Hi Tony, the 4th hole (157m par 3) at Kingswood that you designed get’s many comments from members. It is a huge green with many pin placements. It is only played from the back pegs about once a month and many times is played at approx 140m. I would like to see a new tee (167m) built back past the 1st pine which means you can hide a pin over the right bunker. The first left hand bunker would have to be filled in to alloy the shorter hitters a chance to hit to the front left of the green. There are a number of benifits here. A spectacular looking whole where part of the pin is hidden (like 2 of the pars 3’s you designed at 13th beach- The best group of 4 par 3’s going around). The regular tee becomes the current back tee of 157m. The new tee would only be used for monthly medals (ie once a month). I would also like to see the back of the green mown closer to the water and no rough at the back. This would make the back pin approx 187m with a water denger if you are too long. I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks GetIn – your idea of a back tee has in fact been formally raised at Club level, even making for a 180m+ golf hole, and yes, this would need to have the left front bunker filled in to allow players of lesser strength a diagonal run-in avenue: shaping of the filled-in bunker could well produce a ‘banked’ approach.

Pin positions right side just over the front bunker would be tougher than at present, but still available to fine high approaches. But the essence of the hole lie in the ‘compartment’ character of the green with its soft spur left central and the intersecting swell down the green: it suits a shorter approach set by the present tee system, but the difficulty of finding back pin positions would be severe if Club players of ordinary skills were hitting long irons or hybrids to them. The situation would of course be exacerbated if the bank down to the water behind the green were to be mown all the way down – this would in fact defeat some of the strategic interest of the hole, in that good brave players presently play to back positions knowing that going just too far means about a half-stroke penalty in playing back from th bank, but an inevitable watery grave and the required drop zone situation would force such players to abandon bravery and play short. I really don’t want that.

The other factor is that the Club originally asked for a par-3 hole which ‘balanced’ in rating amongst the other 1-shot examinations through the course – it was not to be the stand-out long par-3 in the Club’s golf journey. Of course the advances in golf equipment may now make such niceties in judgement obsolete, and there may be value therefore in adopting in some guise the thinking you express.

Cheers GetIn Tony