[Jerry Kluger]

I know that there are many great par 70 courses but do they start off at a disadvantage with players as well as raters?  I would guess that most players enjoy par 5s and a course with only two par 5s would arguably not be as enjoyable to play as one with four.  Par 5s do have many unique playing features including risk/reward options, unique green complexes, etc., which can be present in some par 3s or par 4s but there is something special about a par 5.  So I can see golfers viewing par 70 courses less desirable when considering which club to join or which course to play.  I can also see them being at a disadvantage when raters are doing their rating and could make the quality of the par 4s to have to much influence on the overall course rating. 

[Scott Warren]

Couldn't a par 70 just have six par 3s and four par 5s?

A par 70 I grew up playing had 5 3s and 3 5s... There is more than one way to arrive at a par of 70.

[Jerry Kluger]

Sure it can - but the typical par 70 has 2 par 5s. 

[Jim Franklin]

I don't know, what is the #1 course in the world? Pine Valley. I believe they only have 2 par 5s.

[PCCraig]

I wouldn't think so. How often do players count the par of holes around the course? Strong holes = a strong course regardless of the par.

Plus, I like a par-70 course because it's easier to shoot a lower score...a little bit of a head start

[Adam Lawrence]

Certainly a lot of developers think so. In much of the world, especially emerging golf markets, there's a clear view that only par 72 courses are 'proper golf courses'. I can't for the life of me figure out why this should be so, but it absolutely is.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Depressingly, Adam is 100% correct. 

All too often nowadays, developers, including some who should know far better, insist on a standard format Par 72. 

We (or rather I) possibly lost EGD one contract by refusing to budge on a Par 71.  Despite the fact that I produced evidence to prove that many of the World's perenially high ranking courses do not conform to the Par 72 template, the client insisted that only a Par 72 in his country would be viewed as a commercially viable golf course.  It's complete bollocks and makes me more cross than I should get...

[Mark Pearce]

One of my favourite courses (and certainly one of the most fun I have ever played), Elie, has a par of 70 and no par 5s at all.  TOC has only 2 par 5s and I think it's OK.

[Bruce Katona]

The higher handicap player enjoys a Par 70 as it is a bit easier for him/her to shoot a better score (and perhaps break 90).  The low handicap/scrath player knows the Par 70 course is tougher for him/her to score on as Par 5 holes are generally good birdie opportunities for the better players.

It honestly does not much matter to me one way or another. 

[Mark Pearce]

The higher handicap player enjoys a Par 70 as it is a bit easier for him/her to shoot a better score (and perhaps break 90).  The low handicap/scrath player knows the Par 70 course is tougher for him/her to score on as Par 5 holes are generally good birdie opportunities for the better players.

It honestly does not much matter to me one way or another. 

I couldn't disagree more.  As a 12 handicapper I expect to make more pars on par 5s than 4s or 3s.  I have a better chance of playing to handicap (all other things being equal) with more par 5s.

[JNC Lyon]

Depressingly, Adam is 100% correct. 

All too often nowadays, developers, including some who should know far better, insist on a standard format Par 72. 

We (or rather I) possibly lost EGD one contract by refusing to budge on a Par 71.  Despite the fact that I produced evidence to prove that many of the World's perenially high ranking courses do not conform to the Par 72 template, the client insisted that only a Par 72 in his country would be viewed as a commercially viable golf course.  It's complete bollocks and makes me more cross than I should get...

This problem might be one reason that a Par 70 begins at an Advantage rather than a disadvantage.  If a course is a par 70 (or any par other than 72) it shows that the architect/developer was not trying to squeeze a course into the par 72 mold.  I think par 70s are tons of fun.  The strategy on most par fives is one-dimensional for the better player, and a 70 does not suffer by not having four par fives.  Additionally, a par 70 will definitely allow for faster player.

Finally, as Scott said above, a par 70 does not always have the four par three-two par five configuration.  CC of Rochester is excellent with five par threes and three par fives.  Addington, while at a 69, has tons of variety with six par threes and three tremendous par fives.

[Jerry Kluger]

The USGA usually takes a par 72 course and makes it play at a par 70 and most here on GCA feel that it ruins the changed par 5s.  I wonder if some of the great par 72 courses would lose some of their recognition if par was changed from 72 to 70. To me, two really good par 5s are enough to make a really good course.

[JNC Lyon]

The USGA usually takes a par 72 course and makes it play at a par 70 and most here on GCA feel that it ruins the changed par 5s.  I wonder if some of the great par 72 courses would lose some of their recognition if par was changed from 72 to 70. To me, two really good par 5s are enough to make a really good course.

Isn't changing an original par 72 course (usually a great course, in the case of the USGA example) to a par 70 course much different from designing an original par 70 course from scratch?  There are great classic courses with a par of 72.  However, they were built before the idea came about for every course to be a 72.  Therefore, these 72s function well because they evolved into the property rather than being forced by some half-cocked convention.

[Phil_the_Author]

Actually, the USGA changing par-5s to par-4s and even creating drivable par-4s for US Opens where there were none before is admitting that it has ruined something...

Ruined any chance of rolling back the ball, rolling back the clubs and rolling back the obscene distances that 1 in 1,000 golfers hit a golf ball...

It has nothing to do with defining greatness as too many of the world's courses considered great have varying number of hole combinations...

[Joe Bausch]

I know that there are many great par 70 courses but do they start off at a disadvantage with players as well as raters? 

Dear Jerry,

     We think a par 70 course with 2 par 5's can be fantastic.

Sincerely,

Mike, Geoff, and Joe



------------------

[Martin Toal]

I used to be a member at a club which was par 69, with one par-5, and 6300 yards long. It didn't miss much for want of a few more par-5s.

[Lester George]

Ditto Adam Lawrence, unfortunate but true. 

Lester

[Jerry Kluger]

Hey Joe - stop ganging up on me - what's the matter, can't handle it on your own! BTW: You're missing the point of the thread - it isn't to say that par 70 courses cannot be great - the question is do they have a disadvantage when being compared to a par 72 course.  Let's say two courses opened at Bandon on similar pieces of property with one playing to a par 70 and one playing to a par 72 - would one start out with an advantage - if you could only play one of the courses and know nothing else other than similar property, same designer, etc., but one par 70 and one par 72 - would the difference in par be a factor in your decision?  My guess it would be, especially for a guy like you who hits it pretty hard and would love the option of getting on a par 5 in two.

[rjsimper]

The argument could be made on the other side of the fence that if we assume (as some do) that raters are either overtly or subconsciously influenced by how they score, that because the chances of breaking 70 or 80 or 90 or whatever are higher on a par 70 course, that the deck is stacked ever-so-slightly in the favor of a par 70.

[Lester George]

Jerry,

I think you may be right.  

For a number of reasons, par 70 courses have a stigma attached and are usually considered "less" than their par 72 counterparts.  Probably more based on evolution and mass journalistic appeal over the years.  There are many, many great par 70 courses but they somehow get an "asterisk".

Lester

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Frankly, courses with more par-5 and par-3 holes have a tough time in making sure that all of them bring something of note to the table.

I have opined on different threads where par-72 courses have five par-5 and five par-3 holes and they have issues in trying to maintain such a high level of differentiation. They also shortchange themselves on the par-4 front with only eight ( as opposed to ten (10).

Jerry, I can't speak for all other raters and those involved in the process of course assessment so it's possible what you say is true.

It's never been a concern on my radar screen.

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt: You surprise me - you the bomber love those par 5s that are reachable.  Let's say your course has 4 par 3s and 2 par 5s - that leaves you with 12 par 4s. Without anything else factored in about the quality of the holes you have an option where you could have 4 par 5s - my premise is that nearly everyone would take that option.  I am saying 10 quality par 4s and 4 quality par 5s instead of 12 quality par 4s.  Again, it is a preference and not an absolute.  Let me put it this way - you have hired your favorite architect to design a course for you and he tells you that he has two designs - one par 70 and the other par 72 with the only difference being some cost differences in construction and you are a man of money so that really isn't a factor to you - which course do you build? My money is on the par 72. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

It's so e-z to stereotype people and presume plenty of things. I could care less about the overall par and what is there -- so long as what is there fits the land demonstrates some real creativity.

If you have 12 par-4's it would depend upon what kind of holes are present. I really like the original 18 at Foreast Highlands but they have few par-4 holes and a number of par-3 holes. It works because Weiskopf and Moorish didn't want to provide for any lackluster par-4 holes because of the altitude in Flagstaff.

In regards to your example you asked of me -- I'd have to see the routing and the nature of what the hole provide before answering. Jerry, don't presume what people will do -- my tastes in golf design are far from being easily categorized.

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt:  I am not talking about you necessarily - I am talking about golfers.  Golfers have preferences and in the abstract my premise is that if given the choice golfers would prefer a course with 4 par 5s - it isn't a question of the quality of the holes as in my presumption the quality of all the holes is equal. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

If you are speaking about Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass types -- then your premise is spot on. Standardization is appealing to people -- that's why fast food chains make the $$ they do. A standard par-72 does that for such folks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()