Would a different approach to hole lengths make for a better course?

[Jason Topp]

As Jason alludes, its not just length, as depending on uphill, downhill, wind, up/down slope of LZ, etc. you might have a situation where consecutive holes with 25 yard length differences actually play with the same approach club due to those factors.  I actually try to estimate those things with what I call "effective length", but they are just estimates.  

....

Even so, I start with similar 20-30 yard splits on my holes, with my starting routing more traditional par 72, 4-10-4 and the par 4 yardages at back tee yards of 340-360-380-400-420-440-440-460-480-500.  Par 3 can split 130-160-190-220 or so. Of course, this perfect balance is only attainable on flat land, and the more the land rolls, the more variance I expect.  That said, its not really as hard to vary the hole lengths to taste on gently rolling ground as some here may think.  Push a tee a little up the hill, or move a green a little down or up, etc.  Its often about the same hole in a variety of locations that are similar.

Thanks Jeff, your estimate of effective length is consistent with how I think this would actually be applied along with taking advantage of antything remarkable about the location.  Do you think your courses would improve if you filled the gap between 220 and 340?  I find those holes fun, even though the concept of par gets very much blurred on them.

[PCCraig]

Of course, this perfect balance is only attainable on flat land, and the more the land rolls, the more variance I expect.  That said, its not really as hard to vary the hole lengths to taste on gently rolling ground as some here may think.  Push a tee a little up the hill, or move a green a little down or up, etc.  Its often about the same hole in a variety of locations that are similar.

While not the "perfect" balance being sought. My home course (noted in the 2nd or 3rd post) was routed in it's current state by ~1923 on a roughly 90-95 acre property. Getting as much as the original architects did out of the property in terms of variations in hole lengths while working around a large ravine running through the center is either an example of a great routing or just pure luck!

[Josh Tarble]

I thought that Streamsong Red did a very nice job of this concept...perhaps could have used a couple less holes in the "middle" yardages and more on the extremes.  But none the less, their seemed to be a nice spacing in the yardages of holes, especially the 4s.

It was also pretty interesting that C&C decided to go with several ball-buster par 4s and make the par 5s very "gettable."  I also thought that the shortest par 4 on the course was one of the hardest.

[Thomas Dai]

Reading this splendid and most interesting thread I've been wondering if different design/mowing practices would make for a more even course?

For example -

1) has any course or prolonged stretch of holes been quite deliberately crafted so that the landing areas for shorter hitters tee shots - say in the 130-230 yard range - land on slight downslopes and therefore roll forwards while the landing areas for the longer hitters - say in the 260-330 yard range - are on minor upslopes thus eliminating roll? If so, is it effective?

2) is there any course that deliberately mows the fairways in such a way that the landing areas for shorter hitters tee shots - say in the 150-230 yard range - land on shorter grass and therefore roll forwards while the landing area for longer hitters - say in the 260-330 yard range - has higher length fairway grass to eliminating roll? If so, is it effective?

I realise there are various implications with the above, but I'm just curious to know to what extent this kind of approach has or hasn't been tried.

All the best.

[Ed Homsey]

This is a fascinating thread that, for me, highlights the complexity that I associate with GCA.  It is a topic that, from my observation, has a long history.  I am looking at an article titled "The Constituents of a Good Course" written and published by Walter Travis in the May 1909 issue of The American Golfer.  In it, he offers the following guidelines for distances that he would use "if I had a free hand in the laying-out of a course":  2 short holes 100-160 yards; 2 long-short holes 190-215 yards; 2 holes 260-310 yards; 2 holes 320-340 yards; 3 holes 350-390 yards; 4 holes 400-440 yards, 1 hole 450-480 yards, and 2 holes 500-540 yards.  Travis goes on to discuss variations on these distances, depending upon topography, etc.  He stresses consideration of sequence of holes, e.g. having a good opening hole not too long, but one that demands good play, as in case of a halved match, the first hole is very important."  He discusses in more detail, other factors that needs to be considered. 



www.travissociety.com

[Tom_Doak]

This is a fascinating thread that, for me, highlights the complexity that I associate with GCA.  It is a topic that, from my observation, has a long history.  I am looking at an article titled "The Constituents of a Good Course" written and published by Walter Travis in the May 1909 issue of The American Golfer.  In it, he offers the following guidelines for distances that he would use "if I had a free hand in the laying-out of a course":  2 short holes 100-160 yards; 2 long-short holes 190-215 yards; 2 holes 260-310 yards; 2 holes 320-340 yards; 3 holes 350-390 yards; 4 holes 400-440 yards, 1 hole 450-480 yards, and 2 holes 500-540 yards.  Travis goes on to discuss variations on these distances, depending upon topography, etc.  He stresses consideration of sequence of holes, e.g. having a good opening hole not too long, but one that demands good play, as in case of a halved match, the first hole is very important."  He discusses in more detail, other factors that needs to be considered. 

www.travissociety.com

By contrast, I generally avoid these sorts of "ideal theoretical" discussions, because I think they are only relevant for flat sites.  When I have a good site to work with, I'm happy to throw out ALL of these considerations, and just try to find the best set of golf holes I can that uses the cool features of that site.

[Sure, there is some consideration for not having four 402-yard holes in a row, but only some.  If those were really the four best holes on the property, and they all had to be exactly 402 yards in order to exist, that's what I'd build.]

[Tom_Doak]

I'm just thinking maybe I shouldn't avoid those lengths after all, even though I know hardly anyone will like the 250-yard par-3's.

I'm thinking if anyone can get away with it, you can!  How about just building an awesome 250 yard hole and not putting a "par" on it?  I honestly think we could do with a lot more par 3 1/2's, whatever you call 'em (most would obviously feel better about them being called 4s).  Frankly anything that helps get a larger dispersion away from a monotonous serious of 380-420 yard holes, in both directions, is a positive IMO.

My most recent attempts at this are the 16th at Streamsong (Blue) and the 5th at Dismal River. 

At Streamsong I tried to make the hole a par-4 for women and a 3 for rmen, because the only place for a women's tee was a place of really poor visibility, and I thought a 210-yard par-4 would be a neat change for them ... that's why there are bunkers 50-80 yards short of the green on a 250-yard hole.  But, when I played last week, they had the tee markers right down in the lowest area, on some short grass we hadn't intended to be a tee.  It is hard to change people's expectations!

[Sean_A]

I guess I am more interested in less holes around the 500+ mark and more holes in the 100-150 and 440-490 mark.  I could care less if I ever saw another 500 yarder again.  But this is purely personal opinion.  That said, I think for most golfers 500+ yards is a waste of space.  I would definitely lean more toward GJ's model, but eliminate the two longest holes and add a shorty plus a 440ish hole.  There isn't much point in trying to cater to the smash mouth market with 6500 or even 7000 yards so we may as well drop down much more toward 6000 yards and less par (69ish).

Ciao

Sean:

I understand your view here, as it's basically what I've tried to do on most of my courses over the years -- which I learned from imitating Alister MacKenzie's courses and Pete Dye's courses.

But, you are really discriminating here by playing with the yardages.  That's what architects have always done when laying out their "ideal" course.  You've made a judgment that the 440- to 490-yard holes are most interesting, which is based on certain players' ability level [sounds like you anticipate 260-yard tee shots, leaving 180- to 230-yard approaches] and your belief that those lengths yield more interesting second shots.

The problem is, thanks to the lack of equipment regulation, any such number has always been a moving target, that winds up making life easy for the guys who hit it farther, and making life hard for the guys who hit it shorter.  If the longest hole is 490 yards, then the guys who hit it 330 won't be seeing many taxing approaches, will they?  I know there aren't many who hit it 330, but the other end of the scale is equally true, the guys who hit it 230 are always just out of range on those holes you favor.

Really we are arguing the wrong end of the scale.  The holes that have been eliminated from most architects' vocabulary over the years are the 230- to 310-yard holes, which are either deemed too long to be par-3's or awkwardly short to be par-4's.  I've generally avoided those lengths myself; I would guess that in thirty courses I've only built ten holes of that length.  But they include five of the best short par-4's I've ever built:

12th at Barnbougle - 270 yards
 2nd at St. Andrews Beach - 270 yards
 4th at Barnbougle - 297 yards
14th at St. Andrews Beach - 300 yards
 6th at Pacific Dunes - 310 yards

I'm just thinking maybe I shouldn't avoid those lengths after all, even though I know hardly anyone will like the 250-yard par-3's.

Tom

I don't really like the 450ish range too much because its a tough hole for me, but I admire a well designed one because I don't tend to care for them.  One part of my position is rooted in the concept that really good 500+ yarders are just too rare and when some good ones are built they are too tough for Joe 18.  450 or 500 is still a three-shotter for most people so why bother with the extra yardage unless one is quite concerned about smash mouth golf?  A second part of my position is length won't solve the issue of distance.  We have seen how added length creates a larger gap between the elite and everyday player.  Multiple tees often don't work and its an expensive proposition.  The lesser of two evils is to bifurcate par; meaning adjust expert expectations to more like 68/69ish and increase handicap expectations once and for all away from par more toward the old bogey system (say 75-78).  Its not perfect, but it sure beats 7000, 7500 and now talk of 8000 yard courses being built to accommodate a small percentage of golfers.  I don't mind the 230-310 length of hole you talk about - I would like to see more because that is the exact length that can easily be manipulated for par/bogey purposes and I think golfers generally like short par (bogey) 4s.  The flat belly too can have his smash mouth opportunity.  

Ciao      

[Jason Topp]

We Ko Pa Saguaro was the course I thought of when trying to come up with a modern real life example of a course that does this.  I did not look at its scorecard with the original post but looked it up as the discussion developed.  

Its hole length distribution is interesting because, it has a number of holes in the short par four range and a gap in the range of 220-300 and between 320-370  from the 6600 yard tees (260-330 and 340-400 from the back tees):

From 6600 yards (rounded numbers):

Par 3's: 130, 160, 190, 220
4's: 300, 300, 320, 320, 370, 380, 410, 440, 460, 490
5's: 500, 530, 610

The back tees are pretty similar with 20-30 yards added on most holes.

I find the batch at 300-320 yards a drawback although a nice change from a "standard" course.  I wound up playing them as a layup-pitch for the most part because they were out of reach off the tee and therefore there was not a lot of incentive to gamble.  I think the course would be improved if the lengths of those holes were spread out giving different players difficult decisions on different holes.  Perhaps for this reason, I found this course to be very enjoyable from the back tees even though the total yardage is longer than what I typically enjoy.

One drawback to my suggestion of filling the gaps - -With such changes I could imagine pace of play being a disaster on a crowded day as different groups wait for the green to clear on different tees.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Reading this splendid and most interesting thread I've been wondering if different design/mowing practices would make for a more even course?

For example -

1) has any course or prolonged stretch of holes been quite deliberately crafted so that the landing areas for shorter hitters tee shots - say in the 130-230 yard range - land on slight downslopes and therefore roll forwards while the landing areas for the longer hitters - say in the 260-330 yard range - are on minor upslopes thus eliminating roll? If so, is it effective?

2) is there any course that deliberately mows the fairways in such a way that the landing areas for shorter hitters tee shots - say in the 150-230 yard range - land on shorter grass and therefore roll forwards while the landing area for longer hitters - say in the 260-330 yard range - has higher length fairway grass to eliminating roll? If so, is it effective?

I realise there are various implications with the above, but I'm just curious to know to what extent this kind of approach has or hasn't been tried.

All the best.

Thomas:

I always smile when I see an example of your point #1, because it is so rare.  One hole that does it is the 8th at Royal Portrush.  The big hitter bombs it over a bit of a corner into an upslope, while the short hitter plays left, takes a downslope, and rolls down to just behind where the big hitter lands.  Naturally, the better players think of this as completely unfair.  

Most designers tend to design the opposite way ... putting a landing area on a hill (for better visibility), so that the short hitter hits into the upslope and stops, while the long hitter carries the hill and gets extra roll.  And naturally, the good players see this as rewarding good play.  It has gotten even more universal as the perception increases that we are battling technology and looking for ways to make courses play longer -- which is why that whole story line of golf architecture is so destructive.

Everything about golf architecture is a matter of perspective, it's just rare for anybody to take the side of the little guy.

P.S.  As to your second example, if somebody tried that, they would probably be a candidate for extraordinary rendition by the powers that be.  I've been thinking about building more holes with interrupted fairways, but it is almost impossible to do given multiple tees.

[Alex Miller]

I appreciate the concept of this thread, and finding a good/ideal mix of hole lengths. It was something I kept in mind for the armchair contest actually.

However I think presuming that the scorecard yardages on a golf course, even if it is dead flat and without wind, is faulty. We are not taking in to account the holes that force a golfer to contemplate hitting a shorter club off the tee. This whole exercise is with the thinking golfer in mind, one who would appreciate the variety of challenge in different shots with every club in their bag. So why are we presuming that the only club in their bag that should be used on the tee of par 4s or 5s is driver.

Maybe 2 420 yard par 4s that play D-9i and 3w-6i provide more variety than a 420 yard par 4 and a 450 yard par 4 that call for the same approach shots?

It seems we are trying to find the ideal mix/challenge for the golfer, but this mix may not be as evenly spread as our ordered minds would like us to believe.

[Jason Topp]

I appreciate the concept of this thread, and finding a good/ideal mix of hole lengths. It was something I kept in mind for the armchair contest actually.

However I think presuming that the scorecard yardages on a golf course, even if it is dead flat and without wind, is faulty. We are not taking in to account the holes that force a golfer to contemplate hitting a shorter club off the tee. This whole exercise is with the thinking golfer in mind, one who would appreciate the variety of challenge in different shots with every club in their bag. So why are we presuming that the only club in their bag that should be used on the tee of par 4s or 5s is driver.

Maybe 2 420 yard par 4s that play D-9i and 3w-6i provide more variety than a 420 yard par 4 and a 450 yard par 4 that call for the same approach shots?

It seems we are trying to find the ideal mix/challenge for the golfer, but this mix may not be as evenly spread as our ordered minds would like us to believe.

Alex - your point is a good one and illustrates the difficulty of talking about such issues hypothetically.  Nonetheless, there is a historical view from at least Stanley Thompson up through today that there are dead zones (primarily between a long par three and a short par four) to avoid in distances on a golf course and I am trying examine that idea.

[Jud_T]

Why is it acceptable to have a par 4 that isn't easily reachable in regulation for most players, but not a par 3?  Personally I love Par 3's that call for a fairway metal or even a Driver on occasion.

[Jason Topp]

Why is it acceptable to have a par 4 that isn't easily reachable in regulation for most players, but not a par 3?

Tradition!

[Sven Nilsen]

Here are George Thomas' thoughts on the subject, which mirrors a lot of what has already been stated in this thread.  I found the underlined sentence below to be of particular interest, as it brings into play Tom's statement regarding working with what the land gives you.  The assumption regarding flat terrain is also pertinent, and the uphill or downhill nature of a hole can change its effective distance, as could a prevailing wind (but as has been noted before, it would be hard to find a spot on earth where the wind blows the same direction all the time).

"Nearly as important as the terrain, is the more commonplace matter of distances and arrangements.  In this connection we have the writings of various men to guide us, and the necessary standards are fairly well established, although, of late, golf architecture has been considerably improved, and there are changes which add to our courses in the matter of diversity and strategy."

He goes on to discuss the various types of 3 (only two of these, but they should be full 3 shot holes), 2 (four long ones, four medium and three short) and 1(five of these with distances running from long wood to mashie niblick requiring different types of shots as well as different lengths) shot holes, coming up with a slate of distances as follows:

560
525
475
460
450
440
430
425
410
405
375
350
325
250
220
190
165
145

"On a flat piece of land one could balance these holes and have the yardage about the same on both nines, but on most ground this is neither practical nor necessary - other opinions to the contrary - because the greater distances and the harder climbs should be on the first nine, and the shorter distances and the absence of climbs on the second nine."

"Where possible, keep the three shot holes in separate nines; place three one shotters on one side, and two on the other, put two of the short two shotters with two one shotters, and the three shotter on the other nine also."

His balanced course looks like this:

460
410
525
220
375
440
145
450
350
Out - 3375

405
325
250
560
190
425
165
430
475
In - 3225
Total - 6600

"Such an arrangement would give diversity in that no two holes of the same length, and with similar shots to the green, would come together; but such sequence might not be possible on the ground, because many things make it impracticable to arrange distances to suit, and the suggestion is only intended as an ideal, or, as noted before, for a perfectly flat course."

"Length means nothing without character, but a true test must have sufficient length and character.  Any course with less than two full woods to the green, and two more full woods through the fairways, is lacking in a proper test of wooden club play through the fairway, and all clubs must be brought into use for a complete test."

[Tom_Doak]

I appreciate the concept of this thread, and finding a good/ideal mix of hole lengths. It was something I kept in mind for the armchair contest actually.

However I think presuming that the scorecard yardages on a golf course, even if it is dead flat and without wind, is faulty. We are not taking in to account the holes that force a golfer to contemplate hitting a shorter club off the tee. This whole exercise is with the thinking golfer in mind, one who would appreciate the variety of challenge in different shots with every club in their bag. So why are we presuming that the only club in their bag that should be used on the tee of par 4s or 5s is driver.

Maybe 2 420 yard par 4s that play D-9i and 3w-6i provide more variety than a 420 yard par 4 and a 450 yard par 4 that call for the same approach shots?

I would agree with that viewpoint.  In fact, it's why I used to refrain from these sorts of discussions altogether.  I remember when I worked for Pete Dye, he lamented to me once that people criticized him for "designing for Tour pros," in a riff worthy of Lewis Black.  "How are you going to design for the average golfer?  You know where the Tour pro is going to be after his tee shot, but the average golfer could be ANYWHERE.  He could still be 50 yards in front of the tee, lying two."  

However, if you design the bunkering with a similar goal of challenging every different length of player equally, in theory, you would wind up with a couple of holes for every player where they might not want to hit driver ... it would just be different holes for different players.

It is so hard nowadays to build a hole where driver isn't the best choice off the tee.  Everybody wants to hit their driver on every hole ... it's the only way to justify paying $500 for it.  High Pointe (deliberately) had a couple of holes where hitting driver left you a downhill lie for an uphill approach, or gave you the option of backing off on the tee for a flatter lie.  Five years in, management built A NEW BACK TEE on those two holes so that guys could hit driver without going over the crest ... even though it meant that lots of other players from that tee would not get to the crest of the hill.

[Tom_Doak]

Why is it acceptable to have a par 4 that isn't easily reachable in regulation for most players, but not a par 3?  Personally I love Par 3's that call for a fairway metal or even a Driver on occasion.

It's because we keep providing multiple tees so that there is some tee from which you should theoretically be able to reach the green.  It's getting much harder to find a par-4 that's as much as 400 yards from the middle tee, because 15-handicappers have come to expect that they should reach every green -- leaving me to wonder what the 15 strokes are for.

I've seen 1200 golf courses and I have only seen TWO par-3 holes in my life where it is commonly accepted strategy to lay up on them instead of going for the green ... the 16th at Cypress Point and the 6th at West Sussex.

[Alex Miller]

I appreciate the concept of this thread, and finding a good/ideal mix of hole lengths. It was something I kept in mind for the armchair contest actually.

However I think presuming that the scorecard yardages on a golf course, even if it is dead flat and without wind, is faulty. We are not taking in to account the holes that force a golfer to contemplate hitting a shorter club off the tee. This whole exercise is with the thinking golfer in mind, one who would appreciate the variety of challenge in different shots with every club in their bag. So why are we presuming that the only club in their bag that should be used on the tee of par 4s or 5s is driver.

Maybe 2 420 yard par 4s that play D-9i and 3w-6i provide more variety than a 420 yard par 4 and a 450 yard par 4 that call for the same approach shots?

It seems we are trying to find the ideal mix/challenge for the golfer, but this mix may not be as evenly spread as our ordered minds would like us to believe.

Alex - your point is a good one and illustrates the difficulty of talking about such issues hypothetically.  Nonetheless, there is a historical view from at least Stanley Thompson up through today that there are dead zones (primarily between a long par three and a short par four) to avoid in distances on a golf course and I am trying examine that idea.

I definitely appreciate that and it's well worth examining. I thought I'd make that point as this thread has touched on a couple of issues as yardage spreads go.

I'll address the dead zone you're talking about though.

While I agree there is a gap from long par 3s to short par 4s, I don't know that we should try to "fix" that before we figure out why it might be ok. I think for the average golfer, Driver and 3 wood are still the most used clubs off the tee, and probably most used in a round behind the putter and wedge. So maybe asking the golfer to hit an additional 3W or Driver off the tee is not necessarily providing more variety?

Also, the yardage gap you describe covers a range that most people only have 2 clubs for. As I type this I look at what Sven has posted for George Thomas's ideal course. It looks pretty on point with what I would argue: that that adding more holes in this range does not necessarily create more variety because there are only so man clubs to hit for that yardage.

Now I'm not saying that there isn't a lack of these holes in general, and I do enjoy playing them very much (despite their affect on pace of play too). I'm just saying that maybe we are overstating the benefits and not looking at the drawbacks of these holes. 

I would agree with that viewpoint.  In fact, it's why I used to refrain from these sorts of discussions altogether.  I remember when I worked for Pete Dye, he lamented to me once that people criticized him for "designing for Tour pros," in a riff worthy of Lewis Black.  "How are you going to design for the average golfer?  You know where the Tour pro is going to be after his tee shot, but the average golfer could be ANYWHERE.  He could still be 50 yards in front of the tee, lying two." 

For another thread, but this is why a strategic course does not necessarily have to be great for all players: see Oakmont, right?

[Garland Bayley]

...
It is so hard nowadays to build a hole where driver isn't the best choice off the tee.  Everybody wants to hit their driver on every hole ... it's the only way to justify paying $500 for it. ...

They just don't know how to get new drivers. The next one I plan to build will cost $18 tops, and I intend to use it to destroy the opposition at KP.

[Garland Bayley]

...
525
475
...
325
250
...

You see of course that Thomas was not willing to place holes in what one might call the "true" par 3.5 and par 4.5 ranges.

EDIT AFTERTHOUGHT If you think about longer holes, par 6, 7, etc., no one would be creating such a gap as these, because by the time you reach that far players distances overlap so much no one would think anything of it. This is beginning to be reflected in the reduction of a 75 yard gap to a 50 yard gap above for the par 3.5, and 4.5 ranges. By the time we reach par 5.5, the gap will disappear.

[Thomas Dai]

Some really interesting points coming out in this thread. Thanks Jason for starting it.

Tom,

Thank you for your comments about slopes on landing areas - I love the line "it's just rare for anybody to take the side of the little guy". Sums many things up pretty well. Shame about the mowing idea - see below though.

In response to another post you mentioned the 16th at Cypress Point and the 6th at West Sussex as two lay-up par-3's.

I've seen lay-ups regularly on theses holes, and not just by shorter hitters either -
1) 16th at Carnoustie
2) 15th at Cruden Bay - a much maligned hole IMO - into the wind, knock it low into the valley and then bump-'n'-run or even putt it onto the green
3) 3rd at Royal Aberdeen, into the wind, hit it short of the high faced central bunker and then chip over it and onto the green
4) 2nd at Royal Dornoch - members have told me that statistically the best way to make a par 3 is to be short of the green with the tee shot and then chip up the length of the green
There must be many others.

There is a story about lay-up par-3's at the '66 US Open at Olympic. Billy Casper played 5 rounds including the winning playoff round against Arnold Palmer. Apparently there was a long par-3 somewhere in the first few holes - not sure which hole number it was and the hole itself may even have been altered by now - which at the time played to a very wide but very shallow green with OB behind. Casper is supposed to have noticed in the practice rounds how many players were being over-aggressive and screwing up the hole. The story goes that he laid up short of the green every time he played it and made par every time by up-'n'-downs. A thought provoking strategy.

As to fairways, I played Whittington Heath last year. A wonderful Harry Colt heathland course a few miles north east of Birmingham (UK not Alabama!). In a very gentle almost unseen way the fairways were mowed wider at a distance of up to about 230 yards but after that they tapered very gently and subtly to maybe only 10 yards wide in the 250-300 range. It was done very carefully such as to be almost unnoticeble. Very nice it was as well. Shorter hitters got roll and were on the fairway for their second shots, longer hitters could be on the fairway but were also likely to find themselves in very light, whispy rough but with a more difficult to control second shot (flyer lies etc). No hazards were involved at all. I thought this was a very clever and classy and a really nice subtle touch.

All the best.

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas:

First off, your story about Billy Casper is incorrect.  Right player, wrong Open.  It was the 1959 Open at Winged Foot (which he also won) where he laid up at hole #3 all four days of the event.  He played the hole in one over par, better than most of his fellow competitors.

I guess you are right, that there are more lay-up par-3's than I thought of ... though still, not too many.  The two I mentioned are actually dogleg holes if you lay up, which makes them more rare ... the 15th at Cruden Bay (good choice!) is also in that category, although since it's blind, the dogleg is less obvious.

On the others, the lay up is not so obvious because you never really know if the player was going for the green and just came up short.  The 11th hole at Crystal Downs is another such hole.  The green is so severe that I try to be sure never to be above the hole ... occasionally, I will get to the front of the green, but I'm often ten or twenty yards short because that's better than long.  Is that a lay-up?  Sort of, but I don't really think of it as such.

[Thomas Dai]

Tom,

Thanks for correctly my little 1959-1966 BC-USO oversight - when someone else screws up it's an 'error', when you screw up yourself it's an 'oversight'!

All the best

[Matthew Petersen]

Thomas:

First off, your story about Billy Casper is incorrect.  Right player, wrong Open.  It was the 1959 Open at Winged Foot (which he also won) where he laid up at hole #3 all four days of the event.  He played the hole in one over par, better than most of his fellow competitors.

I guess you are right, that there are more lay-up par-3's than I thought of ... though still, not too many.  The two I mentioned are actually dogleg holes if you lay up, which makes them more rare ... the 15th at Cruden Bay (good choice!) is also in that category, although since it's blind, the dogleg is less obvious.

On the others, the lay up is not so obvious because you never really know if the player was going for the green and just came up short.  The 11th hole at Crystal Downs is another such hole.  The green is so severe that I try to be sure never to be above the hole ... occasionally, I will get to the front of the green, but I'm often ten or twenty yards short because that's better than long.  Is that a lay-up?  Sort of, but I don't really think of it as such.

I think of 15 at C&C's WeKoPa Saguaro course the same way. It's 255 (downhill also) and, for me, right at that awkward place between too short to hit driver, but not a hole that I'm likely to reach with 3 wood. So I tend to aim at the right front corner and usually come up somewhere in that general region. It's not a lay-up per se ... but I'm also not really trying to hit the center of the green (or wherever the hole is). Just a hole where you'd so much rather be 50 yards short than 5 yards over that it determines club selection.

It's also an interesting example of a very long par 3 like you mention, but one I don't see anyone complain about. But then, the course also offers par 4s of 336, 331, and 328. Plus a par 3 of 137.

[Ken Moum]

I guess I am more interested in less holes around the 500+ mark and more holes in the 100-150 and 440-490 mark.  I could care less if I ever saw another 500 yarder again.  But this is purely personal opinion.  That said, I think for most golfers 500+ yards is a waste of space.  I would definitely lean more toward GJ's model, but eliminate the two longest holes and add a shorty plus a 440ish hole.  There isn't much point in trying to cater to the smash mouth market with 6500 or even 7000 yards so we may as well drop down much more toward 6000 yards and less par (69ish).

Ciao

I agree, and after trying several combinations of holes that have even yardage gaps throughout the 18, I decided that it's a waste of time. The only one that remotely works for me and the Sr. golfers I play with is to start at 90 and use 30-yard increments, which totals up 5805.  But that still has four holes over 500 yards.

I still think that the measuring stick I have come up with works the best.  If a course has 100-plus yard spread between the shortest and longest holes of the par threes and fours, and a , then it will be a fun course.

In other words, give me a course with a 100-yard par three and a 210 yarder; a 290- yard par four and 420 yarder; and fives of 470 to 550 or so.

What REALLY ticks me off is a course that has four par threes of 155-170, and a bunch of of fours that are in the 350-380 range.  For a short-hitting senior like me that's boring golf.  

And my demographic is pretty important to golf these days.

K