[Adrian_Stiff]

Could a course with a configuration of seven par 3 holes, seven par 5 holes and just 4 par 4 holes be taken seriously?

I can think of a number of plusses, fun being one of them, but I had a weird bit of land the other day and this is how it came out; 6200 yards, it did not use much land, but I kept coming back to the fact people will not like it and an easy solution would be to make 11 and 12 four's and 15 and 16 could be  shortish fours. Thoughts?
Hole Yards Par    Hole Yards Par
1       520     5        10     140    3
2       360     4        11     480    5
3       180     3        12     490    5
4       550     5        13     530    5
5       420     4        14     120    3
6       260     4        15     240    3
7       220     3        16     440    4
8       500     5        17     150    3
9       100     3        18     500    5

[Paul Gray]

I think your fears, sadly, are well founded. People would just find it too goofy I think and you'd be smart to make the changes you suggest to 11, 12 and 15.


Since 16 is already a par 4, I'm not quite sure what you mean about making it a short 4.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Adrian, I expect your gut feel may be right, how big are the risks? Can it make more sense to reduce the par, or does the land not allow for that?
Personally, I am not a fan of multiple P5's and P3's in a row, unless they are of really high quality. If you can pull off balance and rhythm in the design, and it doesn't feel all over the place, then it may work - but what is the cost if it doesn't?

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting proposition Adrian. Would it be a stand alone course in it's own right or part of a complex with another course,range etc?


Sounds like it would be a fun layout to play but I'm a bit guarded about marketability, especially from the macho men perspective, who I guess would make up a large element of potential clientele. A shame though as lots of par-5's on a course are as per usual for ladies/girls and I'm sure it would be very fine for younger juniors and older folk - and for others if they could get over macho-ism.



I note that some of the par-5's are not exactly short at 550 (4) and 530 (13) and that two of the par-4's are relatively long at 420 (5) and 440 (16) and some of the par-3's are pretty lengthy as well at 220 (7) and 240 (15) so there is really quite a bit of variety involved.


Atb

[Jim Nugent]

Par 5s are usually the hardest holes for average (or worse) golfers.  As average golfers make up the big majority of the golfing world, I think you have way too many par 5s -- if you want your course to appeal to the mass of golfers. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Thomas - It would be a second course built over an existing shorter course, a bit more land offered and the chance to remove some trees. There is plenty of variety and it would not be easy because there are a few strong holes in there. Weirdly the SSS would be two less than the par (the additions of a par 3 and a par 5 are equal to a pair of short 4s..ie the anti of TOC).

I can't really find a reason why it should not work other than it is abnormal. The 5-8-5 thread got me thinking about fun and we know the  6-6-6 combo works, currently one of our courses is a 7-8-3 combo, the 7 short holes gets golf back to 3 hours and nearer 2 hours for the speedies.

I suspect 7-4-7 is unique.

Brett - It is a very unusual parcel with lots of non-crossable footpaths so the holes are often in pairs.

Paul - 15 could be longer at 320 yarder then the 16th would be shorter perhaps 340 yarder.

Jim - I don't agree as these par 5 holes would be much harder as shorter par 4 holes and the average golfer can't get at 475 yarders or 490 yarders in two. "way too many" we know that the 6-6-6 combo works?

[BCrosby]

And all this time I've been told par did not matter.  Hmmm.


Bob

[jeffwarne]

Could a course with a configuration of seven par 3 holes, seven par 5 holes and just 4 par 4 holes be taken seriously?

I can think of a number of plusses, fun being one of them, but I had a weird bit of land the other day and this is how it came out; 6200 yards, it did not use much land, but I kept coming back to the fact people will not like it and an easy solution would be to make 11 and 12 four's and 15 and 16 could be  shortish fours. Thoughts?
Hole Yards Par    Hole Yards Par
1       520     5        10     140    3
2       360     4        11     480    5
3       180     3        12     490    5
4       550     5        13     530    5
5       420     4        14     120    3
6       260     4        15     240    3
7       220     3        16     440    4
8       500     5        17     150    3
9       100     3        18     500    5

I love it.
Variety.different. fun-who doesn't like a chance for eagle or birdie?
Those who don't like that many par 5's can play the forward tees on three of the fives to get their daily dose of homogonization
The problem with nearly ALL new courses is they try way too hard to be taken seriously
The world needs way less serious golfers and courses

[Ken Moum]

I'm sorry this is NOT my idea of fun golf...

480
490
500
500
520
530
550

I'm barely able to cover 400 yards with two shots on a regular basis, so a regular diet of holes like those would have me choosing a bike ride over golf even more often than I do now.

[Doug Siebert]

Adrian, I expect your gut feel may be right, how big are the risks? Can it make more sense to reduce the par, or does the land not allow for that?
Personally, I am not a fan of multiple P5's and P3's in a row, unless they are of really high quality. If you can pull off balance and rhythm in the design, and it doesn't feel all over the place, then it may work - but what is the cost if it doesn't?

There's a terrific 6-6-6 course near where I live, where the pars on the back nine go 4-4-3-5-3-5-5-3-4.  Having consecutive par 5s and six holes in a row without a par 4 work quite well.  Maybe it works because all the par 3s and par 5s in that six hole stretch are quite distinctive from each other in look, feel and the challenge presented, but anyone considering doing this should have that figured out first.

I do think 7-4-7 really puts an even bigger onus on the architect to make 7 par 3s work together without feeling repetitive and even moreso the 7 par 5s (since shorter hitters will have SEVEN layups to contend with, it is hard to imagine that not getting boring...)

It would probably work better with a two or three of those made into longer par 4s, the par 3 converted to a short 4, and a par of 70 or 71.  Shorter hitters might still need to layup on those longer "par 4s", but if a few yards are shaved off the shorter tees hopefully the chances of that are reduced.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim - I don't agree as these par 5 holes would be much harder as shorter par 4 holes and the average golfer can't get at 475 yarders or 490 yarders in two. "way too many" we know that the 6-6-6 combo works?

Whether they are par 4 or par 5, they are too long for the guy who drives the ball 200 or so yards.  Look at Ken Moum's post. 

There's a reason par 5 holes are typically the lowest-handicap holes on most courses.  They require more full shots.  That means more chances for the bogey golfer to get in trouble.  As Doak says about par 5s, in the thread about 5 par 5s and 5 par 3s:

"for the average guy they are often a slog.  Having five or six of them in a round would rarely be a plus as I see it -- unless you are building a course for the pros, and you want to make them hit long irons and woods for approach shots."

Tom's last sentence there is spot on IMO.  The configuration you're suggesting, with some yardage adjustments, could work real well for the pro's.  For most golfers, though, it is too long. 

[Mark Pavy]

Tough crowd....I thought all those Par 5's represented plenty of birdie opportunities for the average golfer.

I'm with Jeff.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I'm sorry this is NOT my idea of fun golf...

480
490
500
500
520
530
550

I'm barely able to cover 400 yards with two shots on a regular basis, so a regular diet of holes like those would have me choosing a bike ride over golf even more often than I do now.

Ken but you have three shots to make the green not two. Many courses have half the holes over 400 yards.
A quick tot up of some local ones to me.
The Players Club 9; Cumberwell Park 9; The Kendleshire 9; Greys Green 10; Long Ashton 8; Bristol & Clifton 8;
I always roughly think courses with long 4s over 420 and par 3s over 200 is the sign of toughness.

[Niall C]

Adrian


On paper the only problem I can see is 11-13 stretch although if the holes are interesting and unique enough they could work. While I agree with Jeff and Mark about par 5's generally being easier to score on than 3's and 4's for the average golfer the thought of 3 in a row might be considered a bit of a slog.


Niall

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm sorry this is NOT my idea of fun golf...

480
490
500
500
520
530
550

I'm barely able to cover 400 yards with two shots on a regular basis, so a regular diet of holes like those would have me choosing a bike ride over golf even more often than I do now.

Ken--

The 6,200 yard markers on the course Adrian preliminary laid out would be much too long for you, anyway. With all those par threes, 6,200 yards would play more like 6,600 plus, if not more, so you'd be better off playing the 5,500-5,700 yard set on this 7-4-7 layout.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Nial - not sure, at the Players Club and Cumberwell Park, the 9th, 11th and 12th are all fives, ie 3 in 4 holes. They are universally considered the easy holes.


With 480- 500 yard holes (par 4 and a halfs) reasonable players can get up in two shots, they represent a short iron third to lesser players.


For me the killer holes in the config is the two long par 3 holes and the 440 yarder par 4.


What I am really looking for is a logical reason why the 7 4 7 combo is not good. Paul Gray's goofy is spot on but it is still not the logical answer. I agree Par does not really matter but equally it seems to play a big part in the rationalisation.


I am playing a bit devils advocate here, because the 7 4 7 combo is not going to happen, but it is interesting that I and a few others see it as fun and others NO fun.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,
 
I'm not suggesting goofy would put me off, just that it might put off a lot of ordinary golfers. As you know, I'm a 'lay of the land' guy. Bulid it and they will come (or not). Who knows, it could be the start of a revolution. Unfortunately, I doubt it though.

[Mike_Trenham]

Pace of play, par 3s and reachable par 5s are some of the biggest sources of waiting for others to finish.

[Niall C]

Nial - not sure, at the Players Club and Cumberwell Park, the 9th, 11th and 12th are all fives, ie 3 in 4 holes. They are universally considered the easy holes.

Adrian


As I said I'm in the par 5's are generally easier than par3's/par4's however 3 in a row might be a bit tiresome, really depends on the design. I tend to think designing interesting par 5's where there are no "connector" shots must be a challenge. Silloth manages two in a row that are both fantastic but of those the 14th plays mostly like a long par 4 most of the time. Interest and variety I think are the key.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()