Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jim Nugent on September 18, 2014, 04:39:24 AM
-
TOC is the first course. Something of a model for future golf courses in all sorts of ways: strategy, blindness, bunkering, randomness. Its design is so strong, so fundamental, that even today, hundreds of years later, it sits right near the top of nearly all the world's best lists.
TOC only has 2 par 3s. Unique among today's major tournament courses, and nearly unique among 18 hole course in general. Given TOC's history and importance to the game, why do nearly all other 18 hole courses have 4 or more par 3s?
-
TOC is the first course. Something of a model for future golf courses in all sorts of ways: strategy, blindness, bunkering, randomness. Its design is so strong, so fundamental, that even today, hundreds of years later, it sits right near the top of nearly all the world's best lists.
TOC only has 2 par 3s. Unique among today's major tournament courses, and nearly unique among 18 hole course in general. Given TOC's history and importance to the game, why do nearly all other 18 hole courses have 4 or more par 3s?
Interesting topic! The old routing at Sandwich has made me think of this as well.
Speculation: I think many courses had fewer par 3's. The early 20th century routing of Royal St George's shows only two par 3's and none on the back 9. Maybe some holes were shortened over time to be able to lengthen others, perhaps because of advancing ball technology around that time. Also as the habit of teeing of within two club lenghths of the previous hole was abandoned, some holes must have become shorter. In a recent thread somebody described how the original Redan used to be a par 4 hole. This would be an example of this. Has anybody made a study of this? Were there any classic courses (links) that had 3 or more par 3's around the year 1900?
-
TOC is the first course. Something of a model for future golf courses in all sorts of ways: strategy, blindness, bunkering, randomness. Its design is so strong, so fundamental, that even today, hundreds of years later, it sits right near the top of nearly all the world's best lists.
TOC only has 2 par 3s. Unique among today's major tournament courses, and nearly unique among 18 hole course in general. Given TOC's history and importance to the game, why do nearly all other 18 hole courses have 4 or more par 3s?
Speculation: I think many courses had fewer par 3's. The early 20th century routing of Royal St George's shows only two par 3's and none on the back 9. Maybe some holes were shortened over time to be able to lengthen others maybe because of advancing ball technology around that time. Also as the habit of teeing of within two club lenghths of the previous hole was abandoned, some holes became shorter. In a recent thread somebody described how the original Redan used to be a par 4 hole. This would be an example of this. Has anybody made a study of this? Were there any classic courses (links) that had 3 or more par 3's around the year 1900?
Very much speculation.
Where do you want me to start?
Perhaps it's better highlighting those with 2 or less in 1900 because the list will be much, much shorter.
EDIT - Of course there really wasn't such a thing as "Par" at that time... But in general length terms
-
TOC is the first course. Something of a model for future golf courses in all sorts of ways: strategy, blindness, bunkering, randomness. Its design is so strong, so fundamental, that even today, hundreds of years later, it sits right near the top of nearly all the world's best lists.
TOC only has 2 par 3s. Unique among today's major tournament courses, and nearly unique among 18 hole course in general. Given TOC's history and importance to the game, why do nearly all other 18 hole courses have 4 or more par 3s?
Speculation: I think many courses had fewer par 3's. The early 20th century routing of Royal St George's shows only two par 3's and none on the back 9. Maybe some holes were shortened over time to be able to lengthen others maybe because of advancing ball technology around that time. Also as the habit of teeing of within two club lenghths of the previous hole was abandoned, some holes became shorter. In a recent thread somebody described how the original Redan used to be a par 4 hole. This would be an example of this. Has anybody made a study of this? Were there any classic courses (links) that had 3 or more par 3's around the year 1900?
Very much speculation.
Where do you want me to start?
Perhaps it's better highlighting those with 2 or less in 1900 because the list will be much, much shorter.
EDIT - Of course there really wasn't such a thing as "Par" at that time... But in general length terms
As I said I have not made a study of this. Perhaps somebody has. I can imagine the list with only two par 3's is shorter, but is it not longer than today? If the Par 3 (or rather one shotter) gained a higher status in golf course design a century ago, than that must have been an important new trend around that time that has been written about very little (unless I have been reading the wrong books). But again I am not saying this is the case as indications on just 3 courses cannot justify conclusions. It might be interesting to look into this comparing more old routings and scorecards, but maybe someone already has done so, which is the reason for my question. I find the topic very interesting as it seems so basic to look into this yet apparently few people have as far as I know.
-
Not a Championship course (whatever that means) but Elie only has two par 3s. And no par 5s.
-
TOC is the first course. Something of a model for future golf courses in all sorts of ways: strategy, blindness, bunkering, randomness. Its design is so strong, so fundamental, that even today, hundreds of years later, it sits right near the top of nearly all the world's best lists.
TOC only has 2 par 3s. Unique among today's major tournament courses, and nearly unique among 18 hole course in general. Given TOC's history and importance to the game, why do nearly all other 18 hole courses have 4 or more par 3s?
Speculation: I think many courses had fewer par 3's. The early 20th century routing of Royal St George's shows only two par 3's and none on the back 9. Maybe some holes were shortened over time to be able to lengthen others maybe because of advancing ball technology around that time. Also as the habit of teeing of within two club lenghths of the previous hole was abandoned, some holes became shorter. In a recent thread somebody described how the original Redan used to be a par 4 hole. This would be an example of this. Has anybody made a study of this? Were there any classic courses (links) that had 3 or more par 3's around the year 1900?
Very much speculation.
Where do you want me to start?
Perhaps it's better highlighting those with 2 or less in 1900 because the list will be much, much shorter.
EDIT - Of course there really wasn't such a thing as "Par" at that time... But in general length terms
As I said I have not made a study of this. Perhaps somebody has. I can imagine the list with only two par 3's is shorter, but is it not longer than today? If the Par 3 (or rather one shotter) gained a higher status in golf course design a century ago, than that must have been an important new trend around that time that has been written about very little (unless I have been reading the wrong books). But again I am not saying this is the case as indications on just 3 courses cannot justify conclusions. It might be interesting to look into this comparing more old routings and scorecards, but maybe someone already has done so, which is the reason for my question. I find the topic very interesting as it seems so basic to look into this yet apparently few people have as far as I know.
Cristian,
I was probably a bit hasty...
Because just after I posted, I remembered that one of Portmarnock's only routing changes was in 1908 to change two short par-4's at 6 and 7 in to a par-5 and a par-3...
So in 1900 it only had two one-shotters...
So your premise may be right that there were more courses at that time with only 2 par-3's... But the list would still be considerably shorter than those with 3 or more... The Haskell probably had something to do with this if true...
I agree it would be an interesting study
-
Par threes are a good routing solution on hilly land or more extreme dunes.
St Andrews has no hilly land or extreme dunes. Other courses do.
-
I believe that TOC was not originally 18 holes. Does anyone know how many shorter one-shot holes were on TOC's original 22-hole routing?
-
I have looked at some old scorecards and routing maps on Ed Oden's thread (what a great asset of this site, I almost forgot!), although this is hardly conclusive I have found some interesting numbers on par 3's around 1900:
Royal St Georges 1898: 2 par 3's
North Berwick (sometime before 1922): 1 par 3 (this is in fact the Redan, before 1900 also a par 4).
Muirfield 1896: 2 par 3's.
Prestwick: 2 par 3's (around 1900)
Machrie: 1 par 3 (original routing)
Cruden Bay: 2 par 3's (1897)
Most courses in the British isles only had one or two holes under 200 yds.
The standard of 4 par 3's seems to have been lead by MacKenzie and CBM in the US as far as I can tell from the old routing maps.
Also it is striking that there seem to have been a lot more half par (220-280yds range back then) holes back when par was not a consideration!
-
The standard of 4 par 3's seems to have been lead by MacKenzie and CBM in the US as far as I can tell from the old routing maps.
Macdonald only had three par-3's on the National Golf Links of America. He did start going to four short holes after W.W. I, but so did almost every other architect [Colt, Alison, MacKenzie, Fowler, Flynn, etc.]. I can't see how to credit any one of them individually for the change, though I never really considered when they wrote in their respective books that a course should have four or even five one-shot holes, that it might have been controversial at the time.
Of course, prior to 1900 it was not so easy to hit a golf ball more than 150 or 160 yards, and if you were just out covering a lot of ground with your friends, you probably wouldn't often choose a hole that short.
-
Economics?
-
I would opine that it isn't any more complicated than the golfing public in general prefers playing more than 2 par 3's during an 18 hole round.
-
The standard of 4 par 3's seems to have been lead by MacKenzie and CBM in the US as far as I can tell from the old routing maps.
Macdonald only had three par-3's on the National Golf Links of America. He did start going to four short holes after W.W. I, but so did almost every other architect [Colt, Alison, MacKenzie, Fowler, Flynn, etc.]. I can't see how to credit any one of them individually for the change, though I never really considered when they wrote in their respective books that a course should have four or even five one-shot holes, that it might have been controversial at the time.
Of course, prior to 1900 it was not so easy to hit a golf ball more than 150 or 160 yards, and if you were just out covering a lot of ground with your friends, you probably wouldn't often choose a hole that short.
I am not sure that MacKenzie and CBM 'invented' the 4-par 3 scheme, but they must have popularised it and I know MacKenzie wrote about it (as you said that a course should have at least 4 short holes), CBM must have had an influence with his courses containing the 4 template par 3-s. But the main 'find' seems to be in your own words:
... I never really considered when they wrote in their respective books that a course should have four or even five one-shot holes, that it might have been controversial at the time.
I find it remarkable that most of us have never considered that this change which lead to the current routing standard took place in the early 1900's, relatively recent.
-
There were the four templates featured on most CBM/Raynor courses, accounting for the four par 3s on their courses. No Biarritz at NGLA so only three par 3s there.
-
I ask this question because I have no idea what the answer is (always trying to learn more)...
Is the 4 par 3 design trend another byproduct of the ANGC effect, or did the trend start at the beginning of the golden age?
-
I ask this question because I have no idea what the answer is (always trying to learn more)...
Is the 4 par 3 design trend another byproduct of the ANGC effect, or did the trend start at the beginning of the golden age?
I think it is a great question, when did 4 par 3's become the norm? and Who was the most important influence behind that change? I do not know the answer. Above assumption in my previous posts is based on the old routing plans which can be found on this site that show some of the oldest design with 4 par 3's being CBM/Raynor courses and also MacKenzie courses (even some of his early designs). So that would have been well before ANGC. I am not sure whether Colt and others started out this way, it is entirely possible of course.
-
I ask this question because I have no idea what the answer is (always trying to learn more)...
Is the 4 par 3 design trend another byproduct of the ANGC effect, or did the trend start at the beginning of the golden age?
If you mean was there an increase in the overall number of Par-3's as a result of ANGC, I say absolutely not... It started to happen way before that and reckon it was with the Haskell ball - i.e. longer holes required made it easy to turn two 280 yard 2 shotters in to a par-5 and a par-3... Certainly that was the case in some places.... Also maybe the case to reduce blindness as this is easiest done with short holes.
If you mean did ANGC start the formulaic design trend of 4-10-4 then maybe?... What do people usually credit this to? Post WW-II RTJ design?
-
Irvine Golf Club has only two par threes and until recently no par fives. It now has a par five from the back tees of the 2nd hole.
-
IF the Redan hole at North Berwick was initially designed as a par 4 hole that kinda makes it all a load of ******** as a hailed template, since the green would have been designed for a much shorter shot.
Prestwicks original 12 holer had lots of threes. The Prestwick of 1900 would have the current 2nd hole as a three, I am not sure if the 5th hole would have been a three or a four, but there was a short hole after the present 6th hole that was played toward the now airport. 7 as was would have been 8 played straighter. The par 3 11th hole was a newish hole for the 1925 Open championship, the previous championship in 1914 had the par 3 7th hole; hole 5 was a par 3 in 1914. What is clear is that for a long time Prestwick had no short hole on the back nine.
-
I believe that TOC was not originally 18 holes. Does anyone know how many shorter one-shot holes were on TOC's original 22-hole routing?
It would have had 6. Hardly anything is a fact of the exact location of the extra holes other than the name hole on the hill which suggests land behind the present clubhouse, though I think even that is disputed.
-
Post removed because the exact language Bill Yates quoted below matters and clarifies the question.
Sorry, gents.
JB
-
Originally there were 22 holes on the Old Course. In 1764, they decided to eliminate "two short holes at the start." Since those two holes were played out and back, the total number of holes played was reduced to 18.
The question I asked myself is: Why did they do that? The most logical and, I believe natural reason for eliminating two short holes at the start was because there was too much stopping, starting and waiting. Play did not naturally flow away from the first tee.
Because of this "new design," and because it was redesigned by people actually playing the game, I firmly believe that the Old Course presents the purest and smoothest design in golf. This may be one of the reasons it is so revered.
-
Originally there were 22 holes on the Old Course. In 1764, they decided to eliminate "two short holes at the start." Since those two holes were played out and back, the total number of holes played was reduced to 18.
The question I asked myself is: Why did they do that? The most logical and, I believe natural reason for eliminating two short holes at the start was because there was too much stopping, starting and waiting. Play did not naturally flow away from the first tee.
Because of this "new design," and because it was redesigned by people actually playing the game, I firmly believe that the Old Course presents the purest and smoothest design in golf. This may be one of the reasons it is so revered.
I doubt that very much Bill. I think they just liked longer holes. That land was thinner at (now 1/18) in those days and the present 18th green was not there in 1764 (the 18th green was 30 yards before the VOS). With the first called Hole on the Hill the tee could have been up by the monument to that green then a longer hole 260?? into the green area of 17. The 2nd/17th corridor would have been split into two holes, again probably a 3 and a 4 (not that they had par in those days).
-
I like the trend to more variation in the par of holes. On modern courses I often find that after one or two rounds on a course I have trouble distinguishing between the par 4s, especially if they are all of similar lengths. I find that I generally remember the 1 and 3 shot holes much more.
-
I would opine that it isn't any more complicated than the golfing public in general prefers playing more than 2 par 3's during an 18 hole round.
bingo, I think we have a winner. My thoughts exactly. Golfers like playing them.
-
The camera. Par 3's are the easiest holes to photograph. Now that everyone carries a camera with them at all times we are seeing more courses with even more par threes.
-
I would opine that it isn't any more complicated than the golfing public in general prefers playing more than 2 par 3's during an 18 hole round.
bingo, I think we have a winner. My thoughts exactly. Golfers like playing them.
In that case, how and when did the golfing public make this preference known?
-
Just looked back at my history of Lahinch:
Original course (until 1907) - 5 par threes
Gibson redesign (1907) - 3 par threes
Mackenzie redesign (1928) - 4 par threes
Can see a bit of weight in the initial premise but I'm not sure there's enough for conclusive proof of a trend in the direction stated.
-
Because just after I posted, I remembered that one of Portmarnock's only routing changes was in 1908 to change two short par-4's at 6 and 7 in to a par-5 and a par-3...
So in 1900 it only had two one-shotters...
So your premise may be right that there were more courses at that time with only 2 par-3's... But the list would still be considerably shorter than those with 3 or more... The Haskell probably had something to do with this if true...
I agree it would be an interesting study
Ally,
According to the centenary book, Portmarnock had - in today's language - three one shotters in 1896. The 7th was 190 yards (it was 181 yds in 1909 and a bogey 3), the 12th at 125 yards (bogey 3) and the 17th at 170 yds (bogey 3).
The old 2nd hole which ran between today's 2nd and 3rd holes was 230 yards long, but would have probably been considered a bogey 4 at that time.
Note that Royal Dublin had only three holes under 200 yards in 1909 and the original OTM layout at RCD had only two holes under 200 yds in length in 1892.
TOC had only two holes between 200 and 300 yds in 1879, and the shortest was the 9th at 277 yds; the other was the 10th at 290 yds. Isn't it just accidental that TOC didn't possess holes in the 200-250 yds range that would become par threes today.
It's only natural that the number of "par threes" on courses increased, once it was decided that holes less than 250 yds would be classed as par threes, but for one reason or another, TOC had a "gap" of 100 yds in the hole ranges, and this gap just happened to lie on either side of the future cut-off point between par threes and par fours.
-
Because just after I posted, I remembered that one of Portmarnock's only routing changes was in 1908 to change two short par-4's at 6 and 7 in to a par-5 and a par-3...
So in 1900 it only had two one-shotters...
So your premise may be right that there were more courses at that time with only 2 par-3's... But the list would still be considerably shorter than those with 3 or more... The Haskell probably had something to do with this if true...
I agree it would be an interesting study
Ally,
According to the centenary book, Portmarnock had - in today's language - three one shotters in 1896. The 7th was 190 yards (it was 181 yds in 1909 and a bogey 3), the 12th at 125 yards (bogey 3) and the 17th at 170 yds (bogey 3).
The old 2nd hole which ran between today's 2nd and 3rd holes was 230 yards long, but would have probably been considered a bogey 4 at that time.
Note that Royal Dublin had only three holes under 200 yards in 1909 and the original OTM layout at RCD had only two holes under 200 yds in length in 1892.
TOC had only two holes between 200 and 300 yds in 1879, and the shortest was the 9th at 277 yds; the other was the 10th at 290 yds. Isn't it just accidental that TOC didn't possess holes in the 200-250 yds range that would become par threes today.
It's only natural that the number of "par threes" on courses increased, once it was decided that holes less than 250 yds would be classed as par threes, but for one reason or another, TOC had a "gap" of 100 yds in the hole ranges, and this gap just happened to lie on either side of the future cut-off point between par threes and par fours.
Donal, I'd need to look back on the yardages as I've some info pre-1908 when the changes were made... I know that Dr Tim Healy - who wrote the centenary book - and I have since realised that the routing map at the 6th and 7th holes that he had depicted in the book was wrong, the 6th green being much shorter and to the right thus indicating that the 7th was also longer at the time... Darwin also wrote in 1910 that the holes around the 6th and 7th had been much improved and made more difficult...
The 17th was an old par-three that is the only complete hole (i.e. hole corridor in totality) that has been removed since the back nine opened in 1896... It was replaced by the current 15th.