News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #75 on: September 06, 2018, 11:28:12 AM »
I think most of you have completely missed the point about 6000 yards and Par 67.


I see fun more leaned to easy scoring. Par 5 holes are easy to score and the most birdied holes, take these away and it is less fun surely.


6000 yards with 5 short holes of 140 - 155 - 170 - 180 - 200


13 par 4 holes averaging 400 so -  320 - 340- 360- 380- 400- 400 - 410 -410 420-430 -440- 450 -470


flip a couple of short 4s in and - 280 - 310 -360 - 380 - 400 - 410-420-430-440-440-440-450 -470


Quite a beefy course. Par 68 softens it a fair bit. Most UK courses are around 6000 yards but usually Par 70
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Will Lozier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #76 on: September 06, 2018, 11:30:06 AM »
Sorry all for missing this thread having just started a new one! Apologies for repetition!


Congrats to Tom Doak for being hired to build the fourth course at SV and for this really neat idea of a "smaller, shorter" course. Having played Rye, St. Enodoc, Swinley, The Addington, and West Hill (a ton!), I have to say this seems like a great idea and for great reasons. I will say Tom's comments about the trend of width, which he rightly takes initial credit for promoting and even mastering, seem to semi-bash DMK's new SV course, especially considering the recent questioning of that courses' strategic requirements on GCA. But, I can't argue that this is perhaps a great opportunity to work that idea backwards a bit. I have yet to visit SV and am now more excited than ever to head up there in the next 3-4 years. Cheers
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 11:38:00 AM by Will Lozier »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #77 on: September 06, 2018, 11:33:33 AM »
6,000 yds, par 67-68 doesn’t necessarily mean an easy course. A whole bunch of cunning can be incorporated without tricking things up.
There is also ‘personal par’.
My own version is -
1) average length tee shot with a driver....... anything less is a par-3.
2) average length shot tee with a driver, add average length fairway shot with longest fairway club......anything over is a par-5.....anything less but greater than 1) above is a par-4
3) average tee shot with a driver, add 2 x average length fairway shot with longest fairway club.....anything greater is a par-6
Atb


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #78 on: September 06, 2018, 11:35:20 AM »
Can someone please explain to me what the “bogey” score means?


"Bogey" was par, before par was common usage.


It was the expected score on a hole for an imaginary canny old player, Colonel Bogey, who could only hit the ball maybe 200 yards off the tee but had a reasonable short game.  Generally, holes over 175 or 180 yards were Bogey 4's, and holes over 380 or 390 were Bogey 5's, though there was a bit more consideration than what we do today for topography, prevailing wind, and cross hazards.


But "bogey" got confused with "one over par" after par became the standard, so it fell out of favor.  It's really kind of too bad.  If most golfers just targeted the old Bogey score they would stop hitting stupid 4-woods toward greens guarded by water, and probably score 2-3 shots better per round from the same tees they play today.  Lots of senior players in the UK still score really well because they have understood that approach since they were kids.

Will Lozier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #79 on: September 06, 2018, 11:36:03 AM »

My current routing has five par-3's and NO par-5's, although there are a few 450+ yard holes we could turn into a par-5 if we want to, and either of two short holes could turn into a drivable par-4.



I would suggest that a round of golf without at least one 5-par seems to be lacking - in variety if nothing less. Having played at least five of the great 68/69 courses, I would urge Tom D./Mike K. to have one 500-yard hole in the layout. Just MHO.


Cheers
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 11:38:56 AM by Will Lozier »

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #80 on: September 06, 2018, 12:52:17 PM »

My current routing has five par-3's and NO par-5's, although there are a few 450+ yard holes we could turn into a par-5 if we want to, and either of two short holes could turn into a drivable par-4.

I would suggest that a round of golf without at least one 5-par seems to be lacking - in variety if nothing less.
I would guess you have never played Elie... 16 "4s" and 2 "3s." Hard to have more fun anywhere... and, nothing seems "lacking."
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #81 on: September 06, 2018, 01:06:23 PM »
Perhaps we could start a list for those that feel that the described course will be a pushover. Then they can check back in after having played it and share their results. I'll happily go play the equivalent of members' tees - 5700ish?


I like the concept a lot. There are now quite a few links-inspired options for people in the US. This approach provides a different sort of experience, and maybe will lead to players visiting the UK branching out from the usual choices. The variety in what a proper golf experience can be is much larger than what most of us are used to.


Hopefully there will be some Huntercombe influence, assuming Tom is willing to build a few wild greens along with hollows instead of bunkers.

Michael is spot-on about Elie. I can't imagine anyone playing there and feeling disappointed by the lack of par 5s.



Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #82 on: September 06, 2018, 01:29:55 PM »

Hopefully there will be some Huntercombe influence, assuming Tom is willing to build a few wild greens along with hollows instead of bunkers.



I should just post Michael Keiser's phone number here and let him field your ideas.


It's his dad who worries that severe greens will be dismissed by "retail golfers" as tricked up or unfair.  Plus it's his own personal preference.  So I suspect the greens on this course will be on the tame side by my standards.  But you never know . . . we don't really design the greens until we are out there building them, so we will have to wait and see how they unfold. 


I was surprised how severe the greens at Old Macdonald turned out; as it developed, Mike was okay with them because they were big enough he could just tell the staff never to use the difficult hole locations.


Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #83 on: September 06, 2018, 02:17:49 PM »
I was just at Ballyneal for two days. I think one day we played it at 6400yds, maybe a couple hundred yards longer the other day. I’m trying to imagine the golf course with 4, 8, and 16 playing a hundred yards less each, 7 playing as a really long par three, and maybe 2 being a bit shorter. That’d take it under 6000yds and I think it would still be a tough day. Especially if the wind blew.


My guess is this course will be plenty tough and interesting. Nothing hybrid about it.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #84 on: September 06, 2018, 02:39:54 PM »
Ever play all the par-4’s and par-5’s on your home course from a combination of the 200, 150 and 100 yd fairway markers? I have.

Quite an interesting exercise. How low can you score gross? You might be surprised....and not necessarily in a happy way!
Ever play all the par-5’s on your home from circa 450 yds (or even less)? I have. How many gross 3’s (ha, ha) and 4’s do you reckon you’ll make? Not as many as you might think I’d suggest.

Atb

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #85 on: September 06, 2018, 02:53:37 PM »
Tom,
Probably better to just text me Keiser's number rather than posting on here.


Seriously, I wasn't expecting you to consider my "ideas." I was just commenting on what I thought would be an interesting import. As for your willingness to build wild greens, that was an attempt at humor.


Brian Zager

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #86 on: September 06, 2018, 04:49:17 PM »
Also curious about where exactly the location is as I was up there this summer.
Here is the image of the routing with imagery of the Sand Valley course around it.  It is old imagery before the other courses or the driving range or even the parking lot and main clubhouse were finished yet but hopefully you get a better idea of where it is from this.


Brian Zager

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #87 on: September 06, 2018, 04:57:18 PM »
I actually did a 3D model of this land just recently because I used the LiDAR of it to enter a course design completion for TrackMan’s simulators.  I had to do a par 3 course for the completion but oddly while routing it I was thinking I really wanted to do a shorter full length course.  Something like Pinehurst No. 1 or No. 3 was the model I was thinking about because I don’t know the shorter UK courses mentioned in this thread (my loss, someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, I’ll rectify that gap in knowledge).  I was also thinking about the option of renting a set of hickory shafts out in the clubhouse and playing it like it’s 1910 as a great/fun/unique experience.  If you think about it, they need something different and this space on the property is a great spot for it.  Congrats to Tom, the real golf course architect (as opposed to a sim golf course architect like myself) to recognize it.

It’s super easy for me to revert back to the land before I did my course for the completion and load the image of this routing up on it and look around.  I can save out a few quick/basic renderings of what I find if anyone is interested.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #88 on: September 06, 2018, 05:39:02 PM »

Short on the card doesn’t necessarily mean easy to play though.
Atb


Look at Gils course at LACC. As short  as it is its difficult to score on. I don't think the Keisers would allow SV3  to be tricked up.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #89 on: September 06, 2018, 06:29:18 PM »
Perhaps apropos, or perhaps not at all (or only seeming so to me) - a selection from "Echos from British Links"- American Golfer (1920)"

"It is a question" says Mr. A. C. Croome in the Morning Post, "whether magnificence is a virtue or a fault in golf courses. Among the many services which Mr. Harry Colt rendered to the Sunningdale Club must be reckoned the modification of several holes by reduction of their more gigantic features. For example, the putting greens of the first, sixth, eleventh, twelfth, and fifteenth holes are about half the size of those originally constructed, and the play of them has consequently gained much in interest. At Woodcote Park the few and trifling alterations made have also been in the nature of reduction.


And if we turn to the places obviously intended by a beneficent providence for the playing of golf we shall observe that they are mean rather than magnificent.

There is nothing spectacular about the Road Hole at St. Andrews, and its governing bunker is commonly described as "that dirty little sink at the foot of the green." The best shot hole in the world I believe to be the sixteenth at Westward Ho! But a stranger might walk over Northam Burrows without even discovering its existence. At Hoylake the Dowie beats the Alps to a frazzle. The architect of Coombe Hill will tell you that the really good bit of work which he did there was the shaping of the puny bank leading to the seventh green. The casual visitor may possibly carry no recollection of it away with him, because subtlety is elusive.

Returning to Westward Ho!, as we must if it is desired to illustrate a discussion by citation of the best examples, we shall find that of all the longer boles the second is that which causes the greatest uplifting of spirit in the player who has taken it in a faultless four; the fourth, with its spectacular carry from the tee, makes him most inclined to kick himself when he takes five to it.


JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #90 on: September 06, 2018, 08:29:10 PM »
To me, the difference is that the courses referenced as inspiration came to be organically, rather than contrived.


I’d be more interested in a course where Tom went out and found the 18 best holes on the allocated land rather than applying these “inspired” constraints.  IF the end result of the former is a par 67 (68 is mathematically impossible with 5 par 3s and 0 par 5s) then so be it.  PAC Dunes is phenomenal and is non traditional in that regard. 


But, to start with the idea of building a par 67 as some nod to a set of courses a significant majority of which the retail golfers likely haven’t heard, to me comes across as being a bit too clever by half.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #91 on: September 06, 2018, 09:16:02 PM »

 I don't think the Keisers would allow SV3  to be tricked up.


Surely not.  But, please, let's not dumb down the definitions of golf architecture where making a course challenging is equated with "tricked up".

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #92 on: September 06, 2018, 09:24:03 PM »
To me, the difference is that the courses referenced as inspiration came to be organically, rather than contrived.


I’d be more interested in a course where Tom went out and found the 18 best holes on the allocated land rather than applying these “inspired” constraints.  IF the end result of the former is a par 67 (68 is mathematically impossible with 5 par 3s and 0 par 5s) then so be it.  PAC Dunes is phenomenal and is non traditional in that regard. 


But, to start with the idea of building a par 67 as some nod to a set of courses a significant majority of which the retail golfers likely haven’t heard, to me comes across as being a bit too clever by half.




I understand your point but it seldom happens that way.  When I worked for Perry Dye, every site he had in America was too small and was just begging for a 6200 yard course.  [The same goes for the discussion of the Old Head of Kinsale, discussed here a couple of days ago.]  But those are the clients who INSIST on a 7000 yard course, because they are the most worried about the perception that their land is too small and the course will be too easy.


Meanwhile Mike Keiser buys land 2000 acres at a time.  He could build a 9000-yard championship course if that's what he hoped would "unfold organically".  But thank God that's not what floats his boat.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #93 on: September 06, 2018, 10:14:48 PM »
Great turf.
Just thought of that - ie how key that is here, and what a gift.
I recently started playing a course with 3 9s, the longest combination is about 5900 yards Par 62.
A modest family owned course. Good fun, well cared for - but poor soil, it must have, because the turf is always vaguely soggy and soft underfoot.
No roll. No bounce. No run ups. Big difference.
P


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #94 on: September 06, 2018, 10:18:52 PM »
the longest combination is about 5900 yards Par 62.



Is that a typo?  It sounds impossible.


A par 62 would have eight par-4's and ten par-3's.  If the par-3's were all 200 yards [ick], then the par-4's would have to average 3900/8 = 488 yards each.


P.S.  I played a course in India this spring that had five par-3's, four of them between 210 and 225 yards.  And they were all terrific holes.  It was a stunning lack of variety, partially compensated by the fact that the two-shot and three-shot holes played very short, due to lack of irrigation.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 10:20:32 PM by Tom_Doak »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #95 on: September 06, 2018, 10:27:39 PM »
Duh, excuse me, brain cramp that I can't even explain as a 'typo', other than the fact I conflated two different courses.


Yes, the total is 4,100 yards. 10 Par 3s, 8 Par 4s. Within that, nice range though - the Par 3s from 118 yards to 186; the Par 4s from 270 yards to 380 yards.


No roll whatsoever....which is what made me think of the soil/turf you'll have there, and how different those Par 4s might play with firm running fairways. 


P



 
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 10:34:41 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #96 on: September 07, 2018, 04:11:36 PM »

Par 5s tend to be the easiest holes to score well on. Eliminate most of those and the course immediately loses a few hundred yards in length, a couple of shots to par, AND potentially becomes more difficult!

 ;)
Par 5s play easiest for good golfers.  They play hardest for average or poor golfers: more full shots required, which they are more likely to bungle. 

Par 3s are the exact opposite: average golfers usually only need one good or decent shot to get on or around the green.  That's why the lowest handicap holes on most US courses tend to be par 5s, and the highest handicap holes are usually par 3s. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #97 on: September 07, 2018, 07:05:08 PM »
Jim,


I've heard this alot and it just don't match my personal experience.  If anything par 5s "allow" for a poor shot whereas par 4s, especially longer ones have zero tolerance for it.


Consider a 400 yard par 4 vs a 520 yard par 5.  Both typical lengths you'll find on courses from the whites.  On the par 4, if I hit a mediocre tee ball, and am left with 210 in from the rough, that's a pretty big ask for a GIR, especially considering most greens are guarded by a bunker or other trouble on one side or the other.  So I miss the green and am now left with a 20-30 yard chip or bunker shot.  Getting that up and down to save par will occur pretty infrequently, and perhaps even bring double into play with a poor 3rd shot.


But a 520 yard par 5.  After same 190 yard drive, I can now hit same club to a much wider fairway, and assuming another 190 yard strike, 190+190=380...this now leaves me with a 140 yard approach from the short grass.  A position and distance from where I can "save" par far more frequently. And my miss on that shot will usually be far less worse than a 210 yard shot from the rough, taking anything more than single bogey out of the equation most of the time.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #98 on: September 08, 2018, 03:41:34 AM »
I agree with Kalen.


As an "average" player (12 hcp) I can say catagorically that a par 5 is easier to score on than a long par 4. It is far more forgiving of a poor to indifferent shot.


520 yards is far easier to reach in three shots than 420 yards is in two.


The low handicap (Stroke Index) holes on UK courses tend to be the long par 4s. Par 5s generally come in around 6-10. Par 3s are normally the high indexes.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 03:48:29 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"
« Reply #99 on: September 08, 2018, 03:51:04 AM »
I agree with Kalen.


As an "average" player (12 hcp) I can say catagorically that a par 5 is easier to score on than a long par 4. It is far more forgiving of a poor to indifferent shot.


A par 67 can go one of several ways-it will be interesting to see
One , it can have 4-5 long "par 4's"and a couple of 230 plus par 3' that few can reach in regulation without a large disparity in tee distance-and suffer cries of "unfair"


or it can result in many more rounds below a benchmark score of say 70 or 80, rendering it more "fun"




I agree with another poster though who referenced it's a curious project to seek to do on purpose on a large property, rather than being the result of the best use/routing of 18 holes on a given tightish or compact property
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey