Is there ANY length that CAN'T make for a great hole?

[Matt_Cohn]

The premise of the "No great par 3 over 200 yards" thread kind of bothered me. I would consider it self-obvious that literally any length between about 50 and 650 yards can potentially make for a great hole.


Would anyone make the case that a hole of around ___ yards (or which plays around ___ yards) is significantly less likely to be great than a hole of some other length?


I simply can't think of a yardage that seems especially conducive or prohibitive to making a great golf hole.

[Thomas Dai]

Interested to read any suggestions as off the top of my head I can't think of many over circa 525-550 yds that receive much praise.


There are loads of very short ones that are terrifc though, as has been highlighted in various threads.


Atb

[Jim Nugent]

Interested to read any suggestions as off the top of my head I can't think of many over circa 525-550 yds that receive much praise.

18 at Yale
14 at Pebble   
6 at Carnoustie (Hogan's Alley)
14 at TOC
12 at Oakmont
4 at Oakmont
18 at Kapalua
14 at LACC North
7 at Pine Valley
15 at Cape Kidnappers

[BHoover]

Anything is possible, but I can't see a par 5 of 350 yards being a great hole. Again, I could be persuaded, but I just don't see it.

[Mark Pearce]

Anything is possible, but I can't see a par 5 of 350 yards being a great hole. Again, I could be persuaded, but I just don't see it.

A par 5 of 350 yards?  No reason a par 4 of 350 yards can't be a great hole and no reason why a great haole that's 350 yards should be anything other than a par 4.

[BHoover]

The question was whether there is any length that cannot be a great hole. My answer was that I cannot see a 350 yd hole being a great par 5.

[Tim Gavrich]

The question was whether there is any length that cannot be a great hole. My answer was that I cannot see a 350 yd hole being a great par 5.

Isn't par just a way of keeping score? You could impose a "par" on bowling or any individual game or sport where a player accrues points. The point of the game is to hit the ball fewer times over 18 holes than your opponent(s).


Are there a lot of 350-yard holes out there that have been designed to be played in three shots, or 150-yard holes designed to be played in two? I'm not sure an architect would get a lot of repeat business by building such holes.


I'm sympathetic to the view that great 550-yard+ holes are rare because for all the intrigue that the "body" of a golf hole can bring, the last 50 yards and the green are most important. Rye, at 6,300 yards, par 68, gives competitive players all they can handle when it hosts tournaments. While I have all the confidence in the world that great courses can be built with one or zero 500+ yard holes, I wouldn't outlaw them, because holes like the fifth at the Cascades and the 18th at Yale are among my favorites anywhere, of any length. If they're rule-proving exceptions, though, so be it.

[Tom_Doak]

The answer to the question in the opening post is no.


The length that's probably toughest to turn into a great hole is between 230 and 270 yards.  No matter what you build, some players will think of it as a one-shotter, and if it's not too tough for those people as a one-shotter, then it will be hard to keep it interesting for those who are compelled to play it as a two-shotter.


In my own experience, very long par-3's [more than 225 yards] are good for variety in a course but almost never lauded as great holes.  So, I'd rather build the 260- or 270-yard hole and take my chances there.  The new 7th at Tara Iti is a great 265-yard hole, but only because everyone thinks of it as a par-4.

[BCrosby]

Late Victorians thought hole lengths were very important. For them the main defense of a hole was that it required multiples of full shots. Two shot holes, for example, should be built to a length that requires two full shots to reach the green. Some thought "two full shots" meant two good drives. Some thought it meant just two good long shots.


In between hole lengths that did not require multiples of full shots were called "leveler holes". They were seen as failed holes because they tended to "level" good and bad play. They committed the architectural sin of allowing a player who had missed a shot to recover and reach the green with his next shot (on a two shot hole).


Bob

[Jason Thurman]

Anything is possible, but I can't see a par 5 of 350 yards being a great hole. Again, I could be persuaded, but I just don't see it.

If someone built a 350 yard par 5, this site would collapse from all the drooling and fawning from the crowd that loves "half par holes" that trend to the easy side of par as opposed to the stout side.

[BHoover]

Anything is possible, but I can't see a par 5 of 350 yards being a great hole. Again, I could be persuaded, but I just don't see it.

If someone built a 350 yard par 5, this site would collapse from all the drooling and fawning from the crowd that loves "half par holes" that trend to the easy side of par as opposed to the stout side.

Great point. Now I want to see this hole! Which archie will be bold enough to build it?

[BCrosby]

The fact that no one builds a 350 yard par 5 suggests that the par of a hole does indeed matter.


Bob

[Sean_A]

In theory, no, any hole length can yield a great hole. In practice, I think its very hard to produce great holes which are over 525ish yards, between 200ish and 300ish yards and well under 100 yards.  While I think over 525ish yards has been fully explored and imo largely resulted in failures, the ground between 200 and 300 is wanting...especially 225ish to 275ish.  All that said, I don't think there should be a requirement of greatness to mean a hole will add something good and interesting to a course.  To a large degree, just having holes between 225 and 275 is interesting.  Guys can argue over the par designation and what that might mean 


Ciao   

[Tom_Doak]

Late Victorians thought hole lengths were very important. For them the main defense of a hole was that it required multiples of full shots. Two shot holes, for example, should be built to a length that requires two full shots to reach the green. Some thought "two full shots" meant two good drives. Some thought it meant just two good long shots.


In between hole lengths that did not require multiples of full shots were called "leveler holes". They were seen as failed holes because they tended to "level" good and bad play. They committed the architectural sin of allowing a player who had missed a shot to recover and reach the green with his next shot (on a two shot hole).

That's true.  But if applied equally today, the "two full shot" holes would have to be between 550 and 600 yards for the pros, and the rest would be levelers.

[Matthew Essig]

I have played a 365 yard par 5. It is NOT good.

[Bill_McBride]

The answer to the question in the opening post is no.


The length that's probably toughest to turn into a great hole is between 230 and 270 yards.  No matter what you build, some players will think of it as a one-shotter, and if it's not too tough for those people as a one-shotter, then it will be hard to keep it interesting for those who are compelled to play it as a two-shotter.


In my own experience, very long par-3's [more than 225 yards] are good for variety in a course but almost never lauded as great holes.  So, I'd rather build the 260- or 270-yard hole and take my chances there.  The new 7th at Tara Iti is a great 265-yard hole, but only because everyone thinks of it as a par-4.

What does the scorecard say about the 7th?

[Tom_Doak]

What does the scorecard say about the 7th?

It's a par-4.  If the scorecard said it was a par-3, at 265 yards and with a tiny green, I would have been lynched.  I saw every number from 3 to 7 made there at the Renaissance Cup, and heard about a couple of 2's ... but I would guess the scoring average was well above 4, and maybe closer to 5 if everyone had finished the hole.

[Sean_A]

Tom


Exactly...so why can't the hole be a par 3 and a bogey 4 if people insist on counting themselves among the best in the world and feel should be using par as a guideline...even though they carry handicap cards?  It seems like using bogey score would free up archies to do unusual stuff without fear of getting lynched. 


Ciao

[mike_malone]

The main problem with par is that is too wide a standard. It often either too easy or too hard to achieve.
It is better as a way to keep score.

[Phil McDade]

Anything is possible, but I can't see a par 5 of 350 yards being a great hole. Again, I could be persuaded, but I just don't see it.

If someone built a 350 yard par 5, this site would collapse from all the drooling and fawning from the crowd that loves "half par holes" that trend to the easy side of par as opposed to the stout side.

Hard half-par holes:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48396.msg1090048.html#msg1090048

[Ken Moum]

The new 7th at Tara Iti is a great 265-yard hole, but only because everyone thinks of it as a par-4.

Oh, Jeezus....


Tom, I know you're right about that, but doesn't it somehow point out how silly this is?


No one who's really any good is going to be happy with a four there.  I thought par was the score a scratch golfer is expected to make.


K

[Thomas Dai]

Ignoring length, are there many great holes that don't have great greens/greensites?


Atb

[Tom_Doak]

The new 7th at Tara Iti is a great 265-yard hole, but only because everyone thinks of it as a par-4.

Oh, Jeezus....

Tom, I know you're right about that, but doesn't it somehow point out how silly this is?

No one who's really any good is going to be happy with a four there.  I thought par was the score a scratch golfer is expected to make.

Ken:


You haven't seen the hole.  Perhaps, the first time around, a good player would be disappointed with a 4 there, but a bit of experience will likely convince him that 4 is not so bad after all.  In the three matches I played on the front nine during the Renaissance Cup, my partner and I won that hole with a 4, all three times.

[Tom_Doak]

Ignoring length, are there many great holes that don't have great greens/greensites?

Thomas:


Now you are close to my heart; I just gave a speech about that on Thursday.  There are, occasionally, great holes that have plain greens, but 80-90% of great holes have great greens and/or green sites.

[Paul Gray]

I find anything over the one kilometre mark gets a bit tedious.