[RJ_Daley]

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.

To me, this suggests a course or goal-standard that all 18 are par 4s, whereby the yardage of the par 4 can vary from a par 4, 150 yard hole, to a down wind, f&F as Vinnie says, par 4, 520yarder.  Let the land and the imagination of the architect craft the holes within the context of par 4, using the land that allows for such distance variance.  While I wouldn't want to see a completely artificially contrived short 150 yard par 4 based simply on goofy hazard, I do think it is possible in the 'half par sense of a 3.5par short but difficult green site design, and the 4.5par long hole corridor.  

But, all this variance of pars adding up to 72, or 68, whatever has to have a commercial viability on any golf operation that needs to make a profit to survive.  If you have the best routing dictating the order of pars and flow of play that is so frustrated that players endlessly stand around not in rhythm of the game, then that has adverse consequences as well.  Taking off the shackles of conventional thinking on par and variance of length of holes, has to make some sense to people that want to play the game in a reasonable and comfortable amount of time. it seems to me.

[V. Kmetz]

Kept...? As in write it down and saved their cards and developed handicaps...No.

Kept...? As in drinking after the experience and/or telling fish stories about their difficulties and triumphs and/or noting what had been done the last time when they got to the ground the next time...yes, I'll bet they did.

cheers

vk

[V. Kmetz]

RJD,

I agree, this is the challenge for the developer and the architect - how to do that (make 4 the essence) on a much greater yardage basis than currently exists or is accepted...without having to result to goofy tricks or substantially different conditions.  How to make a course flow correctly in view of that new sense of liberalism. Yet, this would be a slow, slow process...but I see the removal of hole par as the idealogical phase one of such a movement.  Get rid of the par and we can debate what THIS 240 yard hole, or 350 or 460 IS in the clubhouse afterwards. We will still care about where the hole is in the round, how it comports with the rest of the course, what it looks like, how beautiful it is...the only thing different is the pejorative, pre-ordained judgement of what YOU should score on it.

But for a total par (if as you said, whatever is commercially viable) slap 72 on it, its just as good as anything.  We know 99.55 of the golfers are going to be thrilled with such a score if the course is any good at all.

cheers

vk

[John Kavanaugh]

There was a Gentleman's agreement for the pars at Streamsong to be the same. Let's not pretend it was an accident.

[Ken Moum]

It is worth noting that 2 courses in the Scottish Highlands (Goslpie and Brora) have recently chosen to lengthen two (Golspie) and one (Brora) of their par-4's and turn them into par-5's. I am certain this was done in order to raise the courses' par to 70 (from 68 & 69), in order to make their courses more compelling/"legitimate" in the eyes of the visiting/traveling golfer.

A large portion of the golfing public does not regard a par-68 or par-69 course as a "real" or "serious" course. Such is the way of the world.

Fortunately, I think the changes at Golspie worked out for the better.       

When Lavera and I played Brora in the Blind Society Greensomes, our fellow competitor George Sutherland specifically blamed Americans for the walk back to the tee on that hole they altered.  Of course it isn't the Americans' fault, it's the club's fault for chasing American money.

Both Brora and Fraserburgh are intensely jealous of their neighbors to the south, and the (mostly) American money they generate.  But I don't think they fully appreciate the cost of getting that kind of attention.

IIRC, Golspie's entire greenkeeping budget is less than RDC spends on fertilizer. And the added cost of operation didn't, IMHO, add up to noticeably better playing conditons. Undoing the wear and tear caused by thousands of visitors is costly.

And that completely ignores the effect a tee sheet jammed with visitors for at least half of every day has on the ability of members to enjoy their course.

What did Yogi Berra say? “Nobody comes here anymore, its too crowded”

K

[Mike Benham]

Why 14 clubs?

Why 9 innings?

Why 10 foot rims?

If 72 is so important, why not 20 or 22 holes to get to the par of 72? 

Golf is one of the few participation sports where Joe Sixpack can play the same way the pro's they watch on TV, would it be any fun to play Pebble Beach but be told by the starter that "Today we have the course set-up at 5,900 yards and a par of 68, enjoy yourself".

History, tradition are a component and somewhere bifurcation can be included. 

[Ken Moum]

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.  

As a short hitter with a much better than average short game, I HATE those courses.  Sadly, they have become far too common, especially where there are five sets of tees. I prefer to play something around 6,000 yards, and it amazes me how often those tees have the threes bunched around 165-odd yards, and the fours around 375 or so.

Playing a golfer of similar handicap to mine (10-12) who is 50 yards longer than my piddling 210-yard standard, guarantees that he'll be hitting LOTS of wedges and short irons, while I'm hitting five woods, seven woods and nine woods all damned day.

Golf Club House at Elie is divine, with the shortest par four at 254 and the longest at 466.

Under 310 and over 400 I have some chance, because the shorties are driver-wedge even for me, and the guys I'm playing mostly miss the green on long holes, too.  So my short game offers an advantage of sorts.

K

[DMoriarty]

Ken,  That is one of the ironic side effects of multiple tees.  They ought to create the potential for more variety, but as used they often create the same shots for the same groups of golfers over and over.   

One could get away from this by just abandoning the course designations and mixing it up yourself, but this seems problematic for many, and it does make handicapping hard.   

[Jim Nugent]

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.

Par 3s help level the playing field between scratch and bogey golfers.  They play harder (relatively) for scratch, and easier (relatively) for bogey.  That is why high handicappers typically get fewer strokes on them. 

I don't know if that was ever their intent (doubtful IMO) but it is their result: par 3s make the course more playable for everyone.

[Sean_A]

The idea of level 4s as a way to keep score has been around a long time.  We must not forget that bogey score was a system in place that wouldn't have used level 4s.  That said, the "par 4" (using the original meaning of what an expert player should match) has always been the primary hole in golf.  Even on very oddly configured courses par 4s are not outnumbered by either 3s or 5s.  

Its sad that developers and designers try to design to a number or even a range of numbers.  As VK says, par only has as much meaning as the golfer gives it.  Par in and of itself has zero value.  Sure, some designers play on the idea that golfers care about par so they mess with their minds with half par holes, but this is really just mind games for those willing to play that game.  That game has nothing to do with golf or scoring and everything to do with mindset.  Why handicap players worry about par is mind boggling to me.  Its the first basic flaw of poor course management.

So to answer the question, I think golfers properly linked par to length when bogey score was eliminated.  Before that, par was a concept for elite golfers, but only briefly.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I would like to say this is purely owner driven.... But I have met too many architects who have peer reviewed my work and condescended to tell me that it was inferior because it didn't conform to these kind of par restrictions.

All the worse because the odd one comes from Britain where we never (until the last 20 years) ever considered this as a priority. The rest of the world is a little less mature and different.

[Tom_Doak]

Golf is one of the few participation sports where Joe Sixpack can play the same way the pro's they watch on TV, would it be any fun to play Pebble Beach but be told by the starter that "Today we have the course set-up at 5,900 yards and a par of 68, enjoy yourself".

History, tradition are a component and somewhere bifurcation can be included. 

As to the former, they do this regularly in the UK, without the friendly introduction.  They just tell you to play the yellow tees and like them.  Most people don't realize they are playing from 5900 yards, because of the wind.

As to the latter, the whole point of this thread is that par-72 courses are really NOT a traditional thing if you look very far back into history; it's difficult to identify when it became the norm or why.  Almost none of the famous UK links have as many as four par-5 holes, because of the effects of wind in turning a 550-yard hole into an interminable slog.

Now that I think about it some more, probably the biggest push toward par-72 was a byproduct of owners wanting to advertise 7000-yard championship courses, starting in the 1960's.  It is difficult to push the total yardage so high on a par-71 or 70 course [one reason I prefer them].

[Gib_Papazian]

It is my belief that because Tour gunners (especially the PGA Tour) essentially play the same golf course much of the time, they would be completely flummoxed if confronted with a really unusual golf course.

Putting "par" aside as an irrelevant number, what do you suppose would happen if an event were held at, say, Prestwick? Many of the par-4s are drivable for the longer hitters, but fraught with peril. If all that is written on their scorecards is a yardage, meaning they have have to figure out for themselves how to best their fellow competitors, my bet is the majority would go into brain lock.

Throw in blind par-3s, putting on Sea Headrig and trying to line up the tee shot on #16 in TOURNAMENT PLAY, most of those guys would be ready for a straitjacket by the end of the first round. Their egos are too big not to go for it on every hole - and watching the stream of train wrecks would be great fun.

Golf is supposed to be a test of resiliency and strategic analysis, something totally lacking in the bomb & gouge modern era. The quickest way to change Joe Six-Pack's idea of golf is to challenge the big boys with a completely different set of strategies and circumstances. Maybe playing with their heads - forcing a series of hard choices with in-between yardages and constant temptation to dare fate - might be the first step in restoring the soul of the game.        

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf is supposed to be a test of resiliency and strategic analysis, something totally lacking in the bomb & gouge modern era. The quickest way to change Joe Six-Pack's idea of golf is to challenge the big boys with a completely different set of strategies and circumstances. Maybe playing with their heads - forcing a series of hard choices with in-between yardages and constant temptation to dare fate - might be the first step in restoring the soul of the game.     
   

Sounds like the Masters. Poor Chip Beck.

[Charlie Gallagher]

    I haven't read every comment, but many of them posted here, and I certainly agree with the sentiment that a 14, 2, and 2, configuration while common is completely irrelevant to good golf course design. I also believe that the devotion to a par of 72, given the unique quality of  particular sites, is a foolish requirement to factor into the equation or attempt to force into the land, even with high sprocket bulldozers and excavators that can pick up a dime available for construction.
    Worcester CC, a fine Donald Ross and  site of the first Ryder Cup, has 3 par 5's and 5 par 3's. The flow of the routing and the placement of the holes presents perfect logic as to why Ross configured the course as he did. Wannamoisett is a par 69, and is unbalanced. I don't believe any one could play those two courses and conclude that they don't offer appropriate challenge for great players, fun for those of us who are more average, and that their par arrangement sullies the quality of the experience.
   

[JC Jones]

How long before the current trend of PGA Tour and the Majors courses of Par 70 begin to influence architecture?

[Gib_Papazian]

It is a fair statement to assert that most charter members of Ran's Treehouse are natural contrarians to the status quo and don't care a whit about the PGA and Euro Tours except as entertainment - knowing the game that (for instance) Bubba Watson or Phil plays is completely removed from reality.

Obviously, the scorecard and pencil disease that afflicts Americans particularly can be plopped at the feet of our stroke play culture. Years ago I wrote a piece opining that slow play in this country could largely be cured by simply playing matches and encouraging golfers to pick up when out of a hole. Further, I suggested that clubs should reserve Sunday afternoon for Alternate Shot formats and different sorts of games.

The readers who wrote in thought me completely daft, almost all of whom were worried about their handicaps or what to do if the match ends on, say, the 15th hole. The answer, or course, is start a truncated match for the remainder of the round and play on, but somehow this represented a leap nobody could get their arms around.

Being let loose on Sheep Ranch with three friends several years ago was an incredible eye opener. Goodale wrote a post after his experience there that has stuck with me. The idea of "just playing," in similar fashion to when - as kids - we played "cross-country golf" late in the afternoon. Tee off on #2 and play to the 12th green on the other side of the property.

The beauty was that it was necessary to figure out the best way to get there, avoiding the hazards and trees - sometimes finding that everyone took a completely different route to obtain similar scores. The point is that playing that kind of game completely ignores the organizational matrix of the game and becomes, well, just play.

There might be a lesson there.    
      

[Josh Tarble]

How long before the current trend of PGA Tour and the Majors courses of Par 70 begin to influence architecture?

JC, that's a good question...I also wonder if the PGA Tour ever says screw it and goes with par 68?

[Thomas Dai]

Reference to a thread I raised on the subject a while back , ie why 4-10-4?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57019.0.html

atb

[Garland Bayley]

Ken,  That is one of the ironic side effects of multiple tees.  They ought to create the potential for more variety, but as used they often create the same shots for the same groups of golfers over and over.   

One could get away from this by just abandoning the course designations and mixing it up yourself, but this seems problematic for many, and it does make handicapping hard.   

Seems to me that posting for handicap can be easy in this scenario. Pick the 6000 yard tees, for example. Choose a longer tee on three holes, then choose an equivalently shorter tee for three holes. That should break up the repetitious hole lengths. Then post your scores as if you had played the 6000 yard tees. If you calculated the length you played, and used the USGA adjustment table, that's what you would be doing anyway, as the rated 6000 yard tees are going to be the rating you calculate anyway.

[DMoriarty]

Garland,  An even easier solution is to forget about indexes and ratings and just play a variety of tees.  But both solutions become more complicated by matches the others in the group.   Try explaining your solution to three other golfers at 6:10 A.M. while waiting for the sun to come up.

[Niall C]

Gib

In a sense I think you can blame Old Tom Morris and his ilk in that they started the ball rolling as to what constitutes good architecture, and once you start doing that you start defining standards, not only for individual holes but courses as well.

Back then they didn't talk about par, they talked about whether the hole was a one shotter, two shotter or a three shotter and whether the shots were full length. If I recall correctly, and I do have a dodgy memory, back in the 1890's Willie Park Jnr in the chapter in his book dealing with the lay-out of courses, talked about the make up of an ideal course and I think there was 5 one shotters (par 3's) or some such. Could well be wrong that perhaps he developed those standards later and published them separately but I'm fairly confident he came up with his "standard" course as did others.

I'd guess from what I've read that the standard as you describe came in well before WW11 but obviously after the invention of par, maybe late 20's early 30's ?

Niall 

[Peter Pallotta]

Not to argue against what anyone's written, but to provide the experience/approach of one person (me) that might apply to many others, just for the sake of discussion/interest.  

I keep score all the time, with my card and pencil, even though I don't maintain (or need) an official handicap. I can't remember ever playing a round of golf from a mixed/changing set of tees. I've certainly never played 'cross country golf', e.g. playing from the 2nd tee to the 12th green, and I can find in myself absolutely no desire to do so. I play quickly (perhaps even too quickly), but even in match play will finish out every hole (unless I botched it up so badly that I'd be putting for a quad). I find that on the few very good courses I've played, the course's architecture -- just as the architect has designed it and intended it to play -- provides me with more than enough interest and challenge and fun, and it wouldn't occur to me to 'engage with the game' outside of those parameters (especially if the course has even a little of the fluid/freedom inducing parameters of a place like Ballyneal). Indeed, part of the great charm for me of being out for a round of golf is to experience that unique hybrid that is the field of play, i.e. natural looking and feeling, seemingly little touched by the hand of man (though I know it is) and yet a journey across 18 clearly different and clearly definable 'set pieces' that exist in the form they do for only one reason -- to enable one to play the game, a man-made game built upon and shaped by many many rules. For me, those set pieces and those rules aren't a hindrance to enjoying the game and being fully engaged with/by it; instead, it is those very rules and set pieces that allow me to engage and enjoy the game as much as I do. The game has meaning, then, and purpose -- an existence outside of my self that I am called to interact with, i.e. not asking the game to change for me but instead trying to adapt myself to that game. (How many of us would play chess or enjoy it for very long if at any given moment a Bishop could start moving around like a Knight and a Pawn could start behaving like a Rook).   But I say all this as someone who took up the game later in life (in my mid 30s), and never spent thousands of hours on the course as a teenager, just playing; and I say it as someone who is still trying to get better at the game and loving it more every year, as it is an internal and external "challenge' that is nonetheless played in the most peace-inspiring that i ever get to. And perhaps many of the golfers you and i see out there, plodding along, counting all their strokes, following the card and never altering from the norm are a lot like me.

Peter

[Gib_Papazian]

Peter,

All fair points - and if our positions were put to a popular vote today in America's 19th holes, the tally would look like the Nixon wipe-out of Hubert Humphrey. That stated - since we are playing chess - what about the various derivations of chess within the game? There are all sorts of different board set-ups, including three dimensional chess.

Perhaps the original set-up (Rooks at the corners and Queen on her own color) is still best for every day play, but I personally derive great joy stumbling across a really unusual layout. If you make it up to SF, one of our stops can be Saratoga CC: Par 68, nine holes with alternate tees and no more than 5200 yards.

Sounds easy, right? Even when I was a bulletproof 3-handicap at Olympic all those years, I never broke 71 after 30+ tries - and averaged something like 74. Why? Because the holes are like that pretty girl you tried for years to talk into bed - and could never manage more than the occasional good night peck.

Yet the "course rating" is so ridiculously low, even scrupulously legitimate handicaps travel to the point where teams from Saratoga are almost always near the top of NCGA handicap events. In many ways, Saratoga and Deep Cliff opened my eyes to the challenge of wickedly clever short courses.

Whitten told me once that he's love to explore America's Executive style courses, but that the panel would turn up their noses to the idea. I am firmly convinced that 50 years from now, these type courses will be fully accepted into the mainstream.

    

[Peter Pallotta]

Gib - your response highlights something I've thought about before and was trying to articulate above. Let me see if I can put this clearly: I believe the fact that you were once a 3 has shaped -- has in fact led to -- your freer, less doctrinaire and more inclusive approach and attitude towards the game and its courses.

It's not an attitude and an approach that I can manufacture in myself. Sure, I can understand what you're saying, I can even agree with it intellectually, but I can't actually make myself appreciate, say, the 5200 yard course or some cross country golf in the same way you do. (And I think the vast majority of golfers are more like me than like you, i.e. they have never been 3s, nor will they ever be.)

You can, for example, truly enjoy the fact that you averaged 74 on a course like Saratoga, and really understand what that means (and how cool that is). But that's precisely because you were a 3 at Olympic; you had your bona fides, you had nothing to prove, and so you could turn your attention to the course, this 5200 yard course, and marvel. I could never experience that course in the same way you did.

I guess my point is really just a minor one, an aside really - an attempt to undertsand and discuss your original question. As I noted earlier, I believe architects keep producing Par 72s in part because of who they are (conscious + unconscious). Similarly, I think golfers like you can rail against that formula because of who you are, i.e. because of the amount of practice (on the course or the range) that you put in to become a 3, because of the way you could play and enjoy the game once you were a 3, and because of what the game means to you now, when you are no longer a three.

In short, I'd say that the reason most courses are what they are today is because the majority of golfers are more like me than like a three!

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()