Par 5s and Par 3s: Less is more?

[Kyle Harris]

Having played a slew of Par 70-71 courses lately (all with one par 5 per nine) I can't help but wonder if the prediliction for having 4 par 5s and 4 par 3s in an 18 hole routing is rendering some rather bad golf holes.

It seems that EVERY par 70 I've come across (that is designed as a par 70, not a USGA/PGA setup) has two REALLY good par 5s and 4 REALLY good par 3s.

Is the compromise made to stretch out two extra par 5s hampering the ability of an architect to design a consistently good set of holes on 150-200 acres?

Are there any courses out there where there are actually too many par 3 holes and a short par 4 would have been a better plan?

What are some examples of elegance in regard to the distribution of par?

Any greivous crimes against humanity?

[Jordan Wall]

Actually, those are very good points.

It does seem that courses which try and have the 'ideal' routing (four 5's, four 3's) have only mediocre par five's and/or par threes.

Heck, if there is a course with 18 great par fours, then is there anything really wrong with that??

Wannamoisett is a good example (I think) of a course that turned out great and did not try for the 'ideal' routing.  It is a par 69, and if was made into a 72 then that could have made a big difference.

Does anyone know why the 'ideal routing is a par-72 with four 5's and four 3's??

And who came up with the system for #16 being a par-5, #17 being a hard par three (usually long), and #18 being a long par 4??

[Tom_Doak]

Jordan:

The 5-3-4 finish is one of my associate Jim Urbina's pet peeves.  Pete Dye used it a lot, and I guess that Perry Dye pretty much insisted on using it on nearly all of his courses, which drove Jim nuts.  Jim always points out when someone else does it now, especially any of Pete's former associates.

I don't necessarily avoid that finish, but I certainly don't try to find it, either.  I will have to think through my courses to see how many times we've done it.

The results:

5-3-4  - once, at Apache Stronghold
4-3-5  - six times (most common), incl. Pacific Dunes
4-3-4  - five times
3-4-4  - three times
3-4-5  - twice
3-5-4  - twice
3-5-5  - once (The Rawls Course)
4-4-5  - once
4-5-4  - once
5-4-4  - twice
5-4-5  - once (Black Forest)

Not much of a pattern there.  I have ended 11 out of 25 courses with par fives, even though it is not particularly a favorite concept of mine, just because that's the way it worked out best.  Never ended with three par-4's in a row, I don't know why not.  Never ended with a par three, because I've never had a client who would let me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle Harris & Tom Doak,

Would you say that the desire, if not obligation, to provide a par 72 golf course is of a more recent vintage ?

It seems that many older courses are par 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 depending upon what the architect found suitable.

Today, it would seem that par 72 is on a demand basis.

[Sean Leary]

Patrick,

Isn't that because many newer designs have had a desire to look long enough on the scorecard?  A 6700 par 70 is effectively a 7100 yard par 72.  For many, the add up number is too important, particularly with todays equipment.......

[Ted Kramer]

If quality GCA is the key factor, I can't imagine forcing "72".
My guess is that quality GCA isn't a key factor nearly as often as we'd like . . .
what a shame

-Ted

[Chris Kane]

Its because too many people equate difficulty and length with quality.  A par-72 is usually longer than 70 or 69, so thats what the punters want.

Astonishing when one considers how many courses in the world's top 100 aren't par-72.

[Mark_F]

Its because too many people equate difficulty and length with quality.  

(Board?)Members of The National being exhibit A.

[Chris Kane]

They're just responding to demand Mark.  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The recent dominance of par-72 courses is due to three factors:

1.  The Tour wanted a par-72 course for the TPC at Sawgrass.
2.  Augusta National is a balanced par-72.
3.  The competitive architecture market means there are a bunch of weak-kneed designers who will give their clients anything they want, and most clients ask for a par-72 for the two reasons above.

[Mark_F]

They're just responding to demand Mark.  

Their job isn't to respond to demand, Chris.

It's to be visionaries.

At least, that is the way they/others are often fond of describing them

What demand were Mike Keiser and Richard Sattler responding too?  

[Chris Kane]

Mark, I cannot agree.  Their job was to sell a couple of thousand memberships.  They did it very successfully.  The other people trying to develop a club in the same area havn't been anywhere near as successful.

Richard Sattler aimed to build the best course he could, and hope that it would achieve sufficient acclaim to encourage people from interstate and overseas to visit.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You wrote, "The 5-3-4 finish is one of my associate Jim Urbina's pet peeves."

It got me thinking about my real introduction to the world of golf and it's varying architecture, televised golf from the early 60's onward.

Watching the game played every Saturday and Sunday taught me that every golf course had a par-3 a par-5 and two par-4's in its last 4 holes. Looking back it seems as if the courses chosen to play the PGA tournaments on had to be designed that way to meet some criteria for viewer interest.

As a result, myself and many others like me, were taught that a good golf course design needed this aspect to it and a par of 72.

Do you believe that this early mass-market inadvertant training has led to architects who grew up in this era to design in this manner without realizing it?

A very outside-the-box, it's 3:45 AM & I can't sleep and what the hell am I doing on GCA right now type of thought!  

[Tony_Muldoon]

Can anyone provide any information on the phrase 'Level-Fours’?  You read it quite often in the old books but it still has a life and was recently used on Ernie Ell’s web site.   Where does it come from and can it be applied to courses with a par different ot 72?

Surely it all refers back to a par of 72 on the old course?

And Dr Mac ignoring his high praise for TOC, suggested in his famous maxiim’s that there should be a minimum of four one shotter's.  

[ForkaB]

Can anyone provide any information on the phrase 'Level-Fours’?  You read it quite often in the old books but it still has a life and was recently used on Ernie Ell’s web site.   Where does it come from and can it be applied to courses with a par different ot 72?

Surely it all refers back to a par of 72 on the old course?

And Dr Mac ignoring his high praise for TOC, suggested in his famous maxiim’s that there should be a minimum of four one shotter's.  

Tony

I very much doubt if there is any relationship between "a par of 72 on the old course" and the concept of "level 4's."  For one thing, when the concept of level 4's arose, there was really no such concept as "par."  As one who became a convert to thinking in "level 4's" in the late 70's, I would hihgly recommend it (unless, of course, your game is more suited to level 5's, or even level 3's.........).

PS--I've been trying to think of a truly great course that finishes  5-3-4, but I am stumped.  The best courses that I know finish with from 2-5 "par" 4's.  This is not a coincidence, as the par 4 is the piece de resistance of GCA.  Any idiot can deisgn a par-3 or a par-5--only the truly gifted can design an interesting par-4.........

[Chris Kane]

PS--I've been trying to think of a truly great course that finishes  5-3-4, but I am stumped.  

You don't rate Shinnecock?

[ForkaB]

OK, Chris

Name 2!

Rich

[Doug Sobieski]

Can anyone provide any information on the phrase 'Level-Fours’?  You read it quite often in the old books but it still has a life and was recently used on Ernie Ell’s web site.   Where does it come from and can it be applied to courses with a par different ot 72?

 As one who became a convert to thinking in "level 4's" in the late 70's, I would hihgly recommend it (unless, of course, your game is more suited to level 5's, or even level 3's.........).

I'd also recommend to anyone to convert to figuring scores in relation to level 4's, 5's, etc. The biggest benefit is the ability to add scorecard totals in under 10 seconds (and verify it in another 10!), which is helpful when you are scoring an event. Even if you are looking at the hole by hole figures in relation to par, you still have to know what par is on every hole. By figuring in relation to level 4's, you use the same method regardless of the course. My assistants were always amazed how quickly I could CORRECTLY add cards.

It's fun when you are sitting at a table with a buddy as he slowly adds the card, and you can glance over his shoulder and give him the correct total in a matter of a few seconds! They always ask how you did it.  

On a tangent, it's amazing how many cards are incorrectly totalled. Back in the early '90's, we started entering cards hole by hole into our handicap computer (the golf shop staff handled this for the members, and it was easier than one might think). I would estimate that AT LEAST 20% of all scores turned in had incorrect totals. People will always complain that their handicap is wrong, yet they can't add 18 numbers up correctly  

[John Goodman]

OK, Chris

Name 2!

Rich

How about:
Pinehurst #2
Walton Heath (Old)

[Jordan Wall]

Maybe TPC Sawgrass as well.


Other's too that end with 5-3-4.

The only problem is that there are too many curses that always try and end with 5-3-4 and because it is forced it does not look good, and the architecture sinks down to a low level.

[ForkaB]

OK, Chris

Name 2!

Rich

How about:
Pinehurst #2
Walton Heath (Old)

OK, John, but I'm sticking with 3*** courses (i.e "great").  You are straying into 2** territory and maybe even below......

[Tony_Muldoon]

PS--I've been trying to think of a truly great course that finishes  5-3-4, but I am stumped.  

Sean it's time to start another thread on The Addington apparently there's some on here who still haven't got it

[Jason Topp]

Our course has recently gone through a 5 year renovation plan.  It is 6600 yards par 70.  It could have easily been converted to a par 71 by using available land to add 50-100 yards to a 465 yard downhill par 4.  My understanding is that the architect responded by saying, "You have such a wonderful natural hole now, why alter it?"  

While I like par fives, I think the club made the right decision.

[ForkaB]

PS--I've been trying to think of a truly great course that finishes  5-3-4, but I am stumped.  

Sean it's time to start another thread on The Addington apparently there's some on here who still haven't got it

Tony

How can I get it if I haven't played it?

PS--Addington="great"?  If so, how and why and in what context?

[John Goodman]

OK, Chris

Name 2!

Rich

How about:
Pinehurst #2
Walton Heath (Old)

OK, John, but I'm sticking with 3*** courses (i.e "great").  You are straying into 2** territory and maybe even below......

Walton Heath as "great" is a stretch, maybe, but #2 surely qualifies?

If you look at courses that finish with some combination of 3-4-5, you can come up with a pretty good list though:

Muirfield
Pebble Beach
Sand Hills
Pinehurst #2
Pacific Dunes

plus:

Lahinch
Riviera
Oakland Hills
Garden City
Fishers Island
Walton Heath
Waterville