Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?

[tonyt]

I'm sorry if a relative newcomer like me is either re-hashing an old thread, or just showing plain ignorance. But with the knowledge and opinion on this site, I can't ignore you all as a resource. So here goes;

I am always bemused by the common formula for par. A list of classic old courses reveals quirks in the accumulation of par. Courses going from 70-73, one or three par 5 or par 3 holes on a nine etc.

Whenever I see yet another course with two par 5s and two 3s on each side (read: nearly every new course on the planet), I always wonder if the best possible course was designed, or if it was made to fit. Does the balance, variety and flow of a game of golf rely so heavily on this makeup?

What holes or what shots were left out there on the site, if they had to be foregone for this formula?

[Joel_Stewart]

I always wonder if the best possible course was designed, or if it was made to fit.

Its a good point, one I have never thought about.  It is about balance but it's predictable.  Its also about not being awkward and flow.  

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Tonyt,

The course was made to fit the formula.  It's sad, but it's true.  Few courses are truly designed with the idea of creating the best flow and best holes on the property.  Even the concept of 18 holes (rather than 17 or 22 or whatever) is a concession to formula.

[tonyt]

I agree Jeremy. Some compulsory restrictions do exist. 18 holes for one, and in many cases, returning nines are required to make some courses viable.

I just wonder how important the two each par 3 & par 5 on each nine really is? If it adds flow to just about every otherwise imbalanced game? Debatable at best. Or that many designers virtually insist that the last three holes include one of each. Hole lengths and clubs required, differing strategies or characteristics on holes, green complexes with varying shot making nuances that differ from hole to hole. These can do as much or more to maintain flow and interest, and prevent monotony.

We should be able to take a guess at a few instances when we see a hole that is there not because it is the best possible, but because to fit in with the desired routing AND the strict formula, it had to be a par whatever.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know that with the current emphasis on reporting all scores for handicaps, some pros really like the nines balanced, and if possible balanced in similar sequence so competitor starting on one and ten don't have any disadvantage.

I agree that par 3's and 5's should be less prominent, because threes have no shot relationships, and fives often have a wasted shot.  I think/surmise that the creation and additon of 3 and 5 par holes was for variety's sake, but eight is the maximum because the par 4s are so beautifully efficient at creating strategy and shot relationship in the nicely efficient minimum of two shots, that they should comprise the bulk of the holes!  If it weren't for their variety, you might argue for fewer 3's and 5's.  However, they are also inherently easier, which many golfers like.

On most sites, of the non-spectacular variety, the gentle contours can be used several ways, and only a few areas of each site would make it "abolutely necessary" to use contours a particular way.  Even then, I can think of only a few occaisons where I said to myself, "This is a "par 3 green site", "par 4 green site," or "par 5 green site."  

So, if I can find a routing that makes it another par, but still uses its features, I would do it, if it was a good hole, and provided better balance.   I always do several routings, and balance is only one criteria I use for selecting the final.  Assuming they are there for variety, it usually makes sense, all things being equal, to spread them out, rather than bunch them together.  

That is how I surmise the standard came to be the standard.  I am always on the lookout for exceptions to the standard, but don't go out of my way to do it, just to create quirk.

Fire away, gentleman!

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Look at all these "rules" we have regarding par:

- There can only be par 3s, 4s and 5s.
- The total par must equal 72, with each nine being 36.
- The first hole cannot be a par 3
- The last hole cannot be a par 3.
- The 9th and 10th holes cannot be a par 3.
- There cannot be two par 5s in a row.
- There cannot be two par 3s in a row.
- There must be two par fives, two par 3s and five par 4s per nine.
- There shoudln't be more than three straight holes without a par 3 or 5.

Plug that into some computer and ask him to come up with variations, and the options are already severely limit.

Then, add all the other stupid "rules" of design, and stale, cookie-cutter golf is the result.

It's gotten to the point where a 345-yard 18th hole is considered "weak" and thus controversial.  

Forget the numbers and lets listen to the land.  I betcha we'll never design an 18-hole par 72 course again.

Jeff,

Can you create a great 21-hole routing, with three par 5s in a row, a par of 63, with a 96-yard 18th hole?

If the answer is not unequivocally, unhesitantly, unquestionably, uncontroversially "Sure!!  Why the heck not?", then we've failed to maximise the limitless potentials of golf course design.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeremy,

I was the super at a course called "Carolina Pines CC" in New Bern, NC for 6 years. It breaks a couple of those rules!

#5- Par 5
#6- Par 5

#9- Par 3
#10- Par 3

It was a very fun golf course...not great architecturally, but fun!

Joe

[Forrest Richardson]

Most of the formula you cite can be traced to the fact that courses built from the 1960s on were built with modern earthmoving equipment and also many were built on less than desirable sites -- flat sites good for homes, but not always golf. It was simply an extension of the "ideal course" concept where golf architects, park planners, army generals and golf pros inflicted there idea of what was "perfect".

Too bad, I agree.

In my routing book I write extensively about par order, sequence and breaking the "rules" -- indeed, whether there should be rules. Here is a bit about one of my favorite "poster childs" of routing oddity:

...ishop Auckland, is a charming 18-hole layout in Northern England. The Bishop, as it is known, sports a most unpredictable order of par. Beginning on the front side, golfers face holes of modern-day par 4, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 3, 3, 5 = 37, and, continuing on the back, par 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 = 35. There is simply nothing “usual” about how Bishop Auckland is routed, the order of the pars, or balance between the nines..."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeremy,

I have often routed courses with 17, 19, and even 21 holes.  But someone always catches the error!

Given how mobile golfers are, and portable handicaps are, there probably needs to be some conventions, unless members of that club simply don't - and won't ever care.  Frankly, I think most golfers care more about negotiating the best bet on the first tee than they do about some "theoretical" best routing on which no two architects would ever agree.  So, that is why things have more or less standardized.

For the record, I have done the 6/6/6 routings, 37/35, etc. when the site truly calls for it.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Jeff,

Don't you hate it when you design the perfect 17-hole course?  

I say it half jockingly, because it also happens to me all the time.  You think you've got it nutted, all the holes flow together, using the land perfectly.  So you show your concept to a partner, starting off "1, 2, 3.... 14, 15, 16, 17..... Oh, sh*t."

But I also say it half seriously.  Why 18 holes?  Why all these par rules?  Why a par sequence?  Doesn't this so called "ideal" par sequence eliminate variety, with courses like Bishop Auckland few and far between?  And why would a 17-hole or 21-hole course not make it possible to place bets and maintain handicaps?

Do we need an 18-hole standard in order to compare courses?  Couldn't we compare a 16-hole course with a 23-hole course in the same way that we compare a song that is 3:43mins long with another that is 5:12mins long?

I don't know if I have a point.  I'm just questioning the hyper-theoretical.
_____

PS  My posting level will decrease from now until the Canadiens are mathematically eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs, which should be right about......now."  

[Joe Hancock]

Jeremy and Jeff,

I forgot part of my post:

My posting level will decrease until the Redwings are finished winning the Stanley Cup!

Joe

[Jim Sweeney]

Jeff Brauer wrote, "I know that with the current emphasis on reporting all scores for handicap, some pros really like the nines balanced"....& etc.

A few points, if I may.

In a properly administered handicap system, it is the responsibility of those who use handicaps, that is, the amateur club members, to manage the handicap system.

Balance between the nines has nothing to do with handicaps. In fact, the slope system allows for great degrees of imbalance- between nines or between courses.

All scores must be posted if one wants to have an accurate handicap, so long as those scores are made in accordance with the rules and the few exceptions, such as "winter rules."

Generally, golf professionals do not use handicaps. I don't know what interest they would have in balanced nines vis a vis handicaps, particularly since it doesn't matter anyway.

Two tee starts in tournament golf will always be an issue when debating equity in playing conditions. Last year's Open at Bethpage is a perfect example because of the difficulty of the tenth hole. ( Last year was the first year the USGA used two tees at the Open. It has done so in most other championships for many years.) However, in many cases the two tee system is practical for a number of reasons.  Committees do the best they can to offset the inequities through scheduling- for example, a player who starts on #1 on Thursday AM will start on #10 on Friday PM. It's not perfect- everyone knows that- but it's the best that can be done.

I once belonged to a club with a Ross course that has back to back 5's and holes 9 and 18 are par 3's. It is a wonderful course which people love to play.

My father belonged to a club that has a Ross course with  one par 5 of 485 yds, and a par of 69. Great course.

Equal pars and hole par distributions are conventions, not rules, and can get in the way of building good golf courses. But it has nothing to do with handicaps.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

jesplusone,

The controversy about starting on the 10th hole due to the "difficulty" of that hole is a non-starter.  The 10th hole is not a difficult hole.  It is a difficult hole to get a par on.

BIG difference.  

One problem with starting on 10, I suppose, could be that, it requires a long straight drive, followed by a long straight second shot, or else players are staring at a five.  However, that would be the same case if the 10th would have been a par five -- ie an "easy" hole (to get a par on).  Difficulty is not the problem.  It doesn't even exist.

[tonyt]

I can see Jeff's point regarding portable fair comparisons. But I cringe at having to say such words, which seem to defy nature.

Client needs (or client's perceived needs) may not restrain us as much as we believe.

Think of two golfing trips. One involves playing some of the best par 70 and 71 courses in the world. The other involves strictly only playing 36-36-72 courses. Will the tourists on the first trip be meddling with the fairness of their handicaps more than the second mob, or will they return cards that have a less accurate consequence? I seriously doubt it.

On courses without returning nines, playing off the 10th can be an added chore, regardless of what type of hole it is. But hitting off a 10th tee or playing two par 3s in a row (shame on you PD ), will have no more chance of imbalancing a round than playing in poor weather, unusual wind direction, poor conditioning etc.

So I still see no need for the rules. Like Tom Doak's recent thread about three consecutive shorter holes. They may in some conditions result in similar clubbing, but as long as they each have the potential to be very memorable and loved holes, they could become an anticipated famous stretch that brings some golfers back again and again.

I'd rather do that than see a routing plan where a designer has to think "gotta find a par 5 either here or earlier in that loop", when in actual fact, the property is showing his heart a set of holes that would be divine, only it would result in one par 5 for the nine.

[TEPaul]

Tonyt:

There're a lot of good posts here and from some architects. I like that jesplusone mentioned that some of these things have become "convention" in architecture not really "rules". But architects have come to do these things because clients and golfers have come to expect them. Maybe, it's sort of a chicken or egg thing--don't really know.

Is there function to some of the conventions such as returning nines? Sure there is but they certainly aren't completely necessary in a global sense.

Jesplusone also says that routing balance as to par holes has nothing to do with handicapping and technically he's completely right. However, the majority of golfers misunderstand handicapping and how it truly should be allocated. Par actually has nothing to do with handicap allocation but try explaining that to the vast majority of golfers--it's almost impossible to do. That misperception has been going on so long it's probably impossible to break.

Balance in a routing sense (par placement) has been around a long time. Geo Crump of Pine Valley went into his project with the idea of spreading it out properly (although in fact the course didn't exactly turn out that way).

There's a ton of perceptions around today about a lot of these things some call rules (of design) but again should be more properly called conventions. Jeremy Glenn did a good job of listing some of them.

The thing is they've become the expectations of so many golfers for so long now and expectations that're around a while can become misperceptions on many things. A ton of even good golfers, for instance, are still convinced that a par 72 course is a harder and more demanding test of golf than a par 71 and certainly a par 70 when in fact that has nothing to do with it and in reality may be somewhat the opposite. They've probably just come to think something like that because logically their total score may seem higher if a course is a 72.

The balanced 36-36=72 with two par 3s and two par 5s did become a real convention in architecture--it became fashionable but I see a slight move towards imbalance now--if that's what the site gives you. Maybe imbalance may even become fashionable in a small circle of golf purists. Pac Dunes is great example of par imbalance but to look at it and play it I don't think any one would be too aware of it merely because the holes are so good in and of themselves.

Certainly machinery can make balance, particularly on the more complicated topographical sites, much easier to create these days.

But you should try routing a golf course on topograhical land with no real thought to the possibilities of machinery while looking what the so-called golf walk is giving you par-wise and balance-wise as you progress! The landforms may be coming at you in par concepts but after a while you stop and say to yourself, "where am I now with balance and variety?" and things just get more complex.

You know you have to get back somewhere in a certain number--you know if you're trying to do a walking course that you need to do what's called "connect the dots" (keep the greens to tees close) and things can get progressively more complicated because of that alone.

That's why I call the entire process--doing a big jigsaw puzzle. It seems strange to say but the jigsaw puzzle actually does become easier since you can actually sort of make the pieces (holes) as you go--(to one extent or another---that is in the context of some sort of balance).

Could architecture break away from the 18 hole convention at this point? Not a chance, in my opinion, other than a complete novelty. The "game" of golf has far too many conventions to it to do that now. But again, those conventions are really only locked in perceptions amongst golfers--and there's no structural reason not to do something else as Jeremy mentioned. Something else could work fine and the only question becomes if golfers would actually accept it.

Max Behr would probably call a course other than 18 holes excellent "sport"--and would think it so probably because at least it's a departure from man's "game  playing mind" (man-made rules and conventionss)!

[Forrest Richardson]

We should be cautious here not to fall into a contrarian mode for the "bad" reasons. A 36 / 36 routing with the "new standard" of 3s, 4s and 5s all paced out in "standard" form can be quite transparent if the site is truly stellar, the routing great and the design first tier.

As long as the very important rules are followed (follow the land, offer variety, inject quirk as needed, be original, etc.) then it matters not much about par order. Or, for that matter, whether balance is it at play, or not.

A course of par-71 that is 34 / 37 can be just as fine as one 36 / 36 if important criteria is met.

About balance: It can be important. Economically speaking, a course with significant pace of play differences in nines can find it difficult to maximize tee times by starting players off both nines. A par 34 / 37 would be a good example, notwithstanding other factors beyond yardage and walks between holes. While this may not be important on Tuesday afternoons, it can mean the difference between  a highly-used public facility being able to handle golfers on a Saturday morning.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

It would be fair to say, I guess, that if a golf course is primarily interested in just packing as many people onto a golf course as they possibly can per day that a certain amount of design convention is necessary.

Packing the maximum amount of people onto any course every day is not the greatest thing although it certainly is understandable--I suppose.

The good news about clubs that pack as many people as possible onto their course is it has always been one of the primary reasons other clubs are started and other courses built. My own course was created in 1916 by ten men from another club for that very specific reason.

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, and interesting story to that effect involves the wonderful old 36 holes of Seaview (Ross and Flynn), Atlantic City NJ.

Clarence Geist got pissed off waiting on the first tee at the old ACCC one day so he walked off the course and started his own club--Seaview!

[Tim Taylor]

My club has an interesting layout. The front nine is par 35 with one five and two threes. Not too unusual. The back nine is par 37 with three fives and two threes. A little unusual, but not exactly revolutionary. However, #10 and #18 are par threes. And there is a stretch where three of four holes are par fives.

The routing goes like this:

front nine: 4,4,4,4,3,5,3,4,4
back nine: 3,5,5,4,5,4,4,4,3

TimT

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom -- Good points. "Packing in as many as possible" is many times a result of peak demands. Some people have no choice but to play golf on a weekend, and this causes crowded days. A reality. Although it is difficult to ask a bank to loan you money so you can build a new course down the street just to take care of the 3-hour period that occurs 60 times a year over at the existing club! Good story about Seaview.

How about this par-order, which was planned by me when I was 12 years old:

4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4 (36) // 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 2, 6 (36)

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Balance could have an effect on handicapping as it pertains to stroke allocation, especially if one side or the other were "loaded" with the big differential holes.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tony,

I really don't care about this sort of balance at all in my designs.  I'm not AGAINST it, I just don't have any preference for it.

My criteria are basically that each nine holes is okay as long as they are somewhere between par 34 and 37 (34 only if absolutely necessary, because it will FORCE me to make the other nine 36 or 37 ... a par 69 course just won't be acceptable to American clients).  Other than that, my choice of par is completely random, depending on what holes I feel fit the property best.

Anybody good at math could tell you that the odds of having a par-36 nine holes using this method is one in four, and the odds of a par-36 are one in sixteen.

Guess what?  I just happen to have designed sixteen courses now, and here they are:

High Pointe 37-34=71.  The Legends 36-35=71.  Black Forest 36-37=73.  Charlotte GL 35-36=71.  Stonewall 35-35=70.  Quail Crossing 35-36=71.  Beechtree 36-35=71.  Apache Stronghold 37-35=72.  Lost Dunes 35-36=71.  Riverfront 36-36=72.  Atlantic City 35-35=70.  Sands Point 36-34=70.  Pacific Dunes 36-35=71.  Stonewall Two 35-35=70.  Texas Tech 36-36=72.

So, I'm two for sixteen ... but only because both courses insisted on changing a long par four into a short par five for the sake of the scorecard.  

In my opinion, most designers who say they've designed their course 36-36 because it was the best way to build it are probably stretching the truth.  The truth is they don't want to challenge convention because it's not easy to explain it to their clients.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. makes some very good points, as usual. His math is a bit fizzy though, as the "absolute necessary" criteria on par-34 nines means that the second nine will not likely be "1 out of 4" if the first is a par-34. But this is is a detail; he makes a good point and backs it up with a list of work.

I am not convinced that most architects shy away from convincing clients to do otherwise -- rather, I believe it's simply a matter many times of the two parties being in blissful agreement on this standard approach. Neither party may know better!

[Forrest Richardson]

I did note Tom D.s criteria about being above par-69 -- so the math is even more complicated. One nine of par-34 will actually make the second nine either a 36 or 38 -- (or 38)!

[Forrest Richardson]

Those smiley faces are at it again. Should have been:

I did note Tom D.s criteria about being above par-69 -- so the math is even more complicated. One nine of par-34 will actually make the second nine either a 36 or 37 -- [or 38]!