[Jim Tang]

What attributes do you feel the first hole of a golf course should have?  Do you prefer a par 4 or par 5?  How hard should the opener be?  Should the hole be indicative of what the rest of the round holds in store?  Can you name any specific opening holes that you feel are of high quality?

[PCCraig]

I always like a par-5 opener...if for nothing else to ease your swing into the round. IE you usually get to hit a driver, mid-iron, and then a wedge.

[Sam Morrow]

I don't think it matters what the par is but I like a first hole where it gives you some different options. It should be a hole where if you play safe it's not overly tough but if you play aggressive and miss then it can get your round started the wrong way.

I've always thought our first hole at High Meadow Ranch despite being a shorter par 4 was a great opener.

[Ian Andrew]

I always like a par-5 opener...if for nothing else to ease your swing into the round. IE you usually get to hit a driver, mid-iron, and then a wedge.

Pat,

Funny, I generally don't like them.

1. It backs up play as people wait for the green and then usually hit the approach into deep trouble.

2. I much prefer to face holes with decisions after I've hit a couple of shots. Good par fives should have decisions built into the second shot.


Jim,

A mid to strong par four is my preference.  A chance to hit a driver and solid iron

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

I don't feel there should be a "set" formula for such holes. No doubt there are those who see an opener as a hole which guide you gently into the round -- sort of getting the warm-up sequence in gear before encountering some of the more challenging holes.

On the flip side -- you do have courses -- Winged Foot and Oakmont, come quickly to mind, that really test you from the get-go.

Either style can work but I'd like a hole that's not a throw away type or one that is too severe. Something in the middle would work just fine.

I personally like a par-5 opener because it presents a series of strategic calculations without being overly demanding from an "either or" perspective. The 1st at Kingsley and Greywalls / Marquette GC are two good examples. The 1st at Riviera is another.

[Ian Andrew]

Matt,

Do you think Riviera works because it opens par 4.5, par 4.5 in reality?

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

I like the 1st at Riviera because it povides the possibility of a quick "jump start" to the round with an eagle lurking for those who execute. On the flip side for those who do make a bogey there's still time left in the rounf to right the ship.

Keep in mind -- Thomas was smart to include a tougher par-4 2nd so that whatever is quickyl earned at the 1st can be given back just as fast.

[David Druzisky]

I do not know if I prefer it or not but I have used par 5 starting holes numerous times.  It has some definite pros in that you might have a little more room for error and recovery and the ability to jump out of the gate.  A high percentage of birdies come on par 5's so it may put golfers in a good mood immediately

Cons might be that it may not provide rythem to the start especially if there are optional ways to play it. ?  Plus you use up a par 5 in your hole assortment right of the bat.

As far as jamming up play, operators have told me that it actually forces a nice pace off the first tee.   Possibly a high percentage of first drives go afowl and since it is a par 5 they have a little more time to gather themselves while the group ahead finishes up.   

[ed_getka]

I think Matt summed up what I prefer, something in the middle. Not a boring throwaway hole simply to get you going, but not so difficult that you haven't had a chance to get a rhythm going. I certainly would prefer there not be OB or a forced carry on the first hole.
    I think Plainfield has an outstanding #1. A solid par 4 that sets the tone for the day, but doesn't wring your neck if you aren't hitting the ball solid yet. Other opening holes I really like are at Rustic Canyon, Pebble Beach, Kingsley, Crystal Downs, Sand Hills, etc... None of these holes is easy, but they aren't going to break your back right out of the gate. Well maybe CD will, but every time you stand on that tee it just feels like a great starting hole.

[Pete_Pittock]

For pace of play I would prefer a non-driveable par 4.
Not routed to the east.
A forced or strategic carry on the tee shot which will get golfers on the right tees for their game.

[Carl Rogers]

I believe that Tom D hit about the right balence at Riverfront No.1 ...

A seemingly wide fairway with a bale out right followed by a potential safety approach to the left side of the green with a Sunday pin behind a bunker on the right side ... several relatively accessible pin positions most of the time with one hard pin postion.  

It is the No. 3 handicap hole, 435 or so from the blues & more or less 400 from the whites (it could easily be stretched to 460 for the sadistically minded).

[Jaeger Kovich]

The par on the first hole shouldn't matter. The hole that best fits the terrain is always best, although a
one-shotter is an undesirable starter hole. A first hole should never be a killer, and always fit the style of the rest of the course. Fenway Country Club's first hole is one of my favorites. Drivable for the real long hitter, and reachable for everyone. With its short length, there are plenty of options off the tee. It offers a great chance to start off your round on a high note, but double bogies are plentiful too!

[Mark Pearce]

The first hole should be a good hole.  That's it.

There are some tough great openers (Muirfield, Machrihanish), at least one par 3 (Berkshire Blue) and some gentle ones, to play you in. It's pointless to prescribe requirements for a first hole, just as it is for any hole.  What the opener should do is introduce you to the course. One of the best for this is the first at Elie.  One of the tougher par 4s on the course, but who cares, that periscope and the hill let you know that your round will be quirky and fun.

[Will MacEwen]

I like a straightforward par 4 that is good for pace of play.

My club, which has no shortage of faults, starts with two of the most forgiving par 4s on the course back to back.  It is a pretty smooth introduction if you haven't warmed up. 

I suppose good competitive players like a tough start as the less steely players will crumble right out of the gate.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - In a recent thread about good opening holes, Garden City's first didn't get a lot of votes. In fact, it may have gotten only one. But that vote came, if memory serves, from one of the architects who participate here. This is the description of the first hole at Garden City, from the course profiles on this site:

1st hole, 300 yards; Right away, the golfer appreciates this course is different. The green is open on its right side and a drive long right will leave the player with a clean look down the length of the green. The rub is that the carry to the right is 225 yards over broken ground. The lesser player can go left... but is then faced with a tricky pitch over a bunker to a green that falls slightly away from that angle. Travis wrote often about the need to make a golfers think, and this hole is a perfect example.

[ed_getka]

Jim - In a recent thread about good opening holes, Garden City's first didn't get a lot of votes. In fact, it may have gotten only one. But that vote came, if memory serves, from one of the architects who participate here. This is the description of the first hole at Garden City, from the course profiles on this site:

1st hole, 300 yards; Right away, the golfer appreciates this course is different. The green is open on its right side and a drive long right will leave the player with a clean look down the length of the green. The rub is that the carry to the right is 225 yards over broken ground. The lesser player can go left... but is then faced with a tricky pitch over a bunker to a green that falls slightly away from that angle. Travis wrote often about the need to make a golfers think, and this hole is a perfect example.

An excellent opener that sets the tone for the course.

[Sean_A]

Not just to be contrary I will say a par 3 or a drivable par 4.  One of the best openers is the shortish par 3 1st at Huntercombe.  I really like the fact that the green is blind so one can't get a clue (or get upset) by what happens on the green.  First reason is that a gap is automatically opened between groups to get people off in a good mood.  I hate hitting away only to get stalled on the second shot.  Secondly, both of these openers requires something a bit different and the player who has warmed up and ready to play rather than just bash a drive away is rewarded. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Not just to be contrary I will say a par 3 or a drivable par 4.  One of the best openers is the shortish par 3 1st at Huntercombe.  I really like the fact that the green is blind so one can't get a clue (or get upset) by what happens on the green.  First reason is that a gap is automatically opened between groups to get people off in a good mood.  I hate hitting away only to get stalled on the second shot.  Secondly, both of these openers requires something a bit different and the player who has warmed up and ready to play rather than just bash a drive away is rewarded. 

Ciao

Slow Play:

You can regulate the gap from the first shot with a par-3 (this would be Forrest Richardson's theory and goes against type)...

Jeff Brauer would argue that's all well and good but it means that the start times have to be at least 10 minutes apart thus reducing possible revenue...

If you take a driveable Par-4 then you can multiply these advantages / disadvantages... A short to medium Par-5 also provides these dilemmas...

Although every opener should fit the site, I do like the wide fairway mid-length Par-4s to open... Royal Aberdeen might be my perfect opener...

[Sean_A]

Not just to be contrary I will say a par 3 or a drivable par 4.  One of the best openers is the shortish par 3 1st at Huntercombe.  I really like the fact that the green is blind so one can't get a clue (or get upset) by what happens on the green.  First reason is that a gap is automatically opened between groups to get people off in a good mood.  I hate hitting away only to get stalled on the second shot.  Secondly, both of these openers requires something a bit different and the player who has warmed up and ready to play rather than just bash a drive away is rewarded. 

Ciao

Slow Play:

You can regulate the gap from the first shot with a par-3 (this would be Forrest Richardson's theory and goes against type)...

Jeff Brauer would argue that's all well and good but it means that the start times have to be at least 10 minutes apart thus reducing possible revenue...

If you take a driveable Par-4 then you can multiply these advantages / disadvantages... A short to medium Par-5 also provides these dilemmas...

Although every opener should fit the site, I do like the wide fairway mid-length Par-4s to open... Royal Aberdeen might be my perfect opener...

Ally

I would argue that public course is probably losing revenue by having tee times go at 6 or 8 minutes anyway.  Its better to provide a quality experience than one ridden with standing about right off the get go in the 1st fairway (always a very bad sign).  A par 3 automatically creates that gap which is desirable for golfers.  How often do we hear about guys who won't go back to a public course because of slow play even if they like the design?  Part of the problem is owners being far too ambitious with the number of tee times. 

It shouldn' make much difference a private club.  In any case, I used to belong to a club that had a drivable opener and it worked VERY well. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Not just to be contrary I will say a par 3 or a drivable par 4.  One of the best openers is the shortish par 3 1st at Huntercombe.  I really like the fact that the green is blind so one can't get a clue (or get upset) by what happens on the green.  First reason is that a gap is automatically opened between groups to get people off in a good mood.  I hate hitting away only to get stalled on the second shot.  Secondly, both of these openers requires something a bit different and the player who has warmed up and ready to play rather than just bash a drive away is rewarded. 

Ciao

Slow Play:

You can regulate the gap from the first shot with a par-3 (this would be Forrest Richardson's theory and goes against type)...

Jeff Brauer would argue that's all well and good but it means that the start times have to be at least 10 minutes apart thus reducing possible revenue...

If you take a driveable Par-4 then you can multiply these advantages / disadvantages... A short to medium Par-5 also provides these dilemmas...

Although every opener should fit the site, I do like the wide fairway mid-length Par-4s to open... Royal Aberdeen might be my perfect opener...

Ally

I would argue that public course is probably losing revenue by having tee times go at 6 or 8 minutes anyway.  Its better to provide a quality experience than one ridden with standing about right off the get go in the 1st fairway (always a very bad sign).  A par 3 automatically creates that gap which is desirable for golfers.  How often do we hear about guys who won't go back to a public course because of slow play even if they like the design?  Part of the problem is owners being far too ambitious with the number of tee times. 

It shouldn' make much difference a private club.  In any case, I used to belong to a club that had a drivable opener and it worked VERY well. 

Ciao

I agree with everything you say... I was only putting two points of view against each other...

I know quite a few driveable openers that work, not least at Woking... And I too hate waiting early on in a round... That's why the second hole might be more important when it comes to slow play (in my opinion)

[Alfonso Erhardt]

I agree with Sean. In my home club in Madrd, both courses start with longish par-3s (225yds and 200yds). Second holes are a long par4 and a long par 5, respectively. It is very seldom that players are held up after the first hole.  There is a putting green between both first tees, so you can practice your putt while you wait, which I believe is much better than waiting on the first fairway for the green to be cleared....

There is nothing more irritating than a round full of breaks waiting for greens ahead to be cleared. Certainly traffic management should be a priority in routing, although I guess it is never considered so much...

Cheers,

[Lester George]

I think the first hole should get you attention.  Not necessarily in a tough way, but in a way that says, okay...you're here so have fun and focus on the task at hand.

I'm not sure that I have ever started with a par 5.  Getting to old to remember.  I will say that I have considered it and always Thought better of it for one reason or another.

Lester

[Ross Waldorf]

Interesting comment, Lester. Can I ask why you "thought better of it?" Was it because something specific caused you to do something else in each case, or do you have a general feeling that the par 5s should happen later in the round? Just curious . . .

[Lester George]

Ross,

I guess I have a general reservation because I can't recall ever thinking it would be great.  Having said that, if I found an incredible golf hole and it turned out to near the "BEST" starting point, I am sure I would lead toward making it the tenth hole. 

I guess I have just never found a situation where I thought a par 5 was the "Best" start to one of my courses.  Sorry for the ambiguity, just hasn't happened.   There are many considerations (even some mentioned in this thread) slow play, fast getaway, three swings, whatever.

I guess I don't know the answer.

Lester

[Bill_McBride]

I think a bad combination of first two holes might be short par 4 opener, easy hole, followed by a mid range par 5.

This occurs to me because I used to play quite a bit at Sonoma Golf Club north of San Francisco.  On the weekends it was quite common to walk off the first green and stroll over to the second tee where you would find three groups waiting to hit, one in the fairway waiting (hoping to reach the green in two, few can), and one on the green.

After that it opened up.  Thoughts?  No, I never saw a course ranger or marshal, not even Marshal Dillon.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()