Slash Holes

[JNagle]

Just wondering how many others are playing slash holes at their clubs (par 4/5).  We were involved with a couple over the years (Rolling Green and Hole in the Wall).  Thoughts, good or bad!

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Hate 'em.

That kind of ambivalence is frankly annoying.   They should simply call it either a tough four or an easy five, because half par holes ARE fun, once someone makes up their mind in what they want it to be.

Making the high number on a slash hole is like kissing your sister.   You can pretend it's a par, but it's really not.  

[Kyle Harris]

What's the difference?

You got a tee, a hole and some yards in between.

Figure it out!

[JNagle]

Mike, that is our sentiment.  Make it an all out tough four.  Move the others tees up a little more and call it a medium four for those that it would otherwise be overly difficult.

Kyle,

That would be great until you involve golfers!!!

[Mike Cirba]

Kyle,

Think of 8 at Torresdale-Frankford.

Par is part of the game and it affects decisionmaking and strategy, no matter how illogical.

[mike_malone]

 It might be helpful to figure out why they had the slash in the first place. I can think of two reasons that would make sense. 1) the wind direction is a factor. If the wind is at your back it would make sense to play some holes as 4's that day. #7 at Rolling Green is a straight hole so this could make sense. #17 and #18 ,however, are doglegs so this would not make sense. The other thing is the time of the year. In the wet spring a hole is a 5, in the dry fall a 4.

    More importantly, I would evaluate the entire hole to see if there were features that say the hole is a three shot hole for the great majority of players or not. For instance, are there doglegs in the landing area that leave long approaches for a second shot? Are there topographical things like the fairway canted away from the ideal line of play(#18 RG) or mounds or significant deflecting ground just by the green that hurt long ground approaches (#7 RG)? Are there issues at the green like a small or highly contoured green that favors short shots? Are there trees that pinch the approach  to the green( #18 RG) ?

   This is why I think a " three shot hole" is more of a term to use about these slash holes rather than deciding on par.


   If the designation of par for the hole changes the handicapping then I can see some reason to care, but I don't believe that is an issue for these half par holes UNLESS you change the distance.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

The worst part about slash holes is they beget slash courses! 

[mike_malone]

 #8 at T/F has been moved back from its original intent. It was originally a very interesting par 4 with blind water behind it.

[Kevin Pallier]

Can someone please elaborate for me the concept as it's not a common theme 'down under' ?

You saying you change the Par of the hole depending on the tee ?

I believe Newcastle GC is one that uses it depending on the competition but not too many others that I am aware of.

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   I rarely disagree much with what you say, but , obviously, the whole idea of a slash hole is that "par" is hard to figure. So, on these holes I think it has less impact on a player's thinking. If you expect to birdie that short par five you really see 4 as the par anyway.  It really only matters when you are playing "junk" in my mind.

[Sean_A]

I don't mind the idea at all and think that it can work really well.  There was a hole at my old club, a short par 5.  I wanted the club to call it a par 4 from the medal (back) tees and a par 5 from the daily tees.  This helps to eliminate talk of trying to find extra yardage.  It is so much easier to drop par, but take care of the old boys who may have issues with a 475 par 4 by letting them play a 450 yard par 5.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with this if it keeps people happy.

Woodhall Spa has two of these holes, but they have it wrong by making the back tees par 5s rather than par 4s and the frontish tees par 5s .  I think its actually easier to play to one's handicap from the back tees - its daft.

We have a hole at Burnham, #12, a 400ish yard par 4.  I think there should be a tee built behind the 11th green making the hole a 180ish par 3 as an option - especially in winter.  

BTW - I first read slash hole as a great opportunity to relieve oneself!

Ciao

[Kris Spence]

Jim, at Forsyth CC in Winston Salem NC the 8th hole plays as a 4/5.  Never used the term slash hole but that certainly is fitting.  The original hole was a 4 par with a tee shot over an old barrow pit known as the "Bears Mouth" with an 18' vertical face at about 150-160 off the tee.  It is the most unique tee shot on the course, however, the club had relocated the tees behind the 7th green to stretch the hole into a 5 par during a previous project.  We restored the old angle of the Bears Mouth hole and I recommended removal of the par 5 tees to no avail.  The club just wouldnt go for it.  Dunlop White may have a photo of it, he plays there on occasion and maybe will chime in.

As far as Im concerned, the par 5 option is not an option for me.  Its sort of like picking and choosing which course to play, Im always going to pick the course with greater architectural merit.  I know most on this site would agree but the majority of golfers will take the least path of resistence every time and chose the easier 5 over the ball busting 4.

[Sean_A]

Jim, at Forsyth CC in Winston Salem NC the 8th hole plays as a 4/5.  Never used the term slash hole but that certainly is fitting.  The original hole was a 4 par with a tee shot over an old barrow pit known as the "Bears Mouth" with an 18' vertical face at about 150-160 off the tee.  It is the most unique tee shot on the course, however, the club had relocated the tees behind the 7th green to stretch the hole into a 5 par during a previous project.  We restored the old angle of the Bears Mouth hole and I recommended removal of the par 5 tees to no avail.  The club just wouldnt go for it.  Dunlop White may have a photo of it, he plays there on occasion and maybe will chime in.

As far as Im concerned, the par 5 option is not an option for me.  Its sort of like picking and choosing which course to play, Im always going to pick the course with greater architectural merit.  I know most on this site would agree but the majority of golfers will take the least path of resistence every time and chose the easier 5 over the ball busting 4.

Kris

I would normally take the shortest walk from the previous green unless someone can convince me that going back does something other than add yards.

Ciao

[John Moore II]

The 18th at Mid South was a 4/5 hole. It was supposedly a par 5 for the ladies and 4 for the men. It was ignorant. Very stupid when trying to mark the course as well. They wanted me to call a hazard that you clearly have to play directly across a lateral hazard and I thought that was the most foolish thing I'd ever heard.

There is a hole like that at The Pit too, but a little different. I think its the 6th, plays as a 480ish par 4 from the 'back' tees and a 510 par 5 from the 'one-up' tees (though now they have a newer set of "scratch" tees that have that hole playing like 590 or something)

Slash holes are ignorant.

[Thomas McQuillan]

They don't bother me as long as the the seperate pars are for seperate tees. If they are from the same tees then the club should just decide wht par the hole is. Also, if a 5 is turned into a 4 for proffesionsl tournament play then it is best to have that par for tournament play only and not let it affect how hackers play it.

[Kris Spence]

Sean, the shortest walk from the 7th green is straight up hill to the 5 tees and slightly longer but downhill to the 4 tees.  The original Ross green on the 7th was much closer and at similiar elevation to the 4 tees in Ross' original design.  The 7th green was moved back and up the hill during a late 80's renovation. 

[Adam Russell]

It does seem to give you an escape clause with regards to choosing a path of least resistance. I'd rather see just one number. I do know Chicago Golf Club plays to a Par 74 for the ladies because of some slash holes. The older the club I feel like the easier it is to give a free pass.

[Bill_McBride]

Cuscowilla's 9th and 18th holes both have way back tees that change the holes to par 5 and the scorecard to par 72.  It's a bit easier on the shorter hitters in competition with each other.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Think of 8 at Torresdale-Frankford.

Par is part of the game and it affects decisionmaking and strategy, no matter how illogical.

Good to know I have the scorecard on my side for our matches.

I don't see how 210 yards on a Par 4 is any different than the same 210 yards on a Par 5.

[John Moore II]

Kyle,

Think of 8 at Torresdale-Frankford.

Par is part of the game and it affects decisionmaking and strategy, no matter how illogical.

Good to know I have the scorecard on my side for our matches.

I don't see how 210 yards on a Par 4 is any different than the same 210 yards on a Par 5.

It shouldn't make a difference, but often times it does. Just like Mike said, it might be illogical, but it happens. Par does funny things to my mind, I can't lie. Take #3 at NCSU, the hole I described back in the summer. 550 or something crazy, par 4. I would never go for that green as a par 5, but as a par 4, I felt like I had to go for it, even though it was a really low percentage shot. There are a lot of golfers like that, good ones and bad ones.

[Mark Molyneux]

You know... I thought I'd do something a little different so I went into an old box of scorecards and pulled them one at a time to see how far I'd go before encountering a slash hole. On my seventh draw, I pulled the card from Rancocas, a public RTJ track in South Jersey where #4 plays 370, 405, or 420 from the different tees to a par of 4/5. Thinking back on that hole, it's straight away and generally plays with a little cross wind, if any wind at all. I'm proud to say that my four on the card for that hole isn't circled like a birdie that it wasn't. It's a nice par four but I see NO reason for the slash. I guess it was a tad sexist of me to assume that slash holes gave the men's and women's pars. Maybe that's the intent in some places but it's not like the rating is 70.0 / 71.0.

I like the idea that was proposed earlier that it is what it is... a certain chunk of real estate to be negotiated so don't worry about the par. When I was just starting out, my dad was probably equal parts dogmatic and incorrect. He told me that up to 249 was a par three, 250 to 450 was a par four and above that it was a par 5. Par is not a simple function of distance.

I don't know why the slash but let me start digging again and see how many cards in the first 50 have slash holes. Okay... after 50 cards, Rancocas was the ONLY club with a slash hole so I'm going out on a limb to say, it isn't a common convention. Maybe it's a modern day shorthand to describe the old custon of assigning a par of 3 1/2 to a particularly difficult 238 yard hole?

The only place where slash holes must be defined one way on the other would probably be in a Stableford competition.

[mike_malone]

   It is about more than length for these slash holes. The well designed ones have features throughout the hole that say"three shots".

[John Moore II]

Mark: I don't think 'slash' holes are very common at all. Without going back and looking at all the courses I've played, only one jumps out, and thats the one I've all ready mentioned (well, two counting that odd tee thing at The Pit). I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them right now. These are not everyday occurences.

[JESII]

There are a lot of golfers like that, good ones and bad ones.

They're all like that...even the ones that'll come on here and tell me I'm wrong about them...every one of them.

[Chris Buie]

I could not care less what is considered par on a hole.  I just want the hole to be interesting and hopefully natural looking.  The 4/5 holes do tend to be interesting because there are different ways to play the hole rather than pretty much just one way.  So I am in favor of them - as long as they are designed well.