What do they have in common-one par 3 on a 9

[ian]

I enjoyed Tom's previous challenge, and thought that I would pose my own. When someone comes up the answer, this should lead to an interesting discussion on the subject.

The following is a list of courses that have something in common. The hint is they all break a modern standard.

Cruden Bay
Carnoustie
Kapula-Plantation Course
Commonwealth
Kingston Heath
Pacific Dunes
Garden City
St. Andrew's-Old Course
National Golf Links of America (for Mucci)
Woodhall Spa
Devil's Pulpit (for Dewer)

I hope this is not too easy.

[Craig_Rokke]

Ian-
I'm going to take a guess and say they all have just 3 par
3's.

[mike_beene]

How about less than four par threes?

[Shane Gurnett]

Cruden Bay has 4 par 3's. Holes 4,11,15 & 16.

[Craig_Rokke]

I don't believe that any of them are par 72's.

[CB]

The Old Course is par 72

[ian]

Too easy, but I thought this would be answered right away.

Each of the courses has just one par 3 on one of the nines. A couple have one for each of the nines. The question that comes from this is why have we gone to two par threes, (and usually) two par fives as a "modern standard" for nine holes. My favourite front nine here is at Toronto Golf; Par 34, with no fives. Never thought about it playing the course, just knew it was tough. The point I'm trying to make is I never noticed that there is only one par three for nine on each of those layouts above when I had played them. Funny enough, my father did immediately. Par threes generally get attract more attention than the fours and fives. If you ask most players to name their favourite holes, they almost always begin with the threes.

My questions are:
Do you perfer (a minimum) two par threes per nine?
Do you think architects should still strive for this, and it is a weakness in the routing not to acheive this?
Like Pacific Dunes, does the total matter more than the placement on the course? Summit G&CC (a great Thompson course in Toronto) also has four threes on one nine.
Have we become to conventional in the golf that gets built?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Ian,
Add the River course at Blackwolf Run to that list (one par three on the front, three on the back.)

Summit is a good example, because I never notice the four par threes on the back, and yet, the course flows along well.

It is impossible for me to imagine that a designer envisions building 4 3's, 4 5's, and 10 4's, before he sets out to do the routing.  It would take an open mind to route a course with back-to-back par threes, or three on nine holes.  So in my opinion, design has become too conventional, if the 4-4-10 arrangement is always sought, which it is more often than not.

When you route Ian, do you aim for par 72?  Do your clients ask for it?

[ian]

Ben, As an office we're conventional. It is rare that the course is not 72 and it seems like 7,000 has become "short".  I'm frustrated with the direction of golf, ie. length and 72.

To answer your question, I personally look for holes first. I definately look for two threes on each side. I admire Tom D for ignoring convention on Pacific Dunes. I would not have. In trying to figure out Tom's question, I found out that a number of clubs had this unique situation, and it started me thinking of how important this is to players. At Staford CC (Travis), they turned a short four into a long three to become "conventional". Since I have wondered if the club would be best served to return to the original routing.

Ben we still need to play this year.

[BV]

What I like is one par FIVE per nine.

Easly in my golf, someone once told me that the par 4 is the backbone of the golf course.  That is less so today with bombs away making most par 4's D wedge for better players, but 4 good par 5's on a course?

Not many fill that bill.  That will be a very short list and east to figure out in this quiz format.

[Jeff Mingay]

It's always amazed me that the majority of new courses hover around 7,000 total yards par 72.

If indeed architects were utilizing native landscapes for golf, as so many claim to do, these standards would be impossible to so consistently achieve.

Think about it how many of the world's great courses, including Pacific Dunes, Cypress Point, and Highlands Links, and more, feature back-to-back par 3s, consecutive short par 4s, and/or back-to-back par 5s. These scenarios are generally what nature presents for golf.  

The fact that so many new courses play to the conventional norms only goes to show that most architects are overpowering natural sites, forcing preconceived ideas and presumed standards onto the ground. They're not routing courses the way Tom Doak did at Pacific Dunes.

It's too bad.

[Evan Fleisher]

Ian,

You can also add Blackhawk Country Club in Madison, WI to that list...the front nine has one Par3 and one Par5.  The course still comes in at a Par 72 because the back has a traditional routing.

BV,

You can add my home course...Dubuque Golf & Country Club...to the list of courses with just one Par5 on each nine, and we are a Par70 course.  Sporty, yet tons of fun, IMO.