[Mike Sweeney]

As a fan of drivable Par 4's, I can't figure out if I like the 16th at Doral. I played there years and years ago so I don't remember it. Everyone seemed to go for it yesterday but I did not see many birdies and  I did see many awkward lies in the sand.

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/story/945577.html
________________________________________
At 372 yards, Doral's 16th first appears a little too long to fall into the driveable category -- but the dogleg skews the measurement.

From the middle of the teeing ground, it's about 300 yards to the front of the putting surface. From a front marker, the middle of the green could be as close as 280 yards. That is where Tony Wallin expects to set his lure Saturday. From the front tee box, just about everyone will have the range.

''I think when you make a par-4 go-able, it should be for the whole field,'' said Wallin, the PGA Tour official in charge of this week's back-nine setup. ``I'm going to make it as tempting as possible. I usually have a fairly easy hole location as well -- let's see some eagles. If they go for it and pull the shot off, reward them.''

Some, meanwhile, won't need a front tee to give it a try. In the past five Doral stops, there has been only one round in which no one attempted to drive the green.

[PCCraig]

At first glance you would assume that if even the green can't actually hold a driver, and the bunker recovery around the green is considered easy, then every PGA Tour player is going to go for it.

It seems that the best drivable Par-4's have one of two things going for it, a green that people can actually hit and hold, or enough risk around the green to make players think about either going for it or laying up.

The best drivable par-4 on Tour that I can remember was the 17th (I think) at Oakmont...Tiger was hitting a 3-wood at it on the last day, but hit it in a super deep bunker and made par.

[BCrosby]

Pat's on the money.

The point of a good drivable par 4 isn't just that you can drive it. It's that if you try to drive it and miss you risk a bogey or worse. The second half of that equation is absent at Doral.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with the thinking above.  But, let's remember that when the 16th at Doral was designed, NOBODY was thinking about the hole as a potentially driveable par-4.  That's the scary part about all these equipment changes over the years ... they are affecting even the kinds of holes which ought to be immune to the changes.

[cary lichtenstein]

I enjoyed watching 16 this weekend. Risk/Reward was excellent.

Difficult lies in the traps and higher rough, funny angles, made for good viewing. Maybe the rough should have been a bit higher.

Flat green that doesn't hold that well is good design for this shot hole.

I would give this short hole a B+

[John Moore II]

I think Tom has hit it on the head. The 16th was never meant to be reachable. The green, from what I saw, seems to be designed to accept wedge shots, not driver shots. The 17th at Oakmont I believe was originally designed to be a reachable par 4 that would really test your ability to make a top quality shot.

So, while we can say that it doesn't make for a good reachable par 4, we must remember that at 375ish yards from the back tee, it was never meant to be reached off the tee.

Also, I think its unfair to compare Doral to Oakmont anyway. Does anyone think they are even on the same level? Likely not. Doral was designed to service the resort population and be a hard course to play. Oakmont was designed to service the private club membership and be an elite venue. The idea behind the two courses is completely different.

[PCCraig]

I think Tom has hit it on the head. The 16th was never meant to be reachable. The green, from what I saw, seems to be designed to accept wedge shots, not driver shots. The 17th at Oakmont I believe was originally designed to be a reachable par 4 that would really test your ability to make a top quality shot.

So, while we can say that it doesn't make for a good reachable par 4, we must remember that at 375ish yards from the back tee, it was never meant to be reached off the tee.

Also, I think its unfair to compare Doral to Oakmont anyway. Does anyone think they are even on the same level? Likely not. Doral was designed to service the resort population and be a hard course to play. Oakmont was designed to service the private club membership and be an elite venue. The idea behind the two courses is completely different.

John-

I wasn't comparing as much as I was noting what I saw as a successful drivable par-4 at Oakmont.


I don't know Doral all that well, does anyone know if there is any reason or advantage what-so-ever for the pros to hit it right off the tee and a wedge to the green?

[John Moore II]

There might be an advantage in playing the ball out to the right if you are a great player with wedges from 125yds and in and also a very poor sand player. Also, if you can only hit the ball 250 yards or so off the tee (not a problem for anyone in the field, but maybe for Corey Pavin or something) then you'd be better served hitting to the right. Other than that, if you can hit it 280ish off the tee and have even a decent short game, bombs away.

[BCrosby]

Speaking of what length has done to older courses like Doral, was anyone else saddened to see players hitting 7i seconds to 590 + par 5's? Even if it was downwind? Sheeesh.

Bob

[John Moore II]

Speaking of what length has done to older courses like Doral, was anyone else saddened to see players hitting 7i seconds to 590 + par 5's? Even if it was downwind? Sheeesh.

Bob

At least they had to hit driver off that tee. Not sure how downwind it was though, the wind can really howl down there though, I remember playing a course down there where I hit D-pw about 15 yards over the green on a 485 yard par 5 and then played the very next hole which was like 135 with a 4 iron (and I really had to juice the 4 iron, a club I normally hit from about 210 by-the-way). So, with a 25mph wind directly behind them, its not terribly out of line. What got me was the par 5 before that one on the back where Watney hit like 3 iron off the tee and 5 iron into the green, that hole was like 550 yards. That kind of play freaks me out. I think Watney had to hit like D-4iron into that longest one, so, when you figure its real downwind, thats not insane.

Oh, and based on the overheads, showing all the brown in the fairways, I'd say the course was playing pretty F&F as well. So, that has to factor into it.

[Andy Troeger]

I always enjoy watching the pros take on #17 at TPC Scottsdale and #15 at TPC River Highlands. Not sure I love the rest of either golf course, but those two seem to create a good diversity of outcomes which is fun to watch.

[Cliff Hamm]

Pat's on the money.

The point of a good drivable par 4 isn't just that you can drive it. It's that if you try to drive it and miss you risk a bogey or worse. The second half of that equation is absent at Doral.

Bob

That is also the problem with the 4th at TPC Boston.  The renovations got well deserved accolades, but having watched the pros on the 4th it is frankly rather tedious.  When they hit the green big ovation, otherwise tend to go in the trap to the left or short.  Very rarely a bogey.  BTW the absolute worst spectator course ever. 

[Tom_Doak]

Cliff:

That sounds a little harsh.  Didn't Tiger make a double there the first year?

Of course, what it shows is that these sort of holes that everyone thinks are so cool do not hold up so well to repeated play.  Eventually the pros figure them out (like they figure out not to go for the right-hand pin on 12 at Augusta) and then they are pretty boring.  It's only the rare case, like the 12th at The Old Course or the 10th at Riviera, where the risk/reward equation depends so much on the strengths of the individual that you still see divergent strategies and interesting results.

[Anthony Gray]

  I love the 12th at TOC. Everybody in the field is going for the green. No guarantee of a two putt. At Oakmont can the players see the ball on the green from the tee?

  Anthony

[Gary Slatter]

  I love the 12th at TOC. Everybody in the field is going for the green. No guarantee of a two putt. At Oakmont can the players see the ball on the green from the tee?

  Anthony

2010 Open winning score -36 (unless the weather is good  )

[Sean_A]

Cliff:

That sounds a little harsh.  Didn't Tiger make a double there the first year?

Of course, what it shows is that these sort of holes that everyone thinks are so cool do not hold up so well to repeated play.  Eventually the pros figure them out (like they figure out not to go for the right-hand pin on 12 at Augusta) and then they are pretty boring.  It's only the rare case, like the 12th at The Old Course or the 10th at Riviera, where the risk/reward equation depends so much on the strengths of the individual that you still see divergent strategies and interesting results.

Tom

It depends on if we are talking about the punters or pros and I don't much see the point in talking about how pros play the game because they spoil practically any form strategic intent with power.  That said I have always thought these sorts of holes work best with significantly different teeing areas and/or on sites with a fair amount of wind.  I love the par 5 which plays shorter than the next hole which is a par 4 - this can essentially be the same thing with a reachable par 4 combined with a long par 3.  Its wonderful to witness how folks allow par (essentially a scoring system) to effect their thinking and therefore their strategies.  

Ciao

[John Kirk]

Though I generally agree with Mike S., Phil Mickelson executed a world class flop shot to hold the green and save par.   The 16th hole is nearly surrounded by sand.  They probably would have a higher percentage of birdies if they laid up.

[PCCraig]

Pat's on the money.

The point of a good drivable par 4 isn't just that you can drive it. It's that if you try to drive it and miss you risk a bogey or worse. The second half of that equation is absent at Doral.

Bob

That is also the problem with the 4th at TPC Boston.  The renovations got well deserved accolades, but having watched the pros on the 4th it is frankly rather tedious.  When they hit the green big ovation, otherwise tend to go in the trap to the left or short.  Very rarely a bogey.  BTW the absolute worst spectator course ever. 

Cliff-

Good example. Although I think the hole gets better the more times you play it.

For example, I don't think I would ever hit a driver at the green, which is small enough that it's hard enough to hit with a sand wedge let alone a driver. The first time I played the redesigned hole, I just hit a 2-iron to 50 yards away from the green or so. However once on the green you see that there is alot of room long right and a 3-wood over there leaves an easier pitch.

[Philippe Binette]

I don't see any problen with the hole at Doral, I don't think players are really trying to hit the green...

they are just trying to get it close enough to have a short pitch instead of a full sand wedge...

If we catergorise too much:
driveable par 4 must be possible to reach..
par 5 too easy to reach in two
etc...

we will loose some hole variety... nobody would want to built a 360 yards hole for the same reason nobody builts a 265 yards hole (at sea level)
that equals lost variety

[Chris Ord]

i understand that the 16th at doral wasn't supposed to be reachable, but now that it is, and nobody seems to be pushing the tees back, is there any way to toughen up the green surrounds with what's already there?

[Anthony Gray]

  Would we consider 6 at Pacific Dunes as drivable?

  Anthony

[jeffwarne]

As a fan of drivable Par 4's, I can't figure out if I like the 16th at Doral. I played there years and years ago so I don't remember it. Everyone seemed to go for it yesterday but I did not see many birdies and  I did see many awkward lies in the sand.

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/story/945577.html
________________________________________


''I think when you make a par-4 go-able, it should be for the whole field,'' said Wallin, the PGA Tour official in charge of this week's back-nine setup. .''

That's a ridiculous statement
Those are called par 3's

the concept of driveable par 4's may be getting a bit faddy


.

[Cliff Hamm]

Cliff:

That sounds a little harsh.  Didn't Tiger make a double there the first year?

Of course, what it shows is that these sort of holes that everyone thinks are so cool do not hold up so well to repeated play.  Eventually the pros figure them out (like they figure out not to go for the right-hand pin on 12 at Augusta) and then they are pretty boring.  It's only the rare case, like the 12th at The Old Course or the 10th at Riviera, where the risk/reward equation depends so much on the strengths of the individual that you still see divergent strategies and interesting results.

Tom...I believe this was 2007 when he dueled Mickelson. I happened to be there and only recall 5 shots but checked and indeed he took a six.  What I recall is that his ball came to rest right next to the lip of the bunker.  I could only think let's see how good these guys really are.  It seemed the only shot was back out toward the fairway. 

Tiger attempted it (obviously the effect of Mickelson's decision making being contagious), didn't succeed and the ball stayed in the bunker (now 2).  From here I'm a bit fuzzy. He either pitched out to the fairway because he had no shot (3) or tried it again and still in bunker (3).  From here on green with 2 putts for a double.

My point would be that where his ball came to rest was an oddity.  The bunker is not shaped so that balls would typically offer little chance for recovery.  The typical bunker shot on 4 is not that difficult for the pros.  Perhaps tis would be an excellent renovation.  Make the front left trap penal and the 4th might indeed become a high quality short par 4 otherwise it is an easy par and quite likely birdie no matter what.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()