Best worst case scenario - starting holes

[Philip Spogard]

What would be the worst starting hole;
a 110 meter par 3 or a 250 meter par 4? (both relatively flat for the sake of argument)

My opinion is that the par 3 is usually a bad start whereas the par 4 warms you up gently. I believe that a short hole (110m) would probably play pretty easy and quickly, though. The short par 4  would probably play slowly since some might want to go for the green.

For a good starting hole to be a short par 4, shouldn't it at least be unreachable for long hitters in the drive?

Does anyone have good/bad examples of both?

It has probably been debated a lot on the forum allready.  

[ForkaB]

I'm very partial to short and driveable "par"-4's.  If you have 10 minute starting times there is no excuse for a 4-ball not completing the hole in the proper allotment, particularly if they have to wait for the previous group to clear the green before driving.

That full 10 minute wait, along with the temptation of going for the green, really adds a deliciious edge to the start of a round, particularly if it is in a competition.  Brora has always been a great example (punctuated by that little whistle from the starter at the clubhouse that tells you when it is your time to go), and Dornoch is getting to be one now that more and more people can seriously attempt the 333 yards necessary to reach the green.

[Sean_A]

Rich

My home club has a driveable par 4 opening hole.  Most of the single digit players wait for the green to clear before teeing off.  It works well. Often the old humpty backs complain that players are not teeing off when the fairway is clear.  These are the same people that complain when a group is a hole behind.  Try explaining to some of these guys that if a group tees off a hole behind (which is excellent spacing for maximum enjoyment) then they should finish a hole behind.  If not, somebody should be playing through somewhere, but that is another issue.

Having a par 3 opening hole effectively creates the same desirable gap between groups, especially if the par 3 is a toughun a la West Cornwall.

I often thought it is best not to have tee times, but tee slots.  First, second, third etc. off with approximately 10 minutes between each time, but in reality a hole between times.  Of course, the roll up and play system is easily the best for a private course.  Tee times on private courses is silly.  If a private club has that many members which necessitate tee times, then they have too many members.  


Ciao

Sean

[Philip Spogard]

But don't you need at least 10 minutes between each group teeing out for the short par 4 to work well. Many clubs have groups going out every 7-8 minutes. Is it not a problem then?

[Craig_Rokke]

One of, if not the, worst opening holes I've seen is #1 at Mt Airy. This is the typical scenario:

Wait 1/2 hour @ first tee for chance to go off, giving you plenty of time to survey a 520 (fr whites) steeply uphill, par 5. Note that golfers up the hill are "circling the wagons", obviously trying to get a look at what is at the top off a blind, long, 2nd shot.

Finally go off. Hit that blind 2nd shot. When you get to your ball,  
you are thankful it didn't go into the large pond at the top off the hill.
(Or maybe it did?)

The 3rd shot, for some, plays over the pond to the green. The rest... well put another ball in play... on this double dog leg par 5, which plays like 600 yards from the whites.

By the time this death-march of a hole's over, on a busy day (although the hotel is NLE, so maybe things have improved), you already are an hour past your tee time, at least someone in your group has probably lost a ball, and you're muttering under your breath that this course sucks...

The course isn''t all that bad, just the first hole.

[Philip Spogard]

Craig,

Now that sounds like a hole I am glad I haven't played!

Who is the architect of that "gem"?

[Craig_Rokke]

Hal Purdy!

[Andy Troeger]

Craig,
  Just curious, when did you play Mt. Airy? The only time I was there (April 2004) the nines had been switched from what you describe and that hole had become the 10th (probably for the reasons you describe...its the worst hole on the course and a tough start).
  For the benefit of everybody else, now (or then) #1 is a downhill par four of maybe 350-380. However with that switch the 18th is a pretty weak finish. You can try to go at the green over some trees (short par four) or play out to the right around the green. The entrance road is immediately left of the trees and green. It kind of looks like they ran out of room with that hole.

[Craig_Rokke]

Andy-
I've played it twice, but not for about 5 years. Did not know they moved things around, but a good decision if they did.

[Andy Troeger]

Craig,
  I'm guessing it might have had something to do with their clubhouse burning down. They might have decided to make some changes in conjunction with that. I don't know if they've rebuilt since I was there or not.
  It was a good decision, and other than those couple of holes I really enjoyed the course. There's a reason they call it MT. Airy  The only bad thing about that switch is that the front is the better nine I thought and would make for a better finish. They might have been better served making 10 some kind of par four and going to par 71...there would need to be a lot of earth moved to fix it as is I would think.

[Craig_Rokke]

Andy-

I see you're out in Indiana. Hope you didn't make a special trip to play Pocono golf's finest At least I have an excuse, with the in laws being in the neighborhood!

[Andy Troeger]

Craig,
  No special trip, my grandparents used to live down there as well. I've played a few gems in that area, but I honestly enjoyed Mt. Airy. Its a far cry from Indiana terrain, and I hopped on as a single and played in a couple hours on a weekday morning. I wouldn't make another special trip, but it was fun anyway

[Tags:]

Tags: