500 yard hole, you can drive

[Mike Bowline]

No doubt which hole will be labelled the ubiquitous"Signature Hole". We can all hope the other 17 will not suffer as a consequence.

Others have mentioned that pace of play is not an issue because this hole falls in the sequence of play as the 18th hole. I do not understand that. If I get to the 18th tee and there are three groups waiting to hit and it slows my round by 30 minutes, why is that any different than encountering the same delay on the 3rd, or 4th or ..... tee?

[Ben Stephens]

GCA

For people who don't understand how steep Gloucestershire is - there is an annual cheese chasing event on a steep hill. So that makes me wonder if the golfer will end up chasing the ball on Adi's spectacular downhill par 5!

http://www.cheese-rolling.co.uk/

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/87961879.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1938A58053233977B67DC1C0DA5E21F154DB01E70F2B3269972

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, that's the kind of crap that destroys the dialogue on this board.  Honestly.  Now, I know you meant it in good fun and all that, but that's the kind of irrelevant, knee-jerk "attack/marginalize the messenger, not the message" drivel that drives people on this board nuts.  And it has the added bonus of making the attacker look like a buffoon.  I know you know better.

The point was that two short shots should not be enough to reach a par 5 in two, and neither should two wild shots.  Discuss THAT, not the putting of some guy 1500 miles from you...

Cmon,

Shiv, it was just a joke!!!  I guess I should have included smileys next time for you sensitive types.   

But lets discuss the idea of short hitters who are crappy ball strikers should never have hope of making an eagle. As one who fits this category more often that not I think I'm qualified to comment on this.

As we know, the best players have good holes and bad ones right?  They make eagles and they make triple bogies.

So what is intrinsically different to a crappy short hitter that they should be able to make triple bogies but never an eagle?  Lets start with the assumption that even short crappy hitters can occasionaly play a a few holes or even an entire round with thier version of an "A" game.  This actually fits me perfect because in my last two outings, I shot a 77 and a 95.  So one must ask, how can this be?  Yes the course I took a bigger number on was tighter....but then again it was also shorter.  But I deviate, if a short crappy hitter should never be able to make eagle even when they are playing well, then I can only assume you are completely and utterly against any and all short par 4s or short par 5s.   

This must be so because in my round of 77, as a short and crappy hitter who was on his A game, I played two par 5s that were 505 and 510 yards respectivly and I was just short of the green in both cases.  This resulted in a chip that lipped out for an eagle and another chip that had a reasonable chance of going in.  So based on me almost making two eagles chips, in the same round no-less, we are only left to conclude that this was only the case because the par 5s were just plain too short!!  But this wasn't the 1st time...I've had at least 10-15 other reasonable eagle opportunites on shortish par 5s over the years including several putts, and my best chance ever was a 10 footer that I lipped out a couple of years back.

But if Shivas ran the golf world all par 4s would be over 350 yards and all par 5s over 550 yards because no short hitter even on thier best day, would ever have hope of reaching or getting anywhere near a green to be in "realisitic" eagle range. Is this what you are advocating Shivas because I'm not sure how else to look at this given the fact that I'm a short, crappy hitter who sometimes hits good to excellent shots.

[Mark_Fine]

A drivable par five makes the concept of par irrelevant.  I'd make sure the hole design makes sense and worry about what the par is later.  

I still stand by the fact that a drivable par five with back up play.  If it is a private club, it is possible their could be some wave up rules but if it is public, forget it.  I can just see groups waiting on a tee for a "par five" green to clear, then taking 15 minutes to play the hole because they have scattered their tee shots all over the place.  

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, that's the kind of crap that destroys the dialogue on this board.  Honestly.  Now, I know you meant it in good fun and all that, but that's the kind of irrelevant, knee-jerk "attack/marginalize the messenger, not the message" drivel that drives people on this board nuts.  And it has the added bonus of making the attacker look like a buffoon.  I know you know better.

The point was that two short shots should not be enough to reach a par 5 in two, and neither should two wild shots.  Discuss THAT, not the putting of some guy 1500 miles from you...

Cmon,

Shiv, it was just a joke!!!  I guess I should have included smileys next time for you sensitive types.   

I'm aware that it was a joke and I'm the last person on this planet you'd call sensitive.  I was just pointing out how paying attention to the person writing the words, rather than the words themselves, can lead to problems.  That's why, lately, I've taken to reading the site on my Blackberry - because I'm too lazy to slide over to the left to see who said what.  It makes it easier to just pay attention to what's said, without regard to who said it.

Shiv,

Thats all fine and good, but I figured in this context of a non-contentious, easy-going thread it would be a fun playful jab.  I would never dare say such on one of the "hard-core" threads!! 

So what do you think about the other parts of my last post...although I think you may have clarified it already.  I think what you "meant to say" was:

"Short drives, or poorly struck balls should never have an opportunity at eagle"...which I agree with whole-heartedly (unless your name is Tiger Woods).  But instead you said short hitters and poor ball strikers should never have an opportunity for eagle, which I couldn't disagree with more.

Kalen

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont think that it will create a slow play issue any more than a traditional par 5 where you wait to play your second. Mark F made a good point, forget par, the fact it will be a 5 on the card just adds the fun. As a hole it will play as a 4 and quite an easy 4, under dry conditions balls will make the green but they wont be pitching on or causing any H & S issue, the ball could roll the last 200 yards, there is a point at 350 where golfers go out of view but you wont pitch the ball there so safety is ok, the worst that could happen is you will be putting and a ball will trundle onto the green.
Ben you are not far away with your cheese rolling although this is not as steep as say Painswick 1st backwards, although there is a point from about 335-435 ish where it is I dont think a ball will stay unless its very damp.

[Anthony Gray]

 A down hill 500 yard par 4 is not a problem. Nothing says a par 4 has to be reached in two by every player.

  Anthony

[Adrian_Stiff]

DS - You argument with this hole wont apply..a short crappy hitter will reach the hole in two shots under dry conditions and under those conditions your bigboys will green it in one shot. When its damp an SCH will reach in 3 shots and BB will take 2 shots..problem solved, just forget about the par, this hole gifts everybody one.

[Adrian_Stiff]

So a hole can be mickey mouse because of a number?

[Ben Stephens]

Adrian,

It depends on how you have designed it - if you can do a sketch plan of the hole and scan it (if you have a scanner) Then it will answer a lot of questions being asked on this thread. Also The 15th at Augusta used to be 500 yards the last part downhill - Tiger used to hit it almost 400 yards when they had the old Choccy drops mounding!! the shape of the green and location of the pond made it a bit more difficult. Depending on the lie of the land - a wide green and narrow front to back should make it more interesting and valid par 5 if it was a long par 4 ideally it should be like the 1st green at Oakmont a long front to back green. Also the fairway could be S shaped wide fairway with hazards almost breaching the direct line to the green which makes it a par 5.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Ben

[Sean_A]

Shivas

The quality of a hole is in no way related to the par designation.  The par system is a way to keep score that has been blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION to the point of archies trying to design par 72 courses as "standard".  Its one of the most mind numbing concepts I can think of.  If Adrian's hole is a good one as a par 4, it is a good one as a par 5.  Par of a hole is a number, the quality of a hole is in the ground.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben- Its nothing like that, its pretty much just straight down a hill. 100 metres of fall, probably half is in the first 330 then a quick drop over the next 125, the green area woud be pretty flat, trees both sides of the fairway with a 70-80 yard width for the first 300 then it narrows before widening again. From the tee, the first 350 is visible then the green, from about 250 out you see the green and most of the fairway to the right. I am really just using the land thats there until I get to the green area. My scanner is in a box somewhere!!!
DSc- The hole is just there, it just happens to be 500+ yards. I think making it a 5 will get press and attract visitors, that may be tabboo in a purist world but the commercial idea is to make something attractive, in the tabboo world you dont need a par anyway.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Shivas- Whist I can see your point about excellence and golfing utopia, the same could be true about any 'chopper' (cant say I like this term) who holes in one... its lucky and not a true eagle. Holes of 255 yards par 4 where lets say anyone can make a two may not be great par 4 holes but by number definition they are long enough to be credited with being a par 4. This one is the same and is a legal 5, it is not a bendy dogleg thats 305 yards as a direct route. It will be strange but I suspect the big majority will want it 505 yards par 5 and not 505 yards par 4. Its that three letter word again FUN.

[archie_struthers]

 


Adrian ....it's really not fun to bastardize the quality of the golf design just to make a point....why it's not a good par five ought to be painfully obvious , if you expect eople to  drive it , it's not a good par five

golf can be fun without making it so easy that par becomes irrevelent , although wind and other conditions often make this the case ...particularly across the pond....this being said there aren't any drivable par fives , even downwind at any real golf course that I know or have heard of  !

make it good and make it a four....better yet , make it a drivable par four if you want some excitement and fun

[Adrian_Stiff]

Archie- Is the design of the hole so bad just because of the par number. Par is irrelevant surely, if this hole is so downhill that you can get on it, let it be. If the powers that be want it a par 4 I am sure thats what will happen, the hole is as is. I suspect though the pubic will like it a 5.
I think people will talk about the course and say how did you get on on the last hole that comes down the hill.

[Ben Stephens]

Adi,

I have done a quick sketch for you - my version of your downhill 'ski jump' or 'cheese rolling' hole.





As you indicated that the fairway will be wide - I believe that the direct line to the green should be the hardest and the longest route the easiest as shown by the 2 red lines. I believe that a short back to front wide green would justify it being a par 5 as it would be harder to stop the ball on the green off a downhill lie. There is a run off area back left of the green and a long narrow bunker back right to collect the wild slices. There is a bunker 40 yards short of the green to catch the wayward lay up shot.

Precedents that I have played - the opening tee shot and 11th hole at Port Royal in Bermuda and the 3rd Hole on the Montgomerie course (formerly 2nd hole of the old Wentwood Hills course) at the Celtic Manor

Cheers

Ben

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben - Its not a bad try but the hole is there already really, its only in the last 100 yards I can do anything. The idea is great but there can be no central bunker. You have got the main slopes in the right place, the fairway narrows at 350 to 380 quite tight (say 20 yds) after that there is the same width.

[Ben Stephens]

Adi,

Thanks for your comments - from what you are saying the fairway shape on plan almost looks like a sand timer with a bottleneck at 350/380 yards.

The 'last 100 yards' - does that mean you can do anything like new green, new bunkers mounding etc. Is this a completely new course or are you improving an existing course? If so is this hole being extended to a par 5?

Cheers

Ben

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben - I need to get the green infront of where the clubhouse is going, so those things are setted really. I have not considered the green shape too much at this stage as I am still sketching route plans, but if this hole came off then... under the nose of the clubhouse and I think large and interesting would be obvious.

[Ben Stephens]

Adi,

It almost echoes the 18th at Gleneagles (Kings) a downhill par 5 with a large green near the clubhouse where Terry Wogan did a 100 plus footer on TV! One of the best putts Ive seen! LOL that green was shared with 18th on Queens now split into 2 greens

Ben

[Sean_A]

Shivas

The quality of a hole is in no way related to the par designation.  The par system is a way to keep score that has been blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION to the point of archies trying to design par 72 courses as "standard".  Its one of the most mind numbing concepts I can think of.  If Adrian's hole is a good one as a par 4, it is a good one as a par 5.  Par of a hole is a number, the quality of a hole is in the ground.

Ciao

Sean, that's all well and good and it makes for an excellent, though oft-repeated thought around here.

Nevertheless, the most mind numbing thing I can think of is to call a hole a par 5 just so chops can make a 3 and claim to have achieved excellence even though they haven't done anything special.  Grade inflation has done wonders for our school systems, hasn't it?    This is grade inflation for golfers and it will have the same impact on design.  One day, you're giving little Johnny a B for being illiterate and then next day you're telling him he made eagle on a par 5 for effectively carrying the ball 375 yards or whatever with two shots. 

Far & Sure.  Always has been, always should be.

Shivas

I don't focus on the name earned for score.  I first focus on winning the hole no matter what the score and second, I focus on the score achieved.  You are too hung up with with stuff that doesn't matter.  Besides, what is the harm in inflating some poor chap's ego with an easy whatever hole once in a while?  There are sure plenty of instances where guys get beat up before they even tee off.  Live and let live my friend.

Ciao

[Gary Slatter]

I remember playing in a corp outing in Hawaii and we were on a par five green putting when a ball went bounding past - it was Bobby Wilson's drive!
Can't remember the course or the hole, so maybe it wasn't such a good idea to have a driveable par five.  I do recall it had a bend to the left just before the green.

[archie_struthers]

 


Adrian ....why the insistence on making it a five ....no matter what the yardage...if a proficient player can expect to reach it in two...and sometimes one ...it doesn't pass the sniff test...as much as we like to speak in platitudes ....do you really want to measure a golfer by height >>>

[Adrian_Stiff]

Archie its easy to grin where your putts go in and you think you got that goff course beat but the man that can smile is when you drive half a mile then four putt for a par at the 18th.......

[Tags:]

Tags: