with balanced 36-36-72 courses? Were Golden Age courses less likely to be par 72 than Dull Age courses?

[Jeff_Lewis]

Golden Agers courses in the Golf Digest top 100
                       Total                   72s
Ross                 11                       6
Tillinghast          8                        3
CBM/Raynor       5                        2
Flynn                4                        1
AM                   3.5                      2
Colt                  2                        0
Thomas             2                        0
Maxwell             1.5                      0

Total                37                      14

Modern Agers
Dye                  8.5                      7
Nicklaus            5.5                      5
Fazio(s)            7                         7
RTJ                  10                       9
Wilson              4                         3
Rees Jones        1                         1

Total                36                       32


I am not jumping to a conclusion here, but does anybody think this modern tendency has implications for architecture? And PLEASE don't jump on me if I got the math wrong.

[Forrest Richardson]

Your discussion so far implies that "balanced" means par distribution. And this is but one element of the recipe.

As far as Pacific Dunes' routing being "the only" solution — for any other would be a crime — I can safely say this is not the case. I'm sure Tom D. would say that there were several options, perhaps even a more balanced par solution. The end result is tremendous. But golf courses are rarely built in the "only" possible way, especially at a site such as Bandon.

[ForkaB]

I agree, Forrest, re: the Bandon courses.  redanman is indulging in hagiography if he thinks that the current routing of PD is the only one or even anything close to the optimal one.  It is a great course, but only one of a very many great courses that could have been built on that land.

[tonyt]

See a thread last updated in March this year, entitled "Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?"

It has many views on the par formula, including input from Tom Doak and a couple of other architects.

[JohnV]

Without even changing the routing, you can change the balance of PD.  Just imagine it starting with the current #8 instead of the current #1.  Going from there you get a 35-36 with 3-4-2 front nine and a 2-5-2 back nine.  #8 could have been #1 (it was the start of the round when there were only 9 holes)

Jeff, did your survey of the GD 100 consider that some of the classic courses have had par changed on some holes over the years (primarily 5s becoming 4s)?

[Forrest Richardson]

The search for the "ideal" course, indeed that was the thought process of many Golden Age designers, was a forthright pursuit. Many times it bordered on formula and there was little talk of the quirky aspacts of courses such as Church Stretton (England) or Bishop Auckland (also England). In fact, it WAS the Golden Age designers who first suggested that golf be more formula in respect, although I doubt they used that word. NGLA was a formula of sorts: Borrowed designs and shot concepts laid out in amazing fashion, but far from their origins.

[Jeff_Lewis]

John V, adjusting par on some of the classics would make them non-72s, both Winged Foots for example. I just copied what is on the GD list.

Perhaps Balanced Nines is a poor title for this thread, my question is does a 72 mindset lead one to make design decisions that would not occur with a more open mind about par. Why not say I need 33-37 on each side and at least one 3 and one 5 and just see what happens?

[JohnV]

Jeff, You are right that some have gone "down" to 72 over the years also.

When I was younger, my parents were members at San Jose Country Club and it was a 33-37 with no par 5s on the front and 3 on the back.  It worked with the way the land was there so I'm not even sure that requiring a par 5 on each side is required.