This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Could a course with a configuration of seven par 3 holes, seven par 5 holes and just 4 par 4 holes be taken seriously?I can think of a number of plusses, fun being one of them, but I had a weird bit of land the other day and this is how it came out; 6200 yards, it did not use much land, but I kept coming back to the fact people will not like it and an easy solution would be to make 11 and 12 four's and 15 and 16 could be shortish fours. Thoughts?Hole Yards Par Hole Yards Par1 520 5 10 140 32 360 4 11 480 53 180 3 12 490 54 550 5 13 530 55 420 4 14 120 36 260 4 15 240 37 220 3 16 440 48 500 5 17 150 39 100 3 18 500 5
Adrian, I expect your gut feel may be right, how big are the risks? Can it make more sense to reduce the par, or does the land not allow for that?Personally, I am not a fan of multiple P5's and P3's in a row, unless they are of really high quality. If you can pull off balance and rhythm in the design, and it doesn't feel all over the place, then it may work - but what is the cost if it doesn't?
Jim - I don't agree as these par 5 holes would be much harder as shorter par 4 holes and the average golfer can't get at 475 yarders or 490 yarders in two. "way too many" we know that the 6-6-6 combo works?
I'm sorry this is NOT my idea of fun golf...480490500500520530550I'm barely able to cover 400 yards with two shots on a regular basis, so a regular diet of holes like those would have me choosing a bike ride over golf even more often than I do now.
Nial - not sure, at the Players Club and Cumberwell Park, the 9th, 11th and 12th are all fives, ie 3 in 4 holes. They are universally considered the easy holes.