Back To Back Par Threes

« **Reply #50 on:** January 09, 2006, 02:40:38 PM »

Something that always made me wonder was an instance where a par 4 may better be broken up into two par 3 holes: One of a longer 200+ yard variety, and another of short wedge or short iron "short hole" variety.

Are there any instances where a par 4 seemed forced into the land for the sake of distance when two par 3s in succession would have worked better?

« **Reply #51 on:** January 09, 2006, 02:53:38 PM »

I would not call this a BETTER idea but certainly an intriguing one. Take #8 at Rolling Green and have a long par three where the green sits about in the middle of the present fairway and short of the creek. Then have a nasty 140ish uphill par three.

The front would then have a short five ,two 3's and then a long 5.

I would hold off on this idea until we do a little more of the master plan though

« **Reply #52 on:** January 09, 2006, 03:01:09 PM »

Mike,

That hole was actually in one of my thoughts, but you're right, it's not necessarily better. The tee shot on that hole is quite the challenge, but unless you're laying up (something I've never done on the two times I've played it and you saw the one result) it's all about distance.

Being forced to keep a tee shot on the "island" fairway would be great fun, but with the par 4, you are more tempted to lay into a drive.

That's the gist of the question.

« **Reply #53 on:** January 09, 2006, 03:01:44 PM »

RTJ's Rancho San Marcos in Santa Barbara has two par 3's back to back, #12 and #13.

« **Reply #54 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:24:41 PM »

We are going to build back-to-back par-3 holes for the second time at Rock Creek in Montana. The 12th hole will be a 160-ish drop shot with the green perched above a deep little valley which runs across in front; the 13th is a beast of about 240 yards back across the valley with about 60 yards of fairway in front and a tremendous view beyond the green.

I was hesitant to go with this routing because I'm sure I will hear from all you experts that it's silly to have consecutive par-3's when we had so much property from which to choose, or that I'm just doing it because it worked at Pacific Dunes. Really, the only reason to have back-to-back par-3's is because that's the way for the other holes to work out best, which I'm convinced is the case at Rock Creek.

I'll try to remember to come and post photos of the two holes in the raw after I am out there in March. I believe the 13th will wind up being famous as one of the great long 3's.

« **Reply #55 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:27:59 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on November 06, 2001, 03:11:00 PM

I also asked if anyone knew of back to back to back par 5's.

I think one of the most interesting case studies in routing is Highland Links, which has two different sets of back-to-back par 5s (6 and 7, 15 and 16). In each case, the two holes are *completely* different (6 a reachable cape-like hole on flat ground along the marsh by the bay, 7 over rolling ground heading up into the mountains and three shots for almost everyone; 15 mid-length and downhill w/ spectacular ocean views, 16 short, sharply uphill, and very wide).

HL also has other sets of holes that look very similar on the card back to back, especially 8 and 9 (two short par 4s) and 13 and 14 (two mid-length par 4s). Again, the "paired" holes play very differently, but I still wonder if most architects would be willing to build them, given that on a superficial level they seem to create a lack of balance.

« **Reply #56 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:40:15 PM »

Cabo del Sol (Ocean) #6 & 7 - both par 3's, similar length and feel - same direction.

« **Reply #57 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:01:15 PM »

Tom Doak's description of the back-to-back par 3s planned at Rock Creek sounds great... simply, two consecutive holes with unique character. In that case, who cares what par is.

On the other had, consecutive 170-yarders across flat ground... that's just plain boring.

« **Reply #58 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Mike Benham on January 09, 2006, 02:33:10 PM

Taking the In-n-Out reference, Cypress Point wins the "Double-Double" Award with both back to back par-3s and par-5s.

Neil Crafter has already mentioned (some years ago) about kooyonga's back-to-back par 3's (#14 and #15). Kooyonga also has back to back par 5's (#1 and #2). And, to add to the debate, the back to back par 5's are followed by the par 3 #3, whilst the back to back par 3's are followed by the par 5 #16.

There is one other par 3, and one other par 5, separated by par 4's.

IMO, the key is to provide different holes requiring different shots. At Kooyonga (and at Tom Doaks new course, quoted above) a short par 3 is followed by a long par 3. At Kooyonga, #1 par 5 is (normally) a three shot hole whereas #2 is (normally) in the par 4.5 category (although I am personally always happy to get a 5

) At Kooyonga, the back-to-back holes (3's and 5's) go in different directions (at 90 degrees to each other) so the wind is different.

So, the par of these holes may be similar, but that is about it.

James B

« **Reply #59 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:38:10 PM »

13-long and 14 short drop shot at detroit's Rogell are a
lovely pair It sure would be great if someone in Michigan (or Windsor Ontario) !! would post photos of this Ross gem

« **Reply #60 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:44:45 PM »

Pacific Grove would get a triple double as it has back to back par 3s (#1 and 2) back to back par 5s (#5 and 6) and back to back par 3s (#9 and 10).

« **Reply #61 on:** January 09, 2006, 06:22:57 PM »

Tullymore has back-to-back par threes (4 & 5). Also Honeywell GC in Wabash, IN (Arthur Hills) has them at 15 & 16. At Tullymore they go in different directions and are very different (and both good) holes. At Honeywell they go the same direction and seem like very similar shots.

Also back-to-back par fives at Juday Creek in Granger, IN (9 & 10) and the Fort Wayne Elks Club (IN) (1 & 2). I like the Elks better of the two, as #1 is a short starter that can be reached in two, while #2 is much longer and generally plays as a legitimate three-shotter.

« **Reply #62 on:** January 09, 2006, 08:56:46 PM »

Favorite set is Dartmouth's golf course, @ numbers 4 and 5. Four is about 120 yards, a flat pitch over fescue, with a bunker about 40 yards short to create major depth perception problems. Pretty small green. 5 is completely different, a long one at 205, almost of the risk-reward variety. Downhill, but the green is pushed up from its surroundings. Deep bunker lies short, and a deeper bunker and a hairy gulch lie long. The player can lay it up to the right, But where is the fun in that? This course also has back to back par fives, back to back short fours, a crossover shot (which is between 6 and 18, and consists of playing over a 100-foot deep ravine that cuts through the course) and a ski jump to boot.

That's all for now.

« **Reply #63 on:** January 09, 2006, 09:11:47 PM »

Years ago when I lived in Sydney I was a member at Kogarah Golf Club, a decent semi private course. For those of you who have flown into Sydney it is the course adjacent to Sydney Airport, on your left as you drive out of the airport.

It has a few unusual features:

-- 2 sets of consecutive par 3 holes: holes 4 and 5; and holes 9 and 10

-- it starts with back to back par 5s: holes 1 and 2

-- it never has two par 4 holes in a row

-- it has 6 par 3s, six par 4s and six par 5s

And despite all this it's not a bad course and a lot of fun to play!

« **Reply #64 on:** January 09, 2006, 09:46:35 PM »

HenryE

Allow me to correct your misconception about the 6th and 7th holes at Cabo del Sol.
The sixth hole was designed to play a max of 195 yds and plays almost due south.
The seventh was designed to play a max of 165 yds and plays due west. Since there was a natural ridge just large enough for a back tee on 7, Jack decided to add the back tee which plays around 200 yds, for the sole purpose of giving more variety to the back to back threes. The 6th green is half as big as the 7th. It was explained to the supt. to never have the back tees on both holes on the very back tees on the same day. Each hole had the variety of tees to play differently every day. Some days the 6th would be the longer, and some days the 7th would be. That was the design intention, and they were never to play the same length during a round.

BTW, there are plans to rebuild both holes in the very near future that will put the sixth even close to the ocean and move the 7th further away from the condos on the right side. The changes should improve the overall experience.

Hope this clear up any misconceptions on these holes.
Cheers

« **Reply #65 on:** January 09, 2006, 09:47:54 PM »

Mark Chalfant is a man of my own heart!

13 and 14 at Rogell is a brilliant set of consecutive par 3s. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos. Wish I did, but I haven't been there in years.

I don't know if I'll have much time to head over there in 2006 either, seeing as I'll be working almost exclusively at the extreme east and west ends of Canada over the summer!

I'll try though, 'cause again, Mark's right. Those are two great back-to-back par 3s... at a muni very, very, very few golfers will ever make an extra effort to visit.

« **Reply #66 on:** January 09, 2006, 09:58:50 PM »

Bishop Auckland, England:

...a charming 18-hole layout sports a most unpredictable order of par... 4, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 3, 3, 5 = 37, and, continuing on the back, par 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 = 35.

Top that!

« **Reply #67 on:** January 09, 2006, 10:28:58 PM »

Quote from: HenryE on January 09, 2006, 04:40:15 PM

Cabo del Sol (Ocean) #6 & 7 - both par 3's, similar length and feel - same direction.

These are not the same direction. Six is more into the direction of the sea and seven is more parallel to the sea. As for distance I hit (Saturday) a full four iron into six and a punch six (could have been a seven) into seven.

« **Reply #68 on:** January 09, 2006, 10:35:59 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on November 06, 2001, 03:11:00 PM

Doug,
About a year ago I posed the back to back to back par three question, with Spring Brook being the only course I could think of.

I also asked if anyone knew of back to back to back par 5's.

Patrick - I'm disappointed in you. How could you forget Inwood, which is an answer to both of your queries.

Kyle - Inwood is the ultimate answer to your question, par for Holes 3-7 goes 5-5-5-3-3.

« **Reply #69 on:** January 10, 2006, 12:16:46 AM »

Forrest,

Can't quite top that, but a course called Saddleback Ridge about 15 minutes north of me that I really like has this back nine:

4-4-3-5-3-5-5-3-4

There can't be too many courses that match Bishop Auckland and Saddleback Ridge in having 6 consecutive holes that aren't par 4.

« **Reply #70 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:23:54 AM »

Expanding on my post above, Kogarah's front nine has only two par 4s and runs as follows

5 -5 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 5 - 3 - 4 - 3 = 35

and 10 is a par3 and 11 a par 5 ... so only two par 4s in the first 11 holes on a regulation length par 72 course

For sake of completeness, back 9 is

3 - 5 - 4 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 4 = 37

« **Reply #71 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:01:40 PM »

Jim and Paul. I cede to your knowledge of the course and the differences you both point out. I have only been to Cabo a few times and on my last trip I only played the ocean course twice. That was just over a year ago. I don't mean to propagate anything false. I will say, however, as the back to back 3's are ocean holes they tend to be more memorable than most and I remember them as both being very similar.

If the lengths are always varied to prevent similarities, I have forgotten. From my memory, both run parallel to the ocean, which is on the left; both have a beautiful little beaches between the tees and greens; both have flat topography; both are bunkered short left; and both greens have a similar shape and slope back to front.

Jim, while the 6th may be a smaller green, I think I remember there being a large safe landing area around the green (I could be wrong). In any event, I remember back to back 3's at 6 & 7 and I remember them as similar.

« **Reply #72 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:27:21 PM »

HenryE

I could list all the things that are different about the holes, but I don't think that will change your perception.
Therefore, because I don't want the holes to be considered similar at all, I will make sure the new holes we are going to build, will be even more different. I hope you will enjoy the new holes better.
BTW, the 6th is one of my favorite par 3's anywhere and I think the new one will be even better.

« **Reply #73 on:** January 10, 2006, 04:03:10 PM »

St. Louis CC numbers 2 and 3 are par 3's. 2 is a long uphill Biarritz, and 3 is a nifty Eden. Numbers two and three on the old Forest Park course (pre-renovation) were also par 3's. Pelican Hills South has two par threes in a row: I think they are 12 and 13. 13 has two greens.

« **Reply #74 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:50:26 PM »

I suspect the hardest back to back par 3s in the world are 9&10 at Brancepeth Castle.

How about back to back to back par 3s at Painswick's 5,6,7? A weird and wonderful hatrick.

News:

Kyle Harris

mike_malone

Kyle Harris

Aidan Bradley

Tom_Doak

Jay Cox

henrye

Jeff_Mingay

James Bennett

mark chalfant

Stan Dodd

Andy Troeger

JNC Lyon

Matt_Sullivan

JWL

Jeff_Mingay

Forrest Richardson

Paul Carey

SPDB

Doug Siebert

Matt_Sullivan

henrye

JWL

Jim Nugent

Paul_Turner