Sand Valley #4 - Par 68 ... Why Not?

[Thomas Dai]

See Formby Ladies - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60714.msg1568910.html#msg1568910 - or the Annesley at Royal County Down - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53841.0.html - to see how a lessor par, lessor yardage course can still present challenging and fun, if you’re prepared to put your golfing ego and vanity on hold.
Atb

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

 How about a course that never ends until you finally reach a green? A course that requires a variety of shots to get around obstacles, through shoots, then wide open slots (where teeing a driver would be legal) until you finally arrive at the worlds largest and most confounding green you've ever seen. The first par 70 single hole.

Keeps the pace moving, better cardio since you never rest (walking only of course), saves money on teeing grounds and greens.

Crazy?

[Brian Finn]

How about a course that never ends until you finally reach a green? A course that requires a variety of shots to get around obstacles, through shoots, then wide open slots (where teeing a driver would be legal) until you finally arrive at the worlds largest and most confounding green you've ever seen. The first par 70 single hole.

Keeps the pace moving, better cardio since you never rest (walking only of course), saves money on teeing grounds and greens.

Crazy?

I appreciate the outside the box thinking, but imagine that essentially removing putting from the round would prove unpopular.  Perhaps not though, since many of us struggle with the flat stick.

[Kalen Braley]

Ryan,


THat would be one helluva long course.  Think about how many strokes you take where the ball travel less than 100 feet?  At least 35 or so per round between chips and all your putts.


A par 70 with one green would have to be 10,000 yard minimum, or a helluva lot of twisty doglegs with trees on the inside

[Jake Marvin]

On one hand, golfers love par threes. On another hand, they love par-72s, or at least pars that look familiar.


I'd say that a big resort like SV would be in the best position to try build a great course of low par. At the same time, knowing the American retail golfer, I'm unsure what an architect would have to do to keep said course from becoming "the other course" at Sand Valley.


I love the idea, assuming it's the best course for the given site, but it pays to the remember that we're the enlightened ones, or the pretentious ones or crazy ones if you so prefer. Most golfers don't think of Rye when they hear a par that starts with the number 6.


Or maybe it'd work great! Who even knows!

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Ryan,


THat would be one helluva long course.  Think about how many strokes you take where the ball travel less than 100 feet?  At least 35 or so per round between chips and all your putts.


A par 70 with one green would have to be 10,000 yard minimum, or a helluva lot of twisty doglegs with trees on the inside

I don't think it would be any longer, maybe even shorter. Instead of  putting after your second shot (on in regulation on a par 4) you'd just keep swinging. No green, no tee markers. And yes, I'd foresee certain narrow corridors or obstacles you'd have to pitch over or punch through to get to the next opening. You'd have only one green to maintain at the end, maybe a large Himalayas type green.

To compete with Top Golf maybe there'd be stations along the way selling shots and chicken wings

[Philip Hensley]

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

Twelve holes (remember Prestwick?).  Seven holes (Blackheath).  Par-6 holes (Blackheath again)?

Would you build a course that did not have 18 holes? I wish someone would try it. And not in the vein of "12 holes are all people have time for to play golf these days".

[mike_beene]

This reminds me of Pinehurst number 1 . Short and a fun play with plenty of good holes. I don't know what the par is or was but they called a few 4s 5s.

[Adrian_Stiff]

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.

THIS POST sums up the reason why not.

[Tom_Doak]

Would you build a course that did not have 18 holes? I wish someone would try it. And not in the vein of "12 holes are all people have time for to play golf these days".

Philip:


The barriers have been breaking down somewhat in recent years.  A lot of the new short courses are an odd number of holes, and nobody seems to care a bit.  There is also an architect in Iceland, Edwin Roald, who has advocated for courses of different lengths.  Not many clubs in Iceland can afford to maintain 18 holes, but his logic is, why does that mean they should stop at nine?


I'd consider building a course with an odd number of holes, but unlike the par-68 deal which I would not hesitate to do, for this it would only be under certain circumstances -- because I think the resistance to, say, a 15-hole course would be much stronger.  I would only do it on a site with limited acreage, where 18 holes was basically impossible.  Otherwise I think the golfers would just complain every day about why it couldn't be more conventional.

[Tom_Doak]

THIS POST sums up the reason why not.

Adrian:


I knew you'd chime in eventually from the business side, as someone who has tried this approach.


But you really don't think anyone could pull it off if they had the weight of a famous designer and a famous developer behind them?


The main reason FOR such an approach is that lots of people visit these remote new resorts who are not in shape to walk 36 holes on two big courses in a single day.  That's why there has been such an influx of par-3 courses and such, and they have been hugely popular.  I believe a short, easily walkable second 18 might also be appealing, especially if it is full of great short par-4 holes.

[BHoover]

I thought we agreed that par doesn’t matter. If that is the case, what is the sense in designing a par 68?

[Peter Pallotta]

As Sean notes, I think it best if "the footprint matches the yardage".
For me, 'best' in two ways: practically/sustainably, but also in a more subtle/aesthetic way, i.e. in comparison, the other 18-holers would seem even more mammoth and sandy (their ideal), while the par 68 would look even more intimate & compact (its ideal).
My wild (and counter-intuitive) guess: golfers would gravitate to the intimacy, while those who play golf to the expanse.     

[Tom_Doak]

I thought we agreed that par doesn’t matter. If that is the case, what is the sense in designing a par 68?

OK, then let's call it a 6100-yard course that's intimate and fast to play.


And if you were going to design something like that, would you make it a par 68 or par 72 ?

[BHoover]

I thought we agreed that par doesn’t matter. If that is the case, what is the sense in designing a par 68?

OK, then let's call it a 6100-yard course that's intimate and fast to play.

And if you were going to design something like that, would you make it a par 68 or par 72 ?

Why 6100?

[Adrian_Stiff]

THIS POST sums up the reason why not.

Adrian:


I knew you'd chime in eventually from the business side, as someone who has tried this approach.


But you really don't think anyone could pull it off if they had the weight of a famous designer and a famous developer behind them?


The main reason FOR such an approach is that lots of people visit these remote new resorts who are not in shape to walk 36 holes on two big courses in a single day.  That's why there has been such an influx of par-3 courses and such, and they have been hugely popular.  I believe a short, easily walkable second 18 might also be appealing, especially if it is full of great short par-4 holes.

Tom - I operate a 45 hole facility, 1x 7100 yarder par 72 1x 5500 yarder par 68 1x par 3 9 hole course. Me personally when I play (6 times a year) I play the 5500 yarder I can still coax it round in 72-78 and I can enjoy it. If I play the 7100 yarder I would struggle to break 90. I hate it. However, that is a minor opinion among of our members most want back tees. 90% of our societies (outings) want the long course. The green fee structure is £52 versus £26. Commercially no visitor would play the short course at £52 and there lies the problem the YIELD is low at £26 we get business at the value level. Our shorter course has found its own little niche with older golfers, ladies, juniors and some that like the quirk of 7 par 3s 3 par 5s... It is also on 80% of the walk..a plus for some.


The Par 68 definitely works better as you suggest when coupled with other courses as a group...as a stand alone single facility it is pigeon-holed at a disadvantage by most that just resist that 6000 yard barrier, Par 70 ticks the box.


There is of course no logical reason why a 6050 yard par 68 should not be great..it is just hard to convince the 90% that have made up their mind.


If there is one person that could pull it off then it probably is you, but I would still be 50-50 on you doing it and I wonder if YOU would still be a be mixed on trying to squeak the par up to 70 if the opportunity arose.


9 holes or 12 holes courses seem acceptable to me but not 15 though I have no logical defence.

[jeffwarne]

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. 

spot on


which is why I'm not really a fan of "family tees" located 400 yards from the previous green


or a 5000 yard course on a 7 mile walk