Does anyone hate par-70 courses as much as I do?

[onthehunt526]

Here's a topic that's been on my mind for a while: PAR 70 courses... I am not talking about your 5800 yard, par 70 with 2 extra par-3s, so you still get 2 par-5s a side... I'm talking about your 6400+ yard, par-70 courses that like to rub the fact they are a par-70 in your face... The par 70 courses with only two par 5s, four par 3s and twelve par 4s... I'm not talking artificial par-70s like the USGA won't pick a course for a U.S. Open unless it is a Par 70, or can be converted to a par-70 (though Chambers Bay I think is going to be a par-71, and Erin Hills all four par-5s are over 600 yards so that will probably remain a par-72) Par 70s that par four you to death also grind my gears... There is a Par 70 up in Marathon that does this I know around the turn there are at least 6 par-4 holes in a row (It might be Seven I can't remember what the first par-3 on the back is, but 6 through 11 are all par-4s for sure...) All of the par-70s I've played on that are legit par-70s, since my accident I have struggled... (I did shoot a 36-36=72 at Maple Hill the course I'm talking about) Good or bad what is your take on par-70 golf courses?

[badandy519]

There's a course right down the road from me that I love to play that's completely the opposite.  It's one of the higher rated public courses in Texas for the money.  It's got six each - par 3's, 4's, & 5's.  I should play from the whites at about 6100 yards, but I usually end up playing with some better players and end up at the blues for 6600.  Even then, it's not a ridiculously hard course.

On topic, par 70's are out in my book.  I don't even particularly like watching the pros play them on tv.  I'd rather see some scoring opportunities on a par 5 with a tough pin or something rather then the the course be relegated to 2 shots less than it normally plays just fit what the tour wants.

[David in FL]

Well, it's a lot easier to break 80 on them..... :-D As a shorter hitter, I like the scoring opportunities that par-5's provide, but if the course is otherwise well laid out and interesting, I don't care all that much.

[boogielicious]

Here's a topic that's been on my mind for a while:

PAR 70 courses... I am not talking about your 5800 yard, par 70 with 2 extra par-3s, so you still get 2 par-5s a side... I'm talking about your 6400+ yard, par-70 courses that like to rub the fact they are a par-70 in your face...

The par 70 courses with only two par 5s, four par 3s and twelve par 4s...

I'm not talking artificial par-70s like the USGA won't pick a course for a U.S. Open unless it is a Par 70, or can be converted to a par-70 (though Chambers Bay I think is going to be a par-71, and Erin Hills all four par-5s are over 600 yards so that will probably remain a par-72)

Par 70s that par four you to death also grind my gears...

There is a Par 70 up in Marathon that does this I know around the turn there are at least 6 par-4 holes in a row (It might be Seven I can't remember what the first par-3 on the back is, but 6 through 11 are all par-4s for sure...)

All of the par-70s I've played on that are legit par-70s, since my accident I have struggled... (I did shoot a 36-36=72 at Maple Hill the course I'm talking about)

Good or bad what is your take on par-70 golf courses?

Do you have specific courses you can link us to?  I agree that some course layouts make them less attractive to play.  There are a couple in my area that I dislike.

[Ferguson]

I grew up on a PAR 70.  The USGA uses 70 as the benchmark for PAR, I believe.

It's just a number.

[Gunther]

There's a course right down the road from me that I love to play that's completely the opposite.  It's one of the higher rated public courses in Texas for the money.  It's got six each - par 3's, 4's, & 5's.  I should play from the whites at about 6100 yards, but I usually end up playing with some better players and end up at the blues for 6600.  Even then, it's not a ridiculously hard course.

Westridge in McKinney? Great course, lots of variety. [quote name="David in FL" url="/t/80843/does-anyone-hate-par-70-courses-as-much-as-i-do/0_40#post_1116568"]Well, it's a lot easier to break 80 on them..... :-D [/quote] Exactly my 1st thought when I read the thread title. Always happy to come upon a 70, just 9 over gets it done.

[David in FL]

The USGA uses 70 as the benchmark for PAR, I believe.

Can you explain? I don't have any idea what that means.

[SavvySwede]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferguson

The USGA uses 70 as the benchmark for PAR, I believe.

Can you explain? I don't have any idea what that means.

It means he is making it up facts about the USGA

[jsgolfer]

Well, it's a lot easier to break 80 on them.....

I like the scoring opportunities that par-5's provide, but if the course is otherwise well laid out and interesting, I don't care all that much.

I'm with Dave, if the course is interesting, it makes no difference to me.  I've played a Par 69 golf course that was  fun to play.

[Lihu]

I can see a par 70 being way harder than a par 72! A par 70 6400 yard course is about the same as a 6600-6800 yard par 72 course with two extra shots you get on the two additional par 5.

If you disagree, just play the two shortest/easiest par 5 on any par 72 course as par 4, then tell me how much easier it is to break 80.

EDIT: I mean to do this experiment from a 6400 yard course.

EDIT EDIT: Wait a minute, you get the same score. On a good day, I would still shoot around 82-83 and on a bad day 88-90!

[Shindig]

My experience at par-70s seems to be different. The par-70 I've played the most was eventually converted into a par-72. There were three par-4s over 400 yards; they moved the tees back about 60-70 yards on two of them to turn them into par-5s. It was far enough back that I don't remember what the CR/SRs were. I also didn't have as much a head for strategy as I do now, so I don't know how I'd play on the unmodified course. Someone paid a good chunk of money for the municipal course in question (Balboa in Los Angeles) to convert. But most par-70s I remember playing have a lot of what this course had pre-change; a bunch of par-4s (this one in particular is odd because it had three par-3s and one par-5 pre-change, now three of each) and a scattering of the others, usually with two fewer par-5s than par-3s. Knowing what I know now, there isn't a huge difference in my game between a long par-4 and a (relatively) short par-5. My home course has, as the #1 and #2 handicap holes, long par-4s. The course itself is a par-71 (4x3 + 3x5), but those two are sort of par-4.5 in my head. I've reached the #1 handicap hole in regulation twice, both long ago, and both more of a coincidence and luck. But lately I've been getting into reasonable chipping range on it. The #2 handicap I reached in regulation for the first time ever this past Sunday (two-putted for a par that felt like a birdie). By contrast, the #17 handicap hole at this course is a relatively short par-5. On a good drive, I'm usually sitting 240 or so from the green, and depending on lie, I'll hit either a 3W or a 5W, leaving myself half a wedge (back to A3, forward symmetrically) for a GIR. This isn't all that different from a long par-4 for me, except I'm missing a little bit bigger, but have another stroke relative to par to play with as far as giving a name to the eventual number. So no, I don't hate par-70s. After all, when I'm at one, I'm usually playing golf.

[WUTiger]

Well, it's a lot easier to break 80 on them.....

As long as there's variety among the par 4 holes, I'm OK.

Most places where I've lived have at least one course that's BORING for the repetition in hole designs.  One course had three 370-ish yard par 4s - dogleg left - that looked like triplets. First time I played the course, I thought I had gotten lost and cycled back to a previous tee box.

[bradsul]

As long as the layout is interesting I can't honestly say I've given the total par value any real thought.  Certainly not enough to get worked up about it.  I'm more interested in the course rating most of the time.

That said I could see a long string of par 4's perhaps becoming slightly tedious if there is no real variety to them, though I suppose that takes me back to my original point.

[Missouri Swede]

I'm more interested in the course rating most of the time.

That was my thought as well.  (And, given my handicap, the slope too.)

[onthehunt526]

BTW Maple Hill has 7 par-4s in a row, the longest is the 410 yard 9th, The Shortest is the 320 yard 8th... it's a variety, being slapped in the face with seven straight par-fours isn't fun

[rehmwa]

As long as the layout is interesting I can't honestly say I've given the total par value any real thought.  Certainly not enough to get worked up about it.  I'm more interested in the course rating most of the time.

no need for me to repeat this when it's already done so well

[onthehunt526]

http://www.wicz.com/golf/maplehill/index.asp Here's The scorecard

[dkolo]

I'd like par to be 72 because I'm at a point where I'm chasing levels: 100, 90, now 85, so changing overall par messes with that a bit. But I wouldn't be upset over it. I imagine they made par 70 because making it 72 artificially might have caused complications through holes having artificially high pars or because they felt the particular terrain lent itself better to the specific layout.

There's the Links Course at Cherry Creek out east, I believe, where the final hole plays as a 600-650 yard or so par 6, depending on whether you play the whites or the blues. I'd love to play that sometime, score comparison be damned.