Do today's developers and golfers force architects

[Patrick_Mucci]

to design inherently inferior products ?

With most new courses designed at par 72, are architects deprived of the luxury of designing courses with par of 70, 71 or 73 ?

NGLA and GCGC are par 73's, Aronomink par 70, Wannamoisett a par 69, other courses are par 71.

Does demanding that the architect produce a par 72 golf course restrict the architect's creativity ?

Would the land have yielded a better course at par 70, 71, 73 or 69 ?

How different would the courses mentioned above be, if that had to be par 72's ?
Better, or worse ?

[Stephen Davis]

Pat,

I think that no doubt requiring a certain par limits the potential for greatness. When I think about it almost all of my favorite courses are pars other than 72. I played a par 73 the other day and loved every minute of it! Giving the architect the freedom to find the best holes, regardless of par, is the best way to get a great golf course.

[Mark Fedeli]

I think it probably has, but it doesn't have to.

Just like CBM and Raynor took on certain restrictions by using template holes, being forced to fit a certain par doesn't have to automatically equate to a lesser product. I imagine there are course architects who, like in any art form, work better with more guidelines.

[Frank Giordano]

When I was preparing the history of the Donald Ross-Joe Finger River Oaks Country Club in the late 1980s, Joe  drove me around the course and, almost apologetically, explained why he had changed the par 4 fourth hole into a par 5.  The green chairman at the time insisted that a true championship golf course had to be a par 72.   We discussed Ross's  Wannamoisett course in Rhode Island, which hosted a prestigious amateur championship every year, and Ross's Waterbury Country Club, one of the best courses in Connecticut, both of which were par 69's.  And Joe pointed out to the committee that right in Texas, Hogan's Alley, the Colonial Country Club was a par 70.  And his other examples of below 72 courses, and his pleading were all to no avail.  Because the club owned no more land, Joe had to figure out a solution.  The green chairman, after all, was the one who determined whether or not Joe got  the paycheck!

The end result, according to Jackie Burke, Jr., who literally grew up on the course where his father was the first pro there?  "They took the best par 4 in the city and turned it into the worst par 5 in Texas!"  Another prominent player there told me he felt a murderous impulse whenever Joe Finger walked through the front door.

I learned just a day or two ago that Tom Fazio and son (I believe) have contracted to redesign three of the holes at River Oaks Country Club.  I'm betting the three are #s 3-5.

But to answer your question, owners and green chairmen can have an enormous influence on a course's architecture, in spite of the best advice and intentions of the architect.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Other than in China, I haven't had a client who made a peep about what par was for nearly ten years now.  [The last I can think of was Texas Tech University, who told me that they wanted a par-72 because they were told they'd have a better chance to host the NCAA Championship that way.] 

I do try to keep within the range of 70 to 72, though.  I designed one par-73 course years ago [Black Forest, which has five par-5 holes and four short holes], and I felt that was an unpopular way to go, because it's that much harder for visitors to break 80 or 90 or whatever.  I know there are a few great courses that are par-73, so I'm not saying I'd never do it again, but the land would have to insist on it.

I don't think I've ever had a client who would have accepted a par-69 course.  [It would also be tough to justify given the huge acreages I have worked with on many projects.]  Someday, I'll find one, I hope; I would like to make a statement about that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I never thought of that when I crafted this thread, yet, the thought has crossed my mind a hundred times when I was playing the front nine at GCGC, which has a par of 37.

Making the turn at 3 over, one is hit with the fact that that adds up to 40 and suddenly, as you get ready for the back nine, you realize that 80 may be in jeopardy.

There's far more than a 1 stroke difference between 79 and 80, and 89 and 90, so I see your point.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is a definite bias towards Par 72.  Had that discussion at the GIS again last week.  On the other hand, most development land we are presented with is gently rolling, and deciding on par 72 isn't usually as big a practical problem as most here think it is.  And, at Texas Tech, where Tom was re-grading the whole site anyway, absolutely not a problem.

I do like the old Stanley Thompson idea of the extra par 3 for a par of 70-71.  While such a course would probably never host a US Open, most won't anyway, so why bother, when for the majority of players, the extra par 3 is great fun.  And, its likely that shorter courses, either by eliminating the 7000+ tees that half a percent use, or reducing the number of par 5 holes and adding par 3 holes to reduce turf under some future water restriction, is going to happen. 

Funny if we came the full circle for some reason unrelated to golf design theory, but that is what will probably happen.

[Michael Blake]

I learned just a day or two ago that Tom Fazio and son (I believe) have contracted to redesign three of the holes at River Oaks Country Club.  I'm betting the three are #s 3-5.

Perhaps Nuzzo and/or Don will comment, as River Oaks hired both to project manage the Fazio renovation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I agree about the bias.

But, I think the bias is more prevalent amongst golfers.

For some reason I believe that they think that an odd number par golf course is inherently flawed and inferior

[John Percival]

The lower par of 70 not only helps with the scoring issues mentioned, but they usually help 'guard' par for the skilled player, as they have less 5 pars, which the better player usually feasts on. My father (the definition of an average golfer) used to light up when walking onto a 3 par tee and winced when told a hole was a 5 par. Like many regular players, he saw the 3 par as a one shot task and the 5 par as 3 chances to mess up, especially with that 'damn driver'.

[Bill_McBride]

There is a definite bias towards Par 72.  Had that discussion at the GIS again last week.  On the other hand, most development land we are presented with is gently rolling, and deciding on par 72 isn't usually as big a practical problem as most here think it is.  And, at Texas Tech, where Tom was re-grading the whole site anyway, absolutely not a problem.

I do like the old Stanley Thompson idea of the extra par 3 for a par of 70-71.  While such a course would probably never host a US Open, most won't anyway, so why bother, when for the majority of players, the extra par 3 is great fun.  And, its likely that shorter courses, either by eliminating the 7000+ tees that half a percent use, or reducing the number of par 5 holes and adding par 3 holes to reduce turf under some future water restriction, is going to happen. 

Funny if we came the full circle for some reason unrelated to golf design theory, but that is what will probably happen.

Hang on now, aren't most US Open courses par 70?

[mike_beene]

If LACC gets US Open, doesn't it have 5 par 3s?
In Texas, most of the older clubs are 71(Preston Trail,Shady Oaks,Champions Cypress,Brook Hollow,Lakewood,Royal Oaks,Northwood) or 70(Dallas CC,Colonial,Austin GC).I am sure Iam missing some,but 71 more prevalent than 72 in the old highly ranked club courses.

[John Percival]

Mike,
Yes, LACC has 5 3's (4, 7, 9, 11 and 15) and 3 5's (1,8 and 14) for a par of 70.

#2 used to be a 5 par, but was shortened to a long 4 in the reno. Old green still there, but doubt they'll use it, especially as the new 2nd green is so proximate to 3 tee.

[mike_beene]

Plus Riviera and Bel-Air are 71 and 70 and Olympic Lake 71.Seems like Lakeside is 70? With a 34 nine. So don't the older ?California clubs trend to 71 or 70?
So is it a failure to communicate that ,and this may come out wrong, the general world of golfers wants a "standard" 72 while the courses they might want to play the most have lower pars?As does almost every US Open.And I haven't mentioned the Merions and Muirfields of the world.
Is it because Augusta is 72 or is it that the developers think carts,cigars and 72 is what the market wants?Ultimately a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Jim Nugent]

Hang on now, aren't most US Open courses par 70?

Probably, but the USGA sometimes converts one or more par 5s into par 4s for the Open, to end up with par 70.  They used to do that to #17 at Olympic, e.g. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,

I agree about the bias.

But, I think the bias is more prevalent amongst golfers.

For some reason I believe that they think that an odd number par golf course is inherently flawed and inferior

I agree the bias is prevalent amongst golfers, Patrick.

But I also think that this perception has been sold to them over the last number of years from owners and/or architects developing the majority of new courses to par 72 with balanced nines of 2/5/2.

That said, Jeff is right. With most new courses given less than inspiring land to work with, it became easier to plan a par-72 once the overall acreage was sufficient. Then it came down to how much emphasis was put on that "ideal" configuration. Far too much in my opinion.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Frank
Thank you for preparing the history, I have had a copy for a while.
Yes #4 is changing, and it is getting longer.
All of the other holes are changing too.
What did Reese Jones do to #4 in the 90s - it looked like only bunker changes?
The current green chair told me how much they disliked the last version of #4.

Pat
I believe the artificial constraint of par 72 will on average hurt the golf course
Wolf Point is par 71 - 3 three shot holes, 4 one shot holes - it felt right at the time

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think some of the golfer and club pro bias comes from those who make a complete round by playing two nine hole rounds at different times, or at least, in figuring what the handicap should be when computing a nine hole round.  Or, in making a somehow equal experience for the nine hole players.

Mike, while I don't doubt your personal choice for WP, in reality, wouldn't a dead flat site such as found around Houston, normally make it just as easy to go par 72, if that is what you wanted, or your owner dictated?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff
Yes building a golf course on a flat cattle ranch could have provided for anything from a par 47 to a par 83.
We've had some very valued opinions say they love the three shot holes.
3, 9 & 14 are very different from each other.
Why would we want to force in another?

We didn't set out to build a standard golf course following traditional and industry rules.
We set out to build an original one following as few rules as possible - not to be oppositional, but to be as free as possible.

Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Thanks for the answer, and again, understood.

I am interested in the comment about "forcing" another par 5 in, although I suspect your last sentence sort of suggests that being different was at least a consideration. 

As hard as it is to make good par 5 holes (In reality, a par 4 with a tee shot to set up an approach and approach to set up a putt, is the most efficient way to set up strategy) part of me wonders if overall,  10 par 4's and 4 par 5's wouldn't offer more variety than 11 and 3?

If purely based on good golf, then I wonder if, again knowing flat ground allows almost any option, if you think (or thought at the time) that there are really only 3 good par 5 concepts?  I do believe par 5 holes are more conceptually difficult, and in general, second shots on par 5 holes are sort of conceptually boring, suggesting something less that 4 par 5 holes should be the norm.

I have heard some folks say the only good par 5 is a reachable par 5, and then you have only a few basic options on the second (water in front, a la ANGC 15, lateral water, fronting and lateral sand, or perhaps what I call the catwalk, or very narrow run up approach. (Larry Nelson taught me the latter as a concept, which he thought allowed his 4 wood to compete against Greg Norman's sky high long iron to the green, and I agree its not a bad idea.)

Except for the massive distances required if you consider the longest hitters, I don't mind the "true 3 shot par 5" concept, for at least one of 3 or 4 par 5 holes.  I don't mind the occasional pure accuracy par 5, with bracket bunkers in one of both LZ, but not as a steady diet, and can see why players might think they are a bit boring.  I also think most hate a forced layup on any shot on a par 5. (optional ok)

Short version, I guess I am curious about some of your thoughts on balance, variety, and hole sequence, which might make an interesting discussion.  Was it along the lines of 1 easily reachable, 1 in between, and one 3 shot hole?  Any other considerations enter the mind?

[Bill McKinley]

Not trying to be nitpicky here Patrick but NGLA is now a par 72.  I believe Hogs Back used to be a par 5 but it is now a par 4.  I could be wrong on that but part about Hogs Back but I do know that the scorecard now says 72.

Have you ever played NGLA???

Only kidding of course!! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not trying to be nitpicky here Patrick but NGLA is now a par 72.  I believe Hogs Back used to be a par 5 but it is now a par 4.  I could be wrong on that but part about Hogs Back but I do know that the scorecard now says 72.

Bill,

C.B. Macdonald conceived, designed and built the 5th hole as a par 5 and it remained that way for a century, with par for the course being 73.

Winged Foot West also plays other than at 72 on occassion.

Have you ever played NGLA???




Not in the last 30 days

Only kidding of course!! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think it really might be interesting to discuss the idea of 2, 3, or 4 par 5's as part of the ideal course more thoroughly.  I sense some of the opposition to 4 3 shotters is based on how standard it is, and a belief that this leads to sameness.

Thinking about it further last night, I recall a 1966 or so GD article by Gary Player, where, IIRC, he said 4 par 5 holes, one reachable by nearly all, two tweeners, one short, one longer, and one true 3 shot par 5 were the ideal.

We know how the USGA feels about par 5's and why - most tour pros make their birdies largely on the par 5's, so eliminating two gets you closer to level par for their championship.

I can certainly see only two par 5's in the future, given acreage and turf reduction mandates that are likely to surface, and the near impossibility of building the unreachable par 5 by the top 1%.  Also, while tour pros love the par 5 as a birdie op, I think the average Joe actually dislikes them as another opportunity to hit a harder fairway metal.

Any thoughts on whether par 70 (still with the occasional par 71) will become the new par 72? 

[Sean_A]

Par 70 (at least) is the new par 72, its just that world hasn't caught up with the flat bellies.  Look at "handicaps" for touring pros compared to 40 years ago.  Look at how many ams are plus handicappers compared to 40 years ago.  Since there is no chance the ball is going to be rolled back a reasonable distance, if at all, it is time for bifurcation of par.  Let the pros motor down to 70, or even 68 (so we can stop adding yards to courses) and let the rest of us go back to the bogey system where an excellent score for a handicap player is more like 75 or 77.  We may even stop people whinging about fairness if the new par for handicap players is 75/77    The entire modern concept of par is a menace to the game.

Ciao

[mike_beene]

Par is just a way for the networks to let us know who is winning. And it is necessary for that and only that.