News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2003, 03:38:02 PM »
I understand the question, as well as the idea that it has to be a convention is a bit loopy.  But, rather than bash those who expect 72, I'd like some analysis of how it got to be that way.

Lets go back to Tony's original question, and ask just how many "classic courses" had par of other than 72?   Is it 5%? 10%? 50%?  I really don't know, and if anyone has done that math, I'll bet they would be hanging around here! :D  My guess is that courses had got to that convention even before the Golden Age.

Then let's ask why there is a fascination with 72.  I made some guesses in my first post, and will add that to many, the idea of a par at "even fours" was appealing.  Why, I don't know, but announcers would rather say that than, "He's one under 3.9's" for the day.

If the golfing public back then was similar to how it is now, then handicaps and oher things, and didn't give enough of a hoot about someones idea of the best 18 golf holes, as long as they are good ones.

For that matter, for Tony and others, if you play 18 enjoyable holes, how would you know that there may be a theoreticlly better 18 by changing a par?  Or what holes were foregone because of a par rotation, and which were foregone because of other things, like not fitting the overall scheme?

In any event, does anyone have a theory on what influential course, golfer or architect brought us to 72 as standard par?

Forrest made my point about current balance better than I.  I will add that some wonder if someone like my 15 year old son, who plays nine holes every day after school would have the same handicap if he played the front nine at a par 34 far more than a back nine at par 37, so that was my point on handicaps.  Don't know how it would really be affected, even though our course is a 35-36-71.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2003, 04:56:30 PM »
Jeff,
TOC is at 36/36 = 72.  Maybe the influence it had on a standard round being 18 holes extended to par also?

If the slope/rating is different for each side and your son added up two 9 hole scores played on one side only then posted them at the course's 18 hole rating his handicap could be wrong. It might be a couple of strokes off if the course is significantly harder on one side than it is on the other.
A course with sides at 34/37=71 stands more chance of being much different than any equal number,i.e. 36/36, course.  


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2003, 06:11:33 PM »
TOC was certainly a catalyst for the par-72 "standard". But more influential was the work of the 1960s (RT Jones, etc.) and later which seemed at nearly every turn to adopt the par-72 "championship" notion. I believe Tom Paul and others have noted that, in actuality, a par-71 layout is probably a stronger test of golf-to-par. But "72" is a bigger number, so it was likely thought to mean "tougher".

TOC is where you would look, however, for the beginnings of the "ideal" course. The "ideal", of course, being slightly morphed through the ages -- as it is even today by some who will like us all to believe that a random or quirky approach is "best".

Even the absence of a standard is, in and of itself, a standard.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2003, 07:18:42 PM »
Joe Hancock,

Nice save!  You probably hang with Jeff Mingay so you can talk golf during the intermssions.  In Dallas, we have the "Ice Girls" to gawk at while no pucks are flying.

Talk about perfect symetry.  Detroit/Dallas four meetings, four ties.

What are the odds that the DeadWings can repeat?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

tonyt

Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2003, 09:46:11 PM »
Thank you ALL for the brainstorming feedback. The notepad doodling architect inside me ends up with similar configurations as Tom Doak's post, which is why I initially raised the point that it couldn't possibly be great to design ten courses, with six or more of them being 36-36 with two each 5s and 3s.

I also heed the practical needs, some I already assumed, and some since raised by others in the thread. I am concluding that departure from the norm has to be encouraged, if it can definitely add to the quality of the facility, without noticeably detracting from any conventions that are too convenient for the client to ignore.

I also have friends that seem to believe that 36-36-72 is a pre-requisite for a "Championship course". They hush and relent when I tell them about this little tourney that gets played each year called the US Open, or show them a list of some of the world's greatest non-72s.

Cheers all,

Tony T
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

tonyt

Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2003, 09:50:49 PM »
Oh, and TOC ain't part of the convention. It's only having one each 3 & 5 on each nine breaks the rules  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

woof

Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2003, 10:08:38 AM »
tonyt:  I'm just catching up with your thread upon return from vacation.  We were at the Homestead and played the Old Course several times as the Cascades had not yet opened for the season.  This is a Ross course with six par 3's, six par 4's, and six par 5's.  No back to back par 3's but several back to back par 5's.  Both nines end with a par 3.  Lots of fun with several dramatic holes because of elevation change.  "Halfway" House is after hole No. 7!  Who needs symmetry!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2003, 03:21:10 PM »
Jeff,

If you're gonna pick a fight, at least fight fair! Everyone knows that Detroit doesn't believe in gratuitus dancing girls(cheerleaders). The Lions don't even have a cheerleading squad, for gosh sakes. Is it the only professional football team without?

Deadwings? We'll see.....

Joe ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2003, 06:01:36 AM »
I don't think the 36-36 "gold standard" comes from the Golden Age.  Most of the early courses had a par of greater than 72, because of the club and ball technology of the day.  I think I remember that Oakmont was originally a par 76; I know that Pasatiempo was par 74.

A lot of today's par 70 or 71 golf courses were par 72 (or more) before the yardage limit for par 4 holes was increased from 445 yards to 470.

I think it was Robert Trent Jones who really began to standardize par.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Why 36-36 with 2 & 2 each side?
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2003, 11:00:57 AM »
shivas - see today's aerial of the day - it's not exactly what you're describing but it's not far off... if tough is what they wanted they could shore that up big time also with a few things here or there... interesting your post here would coincide with this course, in any case.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back