Three six hole loops

[Tommy Williamsen]

I realize that 18 holes will be the standard lenght of a golf course, at least through my lifetime.  Ha anyone, recently designed it with three loops of six.  It would seem to give a few optioons that we now don't have.  
Once in a while I don't have time for 18.  I could play 12 or 6.  Now I can skip a few holes and do the same thing, but I never know if I'm going to run into someone.  

On saturday mornings we havae tee times on both the front and back nines and then 2:10 later crossover.  This way we could have three sets of tee times.


when my kids were young even nine holes seemed long to them.  Six would hve been better.

What do you think?  Crazy?

[Bill Gayne]

I would think that a limitation with three six hole loops is that if you want them all to begin and end close to the clubhouse is that six holes (three tees and three greens) need to be bunched together. Alleviating congestion around the clubhouse wouuld be an issue. Also you may not want to begin or end the loops with par threes which would also be an issue in the routing options.

[Slider8]

Bill G,

I disagree that ending or starting on a par 3 is undesirable.  There are some very good courses that end on par 3's, as well as have their 9th holes as par 3's.

Perhaps you can explain to us why doing so is undesirable?

[Dan King]

I’ve argued this point numerous times. I’d love to see Lincoln Park in San Francisco become the greatest 12-hole course in the world. (Not exactly what you were talking about, but it could be two great loops of six.) So far the powers that be have chosen to ignore me.

Before Pacific Dunes opened, Slag and I played it as a 12-hole course and I loved it.

If youre psyche can’t handle playing anything but nine-hole increments, play it three times to play 36 or play it once and then play six more holes

I’ll never understand this obsession with nine and 18 hole courses. Why not do what the land allows? I think we can safely blame it all on the Royal and Ancient.

Dan King

By the time you get dressed, drive out there, play 18 holes and come home, you've blown seven hours. There are better things you can do with your time.
 --Richard M. Nixon

[Bill Gayne]

Slider8,

It's just pace of play. It's more of an issue on the first hole. If it's a public course and tee times are schedduled 8-12 minutes apart. The second group ends up watching the first group putt out and the start is delayed. As far finishing on a par three, yes there are many courses that end on a par three (Congressional).  My preference though would be that a round finish on a strong four or five.

You say that some very good courses begin and end with par threes give me some more examples?  

[Tommy Williamsen]

Royal Lytham and St.Annes is the only great course I know that begins on a par three.

[Dan King]

In my little area of the world:
Pacific Grove starts with back-to-back par-3s and the front nine finishes with a par-3, followed by the back nine starting with a par-3.

Pasatiempo ends with a par-3.

Olympic Cliffs starts, ends and has nothing but par-3s.  

Dan King

There's a tale that's told, presumably apocryphal, about a round of golf that Arnold Palmer and Ben Hogan played in 1960. On the first hole, Hogan scored a textbook par-3. Palmer's drive came to rest in a tree stump; his second shot made it to the edge of the green; and he holed a 40-foot putt for par. On the second hole, Hogan's drive split the fairway; his second shot was on the green; and he two putted for another classic par. Palmer's tee shot landed in three inches of water; he blasted his second shot out onto the fairway; his third shot came to rest several feet beyond the green; and he chipped in for par. On the third hole, Hogan executed four more near-perfect precise shots for his third par in a row. Meanwhile, Palmer's tee shot landed in the rough; his second shot landed in a bunker; and his third shot bounced into the hole for a birdie. Whereupon Hogan turned to Arnold and demanded, "Look dammit; we're here to play golf. Stop fooling around."
 --Jerry Izenberg

[Scott_Burroughs]

East Lake ends with a par 3.

Ross' recently restored Hope Valley does, too.

[Steve Lang]

 

I know there are past threads on this topic..

Not crazy, quite nice way to break up a round actually, refocus, pit stop, food, etc.,

High Meadow Ranch in Magnolia, TX is a David Ogrin design which features 3-6 hole loops.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

I would rather the architect work with the land first and let the routing unfold that way...even if par for holes become "nontraditional"...whatever that means???

[tonyt]

I can put up with some people's views against beginning with a par 3.

But I've never since birth heard a good reason not to end with one.

[SPDB]

what about the Men's Club? The best course I know that ends on a par 3.

[Bill_McBride]

Cuscowilla's great routing gets back to the clubhouse several times: #6, long par 4, #9 long par 4, #14 monster par 5, #18 long par 4.  You could really have fun playing a few extra holes when the course was not crowded.  So that's not exactly three six hole loops, more like one six, one three, one five, one four.

[Bill Gayne]

The reason for my preference for courses not to finish on a par three is in the case of a match that is decided on the final hole. On the last hole to win or lose I want the requirement that both players are faced with the choice of hitting the driver. If a player is one down, the aggressive may be driver while the player one up plays three wood or one iron. If the match is even it becomes a question off confidence with the driver to gain an advantage. Also with a par four the opportunity to recover from a wayward shot is greater than with a par three. The idea of a match that has gone 17 holes and is being settled with a pair of seven irons is less appealing.

[tonyt]

billg,

The match is decided over 18 holes (or 36 or whatever). If the par 3 has a weakness by lacking the driver test in your eyes, then there should be no par 3s played throughout the match.

Also, most matchplay matches end on the 15th or 16th. The 17th and 14th are also more common ending holes than #18. So maybe we should ban par 3s after #13.

Par 3s have a different test. If you don't want to be tested against your opponent without the driver, win the match before you get to the last par 3. That's like saying the course shouldn't finish with a short par 4 because it fails to test the mid-long iron game for that one single shot. Or shouldn't finish with a wide fairway because it fails to test the players' ability to hit a US Open style dead straight tee shot (for that one single shot), or shouldn't finish with a narrow fairway because it takes the need to think from the nervous duellers.

Every type of hole has it's own test, none less fitting than the others to help play their part in determining the match.

Or a better argument still, is that none of the great courses that finish with a short hole have suffered over their history when it comes to presenting a final hole test in their closely fought tournaments.

And so I rest my case. I still haven't in all my years heard why the round should not finish on a par 3.

[Bill Gayne]

Tony,

You are correct that the match is played over 18 holes which include 3, 4, and 5s. Also matches and championships that have finished on par threes are not diminished.

However, I'll refer  back to the writing of Alister Mcakenzie in The Spirit of St. Andrews:

"It is generally acknowledged that a golf course should finish with three or four long holes. The advantage of this is that the player who is two or three down still has a chance of squaring or of winning his match, and it frequently results in the interest of the match being sustained right up to the end. This is a point, however, on which one must not be too dogmatic."   He then goes on to discuss Cypress Point as  an exception because the land lent is to finishing with shorter holes (3,3,4,4).

[Tommy Williamsen]

billg,

If Congresssional didn't wnd on a par three, bu say they turned 17 into a par five playing from 17 tee to 18 green, It would be a great par 5.  As it stands now 17 is a great par four and 18 a pretty good par three.  They uased to play 18 after number 9 in tournaments, but it made for an od walk.  Consequently, they now end on the "real" 18.  My preference is to end on some kind of risk reward par five or par four that is relatively long.  Sometimesw it just doesn't work.  !8 at Congressional is really a pretty good finishing hole because of the green which is difficlut to two putt if you are one the wrong level, and difficlut to hit close from the tee.  And sometimes just difficult to hit.

Now, HOWEVER, What do you think about havae three loops of 6s if the land allows?

[Bill Gayne]

Tommy W,

If the land it allows for it would certainly provide flexibility and I think it could provide some interesting options. I like the thoughts abouts Congressional.

[Tyler Kearns]

The idea of 3-six hole loops (or variation) is a good one, and offers flexibility to players at the course, especially at private courses where members can jump out whenever they desire. At Glendale G & CC in Winnipeg, MB (Canada) the routing of the front nine leaves many options available to the player. And as a single after work, I'd employ any strategy possible to get around slow groups. If I caught up to a slower group I'd employ Option A: Starting at hole No.1, play the first 4 holes. Tees No.5 & No.7 were shared, so you could skip over to play 7-9 and then 6 followed by 5 to complete the front side and move along to the back nine. If players were on the 1st or 2nd holes I'd employ Option B: Starting at No. 6 play 6 through 9, and then return to play 1 through 5. By having hole No. 5 return to the clubhouse, it created a greater amount of flexibility that inevitable contributed to the members by allowing more play, especially late in the day when traffic was slow.

Tyler Kearns  

[Slider8]

Bill G,

Please show me where in my original post I say "You say that some very good courses begin and end with par threes"

Not only should you revisit your thinking on par 3's as being "weak" compared to a strong par 4 or 5, perhaps you should also revisit your optometrist for new glasses.

I never said what you claim I did.

I can bring you to my home course, give you three balls on A 100 par three and guarantee you won't shoot less than a four.  Up for the challenge?

It's really sad when people say par 3's are "lame, easy (choose your adjective), because if that were the case, then all courses should remove the par 3's right bill?

 "

Slider8,

It's just pace of play. It's more of an issue on the first hole. If it's a public course and tee times are schedduled 8-12 minutes apart. The second group ends up watching the first group putt out and the start is delayed. As far finishing on a par three, yes there are many courses that end on a par three (Congressional).  My preference though would be that a round finish on a strong four or five.

You say that some very good courses begin and end with par threes give me some more examples?  

[Bill Gayne]

Slider8,

You typed:
There are some very good courses that end on par 3's, as well as have their 9th holes as par 3's.

I typed:
You say that some very good courses begin and end with par threes give me some more examples?

You are correct your post didn't say anything about starting on par threes. So yes the lesson to me is to cut and paste in the future. You also never answered the question as to the very good courses that end on a par three.

Despite what you may think I really enjoy par threes. I just have a preference for the round not to end on a par three for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts on this thread.

I enjoy par threes and am up for a challenge. Where's your home course?  

[tonyt]

billg,

A player's capacity to catch his opponent from behind is not diminished by a par 3. Not late in the round, 'nor at the 18th. And a group of spectators' capacity to enjoy any thrilling finish is also not diminished by same.

I'd agree that a few nothing holes at the finish may do nothing to aid an exciting finish. But since we here are lovers of architecture, we'd assume that any holes (3s, 4s or 5s) would be architecturally better than bland nothing holes, and therefore capable of fulfilling their purpose. Their length and par alone are of course, irrelevant to their capacity to fulfill these aims you are concerned about.

Cypress Point is most certainly not an exception. The list is long of Mackenzie courses which have a par 3 beyond the 15th hole.

[Bill Gayne]

Tony,

I did a quick google search of Mackenzie courses that had scorecards and came up with the following finishing holes:

Pasatiempo 3,4,4,3
Scarlet (OSU) 4,4,3,4
Augusta 5,3,4,4
Victoria 4,3,5,5
Royal Melbourne West 5,3,4,4
Cypress Point 3,3,4,4
U of Mich 4,4,4,4
Reddish Vale 5,4,4,4
Kingston Heath  3,4,4,4
Bayside 5,4,4,4
Shore Park 4,4,5,4

Although the quick Google search returned only eleven courses that I could get a scorecard, I think it shows his consistency with what he wrote. Pasatiempo and Cypress Point are the only two that have two par threes in the final four holes. The other nine "finish with three or four long holes."
Clearly as he wrote he was not "dogmatic" about this question at Cypress Point or Pasatiempo.

[Slider8]

Bill,

Courses that end on 3's that I (not some jackass raters) think are solid are:

Congressional
Pasatiempo
East Lake GC

Now, as for courses that have a par 3 as their ninth hole, there are virtually hundreds, rather than burn Rands bandwith, ill leave it at just that, many many many courses that turn on a 3.

My home course is in the Philadelphia Metro area.  Gil Hanse design.  Let me know when you will be in the area and we can arrange a wager on you making a 4 or better on our "tiny & easy" 100 yard par 3.

Now, to speak to your concern over "pace of play", I don't buy it one bit.  Even if the course is a muni or public, you just don't let the first group off until AFTER the previous group clears the green ahead.  It's that simple, once that happens, you have no concern for "pace of play".  If you just can't bring yourself to sit there for a whole 12 miniutes to watch the group AHEAD of you play the hole they PAID to play, perhaps another sport like tennis is more your speed.

Now, this is NOT directed precisley at you Bill, but I must say how much I (and many others) are getting sick of people complaining about pace of play sucking (4 hour rounds).  It's golf, it's not meant to be "gee lets go play golf and then":
ski
sail
scuba
do the lawn
paint the house
walk the dog
take the wife to lunch
wash the car
take a nap WATCH some TV golf

ALL in the SAME day as you golf!!!!

Come on people, give it a rest on the pace of play.  If you can't spend the requisite 4 hours playing, stay at home and / or work UNTIL you can afford to spend the time.  BUT, please leave the rest of us alone on YOUR opinion of how fast golf should be.

NOW, in saying this, I agree, if you are ABLE (as the lead group) to set the pace at less than the prescribed limit (4 hours or so), then by all means JUST DO IT.  Prescribed pace is not like a speed LIMIT where you MUST take that long to play, rather an indication of the ABSOLUTE longest it SHOULD take you to play.  Gee, let me guess just how many crybabies will chime in with the "I play 18 in 2.5 hours" crap. yeah, well guess what, yes, I have played 18 holes in 87 miniutes (with caddie) and shot 73.  BIg deal.  Was it enjoyable, no, not really.

Some people like Coke, some Pepsi, just don't try to force me to drink from the blue can!

Slider8,

You typed:
There are some very good courses that end on par 3's, as well as have their 9th holes as par 3's.

I typed:
You say that some very good courses begin and end with par threes give me some more examples?

You are correct your post didn't say anything about starting on par threes. So yes the lesson to me is to cut and paste in the future. You also never answered the question as to the very good courses that end on a par three.

Despite what you may think I really enjoy par threes. I just have a preference for the round not to end on a par three for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts on this thread.

I enjoy par threes and am up for a challenge. Where's your home course?  

[bstark]

   Being a real East Ender my perfect six, six, six would be the following contigous loop.
   Start at #1 at Southampton Golf Club and play our first six holes (par 23). SGC's #3 and #4 are two great back to back par 4's. Skip over the woods line to tee up at #11 at Shinnecock and proceed to play a great stretch of holes up to and including 16 (finishing with a great par 5). Then hoof it or cart it over to # 13 at National Golf Links and finish off with the best 6 finishing holes anywhere. As I add it up that would be two par fives, and 3 par threes. A lovely par 71 track all side by side.      
      Hopefully there would be a little lobster at the finish line and obviously a few Southsiders.....