thats kind of a simple question...why bother?

Wannamoisett-sign me up!!!!!!!!!

Does Rye offer overseas memberships? Par 68.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/rye1.html

I did (par 67), and have never regretted it.

Paul,

For those that answer in the negative...Would the same reasons for not joining be the same if par were 77?

Mindsets are a terrible thing to waste.

Funny, Paul.  I've been thinking along the same lines.  Tom and I are looking once again at that property in Cecil County, MD.  Given the developers want to maximize the housing and the land itself (with river inlets and other natural features) dictates quite a bit where a golf course could go, what if the most interesting holes resulted in par below, perhaps well below 70?  Would the general population (we on this site are far from that) rather play 18 fine holes that don't add up or play 18 mediocre holes that do add up to par 70 or more?  Even more radical than that would be to consider less than 18 holes.  What if you could have a course with 15 or 16 very fine holes in the land alloted rather than 18 mediocre ones?  I am sure a developer would opt for the 18 and I can't say I'd blame him.  Its an interesting thought exercise.  

I wouldn't NOT join because it is below 70, but I would expect tough sledding in the market place for a new course built at a 68 or 69.  

Excluding the idea of ruining a great course to get par below 70 I think a par 69 is ideal (two 5s and five 3s).  However, I think it is just as important to have the SS and par about the same.  

Ciao

Sean

Paul:

I don't know---it seems like a bit of a bummer, but someone mentioned Misquamicutt above and that's one of my favorite courses, period.

I like your idea of a course that may be a normal par 70, 71, or even 72 that can flex down to a par 69 or even 68 for the elite player crowd. Simple do another card, like my recommendation to do another card at NGLA making it a par 71 or even 70 for the elite crowd without doing anything to the course. (NGLA is a par 73)

I think that kind of thing would just be really cool to watch from a perception point of view about the quality of the holes that are flexing down.

This sort of thing reminds me of a story I once heard about footballer Jim Brown.

Some fan in Cleveland gave Brown a beautiful bolt of silk to have a nice suit made. Brown took the bolt of silk to his tailor in Cleveland who said: "Mr Brown, I can make you a coat or a pair of trousers but there's not enough silk here to make you a suit.

So Brown is on his way to play the Giants in New York and he takes the bolt of silk with him and goes to see a New York tailor and asks him if he could manage to make him a suit.

The New York tailor says: "Sure I can and I'll even make you a vest out of the bolt to go with the suit."

Brown says to the New York tailor: "How come my Cleveland tailor said he could only make me a coat OR a pair of pants but not a suit?"

And the New York tailor says to Brown; "Jimmy, maybe because in New York you're not such a big man."

Why don't you ask Davis if he shot a 70 on a par 69 course if he'd feel any different than if he shot a 70 on the same course if it was called a 71?  


But I'll go you one better Paul. Just imagine if a golf course or golf courses had no hole pars, just a single round par.  

Do you think that would feel any different and/or make any player play any hole just as good as he could considering the risks without some number in mind on every hole?

I do.

And in place of what the USGA now defines as "par"--eg "Par is the score that an expert golfer would be expected to make for any given hole", and transposed say Tiger or Davis to be the "expert golfer" and just used the expectation of what they would be expected to make for a single round as "par" for a golf course?

Then you really are down into the 60s for par on most all golf courses and the good news it wouldn't matter how or where on the course the so-called "expert golfer" got under par.

Great golf courses present a balance between holes which are hard and ones which are easy. Does it really matter whether I get my chance for birdies on par 5's or short par 4's? For a par 69 we are surely loosing 3 par 5's; but that could make the course tougher if they are replaced with par 4's that are over 450 yards. Par 68 seems to indicates 5 par 3's; this might be hardeer for the average player to score on.

Upminster Par 69, 6031 yards.  

Please call me first if you hear of any vacancies at Swinley Forrest. Par 69, 6062 yards.

I might be able to break 70 again.  

TK