[Will E]

Tom,

I'm not trying to dodge your question. I though I answered it.

Undulations typically make it more difficult to get the ball close to the hole. When faced with a longer shot to the green I feel that this needs to be considered, as does the size of the green. I used early TPC Sawgrass as an example of what could go wrong.
Having to think about the slope of a green on an approach shot is important.(Donald Ross)
Having to worry about a goofy bounce is, well it's goofy golf.(P.B. Dye)

Putting, chipping, pitching, lobbing and blasting are all important parts of the game and should be exposed in a good test. I just don't want to be able to pass without showing all of my game. Long par fours do not allow for us to fake it like we sometimes can on shorter holes.

I think that Shinnecock's greens and green complexes are top shelf. I don't see any weakness in the course. What did I miss?

Please provide some examples of what you think of as unfair and what is interesting.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of three long par 4s with length of 450 yards or more and I'm not aware of any regular contributor to GCA that does either.

More likely, you will find advocates of a balanced test, people who appreciate something like #8 at Pine Valley as much as holes like #9 at Pebble Beach.

Do people who emphasize the virtues of long par 4s do so because they lack a good short game?  As you suggest, maybe they do.

But, so what?

Rarely, do I find a golfer who didn't have some weakness in his game.

The whole idea of good design is to test all the skills of top rate players while still being enjoyable for the vast majority who need far more than "Wheaties" to play a decent game.

I see you like #7 at Pacific Dunes.  So do I.  But isn't the sequence and variety of #6 and #7 at Pacific Dunes what we'd really like to see?

[T_MacWood]

Shooter
If you get a goofy bounce then perhaps you ought to play a running approach instead of flying the ball to the hole -- are the undulations the problem or your ability "to try to figure out the best way to play a given shot"? The only time undulations become unfair (as opposed to a green's size or configuration) is when they are maintained at speeds unrealistic for the slope, CD has a couple greens that can get away from you putting (its not so much the undulations as the slope/gravity)---now undualtions (if you can call them that) can be bad like the unnatural goofy tiers at Pinehurst National, but I don't even consider those undulations--more an experiment gone bad.

Matt
You need to lay off the testosterone -- who on GCA is opposed to long par-4s? I don't think anyone wants a steady diet of your long par-4s that "hit with power and accuracy TOGETHER on one shot off the tee an quite likely on the second." The golf that you crave is dull, not mentally stimulting. If you are to characterise those who participate on this site, I would say they enjoy golf that is both challenging and thought provoking. Is there a cerial that helps build the muscle in the head?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim & Tom:

Gentlemen, please read the number of posts that wax on about short par-4's starting with the theme of this thread from its poster. I'm not here to rattle out macho / muscle messages, but I really get tired of the posts (see the original one posted by Edwin) that argue that holes 410 yards and above are "becoming less interesting with each course being built." What courses is he referring to? Why are they less interesting? I can name a number of outstanding such holes.

Hate to say this, but there are people who often ascribe to a certain type of hole because they don't have the game to handle the other ones they detest. Does that apply personally to either of you or a good number of other GCA contributors? In all likelihood no -- because in most cases real golfers appreciate the test from all types of holes.

Just check the number of posts that have this absolute love affair with the short par-4, but always seem to view the long par-4 as "boring, unimaginative, predictable, etc, etc."

Tim, I am all for well balanced tests of golf that include strategic long par-4's. Tim, if you read my previous posts I have always advocated the positioning of short par-4's as "change of pace" type holes. The 6th at Pac Dunes is a marvelous creation and testing in so many ways when followed-up by the superb 7th.

Tom, the testosterone you imply about me, can easily be explained -- I want to see a broad measure of holes. I believe the top designers are fully aware about the central purpose of long par-4's and how they are the true backbone of golf.

That's not testosterone Tom -- that's reality as I see it and I believe any top architect will concur. The power drive and long iron / wood approach, when executed properly, is part and parcel of the game and strength is no less important than finesse around the greens. Yes, you and a few others on GCA completely understand the integration of different type holes throughout the complete round and obviously long par-4's play a major role. This isn't about you -- it's about others who take the opposite approach.

There are people who ascribe quality golf to the type of holes THEY CAN PLAY! As a result, you get this blathering and whining on about how long par-4's are really just what I mentioned in the beginning of this post.

Tom, I didn't advocate then or now that a course must have a steady diet of just long par-4's. I never said such a thing! What I did say is that there is no such golf course that I am aware of that does not have at its backbone a number of long par-4's that really do make the player have to demonstrate just how much firepower he has with the driver and long iron / wood approach. Great golf courses combine all types of different holes from a yardage perspective. It's amusing that when someone like me advocates the uniqueness and importance of long par-4's I become the focal point and is labeled a champion of "testosterone." Talk about flipping the subject on its head.

The mental stimulation you promote Tom (and with which I agree!) comes from the successful inclusion of a varied nature of different holes. No cereal exists that build muscles of the mind -- sorry can't plug any! Edwin's original post makes a challenge that holes 410 yards and above are "less interesting" and that is patently false.

[Edwin Rognvaldsson]

Matt,
What courses am I referring to? It would be better to ask what courses I am NOT REFERRING TO.

OK,

We both know that in the last few years, courses have been designed by a few men that are based on the same principles as the those created by the elite architects in the first few decades of the 20th century. You all know what I mean, we have heard this over and over.

We should be grateful to architects like Coore & Crenshaw, Tom Doak, to name a few, and also others who have contributed like Geoff Shackelford. They are likely to ultimately reverse the trend that has given us bland courses, at least in comparison with their latest products, for decades.

But still, the vast majority of both golfers and architects haven't got the faintest idea of what designs like Kapalua Plantation and Pacific Dunes are based on. These are the courses I am not referring to.

Most architects say they like to be traditional, that they study the history, but many of them don't.

I am in personal contact with several architects and I feel that they are stuck in some kind of formula that tells them that a green on a long par-4, for example, should be so and so, kind of what Shooter here was talking about. Many of them are afraid of making things too severe, to difficult - "not fair".

Almost all of you have mentioned great long par 4's. Most of them are on courses that were created then and now, so to speak. The world isn't perfect. The average golf course from say 1940 to 2000 do not offer the same interest as the ones I am NOT REFERRING TO.

And I think, after some thought, that the most effective way of illustrating this is by looking at the long par 4's. These are really two worlds of you think about it.

Common, try and describe a typical par four from both worlds. This will be fun.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
If you have a problem with Edwin's comments (they seemed innocent enough to me), address them. No need to paint the entire GCA with such a broadbrush, I thought you were the one complaining about others being painted with a broadbrush. The backbone of the great courses is not long par-4s -- but variety -- variety and quality of all types of holes.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I have just reacted to what others HAVE said. There's been no broad brush -- I've pointed out the specifics in their comments and detailed mine.

You seem to view variety without ever realizing as I said previously the same thing from this post and others. I just see the long par-4 as being a major element in any major design among a mixture of all types of holes. I consider them the first among equals.

Regards,

[Ran Morrissett]

Matt,

Would you mind sharing with us your top 50 or so U.S. courses as you vote for them for Golf Digest?

I ask out of curiousity to see if courses that are famous for their long, tough two shotters (Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, etc.) might be near the top and to see if courses like Somerset Hills might not be?

Cheers,

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Edwin,
Pure magic! Just a great post and you couldn't have said it any better.

How are the masses to learn when they base greatness off of what they read in Golf Digest? (With all respects to Dan Jenkins)

Everything is so formuliac for tha majority of the people who are designing golf courses, everyone has that rule of thumb that defies nature, hence, the lack of natural feeling courses and the ability to take full advantage of the land.

Jeremy Glenn can tell you.

[ForkaB]

Edwin

I tend to disagree with your premise and also agree with Matt Ward that the great long par-4 is both the epitome of golf course design, but also very rare--no matter what period of architecture you look at.

IN trems of great ones which have been built in the past 40 years or so, just off the top of my head, and thinking only of great and good courses that I have played, I can come up with the follwoing list, whcih I would match against any golden age or classic list from those courses which I have played:

Spyglass-16
Pacific Dunes-7
Bandon Dunes-5
TPC-Sawgrass-14
Olympic Club-Ocean-16?
Stevinson Ranch-16?
Harbour Town-18
Kingsbarns-18
Half Moon Bay (Old)-16

I'm sure ther eare many more that are hiding in the recesses of my brain, or that I haven't played.

Have you perhaps been unfortunate enough to have had to play too many JN courses and are tiring, as are Shooter and I, of trying to hit that high cut 2-iron to an elevated left-right sloping green?

Cheers

Rich

[T_MacWood]

Rich
What are the best long fours in NoCal?

[GarySmith]

This thread seems to have the potential for being one of the more interesting ones here lately. I believe Matt Ward is right in a lot of things he is pointing out. People tend to put more value in things they can handle.

Matt Ward,

What do think of #6 at Shinnecock?

[ForkaB]

Tom

In addition to the ones listed above I can think of:

Pebble Beach-10
Stanford-12
Olympic (Lake)4 & 5
Spanish Bay-12

However, my memory of golf holes is limited for those courses I played only a few times, long ago (e.g. SFGC), or not played, so I think Tom H or Gib P could give you a better (and probably very different ) listing.

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

I will be able to respond to the questions asked either later today or tomorrow.

I married a wonderful woman this past weekend and to say the least I have been "out of action" on GCA matters.

Hope everyone understands ...

mw

[Tim_Weiman]

Gary Smith:

You say "people tend to put more value in things they can handle".

Probably so.

Do you think we SHOULD put more value in things the majority of golfers can handle?

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt Ward,

CONGRATULATIONS, and best of good fortune to you and Mrs. Ward!  

[kilfara]

Congratulations indeed, Matt. Good luck - I hope you find marriage as much fun as I do!  

As to the subject at hand, as someone who struggles to hit the ball out of his shadow, I am and always have been somewhat partial to short par 4s. However, don't forget that the "long" par 4 and the "short" par 4 are relative terms. The courses that I tend to find the most enjoyable to play are ones like Swinley Forest (or a number of other heathland courses in Surrey), where the "long" par 4s aren't so long as to be unreachable for me but are long enough to thoroughly test my 78-mph "fastball".   I just came back from playing the Olympic Club, and on a drizzly day

I have another reason for liking short par 4s, though. With the technology cycle where it is at the moment, 420 yards is a short par 4 for the pros - and a long-ish par 4 for me. It is very difficult to design a hole in that category which suits players along the continuum from my fluctuating 6-8 handicap - founded mostly on consistency and short-game skills...in college golf I played against my peers from the back or near-back tees, and I feel I should still be playing those tees at least eight times out of 10 -  to Tiger Woods. (Maybe you would have me move to a forward set of tees, but that solution has its own disadvantages as well.) But if you shorten this mythical hole to 340 yards, suddenly you have a situation where I can play a drive and an 8- or 9-iron and have almost the same experience as the touring professional who probably can't reach the green and therefore will likely take an iron off the tee to leave himself a full shot into the green.

Perhaps I'm expressing myself poorly, but what I'm trying to say is that the short par-4 is to me the most technologically-resistant type of hole that the game has to offer. The Tour and many modern courses are moving toward longer courses which - if they are going to be played by mere mortals as well - almost HAVE to be boring unless you want to shatter a lot of self-esteem among the mere mortals, don't they? I like the idea of making the green complexes on long par 4s especially interesting, but how do you do that without making the holes on which they appear damnably difficult? By contrast, short par 4s - even those which can be driven by longer hitters, as long as there are suitable temptations and frustrations on offer - seem to work for nearly everyone. Don't they?

Cheers,
Darren

[kilfara]

Oops...I forgot to finish my second paragraph, there. (The hazards of scattergun editing!) But you can probably figure out what I was trying to say - on a drizzly, heavy day at Olympic from the back tees, I hit my driver no fewer than 30 times. Is it unnatural that I have a difficult time appreciating the greatness of the Lake Course? Is it indeed at least possible that the course loses greatness points because it forced me to use a single club in my round more often than my putter? (From the middle tees, by the way, it would have been more like 27-28 drivers, I reckon.)  

Cheers,
Darren

[JMD]

Two holes at The Country Club illustrate the possibility of the long par 4.  Both number 3 and number 5 use large natural features to guide tee shorts to narrowing target areas -- requiring both length and accuracy to set up approaches to well protect small greens.  They allow the shorter hitter ("bunter") to choose to play to the green in 3, while challenging the longer hitter to shape a drive to enable a straightforward approach.  These holes are as good as anything I've seen.  (By the way, sandwiched between them is a great short par 4, which enriches the drama of this section of the course).

[kilfara]

JMD - I like your point about nos. 3 and 5 at TCC. No. 3 is one of my favorite par 4s around; it occurs to me that even when the day comes that the junk on the right can be carried by the pros, there's *still* a bunker in the new landing area. That's what I call forward-thinking design!

Still...maybe I was longer in my younger days, but I used to be able to reach both of these greens in two with irons. What were the Ryder Cuppers hitting into them?

Cheers,
Darren

[GarySmith]

JMD,

I like your point as well. There is nothing wrong with playing a long par 4 as a three shot hole.

Tim Weiman,

You asked if "we should put more value in things the majority of golfers can handle?"
As golf is supposed to be fun, the answer would be yes, especially if one was a golf architect, with a strong desire to remain in the business.

I'm not, and I don't think anybody else is saying that the best golf course is composed of a long string of long par 4s, with no variety involved. That would be a slog. At the same time, a real test of golf should be a comprehensive one. To me, (in that dream golf course I carry around in my head) that would include 4 strategic, long par 4s scattered about among the 18. (and a long par 3, as well) You yourself said you see nothing wrong with three long par 4s. (by the way, 450 yards may not be a long par 4 anymore, depending upon one's perspective)

Where I'm coming from is that I love the long irons, and want to see them stay in the game, and not just as the 2nd shot on par 5s, and as the tee shot club on shorter par 4s. The old Donald Ross quote along the lines of "the surest test of a man's golfing ability is a controlled long iron shot to a closely guarded green" still carries water, at least to me. I do recognize that quote came out of an earlier time when golf was still golf, and people wouldn't bitch and whine as much if they had to hit a long iron or fairway wood as the 2nd shot to a par 4.

Anyway, with the use of multiple tees, I would guess an architect could satisfy the majority of golfers, assuming all the tees get used.

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

Sorry for the delay, but I've listed my top 50 or so courses below as a rater for GD.

Please realize that my championing of long par-4's does not mean that I am a proponent of courses that are simply long for the sake of legnth.

I have listed them in alphabetical order. Please realize that I have not played Augusta National, Chicago, Peachtree and Seminole which GD lists among it's most recent top 50 ratings.

Arcadia Bluffs
Bandon Dunes
Camargo
Cascades
Crystal Downs
Cypress Point
Desert Mountain / Chiriacahua
Fisher's Island
Garden City GC
Harbour Town
Inverness
LACC / North
Long Cove
Merion / East
Muirfield Village
National Golf Links
Oak Hill / East
Oakland Hills / South
Oakmont
Olympia Fields / North
Paa Ko Ridge (NM)
Pacific Dunes
Pasatiempo
Pebble Beach
Pine Valley
Pinehurst #2
Plainfield
Prairie Dunes
Quaker Ridge
Riviera
Sand Hills
San Francisco
Shadow Creek
Shinnecock Hills
Skokie
Southern Hills
Spyglass Hill
The Bridge
The Country Club (Clyde/Squirrel)
The Golf Club
The Honors Club
The Ocean Course
The Olympic Club / Lake
Valley Club of Montecito
Victoria National
Wade Hampton
Wannamoisett
Whistling Straits / Straits
Winged Foot / East
Winged Foot / West
Wolf Creek (NV)

I also loved Desert Mountain's Geronimo Course and would have listed it among my top fifty until owner Lyle Anderson changed the 13th and 14th holes. I think it's one of Nicklaus' best designs.

I'd also like to add Lehigh but believe it's a bit short in having at least 2 or 3 long par-4's in its design.

I hold judgement on Bethpage Black because I believe the green complexes are not really the creatures of A.W. Tillinghast's hand. Love the actual layout but the greens, with few exceptions, are just flat saucers.

I really enjoyed Somerset Hills, Hollywood and Forsgate / Banks Course (all from NJ), but would probably add them below the top 50 listing.

[Will E]

Matt,
I admire your candor.
I almost always agree with you BUT, how could you leave off TPC Sawgrass? It makes my top 10.

[Matt_Ward]

Shooter:

My mistake!

I would include TPC / Sawgrass but not as a top ten pick.

If I had to drop one course to make room I would pick Quaker Ridge. Solid course no doubt, but Shooter you're right about the greatness of TPC / Sawgrass.

Thanks ...

P.S. What is your top ten? Top fifty? And are they all long courses, or do they have a solid mixture of holes (long and short par-4's) as Ran seems to ask of me in this thread.

Regards,

[Will E]

Matt-
I haven't played some on your list that I'm sure would make my short list. I've been rained out twice now at PV. From the looks of it I'm sure it would make the top of this list. Still waiting to be invited to the Jamboree.:> ) Here's my top few in the states without a lot of thinking.

Shinnecock
Cypress Point
Oakmont
Crystal Downs
Pinehurst #2
TPC Sawgrass
Seminole
NGLA
The Ocean Course
Oakland Hills South
Harbor Town

Winged Foot West; even with all its long par fours, misses my short list. I'd rather play Westchester CC, unless Tom Nieporte is in the Winged Foot group.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()