News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 73?
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2010, 05:12:49 PM »
All things being equal, I'd hate to see a par 73 because there were only 3 par 3's.  Assuming 4 par 3's, I'd rather have a bland par 5 over a bland par 4, because at least there might be the excitement of going for the par 5 in two.

Edwin Roald

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 73?
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2010, 09:04:51 PM »
An interesting dilemma...

... that a high par can discourage players because it makes it more difficult for them to break 80 or whatever number, but then again courses with an unusually low par struggle to gain acceptance, e.g. among developers, because of the par-72 fetish, the desire for the "championship" label and so on.

I once designed a par-37 nine-hole course at Geysir in Iceland. Two par-threes and three par-fives. It simply fit the land. The terrain gave us a 420 m long first hole. I deemed that most players would have more fun playing it as a par-five, so the course isn't really longer than it would have been as a par-72.

I wonder what the players enjoy more, to have two good chances at birdie or par and not to be overwhelmed by not standing a chance to reach the green on a par-four in two (or more strokes depending on their skill level), or the chance to get below a certain gross score irrespective of par.

Strange, this golf.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 73?
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2010, 09:51:51 PM »
I once designed a par-37 nine-hole course at Geysir in Iceland. Two par-threes and three par-fives. It simply fit the land. The terrain gave us a 420 m long first hole. I deemed that most players would have more fun playing it as a par-five, so the course isn't really longer than it would have been as a par-72.


Edwin-Your quote "It simply fit the land" is really the shortest but most complete answer to Par 73?




Martin Toal

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 73?
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2010, 02:26:18 PM »
Can't say that whether a course is par 72 and 73 makes a blind bit of difference to me, providing the holes are interesting and varied. I could easily reach the 18th at a course and not realise which the par was.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 73?
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2010, 02:43:55 PM »
I don't think it matters a bit whether a course is a par 69 or a par 74, but, like everything else, golf has become more standardized as time goes by. When Minikahda and Interlachen were built, par 72 was a rough guideline (does anyone know the answer to the question above about par at St. Andrews?) Since then, golfers have come to expect a course to have four par 5s, four par 3s and play to a par 72. If I were building one, I imagine that's what I'd do, too. Plenty of room for creativity within those parameters.


"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back