Breaking with Convention at CPC

[Phil Benedict]

I am reading Mark Frost's The Match.  As you read the story you realize how unorthodox CPC is, and Frost notes that while MacKenzie wrote the book on architectural convention he wasn't afraid to break it.  Three par 5's in the first 6 holes, including two that are back-to-back; consecutive short par 4's on the front 9 and consecutive par 3's on the back 9.

Could an architect get away with such an unorthodox routing nowadays?

[Jason Topp]

Pacific Dunes

[Phil Benedict]

Pacific Dunes

5 par 3's, two being consecutive.  Not quite as unorthodox but definitely not plain vanilla.

[David Stamm]

How about Rustic Canyon. 4, 6 and 8 are par 3's. 9 and 10 are back to back par 5's. The par 3's don't come on the back 9 until 15 and then again at 17. And I love it!!!!

[tlavin]

Some can get away with this type of "outside the box" routing, but you would need an architect with vision and a developer/owner with a big hairy set, as they said in the story about Bandon Dunes.

[Kalen Braley]

Back 9 at PD is:

3,3,5,4,3,5,4,3,5...only 2 par 4s on the entire back...thats some great variety.

[Mike Hendren]

Few, if any, golfers notice the routing, much less the sequence of par.  Among the few that do, such notice is quickly dismissed when solid (not necessarily superior) golf holes are produced.

[Tom Huckaby]

Few, if any, golfers notice the routing, much less the sequence of par.  Among the few that do, such notice is quickly dismissed when solid (not necessarily superior) golf holes are produced.

I don't know, Michael.  Seems to me most people playing either CPC or PD do notice the odd sequence of holes, at each course.  That seems to be a common discussion point as one plays, and afterwards.  It's not a negative at all - some even find it a positive - and yes, the quality of the holes matters a lot more... but I do think it is noticed.

TH

[Joe Bausch]

Few, if any, golfers notice the routing, much less the sequence of par.  Among the few that do, such notice is quickly dismissed when solid (not necessarily superior) golf holes are produced.

I'll state that many, but not most golfers won't notice.  I certainly noticed a less than usual sequence of the front nine on Doak's Beechtree:  4,3,4,3,4,4,5,5,4.

[Michael Dugger]

Few, if any, golfers notice the routing, much less the sequence of par.  Among the few that do, such notice is quickly dismissed when solid (not necessarily superior) golf holes are produced.

I don't know, Michael.  Seems to me most people playing either CPC or PD do notice the odd sequence of holes, at each course.  That seems to be a common discussion point as one plays, and afterwards.  It's not a negative at all - some even find it a positive - and yes, the quality of the holes matters a lot more... but I do think it is noticed.

TH

That's because the majority of Americans are convention whores.

Meaning they think what they are use to is what is best.

[PThomas]

i didn't notice the sequence at PD until I read about it on GCA, and I had played it about 6 times by then!

I chalk it up to Hogan-like concentration on the course on my part ...it certainly couldn't be because of me walking around in a stupor out there .......

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael:

Note I made no value judgment on this - I just said that the odd sequence would be noticed.

And I'd say this for all golfers, not just us American convention-whores.

 

[Evan Fleisher]

Although not "conventional" in terms of front versus back nines...but how about the routing at Lawsonia links which starts at hole #9 and goes 5-3-5-3-5-3...you gotta love it!!!

[Mike Hendren]

An unconventional par sequence has "cachet" in today's world and is frequently cited by the cognoscenti as evidence that the architect "gets it."  

Perhaps the smart, fast and cool guys are going out of their way to break convention?

If they're really radical, why aren't we seeing a few par 69's?

Mike

[Mike Benham]

If they're really radical, why aren't we seeing a few par 69's?

Because "Championship Golf Course" and "Par 69" when used together, don't sell very well.

How many property owners are asking their architects to build them a par 69 course?

How many architects have the mindset (or backlog) to tell the property owner "there is only enough good land to build a par 69 golf course with 5 par-3s, 11 par-4s and 2 par-5s"?

[JESII]

I personally would rather see more really good short holes (for each par set) than reduce par to 69...although, I am a big proponent of par 69's instead of lengthening and changing courses that host Professional events in hopes of protecting par...

[Phil Benedict]

There is definitely a stigma attached to par-69 courses (I belong to one).  The Tour Championship was played on a par 70 with a 495 yard par 5, which I'm guessing is the only sub 500-yard par 5 on tour.  Is Wannamoisett the only par 69 that's in the top 100 of anything?

My course has only one par 5 because there is no place to put another 5.  Standard four par 3's but 13 '4's.  Personally, I think par 4's are inherently superior to 3's and 5's, so lots of par 4's is fine by me.

[Michael Christensen]

my course in CT is 4-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-3 on the front....34/37...and it could be 36 on the back if they made #14 a par 4 at 458

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:

I thought when we came up with the routing for Pacific Dunes that a lot of people would get stuck on the unusual scorecard and refuse to like it for that reason.  I guess I was wrong.

Everybody out there tells me that very few people comment on the unusual back-nine scorecard after playing it.  Mike Keiser has noted that he's had lots of people tell him excitedly that they played their best nine holes EVER on the back nine at Pacific Dunes; none of them have seemed to realize that having four par-3's and three par-5's in those nine holes probably helped a bit.  

[Pete_Pittock]

Shivas,
The course has since been remodeled and rearranged, but Spring Hill in Albany OR had 6 3s, 6 4s and 6 5s and you never played consecutive holes of the same par, whether starting from the 1st or the 10th.

Mackenzie came from a time that courses were laid out according to the land and there was no formula of out and back 9s and balanced holes. Mackenzie wasn't breaking from conventions, he was following them.  

The finish of CPC is a series of 3s and 4s which was well dictated by the topography and grandeur of the site. If you wanted a number of par 5s they must appear in the first run of holes and having two consecutive 5s has a better statistical chance of appearing under the circumstance.

Convention is the hobgoblin of small minds.  

[Jason Connor]

... get away with ... ?

I'm never sure what this means, "Get away with it".  

It's not a bank robbery.  Or cheating on a test.

So I assume not getting away with it must mean "Be sufficiently disliked that the course becomes insolvent."

And I don't think the vast majority of golfers think too much about 2-5-2 in terms of par 3 4 and 5 holes.

In my 3 years taking friends and associates to Thompson's Sleepy Hollow (outside Cleveland), no one ever commented that the back had just one par 3 and one par 5 and seven par 4s.

I was playing some course this summer, I forget where, and noticed there were never consecutive par 4's on the front, just like Augusta.  I commented this to my foursome and no one noticed or cared.

So I think so long as the course is fun and memorable or beautiful, golfers really don't care.  

Even the atypical 4-2-3 par 3/4/5  on the back at Pacific Dunes gives a par of 35. And CP is 37-35. Until you get 34 or below or 38 or above for a side, I don't even think it raises an eyebrow in Joe Duffer.

 

[Phil Benedict]

Jason,

What I was suggesting is that golf course conventions have become so imbedded over time that architects are likely to come under pressure to conform to these conventions, that pressure coming from clients who want a par 72 with balanced front and back 9's, or at least something close to it.  Why would this be so?  Because, for one thing, every week (with a few exceptions) we see a course like this presented on TV, played by the world's best.  Or because that's the way Augusta National is set up.

Based on the Pacific Dunes example (and others) there are some owners who will give their architect the latitude to break away from this convention.

[Tom_Doak]

Most architects never think about such unconventional routings because they believe their clients will shoot them down -- or because they're afraid the consumer will reject them if they're built that way.

[Phil Benedict]

Was MacKenzie following Raynor's routing at CPC or was it his own?

[TEPaul]

"Could an architect get away with such an unorthodox routing nowadays?"

Phil:

I think an architect could get away with something like that today to the extent of about a factor of ten compared to say 15 or 20 years ago.

I think the only thing for an architect should be concerned about doing something like that today is that he's not almost creating it unnaturally as a gimmick.

But if the land and the flow of a basically natural routing sequence pretty obviously dictates it or clearly allows it I think an architect can get away with that today, again, by about a factor of ten compared to a decade or so ago----eg when that kind of thing basically just didn't seem to be accepted at all.

To be honest, Phil, I think that some people are so ready today to entertain a return to some of the old stuff or concepts from the past an architect today just might be able to get away with a real cross-over hole if it made strategic and conceptual sense both ways and wasn't clearly dangerous and libelity concerning.