How long is a long par 4?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I've just been reading Daniel Wexler's Feature Interview No 2. He mentions two par 4s at Timber Point being 460 (11th) and 470 (14th) yards long.  In the Chicago Golf Club's archives I saw a letter from CB Macdonald to the club advising them on a potential upgrade/rebuild and he, too, was advocating par 4s of this length.  Timber Point was 1925 and I expect Macdonald's letter was written about this time.  Yet it has only been in comparatively recent years that par 4s approaching 500 yards have begun to appear on US Open courses.  How does a 500-yard par 4 in 2005 compare with a 460- or 470-yard par 4 in 1925?  If 475 yards was the boundary between par 4 and par 5 in 1925, where should it be today?

[BCrosby]

Mark -

Good question. People don't fully appreciate how short courses play today. When you do the numbers, it gets loopy.

The math is simple. If you assume pros now hit it 10% farther than they did in 1925 - a very conservative estimate - a par 4 today must be 506 yards to play to the same distance that a 460 yard hole did in 1925.

If you assume pros hit it 15% farther than they did in 1925 - which is probably closer to the mark - the same par 4 must be strectched to 529 yards.

Intuitively, that strikes me as about the right distance for a modern long par 4. Anything very much shorter and they are hitting approaches with lofted clubs.

For example, if you go by historic yardages a 500 yard par 4 today plays like a medium/short par 4 would have in 1925.

Bob

   

[PjW]

Mark

According to the USGA Par for men is

Par 3 up to 250
Par 4 251-470
Par 5 471-690
Par 6 691-infinity?

I dont think technology has changed the USGA par yardages.  The question is should it?
Phil

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

Put another way, the famous Hogan 1 (or 2) iron shot at Merion occurred on a 458 yard hole. I presume his shots were about a 250 yard drive and a 210 1 iron.  I think the prevailing (formerly conventional) wisdom is that a long par 4 ought to make you max out a driver and long iron.

To put todays average tour pros - but not necessarily the top driving length pros (as Hogan wasn't necessarily the longest hitter in his day, just the best player) in that position on a par 4, you would have to assume about a 290 yard drive, and 235 yard 2 iron (since 1 irons are so rare) for a total of about 525 yards as the maximum par 4 on the PGA Tour.

The last at Atlanta Athletic Club played as a 500 yard par 4, as I recall, and was difficult for some in the PGA field to reach, but of course, it was designed as a par 5 with a pond in front. I doubt I would design it that way if it was a par 4.

To recreate the Hogan/Merion challenge for the very longest hitters, which is perhaps an unfair standard, you might have to figure a 325 yard drive and up to a 250 yard 2 iron, (since 1 irons are rare, except for those that are actually called 2 irons!) for a whopping 575 yard hole.  Perhaps we could round that down to 560, to make it an even 100 yards added in just over 50 years.

And, I just read this on MSN:

"Wie had a good chance to take the lead by herself after hitting a 6-iron to 6 feet on No. 18. She just missed the putt, though, and the first round closed without one player making birdie on the difficult, 459-yard par-4. The hole played at an average of 0.741 strokes above par."

So, the 460 yarders are a 6 iron, not a 1 iron, for the longest hitting women golfers now.

If the USGA ever changes the distance standards, I doubt they would go as high as necessary for the pro tour, since the pro tour is such a small slice of golfing life.  However, I think 275, 500, and 725 yard limits splits for 3, 4 and 5 par holes is realistic right now, since the standard is based on scratch players and there are usually multiple tees for shorter players.

I think any new TPC Course might use 300, 525, and 750 as limits, and the option for a specific course or tournament to exceed a recommended distance for a par 4 has always existed.  

[George Pazin]

For me it's anything over 150 yards.

For the average golfer, I'd say anything over 400. Anything where you are more often than not hitting a wood for your second shot.

Of course, there are no average golfers on this site.

I'd guess for better golfers the number is 450 and for pros the number is maybe 520.

More importantly, I'd ask: what is a good long par 4? 2 ball buster shots? Hard par/easy bogey?

So, the 460 yarders are a 6 iron, not a 1 iron, for the longest hitting women golfers now.

Jeff, don't forget, that's at altitude. From what others have said, 460 is more like 410-420.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Good point.

One of the problems in designing up in the Minnesota/Lake Wobegone area was that, like this site, "all golfers were above average."

And, what is a good long par 4?  I stand by the traditional definition - while I wouldn't like all par 4's to be long, I think most folks used to think that a few that required near maximum tee shot distance and a long iron approach with accuracy were essential to championship tests, or even good tests of golf.  

The idea that in the future, only par 3s will allow us to test long shots is a bit scary.  Will all par 3's need to exceed 250 yards to test long iron play against par (as opposed to the free shot on reachable par 5 holes)?

[tonyt]

I think the prevailing (formerly conventional) wisdom is that a long par 4 ought to make you max out a driver and long iron.

I cannot disagree with this, though it was only throughout the late 70s and early 80s we regularly saw events on tour where Corey wasn't the only guy needing a wood into the green. Personally, I see no barrier (outside the US thinking especially) to a par 4 where the accomplished player from the tips may have to use a fairway wood as often as a long iron. Indeed, I see no reason depending on the hole's design why the hole can merely allow such a player to play two strong shots to around the green complex, rather than have a birthright to hit an iron onto the green proper.

Again, my old soapbox that it is mainly in the US that the culture of the two putt par is too much of a must. Just like how there used to be a number of par 3s that in calm conditions, the average golfer could NEVER reach. I'm not advocating one of these super long par 4s on every tournament course. Just a need to be aware not to attack one when spotted. The concept has been happily in place for centuries until about twenty years ago.

On another thread, the mention was made of par 3s and par 5s taking on the main role of testing the long irons. If we settle for this rubbish, we have lost something. In preserving the long par 4, the three shotter par 5 has to be retained as well.

If a hole at 535 yards played as driver/4-5 iron for the elite, or 3 wood/2 iron and occasional fairway wood for the poorly directed 3 wood that was still in play, then I won't criticise the card yardage. As has been raised above, holes well over 450 yards were common well before WWII, so how can 50-80 yards longer in the year 2005 be so controversial? The original biarritz would have been a monster. And a short par 4 to a number of golfers fortunate enough to regularly make the carry. And yet many years after its passing, it has a lasting influence in the discussion of good and historic architecture. Today's banal 482 yard 6 iron second shot par 4 will not likely have the same effect on future generations.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it's 500-525 yards, like Pete Dye has been saying for years.  We were building 480-yard par-4's twenty years ago, and it has to be 10% longer today.

However, I do want to point out what several players have told me, that there is a huge difference between a Tour player's AVERAGE drive (week-in, week-out) and his driving distance when he is in one of the final groups on TV.  He's in those final groups because he is hitting the ball as pure as he ever has in his life; what you're seeing is not his average distances but his exceptional distances.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

George - I'm in the 'anything over 150 yards' bracket, too.

As par is only a means of comparing the scores of players on different parts of the course, clearly it doesn't matter where any cut off between pars 3, 4 and 5 comes, but seeing how keen the USGA in particular is to keep its championship scores near to level par you'd think they'd relish the chance to move the dividing lines.  

Most of the best long par 4s are bogey 5s to me.  Let's take the Road Hole as an example.  It was at its best and most fearsome when good players were hitting 4-woods oir 3-irons in to the green.  There have always been exceptionally long hitters and there have always been freak weather conditions (viz Craig Wood's drive at the 5th at St A's in 1933), but, on the whole, most good golfers had to approach the 17th green by running the ball up the slope onto the green.  But I suspect that nowadays the good players hit the ball so high, with so much carry through the air and so little roll on landing that even if you could stretch the 17th to 520 yards very few top players would have to run the ball onto the green.  It's a pity for them, because that particular running approach is one of the most exciting in all golf.  The nice thing for me is that even if my approach shot, my 3rd, is played from around 100 yards I'll still be running it in, because I cannot stop dead my wedge and short-iron shots on a football field, let alone a table top.

[Jim Thompson]

Seems like the more my hips slide the longer they get !

Cheers!

JT

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark.

      In 1919, Tillinghast wrote, "Long two-shot holes for the most part, are not long enough. If they are planned properly, the player who can follow up a long drive with an equally long brassey or cleek will get home, and weather conditions should not be permitted to interfere with these demands of the long two-shot hole. But it is of this type under normal conditions, that these few lines are devoted…”
      He continued, “Now let us assume that we allow ourselves to be influenced entirely by arbitrary figures, without a thought of the old adage that ‘a hole is just as long as it plays,’ or bearing in mind that the latest brands of golf balls are adding considerable distance to the shots of experts and duffers alike. If the figures rule our plans, the extreme distance of any normal two-shotter could not exceed 450 or 460 yards if we assume that the second shot is slightly under the length of the drive. The extreme distance of par-four holes, according to the USGA figures, is less. If you will watch the best players shooting their seconds to holes of this length, you will observe that they use mid-irons unless bucking a stiff head-wind. And, as a matter of fact, most of the so-called long two-shot holes are little more than 400 yards. So far as figures go, I am of the opinion that we must consider lengths from 460 to 480 yards before a true type is produced."

Interesting to note how the best players at that time, with inferior equipment that some might consider even barbaric by today's standards, would hit a "mid-iron" ( 5 or 6 iron today?) into holes measuring "450 to 460 yards."

I would say that Tom Doak is right in 520-525 yards.

 Also, not to downgrade Michelle Wie, but she is playing in Denver at altitude so I would suggest that her iron into 18 is not what she would hit at sea level.

 

[tonyt]

Philip,

I love and uphold in my own mind Tilly's reference to the second shot being slightly under the length of the drive, and that a "long drive" can be followed up with an "equally long brassey or cleek". And this was to "get home", as opposed to playing a definitely controlled shot deep to a back hole location or anything. Just around the green complex and possibly on the green itself if the shot is well aimed.

My take? That too many single digit players of average distance believe they must be able to reach every par 4 (they don't because if the hoel is so long, they'll get a shot on it) or that they shouldn't be faced with a fairway wood after a reasonably good drive. This way of thinking is not only wrong, it prevents the setting up of holes so that elite players and pros need more than 4-5 irons in.

[Matthew Mollica]

We need to me mindful of the "par" or "bogey" integer assigned to the holes discussed in this thread, at the time of their construction. Kingston Heath Golf Club here in Melbourne has two (#1 and #6) which are longish (466y and 432y).

What we see as a longish par 4 today, was one perhaps a mid length par 5. This certainly was the case for KH #1 & #6, back when the holes were designed. KH had a "bogey" of 82 at one point in time. Some of the holes we discuss here will have had the same occur.

Today, KHcourse has a 'realistic pro par' of 70. Both #1 and #6 are par 4's. Longish for the club member who just got out of his car and walks onto the first tee. Driver then 9I for G.Norman last Oz Open there.

To put my personal slant on things - whenever I'm on the tee and I see 440+ yards, I think to myself that I need to flush two shots to get there, and that the hole is on the long side of things.

MM

[tonyt]

On a course with say three sets of tees, I see no reason for a golfer to complain about the length from the tips.

If we are talking what pros hit, what Tilly expected the elite to hit, and using hole lengths in pro events as examples, then I would at the very least assume that the competent club golfer would more often than not face the same hole 20-50 yards shorter.

[Thomas_Brown]

525

Tom Doak - I would rephrase to the player is putting as well as he ever has.  Tour player's distance I would think has a very small std. dev. week to week.

[Brian Cenci]

To me long par 4's don't bother me as much as long par 3's.  I usually will select my tees for the day based on the avg. par 3 length.  I don't like par 3's over 220, which based on my average dirve somewhat translates to a par 4 not being over 490.  

I usually find that if an architect gives you a long par 4 though there are minimal amounts of hazards or incumbrances, meaning the length is the biggest obstacle (give you large fairways, large greens, large landing area, etc.)  Or at least they should design long par 4's this way.

So if those things are provided then I don't mind long par 4's.  This is usually not the case on long par 3's which always seem to have shorter landings areas than an approach shot on a long par 4.