Changing Par on Short Classic Courses

[Nick_Ficorelli]

There seem to be  a number of courses that simply no longer have  5 pars that are lenghty enough for todays game.In many cases the size of the property will not allow for the lengthening.I just played Franklin Hills and the 4 par 5's are 503,510,486,446 yrds. from the back tees.
Have any of these classics reverted to 70 or even 68 par?

[TEPaul]

Nick:

Very interesting question and I think some of the classic courses are considering this kind of thing.

The added interest of it though is basically it's all about perception, period! The particular classic course has to have  a particular mix to fit into that overall perception though. Some of the best of the old classics have always been par 70s so they have no ability to drop a par 5 down to a par 4 because ironically dropping total par into the 60s is a complete disaster in "perception".

However, dropping from 72 to 71 or 71 to 70 is not!! That's actually perceived as a "strengthening" of the "difficulty" of the overall course. But God forbid if a par 70 dropped to 69--then most everyone would perceive the course as some rinky-dink little obsolete throwback in time and ultra easy!

Courses like NGLA and GCGC have the most latitude of all, interestingly, since they're par 73s!

It's a very interesting thing for a classic course to consider though--if they can (as above), and it has the added benefit of being no cost!

We're considering doing it at GMGC by simply calling our finishing hole a par 4 instead of par 5 in certain situations and I can guarantee that simple move will have a great effect on the perception of that hole and the entire course!

[Ed_Baker]

Charles River is only 6635 from the tips, We have 5 par 5's and 5 par 3's for the members "blue course" playing to par 72 at 6435 yards.

The championship "gold" course is par 70 with the shortest 2 par 5's 479 and 465 yards respectively being played as par 4's, Hole #'s 7 & 10.

The three par 5's on the gold course are #2 535 yards, #15 515 yards, and # 16 550 yards. 16 is uphill all the way and even the bangers are rarely on in two because with the elevation and prevailing wind it plays closer to 600 yards, the other two are reached routinely.

That said, the par 3's are on the gold are #4 163 yards, #9 188 yards, #11 245 yards, #14 200 yards, #17 205 yards.
A nice balance, even if you birdie all the par 5's the threes will eat your lunch.

[Ed_Baker]

BTW, Wannamoisett in R.I. hosts the Northeast Amatuer every year and it's par 69, so is Plymouth Country Club another Ross gem.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

Sounds like the holes on your course are a great "mix" with a lot of latitude to produce anything you want the course to be in an overall sense!

That's very fortunate for your course. The par 70s of the classic courses like Merion, PVGC or Aronomink don't have that latitude but those examples don't really need it because none of them have a single short par 5 anyway!

[SPDB]

BTW, Wannamoisett in R.I. hosts the Northeast Amatuer every year and it's par 69, so is Plymouth Country Club another Ross gem.

It would seem that a Rhode Island, a small state breeds small par. Misquamicut and Sakonnet are both 69 as well, and are two of the funnest courses you can imagine.

[Ed_Baker]

Tom:
The River is pretty flexible as Ran rightly noted in the profile there are a ton of "half par" holes, the resistance to scoring is all at the greens end of the course with one of the finest "set" of Ross green complexes anywhere. I should have posted on the other thread about "being in the middle" too, because the middle of the fairway ain't the place to be on a lot of holes if you want to score! It's pretty cool.

We have a tournament in September every year that has the members with the low low 36 handicap indexes in the club invite "ranked" amatuers for a 36 hole 2 ball on the gold course. A best ball 134 or 135 usually gets you in to a playoff, so the golf course defends itself pretty well without killing the members. Kye Goalby played one year with Charlie Fox and he loved the place.

[Nick_Ficorelli]

TePaul:
I think the perception suffers when expectations of par 72 doesn't deliver legit 5 shotters.On the other hand a 6700 yard par 70 or maybe even 69 feels like a greater challenge.

[TEPaul]

Ed;

If you guys are going to bring Kye in there again make sure your liability insurance premium has been paid! My advice to Kye right now is to try to miss the fairway--he might have a better chance of hitting it that way!

[Tom Doak]

I have this argument all the time with routings for new courses.  I'd rather build a par 71 or 70 with a couple more strong par-4's, than a par 72 with a couple of weak 5's, but in my experience few clients can stomach a par 70 and none yet have even listened to the idea of a par 69.

In Japan anything but a par 72 with balanced nines would be considered unthinkable sacrilege.

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,

When your clients tell you they want a par 72, how do they respond when you tell them:

Pine Valley is par 70
So is Merion
Olympic is 71
NGLA, Garden City and Plantation are 73
Swinley is 68
Turnberry is par 69/70
Woodhall Spa is 73 . . . . except when it isn't

What gives? If a client is looking for some separation between their project and everyone else, doesn't it make sense that a course with unconventional total par and pacing (back-to-back 3's and 5's - or imbalanced nines 37-34) would be an attractive prospect?

St. Andrews has 14 par 4's. . . . . . .   

You might point out that though the Japanese insist on perfect symmetry, the vast majority of their courses have failed to attract much international attention. . . . .  

[JakaB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Tom Doak has never designed a balanced par 36, 36 total 72 layout.

[Joe Hancock]

Probably a misguided thought, but is par only a number to shoot for if your golfing alone? If you have opponents, what difference does the par make? Score lower than them, win the hole. I guess it could affect income if your playing double for birdies, triple for eagles though.

Joe

[John_Conley]

Nick:

I'm a HUGE fan of Golden Valley.  For those who say it is too short, I tell them to play it without a scorecard.  They'd probably talk about those three hard par 4s!!

For those who haven't played, GVCC is a 6-par 5, 7-par 4, 5-par 3 course that plays to a par 73.  Make it a par 70 and it is still the same great course.  The only difference is that then someone else might agree with me!!

[Nick_Ficorelli]

John:
I agree, but its weird to make birdie on a short par five and never know it till you review your scorecard.

[mike_beene]

I'm suprised par 70's get resistance.It seems they are one answer to technology,which in my view has damaged many par 5's.If several tour events were played at 69,would anything change?Maybe people would at least accept 70's

[Mike_Cirba]

Of course "par" should change on a course over time.

Consider the very definition; "the score that an expert golfer should expect to make on a hole".  

If we are in general agreement that expert golfers ARE becoming better, whether through technology, conditioning of courses and bodies, or whatever reason, the fact is that a hole that plays to a stroke average of less than 4.5 for expert players should probably be changed to a par four, and likewise down the par chain.

That is why "bogey" score was, and still remains, something more consistent.  If an expert golfer can average, say 70 at NGLA, then there is nothing sacreligious about turning a few par fives into fours, or even a four into a three if that is reflective of reality.  

All par was ever meant to be was a concept by which one could measure themselves against an expert player.  It's totally absurd what it's become.

For arguments sake, let's assume that a course like Merion hosted the US Open, but instead of par 70, #2 was turned into a par four to make the course par 69.  Now, 276 becomes the four day par...the expected average score of an expert player.  Then, let's say that the winner shoots 270 or so, which is probably close to realistic.  Instead of a winner at -10, the winner is now at -6.  

Would the folks at the USGA somehow feel that par was protected better?  They probably would, which is also absurd.  
  

[TEPaul]

Actually, as far as I can see the utility of "par" is primarily for handicap purposes today.

Since golfers like tour players basically never use or consider "par" in a handicap context and since they play predominantly stroke play (without handicapping) why not just consider par for them as an 18 hole score (that an expert is likely to shoot)?

Theoretically then par in an 18 hole context could be considered---(whatever the number)--maybe something like 68 at a course like Merion! Hole par then would become irrelevant and unconsidered--only the round score would be considered.

It would make more sense that way since one of the anomolies of match play handicapping (hole by hole format) is a gross score posting (one single round number) does not and never will work well in a match play format for handicapping!

Maybe in that way for tour players something like a stroke average would be more apropos. Did you know in the very beginning of handicapping in America par was considered what the US Amateur Champion was likely to shoot? How times have changed!

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul has the right idea here.  Par is decided by members for their own purposes.  In reading about Donald Ross it appeared that he would never assign Par to a hole.  As Ed Baker pointed out so very well our home course is a 72 for members every day.  However State, Local and National tournaments are a Par 70.  The two holes that are made 4's are very challenging 4's and easier obvously as a 5 yet last Sunday when Ed and I were playing a couple of 7's were made after being 40 yards off the green in 2.   The very low handicappers have the option of playing the Gold Course as we call it.  Also the rating which is used for handicap purposes does not always relate entirely to par.  Aronimink Par 70 - Rating 71.6(I believe)  CRCC Par 72 - Rating 70.3.

Par can be whatever the members decide it can be.  

Fairways and Greens,
Dave