[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom,

you're not telling me you're going to build a hole, where the longhitter can just fly all the trouble and has a wedge in, whereas the average guy will struggle with all kinds of hazards?

A drive and wedge hole can be great, but only if it's drive and wedge for the average hitter and the longhitter can play two irons or go for the green. Drive and wedge for the longhitter sucks for the average hitter (mostly - there are exceptions).

About variety and why you need lots of par 5s: The length of a par 5 is laid down as 431 metres or more in EGA circles (about 470 yards). So that means you can build holes from 470 yards to 600 yards or more. It's open-ended, but let's hack it off at 570. If you're going to build only two par 5s, then that means you are under-using the 470-570 range. There's about 100 yards difference, whereas par 4s usually give you about a 200 yard difference (270-470) and par 3s again about 100 yards between longest and shortest hole. So if you want to use the available length ranges proportionally, you need to build as many par 4s as you have par 3s and par 5s combined.

Does this purely mathematical view help you in the field? Of course not, it's a load of rubbish to design a course following such principles. But in my mind it is not a load of rubbish to keep these numbers in mind and remember that there is a reason why traditionally you have 10 par 4s and 4 par 5s and 4 par 3s. It's not about the par numbers, it's about spreading the lengths to avoid repetition.

About building two 9 hole loops: YES, that is a great example for how you can sometimes make a course better by losing a great hole.

Ulrich

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
How much credence do you put on shot variety?  I won't elaborate for now on that idea.
Mark

[James Brown]

Golf is, well, ought to be for all whether they be young, old, male, female, fit, unfit etc etc.
I wonder what % of the players (customers) likely to play on this course are likely to be long hitting men who want to play from the back-most tees and are likely to dismiss a par-69 out of hand? Just asking.
Atb

Doesn't have to be actual long hitting men.  My 73 year old Dad hits it 160 in the air and insists on playing the same tees as me.  Grew up learning golf in the 50s and 60s and adores Firestone.  Pretty close to the average demographic I suspect.

Nice to hear this James. Father and son golf can be a bit special.
Would I be correct in assuming there are no forced carries over the kind of yardage mentioned? I'm not keen on forced carries myself, might be a challenge for some but they can really impact on the enjoyment of the game for some young, old, lessor and fairer sex players.
Atb

Definitely no forced carries off the tee.

[James Brown]

     The Pennsylvania Open is being contested this week at the 6,600 yard Gulph Mills Golf Club.  The greens are running at around 12, and the pins were probably set up on the easy side to get the field through the day.  I've always considered it a terrific and challenging Ross course - probably not top 100, but maybe top 100 classic.  (I understand that it doesn't get rated because the club wants no part of the rating game.)
     After the first round, minus 9 is leading, and almost half the field is at even par or better.  These guys are pretty good, but I suspect that not one of them could play on the Web.com tour, let alone the regular tour.  Does that mean that 6600 yards is too short today?  I hope not, but under some definitions it seems that it may be.

It's been wet all up and down the east coast these last few weeks.  All the scores are way down for state events in MD, DE, VA too this summer. 

[Tom_Doak]

About variety and why you need lots of par 5s: The length of a par 5 is laid down as 431 metres or more in EGA circles (about 470 yards). So that means you can build holes from 470 yards to 600 yards or more. It's open-ended, but let's hack it off at 570. If you're going to build only two par 5s, then that means you are under-using the 470-570 range. There's about 100 yards difference, whereas par 4s usually give you about a 200 yard difference (270-470) and par 3s again about 100 yards between longest and shortest hole. So if you want to use the available length ranges proportionally, you need to build as many par 4s as you have par 3s and par 5s combined.

Does this purely mathematical view help you in the field? Of course not, it's a load of rubbish to design a course following such principles. But in my mind it is not a load of rubbish to keep these numbers in mind and remember that there is a reason why traditionally you have 10 par 4s and 4 par 5s and 4 par 3s. It's not about the par numbers, it's about spreading the lengths to avoid repetition.

Ulrich:  As a kid I was exceptionally good at math, but when I started studying golf courses I realized good design was about using the 3-D terrain rather than 2-D measurement.


The necessity of par-5's is refuted by the many UK courses that have one or two.  All that is lost is an extra full second shot in there, that does not necessarily lead to the variety of approach shots you are trying to achieve.


The two par-5's I have are one of about 530 yards and one that's over 600 yards from the back tee.  If we call this other hole a par-5 at 485 yards [which is good enough for #13 at Augusta], it would be nice if the middle hole was a bit longer, but I don't think we will be able to do that because of where we have to cross the entrance road for the resort.  Anyway, with one of these holes along a lake, one through oak trees, and the last along a creek, I am confident they will provide plenty of variety.

[Matt MacIver]

My blood gets going (slightly) more when I have a chance to get a 3W to the green on my second shot rather a having the option of hitting driver over a partial hazard for a heroic carry. So I value well-designed par 4.5-5s. Of course to be able to have the 3W option I'd have had to hit a very good (not great) drive.

[PCCraig]

Tom Doak,


Are Cypress Point (6,524), Merion (6,592), Fishers Island (6,615), or Crystal Downs (6,518) considered "short" now because they are under 7,000 yards? Or are they considered "just long enough" because they are over 6,500 yards?


Personally, I don't think White Bear Yacht Club is any better or worse because it's "only" 6,471 from the back tees and I think if you started added back tees everywhere it would become too difficult for all but a handful of players, so what would be the point of that?


To me, many "long" courses of over 7,000 yards can get really boring because in order to reach that length they have to sacrifice variety. How many "Championship" courses have a par-3 that is under 120 yards from the back tees? Few, as on courses like that they all seem to be at least 160-170 yards and there are usually one or two 200 yard par-3's. There might be a "short" par-4 of 360 yards, but they are all likely going to be 400-450 yards long.


I don't think there is any magic length for a Top 100 course, but I know what kind of golf course I enjoy playing, and that's one with a lot of variety. If you can have par 3's that range in length from a short 100 yard pitch, to a 250 yard brute, that is neat and I believe makes the course feel like it plays long. Same goes for par-4 holes, which you can have a few short, almost drivable holes coupled with some long 460-470 yard holes that might play short for long hitters, or might be 3-shot "par-5's" for the resort player. As for the par-5's, I think they are always more fun (and strategic) when they are reachable. So if you are building a resort course I think it would be fun to have maybe one true 3-shot hole, and maybe two shorter par-5's that can be easily reached (~500 yards from the back tees)?


If it's a great site, and there are a number of great holes, I think Cypress Point, Crystal Downs, or Fishers Island shows that the rankings will take care of themselves.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()