How many shortish holes in a row?

[Tom_Doak]

I am working on the routing of a links course (not Barnbougle, and I can't share the details yet, but it's not in the USA).

After walking the property for several days I'm convinced the best individual holes include a driveable par-4 (maybe as long as 330 yards but downwind), a 200-yard par 3 in the same direction, and a 150-yd par 3 in the opposite direction.

The problem is that the nature of the property dictates they would all be consecutive holes, in that order.

Would you build a course like this, knowing the quirk factor would probably disclude it from consideration as a "great" course a la North Berwick?  Or would you give up on the first two holes for a longer par-4 that was much less interesting (with a blind tee shot) to make the routing more conventional?

Of course there ae other factors at work too, which I may go into in a few days when I get back to the USA.

[JohnV]

Cour d' Alene has a par 3 of about 150, a 295 par 4, a 105 yard par 3 and a 175 par 3 in a row and it felt really weird to me to play 4 short holes in a row, but they really didn't have enough land to do anything else.  I guess if it fit the land and was the best way to do it, you could make it work if anyone can.  After all, your routing at Pacific Dunes is certainly unusual and people certainly have accepted it.  My only concern was if it was early in the round and would cause pace of play problems.

Will you be bringing any pictures of Barnboogle or the New Zealand course with you to Bandon?

[ForkaB]

Go for it, Tom.

Troon does OK starting off with three 300-350 holes in a row.  Gives the punters a chance to get a score going but also puts pressure on the pros who probably think, "If I don't go 2 under on this stretch I'm losing out to the field."

PS--I don't think the North Berwick is "downgraded" because of quirk.  Too many very average holes.  If it weren't for its quirk we wouldn't really be talking about it, IMHO.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

My instincts tell me that it would be OK but especially if these holes were flanked by a few really tough brutes.  The round would then really ebb and flow nicely possibly with players looking forward to those holes but at the same time realizing that they had better take advantage of them or their scoring opportunities will be limited for a while.

I look forward to seeing you at Bandon.

[Brad Klein]

If Couer d'Alene is your model, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Tom, I'm looking at the Merion scorecard for holes 7-13. The yardages are as follows, from the back tees:
350
360
193
310
369
371
127

Maybe that's a better guide, though who knows today - it depends on the rest of the site, too.

One thing I've noticed about so-called balanced courses with even nines - a mix of 2-3s, 2-5s and 5-4's each side and no sequences with consecutive runs of 3s or 5s - they lack distinctiveness and are very hard to remember. So maybe instead of it being a negative. you can turn this into a virtue.

[TEPaul]

TomD;

It's hard to know what you're facing exactly (in an overall sense--routing?!) when you ask a question like this, but the way I'd try to look at it (from the info you've given) would be in the context of Merion.

As far as I can tell in the context of a stretch of "short holes" there may not be a course that is as distinct that way as Merion and probably as interesting because of it.

Those who know Merion well think of it basically in it's "three set" routing--1. The realitively difficult first six holes. 2. The "Short stretch". 3. The extremely difficult final five.

The course is eternally fasincating because of that basic configuration and the "short stretch" in the middle is largely responsible. It's short but it's complex and can be meaningful for any golfer trying to "make up" for lost ground on it or to "get ahead" for what's to come later on the final stretch or set.

And it shouldn't be lost on you either that basically the "short stretch" lasts for seven holes!

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

From a shot values standpoint, for me the sequence requires approach shots with a gap wedge, 3-iron/5-wood and 7-iron, absent significant wind.  That seems to be a pretty good dispersion and meets the every club in the bag criterion, if that's even something you architects consider.

Regards,

Mike

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Tom,

We architects are our own worst ennemy in such cases.  We shy away from such solutions for no other reason than it, well... it "simply isn't done".

It's unconventional because it's rarely done.  And it's rarely done because it's unconventional.  

Just yesterday we were debating the merit of beginning the back nine of this course we're designing with two par threes (I even used Pacific Dunes as an example when arguing the case!).  It was clearly the best routing option for the land but how would it be seen by the client and the public.  We're opening ourselves to critisism (even if it is uninformed) with no chance to explain the merit of our proposal.

But isn't it time that all architects dismissed these arbitrary design "rules"?  If enough of us do....

[TEPaul]

The only reason redanman mentions that I'm right (for once) is because he's constantly jealous that I think of these things before he can or before he does and he finds it extremely hard to admit that very often. Actually, I should more accurately say before he does because he may not be capable of coming up with some of these gloriously true and accurate thoughts on archtecture!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak:

Have confidence to go with what you think will create the best golf holes. There is plenty of formula stuff being done today. You don't need to do the same.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Doak,

I don't see a 200 yard par 3 as a shortish hole, I view it as a fairly long par 3.

NGLA and GCGC both start off with very short holes and I don't think those layouts are criticized due to that factor.

Pine Tree has three very short holes in a row starting with
# 13 at 157 from the back tee.  # 14 and # 15 are a little over 300 from the back tees, with # 14 being the longer of the two because it's a slight dogleg.

Those three holes are sandwhiched between some rather long holes, providing for some diverse golf.

[CHrisB]

Question: Would it be a drawback if, because of the wind, players hit the same club on the consecutive par 3's?  I like to see consecutive par 3's play as differently as possible (e.g., Ballybunion, Cypress Point), so on the 2nd par 3 players don't think "another par 3?".

The key might lie in the middle hole, the 200-yard par 3.  This is the hole that can "break up" the feel of those 3 in a row if you are concerned about how people will view that stretch (especially if it were much more difficult than the other two; maybe the longer the better for that middle hole).  I guess it also depends on the holes that immediately precede and follow this stretch.

[corey miller]

I think most people that play golf and are not addicted to this site will look at it as par 4,3,3 anyway without regard to the actual length of the holes.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeremy Glenn mentions the word 'unconvetional'. I think most of the world's GREAT courses can be described as 'unconventional'. Merion and Pacific Dunes included.

Obviously, the reason so few GREAT courses have been designed and constructed over the past half century, is because too many architects are afraid to go against convention. No one, I don't think, knows this better than Tom Doak, of course.

Anyway, I think if the so-called 'short' holes are natural, unqiue and exciting to play, very few golfers will even notice they just played 3-4 short holes in a row, unless they study the scorecard. Particularly on a seaside links, where the wind is going to make one or two of those 'short' holes not so short some days.

One of my favourite stretches of holes is 8-10 at Highlands Links. 8 plays about 330, up and over a ridge with a downhill shot into a relatively large, fall-away green. 9 is a modified version of an Alps hole, about 320 yards long or so, where you drive down into a valley then play blind, up and over a ridge to a slender green tucked into a natural dell. And 10 is a drop shot par 3 some 115 yards long, with a large green that features some really neat, subtle contour that sometimes undetectably complicates putting.

These 3 holes on the scorecard read something like, 330, 320, and 115 yards. But no one I know thinks, geez, why did Stanley Thompson layout three short holes in a row? The holes are so natural, so diverse, and so interesting to play that who could care they all measure 'short' in each respective par category?

[cary lichtenstein]

Go with the flow as long as the holes distinguish themselves. Cypress has 2 back to back 3's.

If they don't, I'm sure u have enought talent to create a par 4 that is better than u descibe. Just challenge yourself, and ask yourself, is this the best that Tom Doak can do?

[Art_Schaupeter]

Tom,

Without a doubt I think you create the best individual holes that the site will yield.  Do your clients have an opinion about this?  Are they pushing you one direction or the other?  The problem that I tend to encounter is with my clients, who can't always appreciate the quality of a proposed hole before it is created.  They look at the yardage and judge everything on the yardage.  I think that the yardage is one of the last criteria to be used when evaluating the quality of a proposed layout.  Otherwise, as mentioned by others, everything starts to tend towards the middle and "sameness".

I have been dealing with the same type of issue lately, though at the other end of the spectrum.  I have proposed back to back holes playing 635 (par 5) and 250 (par 3).  I have struggled with one of the development partners with these holes just because of the yardage.  The thing for me though is that these holes work beautifully with the existing ground (and they are slightly downhill so the length is more psychological as opposed to real).  All we will do is build the tees, the greens and any bunkering.  Shorter holes on this ground will need to be "created", which will strip them of their natural character, and cost more money to boot.  

Unless there are other mitigating circumstances, I believe you follow your instincts, and create three unique, dynamic holes.

[Jack_Marr]

I'm hoping it's in Ireland. Anyway, I would say go for the best holes. I know us Irish don't object to crossover holes, which might allow you add some length to the par 4, but I don't know the details, obviously.

[Jack_Marr]

ps, I think if you do go with this routing, there will be minor criticism, and if you don't, people will pick out these holes as ones you should have created...

[ian]

Where does this come in the round?

No if its the first three or last three holes. Definately if there is the possibility of long holes before and after to offer a great change of pace.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom-Think about it backwards. If you don't do it, how much will the overall course suffer? You intimate it will not be great either way.  But, If the holes are a natural fit, who's to say it won't be great?
Also, I golfed with a gentleman today who is on the books for building another daily fee course here in the 4 corners. We got to talking and he mentioned he had played with you here at Pinon about three years back. Mike Nordstrom also mentioned how tough a task he has inorder to build a good course because of the quality of Pinon. Hopefully he'll be posting someday soon now that he knows where all the junkies hang out.

[tonyt]

Tom, your call is that they are three terrific holes. I'd go with your call. I completely agree with many other replies, promoting the best use of the land over convention.

If a course is built with 2x3s and 2x5s on each side, with returning nines, my first question to the architect or their client would be to ask what was left out there.

I'll remember great holes forever, and not give a damn a week later whether a score of nett 72 comes to level par, one over or two over.

[Michael Dugger]

my two bits include.....

There is always the notion of a "man sized course" to consider when you are speaking of shortish holes, as you phrased it in the title to the thread.  But of course, a shortish hole is not necessarily a easy hole.  I'd be sure to pay close attention to the shot values if you go with the 4,3,3.

I really like what Tom Paul said about Merion being like one play, but with three different acts.  Something is very cool about that, IMHO.  

Something that also comes to mind is what you wrote about Forest Highlands in the Confidential Guide.  Will the 4,3,3 sequence keep players from developing a feel with the driver. If the par four takes the driver out of the players hand that will equate to three holes in a row w/o using it.  I'd think most use the driver at #9 and #12 at Pac Dunes, despite 10 and 11 being one shotters.

Ultimately, I echo the thoughts of those earlier that mentioned you should create the best holes possible.  Slow play and 'the bottleneck effect' is always a consideration, but sometimes you've got to make the best of the situation, as you well know.  I'm reminded of what you said one time, I think in 'the Guide', as well, about how sometimes architects are forced to accept a few holes they are not thrilled with in order to retain those that are cherished.  Not knowing more, I'd say only you can make this determination.  Whatever it is, I can't wait to see it!!      

[Lou_Duran]

If the 330 yard par 4 is drivable downwind, the 200 par 3 in the same direction will likely play much shorter than the distance, and the 150 yarder going back the other way would play longer.  Conceivably, somebody could be hitting a 5-6 irons off the tee on three consecutive holes.  Maybe if the second hole could be stretched to 220-230+ yards, and the third shortened by 10-15 yards with a smaller, well-guarded green.  CPC 7, 8, 9 is a stretch of three short holes, but generally require a variety of shots.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom Doak,
You stated that a long par 4 would have a blind tee shot but this wouldn't be so with the 330 yd hole? Different route?
Could you combine the 330 and 220 into a very good par 5? then come back with the 3?


  

[Steve_L.]

Just do it...

If both of the back to back three's were super short, then I think you knock it out of the "great" category...  But there is conceivably a 5-club difference between the 3's - I think it's great...  

Let us know what you decide to do...

ps - The Coeur d Alene holes are some of the worst on the course...  #3 is good (par 3 lakeside - short) - #6 is good (postcard par 3 downhill - medium) - but #4 is the weirdest par-4 at less than 300 yds, and #5 is a most forgettable 100 yard par 3.  The worst sequence on the course...