The Beauty of Simplicity - The Par 3s at Crystal Downs

[Peter Pallotta]

This impression/idea has occurred to me several times in the years since I played Crystal Downs. I think I may have found the words to explain it.

Soon after I'd played the course, I had occasion to speak to two industry professionals whom I respect very much and who know the course very well. When they asked me about CD, I fumbled for words.

Yes, I had enjoyed playing, and knew that I was supposed to appreciate, the many and varied Par 4s that everyone (including Ran in his profile here) seems to focus on -- but for the life of me, I couldn't really recall any of them to mind, or should I say, they were not what stood out for me.

Instead, along with the great Par 5 8th, what I remembered best, and most fondly, were the Par 3s. I think I can now better understand/articulate why, i.e. it is their simplicity, and their (seeming) lack of planned and overt architecture.

Individually (except for one of them) the Par 3s at CD don't unduly impress upon first viewing; and as a set, they are rarely  mentioned as exceptional.  But: 

The 14th: 140 yards of sheer loveliness, with a bunker protecting the front of the skyline green.
The 3rd: 160 yards, downhill, with the wind influencing club selection into an angled green.
The 11th: 185 yards to a tough multi-tiered green.
The 9th: 160 yards, uphill, to a green the runs away from you.

That's it. That's all there is to these Par 3s; but what wonderful golf they provide and wonderful golf shots they require, and all with an understatement of design and a modesty of purpose that makes them very appealing.

Par 4s are my favourite pars in golf, and the Par 4s at CD are indeed varied and interesting and excellent. But I found that, for my tastes, I could too clearly sense MacKenzie and Maxwell "thinking" these Par 4s into existence, could too clearly see the architectural options they "designed" into them, and could too clearly feel them bringing their "ideas" to bear.

Does that diminish them as golf holes, or diminish their greatness? Well, I'd be loath to say "yes" to that -- but I do think that in general when you can "see the hand of man" at work it usually means that there is a lot less subtlety involved than there might otherwise be, and (over time and multiple plays) perhaps less interest/engagement too. 

Were the Par 3s "designed" as well? Yes, of course -- but in their apparent simplicity there is not only beauty but also a lack of reliance on the overtly clever aspects/architecture of the Par 4s. 

I'm not sure if anyone will agree with me, and certainly I won't argue that I'm "right" -- but this is simply my attempt to put into words the experience I had playing Crystal Downs.

Peter           

[Jerry Kluger]

Peter: I haven't played CD so I am no position to try and answer your questions but I wanted to comment that CD is perhaps the most under the radar course I know of.  I have asked many people who are going to Michigan to play golf if they are playing CD and not one has ever heard of it. 

[Matt Bielawa]

Some photos of the par 3's:


#3:








#9:








#11:





#14:

[Tim_Weiman]

This impression/idea has occurred to me several times in the years since I played Crystal Downs. I think I may have found the words to explain it.

Soon after I'd played the course, I had occasion to speak to two industry professionals whom I respect very much and who know the course very well. When they asked me about CD, I fumbled for words.

Yes, I had enjoyed playing, and knew that I was supposed to appreciate, the many and varied Par 4s that everyone (including Ran in his profile here) seems to focus on -- but for the life of me, I couldn't really recall any of them to mind, or should I say, they were not what stood out for me.

Instead, along with the great Par 5 8th, what I remembered best, and most fondly, were the Par 3s. I think I can now better understand/articulate why, i.e. it is their simplicity, and their (seeming) lack of planned and overt architecture.

Individually (except for one of them) the Par 3s at CD don't unduly impress upon first viewing; and as a set, they are rarely  mentioned as exceptional.  But: 

The 14th: 140 yards of sheer loveliness, with a bunker protecting the front of the skyline green.
The 3rd: 160 yards, downhill, with the wind influencing club selection into an angled green.
The 11th: 185 yards to a tough multi-tiered green.
The 9th: 160 yards, uphill, to a green the runs away from you.

That's it. That's all there is to these Par 3s; but what wonderful golf they provide and wonderful golf shots they require, and all with an understatement of design and a modesty of purpose that makes them very appealing.

Par 4s are my favourite pars in golf, and the Par 4s at CD are indeed varied and interesting and excellent. But I found that, for my tastes, I could too clearly sense MacKenzie and Maxwell "thinking" these Par 4s into existence, could too clearly see the architectural options they "designed" into them, and could too clearly feel them bringing their "ideas" to bear.

Does that diminish them as golf holes, or diminish their greatness? Well, I'd be loath to say "yes" to that -- but I do think that in general when you can "see the hand of man" at work it usually means that there is a lot less subtlety involved than there might otherwise be, and (over time and multiple plays) perhaps less interest/engagement too. 

Were the Par 3s "designed" as well? Yes, of course -- but in their apparent simplicity there is not only beauty but also a lack of reliance on the overtly clever aspects/architecture of the Par 4s. 

I'm not sure if anyone will agree with me, and certainly I won't argue that I'm "right" -- but this is simply my attempt to put into words the experience I had playing Crystal Downs.

Peter         

Peter,


I am curious about your comment regarding Mackenzie and Maxwell "thinking par 4s into existence" at CD.


Did you feel that way about #13 or #15?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - by that phrase I didn't mean to suggest that the holes were "manufactured" (as we tend to use that term here, ie as the opposite of "found"); I meant that I found them overtly and heavily (if intelligently) designed. In the most negative term I can use, I found them too "clever".

Looking back, and double checking my scorecard, I did not feel that way about No. 1 (for me, a nearly perfect opening hole, especially for the site) or about Nos. 2, 4, 10 or 15. But yes, 13 and several others did have me sensing "the hand of man" too much for my tastes...and were stark contrasts to the simplicity of the Par 3s. To be honest, I have "fumbled my words" most when it comes to 17 -- the disparity between the consensus opinion (based on the options/strategies and challenges) and my experience of the hole really is wide.

(I can't see any reason why I'd ever play 17 differently than I did the first time I saw it, i.e.  a 2 iron, a wedge, and in that case a 2 putt par -- granting it was one of the very few, maybe even only, 2 putt I had all day!)

Again, I don't mean to say I'm right about this or that I have insights others don't  -- I'm just trying to understand and articulate how and why I could play Crystal Downs and come away enjoying and fondly remembering the Par 3s most of all (and the 8th hole, which also struck me as being sublimely simple).

Best
Peter

[Tim_Weiman]

Peter,


Thanks for your reply. Let me follow up with some comments on #15 and a question on #13.


My first impression of #15 at CD was that it was, in a way - perhaps a reverse way - classic Mackenzie. When you first look at the hole, there appears to be nothing to the tee shot. Wide open. No apparent trouble.


My hunch was that I was being fooled. I figured trouble must be lurking somewhere and decided to keep the driver in my bag and just hit a 4-5 iron given the short length of the hole.


Sure enough I found there was trouble: if you hit an off line driver shot, you could find hazards left and right. If you just played conservative and didn't quite hit the tee shot long enough, a blind second shot was the result. Neither could be seen from the tee. Pretty cool I thought.


Now my question: what made you think the hand of man was too involved on #13?

[Sean_A]

Hmmm, the first thing I notice is all four holes look to be of the aerial sort except for possibly #9. 

In the past few years I have been getting into really short and really long 3s...yardage areas of 90-110 and 225 to 260 should be exploited more.  Sure, getting the right bit of land to build gooduns is a bit of pot luck, but good holes of these lengths is quite rare and worth exploring. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

 

In the past few years I have been getting into really short and really long 3s...yardage areas of 90-110 and 225 to 260 should be exploited more.  Sure, getting the right bit of land to build gooduns is a bit of pot luck, but good holes of these lengths is quite rare and worth exploring. 

Ciao

agreed- great lengths to add to the variety equation


The problem on modern courses is that even if one starts at 260 (which I think is perfectly acceptable as a par 3 length for nearly ALL players given that there were 230 and 240 par 3's in 1930)
by the time 13 sets of tees are built for the levels of "fairness" you end up with another mediocre mid length par 3 for most players and another 100 yard par from the forward tees.


Then on the shorter hole you mention, the problem becomes tee space and ball marks on a busy course, but it certainly is doable with creative thinking.


I've never understood why a 24 handicap expects the right to be physically able to (potentially) reach EVERY hole in regulation. Isn't that what the shot + on every hole is for?

[Jason Way]

Individually (except for one of them) the Par 3s at CD don't unduly impress upon first viewing; and as a set, they are rarely  mentioned as exceptional. 

You are tough to impress Peter.  The par 3s at The Downs blew me away on the first play, and I have come to appreciate them even more with repeat plays.  Up until this year's visit to Camargo, they were my favorite set.  The view from the green back on #9 makes me marvel at the vision it took to put a hole there.  The view from the tee on #14, with the trees now removed, is one of the most beautiful in the game.


I think your description of them as simple and having a feel of not being over-designed is spot on.  I would call them elegant.  And yet, they provide plenty of thrill and challenge, especially on the greens.  It is not enough to hit the green (which is no small feat when the wind is blowing and swirling).  Particularly on #3, #11, and #14, the right section of the green must be hit with the ball below the hole to have a reasonable chance at a par, much less a birdie.


For me, it has taken longer to appreciate the brilliance of the par-4s and par-5s as I try to unlock their strategic mysteries.  The par-3s had me on day 1.

[Jon Cavalier]

Here are a few looks at the par 3 holes at Crystal Downs, including the view from the green on 9 and 14 that Jason mentions.


3rd hole:





9th hole:








11th hole:








14th hole:

[Carl Rogers]

Peter & et al,


How would you describe or rate the firmness --- softness of the greens at CD?  Can the shots of a mid-single digit handicapper hold the greens?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jon, Matt - thanks for the great photos

Tim - I was wrong, and you're right about 13. I was getting it confused, and when I went to check again I realized that that was one of the 4s I liked very much.

Jason - we're on the same page. I was surprised to find another fellow who, like me, walked away from their first play loving the Par 3s most. When I wrote that the Par 3s were not unduly impressive on first glance I meant to say just that they don't jump out at you (as do some of the famous Par 4s) or capture your attention by, say, being on the edge of a sea-side cliff, and instead seemed 'simple'. Your post did remind me though that, besides the 8th, my strongest memory of any hole on the course a couple of days later was of the 9th. I loved that end to the first 9. 

Carl - I had just one play there, and I'm just an average golfer, but I don't remember having any issues at all "holding" the greens at CD. Like many before me, though, I did have a lot of trouble trying to make a putt on them ;  just like folks all say, the speed and contour combined make putting those greens a very fun challenge - and a daunting one if you're above the hole. But in terms of firmness, they seemed just right to me, i.e. certainly not soft, but not so hard that balls were bouncing off them or not holding.

Peter