[Tom_Doak]

I'm using the GOLF DIGEST list.  Don't go look it up and answer -- guess first, and then think about what they are.




Bonus question:  How many of the top ten return to the clubhouse at the 9th green?

[Ira Fishman]

Three.


Ira

[Ronald Montesano]

six and six...just hit straight reply. Now I'll go look it up.

[Mark Saltzman]

I’ll say 9 and 9.

[Peter Pallotta]

I’ll say 9 and 9.

I'd bet Mark is right.
The reason Par 72 has become a convention/cliche today might be because so many of the classic Top 10s got there first, back then.

[John Kavanaugh]

Do not forget that it is also the one formula Doak doesn't follow.

[Mike_Clayton]

Two - and three.

[Peter Pallotta]

Do not forget that it is also the one formula Doak doesn't follow.

Darn, you're right.
But still there's no way, I'd guess, that it's as low as 3.
Plus: when I see the list, courses that once might've been Par 72s but then over the years turned two par 5s in Par 4s so as to 'stay relevant' I'm going to count as part the answer. 

[Pete Lavallee]

1.) Pine Valley: no yes
2.) Augusta: yes yes
3.) Cypress Point: yes no
4.) Shinnecock: no yes
5.) Oakmont: no yes
6.) Merion: no no
7.) Pebble Beach: no no (#2 played as a par 4 the last 2 Opens)
8.) NGLA: no no
9.) Sand Hills: yes no
10.) Fishers Island: no no


So that makes 3 out of 10 par 72 ( not sure about SH par, just a guess.
We would have 4 returning 9’s out of 10.
Going to Google now to see how I did!

[Tyler Kearns]

Five & Four

[Tyler Kearns]

I guessed 8 of the top 10 courses right!

[John Kirk]

My guess is 2 and 5.

[mark chalfant]

My guess re par 72 is two


Augusta National and NGLA


For many decades National Golf Links was par 73, but its par was lowered to 72 about a decade ago

[Tom_Doak]

My guess re par 72 is two

Augusta National and NGLA

For many decades National Golf Links was par 73, but its par was lowered to 72 about a decade ago

I actually didn't know NGLA had changed par to 72   


That makes it back to three courses, as Pebble Beach used to be. 
Pete L. had most of it correct:  Augusta National and Cypress Point are the other two.  Sand Hills has always been par 71.




I think the concept of par 72 being the correct standard is a myth -- a marketing gimmick offered up by Robert Trent Jones, in trying to promote his "heroic" par 5 holes.  [At the same time, as the Open Doctor, he lowered the par of Baltusrol and Oakland Hills!]


Four of the top ten are par-70 -- Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Merion, and Fishers Island -- and they always have been.




Oddly, when you go to the World Top 10, there are more par-72's (4) AND more courses with returning nines (5).  Royal Melbourne (West) adds to both lists, assuming you count #9 West as being close enough to the clubhouse; The Old Course is the other par-72, and Royal County Down is the odd llnks with returning nines.


For the U.S. list, there are four of ten with returning nines, assuming you count Ben's Porch as the clubhouse.

[SL_Solow]

Tom, you note Trent's promotion of par 72.  why do you think the lists shake out the way they do?  Is it because the best use of any particular site may not conform with "convention" and those seeking to conform are obliged to make compromises?

[Matt_Cohn]

About returning nines: of those 10 courses, it would have been hard to route returning nines at Cypress, Merion, Pebble, National, or Fishers Island as they're all elongated properties with the clubhouse at one end. Of the ones where returning nines were logistically reasonable, only Pine Valley doesn't, right? (I'm not certain it was possible there, and 9 green is still within 300 yards of the clubhouse.) What's the first course on the list, or how many of those Top 100, could legitimately have had returning nines but don't?

[Ronald Montesano]

Numbers 2, 3, 7, 8 are listed as par 72. To say that a course is a different par for the professional touring gents, is erroneous.


https://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/americas-100-greatest-golf-courses-ranking


Each of these ten is a highest-end private, or a highest-end public. All can afford to do what they damned well please. I would suspect that the courses and clubs that don't Daddy Warbucks among their membership/guest rolls, benefit from bringing the 9th back to the clubhouse. A question of art versus economics.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ron,


What does returning nines have to do with income?

[jeffwarne]

As far as I know,3 of the Top 10 were designed as par 72's . (I cheated and looked at the list)
NGLA wasn't and Pebble Beach was and still is, other than for the US Open.


Interesting about non returning 9's. It certainly creates the possibility of an uphill 9th and 18th, and might create routing compromises.
I do like a course that offers the opportunity for a whisky loop. Growin up at Augusta CC, which did not return after 9, we could play 1&18,1,2 ,17,18, 1-3 and 16-18 or 1-5 and 15-18 for an "inside 9" or 1-7 and 15-18 for an "inside 11". I played those loops hundreds of times growing up.

[Edward Glidewell]

I do like a course that offers the opportunity for a whisky loop. Growin up at Augusta CC, which did not return after 9, we could play 1&18,1,2 ,17,18, 1-3 and 16-18 or 1-5 and 15-18 for an "inside 9" or 1-7 and 15-18 for an "inside 11". I played those loops hundreds of times growing up.

Where is the "halfway" (in quotes because it's not halfway) house at Augusta CC?


I played there roughly 10 years ago, and I remember that you went past the halfway house at least twice because of the way the course was routed. I think after 5 or 6, and then again at some point on the back 9? I really liked it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Wolf Point
No (71ish) &
No

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ron,


What does returning nines have to do with income?

John,  I attended a Club Corp annual Christmas party years ago.  None other than Robert Dedman Sr, who should know something about running a golf course, claimed that not having returning nines cost a course 3500 rounds a year.  I never verified it, and that could mean 3500 9 hole rounds (although it didn't seem to at the time).  And, he sounded confident in his proclamation, as he probably would be. 


Anyway, 3500 X maybe $75 each round in revenues comes to almost $250K, an amount that many courses won't take lightly.


His talk was pretty memorable.  Not as memorable as the elevators opening up and the accounting department, who apparently were working a few floors up, having no idea a party was happening, wondering why they weren't invited.  Taken together, those two concurrent occurrences reinforced in my mind that Dedman took his revenues seriously!

[Tom_Doak]

Each of these ten is a highest-end private, or a highest-end public. All can afford to do what they damned well please. I would suspect that the courses and clubs that don't Daddy Warbucks among their membership/guest rolls, benefit from bringing the 9th back to the clubhouse. A question of art versus economics.

My point was precisely that these courses did what they pleased, instead of following a stupid formula, and that CAUSED them to be the highest-end private, or highest-end public courses.  [Of course, the stupid formula had not been agreed as necessary when most of them were built.]


Not returning to the clubhouse at the 9th certainly results in SOME economic loss, though it would vary from place to place.  One of my clients who insisted on returning nines [and almost hired someone else because I hadn't done it at first] was Julian Robertson at Cape Kidnappers -- he said if Shinnecock Hills had it, we should, too.  So, I changed the routing to fall in line, although I really doubt that many people go to Cape Kidnappers and only play nine holes -- and the staff there would happily go out and pick you up from anywhere on the course, anyway.




The important thing about these two rules is that they limit the number of options you have for routing a golf course, much more than most of you understand [and more than Jeff Brauer will admit to himself].  If you can't use that canyon for another beautiful par-3, because you've already got four, your course suffers.  If you've got to get back at the ninth hole, you can't use the cool property that's more than a mile from the clubhouse, because you can't get out to it and back again.  [Or, you have to move the clubhouse location to someplace less ideal . . . Barnbougle Dunes had to have a long narrow east-west routing, and for returning nines we had to put the clubhouse in the middle . . . which meant that either #1 or #18 was going to play into the sun.]


I have tried to maintain an open mind about par, so as not to limit my options.  I don't have anything AGAINST par-72, I just don't have anything FOR it, either.  I am happy if par for each nine comes out to 35, 36, or 37 [and occasionally 34].  But if you just let those results fall at random, the odds that you're going to get a course that's par 72 are three out of nine:  35+37, 36+36, 37+35.

[Tom_Doak]

 I attended a Club Corp annual Christmas party years ago.  None other than Robert Dedman Sr, who should know something about running a golf course, claimed that not having returning nines cost a course 3500 rounds a year.

I guess he should have made changes to his flagship course, Pinehurst No. 2, which doesn't return to the clubhouse at the 9th.  That must have cost him a lot of money.  /s

[Peter Pallotta]

The dead horses I keep flogging are Intention and Hierarchy of Values.
Tom's last post fits into that context, I think.
Yes: trying to fit a routing into a preconceived notion (and false 'ideal') of Par 72 limits the number of options an architect has, and thus potentially limits the number of great holes and/or the overall quality of the design.
And so does the 'need' for returning 9s.
But, so does the 'requirement' to have 3 or 4 Par 5s, when even building just 1 really good Par 5 is hard enough to do already. 
And so does honouring the 'value' of great vistas & settings, with many elevated tees from the top of dunes (on a sandy site) or as many holes as possible alongside the water (on a seaside site)
And the 'goal' of making the routing walkable for all
And the 'preference' for having the first tee a short walk from the clubhouse instead of so long that it requires cart-ride.
Etc etc etc.
Which is to say: gca in practice is the balancing and/or prioritizing of a whole series of 'values' and goals, many of which are (or may be, depending on the site) mutually exclusive.

So, an honest question to Tom and others:

What makes a Par 72 'formula' or 'value' or 'goal' any worse -- or any more artificial -- than any other of the many 'requirements' or 'intentions' that a given architect tries to honour?
 
   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()