[Ian Mackenzie]

Old Elm is for old men.  There are a lot of those type courses that still called everything over 450 yards a par 5.  Most of them are ratcheting back par these days without changing the holes in question.


There were nine par-73 courses in the GOLF Magazine top 100 list the first time I worked on it; the majority of them like Garden City and NGLA and Kingston Heath had only three par-3 holes which is rare in modern design.


A few designers are especially fond of par 5 holes and want to build more than four par 5's.  I did that once at Black Forest but have not done it again.  I like my par 4 holes best!

True before they added back tees as the par 5s were driver then mid-iron for many. (Much like #1 at Shoreacres )Now it's a different story.


They are also putting in 17 acres of fairways expansions starting last week and will move to 1" rough elsewhere.

[Jim Sherma]

Hershey West by Maurice McCarthy is par 73 with 5 par 5’s. All legit holes except for the very long (568, 550, 568, 501 and 517 with none of them downhill). When the course opened in 1930 it was over 7000 yards. It is now 6860.


The set up makes breaking 80 a real challenge as none of the fives are a gimme birdie. I like the fives here but given most course’s par fives I generally prefer a par 70 or 71.

[Carl Rogers]

Streamsong Black is a 73.  From the back tees all are formidable in the FL wind.

[Matthew Petersen]

Kapalua is a pretty good par 73. I don't feel like you miss having a second par 3 on the back (the last comes at #11) because the holes are strong.


From a card and pencil perspective, it makes breaking 80 harder, but breaking par easier.

[Steve_Lovett]

Inglewood GC near Seattle is a Par 73 and is one of the best courses in the Pacific Northwest. I doubt the members would ever agree to change it to 72, even though all but one par 5 is reachable for quite a few or most players. It's the only course I can think of that starts with back-to-back par 5's. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Starting with back to back par 5's is at least a design error. What went wrong?

[Steve_Lovett]

Starting with back to back par 5's is at least a design error. What went wrong?

Both are good holes. Very different over different terrain. The first is all visible - uphill bending right. The second plays almost as a blind tee shot up a steep slope to a fairway that bends left up a gradual slope and falls off a bit to the right, favoring a draw. It may be that the 2nd was once a very long par 4, but as they are I don't find error with either hole.

[Jim Nugent]

Inglewood GC near Seattle is ...the only course I can think of that starts with back-to-back par 5's.

The Costa Mesa (CA) muni used to start with two par 5s. 

[Peter Flory]

Oakmont was a par 80 when it opened- at about 6,400 yards. Doesn't matter what they call it. 

[Kalen Braley]

Indian Canyon's original routing started with two short back to back par 5s, of which one has now been changed to a 4.


Led to a very very slow start, wasn't uncommon to be standing on 3 tee 40-45 minutes into your round, but it did go much quicker after that...

[Eric LeFante]

I think less than four par 3s is not enough and more than four par 5s is too many so I'm not a fan

So should everyone conform to your arbitrary, narrow view?


Only a very stubborn person would walk off NGLA or Kingston Heath and say they missed having another par 3 hole.

I think Eric is saying less than four 3s is not ideal, if so, I would agree.  I don't see many archies striving for less than four 3s.  Hell, I think five 3s is even better.  To me, in theory, TOC would be a better course if the first six holes were broken up with a short hole. 


Ciao

Tom,


I did not write my original post well and it sounded more definitive than I meant. Sean explained what I meant, that less than four par 3s is less than ideal. I did not mean that a course with less than four par 3s could not be great. I was taking into account Tillinghast's comment that the quality of a course's par 3s go a long way in determining how good a course is (which I agree with). I also was thinking about a comment you made on this site that you believe it is difficult to make great par 5s and don't mind if you have less than 4 on your courses (Did I summarize your statement accurately?)


Clearly there are great courses with less than four par 3s but I agree with the two statements above from two great architects so that's why I made my original post as a generalization but certainly not a hard and fast rule.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()