[James Bennett]

I have enjoyed reading Hunter's 'The Links', but have not had time to post on any of the threads.  One of his quotes reminded me of a personal favourite course that gets high praise from the Oz members of GCA.  It has helped me to understand some of the course's balance.

Hunter spoke of the perfect course having about 2 three-shot holes, a number of 2-shot holes, including 2 that are at their longest drive and pitch, and 4 par 3's (did he want a short, two mid and one long - I haven't got the book in front of me).  My mind wandered to Woodlands at Mordialloc in Melbourne.  A course I have enjoyed on infrequent visits over the last 35 years, but haven't seen for the last 10.  

The course has a #4 260 yard par 4 (with one bunker only, at about 170 yards), a #3 320 yard par 4, and a #13 300 yard par 4.  It also has a #8 240 yard par 3 and a #11 150 yard par 3.

It has two great three-shot par 5's (#6 and #15) which both have great stratgey, making the green difficult to access for the third if the previous two shots are not up to scratch.

It has a great run of difficult holes from a par perspective, eg from #7 through #16 (albeit with short #13 in there to catch the sleeper).

I used to percieve the other two par 5's to be a weakness of the course (#2 and #18) as they were part of an 'easier' section of the course and not as difficult a 'par'.  However, if they are regarded as par 4.5's, or as long two-shot holes (as per the Hunter view compared to genuine three shot holes) then they provide great balance to the course.  I wonder what damage would occur to the balance of the course if these two holes were lengthened.  I wonder whether the balance of the course might even be improved if the holes were marginally shorter (please treat this comment as one for the purpose of gca debate only - I would not seriously suggest Woodlands do anything to their wonderful course).

So, a balance of 2 (or 3) short par 4's, several long 4's and perhaps a couple of short par 5's, 2 three-shot par 5's and a variety of par 3's (1 short, two mid length and one long).  Hunter's ideal course.  I nominate Woodlands in Melbourne.

[James Bennett]

A personal bump.

To change the emphasis away from an Oz example, perhaps to concentrate more on the '2 three-shot holes per ideal course'.

I have interpreted this as suggesting that two genuine three shotter par 5's per course is a good idea, and that other stong par 4's/reachable par 5's are required.

So many courses have the standard 4 par 5's and 4 par 3's.  But, do the good courses have these 4 par 5's comprising 2 three-shotters and 2 reachable par5's?  Is this a good balance to aim for, assuming the land allows it?

[ed_getka]

 James,
    I'm suprised nobody responded to this thread last year. I really don't think a course has to balanced like you were illustrating with Hunter's ideal course example. Pacific Dunes is a good example I think. If you look at the scorecard you would think this course is going to be very unbalanced and awkward. Then you play it and it flows so beautifully I have never given it another thought.
   I have come to think over the past few years that having 18 interesting holes is more important than worrying about balancing nines and such. Of course the majority of golfers out there may think quite differently.
    See you in a couple of weeks.
   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()