Par Fours and the Bandon Dunes Book

[Jason Topp]

The Bandon Dunes book attributes a couple of statements to Tom Doak regarding par fours that I had not heard previously and found interesting.  Neither of these are direct quotes but I think I have the gist of them.

1.  The worst distance for a par four is 400 yards.  Such a hole is too short for the good player and too long for the high handicap player.

I disagree with this general statement, but it may be the myopia of my own game.  For me, such a hole is a good drive and a 7 iron, subject to all of the differences weather and conditions can make.  To me, that is the meat and potatoes of golf and by having alternate tees at 360 and 440 you create similar challenges for longer and shorter players.  The key is making 400 yard holes interesting.

2.  The difference he saw between the very great courses and those a notch below was the absence of short par fours on the courses a notch below.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I do not recall it in my tenure.  I really enjoy short par fours and think most people do.  I think I agree that they need to be present for a course to truly be one of the best.  Anyone have contrary examples?

[Jimmy Muratt]

I agree with the statement about the worst distance for a par four to be around 400 yards.  I think well designed short par 4's play challenging and tempting for all levels of golfers, and I also really enjoy a few long tough par 4's in excess of 460+ yards.  These holes are challenging for all and are holes where a par is considered an excellent score.  For a hole around 400 yards, it's still a long hole for the mid-handicapper and often a driver-wedge for the good player.  

I think that is one reason that I like Merion so much.  It has perhaps more great sub-400 yard par 4's than any course I have seen.  And, it also has a few excellent very long par 4's as well.  I think it's this kind of disparity between the par 4's that still hold up well to technology.  

[Chris_Clouser]

Sounds to me like he's saying something that people prior to 1900 said a lot about holes of certain distances.  Back then they were very mathematical about the lengths of holes and what distance made a good hole and a bad hole.  It is one of the constant things brought up by people on this site as a negative from that period of design, along with the geometric shapes and uniform construction style.

Personally, I have seen several excellent holes at the 390 to 410 yardage mark.  What if the hole is 400 but runs forty feet or more down hill and plays like a 360 yarder due to the terrain or goes uphill and plays more like a 440 yarder.  Yardage itself should never be the sole determining factor of a hole's greatness or deficiencies.  Now I've seen several 400 yard holes that would be much better at the 350 or shorter range as well, but just throwing a blanket over 400 yard holes in general is not correct.

Something tells me that those quotes by Tom were part of a larger statement and without that other information the quote sounds very different than the intended message, if I were guessing.

[ed_getka]

Yardage means nothing until you relate it to what is going on at the green end, and what hazards need to be negotiated along the way, and if the hole is straight or a dogleg, just for a few examples. Another consideration is what is the "effective" yardage if the hole plays uphill or downhill, into the wind or downwind, are the conditions firm and fast, or more drop and stop.

[Jason Topp]

Chris - I think that the 400 yard statement is assuming that there are not other factors such as terrain and weather conditions that make the hole play significantly shorter or longer.  

It should not be taken literally, because, as you point out, a 400 yard hole could effectively play anywhere from 280 to 500 depending on the conditions.  

The concept, however, is interesting and contrary to my general assumptions - that there is a length hole that should be avoided because it is too long for the high handicapper and too short for the low handicap player.  I'm not sure I buy into that idea.

[Tom Huckaby]

It's an interesting thought.

In course rating, absent any condition/altitude/wind help, the bogey player gets a maximum of 375 yards out of his two shots.  So it would seem logical that holes he can't reach, but the scratch still easily can, would be the least inspiring.  

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know Tom is generally against too many multiple tees, but it sounds like a problem that could be solved by them.......

For most courses, a 400 yard par 4 from the tips would also be only 370-80 from the middle tees, and 340-360 from the "whites" which is still reachable for average players.

I do know what he is saying, though.  I struggle with designing greens for holes that distance, because even with middle tees, the old guys are reaching the green with a fw metal at 380, and need a big green.  The top players have a short iron from 400.  

A small green is too hard for the average guy, a large green is too easy for the good player, and a mid size green just doesn't seem to fit well for anyone.  

I often use a big, "greens within a green" multilevel green at that length, but even that is a bit unfair to the shorter hitters, since they are likely to be far from the hole and unduly punished with a three put op after a nice shot.

Perhaps the best option is a large, well to overly contoured green?  Those slopes might spin a short iron shot away from the hole, or make that shot difficult to control for top players.  Also, I think the wild contours would probably bother the average guys less than the top players, since they are used to those longer putts.  At the very least, it would probably make the chance of the good player one putting for birdie less than the average player three putting for bogey to kind of equalize things?

Just a thought.

[rjsimper]

I love short par 4s, and I find that my only complaint about courses I otherwise love (Taconic is the example that comes immediately to mind) is an absence of a true short par 4.

Regarding the 400 yard statement, I think I agree - hazards and other strategy-altering elements aside, a 400 yard hole is an awkward distance.  From the tee, that leaves me, based on my game, deciding between Driver - half PW or even less or laying back for a full shot.

Of course, maybe this dilemma alternately makes it an ideal distance because I am not forced into a play as a 450 yard hole might do.

However, despite the added element of choice, I still find the 390-410 hole to be an annoying one.

I dont think multiple tees solves the problem simply for the fact that in most matches, friendly or competitive, the competitors play the same tees.

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom H.

By the logic in your statement, any par four over 375 yards would be the least inspiring holes on any golf course.  I would hate to play a course where all the holes are in the same yardage range unless they were extremely varied.  Not saying this is your opinion, just what your statement implies.  

By the way, how about that SC grad last night for the Suns?

Ryan,

I doubt most would find empathy for someone if all they have into a 400 yard hole is a half PW when they use the driver.    

I bet most people would be willing to be faced with that dilemma as opposed to having to hit anywhere from a seven to a three iron into that green.  

Again, I think it is strictly the designer/architects responsibility to make any distance of a hole interesting via the use of hazards or terrain and the green design.  If that is the length of hole that the best routing gives you then that is what you do.  I mean, that is why they are paying you a fee isn't it?  

Regardless of the length of the hole.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris:

St. Stephen of British Columbia earned his stripes last night and to those who claim he doesn't deserve his MVPs I shall politely say "bite me."

Re this issue, oh I was making no generalizations, just noting how it works in terms of course rating; that is, that mathematically 390 or so seems to be the dividing line.

But this does bring up an interesting point again... and that is that for the bogey golfer, isn't anything over 375 really a par five for him anyway?  That is, a three shotter?   I'm not sure how that then equates to interest or lack thereof... but I'd have to believe the bogey golfer has more fun with holes he can reach in regulation figures - unfortunately determined with the scratch in mind....

Just kinda thinking out loud.

TH

[Tim Pitner]

Let's remember that bogey golfers (like all golfers) come in different shapes and sizes.  I know a lot of guys who have trouble breaking 90 but having the distance to reach par 4s in two isn't the problem--finding the fairways and greens is.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Let's remember that bogey golfers (like all golfers) come in different shapes and sizes.  I know a lot of guys who have trouble breaking 90 but having the distance to reach par 4s in two isn't the problem--finding the fairways and greens is.  

Of course.
So call this "the average bogey golfer."  
He won't be able to reach a 400 yard hole in two normal shots.

TH

[Mark_F]

The key is making 400 yard holes interesting.

Exactly.

Commonwealth in Melbourne has a couple of fantastic 400 yard-ish holes, the oft-photographed 16th, and the 11th.  

Or the 4th at West Sussex is around that mark, and so to is the great 13th, which is 380 or so but runs slightly uphill.

And what about 5,6,and 7 at Sunningdale Old?  All around that yardage from memory.

Or, creme de la creme, the 3rd at Macrihanish?

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, Jeff, I hate multiple tees.  I just got finished playing two days at Ballyneal with everyone from the club pro to the assistant superintendent to a 20-handicapper, and we all played from the same tee -- they don't have any "markers" and they may opt not to, so we moved around and used different tees as we chose.

I'm surprised that the book does not credit "my" idea to Pete Dye, who is the one I learned that tenet from.  Pete always said to make the long par-4's REALLY long (and let the bogey golfers play the up tees) and keep the short par-4's short.  I thought that was very consistent with the scorecards of Dr. MacKenzie's courses as well, so it became part of my belief system.

Chris C:  I'm not saying I don't EVER build a 400-yard hole.  If that's where a tee is laying, I'm not going to put a bunch of fill in to make it 450, that's just not me.  But when I started out 20 years ago, a lot of architects were forgetting to build ANY par-4's under 400 yards, letting the distances creep up to 400 in order to get up over 7000 total, and making it impossible for 10-handicaps to play from the back tees.  Ballyneal has five par-4's under 400 yards and two of them may be the best two holes on the golf course.

[Dan Kelly]

Ballyneal has five par-4's under 400 yards and two of them may be the best two holes on the golf course.

Tom --

I love "short" par 4s. As a breed, they're my favorite type of golf hole -- because the typical decent golfer can play them well, while the well-made ones seem to regularly confound the best players.

What do you mean when you say "the best two holes on the golf course"?

Dan

[Tags:]

Tags: