“It Will Get The Course Closer to Par 72”

[Tim Martin]

I was lucky to get out yesterday for the last day of the season at Yale and was paired with an incredibly nice couple who were members of a local private club. They were aware of the upcoming restoration by Gil Hanse and the husband remarked that maybe the par four 4th hole could have the tee moved back and changed to a par five. His rationale was that there were no par five holes on the outward nine and that you didn’t get one until # 16. He said it would get the course closer to par 72. Inwardly I reeled in horror but let the idea pass without comment. A fair segment of the golf population feels that a course without four par threes, four par fives and ten par fours is less than ideal. How and when did this happen?

[Niall C]

Tim

Not sure off hand who was the bright spark who suggested par 72, 4 par 3's, 4 par 5's etc but suspect it was post WWI. Prior to that I think Willie Park advocated 3 par 3's in a round.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think that is far less prevalent over here as we have so many classic courses less than 72.


But even then, Strandhill drew the line with me suggesting we go to Par-69. They are adamant that Par-70 is needed to draw in the visitor green fees.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:


I don't think it happened until after World War II when


(a)  Augusta National started becoming influential
(b)  Robert Trent Jones started becoming influential
(c)  Courses started marketing themselves as "Championship courses" "7000 yards par 72"  [NOTE:  it's hard to get up to 7000 yards without four par-5's, or if you include an extra par-3]


Remember, prior to the 1920's many courses had pars HIGHER than 72, or else they didn't talk about par since no one could shoot that low.  Some early tournaments used "even fours" as the standard for comparing players on different parts of the course, without regard to the par of the individual holes.


Other notes:


James Braid's ideal course had only two holes over 500 yards and the next was 420.


George Thomas's ideal course had only two holes over 500 yards.  He described it as having two three shotters, five one shotters, and eleven two shotters!

[Tom_Doak]

But even then, Strandhill drew the line with me suggesting we go to Par-69. They are adamant that Par-70 is needed to draw in the visitor green fees.

Yes, Portnoo was the same when they did the previous bit of work 15-20 years ago.  They changed it to a par-73.  My member friend said the biggest difference was that it took an hour longer to play than the par-69 version, and wasn't as much fun.

[Niall C]

Let me say in all honesty that at all the courses where I've been a member I can't recall a single conversation on the par for the round, whether the par was a good thing or a bad thing. Also let me say that I couldn't tell you what the par for each of those courses were/are. I could probably guess but couldn't say with any certainty.

Maybe that makes me a bit of an outlier or maybe not.

Niall

[Tim Martin]

In response to Tom’s comment I was sure that RTJ would be mentioned. Which of his well regarded courses deviates from a par of 72?

[John Kavanaugh]

It's worth driving a few extra miles to break 70. I enjoy my current par 71 course because breaking 80 on a so so day just feels so good.

[Peter Pallotta]

These developments in golf, like the post-war trend towards championship tests and Par 72 courses, they don't come out of thin air, do they? They must serve someone and/or some kind of want or need, and they wouldn't have much staying power unless they had fairly widespread buy-in -- ie unless they served many multitudes and satisfied a popular/common want.

I love par 4s, am ambivalent about most Par 3s, and have liked par 5s only occasionally (and loved only one that I've ever played) -- and yet, even I can see the 'validity' of the Par 72 model in terms of the 'variety' of golf holes it offers and the 'balance' it provides and the 'needs/wants it meets' for various levels of golfers and simply for its peaceful 'symmetry' and the 'ease of comparison' between the front and back 9.

Again, I don't really need any of that, as my own ideal Par 72 is 16 Par 4s, 1 par 5 and 1 par 3; but I can certainly understand why the ten-4s, four-3s, and four-5s model has such lasting appeal.

[Tom_Doak]

These developments in golf, like the post-war trend towards championship tests and Par 72 courses, they don't come out of thin air, do they? They must serve someone and/or some kind of want or need, and they wouldn't have much staying power unless they had fairly widespread buy-in -- ie unless they served many multitudes and satisfied a popular/common want.

I love par 4s, am ambivalent about most Par 3s, and have liked par 5s only occasionally (and loved only one that I've ever played) -- and yet, even I can see the 'validity' of the Par 72 model in terms of the 'variety' of golf holes it offers and the 'balance' it provides and the 'needs/wants it meets' for various levels of golfers and simply for its peaceful 'symmetry' and the 'ease of comparison' between the front and back 9.

It's the desire for balance and symmetry I don't get; Nature has none of that. 


I'd like to believe that there is really some want or need driving the change.  But what is Marketing but the science of conning us into wanting things we absolutely don't need ?

[Brad Tufts]

At my home course (Tedesco CC, par 70 6450y), ideas for making changes often involve "stretching a long 4 into a 5 with a new tee" or "stretching a long 3 into a 4 with a new tee."


I know people that aren't into architecture are just looking to add yardage that would make us longer, but whenever I hear these suggestions, I remind people that adding to par with only a few extra yards only weakens the course.


6500 par 71 is weaker than 6450 par 70.  The latter yardage/par is more difficult.


I feel like the only way I'd listen to these things is if you could mix and match pars on certain days like the LACC North flexibility.


Although par is a social construct and all that so maybe that's useless too...

[David_Tepper]

Scotland has not been immune from this. In the past 15 or so years both Brora and Golspie have lengthened their course to push par up to 70.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I hadn't thought of that, and you may be very right, i.e. that marketing has created a want, and conned us into thinking it a need.

On symmetry: I'd only note the obvious, i.e. that you've spent your adult life 'out in the field', working with the land and becoming familiar with what Nature does and does not provide; but for many of the rest of us (including me), there is mostly only a "paper symmetry" -- i.e. the scorecard we hold in our hands, and mirror image of the front and the back nines. We experience it intellectually, not physically.

[Brad Tufts]

I think par 69 is great...Plymouth and Wannamoisett are both rather tough at 6600+ par 69...WCC is probably over 7K now from the tips.  Cape Arundel is par 69 too but only 5900 yards.


68 has some strange mental barrier-issues to me, but it's probably because I haven't played any.  I can think of one of the courses at Detroit CC and something in England...Royal Ashdown Forest maybe? at par 68.

[Tim Gavrich]

I wonder if there might be merit to lengthening the 4th at Yale if it is feasible. Right now, I gather most college players can take the water out of play from the current back tee, which appears to be a 280-yard carry or so. Pushing the tee back from the 430s into the 480s would probably bring the water back into play for all. That said, the hole would still be squarely in the realm of the par 4.


Does the restoration plan call for 16 to be knocked back down to a par 4, with the green returned to the original spot? That would be quite a lasting statement for a world-top-100 course in America to affirm 69 as a legit par.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Let me say in all honesty that at all the courses where I've been a member I can't recall a single conversation on the par for the round, whether the par was a good thing or a bad thing.

You would have definitely heard about it if there had been a proposal to change it, especially downwards.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think par 69 is great...Plymouth and Wannamoisett are both rather tough at 6600+ par 69...WCC is probably over 7K now from the tips.  Cape Arundel is par 69 too but only 5900 yards.


68 has some strange mental barrier-issues to me, but it's probably because I haven't played any.  I can think of one of the courses at Detroit CC and something in England...Royal Ashdown Forest maybe? at par 68.

There are a number of great 68’s in England. West Sussex is one. Swinley Forest another. Also Rye.

[Tim Martin]

I wonder if there might be merit to lengthening the 4th at Yale if it is feasible. Right now, I gather most college players can take the water out of play from the current back tee, which appears to be a 280-yard carry or so. Pushing the tee back from the 430s into the 480s would probably bring the water back into play for all. That said, the hole would still be squarely in the realm of the par 4.


Does the restoration plan call for 16 to be knocked back down to a par 4, with the green returned to the original spot? That would be quite a lasting statement for a world-top-100 course in America to affirm 69 as a legit par.

Tim-There is room behind both the member tee and elevated back tee to add more length on # 4. If they choose that option I would think they would build it behind the elevated back tee to keep the angle the same and don’t believe it would require an engineering marvel. Despite rumors about reintroducing specific lost design elements I haven’t heard anything regarding # 16.

[Sean_A]

I am sure the scoring concept of level 4s contributed to the idea of par 72.

Lets be honest, par 72 is long past its sell by date. In most cases the only thing more par contributes is added yardage. We really should be looking for less par if keeping the so called challenge high without unnecessarily increasing the footprint of courses is important.

Ciao

[Bruce Katona]

For score, I prefer par 71 since its generally a smidge easier to post a good score here.


Par 70 is tough since the course is usually 2 three shotters and 5 one shotters and the one shotters are medium to long in length to keep the course yardage up.

[Michael Felton]

I think people like making birdies and par 5s offer the best opportunity to do that (if you have the length to reach them or near them in 2). I'd guess that's a large part of the objection to a par 69 or lower. The 4, 10, 4 split is interesting that it has become the standard. TOC with the 2, 14, 2 split and the Berkshire Red (Blue?) with 6, 6, 6 could both have support. TOC for its history and the Berkshire for its evenness.

[Ken Moum]

Scotland has not been immune from this. In the past 15 or so years both Brora and Golspie have lengthened their course to push par up to 70.

And...IMHO Brora screwed up a perfectly good hole while creating a walk-back to do it.


One of my rounds there was in a mixed comp. with a member who wasn't thrilled with the pursuit of visitor fees.


FWIW,  he also said links courses that didn't use local sand in their bunkers were wrong.

[Ally Mcintosh]

He’s wrong about that last point, Ken. I’ve one links course where we could put some artistry in to the bunkers (because they top them with proper bunker grade sand)…


…and one course where we had to keep the bunkers incredibly small (because they can’t afford bunker sand and the local sand is so fine it just blows away in the wind).

[Sean_A]

Scotland has not been immune from this. In the past 15 or so years both Brora and Golspie have lengthened their course to push par up to 70.

And...IMHO Brora screwed up a perfectly good hole while creating a walk-back to do it.


One of my rounds there was in a mixed comp. with a member who wasn't thrilled with the pursuit of visitor fees.

FWIW,  he also said links courses that didn't use local sand in their bunkers were wrong.

Kington and Tenby added yards for more par. Kington's is a disaster. Tenby did a pretty good job of it.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

For most people accepted par is either 70, 71 or 72.


Any new development seeks that number and most seek 72. Most old ones that are under 70 want to hit that bar, 6000 yards is another line to cross. The ones that say they don't care probably mean it can't ever be that long because of boundary constraints.


Any par less than 70 is deemed substandard by most golfers.


There is no reason why it should be that as a 6400 yard course par 69 is a terror, it is just hard to convince people. Our second course is par 68 and we lose business because of it. Me I'd rather play the little one.