Any idiot can design a par-3 or a par-5--the truly gifted do the great 4's

[ForkaB]

I wrote this on a current thread, and it intrigues me.  It hits at the core of the concept of "level 4's" as well as the routing strategies of the really old and dead guys such as OTM.  It also hits at the seeming obsession of our current golden boys to create "signature" holes which mostly feature green sites, rather than "mid bodies" as Tom Paul so eloquently says (probably dreaming of Missy Leatherbottom......).

Thoughts?

[ForkaB]

Shivas

Great midbodies have an optimal amount of width, which is rarely "significant."  Moriarty should know this....

[BCrosby]

You mean holes that got a lot of junk in the trunk, to paraphrase my son?

Unless my irony detector is misfiring, I don't buy into the premise of this thread. Idiots struggle doing most things, but designing good golf holes they find especially difficult. Regardless of par.

Bob

[ForkaB]

Bobcat

Take your irony detector in for a complete tune-up!

Finding a great green site is trivial.  Working backwards to create a good two-shotter is not.  Adding a 3rd shot ("par"-5) just shows that you do not have the imagination to make a great "4."  At least IMHO.....

RFG

[A_Clay_Man]

rihc- without sounding like the biggest homer on the planet, I must say that one of my initial feelings about Ballyneal is how great the two shotters are.

It's a pretty and interesting place, with a back to back same length hole, yet one is par 4 and the other 5.

[ForkaB]

Adam

Be a homer.

There's no place like home.  Now click your heels and close your eyes....

Rich

[ForkaB]

Come on, red.....

It's just a small leap to admit that par 3's are no-brainers, particularly in this day and age of carts and "find the great hole!" routings.

[TEPaul]

Bobzee:

Pay no mind to Rich on this thread---or redanman for that matter.

As you can see this thread simply exhibits just how muddled their thinking and their posts can get.

I have no idea where Rich thinks he'd going with my hole "mid-body" mention. All I meant to say with that phrase is it's so easy to tell the great old architecture versus much of the new because basically the old architecture dealt with tees and greens and used natural landforms that worked pretty well as they were for hole mid-bodies (not to say there was no bunkering built and such of course) while too many of today's architects just shape the beejeezus out of hole mid-bodies when they probably don't have to particularly if they routed courses using the best landforms on the property for golf.

The coy little secret is there's lots of money to be made in massive earth-moving.  

[ForkaB]

Bobzee:

Pay no mind to Rich on this thread---or redanman for that matter.

As you can see this thread simply exhibits just how muddled their thinking and their posts can get.

I have no idea where Rich thinks he'd going with my hole "mid-body" mention. All I meant to say with that phrase is it's so easy to tell the great old architecture versus much of the new because basically the old architecture dealt with tees and greens and used natural landforms that worked pretty well as they were for hole mid-bodies (not to say there was no bunkering built and such of course) while too many of today's architects just shape the beejeezus out of hole mid-bodies when they probably don't have to particularly if they routed courses using the best landforms on the property for golf.

The coy little secret is there's lots of money to be made in massive earth-moving.  

Tommy

In case you hadn't noticed, we're talking about women, not dirt.

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I agree with you in general.  Lots of people ooh and ahh over the short holes and some over the par-5's, but the majority of holes on any course are the par-4's and if you build a really good and varied set of them, you're well on the way to a great course.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom

A corollary of this theory is that it is REALLY hard to design a distinctive par 3 or 5.  You did good at 17 and 18 at Pacific Dunes, Buckaroo.

[Dan Kelly]

Thanks, Tom

A corollary of this theory is that it is REALLY hard to design a distinctive par 3 or 5.  You did good at 17 and 18 at Pacific Dunes, Buckaroo.

Rich --

Don't you wish Old Tom Morris were still around, and cyber-ready -- so that you could call him "Buckaroo"?

I do.

Dan

[Mark_F]

Harry Colt must have been a complete bozo to design the par threes at Swinley Forest first, then.

Maybe anu idiot can design a great par three.  But to design three of four or five on the same course takes more than idiocy.  

[Mike_Trenham]

On a great site with a lot of movement it seems difficult to find enough land without too much going on to build a great par 5.  It must be even more difficult today with environmental restrictions.

Irronically, I find that one thing Florida courses have going for them is that the par fives are consistently some of the more interesting holes speaking in very generalized terms.