KVN wrote:I would like to see the score avg for each hole to see what boring golf holes look like?
Here's the problem with this course, holes 2,3,6,7,10,11,12,16,17, and 18 are virtually the same hole. You drive to a point where you might be able to throw one in, but you don't and you take a 3. The middle two thirds of the pro field, the entire master field, and the top half of the adv field are going to 3 15-16 holes/round. That = horrible golf holes.
I'm not saying that there aren't a few good holes, and I'm definitely not saying that I don't mind taking a shot at a 450ft deuce. There aren't a lot of courses where you can throw a big driver on every hole, but it makes for horrible golf, period.
I don't necessarily agree with Houck that most par 3s should be technical shots under 300ft. (you will rarely see him design holes between 300-500ft) But a hole should have a purpose. It should distinctly be a one shot hole for most of the field or distinctly a 2 shot hole, or 3. Occasionally you are going to have a hole that's about a shot and a half. Hole 10 at Ewing is a prime example. There's no fareway hazard and you can try throwing as far as you can with little consequence to missed shots. Again, I don't mind that on one hole, but not 12 holes. Also keep in mind that less than half the field is going to get holes like 4,5,9,13 and 14 and that's 5 more 3s. 5 is a good hole because it's tough and there will be score separation. 13 is good because of the risk/reward. 15 is the only legitimate par 4 on the course, and a good one at that, but that's it.