This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Quote from: Kalen Braley on June 14, 2007, 06:31:20 PMQuote from: Garland Bayley on June 14, 2007, 05:47:37 PMQuote from: Kalen Braley on June 14, 2007, 05:32:52 PMQuote from: Garland Bayley on June 14, 2007, 05:31:32 PMIf I remember correctly Stanley Thompson, who is no slouch as a designer, believed a course with 5 par 3s was the ideal number. With 5 par 3s, you have to have a nine which has 3.Ummm...no you don't.You can put all 5 on the front or back, or some combination of 4 and 1 on the front and back.. Which part of 3 < 4 and 3 < 5 don't you understand? Garland,If I put 5 dollar bills on the table and asked you how many dollar bills does that table have, what would you say? 3??Your statement said "you have to have a nine which has 3". Please use the above analogy if none of this is making sense. But if you wanted to use the English language as it was intended so we can all communicate with each other then I suppose you could have strategically placed "at least" somewhere in that statement. My statement was factually correct without the at least.Haven't you heard the joke about the pilot landing successfully after getting factually correct but totally useless info from the MicroSoft engineer?
Quote from: Garland Bayley on June 14, 2007, 05:47:37 PMQuote from: Kalen Braley on June 14, 2007, 05:32:52 PMQuote from: Garland Bayley on June 14, 2007, 05:31:32 PMIf I remember correctly Stanley Thompson, who is no slouch as a designer, believed a course with 5 par 3s was the ideal number. With 5 par 3s, you have to have a nine which has 3.Ummm...no you don't.You can put all 5 on the front or back, or some combination of 4 and 1 on the front and back.. Which part of 3 < 4 and 3 < 5 don't you understand? Garland,If I put 5 dollar bills on the table and asked you how many dollar bills does that table have, what would you say? 3??Your statement said "you have to have a nine which has 3". Please use the above analogy if none of this is making sense. But if you wanted to use the English language as it was intended so we can all communicate with each other then I suppose you could have strategically placed "at least" somewhere in that statement.
Quote from: Kalen Braley on June 14, 2007, 05:32:52 PMQuote from: Garland Bayley on June 14, 2007, 05:31:32 PMIf I remember correctly Stanley Thompson, who is no slouch as a designer, believed a course with 5 par 3s was the ideal number. With 5 par 3s, you have to have a nine which has 3.Ummm...no you don't.You can put all 5 on the front or back, or some combination of 4 and 1 on the front and back.. Which part of 3 < 4 and 3 < 5 don't you understand?
Quote from: Garland Bayley on June 14, 2007, 05:31:32 PMIf I remember correctly Stanley Thompson, who is no slouch as a designer, believed a course with 5 par 3s was the ideal number. With 5 par 3s, you have to have a nine which has 3.Ummm...no you don't.You can put all 5 on the front or back, or some combination of 4 and 1 on the front and back..
If I remember correctly Stanley Thompson, who is no slouch as a designer, believed a course with 5 par 3s was the ideal number. With 5 par 3s, you have to have a nine which has 3.
To take this to it's extreme, would it be possible to have a nice playable course with 9 par-3's and 9 par-5's? Are par-4's too sacred to leave them out? Since par-3's have the highest 'above par' average, and par-5's the lowest, couldn't they balance? Could be fun!Doug
Quote from: JES II on June 14, 2007, 05:31:06 PMQuote from: John Kavanaugh on June 14, 2007, 05:06:08 PMI think the guys on this site look at golf like an old man at the end of his life looks at the choices he has made. There is a chance of missing some of the great times brought on by the ignorance of youth by always being so wise. The best argument I can come up with why 3 par threes on one side makes little theoritical sense is to ask how many par 3's are on each side of Shadow Creek? JK,If that quote was for me about my 'great greens' question...you misinterpreted...my opinion is that you never know if it was wise to marry the ugly woman until later on...isn't that about the same position as yours?The fact of the matter is is that you generally don't even end up marrying the ugly woman and if you do you don't appreciate her until she is gone. This does relate to why we love some courses and some not so much.
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on June 14, 2007, 05:06:08 PMI think the guys on this site look at golf like an old man at the end of his life looks at the choices he has made. There is a chance of missing some of the great times brought on by the ignorance of youth by always being so wise. The best argument I can come up with why 3 par threes on one side makes little theoritical sense is to ask how many par 3's are on each side of Shadow Creek? JK,If that quote was for me about my 'great greens' question...you misinterpreted...my opinion is that you never know if it was wise to marry the ugly woman until later on...isn't that about the same position as yours?
I think the guys on this site look at golf like an old man at the end of his life looks at the choices he has made. There is a chance of missing some of the great times brought on by the ignorance of youth by always being so wise. The best argument I can come up with why 3 par threes on one side makes little theoritical sense is to ask how many par 3's are on each side of Shadow Creek?
DanOut of curiosity, what reasons does your friend use to back up his argument?Ask him what he thinks of back to back par 3's? e.g.Cypress Point 15th and 16th, Ballybunion (Old) 14th, 15th.The Red Course at the Berkshire has 6 3's, 4's and 5's. I've never played it so am not sure what the configuration is but Tom Doak does give it a 6 in the Confidential Guide.