News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Neil White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2012, 07:24:12 AM »
My home course has a par-3 opener of 160 yards - plays slightly downhill to a green benched into a hillside.  As a first hole it looks hard but plays easy - two deep bunkers protect the front and left and anything long works its way back down the hill onto the green.  We play 3 or 4 balls depending on game format at 10 minute spacings with no real waiting required.

The 2nd is a driveable par-4 although we play it as an unofficial courtesy hole with groups on the green standing aside for those on the tee to play away.

Despite the course opening with what could be considered a killer for timings we don't encounter any real problems with backing up and waiting.

Neil
Courses played 2020 - ................!

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2012, 10:33:42 AM »
I don't understand the maths of your argument, Adrian.  Let's assume you owned Turnberry and decided to change the 230 yard 6th to 150 (new green below the 7th (540) tee).  Is this going to increase your number of tee slots by 25%?  If so, bottle and sell this theory and you'll be so rich you can come on to GCA.com just for fun!

Rich
Well it takes much longer to play a 230 yarder than a 150 yarder and the problem is you cant really play until the hole is completed, so you have to wait perhaps 13 minutes if it was a really difficult par 3, a 100 yarder might be 8 minutes, which is the standard time it takes to clear the way at a normal par 4 or 5 hole to drive and play the 2nd shot. At 8 minutes (ie standard) 30 players can play per hour at 10 minutes 24 players can play. At 12 minutes 20 players can play, so you reduce the flow of traffic into the course, converseley it makes for a much quieter round for the players, but if you want busy then a par 3 start is a no-no. It's not an arguement that can be used for a hole later in the round, although early par 3 holes will cause a back up, hence we have this "rule about not having par 3 holes early."
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2012, 12:40:17 PM »
The second hole at Tumble Creek is a par 3 followed by a potentially drivable par 4 depending on the wind. I would like to hear Tom's thinking.

The Rope Rider course at Suncadia starts with a reachable par 5, short par 3, and a drivable par 4. I haven't experienced an unreasonable waiting time yet.
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2012, 11:04:19 PM »
Mr. Dye generally tried to save his par-3 holes for #3 or #4, but the first course I worked on for him was Long Cove, which had a very good par-3 second hole.

I generally try to avoid it myself, everything else being equal, but of course we are working with specific terrain where things are seldom equal.  Beechtree had a par-3 2nd [over a pond, no less!]; Old Macdonald and Tumble Creek also get to their first short hole at #2, as mentioned.  Stonewall (North) has a vicious hard par-3 second hole.  I think I might have done it once or twice more, but am too tired tonight to go through my whole list.

At Tumble Creek we did the routing that way to get across a development road after #2.  I really didn't want to go across the road after the very first hole, because I thought it stifled the flow of the golf course out away from the clubhouse, and the only other way to do it was to make room for a par-3 after the opener.  It worked out great as it set up the third and fourth holes which are two of the best on the course.  That's why you break the rule about not having a par-3 at #2.

Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2012, 11:13:58 PM »

Commonground has one.

And Dye's Plum Creek.... get to play there on Sunday, very excited.
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2012, 06:04:03 AM »
3 courses that I have worked one feature Par 3, 2nd holes-Crystal Springs in Caledonia, MI, Long Cove Club on Hilton Head Island, SC and here at Pine Tree. We are actually building a new tee, about 100-110yd short of the green this summer. For the higher handicap players and the ladies, the fact that its a par 3, carts are not allowed to drive on the turf and the carry of the bunker, makes for a slow start to the round. It tends to back up play in our season. We hope that this will keep the pace of play moving.
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2012, 01:33:42 PM »
NSWGC has a par 3 as the second hole on both nines.

On the first nine, it's a short 4 followed by a long 3 and the second nine it's a long 4 followed by shortish 3. Obviously the difficulty varies due to the wind direction and strength, but I always find myself waiting far longer on the second tee than the 11th.

From that, I take that a 210 yard par3 into a crowned green is going to cause some pace of play problems when it's the second hole... Can't even imagine the clusterf---k this would be on public course.
Next!

Stuart Goldstein

Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #57 on: May 24, 2012, 05:12:49 PM »
Not to thread jack but I recently played in a tournament where I started on the 10th tee-a par 3 of about 180 yards.  Hated it. I like starting a round by unleashing the big dog.  For some reason I'm more comfortable with that then hittiong a mid-to long iron as my opening shot.

Doug Barton

Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #58 on: May 25, 2012, 02:01:35 PM »
Another Dye course, La Quinta Mountain has a very difficult par 3 2nd hole with water down the entire left side.

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not? New
« Reply #59 on: May 25, 2012, 03:31:20 PM »
...
I generally try to avoid it myself, everything else being equal, but of course we are working with specific terrain where things are seldom equal.  Beechtree had a par-3 2nd [over a pond, no less!]; Old Macdonald and Tumble Creek also get to their first short hole at #2, as mentioned.  Stonewall (North) has a vicious hard par-3 second hole.  I think I might have done it once or twice more, but am too tired tonight to go through my whole list.
...
No. 2 at Riverfront is courses' longest one shotter.  No forced carry, all short grass from tee to green (unlike the other par 3's).
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 03:34:39 PM by Carl Rogers »
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Scott Szabo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #60 on: May 25, 2012, 04:26:08 PM »
Prairie Dunes #2
"So your man hit it into a fairway bunker, hit the wrong side of the green, and couldn't hit a hybrid off a sidehill lie to take advantage of his length? We apologize for testing him so thoroughly." - Tom Doak, 6/29/10

Scott Szabo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #61 on: May 25, 2012, 04:28:13 PM »

Commonground has one.

And Dye's Plum Creek.... get to play there on Sunday, very excited.


Matthew,

I had heard that Plum Creek was having financial issues; hopefully I've heard wrong.  I had relatives that built a home right off the 3rd tee at Plum Creek back in the mid-80s.  I spent many an evening messing around down on the 2nd green.  Haven't been back in about 20 years.  Sadly it has been overrun with homes.  Love to hear your thoughts.
"So your man hit it into a fairway bunker, hit the wrong side of the green, and couldn't hit a hybrid off a sidehill lie to take advantage of his length? We apologize for testing him so thoroughly." - Tom Doak, 6/29/10

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #62 on: May 26, 2012, 05:30:14 PM »
A couple of courses in Richmond VA with par three second holes are Jefferson Lakeside and my home course Willow Oaks. Jefferson Lakeside is a Donald Ross course that was recently renovated by Kris Spence and Willow Oaks is a David Gordon course basically rebuilt by Lester George. In both cases the par three second works just fine for pace of play and given the available land for the routing both holes make the best use of what the architects had to work with. 

Steve Wilson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #63 on: May 26, 2012, 09:40:28 PM »
It may not be the original routing, but Ross' Mid Pines opens with an easy downhill par 4, a mid length par 3 over water, and then a short par 4 to a very tricky green.  I never noticed anyplace of play issues there on my several trips around it, but maybe I was just lucky. 
Some days you play golf, some days you find things.

I'm not really registered, but I couldn't find a symbol for certifiable.

"Every good drive by a high handicapper will be punished..."  Garland Bailey at the BUDA in sharing with me what the better player should always remember.

Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #64 on: May 28, 2012, 02:34:09 AM »
Scott,

There is certainly some evidence of financial strain. Obviously it is all public now. It's a bargain to play there....  they are having $25 w/cart online specials through the week; I paid $40 for today, which on a holiday weekend is terrific considering dumps like Hyland Hills or Indian Tree are 50+.

My first loop there was three years ago and even since then, it seemed like it was in worse condition now. The tees and fairways were alright but the greens had grown out to seed and were very hairy.

A lot of the architecture just looks tired.... the bunkers are shrinking and lacked good sand, the bulkhead walls are sagging/bulging in places, some of the tee shot tree chutes are overgrown.

I think it is still a good test architecturally and fun to play, even in a 35 mph wind like today. It could certainly use some serious TLC though. There were parts of my round today where the golf course almost felt like an abandoned relic. It's kind of sad to see the photos of the old senior tour event in the clubhouse knowing that the place's salad days seem to be long gone.

That particular par-3 second is a beast. Actually all four of them are. I was +4 on the one-shotters and +1 for the other fourteen holes.

The tees were up on #2 today so we played it about 170 or so, and it still gave us fits. I made four and my brother (scratch) made five. The pin was in front and he got in the left bunker and couldn't keep the bunker shot on the green. I bladed a 7-iron to the very back and three-jacked.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 02:40:36 AM by Matthew Rose »
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #65 on: May 28, 2012, 05:15:42 AM »
In reading Sean Arble's interesting review of Camberley Heath, I was struck - again- at how often Colt appeared to build one-shot 2nd holes.  As a New Englander with very little exposure to Colt courses, this is a somewhat unusual design feature.  Ross rarely included one-shot holes earlier than the 3rd hole of the round and often later.  George Thomas and others wrote about the importance of the "get-away" holes, advocating two and three shot holes to begin the round.  In tournament play, I have found one-shot 2nd holes - especially long, difficult ones -  to be an absolute pace-of-play killer.

It seems that William Flynn used one-shot 2nd holes more often than other "golden age" American designers.  And in modern times, Coore/Crenshaw and Tom Doak courses have featured par 3 2nd holes.

Is anyone aware of anything Colt may have written about the subject?  Did Colt, in fact, PREFER one-shot 2nd holes?  Have views changed as to the layout of the "get-away" holes?  Are par 3 2nd holes a good idea - or not?
If it fits... why not?
Too many "rules" kill the ingenuity of design.
If it fits...

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #66 on: May 28, 2012, 05:20:19 AM »
I just realized yesterday I am building yet another par-3 second hole on our new project here in New Zealand.  I guess we'll just have to make it work again.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2012, 06:19:43 AM »
Whilst I think we are all pretty solid about loose rules and the over-ride that 'if the hole fits do it' I think the bail out for us is to try and make the hole 'PLAY QUICKLY'....
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Bill_Yates

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2012, 09:27:14 PM »
Not!

It's not because a par 3 of any design is bad, it's just that a par 3 second hole forces golf courses to actively manage the first tee, which most courses do not.
Bill Yates
www.pacemanager.com 
"When you manage the pace of play, you manage the quality of golf."

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #69 on: May 29, 2012, 04:34:58 AM »
In reading Sean Arble's interesting review of Camberley Heath, I was struck - again- at how often Colt appeared to build one-shot 2nd holes.  As a New Englander with very little exposure to Colt courses, this is a somewhat unusual design feature.  Ross rarely included one-shot holes earlier than the 3rd hole of the round and often later.  George Thomas and others wrote about the importance of the "get-away" holes, advocating two and three shot holes to begin the round.  In tournament play, I have found one-shot 2nd holes - especially long, difficult ones -  to be an absolute pace-of-play killer.

It seems that William Flynn used one-shot 2nd holes more often than other "golden age" American designers.  And in modern times, Coore/Crenshaw and Tom Doak courses have featured par 3 2nd holes.

Is anyone aware of anything Colt may have written about the subject?  Did Colt, in fact, PREFER one-shot 2nd holes?  Have views changed as to the layout of the "get-away" holes?  Are par 3 2nd holes a good idea - or not?

Going back to the original premise, how many Colt courses have par 3 second holes?  Off the top of my head, I am coming up with Sunny New and Camberley Heath.  There are surely many more, but I am drawing a blank.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend, Alnmouth & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #70 on: May 29, 2012, 05:52:09 AM »
Sean,

Canterbury does as well - and a great hole it is:



The 2nd hole at Rye: a) is it a Colt hole?, and if so, b) was it the 2nd in his version of the course?

What I'm realising now is how few Colt courses I have played...

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #71 on: May 29, 2012, 08:30:44 AM »
Another came to mind -- Le Touquet (La Mer)



Running through my list of Colt courses, the first par three is at the:

2nd in three cases: Le Touquet, Canterbury and Rye (with the above caveat for Rye)
3rd in four cases: The Addington, Trevose, Pine Valley and R. Zoute (though RZ 3rd is a post-Colt hole and PVs was planned before he was involved)
4th in one case: Swinley Forest
5th in one case: Royal Wimbledon

Wayne Wiggins, Jr.

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #72 on: May 29, 2012, 02:24:02 PM »
Just played Mira Vista in NorCal, and they have a very good short to mid-length (140-145 yds from the blue tees) par3 2nd hole.  Nice hole, benched against the hill.  By the way, for those that haven't played MV since Forrest Richardson and Mark Fine's redo, they're in for a treat... a very good, fun golf course.  Holes 6-9 have been opened up to the wind (even more so than before) and the views are impressive!

Highly recommend it, as it's clearly a solid option in the Bay Area these days!

WW 

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #73 on: May 30, 2012, 06:53:02 AM »
The 2nd at Conwy is a shortish par three, and it does cause hold ups, particularly in 4-ball play and with parties of visitors. It is a very good hole (by David Williams) but if you don't hit and hold the putting surface recovery shots are particularly difficult. The 6th, the next short hole, also causes hold ups. In fact, now that I think about it, all four short holes can cause hold ups.

At Wilmslow, however, the first short hole is the 6th and on the back nine (the 10th is a legitimate alternative starting place) the first short hole is the 14th, so play flows well. However, as the 14th is a brute of a hole for higher handicappers, it is not unusual to find a log jam on this tee.

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 3 2nd holes - good idea or not?
« Reply #74 on: May 30, 2012, 07:19:19 AM »
Not!

It's not because a par 3 of any design is bad, it's just that a par 3 second hole forces golf courses to actively manage the first tee, which most courses do not.

Fully agree with your second sentence, Bill, but not with the first.  Here we have a good paradigm as to how the pace of play at any course should be managed, i.e. starting on the first tee--let's not let the lazy b******s who think they are managing the play of their course get a free pass.  Both of the courses at which I am a member (Aberdour and Dornoch) start with two holes which can be reached by the better player, but can be troublesome to the average hacker.  Over time they have figured out how to manage this situation, which is to not let players tee off until the 2nd tee is clear.  It works.

Rich
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back