With better clubs/players, may more par 6 holes be built soon?

[buttputt40]

I am thinking of this happening in the Florida golf course building boom. 

[Piz]

I don't think so...at least not on a large scale.  Adding a par 6, without also adding another par 3, would raise 72 to 73.  That would seem "wrong" somehow despite "par" being beyond the scope of the average player.  I would rather see more devious/perilous par 5 layouts, or true 3-shotters, than I would par 6's.  That can be accomplished without the need to come up with more real estate.  Even a 700 yard par 6 could be reached, in regulation, by averaging 175 over 4 shots.

[DaveP043]

I would hope not. A par-6 would take a bunch more land, and quite probably would increase the amount of acreage requiring maintenance, neither of which is something that course owners are likely to prefer.  Beyond that, I don't see par-6 holes having any special strategic value.  

[HJJ003]

I think anytime they are used (which is rarely) in todays day and age it is used as a gimmick to attract people...."come check out our monstrous 700 yard hole...can you par it? I don't think it has much value to many architects, nor does it seem very attractive to most golfers. If it was more attractive, I think we would have seen more of them by now. We don't. 

[DeadMan]

No.

Your question doesn't make sense from the premise, either. Par 5s are the easiest holes (in relation to par), especially so for the best players. A par 6 isn't going to make a golf course more difficult.

[Nail]

15 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

No.

Your question doesn't make sense from the premise, either. Par 5s are the easiest holes (in relation to par), especially so for the best players. A par 6 isn't going to make a golf course more difficult.

That’s exactly what I was thinking, making holes longer would make more sense in that regard not that I would agree with it. 

A 700 yard par 5 would be fairly challenging lol

[DeadMan]

1 minute ago, Nail said:

That’s exactly what I was thinking, making holes longer would make more sense in that regard not that I would agree with it. 

A 700 yard par 5 would be fairly challenging lol

Right, it's more about distance than par. Think about it this way: a 450 yard par 5 is one of the toughest holes on the course. A 450 yard par 5 is one of the easiest. (Obviously, this is simplified, but that's the general premise).

[Nail]

1 minute ago, DeadMan said:

Right, it's more about distance than par. Think about it this way: a 450 yard par 5 is one of the toughest holes on the course. A 450 yard par 5 is one of the easiest. (Obviously, this is simplified, but that's the general premise).

I assume you mean a 450 yard par 4 is the toughest but yes you are right. 

[Patch]

I have played courses that had a par 6 in their layout. They were over 600 yards. The course par was 73, which is no big deal. Par is just a number used as a measuring device, that is a challenge to one's skill kevel. . 

I don't think par 6s are in the immeadiate future of golf. Maybe in 40-60 years when technology makes the rule books absolete. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Patch said:

I don't think par 6s are in the immeadiate future of golf. Maybe in 40-60 years when technology makes the rule books absolete. 

It’s off topic but comments like this make no sense.

[Archie Bunker]

😉How about just one big hole for the front nine? Par 20, 3600 yards long. Imagine this on your home course. You tee off on #1, and keep going until you get to putt for the first time on the 9th green. No cutting over fairways; you have to follow the layout of the existing 9. Crazy idea, but something to think about over the winter. It sure would be a lot cheaper to maintain. Without 8 greens of putting, play should move along pretty quickly. (Sorry to get a bit off topic, but I didn't want to start a new one)😉