Kevin, something has to be done about 7. Why not add a Great Hazard? It's Tillie's most famous and celebrated contribution to strategic design templates. They can't have people teeing off blind on 7 with a driver. And you;re not necessarily "in the clear" once you play down to the bottom, you still have to execute a heroic shot.
Not every hazard has to be an exact copy or do exactly the same hing on every course - sometimes you can position the hazard to do other things. Saying a Great Hazard isn't Great Hazard" simply because it's not positioned in exactly the same place every time is misguided. We have two shot redans don't we? we have biarritz greens on par-fours don't we? We have reverse redans and reverse road holes and Principal's Nose bunkers on all sorts of different holes and places. It's the variety in the use of the templates and other arrows in the quiver that gives courses character.
Jay,
I agree that we don't need exact copies, and that people often get hung up on those things here. The examples you mentioned (e.g. biarritz green on par 4) are things I agree with. But, in each of those examples, the features still maintained some similar playing characteristics. Whether a redan-like hole plays left-to-right or right-to-left doesn't change the shotmaking element (i.e. using the slopes to navigate around a hazard on one side).
For example, a derivative of the "Great Hazard" on a par 4 could be a large cross hazard shortly before the green, whereby you could not reach the green unless you were bold off the tee. That type of derivative would represent some of the shotmaking demands from the "template."
However, the proposal you suggested simply doesn't bear any semblance to the strategy that was intended in Tillinghast's Great Hazard contribution to GCA.
http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/The_Great_Hazard.htmlIn none of the examples on the Tillinghast site would the Great Hazard be used to take Driver out of the player's hands. I just think Great Hazard means more than "Big Cross Hazard." Without the strategic element, it's just a big hazard. In a way, it would be like having a redan-like sloped green, but without any hazard to negotiate.
I'm not saying your solution is the wrong solution to Paramount's particular problem, as it would be an aesthetic way of addressing the potential liability concerns of the road. But to label it as an example of Tillinghast's "Great Hazard" would actually represent the opposite of what Tillinghast intended (to demand two formidable shots to clear the hazard in order to reach a Par 5 in three).
You said something needs to be done with the 7th at Paramount. But, I think part of the reason people feel that way is because there is a Par 5 which currently forbids people from hitting driver off the tee (by local rule). All your suggested solution does is apply the same restriction via a penal disincentive. In either case, the restriction of options from the tee is less than optimal.
I wish I had a better solution which would allow the hole to be played freely, but I really don't (short of the unlikely implementation of a traffic-control device). If the only feasible solution is to take driver out of the players' hands, then your solution may be neat, but I think it would mostly be cosmetic.
***********************
Having said all the above, I hope you don't feel attacked by my comments. Overall, I have always liked your articles and writing style, and this piece was no exception. I hope we can have a reasonable difference of opinions of what constitutes the intent of "template" holes.
I think Brian & Jim have been doing a great job out at Paramount (it was a remarkable discovery last year). Like you, I was struck by the overall culture of the club, which is very relaxed and family-friendly. When I visited last year, the one thing that struck me was how much the club was actually being utilized on a Sunday afternoon (both golf & non-golf). It's clear that management is doing something very right at Paramount.