News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Chilver-Stainer

Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« on: January 16, 2003, 12:58:06 PM »
:-/Checking out the web I see that Par 6's can be found in 5 different courses in the US. I don't know of any in my home Scotland although the original 1st Hole at Prestwick where the British Open was first played is considered to be the equivalent of one for the golf equipment of the day. I,d be interested to hear the opinion from anyone that has played a Par 6. :-/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2003, 01:10:10 PM »
Is there any conceivable way to get the archives on Golfclubatlas to work better?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2003, 01:14:45 PM »
But this does bring up an interesting question. There's this lovely landform on a great site for golf in Virginia that's ready made right now for a great golf hole--sort of along its own valley. Only trouble is it could be 900 yards long--maybe more. I was just thinking when routing the place would there be any good reason to not just use it as is? It could be a par--"whatever"!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2003, 01:16:34 PM »
Ive played one (lake Chabot), know of others and think like everything else about GCA, for the pros, the answer is NO and for us, YES.  The way I see it is, we golfers can put up with alot. The pros, as a rule, can't put up with the slightest deviation from the norm. Does anything feline come to mind.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

yogi_barry

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2003, 01:17:32 PM »
Just make it a par 5 and add it to the "unreachables"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2003, 04:43:44 PM »
TEPaul writes:
Only trouble is it could be 900 yards long--maybe more. I was just thinking when routing the place would there be any good reason to not just use it as is? It could be a par--"whatever"!

Yeah, I'm a big fan in par-"whatever" holes. I can't think of any good reason to not do it.

Dan King
Quote
Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker."
 --Willie Nelson
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2003, 05:06:18 PM »
I can't think of a good reason not to do a 900 yd par "whatever" hole either, Dan, but I'm fairly certain that there're plenty of people who can. The shocking news is I'm fairly certain Tiger will figure out a way to hit it with driver, driver, 2 iron and one putt the thing to score a "whatever".

Me, on the other hand, can probably do it with a 1 iron, low cut driver, hooked 3 wood, L wedge and faded 6 iron and two putts to score a very solid "whatever".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Carlyle Rood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is 'par' valid?
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2003, 05:31:27 PM »
Is a par 6 valid?  No.  I don't even think par is valid.

Are the 13th and 15th at Augusta par fives?  They don't seem to be during the tournament.  (They would be for me.)

I like the "level fours" idea.  I like it when tournament records are the sum of four rounds instead of over/under par.

There's only one absolute in golf: the hole-in-one.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2003, 05:48:13 PM »
TEPaul writes:
Me, on the other hand, can probably do it with a 1 iron, low cut driver, hooked 3 wood, L wedge and faded 6 iron and two putts to score a very solid "whatever".

I've made a number of solid "whatever" with nothing but a driver. Once I play it more than two or three times in a row, I just keep on playing it. When playing a match I always enjoy winning a hole with nothing but driver against someone with access to 14 clubs. I think I could make a good solid "whatever" playing your hole driver, driver, driver, driver, driver, driver, driver, driver, driver. The only tough part is trying to remember how many times I hit the sucker.

Dan King
Quote
"I like going there for golf. America's one vast golf course today."
 --Edward, Duke of Windsor
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2003, 06:02:10 PM »
Carlyle:

you said:
> like the "level fours" idea.  I like it when tournament records >are the sum of four rounds instead of over/under par.

>There's only one absolute in golf: the hole-in-one.

Having considered this thought for a while, I have to say I really like it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

John Chilver-Stainer

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2003, 11:05:53 PM »
:)Well the response doesn't seem to be too serious so maybe a Par 6 is just a joke. I like the idea that of no Par for the course and let a standard scratch score be the peg - but what would you do with the Slope Rating System. Willy Nelson's Scratch Score would be about 400!
The Par 6 in Tourquoise Valley, Arizona is 747yds long.
Maybe a 900 yd long hole would be a Par 7!
Is there really only one person out there that's played a Par 6?
John Chilver-Stainer ???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2003, 03:19:19 AM »
No!

I lost a design contract once because the client liked the fact that a competing designer had designed a Par 6 on his design and this would make it the first course in Norway to have one so he got the nod. >:(

Does the home of golf have any Par 6's?  No I don't know of any in Scotland so that is enough for me.

Brian.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2003, 07:43:00 AM »
There's a silly course outside of Frederickburg VA called Meadowood that has a 841yd hole.  I think they say it is the world's longest (go for your 900 yarder TEP!).  I played it some years ago and was underwelmed with the idea.  JC

BTW - it has two forced lake crossings!  :-/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2003, 07:43:52 AM »
Not Meadowood.  It was Meadow Farms.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2003, 07:48:30 AM »
John,

Heres a serious, but negative, answer to your question....

If strategy means creating a relationship between shots with some potential to appreciably improves your score, (over one hole, 18, 72, or a season's worth of play) then we can create par 4 holes that have such relationships in the nicely efficient minimum of two shots!  So many par 5's - especially true three shotters - have boring second shots.  

At the least, if you are not getting the hole started, or going for the target, what relationship is there to the middle shot?  Granted, there are some interesting second shots on par 5's, even when not going for the green, but it is harder to create.

Until we see lots of good middle shots on par 5's, I can't see adding yet another "advance it as far as possible" shot on a par 6, unless you wanted the fame of somewhere's first par 6.

Sorry to hear that Brian!  However, on your next interview, don't "fight your last battle" by suggesting a par 6, unless the developer has specifically indicated he wants one!  This is a corollary to Brauer's second rule - Never assume a woman is pregnant unless you can see the baby's head coming out....

Don't ask me how I know that! ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

John Chilver-Stainer

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2003, 10:29:32 PM »
I just recalled this thread as it was a similar question to the thread from Bill Overdorf and also to compare the views of some of the "Doyens".

According to "Web" information  the Par 6 in Turquoise Valley in Arizona was being readjusted from 727m to 747m to meet USGA specs for the Slope Rating. More details were not available. ???
In the Britain the  Slope Rating system is not carried out, meaning that Par doesn't have any significance either as an individual value or collective, to the outcome of your score. The Standard Scratch Score system works well and takes away that whole discussion about Par. The less rules the better. :)

A few of our Links Courses have holes play like a Par 6 when the wind gets up and as such can be taken into consideration by the Standard Scratch Score system by adjusting it for weather conditions for the day. Although often you get the advantage coming back when the wind is behind you making some Par 4's into very interesting Par 3's.

The Slope Rating system which assumes that different categories of players strike their ball regularly to certain distances and thus face different difficulties from bunkers and the like gets literally blown away by the wind and ceases to have any relevance. ???

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a good hole is about shot values and aesthetics and not necessarily about length or Par. I'm sure a downwind, downhill, forgiving fairway with open views and an interesting gathering green at the end of 700 yards will always be more interesting than a narrow treelined flat fairway with a raised crowned green at the end of 500 yards.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

tonyt

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2003, 06:41:11 AM »
4 shots, or 5 for many average golfers to reach the green. That makes for at least one, and possibly two very boring shots along the way.

If the strategic and aesthetic qualities of a hole can't be captured within a par 5 of 600-650 yards, you won't capture them with an extra 200 yards.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JohnH

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2003, 06:58:40 AM »
OK, OK....  I am convinced that lengthening golf courses is futile.  There will always be some way to develop equipment to hit the ball further.  Is a par 6, or 8, or 13 golf hole valid??  I suppose my senior dad would think so, but I'm not so sure it would be widely accepted.  I think an interesting question is how well the golfing community in general would feel about par 5's that take the driver out of your hands on the tee shot, forcing a long iron to a landing area 200 yds out or so.  I know I like to grip it and rip it.  I remember a par 5 I played last year that required a 2 or 3 iron off the tee because of marshland, and I was pissed.  Oh well.....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

noonan

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2003, 07:34:39 AM »
There is a 9 holer in my area with a par 6.

It is the 1st hole...probably 700 + yards.....I haven't played there is 4 years....it has a tee shot you cannot even hit a driver....a creek is 250 off the tee with trees left and right of the fairway.....next shot is wide open.....3rd shot has to be a layup because the green is next to a large mound on the left and a pond to the right and creek again to the front.....the opening between the trees on both sides of the fairway next to the green is probably 30 feet wide.....this hole had to be laid out by goatherders in the early 1800's

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

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2003, 08:19:21 AM »
I think a problem with any hole designated greater than par 5 would be the attention span of the golfer. I would be bored after the third or fourth strike of the ball in my attempt to reach the putting surface. Oh sure it happens sometimes that I do the fourth, fifth and sometimes sixth swing in a butcher job on any given hole, but to be required to hit it a fourth, fifth or whatever number it happens to be (over 3), then I'm probably going to lose interest. Concentration is a major part of competition golf, but I assume we're discussing a hole for the masses, not PGA or other organized competition.

MY vote is no to the "over 5" par designation.

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

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2003, 11:39:14 AM »
Par 6 is hokey to me.

What a waste of space.  You could buid two holes in the space a par 6 needs.

Jeff F.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
#nowhitebelt

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2003, 09:06:17 PM »
Jeff -- Shall we transport you back in time and have you explain your logic to the bands of golfers who formed our great game; and who played nearly endless matches to distant targets with no regard for par, standard length or even regard for a limit to the number of golfers in such bands?

It is not a waste of space if, in fact, you are attempting to reach some standard -- say, a par of 72 and about 7,200 yards. In this case the equation is simple: 100 yards per par stroke. A par-6 would just about as efficient as a par-5, depending, of course, on its length.

Nothing in golf is a waste of space if it is done with regard for creativity and passion.

I do agree that attention span is key. Today we would need to hold onto the golfer's experience and make the journey worthwhile.

Would you like to hear my dissertation on par-2s?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

TEPaul

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2003, 05:03:53 AM »
Jeff Brauer wrote:

"Heres a serious, but negative, answer to your question....

If strategy means creating a relationship between shots with some potential to appreciably improves your score, (over one hole, 18, 72, or a season's worth of play) then we can create par 4 holes that have such relationships in the nicely efficient minimum of two shots!  So many par 5's - especially true three shotters - have boring second shots.

Then JHancock wrote:

"I think a problem with any hole designated greater than par 5 would be the attention span of the golfer. I would be bored after the third or fourth strike of the ball in my attempt to reach the putting surface."

And finally Forest Richardson wrote;

"Jeff -- Shall we transport you back in time and have you explain your logic to the bands of golfers who formed our great game; and who played nearly endless matches to distant targets with no regard for par, standard length or even regard for a limit to the number of golfers in such bands?"

Juxtaposed, these three remarks are interesting and revealing. Jeff Brauer obviously looks at the question from the point of view of an architect who's accustomed to visualizing golf and architecture in the context of the game today (and the last 135 years) and that certainly is in the context of par 3s, 4s, and 5s.

JHancock, is basically expressing that same reality which is today's golfer thinks almost exclusively in things like par, GIR, a final destination (green) in no more shots than three (because for 135 years golf has been a succession of par 3s, 4s and 5s and that's a difficult mindset to break now!).

But Forrest Richardson supplies an historic fact and a reality which is it doesn't have to be that way, or at least it didn't once upon a time to be interesting.

So it seems to me that it probably would be possible to create and interesting golf hole of 600-700 or 800 or more yards if it were not for the restrictions created by the "par" mindset of 3s, 4s, and 5s. The mindset of those three "par" configurations including par's half brother "GIR" has clearly made anything else appear to be an abberation or at least an unacceptable novelty.

But JeffB's and particularly Forrest Richardson's point about strategy in the context of a much longer hole is very interesting and should be developed better at least in theory.

That is that strategy today has unfortunately become reduced in the minds of far too many golfers to one shot increments. Some understand better than others how shots connect to each other to create far more interesting strategies, but nowhere near enough in my opinion.

Or maybe it should just be said that the way shots connect to each other IS the essence of strategy and that no more should be said about it, except to say that too many golfers today are missing that essential fact.

However, the mindset of 3s, 4s and 5s in a par context is ingrained in us, unfortunately, and extending the ultimate destination to a longer GIR (par) context would probably be difficult to do as much because of the lack of concentration of golfers today in overall interesting and extended strategies as anything else.

But it could be done still by very clever designers, I think. And if they could do it well and hold golfers' interest somehow it would be a wonderful reeducation into what TRUE strategy in golf is all about--ie, an intelligent and well executed series of shots that are not only reliant on distance alone!

When a real thinker such as Max Behr mentioned that an excellent example of a great strategic hole would be a par 5 (he used the longest hole in golf here for obvious reasons) where a greenside bunker (for instance) occured to the intelligent player on the tee the hole was a good strategic one. Behr also explained interesting and TRUE and REAL strategy as a situation where a risk was taken immediately to avoid a FUTURE liabilty. Do you notice how he didn't say an immediate liability? A better example of true strategy could not be given, in my opinion.

Doing a hole of 700-800-900 yards would be possible in my opinion but again it would be an architectural challenge as much to hold today's 3, 4, 5 par mindset golfer's concentration as anything else.

But I could see a hole like that twisting and turning and with all kinds of good and thoughtful stuff inside it's fairway lines creating all kinds of interesting direction angles and distance considerations at the same time all along it. If it did these things enough it would reawaken in golfers how shots really aren't individually incremental but can be a string of options solidly connected to each other in the mind of a golfer even from the tee on a super long hole.

This kind of thing would be expensive if looked at as only an individual hole, however, so I'd recommend that it be tried but possibly as a single hole that would be a composite of other holes but when playing it it would NOT really appear as a combination of parts (other holes).

"Courses within a single course" (that don't appear to be so when playing any hole) have always fascinated me. To me that might be ultimate architecture! Clearly George Thomas thought so!

But to me Forrest Richardson's point is the best (although only historic in context) that the essence of real strategy in golf is not necessarily dependent on the concept of "par", only the fewest shots at the end of the strategic journey!



  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2003, 05:17:46 AM »
TEPaul,

I didn't reference par or GIR in my post. My position on number of strokes was more a statement about my ability to concentrate for a given length of time (distance). Take your less than ideal foursome (slow!) out on the 800 or 900 yard hole and see how interested you are when you finally reach the green. I have trouble staying focused on a short course for 18 holes, let alone some of the brutes being built nowadays!

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

TEPaul

Re: Is a Par 6 a valid golf hole?
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2003, 05:49:38 AM »
JHancock:

I realize you didn't reference par and GIR--I did. It may not be specifically related to the way you look at holes but it certainly is to many.

But I'm not denying what you say about the golfers you mention and their lack of concentration. Much of that is the reason I think that difference in golf and architecture is a good thing and keep I saying;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone".

However, one of the ongoing inherent problems with golf and its architecture, I'm sure, is that almost every golfer tends to look at all of it only in the context of their own game.

As much as some architects might like to try to create things for all levels of golfers (the "Ideal"?!) that will never really happen. There're just too many levels of golfers to do that completely and although golf and its architecture is adaptable to a remarkable extent it can never be that adaptable.

I don't mean in any way to sound callous about this because frankly this remark is not mine but that of other "Golden Age" thinkers but on the subject of golfers of much lesser quality essentially they all agreed by saying something like this;

"It's not necessary to design the clever problems and solutions of great architecture for golfers who have real problems with their games. Their own games are problems enough (and the solutions are not the purview of the architect but that of the professional golf instructor)!"

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »