[TEPaul]

I sure couldn't say who ever built CONSISTENTLY great par 5s but it seems to me most all the par 5s I think are pretty great have really interesting greens in some way. Perhaps that fact falls into Tillinghast's remarks that a par 5 should not serve two masters---in other words should not have a green that's designed to receive a long second shot only one that's designed to require a well executed third shot (he may've referred to the third as a pitch).

On the subject of PVGC's #7---while that hole is a very interesting one in design (basically for most a pretty hard one dimensional two shot distance requirement) and it is a fairly famous hole it is one I feel could be made so much better. That would be to follow the improvements that Crump was apparently in the process of making to it when he died suddenly. The plan was to turn it into a double dogleg and use the "alps" feature that used to exist more prevalently on it. I'm not one to suggest changes to the architecture of a course such as PVGC but all the instructions in precisely how to do it are right there in the archives. On this one hole and for that reason I think they should do it today.   It would definitely make the hole even better than it is now---and frankly it would make the second half of it fit into what was already done in altering the green.

[TEPaul]

One of the most interesting par 5s I've seen recently is the 14th at Sand Hills and for a pretty interesting reason---that being the area within about 150 yards of the green and in is just so good and so well used in creating so many second and third shot options. The green isn't even that complicated but the bunker on it's right works so well with that area of about 150 yards and in. That particular arrangement is about as good in actual mulit-optional playability as I've seen.

Obviously I like Coore and Cresnshaw and I do think they've done a pretty good number of very interesting par 5s but the thing I like about many of their par 5s is that they can be so different from one another in almost every way and still be so interesting to play. Ex---the 18th at Kapulua compared to the 17th at Easthampton---the difference in concept, strategy and playability is basically night and day.

[Mark_Fine]

The hole Wayne posted of Boca is good but Flynn’s replica hole of Pine Valley’s #7 at Cherry Hills’ #17 is even better.  It will be restored in the not too distant future and make up one of the best series of finishing holes out there.  Wish I could make the image larger so you could see it better.  Basically one image is Flynn’s original design, the next is an aerial from 1937, followed by Pine Valley’s #7 and a current view of the hole.  



Mark

[wsmorrison]

I don't know about better, but here's a slightly larger drawing.  It couldn't be much smaller, Mark  

[TEPaul]

That Flynn design in red is very cool. I love the way there's about a 130 yard break in the middle with that little fairway in between. To make that hole make more sense today though the end of the first fairway needs to be adjusted up to around 320 somehow (take the tip tee back, like PV did on #7) so long hitters can hit driver and be in that question zone for a really long dangerous second second to the green. That little mid fairway can work well as a possible option for the others and the short hitter.

[Mark_Fine]

It is better replica of #7.  The first cross bunker will be set about 330 yards from the back tee.  I wish I could make the picture larger??

[wsmorrison]

send it to me, Mark.  I'll post a larger photo--if it doesn't get too pixelated

[wsmorrison]

Actually Mark, it is far from a better replica than Boca Raton #17.  The Cherry Hills hole is a conceptual variation of Pine Valley's 7th.  The green is nearly an island and the interruption between the fairways includes an island fairway.  The 17th at Boca Raton is much closer to a facsimile of 7 at Pine Valley.  The yardage is the same as well.  I think CH 17 is a great hole in its own right.  Glad to hear the fairway interruption is going to be placed in a spot that takes into account the modern game.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I'll send you the picture.  Remember, the green at #7 at Pine Valley is basically an island (surrounded) by sand.  #17 at Cherry Hills is an island surrounded by water.  The cross hazard at Cherry Hills is a bit more forgiving then PV's #7 but is still very dangerous.  It's a pretty darn close replica at least in design intent.  Also as you know, it is important to look at what he built vs. just what he drew on paper.  That is why that old aerial and some old photos we have are so important to the restoration process.  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

I agree, Mark.  The conceptual link is clear between PV 7 and CH 17.

[wsmorrison]

Dave,

Its enough to make me want to puke if I wasn't so busy with something else just now.  I'll puke after 12:20  

Bill V

What about the green is un-Flynn?  You mean in person or on a drawing or photograph?

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Thanks for making that photo larger.  How did you do that?  

Bill,
We have good photos of the #17 green and its original dimensions from 1923.  This will be very helpful with the restoration.

This just shows the true potential of this golf course.  Many other holes have been changed as well over the years.    

When finished it will look great.
Mark

[Mike McGuire]

Iv'e only played a few ...but William Langfords par 5's are fun to play.  Bold undulating fairways and  interesting greens. Two he designed at West Bend have reverse two tiered greens. If the pin is back you have to put your second in a certain spot to have a chance for birdie.

Perhaps Mark Chalfant can elaborate.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne,
Thanks for making that photo larger.  How did you do that?  "

I had my chance to puke.  Now, as for making the photos larger, you need software like Photoshop, which I'm sure you have or Irfanview to change the image size.  I find 800 pixels across is a good size for GCA.  Change the image size, save it, upload it, paste  and voila!  Craig Disher taught me how to do it.  If I can learn anyone can.

[wsmorrison]

If you've got it, flaunt it--Max Biyalistok

[Pat_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think we've identified two par 5's worth replicating, that would be relatively easy to replicate because they're not terrain dependent.

On the other hand, # 18 at NGLA would seem to be terrain dependent.  But, I wonder, would bunkering schemes make that a good hole on flat land where the right side had the luxury of a penal feature, such as water, out-of-bounds, EPA, etc., etc. ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()