Could have or should have the land where 10 and 11 were built at Pacific Dunes been used for a universal (beyond world) class par 4.  I'm seeing something like an upside down 8th at Pebble...

If you agree....where could the two strokes to par lost be made up..

JakaB,

I really disagree on this one.

You have to remember that the tee to # 11 is back, to the left of # 10 green, and that the 11th green isn't that far to the right of the 10th green, and as such, it would be a very, very short par 4.

I think # 10 and # 11 are two terrific par 3's, especially with the variety offered by the dual tees on # 10.

Patrick - I'm with you - the more I think about it, the more there couldn't be even 300 yards to make a par 4 there, could there?

But anyway say for the sake of argument you could make a decent par 4 there - that you and I are underestimating the distances (I do think you could move the tee back).

Where would one put another golf hole?

That's where JK's question fails.

TH

Huck,

My question does not fail simply because there are already 19 greens on the course...there is alot of wasted space along the alternate 9th green and 5, 6 and 12 corridor..

Tim,

I simply can not accept that what may soon be called the finest course built in my lifetime has four par threes on the back nine...It seems like a comprimise.  I have a feeling that all the land that sits north of the course was not available at the time of construction...am I wrong..

What's wrong with being unique?

TH

With four par threes the argument can be made that strategic choices are being made for the golfer far too often...

Your question.."What is wrong with being unique?"

Unique can only go so far..I think we agree that 9 out of 9 par threes is wrong..8 out of 9...7, 6 and 5...Four par threes on the back nine is too unique for me...sorry.  I may be being selfish but I just love the thrill of hitting driver and don't want to give it up because it is suddenly fashionable to build multiple par threes..I see a slipperly slope when allowing this model to be called the greatest ever..Kinda like praising cart ball..
 

Your question.."What is wrong with being unique?"

Unique can only go so far..I think we agree that 9 out of 9 par threes is wrong..8 out of 9...7, 6 and 5...Four par threes on the back nine is too unique for me...sorry.  I may be being selfish but I just love the thrill of hitting driver and don't want to give it up because it is suddenly fashionable to build multiple par threes..I see a slipperly slope when allowing this model to be called the greatest ever..Kinda like praising cart ball..
 

   Touche, at least a little.

I guess I have a hard time judging just nine holes.  This is an 18 hole course, right?  And I've often said I'd love more courses that go 6-6-6 in terms of par 3s, 4s, 5s.  So I have little against too many par 3s on any one nine.  To me putting 4 on one nine is pretty damn unique in the overall context of a great 18-hole course.  Yes this could be taken too far - I just don't think it is at PD.

In any case though, I still can't see where making 10-11 into what would have to be a very short par 4, and adding one hole yet to be determined, would be an overall improvement.  Please describe.  I've tried to figure this out, and well... I can't come close.  Perhaps you can.

Of course I also don't have the temerity to think I can sit here and do Doak's job better than he can.  But I know you don't have that problem.

 

John,

From what I understand you want variety on the course (ie: not four par threes on the back??).  Since there are already two real good ocean holes that are par 4's, #4 and #13, why not change something else instead of thetwo par threes on the ocean??  If you wanted more variety that would make more sense to me, because that way at least the ocean holes wouldnt all be par 4's...

John, I wouldn't have a problem starting on #8.  Then again, I like the way the course flows now and particularly like 6-8 so I'd kind of hate to break those holes up.  I guess I just don't have a problem with the unbalanced format of the course now.  It's not something I think about when playing the course at all.  When I step back to analyze it, I do prefer the front to the back, but I don't feel a course has to have a better or more dramatic back nine than front.  Of course, you don't want a course where the back nine is a total let-down, but that's not the case with Pacific Dunes.

John:  Your willingness to start talking about renumbering the holes weakens your argument, now you're saying the 18 holes are just fine and it's only the order that bothers you.  Ballybunion has four par-3's between 8 and 15, so is it out of consideration as great, too?

You get to hit driver eight times on the front nine, and in the summer, you might hit driver on both 10 and 17 [I have done so myself more than once].

We did wonder when we built the course whether there would be more people who "insisted" the course should not have four par-3's in one nine, and we did think about other routings to make it more conventional ... we would more likely have changed it so that 1-2-3-13-thru-18 was one nine, and 8-9-10-11-12-4-thru-7 was the other.  But Mr. Keiser preferred the flow of the course as it was originally conceived that first day we walked it, and so far only a few really stubborn people have objected to the sequence of holes as it is.  In fact, way more people have expressed love for the fact they can sometimes post a low score on the back, not realizing it's because of all the fives and threes.

Tom..Doak that is,

Was the property north of the holes you built available to you at the time of construction...and if not, do you believe that you found the perfect routing given the land at your disposal.  The infallible routing so to speak..

John:

Mr. Keiser did own all the property up to Whiskey Run Road by the time we were laying out Pacific Dunes.  However, I only had topo maps for the land as far north as the 13th tee which was one parcel he had bought ... 13, 14 and part of 15 are on a separate block purchased from someone else.

On my first visit to work on the routing, after we'd been at it for 2 days, Mr. Keiser offered to let us use a bit more of the property to the north if we needed it.  What are now the 4th and 12th holes were completely covered by gorse, so we had to go around to the road on the north end and hike back in to find what is now the 13th, just laying there much as it is today.

I suppose we could have used more land up there if we'd really needed to, but I didn't really consider it, happy with the rest of the property we did have.  We understood there might be another course on the balance of the land someday, and didn't want to leave it with nothing ... but really, north of the 13th green there is perhaps room for another par-3 on the ocean, but nothing more.  And, as you know, we already had plenty of par-3's.