[Andrew Buck]

There is a course at Gull Lake View in Michigan, Stonehedge North, that has 6 - 6 - 6.  Weird flow, but good for music golf    and birdies opportunities. 

[Brian Finn]

Have yardages for each hole been shared publicly?  Based on the C&C courses I have played, I could see them having a very interesting mix of distances from end to end, i.e. several half par holes.  They seem to be masters of incorporating such holes into overall 'balance' both for the full 18 holes and subsets within (2-6 hole stretches).

When I saw that C&C were doing a 3x6 course, I immediately thought of a thread from not very long ago about courses that had holes at roughly equal intervals from a short par 3 all the way up to a long par 5.  I thought the concept was really cool, and I even created a couple of versions from varying tees at my home course.  It is fun.

Not knowing the yardages planned, and not having read much at all about the routing/plan, I could see C&C doing something along these lines:

 - 4 'normal' par 3s - let's just say 130, 150, 180, 210
 - 2 par 3.5s (labeled par 3s) - 235, 260
 - 2 par 3.5s (labeled par 4s) - 285, 310
 - 4 'normal' par 4s - 340, 370, 400, 425
 - 2 par 4.5s (labeled par 4s) - 450, 470
 - 2 par 4.5s (labeled par 5s) - 490, 510
 - 4 'normal' par 5s - 525, 540, 565, 580

Obviously, the site determines what can go where, and in what order.  Plus, I am just playing with numbers.  The above would play 7,425 from the tips.  Take an 8%-10% haircut for skilled amateurs, and you would be at 6,700-6,800 total.  Take 15% off for 6,300 yard that would be best for most of us.  Add another set or two for shorter hitters, juniors, etc.  Play mixed tees.  Whatever. 

Bottom line, I think if anyone is going to 'succeed' with this arrangement, C&C are the odds-on favorite.

[Garland Bayley]

Howard,
Do a search. Been covered a thousand times on here.
Realise that may have come over sounding a bit grouchy, but better that than green italics or the ire of kav...

Love,
F.

1)  The search function is not one of this site's strong suits. Especially with random search terms.
2)  I don't mind the color green.

I tested Martin theory and Howards on searching....  I clicked at the top and put in 6 - 6 - 6 and the only results I got was for this thread.  I have been a member on this site for many, many years and do not remember seeing a post on 6 - 6 - 6 routing.  Now, since I have been a member for a long time, doesn't mean I read and post a lot.  My participation comes and goes when my work schedule comes and goes.

It seems you have the common misunderstanding of search. If you do the search while in a thread, it will only search the thread. Therefore, the only result you will get is the thread. If you go to the main DISCUSSION GROUP page, and do search, it will search all threads.

[Bruce Katona]

Pat Mucci will coorect me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking one of the Meadows at Fiddler's Elbow in Bedminster is a 6-6-6, but it also may be a par 71.

[Matthew Petersen]

I've always wondering why this wasn't a more common occurrence.   I suppose it has something to do with how much land the par 5s take up, but as someone who loves par 5s and par 3s the 6-6-6 format is very appealing. 

In Forest Richardson's wonderful book about routing the course, he discusses this a bit. He had an experience where he felt 6 par 3s was the best option, but the client refused as they felt it might not be perceived as a true "championship" test.

Of course, I'm very familiar with the course in question, and it certainly seems that the result was that instead of 6 par 3s, they built 5 plus a really awkward short 4.

[Tom_Doak]

I will never say never, but I doubt I would do a 6 - 6 - 6 routing.  To me, it's hard to get the flow right with that many par-3's.

Forest Highlands has six par-3's but I think only five par-5's.  I loved the course in general, but the par-3's were all the even-numbered holes from the 4th through the 14th, I think, and I hated that you went through that whole part of the course without hitting driver on even two holes in a row.

The four par-3's on the back nine at Pacific Dunes was an odd combination, but one reason I didn't mind it was that the back-to-back short holes at 10 and 11 allowed the others (14 and 17) to be well spaced out.  Plus, you might be hitting driver on 10 and/or 17 in the summer.

[William_G]

Looking forward to the routing and how it plays.

I doubt they started out thinking that it would be a 666 routing, and I'm glad the owners went with it.

The larger number of par 3's is good for the game as it could bring in more shots with longer clubs.

[Michael Blake]

Pat Mucci will coorect me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking one of the Meadows at Fiddler's Elbow in Bedminster is a 6-6-6, but it also may be a par 71.

Close.
Just double checked and Meadow Course is a 5-8-5.

[Doug Siebert]

I've always wondering why this wasn't a more common occurrence.   I suppose it has something to do with how much land the par 5s take up, but as someone who loves par 5s and par 3s the 6-6-6 format is very appealing. 

I don't know that 6 par 5s and 6 par 3s take up more land, I think they take up less.  How much longer than the typical par 4 is the typical par 5?  Maybe 150 yards at most?  How much shorter is the typical par 3 than the typical par 4?  At least 200 yards!

[Doug Siebert]

666:  "The Devil's Routing"

I have never played one.   Par 5s are the hardest to design, that's possibly why there are so few.   Six opportunities to create a boring second shot. 

If you look at it that way, every course is an opportunity to create 18 boring holes!

The second shots don't have to be boring, even on par 5s where the player is laying up.  It is only when architects concentrate so much on the shot to the green that the second shot suffers that a par 5 is ruined.  Think about the all too typical par 5 with water down one side and fronting the green.  In trying for a dramatic approach (especially for those going for it in two) they're compromising layup.  You either have to be super safe and leave yourself a long way away, or you risk having your safe layup go into the water that's only there because of the approach.

There's a 6-6-6 layout nearby that is my favorite course in the area.  Every par 5 plays differently, with two that pretty much always reachable for me, two that are sometimes reachable, and two that are almost never reachable (in fact one I have never reached)

The par 5s really make this course for me.  Half the par 3s are unfortunately rather blah, with only the three on the back nine being good holes.  What I really like about the 5s is that the architect did an incredible job of using green angles and mounding to require a great deal of precision to hit a green in two, but when they're played as a three shotter the green opens up and the mounds are not an issue.  That's how a good par 5 should be designed - require the maximum skill from those going for it in two, don't require extreme precision on the layup, but reward a layup that is positioned correctly with a very simple third.

On the most difficult par 5 (the one I've never reached) it is easy to be fooled, what appears to be the easiest pin position in the center of the green is actually the most difficult, because of a hidden false front that's so large and so subtle that it often takes over 20 seconds after you hit your shot to know whether it has stayed on the green or not.  On all the other 5s if you lay up in the correct position you're guaranteed a simple approach, on this one you need to be on your game even for the third, or know to aim well right of that center pin.  I have no problem with having a "hard 5" par 5, especially when two holes later you get a par 5 I sometimes have as little as an 8 or 9 iron into (but despite that eagle putts are very scarce because the angle has the player hitting into a green that's only 45 feet deep from that direction and most of it slopes away from the player)

[Bill_McBride]

Doug, I agree that there will be six opportunities to create exciting par 5s, but that is difficult to do.   There will need to be great variety, center and cross bunkering, short, long, anything to avoid just hammering a second shot down there with little thought. 

Based on the par 5s I saw at Streamsong, C&C are surely capable of pulling this off, but I don't think it will be routine. 

[William_G]

yes, the second shot of the par 5 may be the single golf shot that is the most difficult or most involved to design

[Don Hyslop]

In Inverness Cape Breton, there very well may be times where you might have to hit a driver to reach one of the Par 3s. The wind at times is just that strong there.

[Adam Lawrence]

I will never say never, but I doubt I would do a 6 - 6 - 6 routing.  To me, it's hard to get the flow right with that many par-3's.

I think there is something in this. As previously mentioned, Seve Ballesteros's firm Trajectory did the 6-6-6 thing on most of the courses they designed. To make matters worse, at the Shire in north London, they also decided to ensure that no two consecutive holes had the same par.

Subject yourself to all those constraints and you're really painting yourself into a corner. At the Shire, the corner is that the first hole is a 190 yard or so par three. To an island green. Not ideal imo.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug, I agree that there will be six opportunities to create exciting par 5s, but that is difficult to do.   There will need to be great variety, center and cross bunkering, short, long, anything to avoid just hammering a second shot down there with little thought. 

Based on the par 5s I saw at Streamsong, C&C are surely capable of pulling this off, but I don't think it will be routine. 

Well, thinking about this on my local 6-6-6 course, I'd rate the quality of the second shots as follows:

5th hole, 504 yards - the correct play is to aim well right of the green, which sets up a pitch with a good view of the green.  The more left you go the more you're hitting into a shallow green, the less visibility you have, and missing short or long can both be problems.  I think it is pretty well done since the best shot is one that isn't what most people would naturally do.  The only fairway bunker on the course (the other of the two bunkers on the course doesn't really come into play) is well placed to encourage people to drive to the right to miss it, and the green just begs you to aim at it, even when laying up.  It takes a smarter player than most to realize that's not where you want to go.  The architect tries to make this obvious by having the fairway get extremely wide off to the right.

7th hole, 539 yards - again the correct play is to aim right, but in this case because of a mound that's about 8-10 feet high that sits directly in front of the green (as viewed from where you'd play your shot trying to reach it in two)  The more right you go, the more you can avoid having to play over the mound, or the consequences of the green falling away from the mound.  There's a lot of room in the fairway to the right, but even missing into the rough isn't bad here, as the rough is mowed down to about 3" and rarely allowed to exceed 4".

9th hole, 545 yards - in this case you want to play from the middle of the fairway.  There is mounding on either side of the fairway, which will help a slightly offline shot kick back into the middle, but knock a further offline shot further afield where you may have a blind shot, nasty stance, or more likely both.  Since this hole plays into the prevailing wind, a lot of golfers will be hitting 3W to lay up.

13th hole, 565 yards - this is the "hard 5" I described before.  There isn't really an ideal angle of approach, the green is nasty from everywhere   OK, obviously if the pin is on this tiny plateau back left you want to approach it from the right, but anyone who plays for that pin would have to be certifiably insane as the plateau is maybe 25' wide at best and if you miss left the ball will kick off the slope and probably go OB.  It is the longest hole on the course, plays into the prevailing wind and is uphill for the last 50-60 yards so the green complex is the main defense.  I guess the architect decided we deserved a break on the layup, since the approach is so testing and the tee shot fools a lot of people into aiming at exactly the wrong spot.

15th hole, 549 yards - this is the easiest par 5 (at least for me) which I can often reach with a short iron when the wind is helping.  The green is extraordinarily shallow approached straight on, so you want to get as far right as possible, and the fairway again encourages this by widening out well right.  There is a water hazard that's mainly in play for the 12th hole if you aim well right and miss right.

16th hole, 551 yards - this hole has an amazingly difficult layup, because it is long, plays into the prevailing wind, and starting about 160 yards short is about as steep a rise as you'll ever see this side of Painswick.  What I "try" to do is hit my second up to about 80 yards short where there's a plateau where you can see the green, but it is really really hard to get it there.  Most players will end up with a blind third (or fourth, if they're short or a low ball hitter)

Only half the par 3s and half the par 4s are good holes, IMHO, the rest are rather vanilla, but I feel all 6 par 5s are well done and would impress most anyone on GCA.  If the par 3s and 4s were all equally strong most people would probably have heard about this course.  Maybe it is a fluke that a relatively unknown architect (Mark Kerr) managed to produce 6 strong par 5s on a single course, since many seem to think that would be very difficult to do.


13th hole, viewed from above/behind the green.  Teebox is in the upper right.

[Bill_McBride]

Doug, 9 and 16 sound like par 5s where the objective of the second shot is to just hammer that spoon as far down the fairway as you can.   The others all sound interesting.   Do the preferred lines of play change depending on the day' spin location, or do you always play well right on the ones where you said that's the best play?

We have a split fairway par 5 where the second shots will 50 yards apart depending on the pin location -- assuming your tee shot is okay. 

[Doug Siebert]

Doug, 9 and 16 sound like par 5s where the objective of the second shot is to just hammer that spoon as far down the fairway as you can.   The others all sound interesting.   Do the preferred lines of play change depending on the day' spin location, or do you always play well right on the ones where you said that's the best play?

We have a split fairway par 5 where the second shots will 50 yards apart depending on the pin location -- assuming your tee shot is okay. 

Well, that's the case on 9, where the fairway is narrower than most and has the mounding along both sides making you really want to stay within its confines.  There isn't much strategy of placement for that second shot aside from "in the fairway".  The back right pin is difficult to access and playing from the left side would be beneficial, but aside from that the green isn't particularly difficult.  I'd rather be in the fairway on the extreme right and be forced to play away from that pin than aim for the left side and risk having a blind shot off a crazy stance where I might not be able to even hit the green.

16 however is an extremely difficult second because of the huge upslope (and sideslope) of the fairway, and there are dropoffs to either side that can be lead to horribly difficult shots (at least I think a 100-150 yard shot into the wind off a steep upslope where you can't see anything aside from the hill in front of you and the sky, with the ball either well above or well below your feet is pretty darn hard )

If you meant 13, it is a fair criticism, but I feel that since the approach to the green is pretty difficult, having a demanding layup preceding that shot would just be too much IMHO.  Think of the 15th hole at ANGC, where the layup isn't demanding but the third shot off that downslope to a firm green is.  If that layup was made more challenging by adding a couple fairway bunkers or bringing the "second cut" into play it would be a terrible three shotter - not that most pros would care, but the members surely would!

The preferred lines on the holes where you aim to the right will change depending on the pin position, but since by doing so you're lining up to play your third down the long axis of the green, the preferred layup changes more long/short than right/left.  I'm sorry my explanation is probably lacking, I wish I had an aerial picture or a diagram that could better illustrate what I'm trying to describe.


Does your split fairway par 5 actually bring both fairways into play as good strategic alternatives?  I find split fairways almost never both come into play for any one player regardless of pin position.  You might take the left and I take the right, but you'd take the left every time and I'd take the right every time.  If yours actually works then it would be one of the few.

Not to say that a split fairway isn't worth it if some players want one side and some want the other, but I always wish for a hole where I might want to choose different sides depending on the pin location, but I've never personally played such a hole.

[Bill_McBride]

Doug, 9 and 16 sound like par 5s where the objective of the second shot is to just hammer that spoon as far down the fairway as you can.   The others all sound interesting.   Do the preferred lines of play change depending on the day' spin location, or do you always play well right on the ones where you said that's the best play?

We have a split fairway par 5 where the second shots will 50 yards apart depending on the pin location -- assuming your tee shot is okay. 

Does your split fairway par 5 actually bring both fairways into play as good strategic alternatives?  I find split fairways almost never both come into play for any one player regardless of pin position.  You might take the left and I take the right, but you'd take the left every time and I'd take the right every time.  If yours actually works then it would be one of the few.

Not to say that a split fairway isn't worth it if some players want one side and some want the other, but I always wish for a hole where I might want to choose different sides depending on the pin location, but I've never personally played such a hole.

Mike "Bogey" Hendren came down to Pensacola and played the new course with me a few years ago.  He said the hole was the best split fairway hole he'd played in years. 

The green is very wide.  The right half is much higher than the left, with a steep slope between.  The right side opens up to a second shot played well to the right.  Deep bunkers block the direct route to both left and right hole positions.  A pitch from the right to a right pin is a fairly simple affair.   When the pin is down below on the left, a shot from the right is very difficult to judge as it rolls down the slope and generally off the green.   With a left pin the play with the second shot is well left, both to shorten the third and to take advantage of that side slope.   It's a fun hole.   Come on down for a first hand look!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()