[Jim Eder]

I was thinking about the great Severiano Ballesteros and his thoughts that a course can be beneficial to have 6 Par 5s, 6 Par 4s and 6 Par 3s. I was thinking of the possibilities of different pars for different levels of players etc. For example, maybe 2 of the par 5s could be designed as Par 4s for the Championship tees, that long Par 3s could be short Par 4s for higher handicaps.  I think of #4 at Riv as a 3/4. Or would getting par above 72 be too risky for the golfer? That different tees could be utilized to change some of the pars on different days (a la George Thomas at LACC - Course within a course). Is it possible to create 6 great Par 5s on a course? 6 par 3s could help the high handicapper while challenging the champion and possibly lead to more fun on the golf course for the high handicapper. I am intrigued by this idea but is it possible to design a great course with this idea or is it asking too much out of the architect? I guess I am thinking of a course that goes further than what George Thomas had in mind at LACC.

[David_Tepper]

Jim -

I think one of the courses at the Berkshire in England has 6 of each. I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

DT

[Jim Eder]

Yes, I think the Red does.  There are 2 courses there and wonderful. I am thinking of a lot of flexibility. Further down I saw the topic on Brahan and am thinking on that order (though teh reverse is truly ambitious). A lot of flexibility to challenge the greats and offer enjoyment for the daily player.  I have to think more about the Red and think about whether it could be more flexible.  Thanks David!

[Philippe Binette]

I would guess seve like courses like that because it puts pressure off his driving game (especially in the latter years)...

6 par 5 were an erratic drive can be recovered (chip out) and still have a chance for birdie
6 par 3 for his iron game
then 6 par 4 to figure out...

built whatever fits the land is fundamental, forcing par 5s on a site can be a daunting task

[Adam Clayman]

Jim, I've seen plenty of examples (ok at least 2) that have almost exactly what you are saying. The problem, they do what you say, but only for 9 holes. So, it's a nine with 3-3 and 3. At Bayside, here at Lake Mac, the ease of the 5 par holes makes them fun for everyone, and one of them is a par 4 from the way back tees. As you suggest above. It's actually not that much longer a hole, but the back tees are at a lower grade, well below the forward tees. The intimidation of the ravine that must be carried from that angle, and lower grade is in the mind's eye of the player. Where, from above, and to the left, the Blues, whites and forward tees, have this ravine as a right side lateral issue, with much less intimidation because it's easier to carry from an elevated teeing ground.

Here's a look from somewhere in the middle.



Here's the rest of the hole from the extreme left side. In the above pixture this is approx. in line with the right edge of the grassed hill on the left.




The other nine holer was Riverside in Kirtland, New Mexico, where Baxter Spann built a great set of 3,3 and 3 holes, that were arguably the best nine holes on that side of the state.

[Jim Eder]

It is a fair point. Seve mentioned the benefits as: It can save up to 20% of land area, it gives variety, advances in technology have rendered many Par 4s as Driver/wedges, it can promote the use of all the clubs in the bag, it can provide balance and allow for starts on 1 and 10, it can create excellent finishes with a great par 4 followed by a spectacular Par 3 and a par 5 that offers anything from eagle to double like 17 at Valderrama, it offers challenges for pros and allows for amateurs to make more pars (par 5s and par3s are maybe a bit easier for ams in his eyes), and finally the par variability for amateur and pro (lower par for a Pro and higher for the Am).

[Jim Eder]

Adam,

Thanks. Does the design of the green work for the 4 as it would for the 5? That is always a challenge and a balancing act.

Thanks for the examples and the pics. I can imagine it is very hard to get it to 18 and be really terrific.

[Jim Eder]

I just wonder if it is possible to design 6 great Par 5s.  To me the great Par 5 seems to be the most difficult to design so to ask for 6 of them instead of 2-4 might be asking too much. And then to make it a fair long Par 4 as well as a great fair 5 is a lot to ask as well. I do think making a long 3 interchangable with a solid short 4 is more possible.  I think of LA North #7 as an example or maybe even Riv #4 though it wasn't meant to be like LA 7.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jim - Its fairly easy to do. You pretty much answered your own question when you talk of 2 of the 5s being long 4s for the pro's. There is rarely a problem finding 6 short holes, so its more a case of 4 normal par 5 holes and just adding 20 yards to a pai of your long 4s. One of my courses has 5 par 3s and 5 par 5s (two are 496 and 497) we also have a 493 and a 489 but we keep them as a 4 par. Pros play that as a 70 if we have PGA tourneys.

A minus with 6x3s 6x4s & 6x5s is you lose quite a lot of total length, the sum of a 3 and a 5 only equals 2 medium 4s.
A plus is it makes play a bit faster, possibly clipping 15 minutes off a round.

[Jim Eder]

Adrian,

Thank you, great info. Assuming everything else equal (which is probably a big assumption) do you think a flexible 6 n 6 n 6 could be made to be a more exceptional course overall (in strategy etc) vs a more "normal" 4 Par 5, 4 par 3 and 10 Par 4s?

If you don't mind me asking, what is the course you mention? How challenging was it to make teh 5s to be good or great long 4s? I am interested in learning more about it.  Thanks a lot.

[Tom ORourke]

It can be difficult designing a hole to be both a 4 and a 5. I play at a 9 hole course (redesigned by Kelly Blake Moran) and we have a shortish par 5 that becomes a strong par 4 on the back nine. We also have a really strong par 4 that becomes a fairly easy par 5 on the back. I think it can be an issue on where to put the bunkers when very different tees are going to be in play. All of our greens are small so we have learned to live with that. When you have the flexibility you are discussing it can make for an interesting course. One pro once told me that we do not have a 9 hole course, but that we really have a 14 hole course because some of the holes play so differently from front to back. Imagine what you could do with the course described above. To me the only potential problem is the handicapping as you make the holes play longer or shorter. Rolling Green in Philly has an 18th that is a 5 for the members but can play as a 4. Medford Village in southern NJ has a par 5 where the "back" tees are in front of the white tees and plays as a 4 so this has some history as well as merit. I like the idea.

[Jim Eder]

Adrian,

Could the loss of total length actually be a positive in the sense of less land used and potentially lower mainenance costs? I didn't think about the speed of play as well.

I think you are referring to The Players Club (Codrington) Championship course. I am going to check out the flyovers of the holes.  THanks

Tom,

Great point on the handicapping issue.  Is the course you mention the one in Rye? The course you mention sounds very interesting and I think interesting will help the game. In my mind I agree, it seems really hard to design a great 5 that can also play as a great 4.  But I am sure there are guys on this site who have done it.  I want to find those holes and learn from them.  I think of 18 at Pebble which could be a great 4 or 5 or 13 at Augusta.  Or does par really matter? Who cares what I might call it on a scorecard, the hole is what it is and there are many par 4 1/2s out there.  Thanks Tom for making me think more............................

[Mark Chaplin]

The Berkshire Red is a great golf course the only weakness being the par 5s are all short under 520 yards so there are plenty of birdie chances but the 3s are tough enough to take them all back!

[Adam Clayman]

Jim, As is the case of this particular hole, the wind is the deciding factor. Yes, the green works well with either value for par. Since there's a rear kick plate, almost punchbowl effect, and considering the distance differential of really good players to the rest of us, this hole is the poster child for a great 4/5 hole.

BTW, I think it would be hard enough to design one great par 5, let alone 6. I'm partial to Baysides short 5's on this nine. With a good drive, they are easily reachable, and the green undulations keep the player honest, by requiring quality play from the drive on into the hole.

[Jim Eder]

Adam,

Thank you.  It sounds like a great example of what I am thinking of. From the pic it does look like it would be a fair green for a long 4. I hear you on the difficulty of designing one let alone 5 more.........

Mark,

Those 3s on Red are just terrific, I totally agree with you!!

[Tim Gavrich]

If I were called upon (in Dreamland!) to design a golf course and I noticed that the site was smaller or tougher, the par fives would likely be the first holes to be eliminated, all things being equal.  I wouldn't mind a par 69 or 70 course that had six par threes in the slightest--frankly, designing a very varied set of par threes is one surefire way to ensure that every player experiences a good variety of looks and plays a good variety of shots during the round.

When my father and I played Elie--which, as many of you know, consists of 16 par fours and two par threes--a few summers ago, neither of us felt that the golf course suffered in the slightest because of a lack of three-shot holes.

The Country Club of Waterbury (CT) is a par 69 golf course with only one par five, and that hole is only about 510 yards and the tee shot plays about 75 feet downhill.  And the golf course is no worse off for that fact.

I think in order for an architect to pull off a course with six par fives, he/she would have to take tremendous care to ensure that all of them would be sufficiently different.  Two of the Strantz courses I've played--Bulls Bay and True Blue--have five par fives that are sufficiently different as to be a positive contribution to the golf course.

[Sam Morrow]

I liked what Trent Jones II did at Miramont with 3 of each par on the front side. He did the same thing on the backside at Sky Creek Ranch in Keller, outside Ft. Worth. Now that I think about it he did it on the front 9 at Le Triomphe in Louisiana. Ironically I really like all 3 courses.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jim - Yes its the Players Club, orginally 9 and 11 were par 4 holes, they were 481 and 486 yards, we added about 15 and 10 yards and added a bunker at 9 to tighten the drive. The problem we had with them being long par 4 holes was the golfers got pissed off making bogeys, now a 4 is a birdie and they enjoy it. In the real world of golf, people get pleasure making birdies... so in some respects easy 5s and better than tough 4s. The 6x3s 6x4s and 6x5s do give you a chance though you lose a bit a scope with only 6 par 4s to add easy short 4s.

Par 3 holes dont use much land, 140 yards by 35 yards is just 1 acre a par 4 420 yards needs 70 yards width so it needs 6 acres, so yes and increase in par 3 holes does equal less land. I recently laid out an 18 holer on 72 acres, its a bit tight in a few places but the secret is in 7 par 3 holes, take 7 acres off the 72 and 65 acres for 11 does not seem so bad.

Overall I still think the land should dictate, but if you are looking for a fun course, I like Par 70 with 6 short holes 4 par 5 holes and 8 par 4 holes. Par 3 holes allow fun for all, yet are less birdieable for the pro's so you can still keep a strong course yet playable for more, a course with 6 short holes would be about 15 minutes quicker which is never a bad thing.

[Jim Eder]

Learning from these posts I see a lot of advantages from a course like this:
Less Land Use
Lower maintenance? (lower costs?)
Faster play
More enjoyable play and scoring opportunities for the average golf (though higher par may lead to a higher total score though not as much over par - so maybe focus scoring on "How many over par"?)
Remain a challenge for the Pros with 6 Par 3s, 4 risk/reward Par 5s, 2 converted 5s to 4s that are maybe 4 1/2s even for the pro, maybe 2 short risk/reward drivable 4s and 4 solid Par 4s.

A par 72 for the average golfer with 6 par 3s that allow par or birdie ops, 6 par 5s that allow par opportunities, and then the short par 4s for the Pros could have tees up to even give the decent regular golfer a choice of going for it but offer an easy par.

And maybe to have 2 holes that offer the LA North 7 option of playing as a 4 or a 3.

I guess I am trying to take the USGA idea of the drivable 4 which also can be a 2 shot 4 and combine it with George Thomas' "Course within a Course" idea to increase variability and enjoyment and thinking etc.

It seems to me like it would be possible to offer a lot of strategy and a lot of options for both pros and amateurs and allow for faster play, maybe lower cost, more enjoyment for the average guy etc.

It seems like the challenges would be to get the greens right and to design 4 great risk/reward par 5s for the Pro or excellent amateur (as Tim and others point out).

I just wonder if something like this could help grow the game again by offering some possible answers to the challenges the game faces today.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I have a 9-Hole I designed near Zermatt in Switzerland with 3 Par 5’s, 3 Par 4’s and 3 Par 3’s. I found the main difficulty was designing the routing so the balance between the 3 types were maintained. My site had all kinds of restrictions, as a result the Par 5’s were difficult to place, since they require a lot of space. Par 3’s are not usually a problem to position.

As a result we had 2 Par 5’s following each other, however each were very different in their demand, so it didn’t devalue the interest level.

[Jim Eder]

John,

I bet that course is beautiful. Such a wonderful part of the world.

Great point on routing.  And not only dealing with the balance of the types but also fitting it in with the pervailing winds etc.  It sounds like you dealt with that succesfully so it can be done.

Thanks John.

[Adrian_Stiff]

John - I never see a pair of par 5 holes back to back as a minus though I think a pair of par 3 holes are. What about you?

[Jim Eder]

But Cypress Point proves that back to back par 3s can be done.  It is rare to be able to pull it off but Cypress Point gives me hope it is at least possible.....................................

[Mike Viscusi]

John - I never see a pair of par 5 holes back to back as a minus though I think a pair of par 3 holes are. What about you?

Adrian, what specifically don't you like about back-to-back Par 3's?  I think it's kind of a neat concept assuming they are both distinctly different (like Cypress).  What are your thoughts on 10 and 11 at Pac Dunes?

[Adrian_Stiff]

My honest answer is I dont know why I dont like back to have back par 3 holes. I cant give a rational answer other than balance and by the same token I think the course should fit the land so if two holes of 150 yards together are great holes and the best than could be done yep I would put a pair together. I have actually twice had a pair together and on both occasions its been because of land constraints. Perhaps I think others see it as a negative.
I dont personally see PD 10/11 as a flaw. Tom is best to answer how easy it was for him to put two short holes together and if he felt any negativity in doing it.
I quite like CP 15/16. Both 10/10 golf holes, perhaps the two best holes on the course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()