[Ted Kramer]

Which types of holes (par3's, 4's, or 5's) do you think best define an architect's style?

Which do you think are toughest to build in a truly great fashion?

And for the GCAs out there . . .which are your favorites to build?

-Ted

[Tom_Doak]

Ted:

I think that question depends in large part on which architect you're talking about.

Tillinghast said he was particularly enamored with his par-3 holes, although to me, the par-4's were his strong suit.  What I remember most about Flynn's courses in Philadelphia are the outrageously good sets of par-3 holes.  MacKenzie was good at all of them, when you think about it; he has several candidates for the best par-3 and best par-5 in the world, and I love his par-4's.

I think I'm more of a par-4 guy myself.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

TD,
Could you elaborate on those "best of "Dr mac holes, I think we would find your opinion interesting..thanks

[Jeff_Mingay]

I'm not that familiar with Flynn's works in Phila., but it seems to me, those architects with an awesome inventory of par 3 holes (Stanley Thompson for example), were very good at utilizing the very best natural sites for those holes. Thompson claimed to identify those sites first, then route the remaining holes around the par 3s.

I think a majority of golf architects, past and present, would agree that par 5s are probably the most difficult holes to make really interesting.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()