[Ian Andrew]

We always ask ... what's next.

I think the answer has to be a par 68 or 69. We have awesome examples in Rye, Elie and Wannamoisett that have proven that 70+ is not essential. What I can't understand is why a new resort like Sand Valley hasn't seized upon this concept for one of the remaining courses.

I believe they would be the centre of the golfing universe if the built a course that is par 68 or 69? Doesn’t this make the most sense when you think about everyone is trying to break 80, 90, etc. Don't you think that would be a popular last round of the week? Faster rounds, less resources, lower maintenance and catering to people's desire to try and shoot a low score.

I think the Sand Box and other short courses show the appetite for the unconventional when away from home. I can’t believe this hasn't happened yet. It would be easier to route the course, especially if you dropped the fives completely. It could rely on more short holes, it would play much faster, the architecture could be a little more dramatic … so tell me why hasn’t this happened yet … just thinking out of the box

[Keith Phillips]

Love the concept.  When I was a Wentworth member my favorite walk was the East (par 68) and whenever I go to Scotland I make sure to play Crail-Balcomie (par 69).  Short par 4's are my favorite holes and courses like this tend to have more of them.  Having said that, I fear the broader golfing audience may not be ready for it.

[Frank M]

I find it ironic that the answer to 'what's next' is to do what WAS before. It's all hunky dory except for when that par 68 or 69 ends up being 6800 yards. I also don't agree that it will make for faster rounds. The key culprit to slow play is people/golfers.

[Tom_Doak]

This idea has been on my bucket list for many years, waiting for the right client.  It would be terrific if Mike Keiser was that client.


The idea that "golfers may not be ready for it" is sad and limiting.  (And untrue: as Ian points out there are many courses of par less than 70 that are truly loved.)  Making decisions based on fear of others' opinions is even more sad.  It will just take someone both talented and respected to make people take the concept seriously, and who in the world is in a better position to try it than Mr Keiser?

[Tom_Doak]

I find it ironic that the answer to 'what's next' is to do what WAS before.

What's next is almost always what's been done before, if you go back to the roots of the game, before Americans started trying to tell the rest of the world what to do.  Links golf?  Minimal earthmoving? Twelve holes (remember Prestwick?).  Seven holes (Blackheath).  Par-6 holes (Blackheath again)?


If you are going to come up with something new and original, you've just got to go out and figure it out - it's probably not going to happen in print, or on paper.  And if you can come up with something new and good, more power to you, you'll have great success.  But in the meantime, don't disrespect the many great ideas that modern golf has dismissed.

[Frank M]

I find it ironic that the answer to 'what's next' is to do what WAS before.

But in the meantime, don't disrespect the many great ideas that modern golf has dismissed.

I'm not sure if this comment is directly aimed at me or if it is just a statement on some general sentiment you feel is out there at the moment, but if it is indeed aimed at me, when did something being ironic become disrespectful?

[Peter Pallotta]

It could indeed be a very cool course, especially (for me) if you dropped the Par 5s altogether. There'd be the potentially intriguing and rare juxtaposition of a mid-west (vast) space with an east-coast (compact) routing; and, unless it was going to be less than 6400 yards, there'd also need to be a great many -- and a wide variety -- of the best kind of holes in golf, ie Par 4s, both short and quite long ones. An architect would be both challenged and invigorated by the opportunity (without the crutch of the sweeping & 'dramatic' Par 5s) and golfers who actually love the game and its fields of play would experience, and have to grapple with, a kind of golf round they've seldom encountered before.
If only the inmates ran the asylum...

[Ken Moum]

I find it ironic that the answer to 'what's next' is to do what WAS before.

But in the meantime, don't disrespect the many great ideas that modern golf has dismissed.

I'm not sure if this comment is directly aimed at me or if it is just a statement on some general sentiment you feel is out there at the moment, but if it is indeed aimed at me, when did something being ironic become disrespectful?

I think he was agreeing with you.


Actually, I'm sure he was agreeing with you.


K

[Duncan Cheslett]

Lots of the courses I play have an overall par of less than 70 - including my home course.


In many cases these courses don't play or feel particularly short - the "low" overall par is often simply a function of having five or more short holes and only one or two par 5s.  At Reddish Vale we have two par 4s of over 460 yards - it isn't a "short" course!


The tyranny of par remains however. Potential visitors and members are often dismissive of a par 69 course, so we are currently considering whether to up our par to 70 by making our toughest par 4 a little longer and re-calibrating it.


100 years ago in England par didn't really exist. Bogey was the measure of a hole's and a course's difficulty, and RV had a bogey of 73.


It's all meaningless of course - par is just a number. However, while it is important in the minds of those whose money we need it must be a consideration.


I suspect that this is exactly the reason no-one has asked Tom D to design a course of under 70 par.

[Ally Mcintosh]

West Sussex, Royal St David’s to name a couple more.


I am in the process of reducing Strandhill from a par 70 to par 69. Unsurprisingly, it is the one part of my plan that is receiving kick-back.

[Jeff Schley]

I'm thinking "executive courses", principally in retirement communities or big cities with limited space.  Many times the "executive courses" are only 9 holes, not sure of the actual definition of "executive courses". These exist so this idea is to expand them into 18 hole courses at with higher end course designers? 

[Thomas Dai]

[size=78%]Regrettably golf is closely tied in with ego and vanity[/size][/size][size=78%]. The courses we see the men tour pros play on TV each week are almost always effectively par 68’s although specified differently on the card.[/size]
[/size]Atb
[size=78%]
[/size]

[jeffwarne]

cool idea and definitely a good one as part of an ensemble-especially where 2 18 hole beasts in a day can be quite taxing.
The key would be to make the routing compact-not just the yardage to make the scale itself smaller-not just shorter tees

I.e. Machrahanish Dunes and Dunaverty are a perfect fit


Less cool though in 50 years when the par 68 is par 60   You know, when the USGA commissions another study on distance......
Pretty sure those par 68,69's and par 70's weren't originally designed to be such-though most are absolute gems to play

[Ian Andrew]

The tyranny of par remains however. Potential visitors and members are often dismissive of a par 69 course, so we are currently considering whether to up our par to 70 by making our toughest par 4 a little longer and re-calibrating it.

I work with Plymouth Country Club (Ross) in Plymouth Massachusetts
The first question I was asked was about their par - which is 69
They have five "very long" par fours - so the question was can one be a five.
I pointed out that they are all exceptional holes and each would become a mediocre five.
Why create a weak hole just to be a par 70? It remains a 69.

[Ian Andrew]

I am in the process of reducing Strandhill from a par 70 to par 69. Unsurprisingly, it is the one part of my plan that is receiving kick-back.

Spring Brook in NJ has flipped the 16th and 17th back and forth trying to make a five out of either hole.
I guess I'm the first architect to suggest the holes can only be great if they "both: are long fours
... and there's nothing wrong with Par 69


We'll see on this one, they have a year or two before they must finally commit.

[Ian Andrew]

cool idea and definitely a good one as part of an ensemble-especially where 2 18 hole beasts in a day can be quite taxing.

Great point


I play 36 a day quite a lot still, the second 18 being shorter and faster would really help.

[Brian Finn]

Ian,

I think it is a great idea.  I've only played a handful of sub-70 par courses, but they include some of my all-time favorites.  I see no reason why it wouldn't work, particularly as the 3rd full 18 on site.

My question for you (and any of the other architects that care to answer) is - if you went into the design process with a goal of having a par 68 (or 69) course, in what ways would you seek to accomplish this and "how far" would you "push" to get a sub-70 final product?  For example, let's say after walking/studying the land and working on finding the best routing and holes (I don't pretend to know what really goes into that), you discover there are many natural spots for par 5s (or something along those lines)...would you consider trying to "convert" those holes into very long 4s instead?  This is just one example of what I imagine you might consider, but hopefully you know what I am getting at.  I'm sure the decision-making process would be far more nuanced than my questions might suggest.  Ultimately, I am wondering how "certain" you would be going in that you'd finish sub-70, and whether you think there could be significant compromise (vs. what you deem the best possible course the land would yield). 

Thanks!

[John Kavanaugh]

I hate it. People will see par 68 and feel the need to play the back tees to compensate for the low par. It will result in even more unreachable par 4's for guys like me.

[Dan Moore]

I remember forgetting it was par 68 and deciding to play Rye at 6,400 yards and thinking it was the longest course I ever played.  Great set of long, yet memorable par 4's and exceptional par 3's.  Why not 6 great par 3's and 2 par 5's or 5 and 1.  To paraphrase William Langford it's not how long a course is, it's where the yards are that matters. 


The first two courses at SV each have 5 par 5's and both conclude with a par 5. Why not a course with just 1 or 2 par 5's and a few cracking par 4's.


I for one would be enthusiastically in favor of a par 68 course at Sand Valley.

[Jim Nugent]

Elite players eat up par 5s; bogey golfers struggle on them.  So no par 5s will make the course harder for scratch, but easier for bogey golfers, at least compared to par.  One par 5 and five par 3s (or two and six) as Dan Moore says, does the trick as well. 

In terms of actual scores, all golfers should shoot lower on a par 68 course, compared to the same course with par 5s. 

I hate it. People will see par 68 and feel the need to play the back tees to compensate for the low par. It will result in even more unreachable par 4's for guys like me.

Won't those same guys learn soon enough not to play the tips? 

[John Kavanaugh]

Elite players eat up par 5s; bogey golfers struggle on them.  So no par 5s will make the course harder for scratch, but easier for bogey golfers, at least compared to par.  One par 5 and five par 3s (or two and six) as Dan Moore says, does the trick as well. 

In terms of actual scores, all golfers should shoot lower on a par 68 course, compared to the same course with par 5s. 

I hate it. People will see par 68 and feel the need to play the back tees to compensate for the low par. It will result in even more unreachable par 4's for guys like me.

Won't those same guys learn soon enough not to play the tips?

It's a resort. Let's say we use our rule of thumb and play the 6400 yd tees. Even then we are playing a course that plays longer than usual. No way are a bunch of 6400 yd guys going to do the math and play from 6100. Not at those prices.

[Peter Pallotta]

They should put 'Not at those prices' on a t-shirt and sell them at the pro-shop. Or, if that's too blue collar, just the acronym, NATP, as a logo for hats and polo shirts. If you have enough 'options' and 'strategy', you can't have too many Par 5s at a resort course; the average golfer simply won't want to pass them up, NATP.

[John Kavanaugh]

Full disclosure. I openly criticized Streamsong Black for being a par 73. I believe that when someone is kind enough to ask you what you shot you should in return be kind enough to give a number with no additional conditions or excuses. I shot 80 but it is a par 73...no one cares.

[Sean_A]

Elite players eat up par 5s; bogey golfers struggle on them.  So no par 5s will make the course harder for scratch, but easier for bogey golfers, at least compared to par.  One par 5 and five par 3s (or two and six) as Dan Moore says, does the trick as well. 

In terms of actual scores, all golfers should shoot lower on a par 68 course, compared to the same course with par 5s. 

I hate it. People will see par 68 and feel the need to play the back tees to compensate for the low par. It will result in even more unreachable par 4's for guys like me.

Won't those same guys learn soon enough not to play the tips?

It's a resort. Let's say we use our rule of thumb and play the 6400 yd tees. Even then we are playing a course that plays longer than usual. No way are a bunch of 6400 yd guys going to do the math and play from 6100. Not at those prices.

So rich folk are less savvy? 


I like the idea so long as the footprint matches the yardage.  It would suck to walk between holes simply to play a sub 70/6000ish yard course.  That said, why limit the course to 68/69 par?  It could be that a small footprint course could yield a great par 65 course that is 5600 yards.  Whatever, the point is to use less space so a quick game can be had. 

Full disclosure...I don't care what people score.

Ciao

[PCCraig]

If the best routing dictates a par less than 72, 70, or whatever...then of course.


I think it would be neat if said par-68 course had a bunch of half-par holes as well. If it did I don't think many people would notice the overall par being as low?


To a 20 handicapper, does it really make a difference if the par is 69 or 72? I would think not? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()