[Gib_Papazian]

 . . . . . codify the idea that courses should have two par-5's and two par-3s on each side of 36? There are certainly plenty of modern courses that deviate slightly from this template, but the majority do not. We were discussing this briefly at the Knoll last week and the conclusion was that owners have a hard time buying into building a golf course without balanced nines adding up to 72. Yet it occurs me that most of my favorite courses have unusual pacing and rhythm.

Pac Dunes is obviously the quintessential example, but Old Mac has nines of 34-37. NGLA, Garden City and Kapalua have a par of 73. PV and Talking Stick North are par 70. Harry Colt's best course in England has a par of 68. Turnberry is par 69. St. Louis has back-to-back par-3s with five on the course. TOC has 14 par-4s. Olympic Lake starts with a par-5 and you don't see another one until #16 - followed by one more. Baltusrol has back-to-back par-5s, Congressional and Pasatiempo end with a par-3. Cypress Point's pacing quirks are well documented.

With all this in mind, why do most architects - instead of routing the golf course with the flow of the land - insist on jamming preconceived par figures and pacing on the ground when it makes absolutely no sense and encourages a boring-ass cartball track devoid of personality? I understand the part about owners calling the shots, but when I think of what a horrible mess Atlantic became (has it been fixed?), what is the point of drastically compromising the finished product without a fight when the designer's name is on it forever?     

[Bill_McBride]

One of my favorites, Elie, is par 70, 16 par 4's of every description and length, and two completely different par 3's.  Couldn't be any more fun to play. 

[Ben Sims]

Gib,

I think the answer is simple, though explaining the logic behind that answer is impossible.

For some unknown and ridiculous reason, golf courses aren't "real" if they can't print a par of 72 and a length of 7K+ yds on the scorecard. It's disheartening, because it just means a large demographic of golfers in our country aren't very intelligent.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gib - to quote/paraphrase a non-golfing philosopher: Remember, when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.

I think many of the decisions that architects make, especially the ones that most reflect their personal styles/ethos, are in large part unconscious, and thus can emerge either as fresh, wonderful new ideas or as notions/preconceptions that have lodged themselves there in the unconscious during years of studying and working on their crafts.

I think the matching nines you mention, the two fives and the two 3s, the par 72 is clearly a framework/assembly of notions and preconceptions that have lodged themselves there, and to such an extent that even architects who think they might be free of them -- who might even believe that they are designing what the site is giving them, and that they are routing a course based solely on the best holes and puzzle they can see/find -- may end up 'unconsciously' using the same framework yet again i.e. may actually "see" the matching nines and two par 5s and two par 3s a side as the best and most interesting use of the site.

(They have been staring into that Par 72 abyss since they first fell in love with gca, and the abyss has stared back into them.)

I think this is what can and most often does happen...unless, unless that is the architect makes a very conscious and very determined and very consistent effort NOT to accept that framework, which is basically a decision not to follow 'what comes naturally/easily' to him, and not to automatically go with his 'first choice'.

That is a tough thing to do, I think, especially if success in the past has given that architect very good reason to feel confident in his easy/natural choices. That's why we don't see it more often from architects, even the very good ones, and why there continue to be so many courses following that same old pattern. IMHO of course

Peter

[JC Jones]

I think this is probably less architect driven than it is owner driven.

[Keith OHalloran]

Gib,

I think the answer is simple, though explaining the logic behind that answer is impossible.

For some unknown and ridiculous reason, golf courses aren't "real" if they can't print a par of 72 and a length of 7K+ yds on the scorecard. It's disheartening, because it just means a large demographic of golfers in our country aren't very intelligent.

Well this is a tough way to find out that the course I play isn't "real" ,

[Jeff_Brauer]

The perception that par 72 is a must is still very prevalent, I can tell you that.  It seems mostly owner driven.  I work with a business consultant who has said (although never shown me the data) that par 72 courses actually do get more play and golfers simply prefer it.

In China, I have been told that there was great consternation when CC proposed a par 71 at Shankqin Bay, but out of respect, they agreed, so we are exporting that bias over there, too.

I have heard some club pros balk at uneven nines because their members may play 9 holes one day and nine the next, but if they only play one nine, the ratings should be similar.

I will say that on most land, its just as easy to come up with a par 72 as 71, or 70.  Par 72 doesn't have to be "soulless."

[Ben Sims]

Gib,

I think the answer is simple, though explaining the logic behind that answer is impossible.

For some unknown and ridiculous reason, golf courses aren't "real" if they can't print a par of 72 and a length of 7K+ yds on the scorecard. It's disheartening, because it just means a large demographic of golfers in our country aren't very intelligent.

Well this is a tough way to find out that the course I play isn't "real" ,

Keith,

I'm not universally talking about every golfer, architect or owner. But I agree with Gib that that premise has been pushed for far too long. And I know of a few instances where even "washed" architecture folks asked an architect to find a few more yards for the scorecard.

Personally speaking, par-5's are the least interesting holes in golf. Sure, tournament play heightens the possibilities for scoring fluctuations. But in my opinion, they're hard to design well, 95% of them have boring second shots, and most people I play golf with have no idea when to go and when to lay-up even if the hole expressly alerts you on which to do.

[Garland Bayley]

Would it be that with the advent of heavy equipment use to build what you want instead of what's there is the root cause of courses going to 36-36-72?

[Tyler Kearns]

Gib,

Many people seem to believe everything about Augusta National is the epitome of perfection, and we've definitely seen the negative effects of country club members demanding near perfect maintenance at their home clubs, each and every day of the year.  The same could very well be true in regards to the par at Augusta National, it seems to represent this "perfect" balance (each side is palindromic!!);

454 343 454  36   443 545 344  36   72

TK

[MClutterbuck]

How about a course with 5 par 3s and 5 par 5s but 36-36... in this case topograpghy dictated the need for the "extra" par 3 and par 5.

444 453 453 36    544 343 535 36

[Keith OHalloran]

Ben,
I was just kidding, I agree with your thought that certain par and distances have become a sort of pre requisite for a "championship" I.e. real course.

[JC Jones]

Gib,

Many people seem to believe everything about Augusta National is the epitome of perfection, and we've definitely seen the negative effects of country club members demanding near perfect maintenance at their home clubs, each and every day of the year.  The same could very well be true in regards to the par at Augusta National, it seems to represent this "perfect" balance (each side is palindromic!!);

454 343 454  36   443 545 344  36   72

TK

TK,

Try not to use words Ohalloran can't understand.  I hear his confusion, 1000 miles away.

[David_Tepper]

It is worth noting that 2 courses in the Scottish Highlands (Goslpie and Brora) have recently chosen to lengthen two (Golspie) and one (Brora) of their par-4's and turn them into par-5's. I am certain this was done in order to raise the courses' par to 70 (from 68 & 69), in order to make their courses more compelling/"legitimate" in the eyes of the visiting/traveling golfer.

A large portion of the golfing public does not regard a par-68 or par-69 course as a "real" or "serious" course. Such is the way of the world.

Fortunately, I think the changes at Golspie worked out for the better.       

[Bill_McBride]

It is worth noting that 2 courses in the Scottish Highlands (Goslpie and Brora) have recently chosen to lengthen two (Golspie) and one (Brora) of their par-4's and turn them into par-5's. I am certain this was done in order to raise the courses' par to 70 (from 68 & 69), in order to make their courses more compelling/"legitimate" in the eyes of the visiting/traveling golfer.

A large portion of the golfing public does not regard a par-68 or par-69 course as a "real" or "serious" course. Such is the way of the world.

Fortunately, I think the changes at Golspie worked out for the better.      

David, which holes were lengthened at Golspie?   I hope not the ninth, what a good par 4. 

[David_Elvins]

. . . . . codify the idea that courses should have two par-5's and two par-3s on each side of 36? There are certainly plenty of modern courses that deviate slightly from this template, but the majority do not. We were discussing this briefly at the Knoll last week and the conclusion was that owners have a hard time buying into building a golf course without balanced nines adding up to 72. Yet it occurs me that most of my favorite courses have unusual pacing and rhythm.

Pac Dunes is obviously the quintessential example, but Old Mac has nines of 34-37. NGLA, Garden City and Kapalua have a par of 73. PV and Talking Stick North are par 70. Harry Colt's best course in England has a par of 68. Turnberry is par 69. St. Louis has back-to-back par-3s with five on the course. TOC has 14 par-4s. Olympic Lake starts with a par-5 and you don't see another one until #16 - followed by one more. Baltusrol has back-to-back par-5s, Congressional and Pasatiempo end with a par-3. Cypress Point's pacing quirks are well documented.

With all this in mind, why do most architects - instead of routing the golf course with the flow of the land - insist on jamming preconceived par figures and pacing on the ground when it makes absolutely no sense and encourages a boring-ass cartball track devoid of personality? I understand the part about owners calling the shots, but when I think of what a horrible mess Atlantic became (has it been fixed?), what is the point of drastically compromising the finished product without a fight when the designer's name is on it forever?     

It was originally site driven.  On flat sites that lack natural features to distinguish holes, it became important to vary the length of holes to provide variety.

[David_Tepper]

"which holes were lengthened at Golspie?   I hope not the ninth, what a good par 4."

Bill M. -

No, it was not the 9th at Golspie, which is a very good par-4.
 
The tee on #1 was moved behind the clubhouse (which added length) and the fairway was moved towards the water over to where the practice ground was located. There is now a practice ground in the pasture across the road.

On #14, the Members' tee (from where the hole was played as a par-4) was simply back 50 yards next to the Medal tee (from where the hole was played as a par-5).

At Brora, I think it was the 11th hole that was lengthened by moving the tee back.

DT          

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff
Which of your courses do not fit Gib's description?
(par 36-36 with two one shot and three shot holes per side)
Cheers
Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Well, not many. Westridge in McKinney is a 6-6-6 configuration.  I have proposed more than one par 71 course, but if any made it to the final routing, I can't recall it at this moment.  Of course, its late afternoon, and I have been at the computer all day, so there may be a few!

But, all things considered, I do consider it easier to design 10 distinct par 4's rather than 11, all things being equal.  I agree that par 5 holes are the hardest to design to play well as 3 shotters.  That second shot needs some work to become something other than advancing the ball.

Given the USGA trend of cutting par to 70 to protect par, and the desire to irrigate less ground, I can see par 70 as the new standard quite soon in the 21st century.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Don't know who started it, but I bet you can say RTJ, Sr. perfected it in the 1960's with his courses.  I was surprised once back then when I heard RTJ, Jr. did a par 71.

[V. Kmetz]

Time and time again, I protest...

What do we need individual hole pars for?  We KNOW what the best result is... "1"

A. You mean to tell me the players can't figure out what the "par" of a hole is upon seeing its yardage and repeated playings?
B. You mean to tell me that players/committees couldn't easily establish tournament "pars" for such a course when it is being used that way? (eg. birdies, bogeys, stableford)

Since 18 holes has been the standard, the exercise has always been for level fours - 72.

Can't one innovation (or restoration) in this game be the diminishment of the card and the pencil...at least hole by hole?

I know this doesn't exactly answer GP's question (balance) but it does address some of the fundamentals of that question.

Hole Pars are an unnecessary limitation on design. If a course can make adequate challenge among many types of golfers for a total of 72, and can do so with three sub-200 yard holes in a row, and can still give variety and pleasure in the task of the other fifteen, with pleasing opening and closing notes...god bless it.  

cheers

vk

[Garland Bayley]

...
Since 18 holes has been the standard, the exercise has always been for level fours - 72.
...

It seems to me that TOC set the 18 hole standard before the demise of the feathery. I doubt anyone even thought of reaching level fours with the feathery.

[Ian Andrew]

I ended up looking up a few backgrounds of architects who began to practice after World War Two. One aspect that was amusing was the number with Civil Engineering Degrees among that first wave of new architects. There are lots of them. When you consider their training, I'm sure rules and order are drilled into them at school, so perhaps that played a role...

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf was built and will survive on the back of gambling. The birdie is irreplaceable.  I will take five birdies over breaking 80 any and every day of the week.

It takes far more courage to change the land God presented than to accept its limitations.

[Peter Pallotta]

 

They paved Paradise, and put up a parking lot....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()