[James Brown]

The recent thread about Doak's new Course in CA raised a lot of interesting questions about social and design norms for courses that I think are worth discussing further.


Excluding pure par three courses, how many sub 70 courses are out there?  Are they still building them?  How many of these are of the "executive" variety?

How much golf gets played on them relative to the rest of the universe?

Do these courses generally take more risks architecturally?


Your vote for best?


For my own part: 


I had played 52 (of 1772) rounds on sub 70 courses since 1993 on 7 different courses in the US and 3 in the U.K.  Most of it was at the Woodlands in Hampton when I lived nearby in the 90s. 


I love weird good holes and I would say these courses definitely have a greater than average number of them. 


Best of the bunch is probably Swinley Forest, but I haven't played Rye.  Might be close.   Crail would be second. 


I think a lot of US golfers look down on less than 70 as "not real Golf" in the same way that they would look at courses in the low 6000s.  I suspect this was not always the case and evolved in parallel to the growth of "championship" courses. 

[Amol Yajnik]

Wannamoisett and Misquamicut in Rhode Island come to mind, both are par 69.

[jeffwarne]

Dunfanaghy par 68
Dunaverty par 64
Wannamoissett par 69
Cape Arundel Par 69
Brora was par 69-now 70-better or worse? (haven't played new tee)
Narin and portnoo was par 69-now 72 and is worse
Northwest Golf Club par 69
all of these are "real golf" and highly enjoyable


Goat Hill Par 66 (9 holes 2x)
category of its own

[Chris DeToro]

Plymouth CC in Massachusetts is a par 69 as well.  Most of the par 69s that I know of were built in the early 1900s in the US.  I don't know of any that were more recent. 


Par 69s tend to be pretty tough and resilient to scoring.  You're probably not getting any or many par 5s and the 4s tend to take up quite a bit of ground.  There's only 1 sub 350 yard par 4 at Wannamoisett (#7)

[Tom_Doak]

From The Confidential Guide, Volume 1:


Best Courses of Par Less Than 70


Rye
Swinley Forest
West Sussex
St. Enodoc
The Addington
Cavendish
New Zealand
Boat of Garten
Dunfanaghy
Aldeburgh

[Tom_Doak]

From Volume 2:


Gavea
Claremont
Audubon Park


From Volume 3:


Wannamoisett
Cape Arundel
Plymouth
Northeast Harbor
Detroit Golf Club (South)
Halifax (Old Ashburn)

[David_Tepper]

Claremont, the Mackenzie course in Oakland, CA, is par 68.

[Duncan Cheslett]

On most par 69 courses you could stretch a long par 4 a little and call it a par 5, or turn a 3 into a 4.


Would this necessarily make for a better course?


Obviously not.


Would this make the course easier to sell to visitors or potential members?


Possibly...

[Matthew Rose]

I used to play a par 69 during my years in Melbourne but it wouldn't make anybody's lists. Probably the one thing I remember from it is that it had three par 3s in four holes on the back nine. I think it was 35-34.

[Ally Mcintosh]

On most par 69 courses you could stretch a long par 4 a little and call it a par 5, or turn a 3 into a 4.


Would this necessarily make for a better course?


Obviously not.


Would this make the course easier to sell to visitors or potential members?


Possibly...

I am struggling with this exact point right now. Reducing a par-70 to a par-69 and so potentially finding a new back tee just for the card. Smoke and mirrors.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I used to play a par 69 during my years in Melbourne but it wouldn't make anybody's lists. Probably the one thing I remember from it is that it had three par 3s in four holes on the back nine. I think it was 35-34.

West Sussex is a par-68 (1 five and 5 threes) with this exact configuration (short holes at 5,6 and 8 ) and is one of my very favourite courses. Pars under 70 are commonplace among good and great courses in the U.K.


Of course, Crail has four par threes in the last six holes and whilst I adore Crail, I do think it is too short in general to be talked about in terms of greatness.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Pars under 70 are commonplace among good and great courses in the U.K.

Indeed, but these courses were built around 100 or more years ago.





Their overall Par figure of under 70 was never in the mind of the architect because in those days Par didn't feature - Bogey was the way of categorizing golf holes.


Reddish Vale plays these days to a par of 69. Here however, is the card from 1932 when the course was less than twenty years old and had not changed appreciably since the day it had opened.





The Bogey figure of 73 was four shots higher than today's Par - for a course that was 200 yards shorter.


I suspect that little has changed with the perception of what constitutes a "proper" course. In those days a course presumably had to have a Bogey of 70 or more to be taken seriously and architects designed to this parameter.


All that has happened since is that the parameter has changed as Bogey has given way to Par.


Might courses such as Reddish Vale and Cavendish not have been made a little longer had Dr Mac routed them with Par in mind rather than Bogey? Both sites had plenty of space so to do at the time.

[Thomas Dai]

Some others in addition to those already mentioned -


Annesley at Royal County Down
Tadmarton Heath
Friford Heath (Green)
Dawlish Warren
Stinchcombe Hill
Kington
Painswick!


Atb

[David Davis]

Interesting that so many of the par sub 70 courses are located in the UK. Was that mostly a space issue way back when?


Why wouldn't this of happened in the US? Because Americans always have liked things bigger, more spacious and because they had more space to work with?


Or perhaps because the founding father of golf in the US believed in par 72 courses?


I don't know the answer but curious to hear others view on that.

[Thomas Dai]

I believe Adrian has a listing of all such courses in the U.K. I think he's kindly posted it before although can't find it just now.
Atb

[Duncan Cheslett]

Royal St Davids has a par of 69

[Tim Martin]

CC of Waterbury is another fine Ross effort with a par of 69. The lone 5 par comes on # 9.

[Tom_Doak]

Why wouldn't this of happened in the US? Because Americans always have liked things bigger, more spacious and because they had more space to work with?


Or perhaps because the founding father of golf in the US believed in par 72 courses?


I don't know the answer but curious to hear others view on that.

Americans are more susceptible to marketing than the Scots?


Early on, there was no standard for par or even for the number of holes, so the Scots always had contrary examples to any rule.  Golf architecture in America was more scientific and there started to be lots of books with opinions about what par should be.  Actually though, CB Macdonald was not hung up on par 72; National was 73 and Chicago Golf is 70.

[jeffwarne]

Interesting that so many of the par sub 70 courses are located in the UK. Was that mostly a space issue way back when?



I don't know the answer but curious to hear others view on that.

The ball went 25-50% shorter and golf has been around longer in the UK
They didn't start as par 69's or 68's in many cases
The turn of the century US courses probably had room for expansion-until recently- when it would require acquisition of all the property surrounding the course.


Who would/could do that? ANGC!


I guess that's the USGA's sustainability model....#heads in sand

[Charles Lund]

I got to play St. Enodoc the past couple of days, a par 69 course. 

There were no two holes much alike with routings between, around, and over some massive dunes.   Par threes were very good, with some long and difficult par fours, as well as #6, with a challenging second shot over a massive dune with a a large bunker on the side of the steep dune hillside.   Number 10 is one of the most difficult par fours I have seen anywhere.  There is a quirkiness to some holes that amuses.   I enjoyed the view from the 18th tee box back to the clubhouse.

After my first round, I was able to recall all 18 holes in sequence.  I can say that for many courses, the holes often are a blur after the first round.

I bought a five round ticket on arrival after paying a deposit for two initial tee times.  I have three more rounds left.  Can't wait for tomorrow.

Appreciate the coverage of this course in The Confidential Guide.

Charles Lund

[Anthony Gholz]

Regarding Tom's post which included Detroit GC South at 68:  It has just been redone a bit by Mr Hepner, a former associate of Mr Doak.  I played it this May the week it opened.  The ground was still scarred, a couple of new tees not ready for use, and a few mounds in the rough still not sodded.  With his work, including a few tree removals, I would suggest the course is now one of the best of Ross's more original courses.  By that I mean not messed with (as much) by the Jones family, Hills, and others of the SE Michigan area.  Hepner has also worked on the more famous North course, but I would say his judicious tweaking of the South has brought it more into focus as an equal to the North, although not of the same "Championship" length.   

[Ari Techner]

Regarding Tom's post which included Detroit GC South at 68:  It has just been redone a bit by Mr Hepner, a former associate of Mr Doak.  I played it this May the week it opened.  The ground was still scarred, a couple of new tees not ready for use, and a few mounds in the rough still not sodded.  With his work, including a few tree removals, I would suggest the course is now one of the best of Ross's more original courses.  By that I mean not messed with (as much) by the Jones family, Hills, and others of the SE Michigan area.  Hepner has also worked on the more famous North course, but I would say his judicious tweaking of the South has brought it more into focus as an equal to the North, although not of the same "Championship" length.   

I just came on here to post pretty much the same thing.  DGC South right now is a gem, tons of variety and super fun to play.  Not easy either at @ 6400 par 68.  The 6 par 3s are all fantastic.  This along with Franklin Hills are very worth seeking out for those looking for more original Ross around the Midwest.

[JJShanley]

I could play Longniddry (68) in East Lothian most days. 


Ratho Park (69) has had drainage issues in recent years, I understand, but I played there regularly as a junior.  I always enjoyed it.

[Richard Fisher]

I recall this issue coming up on GCA a year or so ago, and it is worth remembering that (as indicated above) many of the celebrated British sub-70 courses were first opened with bogey scores (where they existed) in the mid-70s: for about the first half of its existence Harlech, for example, had a bogey of 76, with 1,3,7,8,10,12,13,15,and 17 all bogey fives, 2,5,6,16 as bogey fours, and 4, 9, 11,14, and 18 as bogey threes, Only 7 and 8 are nowadays par fives - hence the par of 69. Apart from a handful of back tees, the course is pretty much unchanged. For a good mid-century reference the sorts of 'scratch score' numbers given in A Round of Golf Courses are very interesting, especially for Rye and Worlington, and the card at the Sacred Nine has long persisted in giving both a par figure (35) and a bogey (37) for the nine holes.

[Jon Wiggett]

David,


I would suggest that it was mainly down to the fact that until the mid 80's matchplay/bogey was the preferred form of the day and so par was irrelevant. Indeed, for matchplay half par holes and holes with a bit of quirk have a certain preference for the golfer.


Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()