[Tom_Doak]

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?
 

That's a good, fair question.


My objection to the par-72 and returning nines police is that they dominate conversation.  Even a lot of posters here assumed that most of the top ten courses would conform, when they don't.  It's an expressed preference, but it's not based in data.  It's not just the top ten . . . many of the best courses are par 70 or 71, and on many the 9th green is well away from the clubhouse.


[EDIT:  Just for fun, take Canada. 
  St. George's, par 71, doesn't return at 9th. 
  Cabot Cliffs, par 71, returns at 10th. 
  Jasper Park, par 71, doesn't return at the 9th, which is its best hole actually. 
  Banff, par 71, didn't return at the 9th, and they ruined it by moving the clubhouse!!
  Hmmm.]


Many would say that demanding a course be walkable places the same sort of limits on design . . . indeed, it does.  But at least that preference is supported by the evidence.  How many of the top 100 courses aren't walkable?  [One or two on the GOLF DIGEST list.]  How many of them have wall to wall cart paths?  [It used to be three of the GOLF Magazine top 100, when I counted years ago; it's probably a handful now, but maybe not, as a lot of the new entries are walking-only.]


Personally, I don't think you need more than one par five, or any at all:  Rye and West Sussex are the proof.  But again, when you look at the list, it appears that those whose opinion is consulted are reluctant to accept a course with only one par-5 as being equal to the best.  [There are plenty that made the top 100 with just two.]


I wish we could do away with all these "wants" and just see the property for what it is, but some of them have more history on their side than others.  What I wanted to point out, here, is that the two rules that people demand most forcefully are the two which are least supported by the evidence of what people think is great.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  Sorry to rant away.  I've been having this argument for 40 years now, and generally been winning it, but every month I hear "experts" from the golf business tell me things that I know aren't true.  I have no idea why they hold onto them so dearly.  In Asia, I believe there is some sort of numerology / quasi-religious reason behind it, desiring balance, but we are talking about something you only really notice on the scorecard, not when you are playing.


My redesign of the Gunnamatta course at The National is a par 72, but it has only three par-3 holes and three par-5's.  I'm often told you've got to have four par-3 holes, if not five, and I usually do -- my original routing had back to back par-3's at 15 and 16, and the club board was nervous about that, so we found a way to turn the 15th into a par 4.  But when we played the Renaissance Cup there, nobody said anything at all about the course having only three short holes -- I don't think most of the group even noticed, honestly.  Most of my friends would have been more surprised that I came up with a par 72, without noticing how. 

[jeffwarne]

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.

The halfway house is after 7 and 14, but is also en route if you play 1-5, then 15-the "inside 9"
perfectly placed, and to date the best hot dog in golf-consistently(as of last November)

[Peter Flory]

Oakmont in 1903: par 80.  1 par 6.  8 par 5s.  7 par 4s.  2 par 3s.  Sounds like John Daly's fantasy. 

I also saw something where in The National Golf Review in 1936, Bobby Jones listed his "ideal" golf course by combining holes from other courses and he made it a very standard par 36-36: 72 and at 7,034 yards.  I found that very surprising that he'd opt for something over 7,000 yards at that point in history as an ideal.  I don't know how many people read about his ideal, but it seems possible that if he said it, then it must have sounded right to readers who respected him.  With Augusta being par 72 as well, that probably got held up as a standard.

There were a lot of articles about ideals back then I notice and even scoring achievements- often relative to par.  It's like the American public and the golf writers were trying to wrap their heads around this new sport.  When you think about it, it must have seemed very abstract compared to baseball, tennis, football, etc.  Putting some parameters on it may have allowed it to become a sport that you could read about and have some sense of what the champions were up to.

[Sean_A]

I agree Peter. Golf has been codified to one degree or another ever since the game started to be played in non links environments.

To Pietro's point, I do think there is a difference between some of the artificial parameters placed on design. Multiple starting points strikes me as advantageous for either access and/or economic reasons. Starting and finishing near the house strikes me as obvious. Boozer loops for private courses seems wise, but not as important as the above points.

I do think that the more we can break from

18 holes
Par 72
Four 5s, four 3s and ten 4s

the better the odds are for cool courses to be developed.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

 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

Well, its easy to be pithy and diss one of the more important guys in the history of at least US golf on the internet.  As to Pinehurst, I don't have first hand knowledge, but have heard from some inside there that part of their decision to buy was to have a famous flagship among the mid level clubs CCA was able to bring to golfers.  But I am just as sure they knew the financials before they bought it, and thought they were good, and that CCA management would make them even better.  So, yes, we can use P2 as a nice example of why par 72 doesn't matter.  All courses compete economically and some have the benefits of oceans, tournament fame, or what have you, making par irrelevant.


The work we did for CCA was preliminary routings for development courses.  There, one of the main goals was being a convenient place for members to play after work, so the nine hole return made all the sense in the world.  And, those were typically cornfields, or at least gently rolling sites.  If they had a great valley or lake, chances are the routing was purposely avoiding those to leave that land as high $ home sites. OT a bit, but we have worked with a land planner who prefers the clubhouse to be in a valley with a built (landscaped) view for the CH, again, leaving the prominent hill for real estate sales.  I am quite sure he did the math, too.  For 3-5 million dollar home sites, you can landscape the opening holes or range pretty nicely and still come out ahead.


So, as hard as it is to say on this site, not all courses make greatness their no. 1 goal, nor do all sites support it.  And when certain conditions like that are prevalent, at least starting with the idea of returning nines is smart.


I have designed a few of each type of course in question, and easily came to the same conclusions.  At Cowboys, there was no way to return the nines so we didn't.  At Wild Wing, fitting 4 courses and a suitably large range around one clubhouse was pretty problematic, even though the site was flat, and few go to Myrtle to play 9 (unless is the second round of the day, maybe)  Easy call for me, although mine was the only one of the 4 courses not to return.


IMHO, Peter has it right - its always a case by case review and decision, like anything else in design.  Sean is also right - what is the USGA other than a codification tool?  We all play by the same rules, and we are trying to compare scores often using their handicap system.  Someone must think that comparison is fairer when all most courses are 72?  I don't know, just wondering how it all came to be.


Lastly, I think that in general, we are against those who just presume 72 is the only way to go.  I have worked with a business consultant who always recommends  par 72 and 7000 yards.  He says they do better fiancially, but when I press for statistical proof, he really has none and falls back on the "everybody knows" from the 70's or 80's argument.  To his credit, he has backed off when analyzing the finances.  If I ask, "Will spending $125K on a new green, and $35K on a new tee pay off in new revenues just because it is now par 72?  Even at today's low debt rates, changing that green and tee to go to par 72, it still needs to be able to specifically generate $13K per year in revenues to cover that debt, i.e., 130-260 more rounds at an upscale public, or an increase of at least $0.50 per existing round, or some combo of both. Hard to predict that, but sometimes, if you are doing major renovations for other reason, adding that amount to the remodel probably doesn't hurt things.


In most cases, spending less beats spending more.  Maybe moving a tee pays off, but going by the numbers at that course often deters bigger renovations.  That, IMHO is the test to decide whether to change an existing course, not some handicapping or design theory, LOL.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm curious when archys design a par 70 or 71 do they design and uber long par four?
I like a par 70, it is easier to break 80!

[Peter Pallotta]

It really is very interesting, especially in terms of the 'process', i.e. how the work actually gets done, on the ground.
In 30 BC (Before Conventions), some golden age architects must've focused on *something else*, such that their classic courses only sometimes came it at par 72, and sometimes at 70, or sometimes higher or lower. Much later, in 20 CA (Conventional Age), at least some architects began to consistently focus on (among other things) achieving the Par 36 + Par 36 = Par 72 model.   
Now, if that original 'something else' led to the creation, as Tom says, to more than its fair share of golf courses that "people think [are] great", then it makes sense for today's architects to follow/adhere to/honour that.
BUT:
The very moment that modern architects *do* honour & adhere to the goals and processes that their golden age ancestors did, they run the risk of creating/focusing on a new set of fixed guidelines, ie of transmuting and pulling into our CA-time the very things they so much value from the BC-age.
It reminds me of what an old writer once said to me when i was just starting out: "You long to do great work. That's wonderful. And that longing is what will most help you to achieve that -- but also what will most hamper you from ever getting there".
I never got there.
I admire those who do.
       

[Jeff Schley]

I'll say 4 are par 72 and I'll say 3 return after 9 to the clubhouse.  How did I do?   

[Mike Nuzzo]

 
So, as hard as it is to say on this site, not all courses make greatness their no. 1 goal, nor do all sites support it.
 

[/size]
[/size]Even if greatness isn't the client's goal is should be the architects.
[/size]This is what a noted developer said about Wolf Point's site:
[/size]
[/size]"....did a fabulous job on a nothing site."
[/size]
[/size]Peace

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom Bendelow touched on a few of the ideas presented in this thread in a 1914 Spalding's Official Golf Guide article.


He makes it clear that the article is only talking about general guidelines -


"Were conditions the same everywhere the task would be a comparatively easy one, but as they are not this is what makes it almost impossible.  We have no intention, therefore, of laying down any hard and fast lines to go upon, but merely give some general ideas of what is requisite."

[Jeff_Brauer]

 
So, as hard as it is to say on this site, not all courses make greatness their no. 1 goal, nor do all sites support it.
 

Even if greatness isn't the client's goal is should be the architects.
This is what a noted developer said about Wolf Point's site:

"....did a fabulous job on a nothing site."

Peace

LOL, that mindset has gotten a few architects fired from some muni jobs.  If the client needs a race track course, I usually don't try to go for "best new" on that project.

[Tom_Doak]

 
So, as hard as it is to say on this site, not all courses make greatness their no. 1 goal, nor do all sites support it.
 

Even if greatness isn't the client's goal is should be the architects.
This is what a noted developer said about Wolf Point's site:

"....did a fabulous job on a nothing site."

Peace

Mike:


I've gotta say I disagree with you here.


You're proud of Wolf Point, and it's probably a much better course than your client envisioned he needed.  But he must have been okay with that -- he didn't tell you not to do it, because he wanted to play 300 rounds a day on it.


But when you have a client that has other priorities, you have two choices:
a)  respect his priorities, or
b)  let someone else build the course who will


At the same time, that Jeff boo-hoos the idea of trying to build a great course shows you which jobs he would be the perfect fit for.

[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

Well, its easy to be pithy and diss one of the more important guys in the history of at least US golf on the internet.  As to Pinehurst, I don't have first hand knowledge, but have heard from some inside there that part of their decision to buy was to have a famous flagship among the mid level clubs CCA was able to bring to golfers.  But I am just as sure they knew the financials before they bought it, and thought they were good, and that CCA management would make them even better.  So, yes, we can use P2 as a nice example of why par 72 doesn't matter.  All courses compete economically and some have the benefits of oceans, tournament fame, or what have you, making par irrelevant

Actually, I made the point to diss your ignorance that Mr. Dedman's flagship course did not return to the clubhouse at the ninth hole, since that was the economic point you had been making. 


But you are correct, No. 2 isn't a par-72, either [and never was].


Bob Dedman is one of the guys who made the most money in the history of golf.*  If you think that makes him one of the most important guys in the history of golf, well, that's what's wrong with the golf business nowadays.


* I only met him once, he seemed like a nice fellow.  My comment is not personal, but a comment on priorities.

[Sven Nilsen]

But you are correct, No. 2 isn't a par-72, either [and never was].

No. 2 was listed as par 72 for a good part of the 1920's.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I'll disagree with you there on many fronts.  When the design program calls for a better course, I have usually delivered.  Even when it wasn't. 

The PM for one of those muni's commented that his design "wasn't just a muni, it was a really good golf course."  And he was a former tour player.  For a muni built in a housing development, on flat ground, really good is a nice result. I'm just being realistic in terminology, but most muni sites, budgets, goals and yes, housing, probably limit greatness.  I do agree with Mike that you try your best,

every time out.    But realistic does include very different clients that want very different things, and we do the best we can, while still meeting their objectives.



And realistically, about half the work available to working architects now are probably sand bunker reduction plans, no greatness intended by the courses that hire us for that.  Like Mike, I fight to keep good design and not just remove every bunker.  But, once the bunker cutting mentality gets in a manager's head, its hard to justify keeping too many "extra."

Regarding Dedman, we can't forget is that if clubs can't stay in business, it really doesn't matter what the design was.  When he started, there were exclusive private clubs and low budget muni's, with few in between.  I personally believe that anyone (and there were others) that worked to make golf higher quality and more affordable to expand the game were pretty damn important.   BTW, I was well aware that P2 didn't return to the Clubhouse, and explained why that was still a great deal for CCA.

[Tom_Doak]

No. 2 was listed as par 72 for a good part of the 1920's.

Technically, you're right I guess, but I am curious:  was that even the same routing?  The final version of No. 2, with grass greens, appeared in the mid-1930's, correct?


When I first saw it in the early 1970's, #16 was still a par five, as were 4 and 10.  I think #8 was a par 4, but now I'm not certain.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


I'll disagree with you there on many fronts.  When the design program calls for a better course, I have usually delivered.  Even when it wasn't. 

The PM for one of those muni's commented that his design "wasn't just a muni, it was a really good golf course."  And he was a former tour player.  For a muni built in a housing development, on flat ground, really good is a nice result. I'm just being realistic in terminology, but most muni sites, budgets, goals and yes, housing, probably limit greatness.  I do agree with Mike that you try your best,

every time out.    But realistic does include very different clients that want very different things, and we do the best we can, while still meeting their objectives.



And realistically, about half the work available to working architects now are probably sand bunker reduction plans, no greatness intended by the courses that hire us for that.  Like Mike, I fight to keep good design and not just remove every bunker.  But, once the bunker cutting mentality gets in a manager's head, its hard to justify keeping too many "extra."

Regarding Dedman, we can't forget is that if clubs can't stay in business, it really doesn't matter what the design was.  When he started, there were exclusive private clubs and low budget muni's, with few in between.  I personally believe that anyone (and there were others) that worked to make golf higher quality and more affordable to expand the game were pretty damn important.   BTW, I was well aware that P2 didn't return to the Clubhouse, and explained why that was still a great deal for CCA.

Jeff:


I didn't tell Mike that he couldn't try to do his best within whatever parameters the client had set out.  And I'm sorry if you took it that I implied you do not.  Also, it's pretty funny having you and Mike lecture me about the importance of trying one's best.


I was agreeing with you that this "greatness" thing has gone too far.  [Plus, many people's idea of what is great is really messed up, which was one of the points of this thread.]  "Greatness" isn't developer's goal, nor does every golfer care about it, and that's okay.  Courses for horses, as I wrote somewhere else this weekend.


Those clients are not my niche, though.  I'm not going to take or compete for jobs where the client doesn't want something special, and bust my butt trying for them, if they think I'm wasting their money to do so. 


That doesn't mean I'm always after a "top 100" course.  That would be idiotic, because the numbers insist that any designer would fail, if they stayed active in the business for a while.  Places like CommonGround or the Mulligan course or even The Loop were not built with any intention of getting into the top 100; but they were built with the intention of growing the game, and expanding the idea of what's acceptable in golf architecture.  I will always be interested in projects like those.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I certainly didn't mean to imply you don't try your best.  In reality, your run of ocean front or other great sites was unprecedented.  One of the things I have always tried to convey to participants here is what the other 99% of architects face in the "real world."  It ain't just all rainbows and bunnies.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I certainly didn't mean to imply you don't try your best.  In reality, your run of ocean front or other great sites was unprecedented.

Yes, it was/is a great niche to have.  It's not over yet, assuming we get to finish what we've started in Ireland.

[Edward Glidewell]

The halfway house is after 7 and 14, but is also en route if you play 1-5, then 15-the "inside 9"
perfectly placed, and to date the best hot dog in golf-consistently(as of last November)

I had one of those hot dogs!


Hopefully I'll get out to Augusta CC again sometime; I have a couple of friends in Augusta,

[David Davis]

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?

No idea about the Golf Digest Top 10 as I never look so had to look up their list.


1. Pine Valley Yes, No
2. Augusta National Yes, Yes
3. Cypress Point Yes, No
4. Shinnecock Yes, Yes
5. Oakmont Yes, Yes
6. Merion Yes, No
7. Pebble Beach Yes, No
8. NGLA Yes, No
9. Sand Hills Yes, No - Club house no, Ben's Porch yes
10. Fishers Island 🌴 Yes, No


That's my guess - All par 72, can't remember all the scorecards. 3 return to clubhouse in between 9's. Sand Hills returns to Ben's Porch.


Curious what the answers are.

[Matt_Cohn]

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.

Tom (or anyone),


Could Cypress, Merion, Pebble, National, or Fishers Island have been routed with returning nines? Is this more about the fact that those courses happen to have great, but oblong, properties?

[Sean_A]

No. 2 was listed as par 72 for a good part of the 1920's.

Technically, you're right I guess, but I am curious:  was that even the same routing?  The final version of No. 2, with grass greens, appeared in the mid-1930's, correct?

When I first saw it in the early 1970's, #16 was still a par five, as were 4 and 10.  I think #8 was a par 4, but now I'm not certain.

The course as we know it today wasn't completed until the 1936 PGA, but I still think it was a par 72 for the championship.

Ciao

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Tom, although I wasn't lecturing you, just Jeff.
 
I could have said make as great a course as possible given my clients priorities and constraints.
Our 2^nd new course Cleveland fits that bill.
It is intended to be an affordable public option as part of a development and in a flood prone area.
So we did make a number of compromises, but the course is still great due to good design and construction regardless of the clients goals.
 
Since Jeff brought up bunkers; I think we are both on the same page that they aren't needed to make a great golf course. My favorite one shot holes at Wolf Point have none, same with Cleveland.
 
My original point is that we've created 2 arguably great courses on sites that weren't rainbows or bunnies or ocean views.
I would love for our niche to be building great courses for 1/2 the industry standard on blah sites, with a client that trusts us.
 
Peace

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()