[Joe Bausch]

Below are three diagrams I put together of the hole-sequencing/routings from a golden age golf architect (blues are par 4's/greens par 5's/yellow are 1-shotters):







Something sort of stood out to me, and I'm wondering who else can spot it.  And maybe explain why this might be!  I would love for the architects on the site to weigh in as I hope this thread develops.

This topic has been percolating in my head for months and recently have been talking/texting about it to two other GCAers (Mike C and Kyle H).

[BCowan]

Joe,

   In regards to the top one, the 6th hole isn't original, but u knew that. 

[Joe Hancock]

Initial blush with your color code as a guide, I notice the par 3's in close proximity to each other. In each case, is there difficult terrain involved where those holes are?

[Tom_Doak]

Are you pointing out that the par-3's seem to be twinned ... side by side, going in opposite directions?

[Joe Bausch]

Initial blush with your color code as a guide, I notice the par 3's in close proximity to each other. In each case, is there difficult terrain involved where those holes are?

Yes.

[Joe Bausch]

Are you pointing out that the par-3's seem to be twinned ... side by side, going in opposite directions?

I'm observing how the par 3's seem to be clustered.

[Tom_Doak]

Damn ... I lost out on the Jeopardy buzzer by, like, 6 seconds.  But now Joe has to answer the rest of the question correctly, or I get a free shot at it!

[Matthew Essig]

Initial blush with your color code as a guide, I notice the par 3's in close proximity to each other. In each case, is there difficult terrain involved where those holes are?

Yes.

Other than the obvious compact parallel holes, the inverse par 3's next to each other were what jumped out at me as well.


I'm curious. Is this because it is the most severe or difficult to design around terrain on the property and covering that ground is easier with a par 3?
Or is it because of the chokepoints they seem to fall in?
Something else?

[Peter Pallotta]

A function of compact routings; and an example perhaps -- as per my recent thread about sacrficing a couple of great holes for the sake of such routings -- that 3s could be used, if for nothing else, to get you back where you started a hole or two earlier (and onto more interesting/better topography). They just went back and made sure the greens were good
Peter

[Joe Hancock]

Damn ... I lost out on the Jeopardy buzzer by, like, 6 seconds.  But now Joe has to answer the rest of the question correctly, or I get a free shot at it!

 


I already gave myself a high five, so have at it. I'll split the winning purse with you.(I'd say elevation change is the culprit, and short holes solved a visibility issue,but I always learn from your response so I hope you finish the thought)

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,

   In regards to the top one, the 6th hole isn't original, but u knew that.

Ben is correct that the 6th hole in the top figure is not an original.  But the clustering of the other three par 3's is obvious.

[Joe Bausch]

So, is this clustering of par 3's to help navigate more severe parts of a property something I should have noticed years ago?!

Or is it just one way of handling such terrain?

Anyone wish to guess the architect of the three courses for the diagrams above?

[Tom_Doak]

So, is this clustering of par 3's to help navigate more severe parts of a property something I should have noticed years ago?!

Or is it just one way of handling such terrain?

Anyone wish to guess the architect of the three courses for the diagrams above?

Well I recognized Philmont North, so I wouldn't be guessing as to the architect.  Is the top one Sylvania?


I think there are a few reasons you might see this:


1)  If it's important to the architect to have his par-3's going different directions, this is an easy way to go about it.
2)  If there are big elevation changes to take on, up or down.
3)  If there is a forced carry over a barranca or a stream, and the architect prefers to have people hitting over such a hazard from the tee, where he can control the difficulty of their approach, rather than on the second shot of a longer hole.  [It is also the safest way to use a single bridge for two holes, across and back.]
4)  If there is a very narrow corner of the property, and par-3 holes are the better solution to ensure a wayward drive doesn't injure someone on the neighboring hole.  [Ex:  Philadelphia Cricket Club]


While others were thinking about it, I checked on Google Earth to see how common this was, and thought through some of my own work. 


Pacific Dunes has the three short holes [5, 10, 11] clustered together, but that's partly because Bandon Dunes crowded that corner from the other side.  Rock Creek has parallel par-3's at 12 and 13, due to a last-minute routing change.  But most of my courses don't really have the short holes together. 


Likewise, a quick look at Shinnecock, National, Sebonack, and Maidstone [W Park Jr] did not reveal any instances of similar clustering.  So, it's natural for it to happen sometimes, but it's far from a sure thing.

[Joe Bausch]

The top one is Sylvania, the next as Tom recognized is Philmont North, and the last is Berkshire.  All Willie Park Jr designs.

[mike_malone]

Just another reason I should have guessed that Philmont wasn't Flynn. A quick run through in my head says Flynn doesn't do this.

[Pete_Pittock]

On the first two courses the archies routed the opening five holes on a boundary of the course. By the way I also noticed the bunching of the shorts.

[MCirba]

Damn...how did I miss this discussion?

All are on the most abrupt elevation changes on their respective properties so they make effective transition holes.

Interestingly, the two parallel par threes Tillinghast built at Philly Cricket were on the flattest portion.

[Kyle Harris]

I had been contemplating similar things in regard to moving golf over certain types of terrain lately, but for the exact opposite reason!

Bill Coore, especially, seems adept at constructing large and long golf holes that play through flatter and more expansive terrain. The stark contrast of holes at the erstwhile Sugarloaf Mountain Club (specifically, the 2nd and 3rd) to the holes on the second nine which is the more severe part of the property is a good example, in my opinion. I feel it's a bit contrived to have a series of interruptions (the green to tee transition) on large and flat parts of the property which beg golfers to swing away and perhaps that is a reason why Mr. Coore is so regarded for his routing.

Conversely, shorter shots are quite interesting when played into severe terrain or putting greens. The Par 3 is useful for this because the starting point is flat, and it is much easier to build a tee to force the golfer to play from a specific spot. The interruptions in golf aren't nearly as contrived and instead force the golfer to integrate with the terrain by playing a shot into it instead of over or around it.

As Tom Doak pointed out, not only are these short holes clumped together on the more severe parts of the property but they're also at the pinch points in the routing. Sometimes geometry and topography can play nice. The transition between the holes near the clubhouse at Philmont North and the holes toward Buck Road (Tight vs. Wide Open) is emphasized by the short holes.

[Niall C]

Joe


Nice thread. I suppose thinking about it back to front, you might be able to learn something about the topography from looking at the routing on an aerial photo.


As an aside, I note all three are attributed to Willie Park with two courses with the standard quota of four par 3's while the other has 5 par 3's. At one point in his career Park advocated only 3 par 3's. Did this change in later years or are these courses that have been altered significantly ?


Niall

[David Davis]

Architect seems to have an affinity to counterclockwise routing patterns as kind of a theme. I wanted to mention the par 3's being clustered in most likely a portion of the property with more extreme terrain but as I scrolled down I realized that was like guessing the winning lottery number after they'd been published....have not played the courses myself.

[Peter Pallotta]

I suppose that, in the modern era with 1st earth-moving and 2nd very large tracts of land, this is partly why we see so many Par 72s - 36 front 36 back, with two 5s and two 3s per side, and so few clustered or back to back Par 3s. It takes an architect with a lot of imagination and/or freedom and/or historical sense to route that way when he/she doesn't have to (because of the site's constraints). It's so much easier (and in keeping with modern expectations) to veer away into another part of a (massive) site and find "better" topography, especially since 1st that does indeed give a good architect more scope to "find" any number/kinds of excellent holes, and 2nd because golf carts will help ameliorate the inconvenience/break in flow.  At its best, you get an outstanding golf course; at its worst, it's: Hello 18 signature postcards; goodbye quirk, individuality, elegance, flow, tempo and a sense of place.

Peter

[Sven Nilsen]

You get a similar feature at Park's Olympia Fields North course with the Par 3 13th and 16th holes.  The 13th climbs a small hill bringing you from the low lying 12th green to the higher vantage point of the 14th tee.  You return to the lower ground at the 14th fairway, before circling back on high ground to the 15th green and 16th tee before descending back down the hill to the 16th green.

[Joe Bausch]

As an aside, I note all three are attributed to Willie Park with two courses with the standard quota of four par 3's while the other has 5 par 3's. At one point in his career Park advocated only 3 par 3's. Did this change in later years or are these courses that have been altered significantly ?

Niall

Niall, all three of these courses are fairly close to the original, except for Sylvania.  But Sylvania is for the sake of this thread, the par 3's 3/9/10 being original.

[Niall C]

Thanks Joe, when were they designed ?


Niall

[Joe Bausch]

Thanks Joe, when were they designed ?

Sylvania's plans from 1916, the course opened in 1919.

Berkshire's plans also from 1916 I believe, with 14 holes opened I'm not quite sure when, and 4 more holes added and opened all 18 in 1923.

Philmont's timeline might require me to dig into my files.  I think the design was from the very early 20's and the course took a long time to really officially open and that didn't happen until the mid to late 20's.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()