What makes it great ?

« **on:** January 19, 2005, 04:35:26 PM »

Can a great golf course have four "weak" par 5's ?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2005, 04:38:09 PM »

A truly "great" golf course can't have one weak par-5...or one weak par-4, or one weak par-3.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2005, 04:41:16 PM »

A great course wreaks of testosterone!

« **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2005, 04:44:42 PM »

A great course doesn't need no stinkin' par.

Dan King

Quote

Give me golf clubs, fresh air, and a beautiful partner and you can keep my golf clubs and the fresh air.
--Jack Benny

« **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2005, 05:01:25 PM »

It depends on what one's idea of "weak" is.

Certainly ANGC's par 5s would be considered "weak" if the defining standard is resistance to scoring. But I don't think anyone would consider them "weak" by other standards, certainly not as a group. And even this curmudgeonly group would call ANGC a great course.

If by "weak" one means uninteresting, then I'd think the answer to your question would be no, 4 uninteresting par 5s would not make for a great course.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2005, 05:08:00 PM »

Patrick -

What are you really trying to get at? The words "weak" and "great" don't go together so I'm thinking there's some water you're trying to lead the collective horses (or perhaps Jackas$e$$) to?

« **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2005, 06:05:06 PM »

Scratch Nathan,

How would you evaluate the par 5's at Seminole ?

« **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2005, 06:13:04 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 19, 2005, 06:05:06 PM

Scratch Nathan,

How would you evaluate the par 5's at Seminole ?

Terrific par fours, really difficult.

« **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2005, 09:50:49 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 19, 2005, 06:05:06 PM

How would you evaluate the par 5's at Seminole ?

I think 18 is a great par 5.

Seriously, I always give credit to thought provoking par 5s, and 15 is certainly an interesting design, although technology has taken away some of its interest.

Pat - What are your thoughts on The Creek's par 5s? I think they are yawners. I know you think that course is great.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2005, 10:05:08 PM »

SPDB,

With a north wind, which isn't uncommon at Seminole, as it blew last sunday, a drive and wedge doesn't a par 5 make.

I think # 18 is lacking.
I think # 7 is okay.

I think Piping Rock's are better.
# 6 is terrific and would be even better if more bunkers were restored. # 11 is good and I like # 18 as well.

« **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2005, 10:05:35 PM »

Greatness is in the whole of the holes.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2005, 10:43:52 PM »

Pat - I've eagled both of The Creek's par 5s in a single round. It's not uncommon, my playing partner did it the same day. Driver/Wedge?

What percent of the time do you think the winds blow out of the N (or NNW) vs. out of the SE at Seminole? We only need the hurricane records of this year to illustrate which way the PREVAILING winds blow.

What was your line of play on the hole when you went D/W?

« **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2005, 10:56:58 PM »

Patrick,

To sort of dance around your question a little, can a course that has only two par fives be considered as having a great set of par fives?

« **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2005, 10:10:42 AM »

Quote from: Scratch_Nathan on January 19, 2005, 04:38:09 PM

A truly "great" golf course can't have one weak par-5...or one weak par-4, or one weak par-3.

Scratch, You are right to question the adjectives. But the above statement is a very dangerous one to espouse.

"weak" is such a weak term, because it implies it's based on one's individual scoring performance, which is based on some previous notion of what constitutes ol' man par. It's pure poppycock.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2005, 11:32:10 AM »

SPDB,

North winds are fairly common in the winter.
They seem to accompany or precede any cold fronts.

My aiming point was over the far left bunker, unfortunately, I didn't execute as intended and ended up just in the right side rough.

Mark Ferguson,

Sure, but I was referencing golf courses with 4 par 5's.

Adam Clayman,

You and Dan King cling to the notion that par is meaningless, what you fail to understand, along with TEPaul, is that architectural features are structured to challenge three distinct shots, the drive, the second and the approach.
Add two putts and you've got a par 5. That's what the architect intended and created. But, if you want to Willie Nelson it, thats okay too.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2005, 11:53:49 AM »

Patrick, I can't speak for DK, but in my limited exposure to the finer points, it's not the notion of par that is meaningless, what is meaningless, is the numeric value pf par. i.e. At my home course (not seminole) we have a par five that my playing partner and I birdie quite often. So as a semi-joke, when he would make a birdie four, I started congratulating him on his fine par. There have been days when the wind blows from the east, that I'll stand on that tee and declare that today the hole is a par 3. Yes, Pat, a 520 yard par 3. And ya know what the result is? One is very happy with bogie.

With better, everything, technology, physicality, psychology...etc. the same numeric value should not be placed on the elite golfer's notion of par, as it is for the rest of us.

This is not a bifurcation of the rules, only a different expectation of par, in medal competitions. Cause we all know, Par is meaningless in match play.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2005, 12:40:32 PM »

Adam Clayman,

I've seen more matches lost because an opponent played the man, rather then the hole, so I wouldn't agree with you on par not being relavent in match play.

If you're saying that architectural features have no bearing on par, I'd have to disagree as well.

Holes are structured to be par 3's, par 4's and par 5's.
That they sometimes play to a greater or lessor number doesn't change their inherent architectural values and intended par.

Sean Arble,

Have you played Seminoole ?

What courses that you're familiar with have four par 5's that all play as 4.5's ?

« **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2005, 12:44:38 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2005, 12:40:32 PM

What courses that you're familiar with have four par 5's that all play as 4.5's ?

Pat,

I think you'll find that it's a common thread on alot of Ross courses (at least until they are lengthed). On the other Ross courses you've played, do you find that the Par3s are almost the inverse of the Par5s in terms of challenge? This is often the essential element of Ross' concept of give and take.

I'd say Raleigh CC would qualify as a course that has 4 holes that are Par 4.5.....at least until we change #7 to a Par4 sometime later this year, and lengthen #8 and #12.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2005, 12:48:37 PM »

I know of a course that only has 2 "par" 5's and they both are "weak" (if weakness is defined as being reachable in 2 well conceived and executed strokes). Most people consider it to be "great."

« **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2005, 04:33:34 PM »

Patrick -

I haven't played Seminole yet, so I can't weigh in on your question. But I don't know of a course that I would consider great that has a weak hole. Perhaps it could have 4 par-5s that are all reachable...but if they're architecturally interesting, present options, offer variety, make you think, nice aesthetically, "suggest" shots from the player, reward succesfully negotiation of hazards, then eagles or birdies are welcome and weak disappears as an adjective.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2005, 07:31:51 PM »

Brian Gracely,

Plainfield, a course recently discussed on this site, has strong par 5's and very good par 3's, so I'm not so sure that your inverted rule applies.

Montclair had a good combination of both as well.

Scratch Nathan,

Aren't you scheduled to play Seminole shortly.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2005, 09:25:06 PM »

Patrick, Milwaukee and Franklin Hills are two courses that I consider
excellent that both have several short par fives that play easy for long hitters.However Milwaukee's 10th and Franklin Hills' 15th are very good
par 4.5s because of their driving challenges + their superb green sites.

Milwaukee (Alison) has several excellent one and two shot holes.
Franklin Hills is an exemplary Ross routing over gently rolling land.It
has stellar par threes and many wonderful par fours of varying lengths.
I generally prefer courses where there is at least one long/strategic
par five. Nevertheless, I certainly consider both Milwukee and Franklin
Hills to be great works of architecture. Patrick Id appreciate your thoughts on these two courses.thanks

« **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2005, 11:43:37 PM »

Mark,

I never played Milwaukee and I played Franklin Hills about 40 years ago and forgot most of the golf course, so, I wouldn't be qualified to answer your question.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 21, 2005, 08:57:59 AM »

Sean Arble -
Is the hole you write of at Co. Down truly "weak" or just easily reachable?

Patrick -
Seminole coming up in about three weeks. Can't wait!

« **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2005, 10:25:41 PM »

RE: Par 5's playing as par 4.5.s - Fishers Island which in the modern age should be a par 70

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Scratch_Nathan

Rob_Waldron

Dan King

George Pazin

Scratch_Nathan

Patrick_Mucci

rgkeller

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Young

SPDB

Mark_F

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

Brian_Gracely

ForkaB

Scratch_Nathan

Patrick_Mucci

mark chalfant

Patrick_Mucci

Scratch_Nathan

Gerry B