Would anyone build a course today with 2 Par 5s and 2 Par 3s?

[Jerry Kluger]

By no means am I questioning the greatness of TOC but I really have to question if a new course today could be successful with only 2 par 3s and 2 par 5s.  Would golfers be willing to join a club with such a configuration and play it on a regular basis?  I have some serious doubts about it as par 5s and par 3s have characteristics which most golfers find the most enjoyable of any holes. Would you invest in a course with that type of makeup? 

[Mark Pearce]

I'm a member of a club with 2 par 3s and no par 5s.  The waiting list for membership is closed.

[Mark Chaplin]

Just like 7 double greens, TOC is unique and all the better for it.

[Ryan Coles]

By no means am I questioning the greatness of TOC but I really have to question if a new course today could be successful with only 2 par 3s and 2 par 5s.  Would golfers be willing to join a club with such a configuration and play it on a regular basis?  I have some serious doubts about it as par 5s and par 3s have characteristics which most golfers find the most enjoyable of any holes. Would you invest in a course with that type of makeup?

If you were a member of a club with 3 par 5's and the USGA came in and designated two of them par 4's, would you then leave?


Par is just a stupid TV invention.

[Paul Gray]

What influence did TV have?

I was under the impression that par emerged in America somewhat more organically as a more stringent measure of scoring than we Brits had with our attempts to beat Colonel Bogey? I thought that all predated television coverage?

[Peter Pallotta]

As just an average golfer, I'm in the opposite camp: i.e. I'm all for only 2 par 5s and 2 par 3s, with all the rest of the holes being Par 4s (of varying length and challenge).

My favourite holes are par 4s. First, they seem to me the essence of the game wrapped up in one a neat package, i.e. how do you drive it, how you hit approach shots, how you recover, and how you putt. Second, both Par 3s and Par 5s veer from this same basic/essential package, and so are lessened in my eyes (in general). Third, I've rarely come across a Par 5 that I've liked, let alone loved; excellent ones are very hard to design/build, and so if a an architect can't find two more good ones, he should stick to the two that he already has and that (presumably) are quite good. Fourth, while a Par 3 may be beautiful and challenging and have a great green, there is no way it can have the strategic interest and options of an equally good Par 4. The best Par 3 in the world pales (shot making and decision-making wise) to say, the 17th at the Old. And fifth, yes, you can vary the lengths of par 3s and Par 5 -- there may be, for example, about a hundred years difference from the shortest to the longest par 3 on the course, and the same for the Par 5s; but, ah, for Par 4s: you can have one of about 270 and one of about 430 (160 yards of difference), and both will be playable for me but yet will be totally different (unlike a long and an extra long Par 5, which in essence play the same for most golfers).  In short, give me as many par 4s as you want; the best holes in golf.

[mike_beene]

And ironically or not the best par 5 and arguably the best par 3 in the world are on this course.Plus some of the 3 and 1/2 holes would be 3s and the road hole a 5 on many courses. The road hole used to be a 5, did it not?

[Jerry Kluger]

The question is not the greatness of TOC.  The question is if you believe that from an investment point of view that anyone would build a course today with 2 par 3s and 2 par 5s.  Architects are sometimes told to route the course in a way that most takes advantage of the natural features of the property even if the sequence of holes is not ideal but would an owner accept a course with a routing that only has the 2 par 3s and 2 par 5s?

[Adrian_Stiff]

No.... I would say as a broad comment. There could be a case for 3 par 3 holes perhaps. Sadly the best combo to try and get is 4 (threes) 10 (fours) and 4 (fives) Any par between 70 and 72 seems ok, anything less seems to be wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

There could be a case for 3 par 3 holes perhaps.

Yes, perhaps Kingston Heath and Garden City and The National Golf Links of America are okay designs!  However, three par-3's would certainly be a tough to impossible sell in Asia, and probably in the U.S.A., too.  Many people just like even numbers.

The question is if you believe that from an investment point of view that anyone would build a course today with 2 par 3s and 2 par 5s.  Architects are sometimes told to route the course in a way that most takes advantage of the natural features of the property even if the sequence of holes is not ideal but would an owner accept a course with a routing that only has the 2 par 3s and 2 par 5s?

I can't imagine there are many architects who would recommend this on a property ... even me, I'm with PPallotta in the camp that loves par-4 holes most of all.  We are just so used to finding four par-3's in a routing (or five) that to only go for two would be out of our comfort zone.  I've never had this discussion with a potential client, but if I really thought such a routing was superior, I believe I could talk him into it ... because it would be easy to say that I wouldn't even have brought it up as a possibility unless I thought it was vastly superior.

As for the "investment point of view", however,    .  If you want to invest in a mediocre course, just go with what everybody else always does.  Most of those are safe money-losers.

[Doug Siebert]

It is probably pretty hard for architects to get owners to go with a par 70 or even 71...they see par 72 as "standard".

Most golfers like par 3s because there's only one good shot required for a chance at birdie, and like par 5s because if they have any length in their bag at all even if they can't actually reach it in two they can think they can and at least have a short pitch to the green and increase their chances at birdie.

My favorite course in the area has 6 par 3s and 6 par 5s, and honestly I don't know why we don't see more designs like that.  It is non-standard but I think non-standard in a way most golfers would greatly prefer over a 2 par 3 / 2 par 5 layout.

[Thomas Dai]

Haven't there been replica's of TOC made? I presume they follow the 2-14-2 format


Like Doug I like the thought of the 6-6-6 format.


Atb

[Jerry Kluger]

I certainly agree that there are some great courses that follow the 14-2-2 but I don't know if there are any such courses in what we might call the modern era.  I truly believe that most golfers would have serious reservations about joining a club with such a course barring some extraordinary aspect which makes it irresistible. I would guess that the only place it might work is say perhaps the third course at Streamsong but I haven't heard anything to indicate that might be the case.

[Peter Pallotta]

I've started so many threads over the years about what we "see" out there (as golfers and architects) that it immediately got my attention when Tom D graciously noted how architects are so used to "finding" (i.e. "seeing") 4 par 3s on a site that trying to find/see less than that puts them outside their comfort zones. Now, granted, few sites are even close to ideal, and those 4 Par 3s sure come in handy in getting over the crappy bits, so there are legitimate reasons why architects have a bias towards 4 par 3s.  (Similarly, those 4 par 5s help in getting us to the top of a hill, and to the beautiful vista that might result, and to the drop-shot Par 3s.)  And yet, is this not also an example of the power and (conscious and sub-conscious) influence of traditional forms, even for those who spend a great deal of time on site before routing a course? 
 
I mean, I'm tempermantally pre-disposed to blaming the idiot clients for everything; but if clients are the "abyss" that architects have staring into for so long, it may indeed be (ala Nietzche) that the abyss has been staring back into them!
 
Peter 

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think it's what you meant to say but your reasoning parses just a bit like this...


1) Peter likes Par 4's better than Par 3's


2) Therefore people who instruct their architect to design a course with more than two Par 3's are idiots

[Wayne_Kozun]

I find that holes other than par 4s are memorable since you often have so many par 4s that they don't tend to stand out from each other, especially when many of them are about the same length.

I really like the 6-6-6 combination at Cabot Cliffs and the holes there are quite unique that you are unlike to confuse them.

[Dwight Phelps]

I think it unlikely that anyone would be able to sell a 2-14-2 setup for any new course.

Having said that, how important are the variety and quality of the par 4's to 'allowing' for only 2 3's and 2 5's?

With multiple options for drivable 4's, the 4.5 Road (or 4., and other mid-length 4's that require lay-ups or decisions beyond 'Driver', TOC par 4's seem to offer many of the benefits of 3's and 5's that we see on other courses.

Another way to put this is, beyond the 2-14-2 setup, would any new course allow for such a range of par 4's that, for example, would match the range between 17 and 18  at TOC?

I normally love 5's and 3's, but the amazing variety of the 4's at TOC make them incredibly attractive to a prospective player.

(I've never played TOC)

[paul cowley]

Two really good posts Peter!


I've been working at this problem from a different angle. I don't like adding extra yardage to a course just for the top 5%...it stretches the tees out awkwardly...adds to maintenance costs and costs extra to build. If an existing par 5 is 510 yds from the tips...and all the other tees are playing from 480,460,440 and 415 yds, then I'd rather make the tips a par 4 and keep the others par 5's, or if designing a new course not build the 510 tee and let the better player play from 480...as a par 4. If a short par 4 plays 310 from the tips and the other tees are 295, 280 265 2nd 250...I'd either abandon or not design the tip tee and let the best player play from the 295 (or 280 or 265 yd) more forward tees, but as a par 3. I would always try to keep 2 or 3  longer par 5's for the best players, but I also feel these same players should be challenged by a long, or very long, par 3's. if they don't have the game they shouldn't be back there.


I would rather see a 6900 yd 5-11-2 par 70 or 69 back tee setup, with all the rest of the tees playing from 6600 yds on down, par 72, 4-10-4......opposed to a 7200 yd course with bloated yardage for a few.


I'd rather try to group all the tees closer together and tinker with par...than continue to stretch out courses to accommodate par for the few.


...and I don't feel this will dumb down the challenge for the best players, but will instead have the opposite effect.

[V. Kmetz]

Hi,


I think the answer to both the thread question and the larger question it involves is simpler than any of this exchange.


How about eliminating individual hole par, and just having a total course par of 72 or level fours, the oldest standard of sound play?


If it's desired to be a championship course (local or national) let that governing body mark up their card and keep their score as they want to, but that column does not appear on the scorecard.


In saying this, I definitely understand the goofy exhibition appeal of having something like the Road Hole average 4.6-4.7(?) and call it a "Par 4" while a so called Par 5 (#5) averages nearly the same or less.


Yet I believe eliminating the listed individual hole par would have the positive effect on both the architect's/club's liberty to provide 18 best holes the property provides, while at the same time energizing architecture to consider holes anew in their value relative to a tally of "four" for any given hole...be it 90 yards or 790... Why can't there be six holes where four is relatively easy and an average 5 - 15 HCP is pissed not to go 3, no less a 5 or worse...and six holes where 4 is rigorous yet the player can lose an easy 5 by going for better or with a bad miss...and six holes where 4 is only available for one superb shot played at some point in the hole and a "3" requires two of them...


Perhaps this simple change in perspective on what a hole/course is asking the player to do, as opposed to commanding it to do will be the tonic that is needed to refresh the sometimes anxious appraisals of architectural trends.


And just from a personal perspective (certainly emboldened by watching an Open upon TOC) I would love to see a course broken up as follows:


3 holes from 90-150 yards
3 holes from 151-250 yards
3 holes from 251- 350 yards
3 holes from 351 - 450 yards
3 holes from 451 - 550 yards
3 holes from 551- 650 yards


If I cut my course down the middle of all six groups, it plays 6360. If I use the upper end of all groups, it plays 7200, If I use the lower end of all groups, it plays 5520.


It would sure be interesting to play a course that plays 6360 with three (3) 600 yard holes and three (3) 120 yard holes and three 200 yard holes and three 300 yard holes...


cheers


vk

[Peter Pallotta]

VK - on the face of it an elegant and interesting approach. And yet, besides having no interest in playing even one 600 yard hole (let alone three)*, I find it hard to imagine how any architect armed with your prescription could actually find interesting holes and/or route a compelling course without moving a lot of dirt and/or creating from scratch a slew of hazards. I also don't quite see how your 'formula' is anything more inherently "golfy" than the existing formulas we decry.     


* Regardless of the "par" that is/is not designated for them


Paul - thanks, but I'll have to read your post again and ponder it. You have me at a disadvantage, i.e. you can write well and understand/appreciate good writing, but you can also think and plan "visually", in terms of pictures/images/shapes, which I can't without a great effort. 

[Doug Siebert]

I think it unlikely that anyone would be able to sell a 2-14-2 setup for any new course.

Having said that, how important are the variety and quality of the par 4's to 'allowing' for only 2 3's and 2 5's?

With multiple options for drivable 4's, the 4.5 Road (or 4. , and other mid-length 4's that require lay-ups or decisions beyond 'Driver', TOC par 4's seem to offer many of the benefits of 3's and 5's that we see on other courses.

Another way to put this is, beyond the 2-14-2 setup, would any new course allow for such a range of par 4's that, for example, would match the range between 17 and 18  at TOC?

I normally love 5's and 3's, but the amazing variety of the 4's at TOC make them incredibly attractive to a prospective player.

(I've never played TOC)

I agree that variety really helps, but I'd also argue that TOC is one of the rare courses that was improved by modern equipment - the variety of par 4s is probably the reason.  Before modern drivers and balls, 9 and 10 were already very short and pretty easy to drive from the "tourist tees" (9 was a 1 iron for me with a balata ball back in '91) so the new equipment basically made reaching them more egalitarian.

But 12 and 18 were really not very driveable, and while 12 was already a great hole with interesting strategy, making it potentially driveable thanks to the increased carry only made it better as when playing it as a pure layup it is too easy to just layup short of everything - I mean why challenge the bunkers if you're laying up?  Making it driveable brings the bunkers into play for those who choose that option.  Playing a full driver may also bring the gorse well wide of both sides into play, something you can't reach and therefore don' t have to worry about if you hit a mid iron short of where things get "interesting".  18 was IMHO a very weak finishing hole until the possibility of driving it for those not named Nicklaus made it more interesting, and put drivers in people's hands with cars and hotel windows in the vicinity to make people think a bit before pulling the trigger 

[V. Kmetz]

Hi,


PP. I am just musing out loud when I lay out that "formula" - I just would find it interesting. I would never want to impose it on an architect nor go by it myself if I was entrusted with a design. Rather, I would say to him/her - "...don't worry if you locate 6-7 superb holes/levels of attaining a "4," and they are all under 300 yards...but remember I want some balance to whatever variety you conjure out of the property."


The more important point is having a slate of easy 4s that demand something very good for those hoping for 3 or 2, a slate of rigorous 4s that give up standard 5 if you don't press for better...and a few very tough 4s where two superb shots have to be played to realize it.


cheers


vk