[Sean_A]

Sean - We like golf courses so we have that in common and I am sure we could chat for hours. I think that when anyone selects their best, each has a different scoring criteria and a golf course's rating will be an add up of those components, I think you wont put much weight on length and I think many on here will be the same. If you look at lists in the magazines, books, websites they do and there is a pattern that emerges, one of those components is length. Almost without exception the great golf courses are 7000 yards, there are very few great golf courses below 6000 yards. The ones still in the list are often older ones that were once mighty but perhaps can no longer extend. Another component is conditioning and poorly conditioned courses suffer from lofty ratings. We have discussed Pennard before and it does not make the top 200. Quirk, unusual bounces, blind holes are often reducers too. Those components have to be the reason for Pennards non inclusion.

Adrian

I place almost no weight on length except in that there must be some holes which are long, even seemingly unreasonably long (against par) to balance the shorter holes.  The big problem with length is that far too often the 250-320 or sub 130ish yard range is ignored and that to me is a huge mistake if there are good opportunities for those length holes because these are some of the best chances for an archie to really show how clever he can be.  There is no question the mags rely heavily on length (as well as prestige/reputation), but I seriously question the 7000 yard magic marker in GB&I.  I don't know how many are shorter, but I know its a significant number. Yes, quirky courses will always suffer in the eyes of mags because in a way these lists are recommendations of the mags and it is easier to be safe than sorry.  This is one reason why a list in and of itself is so much less valuable than a list with a half page or page write up to give an idea of the flavour of the course.  Regardless, Pennard has done the right thing in not trying to chase a ranking by smoothing out its wrinlkes and accepting that what it has is unique and worth preserving as is.  I am confident that if the current course was bulldozed and a new one built that a mag  top 1oo world could be built on that land, but I would be shocked if we didn't end up with just another great course without much of a Pennard identity.   

Ciao

[Kevin Pallier]

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

Jerry

I have been involved in a few rating programs both in Australia and GB&I and the overall Par of a course is never a concern of mine when looking at the merits of a golf course. It's just a number IMO.

[Mac Plumart]

Jerry K...

I think you are totally correct.  If you are going to go with Par 70, you need to have memorable par 5's and some excellent long and short par 4's. 

Great point!!

[Eric Smith]

Tom mentioned his par 71 course at Bandon, well he was doing the odd duck 71 twenty years ago as well at the Legends.  No question it is the best gc of the three there. 

Mac, HT is also par 71 and I know you and I both love that one too.

[Adam Clayman]

JNC. Lester, et al. Less to do with informed or journalists, the game mind is the trap of the card and pencil rut American stroke play mindsets have sprung. Not until the individual considers others ahead of their score will that trap be eased. Par should be irrelevant to quality design. 

[Jerry Kluger]

I certainly respect Tom's view concerning par but at Bandon you have a very unique situation.  First, it isn't likely to be anyone's home course which is played on a regular basis and second, and perhaps more important, is the ever changing weather.  The courses at Bandon play so differently each day and sometimes within a day itself.  The wind can blow from one direction and then the opposite, it can be calm and then blow at 30 mph.  That all makes the par of any particular hole just a number which may or may not be attainable due to the weather.  For nearly every other course one plays on a regular basis you become very familiar with every aspect and nuance and with only two par 5s the question is if it keeps your interest without those other two par 5s.  It certainly is not an absolute but if you are researching a course before you play it with consideration of becoming a member, par 70 will be noted by most people.   

[Kevin Pallier]

Jerry K...

I think you are totally correct.  If you are going to go with Par 70, you need to have memorable par 5's and some excellent long and short par 4's.  

Great point!!

Mac

I think "half-par" holes become relevant at any great course.  Below is a list of what I'd deem are some great Par70's. I've seen most of these and they are all indeed memorable.

Pine Valley
Shinnecock Hills
Merion (East)
Chicago
Crystal Downs
Prairie Dunes
Turnberry (Ailsa)
Royal Dornoch
Royal St. George's
St. George's Hill
Cruden Bay
Barwon Heads
St. Andrews Beach

[Sean_A]

Jerry K...

I think you are totally correct.  If you are going to go with Par 70, you need to have memorable par 5's and some excellent long and short par 4's.  

Great point!!

Mac

I think "half-par" holes become relevant at any great course.  Below is a list of what I'd deem are some great Par70's. I've seen most of these and they are all indeed memorable.

Pine Valley
Shinnecock Hills
Merion (East)
Chicago
Crystal Downs
Prairie Dunes
Turnberry (Ailsa)
Royal Dornoch
Royal St. George's
St. George's Hill
Cruden Bay
Barwon Heads
St. Andrews Beach

+1.  The par of a course has no bearing on what should detemine its makeup of individual pars nor the quality of those holes.  Eventually, folks really will figure out and accept that par is just a number.  So much wasted thought and energy is put into the importance of par and how it should effect design. 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

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

4 of the top 10 ranked courses on the Golf Digest U.S. list are par 70.  So are the top 2: PV and Shinnie.  So if par 70 courses start off at a disadvantage, they can overcome them it seems. 

I also agree with Bruce Katona.  Par 5s are usually harder for the bogey golfer compared to scratch.  That is why they usually are the lower handicap holes.  Par 3s are usually easier for average golfers.  That is why par 3s usually are the higher handicap holes. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()