[Matt_Cohn]

It's been my experience that having two short holes in a row significantly disrupts the flow of a golf course. (I'm talking about "championship" courses here. Obviously 6,000 yard courses will always have several short holes in a row!)

Examples I've played include:

* 505 par-5, followed by 285 par-4

* In between two 450+ par-4's, holes of 305 par-4, 125 par-3, and 525 par-5

* 130 par-3 and 305 par-4 in between two solid par 4's

One example I've seen on TV is Winged Foot West, where #5 is a reachable par-5 and #6 is a reachable par-4.

Which top courses successfully pull off two or more short holes in a row? Which courses are disrupted by it?

And, is there a way to do it without disrupting the flow of the course?

[Doug Siebert]

TOC seems to be fairly well regarded, despite having a 5 hole stretch that includes 2 par 3s and 3 driveable par 4s.  The 3s aren't wedge shots, but they certainly aren't long.

You could argue TOC gets away with it due to the wind -- when it blows, all bets are off!  But the stretch from 8-10, that is by far the weakest on the course, is followed up by two more short holes in 11 and 12, and those are both pretty good tests even on a windless day.

[Jon Wiggett]

Matt,

look at Cypress Point 15th & 16th.

I am not sure that length of hole is as important as if it fits into the landscape and plays good.  On top of this how can you have flow if it takes 4.5 hours to play 18 holes.

[Jim Nugent]

Doesn't NGLA start with two short par 4's?  

[ForkaB]

Sean

What is "O.L."?  Looks like an inferior version of Painswick......

And, to ghet it back OT, how about 7-13 at Merion (5 drive and a wedge "par" 4's and a couple of one-shotters).?  IMO the best part of the course, by far.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

When you use the word "flow" do you mean keeping play moving forward without waiting to hit shots, or are you talking about your perception of the course's character?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Franklin Hills (D. Ross), in suburban Detroit, has a great duo of holes at 13 and 14. 13 is something like 285 par 4, followed by a 240 yard par 3.

That combo doesn't ruins the flow of the course, at Franklin Hills. In fact, it's a very interesting.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Matt:

When you use the word "flow" do you mean keeping play moving forward without waiting to hit shots, or are you talking about your perception of the course's character?

If flow is to do with perception of the course's character, then the opposite must also be true and having a series of 400+ par 4s would also disrupt the flow of the course. This in turn would mean that a majority of the top championship courses would suffer from a disrupted flow.
For me it would seem more important that the holes fit well within the entire course structure and this does not necessarily mean that two or more similar length holes cannot follow each other.

[Scott Szabo]

Sand Hills #7 (290 yards) and #8 (360 yards).  

See Ran's profile where he discusses the merits of two consecutive short holes.

I loved them both, and didn't see a problem having them side by side.

Would there be any difference in having two long holes in a row?  We see this quite commonly (Winged Foot was a classic example).

[Guy Nicholson]

Highlands Links in Cape Breton goes #3 (short par three), #4 (short four), #5 (medium three). After two par fives, it continues #8 (short four), #9 (short four), #10 (short three).

There are also consecutive fives on the back nine, and the routing is widely considered original and successful.

[Scott Szabo]

Ballyneal also has a few groupings which may fit this bill:

#3 (short par three) #4 (medium length par five, playing much shorter due to the elevated tee shot and firm playing conditions) #5 (short par three).

#7 (short par four) followed by #8 (short par five).

It also has great balance, with many long holes to balance out the short holes.

[Mark Pearce]

I don't have a card to hand but my recollection of Swinley Forest is that it starts with a medium length par 4 (370ish?) followed by two short par 4s (the third is mentioned on the Great Short par 4s thread) and a 180ish yard par 3.  No problems with the flow there, each of the holes has a distinct character that really get you into the course very quickly.

[Tommy Williamsen]

LO and OL are at North Conwy in Wales.  It is short for Hello and Oh Hell. It think they are 17 ahd 18.  Both in dells that are blind.  Great fun but I am not shur they work anywhere elc=se but Wales.
Two others are Cypress are eight and nine.  Both short par fours with 9 driveable for the long hitters short on brains.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Here in Maryland there are three short par fours at Cattail Creek.  I believer they are three, four, and five.  The land would not allow the holes to be any longer.  It is not what I would call a great test of golf but it is an OK Clyde Johnston design.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tommy: I've played Cattail a number of times and I've enjoyed it because of the greens which can be very challenging.  Unfortunately, there are so many short par 4s, especially on the front, including numbers 2,4,5, and 6, and the 9th is a short par 5. I've wondered how it would work if they combined numbers 2 and 3 to make them into a par 5.

[Adam Clayman]

Scott, I never considered 3 and 4. But now I can see your point. 7 and 8 are the sexiest back to back "short" holes I've ever played.  

[Jim Nugent]

Olympic Lake #7 is a 288 or so yard par 4.  #8 is shortish par 3, maybe around 140 or 150?  

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Sean,  I'm glad you brought up North Wales (not North Conwy, Tommy).  It's time a few more GCAers got to know it.  Lots of blind or semi-blind holes and nicely old fashioned.  Not too long for me.

[Mike Benham]

look at Cypress Point 15th & 16th.

Heck, look at CPC #8 and #9 ... both short par-4s and it flows nicely because of the options available on each hole.


Ps:  These holes also count for the shared fairway topic

[rjsimper]

12 and 13 (and more specifically, the old 13) at ANGC seem to be a prime example of this.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()