[Jerry Kluger]

I recently played a new renovation where I got the distinct impression that much of that work was influenced by a really good par 3 which the architect found.  I was reminded of the routing at Pacific Dunes where Doak was instructed to build as many holes on the water as possible but in that case it was a few holes and not just one and their location was perhaps as good as it gets in golf.  In my case there were other holes built which are good and others were changed and perhaps arguably are not as good as they were.  So is there a point where the architect needs to accept the fact that the hole is too much of a sacrifice for the rest of the course?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have also seen courses where it seems they sacrificed too much to get that one great hole.   It is a difficult balance.  In fact, somewhere I wrote about it, saying it was usually a mistake to create a few bad holes to get a great one.  The trend to "signature holes" in the 1980s until now might have put more pressure on architects to do just that.


I had one owner who wanted me to build a lake front par 3 desperately, but a million dollar tunnel, wetlands, and a long cart ride made it impossbile, and I didn't really think it would have been worth it anyway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()