|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 9, 2020 10:56:19 GMT -5
I have been mulling over the idea of making a par 3 that has two greens. One that makes the hole 140-160 yards, and another one behind it that makes it 180-200 yards. The front one being smaller, back one being larger and slightly elevated with a bunker between the two. I think it can be done, but was hoping to get some opinions on this before I build it.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Nov 9, 2020 11:07:44 GMT -5
I say go for it...there are a couple of courses near my hometown that have Par-4 holes that use two greens.
One of the courses switches which green is used from day to day.
The other course offers an easier green that doesn't require an approach over a pond, while the second green does require a shot over water. Players can choose which to use.
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 9, 2020 11:40:52 GMT -5
I say go for it...there are a couple of courses near my hometown that have Par-4 holes that use two greens. One of the courses switches which green is used from day to day. The other course offers an easier green that doesn't require an approach over a pond, while the second green does require a shot over water. Players can choose which to use. This got me thinking of changing it to having a waste area with one green in front of it and the other green behind it. This way the greens are not so close to each other and it eliminates the possibility of having to chip from one green to the other. Day 1 and 2 pins would be on the front green, and day 3 and 4 pins would on the back green and require a shot that carries the waste area making the hole much longer and upping the difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Nov 9, 2020 11:52:40 GMT -5
You probably want them to be on slightly different playing lines so that you can see both greens from the tee.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Nov 9, 2020 11:56:04 GMT -5
You probably want them to be on slightly different playing lines so that you can see both greens from the tee. I would second this...and this is how the real-life, multi-green par 4s I mentioned before are set up.
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 9, 2020 12:09:47 GMT -5
You probably want them to be on slightly different playing lines so that you can see both greens from the tee. Exactly what I was thinking. For example, having a roundish waste area with the front green to the right and the back green to the left but still keep them in view when playing the tee shot. I am imagining the front green play 150 to the middle and the back one plays 200 to the middle, and both of them being roughly 30-50 yards left or right of each other depending on the view from the tee box(s).
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Nov 9, 2020 12:56:35 GMT -5
Pine Valley has this on a short par 4 if you want to see it done properly
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 9, 2020 13:26:19 GMT -5
Pine Valley has this on a short par 4 if you want to see it done properly Thanks for the tip, I'll give it a look!
|
|
|
Post by mctrees02 on Nov 9, 2020 14:08:04 GMT -5
You could also just build a large green that's broken by a waste area for most of it.
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 9, 2020 14:45:57 GMT -5
You could also just build a large green that's broken by a waste area for most of it. This would look good, but I am aiming for the hole to be playing totally different from each green. Also trying to avoid the possibility of players missing the green to the wrong side and having to chip the ball on the green to get to the other side.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 9, 2020 15:17:15 GMT -5
I voted no. Main reason being that I suspect you’re forcing the idea a touch (based purely on what you’ve said as I can’t see pictures). For me, if you’re doing this, it has to be because you have two amazing greensites that you can’t pass up rather than going in with that idea. For a quirk like this to work it must be because the land demands it. Agree also with what Matt says, they’d be on different lines as well - see the par three at Cabot Cliffs, for example.
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 9, 2020 15:48:16 GMT -5
I voted no. Main reason being that I suspect you’re forcing the idea a touch (based purely on what you’ve said as I can’t see pictures). For me, if you’re doing this, it has to be because you have two amazing greensites that you can’t pass up rather than going in with that idea. For a quirk like this to work it must be because the land demands it. Agree also with what Matt says, they’d be on different lines as well - see the par three at Cabot Cliffs, for example. I wouldn't say that I'm forcing the idea, more as I'm just considering it as a unique hole design to give players something they rarely see in the game. The idea popped in my head this morning and it really intrigued me. I like the fact that pins 3 & 4 could make it play like a totally different hole, making it a more challenging hole for the later rounds, especially if done on a later hole like 16 or 17. The only thing that worries me is that there will more than likely be a waypoint issue which I have yet to look into.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 9, 2020 16:27:25 GMT -5
I voted no. Main reason being that I suspect you’re forcing the idea a touch (based purely on what you’ve said as I can’t see pictures). For me, if you’re doing this, it has to be because you have two amazing greensites that you can’t pass up rather than going in with that idea. For a quirk like this to work it must be because the land demands it. Agree also with what Matt says, they’d be on different lines as well - see the par three at Cabot Cliffs, for example. I wouldn't say that I'm forcing the idea, more as I'm just considering it as a unique hole design to give players something they rarely see in the game. The idea popped in my head this morning and it really intrigued me. I like the fact that pins 3 & 4 could make it play like a totally different hole, making it a more challenging hole for the later rounds, especially if done on a later hole like 16 or 17. The only thing that worries me is that there will more than likely be a waypoint issue which I have yet to look into. Yeah, this is exactly it. You're going from the point of view of 'this would be cool - now I need to find two greens' rather than 'here's two great greens, why don't I use them both?'. Sounds similar but there's a big difference in how it'll play.
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 9, 2020 16:42:23 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that I'm forcing the idea, more as I'm just considering it as a unique hole design to give players something they rarely see in the game. The idea popped in my head this morning and it really intrigued me. I like the fact that pins 3 & 4 could make it play like a totally different hole, making it a more challenging hole for the later rounds, especially if done on a later hole like 16 or 17. The only thing that worries me is that there will more than likely be a waypoint issue which I have yet to look into. Yeah, this is exactly it. You're going from the point of view of 'this would be cool - now I need to find two greens' rather than 'here's two great greens, why don't I use them both?'. Sounds similar but there's a big difference in how it'll play. I totally get what you are talking about. I do however think that it is possible to make two great greens after the fact, especially knowing that with that specific hole design it would require them to be above standard. I actually just watched your 101 video on mid-length par 4's today, and the approach to the green thought process is similar in that to a par 3. Really got me thinking about angles and slopes. Each green would have a totally different strategy to them rather than just having two basic greens to shoot at from different lengths. Is it quirky? Maybe a bit. But I feel that if I can pull it off it would really make the hole stand out and be a memorable one.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Nov 9, 2020 16:44:57 GMT -5
I'd alternate greens, put pins 1 & 3 on the front ... but that's just me. Can't see why waypoints would be an issue, really.
|
|