Why a par of 72?

[John Blain]

With a few exceptions it seems virtually all the new courses today are (especially Rees Jones and Tom Fazio's courses) being built to a par 72.

Most of my favorite courses that I've ever played have been par 70 or even 69. What is so magical about par 72?

I ran into Rees Jones at the PGA merchandise show several years ago and asked him this very question and his answer was something to the effect of: "The developers that you are working with (and for) feel that if it isn't a par 72 course no one will take it seriously and it will effect memberships and amount of play."

Sounds crazy but I'm sure there is some truth to his answer.

John

[PCCraig]

Old Elm Club outside of Chicago is a par-73 golf course...at about 6500 yards. Every single par-5 can be reached easily with a long iron. In reality it plays closer to a par-68.

There are two solutions to this par-72 issue that I can think of. Either 1) make the long 450+ yard par-4's shorter and lower the overal expectation and yardages of the courses for most players, or 2) Make the par's whatever they need to be (much like Old Elm) but keep the course overall easy and managible.

I have always been part of the school that thinks that "par" really shouldn't exist in GCA and each hole should be played at your own skill.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Par is merely a means of keeping track of score when players are on a different part of the course or even on a different round. As such it is useful. But in the end, does it mater if someone wins with 260 or 280? They have won and that's that. Over the years if at course A the winning score averages 260 while at course B it averages 280, we have shown that one course produces higher winning scores than another. Does that make it better, or simply harder?.....

[Tom_Doak]

JP:  There is certainly a bias in favor of par 72 among many groups.  Developers think it sounds bigger and better.  Many players like having four par-5's which are potential birdie (or eagle) holes.  And Asian cultures find the even number 72 a symbol of luck and prosperity ... virtually 100% of courses in Japan and Korea are par 72!

I do not know when this favored status developed.  If you read the books of the 1920's, those architects were well divided over what an "ideal" par might be.  "Even fours" became the standard for stroke play scoring ... but I don't think it was until Mr. Jones that par 72 became an actual standard.  Which seems wrong to me, because if he'd thought he made it the standard, he would have taken more credit for it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have not checked but 70 seems to be the magic number for the US open nowadays and a lot of US tour courses are 70. Is there almost as many par 70s as 72s theses days? I can't think of a Par 69 on the European tour other than Celtic Manor Roman Road or the one in Monaco (both not now on the rotas). I also can't think of much thats not par 72 on the European tour.

[Keith Buntrock]

The USGA seems to love par 70 in US Opens. How long would it take a golf course to be for the USGA to make it 72? If Erin Hills hosts a US Open, you would really have to shorten 2 par 5s there a lot to make them par 4's. Im not sure they could do it realistically. Those 5 pars (pardon my Johnny Miller influence) out there are pretty intense yardage wise. If they allowed Erin Hills to be par 72, the back nine would be par 37, which would be rare to see an a US Open

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will second Rees opinion that the clients I work for favor par 72.  I would also like to know how that got so standardized.

Most Par 70 courses probably used to be 72, but some of the par 5's were under 500 or even under 470 that is stipulated as the longest par 4, and were converted down.  I am guessing that people feel it will convey that the course is too short to be a good test, even though the US Open down converts to make the course tougher.

Or we could hope that people believe that 10 par 4s and 4 par 5's allow more variety than 12 4's and 2 5's.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I have an interesting case where exactly this theme has turned up. The whole story is full of non-sequitors so it is sometimes difficult follow.

Here is some of the story.

Recently the  2nd Phase of a 3 Phase Golf Course Project of mine in Fuerteventura, Spain for a Hotel Resort has completed construction. The original brief was a Par 72 Golf Course with a Practise Area including 3 short practise holes. During the Planning Application the client ran into difficulties securing the land for the golf course (it’s a complicated story)  and so it was decided to use the Practise holes as part of the 18-Hole Golf course until the Phase 3 could be completed.
The Phase 2 which will be opened in 2 months will be an 18-Hole Par 67 with 3x Par 5’s,  7x Par 4’s and 8x Par 3’s.
At present the Phase 1, 9-Hole only Par 30, is in operation.

Although the 9-Hole Golf Course is ticking over nicely at the moment the Client’s Marketing men have been busy trying to interest some Golf Travel Operaters and secure some contracts with them.

Up until recently the Travel Operaters had turned their noses up at the Par 67 and communicated they were really only interested in selling a Par 72 to the tourists.

One of the Travel Groups had just started supplying golf tourists to another Golf Course (a Par 72) about ½ hour away. Apparently the Tourists found the other golf course not to their liking (indifferent maintenance and very narrow difficult holes) and preferred to play our 9-Hole Golf Course at Las Playitas.

The Travel Operaters seeing the interest of the golfers took up renewed contact and decided to send a party of “golfing experts” across to test the 9-Hole golf course and check out the Phase 2 Par 67 18-Hole.

Now “Low and Behold” on examination the Tour Operaters love the golf course and even think the Par 67 could be an interesting market niche for their happy golfers.

My next problem being - will they like the Phase 3 upgrade, (now to be a Par 70) or will they prefer the Par 67!!!

[Sean_A]

Like the chicken or the egg, which came first, "level 4s" or par 72?

Ciao

[Yannick Pilon]

You would not beleive the number of clients that push for the par of 72, and even the magical 7000 yards number   Even for small municipal courses that will never actually get the "championships" these courses are supposed to be made for!!

As if these two numbers alone define the potential for a course to be great.... 

I have worked on routings for hours to make these two things happen for clients who would not let go.  It's a shame, and I am absolutely certain that most if not all architects on this board could share stories about this for hours....

If only they could understand that greatness and length/par don't have anything to do with each other, many courses would be a lot better today.  I would even dare say that the game would probably be healthier as well, as people would probably have more fun playing.

YP

[Adrian_Stiff]

Like the chicken or the egg, which came first, "level 4s" or par 72?

Ciao

Level 4s  were first Sean- If you go back 50 or 60 years a lot of courses had a much higher par, even 35 years Wentworth was 74. Birkdale probably was, go back and a lot of normally courses were 76.

[Sean_A]

Like the chicken or the egg, which came first, "level 4s" or par 72?

Ciao

Level 4s  were first Sean- If you go back 50 or 60 years a lot of courses had a much higher par, even 35 years Wentworth was 74. Birkdale probably was, go back and a lot of normally courses were 76.

Could it be that the powers of the time thought level 4s was a good place to start for the par of a course once par became prominent as a scoring mechanism?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

the other possible factor was nine hole play - perhaps pros thought the balanced nines helped level out handicaps when a player could only play one or the other?  Of course, that wouldn't explain the disfavor of par 70 courses, unless the par 4 was considered the "standard" hole and there is a percieved need to balance the "non standard" par 3 and par 5 types.

[Scott Warren]

I have always thought this, written elsewhere by Tony Titheridge, is the most intelligent thing I have ever read on the par 72/7000y obsession:

If only all the modern golfers and clients realised that a cleverly crafted 5600m course instead of a 6600m one, would be entertaining, thrilling and exciting due to the types of shots on offer when designed well. Why are too many engulfed in the card length on the scorecard? Besides, with two short par 4s, a short and relatively short par 3 and one or two short par 5s, there's plenty of flexibility remaining to have some truly tough long holes on the course and still be well under 6000m. More enjoyment in an hour less can't be a bad thing.

[mike_beene]

Most of the older Dallas courses are par 71(and seem to have always been)