[Steve Burrows]

A stern par 4 or a gambling par 5 are, as a general rule, the way that many courses finish their routing.  Interestingly, par 3’s are seen as gimmicky, or anti-climatic (e.g. Congressional), and drivable par 4’s, where eagle is a distinct possibility for an exciting finish, are almost non-existent (e.g. 18 at TOC, but it was probably never meant to play that way, and obviously the wind has a say in that one from minute to minute).  

Why is this the case?  Why are these holes (especially drivable par 4’s) relegated to earlier in the round?  Is it simply a preference of designers?  If so, why is it so overwhelmingly prevalent?  Or, are we to assume that the land rarely, if ever, presents itself to end this way, which seems illogical, and would therefore bring us back to designer preferences.  Is it a preference of players?  Is it a concession made for the flawed premise of what a “championship” golf course should be?  Is it...?

Any ideas?

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

There are a lot of courses in Scotland which have very-short-par-4 finishers ... just off the top of my head, St. Andrews, Prestwick, North Berwick West Links, and Elie.  (The Eden course at St. Andrews used to end with a driveable par-4, too, but that's in the practice range now.)  Durban CC has a great one, too.

I think it's just one of those things that has become a cliche of design over the years.  It probably has something to do with the transition from match play to medal play as the dominant form of the game ... I imagine a lot of good players have been pissed over the years when their lead in the clubhouse is snatched away by a cheap birdie at the last hole (completely ignoring that they themselves probably made birdie there a half hour earlier).

I have nothing against a short par 4 to finish, but I have yet to design one; I honestly couldn't tell you why.

[Steve Burrows]

Tom,

You're right on the verge of saying that you have no sound justification for this particular decision (a decision that is fundamental to every course ever designed and built).  But, the fact is that you DO make this decision, and on every project.

Myself, not wanting to believe that yourself, or, by extension, probably other designers, don't at least subconciously know why you sequence the holes the way you do, and finish courses the way that you do, I suppose I am going to have to go with one of the things that you hinted at:

Maybe it is a result of player preferences over the years, and not designer preferences.  Maybe players actually do want to finish on a strong par 4 or 5, and you guys, as designers, respect some democratic notion of the game of golf and give the people what the want.  But again, maybe this is only a subconscious decision of yours.  

It is interesting, though, that none of the courses you mentioned on the previous post that end on shorter par 4's are in America.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

Probably because golf before TV was predominantly a match play game, and, in most cases, the match was over before the competitors reached the 18th tee.

Challenging finishing holes seem to be a more recent product catapulted to the forefront by TV and Medal play.

[Steve Burrows]

"Probably because golf before TV was predominantly a match play game, and, in most cases, the match was over before the competitors reached the 18th tee."

This suggests that a short hole is unchallenging and not deserving of a place at the end of the round., which is not the case, is it?  

It also suggests that pre-television designers did not see value in a finishing hole.  But this is not the case.  In reality, many older courses, designed well before television, finish on stern, well-recognized par 4's, e.g. Riviera, Winged Foot (West), Shinnecock, Merion, Oakmont.  The list goes on.  

So, if it's not just a television thing, and I can't believe that it's entirely a match play thing (because, again, why would we not want to see a birdie or eagle win a hole, as opposed to bogey losing it), then what is the REAL preference towards the long par 4 or gambling par 5, as opposed to a par 3, or short par 4?    

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. makes a good point about the differences between match and medal play. At The Old Course, however, we must recall that the finishing hole came to be as a result of the tweaking of the opening holes...combining them to form longer holes that had been in the 22-hole scheme. One theory on the combining was that it was likely congested going away from the clubhouse. Thus a reduction in holes loosened up the opening holes.

We are working on a proposal to change to a course I designed 20 years ago. The finishing hole had been a par-4 or very short length: 290-yards. When some nearby land was sold, the owners converted it to a par-3 against my recommendation. (The tees are horrid examples of afterthought!)

Then...in another fit of anti-wisdom...they re-built a portion of the resort that anchors this course, taking my original opening hole and running it backwards to form a blind-off-the-tee short par-4 to an island green that cannot be seen from the tees or from where most golfers land their tee shot. It is a disaster.

So...the solution is to transform the ill-advised finisher (that island green) to a par-3 and we would re-work the tees at what has become the par-3 17th. Viola! Two par-3s to finish the round.

Does that make anyone sick?

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

That is such a sad story that it deserves a sorrowful tune played on the viola.

Steve B:

You are right, I'm sure part of the reason I haven't designed any short par-4 finishers is because I suspect my clients would object to it as being "weak".  Remember they are just looking at a plan and cannot judge the potential quality of the finishing hole -- so unless the land is very dramatic the hole is likely to be viewed in advance as weak.

There are some good short par-4 finishers in America -- Inverness and Olympic (Lake) used to be the two examples always cited in architecture stories as the "exceptions to the rule."  But both are drive-and-pitch holes, not driveable holes as the ones in Scotland we've discussed.

Tom Weiskopf is famous for including one or two driveable par-4's in all his courses, but to the best of my knowledge, he often used one for the 17th hole (TPC Scottsdale, Double Eagle) but never for the 18th.

[Greg Tallman]

I agree with Patrick  , I believe the advent of medal play has a great deal to do with a seeming lack of short 4 closers.

The later golfers would be assumed to be ahead of those who have finished a spectacular early round charge and now sitting in the clubhouse ot see if it was good enough and thus a potential bogey (or worse) at the closer would be assumed to make the finishing golfer "earn" the victory versus coming to 18 at St Andrews with a 1 shot lead and virtually assured of a par. Virtually I said... assuming the best players in the world are of whom we are talking.

Assuming the combatants are paired together the make up of the final hole is rather inconsequential apart from the individual ball flight tendencies which could not truly be anticipated.

[Bob_Huntley]

I would say that Cypress Point is rather on the short side.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Probably because golf before TV was predominantly a match play game, and, in most cases, the match was over before the competitors reached the 18th tee."

This suggests that a short hole is unchallenging and not deserving of a place at the end of the round., which is not the case, is it?  

It's not that it's unchallenging, but, by removing length, it does present a diminished challenge.[/color]

It also suggests that pre-television designers did not see value in a finishing hole.  But this is not the case.  In reality, many older courses, designed well before television, finish on stern, well-recognized par 4's, e.g. Riviera, Winged Foot (West), Shinnecock, Merion, Oakmont.  The list goes on.  


Not really, all of those holes have been lengthened to today's distances.   Citing five courses amongst hundreds if not thousands hardly makes your case.

Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Plainfield, GCGC, NGLA, Maidstone, Seminole, Cypress Point all had short finishing holes.
The list goes on and on.[/color]

So, if it's not just a television thing, and I can't believe that it's entirely a match play thing (because, again,[size=4x] why would we not want to see a birdie or eagle win a hole[/size], as opposed to bogey losing it), then what is the REAL preference towards the long par 4 or gambling par 5, as opposed to a par 3, or short par 4?    

There is no preference, pre TV and/or the switch to medal play.

And, you just answered your own question.
I "bolded" your words.

Only the TV audience would care WHAT WE SEE.

If the match was over before the competitors reached the 18th tee. noone would care about the 18th hole.  And, most matches are over before the competitors reach the 18th hole.[/color]

[JMorgan]

Tom D. makes a good point about the differences between match and medal play. At The Old Course, however, we must recall that the finishing hole came to be as a result of the tweaking of the opening holes...combining them to form longer holes that had been in the 22-hole scheme. One theory on the combining was that it was likely congested going away from the clubhouse. Thus a reduction in holes loosened up the opening holes.

We are working on a proposal to change to a course I designed 20 years ago. The finishing hole had been a par-4 or very short length: 290-yards. When some nearby land was sold, the owners converted it to a par-3 against my recommendation. (The tees are horrid examples of afterthought!)

Then...in another fit of anti-wisdom...they re-built a portion of the resort that anchors this course, taking my original opening hole and running it backwards to form a blind-off-the-tee short par-4 to an island green that cannot be seen from the tees or from where most golfers land their tee shot. It is a disaster.

So...the solution is to transform the ill-advised finisher (that island green) to a par-3 and we would re-work the tees at what has become the par-3 17th. Viola! Two par-3s to finish the round.

Does that make anyone sick?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that sucks.

[Steve Burrows]

"It's not that it's unchallenging, but, by removing length, it does present a diminished challenge."

So more length is inherently more challenging?  I thought that notion was taboo on this forum.

Secondly, there has to be a preference of some sort by designers.  Actions imply that a choice was made, and that choice more than likely was made for a reason, logical or illogical, right or wrong.  But there is a choice made when it comes to how a golf course is concluded, whether it goes to the top of a knob, or to the bottom of a hollow, whether it turns left of right, and yes, whether it is a long par 5, or a driveable par 4.  And more than this, the fact that almost no one ends a course with a driveable par 4 does suggest that there is a preference against it, and I would posit that this reason is more than either difficulty, match vs medal play, or television.

And finally, "If the match was over before the competitors reached the 18th tee. no one would care about the 18th hole.  And, most matches are over before the competitors reach the 18th hole."

So why have 18 hole golf courses at all?  In fact, that's a preference in itself, to build 18 holes.  Any developer or designer could just as easily choose to build only 14, or 23.  It's unconventional, to be sure, but there is no rule to say that a golf course must be 18 holes; it's more of an widely accepted norm than anything.

[JMorgan]

Steve,
Call me crazy, but I don't think there should be any forethought as to the number of shots on which a routing ends.  I think the final hole should be determined by the "narrative" of shots that leads up to the final hole, whether par 3, 4, or 5.  And it should be an ending that makes the player crave more of what the author just served up, ie. in the form of the gca's other courses, and makes the golfer always remember the finish, which makes sense in the context of the one before it, and so on, so the course becomes a good friend read over and over.  At least that's the conclusion I've come to playing different "great" routings and in constructing my own imaginary courses on real land.
JM

[Bill Gayne]

Is the preference for long tough finishing holes a legacy of RTJ Sr.?

[Steve Burrows]

James,

I couldn't agree more.  My actual point is, especially in light of the logic that you have just set forth, that there should more golf courses (among the approximately 20,000 worldwide) that end with a driveable par 4.  If indeed designers have no preference, and there is are no routings that are pre-determined to have a given sequence of par 3's, 4's and 5's, (that there truly is a randomness and individuality to each project), then, even the law of averages tells us that there should be more of the hole that I'm talking about to end a course.  Right?  

But it is not the case, and, therefore, I am suggesting that perhaps each project is not as random and unique as we might like to believe, and that designers, or the golfers that play the courses, do have some sort of preference, if only a general one, for the sequence of holes that finish a round, and this preference precludes a driveable par 4 to finish the sequence.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"It's not that it's unchallenging, but, by removing length, it does present a diminished challenge."

So more length is inherently more challenging?  I thought that notion was taboo on this forum.

That's correct, more length inherently creates more challenge.

That's why courses are being lengthened at incredible rates, to regain the challenge lost to hi-tech equipment that produces more distance.

It's something that many, including myself, don't like, but, absent the USGA stepping up to the plate and freezing, restricting or retroing the distance issue, will continue.

Secondly, there has to be a preference of some sort by designers.  Actions imply that a choice was made, and that choice more than likely was made for a reason, logical or illogical, right or wrong.  But there is a choice made when it comes to how a golf course is concluded, whether it goes to the top of a knob, or to the bottom of a hollow, whether it turns left of right, and yes, whether it is a long par 5, or a driveable par 4.  

And more than this, the fact that almost no one ends a course with a driveable par 4 does suggest that there is a preference against it, and I would posit that this reason is more than either difficulty, match vs medal play, or television.

I guess you've never watched a golf tournament held at The Old Course at St Andrews, where a short, drivable par 4 is the finishing hole.  Prestwick, North Berwick ?

But, there are other reasons.

In the early days in the U.S., and even today, many, if not most clubs sited their clubhouse on the most elevated part of the property.  That alone tended to preclude a driveable par 4 as a fininshing hole.

I'd also guess that the routing of the first 17 holes substantively influences the configuration of the 18th hole.
That's why I would imagine that some courses finish with par 3's, because, that's all that was left.

I'd also imagine, because of clubhouse and ground's activity, that a driveable par 4 finishing hole would present a clear safefy hazard, ergo, legal problem.  That alone is reason not to construct one.

And finally, "If the match was over before the competitors reached the 18th tee. no one would care about the 18th hole.  And, most matches are over before the competitors reach the 18th hole."

So why have 18 hole golf courses at all?  In fact, that's a preference in itself, to build 18 holes.  Any developer or designer could just as easily choose to build only 14, or 23.  

You should know that 18 hole golf courses are a recent development in the general time frame of golf.
If you'll research the history of golf you'll see that courses were built without 18 holes for some time.

It's unconventional, to be sure, but there is no rule to say that a golf course must be 18 holes; it's more of an widely accepted norm than anything.

See my comments above.

[Steve Burrows]

I guess you've never watched a golf tournament held at The Old Course at St Andrews, where a short, drivable par 4 is the finishing hole.  Prestwick, North Berwick?"

These, and a few others, were conceded as examples in one of the initial posts on this topic.

"In the early days in the U.S., and even today, many, if not most clubs sited their clubhouse on the most elevated part of the property.  That alone tended to preclude a driveable par 4 as a fininshing hole."

This is the most sensible reason (as I see it) that has been presented.  Surely there are others, but this one I am compelled to accept.  That being said, I don't believe that it absolutely precludes a driveable par 4 finish, but it certainly inhibits its possibilities.

"You should know that 18 hole golf courses are a recent development in the general time frame of golf.  If you'll research the history of golf you'll see that courses were built without 18 holes for some time."

And yes, I am keenly aware, as are most on this forum, of the history of the game and the relatively recent trend towards 18 holes.



   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

The safety/legal issue shouldn't be overlooked or minimized.

If architects are reluctant to involve themselves in the cart path configuration, it makes sense that they would want to avoid lawsuits inherent in the design of a driveable 18th hole.

[Steve Pozaric]

I like a stern par 4 as a finishing hole.  I also think that short par 4's are the most fun holes on a course.  They make you think and give you options.  However (and this is the non-match play Amercan golfer thinking), on short par 4's if you don't go for it, you have a ho-hum almost layup off the tee most often, followed by a short iron it.  

In contrast, a longer par 4 gives both players something to think about off the tee.

This goes to show my bias that, as a mid capper, I would prefer the challenge that a tough par 4 provides my game.

YMMV.

[Mark Pearce]

Steve:

There are a lot of courses in Scotland which have very-short-par-4 finishers ... just off the top of my head, St. Andrews, Prestwick, North Berwick West Links, and Elie.  (The Eden course at St. Andrews used to end with a driveable par-4, too, but that's in the practice range now.)  Durban CC has a great one, too.

Tom

Are any of the finishers in Scotland you mentioned good holes?  Compared to what comes before each of these holes I would say these finishers are not on the list of better holes.  The North Berwick and TOC holes work because of the possibility of eagle, but they are not ideal holes in either match or medal play.  

I have only seen one great reachable par 4 finisher and that is Kington's.  All the thrill of eagle is there, but par is no certainty because the topography is Pennard like - wild.  I would go even further and say that modern technology has made the hole better because more people can reach it - though the clubhouse is often hit.  To me the danger is worth it because the lounge window is literally 10 yards away from the back pin.  People often agther around there and risk being hit to watch a match finish.  

Ciao

Sean

Slightly heretical, I'll admit, but in my view the strongest of the holes in Scotland Tom referred to is Elie.  Driveable (just) but a hog's back fairway and cross bunkering make that very risky.  A mini valley of sin at the front of the green makes it tricky getting at a front centre pin, even with a sand wedge or lob wedge second.

[T_MacWood]

Steve:

There are a lot of courses in Scotland which have very-short-par-4 finishers ... just off the top of my head, St. Andrews, Prestwick, North Berwick West Links, and Elie.  (The Eden course at St. Andrews used to end with a driveable par-4, too, but that's in the practice range now.)  Durban CC has a great one, too.

I think it's just one of those things that has become a cliche of design over the years.  It probably has something to do with the transition from match play to medal play as the dominant form of the game ... I imagine a lot of good players have been pissed over the years when their lead in the clubhouse is snatched away by a cheap birdie at the last hole (completely ignoring that they themselves probably made birdie there a half hour earlier).

I have nothing against a short par 4 to finish, but I have yet to design one; I honestly couldn't tell you why.

Along these same lines as the shortish 18th there were quite few challenging 17ths back in the old days.

[Dan Kelly]

Forrest:

That is such a sad story that it deserves a sorrowful tune played on the viola.

I'm no musical expert, but I think it'd be even more sorrowful played on the voilà. N'est-ce pas?  

As for the topic at hand: Because I think it's more fun to win with a birdie than with a par, I like drive-and-short-iron finishing holes that *merely* require two skillful (but not necessarily gargantuan) shots to yield a chance for birdie.

Interlachen's No. 18 is a dandy, if you ask me (though I've only watched good players play it, and have never played it myself). I like Sutton Bay's No. 18, too ... although, come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a birdie there, and I've seen many bogeys and worse.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

As Tom MacWood perhaps suggested, I think the short par-4 finishers at North Berwick and St. Andrews should be looked at in the context of their very difficult 17th holes.  In match play, the harder hole comes first to sort out the leader down the stretch ... Bernard Darwin wrote (of Walton Heath, I think) that "it is the duty of every golf course to have a good 17th hole."  

But in medal play, the leader in the clubhouse is relatively on the same terms as the guy who's out on the sixteenth with a couple of holes still to play.  To me, that provides for better (and less predictable) endings than at Troon or Carnoustie or many modern courses where most players are liable to limp home against par.

[tonyt]

Seems weird to me that the risk/reward par 5 is often seen as a great potential closer, but the short par 4 isn't. If anything, the former has a shorter shot in to the green than the latter. So NO lack of challenge by comparison.

But funny isn't it, how very few clubhouses worldwide seem to be situated around great land for a wonderful par 3? Or at least, that is what the evasion of their usage is artificially telling us

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()