|
Post by SteelVike on May 5, 2021 8:41:47 GMT -5
I am debating on making a three shot par 5, and was curious as to how long the third shot has to be for it to be consider a three shot hole. Does it mean that even in a very high tailwind it cannot be reached in two? What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on May 5, 2021 8:56:05 GMT -5
I would rethink how you see a "three shot par 5." This is way too rigid of a thought process - there is no minimum length or what have you. Build an interesting golf hole: if it's reachable in 2 downwind, make that shot interesting, but also make the layup interesting for other winds. Don't design around labels or constraints.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on May 5, 2021 8:59:03 GMT -5
My closing hole on my latest publish, Cherry Bluffs, is a three-shot par-5. It's around 615 yards and plays uphill a bit. I did, however, make it so a tailwind could allow two solid shots to reach the green.
I think the second shot on the hole is about 300-ish yards away from the hole without the tailwind, and obviously more if the wind is blowing into your face.
|
|
|
Post by trailducker on May 5, 2021 9:32:12 GMT -5
I agree with what Petro said about not getting caught up on the label.
What I’m doing on my current course for NT that has 6 Par 5’s is design the distances with no wind in mind so wind is a variable that make them all play differently, 2 of them are reachable even in a head wind. 1 is just barely reachable with my clubs without wind. 1 is just barely not reachable with my clubs and 2 of them aren’t reachable but maybe with a heavy back wind and the right shot. Then add variety all around these greens so they make the golfer ask: go for it (even on a three shot go for it means hit 3 Wood as far as you can) or layup? Just no matter the distance make that second shot interesting and something the golfer has to weigh the risk/reward going for.
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on May 5, 2021 10:02:22 GMT -5
I would rethink how you see a "three shot par 5." This is way too rigid of a thought process - there is no minimum length or what have you. Build an interesting golf hole: if it's reachable in 2 downwind, make that shot interesting, but also make the layup interesting for other winds. Don't design around labels or constraints. I guess I should have clarified that for the CC design contest one of the optional requirements is a three shot par 5. One of the par 5's on my course is what I would consider a three shot hole, but I was curious what they would base their judging on. I don't believe I'll choose this as one of the four requirements as I have better features throughout the course, just wondering how they would judge it is all.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on May 5, 2021 10:04:57 GMT -5
Basically a hole where reaching in two should be the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on May 5, 2021 13:25:04 GMT -5
Just build an extra par 3 instead.
|
|
|
Post by mctrees02 on May 5, 2021 17:31:31 GMT -5
I would rethink how you see a "three shot par 5." This is way too rigid of a thought process - there is no minimum length or what have you. Build an interesting golf hole: if it's reachable in 2 downwind, make that shot interesting, but also make the layup interesting for other winds. Don't design around labels or constraints. I guess I should have clarified that for the CC design contest one of the optional requirements is a three shot par 5. One of the par 5's on my course is what I would consider a three shot hole, but I was curious what they would base their judging on. I don't believe I'll choose this as one of the four requirements as I have better features throughout the course, just wondering how they would judge it is all. With contests, you have the ability to submit a judging form for what conditions your course is judged under. So you could have a 510y uphill par 5 where you designate a wind condition that makes that hole highly unlikely to reach...and bam you've got a three shot par 5.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on May 6, 2021 9:29:09 GMT -5
In my opinion the concept of a "three shot 5" is a bit overused. It also can be tricky in my experience to make a great long 5. People forget to make the 2nd shot interesting.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on May 6, 2021 11:30:13 GMT -5
In my opinion the concept of a "three shot 5" is a bit overused. It also can be tricky in my experience to make a great long 5. People forget to make the 2nd shot interesting. This is the big challenge imo. If you’re expecting the player to lay up more often than not, I try to avoid the player bunting a three wood down as far as they can. Something like the Pine Valley Great Hazard works really well on this type of hole. For this reason, they’re probably some of my favourite holes to design as you’re thinking about hazards in play and multiple options off tee, approach and third shot. Tough to do well but great when you can.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on May 6, 2021 11:32:01 GMT -5
In my opinion the concept of a "three shot 5" is a bit overused. It also can be tricky in my experience to make a great long 5. People forget to make the 2nd shot interesting. This is the big challenge imo. If you’re expecting the player to lay up more often than not, I try to avoid the player bunting a three wood down as far as they can. Something like the Pine Valley Great Hazard works really well on this type of hole. For this reason, they’re probably some of my favourite holes to design as you’re thinking about hazards in play and multiple options off tee, approach and third shot. Tough to do well but great when you can. Totally agree - really enjoyed doing a fun one for my Design League entry this last week. The number of permutations of the shots can be so large it's a blast to build.
|
|
|
Post by trailducker on May 6, 2021 11:48:52 GMT -5
In my opinion the concept of a "three shot 5" is a bit overused. It also can be tricky in my experience to make a great long 5. People forget to make the 2nd shot interesting. This is the big challenge imo. If you’re expecting the player to lay up more often than not, I try to avoid the player bunting a three wood down as far as they can. Something like the Pine Valley Great Hazard works really well on this type of hole. For this reason, they’re probably some of my favourite holes to design as you’re thinking about hazards in play and multiple options off tee, approach and third shot. Tough to do well but great when you can. Hence why 16 on Strathlorne is such an annoying hole for me (in a good way I appreciate). I always want to smack my 3 Wood over your big bunker and always am just short 😅
|
|