[Tim Gallant]

As it pertains to Par 69, vs Par 70+, I think we can take a page out of the product marketer's playbook.

Yes, but, to paraphrase my favorite book:  Marketing is bullshit.  Have you ever found anything in your life that made you truly happy, via marketing?  No.  One finds the best things in life via word of mouth.  Marketing is for those things that don't have good enough word of mouth.

But what if you use marketing to amplify word of mouth?


If I told you that the course you are building in CA could be a Top 100 if you spent £5m annually on marketing, would that make it a worse golf course? Would it make people less happy playing the course (assuming the greens fees are unaffected)? Would I be less happy about playing Streamsong knowing they actively market their offering? And does that make the courses less special? WOM is powerful for sure, but rarely does something like a golf course reach critical mass without some form of marketing.


I get emails monthly from Pebble Beach, and as a kid I first learned about Pebble Beach watching the 2000 US Open. Would you not consider hosting an event as a form of marketing? Pebble made and still makes me truly happy, as do lots of courses when I first played it.

[MClutterbuck]

Tom,


6600 yard par 70 is fine for me. I can argue in favour of par 69 and 6500 all day as well and most of us on this site will be convinced. But at the end of the day you ask because or rankings and because of general uneducated perception.


I would therefore go one of 2 ways:


1. Build the best par 70 course you can, at 6600 or whatever yardage it comes out to, and add some additional tees to get it to a higher number, understanding it is a better course from 6600. Avoid the par 69. Print a traditional golf card. Market as usual.


2. Build the best course you can, do not give any hole a par designation. Hopefully (and surely) you have some holes falling in the middle of traditional par yardages and confuse the hell out of folks. Dont have any yardages on the card. Move tee markers back or forward depending on wind that day. Dont disclose yardages anywhere. Rotate starting hole. Tell them to enjoy their game on a magnificent setting. You have now given marketers that dont know much about golf something to write about instead of par and yardage. Heck, if you go that route, maybe make it 17 or 19 holes.

[Daryl David]

As it pertains to Par 69, vs Par 70+, I think we can take a page out of the product marketer's playbook.

P.S. to Daryl:  Are you suggesting that raters are influenced by factors outside of golf -- especially the price and type of facility?  Say it ain't so! 

You never know with these pesky raters what will float their boat. Luxury accommodations or pure bare bones golf. Might depend on which magazine top 100 you are aiming for. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tom,


6600 yard par 70 is fine for me. I can argue in favour of par 69 and 6500 all day as well and most of us on this site will be convinced. But at the end of the day you ask because or rankings and because of general uneducated perception.


I would therefore go one of 2 ways:


1. Build the best par 70 course you can, at 6600 or whatever yardage it comes out to, and add some additional tees to get it to a higher number, understanding it is a better course from 6600. Avoid the par 69. Print a traditional golf card. Market as usual.


2. Build the best course you can, do not give any hole a par designation. Hopefully (and surely) you have some holes falling in the middle of traditional par yardages and confuse the hell out of folks. Dont have any yardages on the card. Move tee markers back or forward depending on wind that day. Dont disclose yardages anywhere. Rotate starting hole. Tell them to enjoy their game on a magnificent setting. You have now given marketers that dont know much about golf something to write about instead of par and yardage. Heck, if you go that route, maybe make it 17 or 19 holes.

I can't quite understand why you want to confuse people. We (golf course architects, builders, owners) are in the entertainment business full stop, the principle is to give people enjoyment. Having 17 holes is just stupid. People want to know the length of the hole. People want to know if the played a hole well in 3 or 4 and if it was a par, birdie or eagle, for some golfers getting entertainment might be making a birdie or by making a few pars.


The Best courses are almost always par 70, 71 or 72 and stripped further, they have 4 short holes. There is no rational reason where a Par 63 course could not be great, you could still have 6 holes well over 400, 3 over 350 and 9 par 3 holes with 6 of them really strong that strategically play like short 4s, you could get the course up to 5700 probably a SSS 68. It is an extreme but could that be 'good'? Or would it be changed pretty quickly to the universal par 70 by making the long 3s short 4s and the long 4s into short 5s. In the REAL WORLD the course would not have changed but at Par 63 the course would be a lot less enjoyable because people want to make birdies and so back to 'entertainment'. Par matters to lesser players (above 4 hcp) lowest score matters to the best players. You can have an odd quirky thing but too much gets perceived as goofy.


This situation is talking about risking someone else's money. What would you do if it was your money. Niche situations are fine but you still need to do a fair few rounds to pay the bills, I can't understand the crazy things that get suggested on here sometimes. I am not saying Par 69 is crazy but more people will think Par 70 is better.


I like your paragraph 1 though.

[Joe Zucker]

I guess you could build a hole in the no man's land of 240-260.  I think it has come up a few times on GCA that this yardage is rarely seen on modern courses, but it could make for a really fun hole because it is borderline drivable for normal humans.  You could call it a par 4 so par hits 70, but this hole could theoretically be a par 3 and probably would if the tour showed up. 


Maybe this is the best of both worlds? A course that "should" be played in 69 strokes but says 70 on the card so everyone is happy. I'm sure you've already figured it out and don't need our suggestions anyways...

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with you in concept that most of how Marketing is done, is in fact Bullshit.  But you have a website, you write books, you have business cards, you make appearances, etc....these are all forms of marketing.

The funny thing is, I have business cards but I almost always forget to have them with me.  It gives me the creeps to pass them out!  And, in fact, I decline most "appearances," and our web site is not exactly slick.  Mostly, I answer people's questions, here and whenever writers call me ... luckily they call on a regular basis.


I do write books, but that's because I like to write and I want to put my ideas out there.  I guess most people see that as marketing, but I would be doing it even if I wasn't designing courses for a living.


The author's full list of things not discovered through advertising and marketing, but via word of mouth:  cheeses, wine, meats, eggs, tomatoes, basil leaves, apples, restaurants, barbers, art, books, hotels, shoes, shirts, eyeglasses, pants, olives, olive oil, cities, museums, art, novels, music, painting, sculpture.  [He's not a golfer.]

[jeffwarne]

I guess you could build a hole in the no man's land of 240-260.  I think it has come up a few times on GCA that this yardage is rarely seen on modern courses, but it could make for a really fun hole because it is borderline drivable for normal humans.  You could call it a par 4 so par hits 70, but this hole could theoretically be a par 3 and probably would if the tour showed up. 


Maybe this is the best of both worlds? A course that "should" be played in 69 strokes but says 70 on the card so everyone is happy. I'm sure you've already figured it out and don't need our suggestions anyways...

Love the idea of a hole in "no man's land"
Goat Hill has a 226 yard par 4(could just as easily be 240-260)-everybody loves it because it CAN be driven-but rarely does anyone actually hit it and over is death. A blind shot over a marker flag and rugged terrain, then a steep downslope  to a small green that runs way from the player at about a 5-6 degree slope (but only stimping about 5) I've hit anywhere from 7 iron to 3 wood-the hole is always fun and would fit in on ANY course in my top 100

[Parker Page]

Tom, I'm a Golf Digest rater, and I would be happy to see another worthy par 69 join Wannamoisset in the top 200.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, I'm a Golf Digest rater, and I would be happy to see another worthy par 69 join Wannamoisset in the top 200.

Parker:


The thing that bothers me about Wannamoisett is that they have to play up how tough it is, in order to overcome the objection that it's a par-69.  My project is a resort course and no one needs it to be tough as nails.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - is it my faulty memory, or is this the first time you've ever explicitly characterized one of your designs as a "resort course"?

[John Kavanaugh]

A Doak resort course breaking into the Digest, only one that counts, top 100. In California no less. I'm not felling it. You've got to hit on all cylinders and that includes tournament play. The problem with resorts is that you give up control on who plays. Really...2020...the ignorance quotient can not be ignored. Minimalism is already so yesterday. 2020...Doak who?!? Hilarious. Cash your check and run.

[Eric Smith]

A Doak resort course breaking into the Digest, only one that counts, top 100. In California no less. I'm not felling it. You've got to hit on all cylinders

You must unlearn what you have learned ... http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63397.msg1509421.html#msg1509421

In order to generate a lot of PR, I'm assuming the course would need to be public?  I think we're seeing that no course has moved the needle significantly.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - is it my faulty memory, or is this the first time you've ever explicitly characterized one of your designs as a "resort course"?

When we were building Pacific Dunes, I reminded Mr Keiser several times that it was a resort course and there was no need for long back tees if people were there to have fun.  I tried the same for Cape Kidnappers but Mr Robertson was less moved.


However this project has a different vibe.  All of the people sitting around the table (developers, planners, architects) have been building resort hotel projects for most of their lives.  But only one of them has ever worked on a project that included a golf course.  Most of their work was on boutique hotels too small to support a golf component.  That doesn't mean they want a lesser course in any way, but they aren't as well versed (or hung up) on what golfers want/expect.  At the end of the day, they want a course that attracts attention, and that might involve breaking a rule or two, which is almost a given considering the terrain.

[Jud_T]

Just ask the client "Do you want the best course I can build on this property or the highest rated course I can build here?".  Alternatively, throw a couple of never marked, used or maintained back tees in on a couple of holes to get you to 6800 on the card, have a stiff cocktail, and call it a day. 

[JWL]

TD   I think the only issue with the way the game is played today might be if the hole design forced the driver out of the better player's hands on more than an acceptable number of times...whatever that number might be.   Otherwise, something between 6500 and 6800, par 70, should not be a concern when determining greatness imho.

[Mark Kiely]

Alternatively, throw a couple of never marked, used or maintained back tees in on a couple of holes to get you to 6800 on the card, have a stiff cocktail, and call it a day. 

I believe this post is tongue-in-cheek, but similar advice appears several times within this thread. Personally I think it's a terrible idea. I hate when courses advertise that they're one thing, but then you show up and they play much shorter. I feel like I was robbed of the true, intended experience the course claimed to provide. If I was a rater, encountering this would only lead to negative thoughts about the course, and definitely wouldn't land you a Top 100 ranking.

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps a different way to look at this.


Assuming you've already processed the topo and put together a few tentative routings, is there anything compelling in them to suggest the course should be a par 69 to accommodate X amount of holes, that wouldn't fit otherwise?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I was struck by the terminology. As you know, I've played almost nowhere - but from reading neither Pacific nor Cape K (nor the Loop etc) strike me as resort courses, at least not in the way I use/think of that term. The way you're using the term, it strikes me that if, say, the Loop is a resort course then so is Crystal Downs.


Peter

[jeffwarne]

Alternatively, throw a couple of never marked, used or maintained back tees in on a couple of holes to get you to 6800 on the card, have a stiff cocktail, and call it a day. 

 I feel like I was robbed of the true, intended experience the course claimed to provide. If I was a rater, encountering this would only lead to negative thoughts about the course, and definitely wouldn't land you a Top 100 ranking.

wow,
Two unused back tees could elicit all that......


All this time I thought raters were supposed to simply rate the course, not their emotional response to running out of (free) ice cream.

[John Kirk]

Peter Pallotta,

I think this is an interesting point.

Isn't Crystal Downs a resort course, in the sense that the course and resort area were built to host Midwestern families on summer vacations?

Crystal Downs is 6500 yards, par 70, and is very difficult, with severely sloped greens.  It is also ranked in the U.S. Top Twenty in all major publications, although it took several decades to move into the upper echelon of ranked golf courses.

How would a course like Crystal Downs be received at a posh new resort in northern California?  Exceptional natural beauty is a powerful and lasting pleasure which never gets old.  Perhaps the argument for what type of golf course works best distills to how many visitors are likely to be repeat customers.  Some Tom Doak courses I've played seem to have a stronger home course advantage than others.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Alternatively, throw a couple of never marked, used or maintained back tees in on a couple of holes to get you to 6800 on the card, have a stiff cocktail, and call it a day. 

I believe this post is tongue-in-cheek, but similar advice appears several times within this thread. Personally I think it's a terrible idea. I hate when courses advertise that they're one thing, but then you show up and they play much shorter. I feel like I was robbed of the true, intended experience the course claimed to provide. If I was a rater, encountering this would only lead to negative thoughts about the course, and definitely wouldn't land you a Top 100 ranking.

Thank god your not a rater.

[Mark Kiely]

Alternatively, throw a couple of never marked, used or maintained back tees in on a couple of holes to get you to 6800 on the card, have a stiff cocktail, and call it a day. 

 I feel like I was robbed of the true, intended experience the course claimed to provide. If I was a rater, encountering this would only lead to negative thoughts about the course, and definitely wouldn't land you a Top 100 ranking.

wow,
Two unused back tees could elicit all that......


All this time I thought raters were supposed to simply rate the course, not their emotional response to running out of (free) ice cream.

How is running out of ice cream an apt analogy? In the case I'm describing, you didn't run out of ice cream. You advertised you sold ice cream, but in reality you only served Tofutti. I didn't realize raters play for free, so that tidbit aside, my point is all about deceiving the public into thinking they're getting something that isn't truly available. Building hidden, rarely-used tees solely for the purpose of artificially inflating the course's yardage is underhanded and shady. What if a steakhouse advertised selling Prime beef but when your chewy, gristly steak arrived at your table, they said, "Oh, we only serve Prime if we know food critics are here. Otherwise we only serve Choice steaks."

[Thomas Dai]

As an aside, it can be pretty confusing when you go to a course and the scorecards, course markers/furniture etc all have the distances in metres.


Not much help in this instance though as say 7,000 yds is 'only' 6,400m


Atb

[Tom_Doak]

As an aside, it can be pretty confusing when you go to a course and the scorecards, course markers/furniture etc all have the distances in metres.

Not much help in this instance though as say 7,000 yds is 'only' 6,400m

That's yet another example of "round numbers" driving people's tastes and [sometimes, therefore] design decisions.


For example, between Barnbougle Dunes and St. Andrews Beach in Australia I built four of my best short par-4 holes, which are each under 300 yards long.  [The shortest is the 12th at Barnbougle at 242 m, the 4th there is 271 m.]  Had I been building that course in America, I am almost positive the client would have expressed concern about having two such holes on a course ...


In fact, I have never built a short par-4 in America that was under 300 yards, as far as I can recall.  But I've built the above mentioned and the 7th at Tara Iti and the 14th at the Bay of Dreams, all overseas!  Is that because Americans are longer hitters?    No.

[Peter Pallotta]

John - yes, that's my thinking. If I'm not mistaken, the CD community (if not the golf course too) was conceived and established by and for the Congregationlists as a retreat and summer camp for its ministers and members and families. And the golf course built there provided -- for a few summer months a year -- width and recreation and a lovely, natural setting far from both the maddening crowd and certainly from any centres/notion of competitive golf. And yet there it is today, a much beloved and highly ranked classic -- though as you smartly point out, it took many a year for the magazines/ratings to recognize its worth.
Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()