My thoughts:
The par-4.
1. Fitting the shot into the gap is something the average golfer (who can’t break 100) cannot accomplish with regularity. Miss the tee shot some, and you’re laying-up or punching out… even if the gap is made a bit wider than the current 26 wide.
2. If the axiom… “if you are going to lay-up, then lay-up” is honored, few will get their tee shot onto the plateau. I would never try… wouldn’t even entertain the thought as there is no advantage; it’s potential suicide. That means most golfers will have an uneventful lay-up for a tee shot.
3. Unless you hit your shot on the plateau (36 deep… 26 wide), you won’t get a view of the Gorge.
I think the Gorge is the most dramatic vista on the course. Having it invisible on the approach… ?
Not everything has to be visible, but when Mother Nature gives you a gun, isn’t it wise to shoot it? When you have 500HP, isn’t it wise to use it? If you have 500HP moments galore… then restraint is wise.
Whistling Straits is somewhat repetitive with their par-3’s, but Dye used the full 500HP every time he could. At Teeth of the Dog he does the same. Pasatiempo’s 18th. Pebble’s 7th. Is this hole that dramatic? We don’t have the Pacific or Atlantic, or a lake the size of a sea, but we do have some abrupt elevation which fits the Tillinghast theory of using rough ground to bridge holes… and create drama.
4. As one poster noted, the par-4 comes across as forced... as filler. Trying to fill the gap so as to get 18-holes, or worse… 18-holes to the tune of par-72.
5. Women. As a par-4 the hole is virtually unplayable.
Even with the hole 220 yards long, it will be a drive for most, and a lay-up (see Point 1’s axiom). Then most will be faced with a mid-iron or fairway wood from a fairway lie. My bet is most will find the bank or bottom of the 20 foot canyon.
Facts about female golfers: The average women hits it about 110-yards… carry and roll, and their flight pattern is low and doesn’t have tremendous spin. Their average handicap in the US; 36.
The average 21-yeard old female has the physical strength of how old a man? Answer at the bottom of this post.
6. Where is the strategy? The strategy is how far back do you want to lay it up. I find that boooooring. Perhaps I had an overdose of such holes having played a lot in Scandinavia and the Pacific NW and have yet to fully recover.
If the hole were narrow without the Gorge… OK… you would have the chance of going for the green on the recovery, but with the Gorge it’s a punch-out. Not too exciting.
Without the Gorge I would say it’s a better hole, with the Gorge, vastly inferior. We cannot fill the Gorge or soften its banks.
7. Using Mackenzie’s principle about playing a hole from tee to green with a putter? This hole fails that measurement.
Four fir trees have found their fate since the start of this thread, and though it makes the hole appear more roomy, nothing has changed fundamentally. The plateau is still the same small plateau and if you hit it left or right you’re punching for position. The gorge prevents a low recovery to the green. Trying a recovery through the trees, the ball would have the same fate as Wiley Coyote in all those Road Runner cartoons… ssssssssssssssssssssssplat at the bottom of the Gorge.
As a par-3 (65, 120-145, meters for the members; subtract 15 for the carry):
1. You can tee the ball up; perfect lie.
2. You know the exact distance. To carry from the ladies-forward tees, the hole can be as short as 60 meters; the carry… about 40 to 50. This is manageable, and provides a thrilling shot. It would put a medium to short iron into the hands of most ladies; a rarity for women to approach with such a club on any hole. For most male members, the shortest carry would be 105 meters.
3. From where the tee is built and the photo taken, you get the best, most dramatic view. The edges of the canyons overlap one another, allowing you to look right into the mouth of the beast and see its base.
4. Using Mackenzie’s principle about playing a hole from tee to green with a putter? This hole fails that measurement too, but at least golfers have a half-assed chance of getting to the green.
5. Finishing the outward-9 with a par-3 doesn’t even enter the calculation. Nor does the walk. I’d rather play vastly superior holes and have a small trek on occasion, than a short walk and an inferior hole. Please note the words “on occasion”.
6. This is a hole where the golfer can hit a memorable shot. It fits the Mackenzie theory of making holes look tougher than they really are.
ANOTHER OPTION:
It would be a better par-4 with the green on this side of the canyon, so:
1. If someone went long, down the bank of the gorge behind the green, they could recover back to the green.
2. You could hit a running shot though the trees to the (small) green.
3. It would beg people to take a rip at the green… (and we could cut a bunker strategically in the slope of the 26 by 36 area).
4. You would or could follow with the par-3 to the other side of the Gorge.
This exercise shows how tough it is to make the best design decisions from maps and photos. It’s always best to be out in the field.
I’d forgotten to note the hole plays into the prevailing wind.
I’d also neglected to say the land for the par-4 could be sold for housing as “A” lots. Parcels on a hilltop (think Riviera but not quite so high) overlooking 8 holes… generating some 7 figures in income. The course has a few holes with houses buffering… but not many; around the 2nd green, along the short 3rd, behind the 4th tees, behind 11 green, above 8 green (and to the right of 9 tees?). Forget the US standard of residential golf development... houses do not infect the site. It's a core course with some housing at a few if its fringes.
After posting the thread I thought… man… the par-4 looks super in photos. May look good from afar… but to me it is far from good.
Thanks very much to everyone who chimed in.
I’ve kept a daily blog about the project:
http://sandvalleygolf.blogspot.com/65