Par 5s and Par 3s: Less is more?

[TEPaul]

Most all the interesting raw land and raw topography and features I've ever seen can yield some very interesting golf and routings and golf holes---only problem is it almost never seems to completely conform to what most everyone considers to be standard or even appropriate variety and balance for a golf course.

[ForkaB]

John

You are into permutations and combinations.  The question was specifically 5-3-4.

Rich

PS--#2 is 2**, no more, no less.  IMVHO .of course.

[Tom Huckaby]

John

You are into permutations and combinations.  The question was specifically 5-3-4.

Rich

PS--#2 is 2**, no more, no less.  IMVHO .of course.

Sand Hills does go 5-3-4.  And whatever star system one uses, it gets the most.  

[ForkaB]

John

You are into permutations and combinations.  The question was specifically 5-3-4.

Rich

PS--#2 is 2**, no more, no less.  IMVHO .of course.

Sand Hills does go 5-3-4.  And whatever star system one uses, it gets the most.  

OK, Huck, that's two.

BTW--you have been seriously incorrectomundo on some other recent posts.  Raise you game or I'll get the emperor to delete your "signature."

[John Goodman]

John

You are into permutations and combinations.  The question was specifically 5-3-4.

Rich

PS--#2 is 2**, no more, no less.  IMVHO .of course.

True; but I thought you were suggesting that all or almost all great courses finish with multiple par 4s.  My permutations and combinations would be relevant to correct that error, assuming you made it.

P.S.  You may be right about #2, but it goes in as a 3*** for me when considering the courses I've played.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

Well, you asked for two.
As for me being incorrectomundo on recent posts, well... such are what make the rare times you find me correctomundo worth noting, and celebrating.

 

[ed_getka]

John,
   You'll have to drop Fishers from your list as it is now 3-4-4.

[Jordan Wall]

 Never ended with three par-4's in a row, I don't know why not.  Never ended with a par three, because I've never had a client who would let me!

Dont know why I did not think of this before, but one of the greatest courses in the world (well, from most people) ends with three par four's in a row, and that is Pine Valley.  I just found it interesting because I can think of no other course that ends like that.

[Jordan Wall]

I forgot St. Andrews ends with three par four's as well.

There are probably others too...

[John Goodman]

Yep -

Royal Dornoch
Royal Lytham & St Annes
North Berwick
Kingston Heath

I'm sure there are a bunch more . . .

[Kyle Harris]

Good to see some good lists developing here.

What are the trends and similarities in these courses?

Pat Mucci,

I can only think of a handful of non-Par 72 courses built since 1988 that I've played. Whether or not this represents a trend in the market I don't know, but Tom Doak, Forrest Richardson and Robert Trent Jones, Jr. have all lamented the marketing side of the business and the need for Par 72 to "sell the course as a championship course" in their respective books.

I often wonder if the reason for some many weak Par 5s is that there are only so many things one can do with a par 5 design wise.

Also, Par 5s require a large amount of diverse terrain, and their longer nature tends to need more "design" for different players and for different options. Do their large footprints preclude a sub-standard golf hole?

Do par 5s complicate the routing? I think that could be the essential question for this discussion.

[Doug Siebert]

Can anyone provide any information on the phrase 'Level-Fours’?  You read it quite often in the old books but it still has a life and was recently used on Ernie Ell’s web site.   Where does it come from and can it be applied to courses with a par different ot 72?

Surely it all refers back to a par of 72 on the old course?

And Dr Mac ignoring his high praise for TOC, suggested in his famous maxiim’s that there should be a minimum of four one shotter's.  

But TOC has only been par 72 since the early 60s when #17 was changed from par 5 to par 4, isn't that correct?  So surely it is difficult to blame TOC for this.

In another thread about Robert Bruce Harris there was some discussion of his penchant for attaining a 'balanced' scorecard with 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4 on each nine.  Shivas even broke it down further between which ones are long 4s or short 4s or whatever and it did match my own course which is an RBH design, if somewhat atypical of his work in a few other respects.

He was doing this before TV and ANGC could be of any influence, and before TOC was par 72, so this had to come from somewhere else.  I suspect it all leads back to your "level 4s" meme.