[Steve Wilson]

I wonder if the notion of "par 72" hearkens back to keeping one's score in terms of its relationship to level fours.  My understanding of that practice is that, by knowing one's multiplication tables, you could project about where your score was going to finish.  There was no reference to par intended, merely a final score. 

If you were at level fours through fourteen you knew you had a good chance to finish around 72, and that wasn't necessarily the par of the course. 

Given how influential TOC has been it's kind of surprising that a configuration of the fourteen par fours and two each of threes and fives wasn't more common. 

[Bill_McBride]

I wonder if the notion of "par 72" hearkens back to keeping one's score in terms of its relationship to level fours.  My understanding of that practice is that, by knowing one's multiplication tables, you could project about where your score was going to finish.  There was no reference to par intended, merely a final score. 

If you were at level fours through fourteen you knew you had a good chance to finish around 72, and that wasn't necessarily the par of the course. 

Given the state of my game these days (with which you are familiar), I'm reduced to keeping score vs 5s.  Even 5s = 90.  Yikes!

[Lou_Duran]

I wonder if the notion of "par 72" hearkens back to keeping one's score in terms of its relationship to level fours.  My understanding of that practice is that, by knowing one's multiplication tables, you could project about where your score was going to finish.  There was no reference to par intended, merely a final score. 

If you were at level fours through fourteen you knew you had a good chance to finish around 72, and that wasn't necessarily the par of the course. 

Given how influential TOC has been it's kind of surprising that a configuration of the fourteen par fours and two each of threes and fives wasn't more common. 

The more sophisticated opinion has it beginning with the  inartistic mechanic posing as an architect selling his soul for a small purse of gold to a greedy capitalist developer who cares only about despoiling the environment and maximizing lot yields.   The ancient traditions of the game be damned.  That golfers in substantial numbers may prefer the greater variety of more hole types and fewer two shotters has nothing to do with the great abundance of par 72 courses.  Being one of those consumers led by the nose by evil marketers, I am happy as a peach with the 10-4-4 configuration of my home course.  Something to be said for being of an uncomplicated, simple mind.          

[John Kavanaugh]

The notion that par 3's represent great architecture when the golfer is given a perfectly level lie while hitting his ball off a tee to a green no further than any 15 handicap can easily muster tugs at the short hairs of purity. There is no nature, no randomness, no luck involved at all. Just a simulated simulator simile of competition conquered through execution. Four three pars are two to many.

[Mike Sweeney]

It takes far more courage to change the land God presented than to accept its limitations.

John,

You live and play golf on the flattest section of the United States of America. Please abstain from this conversation until you come and actually play Yale, and no an invitation on a mining site in Central Florida does not count!

[DMoriarty]

Gib,

Unfortunately much of what we do here nowadays is sit around and make up outlandish excuses for shlock architecture.  Enjoy!

It takes far more courage to change the land God presented than to accept its limitations.

[Tom_Doak]

Gib:

Unfortunately, I think the coward was the great Bobby Jones.  I suspect he was not too insistent to Alister MacKenzie about the scorecard for Augusta National, but I believe it was in the post-war period, when The Masters came into renown, that the "balanced" scorecard came to the forefront.  The other Bob Jones (Trent) may indeed have helped to popularize it ... he liked his four par-5's with water threatening them ... but between his work on Augusta and work on Peachtree with Bobby, it's a bit harder to separate chicken from egg.

As Joel points out, everywhere in Asia, it's a REQUIREMENT.  [I didn't know they got away with par-71 at Shanquin Bay, but that is unlikely to affect change, since no one ever plays the course.]  This was true for all of the Japanese courses, it's true for the Koreans, and it's true for the Chinese.  Many of those cultures have some attachment to numerology and have superstitions about numbers [witness the fondness for the number 8 in China], which I don't understand, but I think it pushes them toward par-72 and toward the symmetry of par-5's and par-3's you describe.

For our course at Simapo Island in China -- just completed as of two weeks ago !! -- the client requested that I change a long par-3 on my original plan to a short par-4, so we'd have the symmetry you describe.  With that, I think I am up to three courses with evenly balanced nines and two par-3's and two par-5's on each side.  [I'm gonna go back now to figure it out for sure.]  So I'm 3-for-33.  God knows what the numerologists would think of that.  

I think I've only got 8 or 9 par-72 courses out of all of them.  I'm not deliberately trying to avoid it [although I did at one time ], but if you don't care whether it comes out that way or not, the odds that you'll do so randomly are strongly against it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Gib,

Unfortunately much of what we do here nowadays is sit around and make up outlandish excuses for shlock architecture.  Enjoy!

It takes far more courage to change the land God presented than to accept its limitations.

Sorry SFB but there was less dirt moved at DW than DR. Do you have a troll bot that informs you every time I post or do you really have nothing better to do?  What shlock architecture do you think I am defending?

[Steve Burrows]

We are all products of The Enlightenment.  Scientific reason and rigor have governed professional practices for a few centuries now. Golf design is no exception.  Thus, for the most part, 36-36 (with 2 par-3's and 2 par-3's per side) has has simply become naturalized.

[DMoriarty]

DR and DW again?  I don't know what the hell you are talking about, Kavanaugh.  I respond to ridiculous posts I disagree with on all sorts of threads, whether by you or others.  And I will continue to do so.  As for the rest of the tantrum, you've got issues.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think that pushing dirt around on a natural site perfectly suited for golf takes much courage, especially when the goal to try to conform to some tedious standard of balanced nines.  I think even less of the logic when the real driving force is that, personally, you prefer longer holes down the stretch when gambling.

[David Kelly]

They paved Paradise, and put up a parking lot....

Alan Partridge: That was Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song. It's 4:35 AM, you're listening to Up With The Partridge.

[John Kavanaugh]

DR and DW again?  I don't know what the hell you are talking about, Kavanaugh.  I respond to ridiculous posts I disagree with on all sorts of threads, whether by you or others.  And I will continue to do so.  As for the rest of the tantrum, you've got issues.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think that pushing dirt around on a natural site perfectly suited for golf takes much courage, especially when the goal to try to conform to some tedious standard of balanced nines.  I think even less of the logic when the real driving force is that, personally, you prefer longer holes down the stretch when gambling.

You destroy every thread you touch.  I like balance in the foundation of all things in life. I hope you find an open window and lose yours.

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,

At one point a couple years ago, I was bending Whitten's ear about encouraging truncated and/or unusual courses by identifying the best par-3 tracks, so-called "Executive Courses" and the most interesting offbeat layouts. My natural reaction to anything different or unique is almost always not only to accept it for originality, but also to look really closely at what specific elements and geometries make it noteworthy. Much of the time, humorless scratch players are incapable of appreciating the beauty of a really peculiar hole - almost as if the act of trying to decipher the different options pisses them off.

Your story about Uncle George asking "where did we go wrong?" has stuck with me something fierce. It always come down to my favorite observation that golfers can be divided between those who view the game as an objective examination or a whimsical adventure. I suppose the vast majority of the choir to whom we preach in this obscure corner of cyberspace are with me on the this point, but the other 99% think us daft. Actually, 100% think I'm daft, but that is a story for another day.

I'd love to see you vector off and maybe lay out some truncated and/or REALLY unusual courses - perhaps as an adjunct to a layout you're doing with some leftover land. That 13 hole beauty at Bandon is fabulous and - believe it or not - the 12 hole 2nd course by Damion at Monarch Dunes (Nipomo, CA) proved that Tommy's "666" moniker might have been a little harsh. I love it more every time I play it.

The idea of abandoning par (as above) makes perfect sense - but even more, crashing through every boundary might be the tonic necessary to start a new golf craze. Land and water being scarce, why do we smarty-pants savants invariably ignore shorter courses - not Swinley, but terrific jewels like Clark Glasson's Deep Cliff in Cupertino or Boulder Creek, hidden in the Santa Cruz mountains?

Los Lagos in San Jose is a blast, but gets no love; a par 68 with only four par-4s on the golf course. We ought to have a GCA outing there . . . . . . first round of beers is on the Armenian.            

[Tom_Doak]

Gib:  A course with only four par-4's would probably not be my favorite, but if it's on you, I'm game.

I went back and checked my math from my post above, if only to make sure that I could still remember every hole I've built.  Thankfully, I still can, even though some of them are gone.  The tally:

I've actually built only 7 par-72 courses out of 33.  I've also got 4 x 70, 1 x 73, and 21 x 71, which is clearly my tendency for whatever reason.  Some of them have an extra par-3, and more have only three par-5's.

Four of the par-72 courses are evenly balanced, with two par-3's and two par-5's on each side.  Those are:

1.  The Rawls Course.  The 2nd hole was originally supposed to be a long 4, but they asked us to change it to a par-5 [even though it's downwind], which was supposedly a request from the NCAA.  I think they were faking about that 

2.  Bay of Dreams, Mexico.  It was an accident to arrive at the two balanced nines.  And look how well that turned out 

3.  Streamsong (Blue).  I was surprised to remember this.  Of course, I laid it out along with Bill Coore, and I don't think either of us was paying attention.

4.  Simapo Island.  By request.

We've also got the one nine-hole course [Aetna Springs, par 35], and The Sheep Ranch [no par at all].

Thanks for the mental exercise.

[V. Kmetz]

GJB,

Are you trying to say that level fours is not a "fundamental" standard and just the 150 year phase of the game currently.  If so, I can accept that.

But there certainly was SOME standard of crisp, sound, play...even if it was shepards pounding a stone at an area of target, once they did it awhile, there was some first "record" score...for both individual "holes" as well as the whole "round" whatever that was in the truly original pre-history of the game...whatever that score might have been was or how it developed.  

But are we speaking of it now, in this era, when level fours-72, has been a stable barometer for 100 of those years.  If its not, then why don't I hear of any men's par 75s or 69s old or new? I think I've heard of two (2) designed Par 74s and NGLA is the only 73 I can remember playing right now, though I know of others.  I think Oakmont was originally out forth as a Par 80...

But no, all we have, by and large, is 70, 71, and 72 within a range of 5000 - 8000 yards; and being the preponderance of holes on any of those courses are what is carded as a Par 4, and 18 such 4s would make 99% of all golfers happy on your average day...I think i'm justified in making the statement, to the extent it will do any good for the discussion, that level fours -72 is a standard we can talk about with regards to Gib's question.

Even so, I'm not putting that many eggs in the basket of what par or  is or isn't...72 over 18 holes...48 over 12 holes, or 18 for just one circuit round a primitive hole.  That statement of mine is primarily for:

a. those in this discussion who, like me, desire to have some numerical connection to what historical provocations a course has made...unto itself, in comparison with peer courses, in relation to other work done by the same architect

and...

b.to concede that I too enjoy the emotional governance of a courses' par within this game, in which is tally is a natural part.

However the par of individual holes is holding architecture back, in my opinion.  It's at the root of the thing that makes us unable to think of a 265 yard hole as a damn good 4 and it caps innovation before the conversation, property purchase and design even get started.  What freedom an architect could have if he could put a 100y, a 240y and a 170y hole in a row with less worries about the flow of par, as opposed to creating a memorable stretch of golf that the land won't yield otherwise....and then follow the stretch with a wide, downhill, downwind F &F  500 yarder...

cheers

vk

[Gib_Papazian]

Barny,

Did you really and truly tell my friend Moriarty to jump out a window and kill himself?


 

[John Kavanaugh]

Barny,

Did you really and truly tell my friend Moriarty to jump out a window and kill himself?


 

No, I wished for him to accidentally fall out a window.

[Tom_Doak]

But are we speaking of it now, in this era, when level fours-72, has been a stable barometer for 100 of those years.  If its not, then why don't I hear of any men's par 75s or 69s old or new? I think I've heard of two (2) designed Par 74s and NGLA is the only 73 I can remember playing right now, though I know of others.  I think Oakmont was originally out forth as a Par 80...

vk:  I remember distinctly that the first time I did the list of the top 100 courses in the world, for GOLF Magazine, there was one par-74 course [Wentworth West, for member play] and NINE par-73 courses [among them, NGLA, Garden City Golf Club, Royal Adelaide, and Royal Portrush which I think has since reduced par to 72].

[DMoriarty]

As to the origins of the idea, on the first page David Elvins wrote:

It was originally site driven.  On flat sites that lack natural features to distinguish holes, it became important to vary the length of holes to provide variety.

I think he may have been half-right.  I don't think it was necessarily site driven, but it may have been variety driven. Early "golden age" designers put great value on variety, especially a variety of hole lengths.  To some of them this came to mean for short holes (120,150, 180, 210) a few drive and pitch holes of varying lengths, a few mid-length holes, a few long holes requiring two full shots, and a few even longer.   Not sure how this became formalized into 4-10-4, but one can see the beginnings of a formula going way back.  

Of course now it seems almost as common to have three or four par threes all around the same length, or a bunch of par fours all the same length.  Sort of defeats the purpose.  

[Matt MacIver]

Did the increase of organized sports lead to more orderly golf?  100 yard football fields and 10 ft hoops led to 36+36=72?  Or in the early days were the architects given free reign to expertly lay out courses (the ones we like) before owners and Members started thinking they knew best?  Or did the need to sell housing overtake the need for save the good ground for golf, making 72 ubiquitous and a selling point?  The customer is always right, but over the last ten years the customer has started to be better educated.

[Gib_Papazian]

Barny,

As long as your ass is there to break his fall.

V. Kmetz,

I am hardly trying to assert that all par 72 courses with evenly balanced nines are vapid; where it makes perfect sense given the landscape I see no reason not to. What I object to are courses that fight the land hole after hole, where the architect was obviously trying to force-feed a specific pacing and cadence regardless of how awkward the finished product.

We might be approaching an era - if we are to grow the game - where all preconceived notions of yardage and par need to be tossed out the window. If land and water are unlimited, why not a par 75? If dirt is at a premium - and Doak or Neal or whoever manage to construct a fabulous par-65 course with genius level strategies, why can we not celebrate that achievement along with other new courses of traditional length and par figures?

Stanley Kubrick made films ranging from 81 minutes to three hours. Compare Killer's Kiss, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, Barry Lyndon  and Clockwork Orange . . . . . . he did not set out to edit and release his movies according to a predetermined formulaic length, but sought to present a full expression of his vision given the subject matter. Some are par-68, some are par-73 . . . . . . it just depends on how long it took to get his point across.    

[John Kavanaugh]

Oh and Gib, before you get all upset about my comment, please note that I have spent considerable time in LA and Moriarty ain't living nowhere high enough to hurt himself. He might even have to crawl out of his basement window for all I know.

[Garland Bayley]

...
But there certainly was SOME standard of crisp, sound, play...even if it was shepards pounding a stone at an area of target, once they did it awhile, there was some first "record" score...for both individual "holes" as well as the whole "round" whatever that was in the truly original pre-history of the game...whatever that score might have been was or how it developed.  
...

You make it sound like you think they even kept hole scores back then.

[V. Kmetz]

Gib,

I completely agree and I think the removal of par from individual holes is the other end of that magic wand where we CAN consider the courses with a total par of 65 and 80 and can unshackle the game and  architecture pleasingly from older paradigms.

I was very interested to hear about your interest and investigations of executive courses.  

There are several such 9-hole courses within a half hour of my house and my wanderings over the years have persuaded me to many of the same observations.

Of more interest was that my good friend Tom, who unfortunately passed away in December, was a never-say-die advocate of the Cayman ball...to the extent I believe that he bought rights for its manufacture.  When he was healthy, we always hit Cayman balls in his big yard and from time to time we went to one of these Exec/Par 3/4000 yard courses and played with them.  It was great golf, it enhanced the basic functional architecture of the most featureless of these courses and made some of the more imaginative Executive course features seem like classic architecture.

cheers

vk

[Steve Wilson]

Bill,
As I recall your level fives were good enough at Dormie Club to squeeze a point or so out of me.  And for the record my first round at Streamsong earlier this month was closer to level 6s--and I don't want anyone to think that either of us are holding out for par 90 or 108 courses.  
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()