Driveable Par 4's

« **Reply #50 on:** July 29, 2002, 08:37:28 PM »

shivas:

I have to agree with David and Ben. Blackwolf #9 IS a
driveable par 4 - I've even seen it done, not from the tips,
but from very near them. My buddy even had a tap-in
birdie, so it was worth the risk.

I forgot to include #16 at Royal County Down as one of my
favorite driveable four pars.

« **Reply #51 on:** July 30, 2002, 07:11:53 AM »

Bill - oh I absolutely believe big-hitting Bernhardt can drive #16 at PD - heck I did it myself (back bunker) and John takes it way past weak-stick me.... But check out Dan G.'s message as for the difference in the summer and winter winds... 6 becomes driveable in the winter, 16 is no way... total opposite in the summer... to me that's very cool but illustrates how difficult it is to discuss the courses at Bandon without mentioning WHEN you played there!

TH

« **Reply #52 on:** July 30, 2002, 08:14:20 AM »

If played slightly downwind, the 4th at St Enodoc is a great driveable par 4. With OB right and a narrow shelf green it's a very challenging shot.

« **Reply #53 on:** July 30, 2002, 08:16:22 AM »

Tom IV,

Right you are re the winter vs summer wind at Bandon. When I played there in February there was no way 16 at Pac Dunes was reachable, and it therefore was a difficult driving hole because it narrowed considerably in the landing zone. The next day the wind shifted around and 16 at Bandon Dunes was driveable--I'm sure it wasn't the day before, when I played Pac Dunes. Ah, the joys of seaside golf...

All The Best,

« **Reply #54 on:** July 30, 2002, 08:18:02 AM »

Right on, Doug. And please don't get me started on 16 at Bandon Dunes again... "the hole with nowhere a tee shot can go downwind"...

I'd love to play each course in the winter wind... hmmmm... maybe this winter I try for a hall pass to get up there again?? The wheels are spinning...

TH

« **Reply #55 on:** July 30, 2002, 08:40:57 AM »

My favorite is #13 at Lahinch, 273 yards, often into the wind. I usually end up in the big hole on the left or hook it onto the 14th tee.

Doonbeg has a very reachable, down wind par 4, sixth hole.

Paul Richards,
Isn't #17 at The Golf Club, Columbus a par 5. Is there another driveable par 4 at The Golf Club you like?

« **Reply #56 on:** July 30, 2002, 02:50:32 PM »

D Barton:

Yes, the 17th at Double Eagle is the one I meant to mention earlier. Thanks for the correction!

« **Reply #57 on:** July 30, 2002, 10:03:12 PM »

10 - Belfry
(Timely)

Not a wise play for myself, but excellent theater for Match Play in the Ryder Cup.

« **Reply #58 on:** August 01, 2002, 04:47:55 PM »

JSlonis, Mike Cirba, TEPaul,

How could you Philly guys miss the 3rd at Applebrook, a neat driveable par 4, with a seperate set of decisions if you choose to play safe.

« **Reply #59 on:** August 02, 2002, 11:02:56 AM »

i was recently at bandon/pac dunes for 4 days where we were lucky enough to have all weather - from slight breezes to 3-4 clubs from BOTH summer and winter directions. truly magical.

i was surprised to read tom doak say that 16th was not designed to be reachable, because with a strong wind at our back (summer prevail) my playing partner hit a low fade 40-50 yards left of the green which the fairway contour gobbled up and deposited a couple of feet off of the fringe. it looked exactly as the hole was meant to be played in those conditions.
(i was not as lucky, leaving it in the dreaded short right rough making 5 out of the back bunker from there

)

« **Reply #60 on:** August 02, 2002, 11:36:33 AM »

My favorite course here in Indianapolis (haven't been invited out to the Wolf yet) is The Fort. Number 2 is a great drivable par 4. The fairway is very large in the lay-up area but canted pretty severly left-to-right down from the tee perspective. The fairway then dog-legs left down to the green, which falls away on all sides except the front. Inside the dogleg are several bunkers, all the way up to the left side of the green. I believe the hole reads 330 on the card, but absolute carry can't be more than 270 from the tips. So, on the tee the golfer can: A) hit 3 iron out to the right and have a side-hill, down-hill wedge to a rather visually intimidating green, or B) Draw a driver or low-running 3 wood that the fairway should kick towards the green given the tilt in that direction. Over-or under-drawing results in the ball running downhill away from the green into a bunker, rough, or woods. I'm not sure how Dye/Liddy wanted this one to play, but I lay up if the pin is up (to spin a full wedge) and go for it if the pin is back (plenty of room to run the ball back to the hole).

« **Reply #61 on:** August 02, 2002, 02:46:05 PM »

Pat,

I forgot about the 3rd at Applebrook because I haven't played there yet.

Supposed to get a practice round in next week for the upcoming Patterson Cup.

By the way, I played in the MGA Amateur this week at Piping Rock. What a great golf course that is. The regular CGA'ers would love the job that the Superintendant Richard Spear is doing there.

« **Reply #62 on:** August 02, 2002, 03:14:58 PM »

3rd and 11th @ Newport (NE and SW wind respectively) and 6th at the Country Club.

Does anyone really think of Riviera # 10 as a driver hole?

« **Reply #63 on:** August 02, 2002, 03:47:30 PM »

Newporter:

Yes, definitely!

Some of the most valid analyses of hole options are in articles that Shackelford has done over the years on holes in real pro tournaments.

In the 1998 LA Open the last group of Tryba, Woods and Love basically validated and proved the ramifications and interest of the multi options of Riv's #10.

Love, who is actually quite conservative in some situations for a very long player went at the green with a driver and landed about 5yds short of the green front but to the right which is a very difficult chip or pitch to the back pin and had to struggle for par after his short approach filtered off the green into the left bunker.

Woods used an iron into the middle of the fairway and a good SW behind the pin and missed birdie.

Tryba used and iron and went to the left side of the fairway, came straight in with a SW and birdied.

Seeing three tour players, in contention, use such diverse options is a bit unusual and validates the multi options of Riv's #10, in my opinion.

That Love came so close and struggled to make par was actually expected by the commentators, so the driveable option can be a payoff but is obviously the most risky too--good stuff in architectural concept!!

« **Reply #64 on:** August 02, 2002, 09:07:02 PM »

Does the suspense and decision making process on driveable par 4's simplify itself through the experience of playing the hole a good number of times ?

Do driveable par 4's gain favor with golfers through the repetitive playing experience ?

Or, with frequent play, do golfers realize their limitations on the specific hole, and accept the default decision ?

« **Reply #65 on:** August 03, 2002, 06:01:18 AM »

Pat:

That is such a great question--really, really good one!!

I'm going to think on that for a day or so and mull some driveable par 4s through my mind in how that applies to them and how they play out over time that way!

What you're doing by asking that question is sort of merging together the all important aspects of experience and ability to read and understand architecture (and/or local knowledge) and the overriding importance of really good TEMPTATION in architecture which is best when complex, deceptive etc etc etc--and yes even IFFY!!

But the one essential thing all great architecture has is intesting degrees of TEMPTATION and when holes start losing that they start devolving towards blandness and limited dimensionality (options and strategies)!

GREAT question!!

« **Reply #66 on:** August 03, 2002, 06:16:35 AM »

Pat:

Before fully mulling this question over, one thing comes to mind. I haven't heard from Bob Crosby lately but this idea about the "scoring spectrum" of any golf hole indicating its architectural quality and interest might play directly into this question of yours and its answers.

In other words, whatever a golfer decides to do the indications of architectural validity should be he might and actually does try a variety of things throughout time on a particular hole.

The recollection of an "other" might give him pause to try the risky while at the same time the recollection of that birdie or great eagle might inspire him to try the risky anyway!

It's sometimes not enough to have the available options working and used--the best of it all is when all those options are into a certain "balance" in the mind of any player and he struggles just to decide which of many might do the best for him and all this happening between his ears before he even goes to his bag.

It all falls into Pete Dye's quote--"Get those tour pros thinking and you have them where you want them". There are definitely degrees of that and clearly getting them thinking a lot is much better than getting them thinking just a little.

The best of all is that "quandry balance" of decision making with as many possibilities as conceivable. And if many options can get into a "balance" somehow--you can't do better than that as a conceptual designer!

« **Reply #67 on:** August 03, 2002, 07:02:01 PM »

TEPaul, et. al.,

Think of the question in the context of static conditions.

« **Reply #68 on:** August 03, 2002, 08:43:00 PM »

I think we're getting to the heart of what makes a great, driveable par four.

My gut instinct tells me that under "static circumstances", most will play them aggresively at first, and less and less and less so over time and experience.

« **Reply #69 on:** August 03, 2002, 09:49:54 PM »

Quote

TEPaul, et. al.,

Think of the question in the context of static conditions.

What do you mean by that and why?

« **Reply #70 on:** August 03, 2002, 10:09:08 PM »

TEPaul,

I meant that you should not view the question in the context of innumerable scenarios, wind, rain, spring, summer, fall.
That you should address the question assuming, for the time being, that conditions are consistent and unchanging.

« **Reply #71 on:** August 03, 2002, 10:15:48 PM »

Patrick:

The question (and I'm sure the answers) are probably complicated enough as it is--where did I bring the weather into it too?

« **Reply #72 on:** August 03, 2002, 10:26:54 PM »

TEPaul,

I never said that you brought the weather in.

I was trying to help you by eliminating cluttering elements.

You indicated that you were going to ponder the questions before responding. In an attempt to keep things simpler,
I added the caveat that you should view the question in the context of static conditions.

For example, take # 1 at NGLA or # 2 at NGLA, or # 3 at Applebrook, and view them in the context of the prevailing conditions, good weather, prevailing wind direction, firmness of turf, speed of greens, rather than springlike conditions, wet, spongy, slow greens and unusual wind patterns.

« **Reply #73 on:** August 03, 2002, 10:55:35 PM »

Jeesus, you misread what I wrote, you misquoted me, you said I said things I never did, you're putting words in my mouth I never uttered and thoughts in my head I never thought. I think you've violated my constitutional rights!

I can smell bias and defamation just as well as you can!

You better watch yourself buddy, or my lawyer will see your lawyer on the first tee at Piping Rock! Oh, and so you're very clear on this, when they get to the 5th hole my lawyer is very capable of driving the green and the odds are strong your lawyer will hook it OB!

News:

Paul Richards

THuckaby2

Paul Turner

Doug Wright

THuckaby2

D_Barton

Paul Richards

Thomas_Brown

Patrick_Mucci

Hart

Rob Hallford

JSlonis

Newporter

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

An Error Has Occurred!