[Ed Oden]

I've played several par 4s recently where the distance was drivable but the positioning of bunkers or other hazards effectively cut off access to the green.  While it might be possible to get close to the green or find a green side bunker from the tee, there was very little realistic chance of finding the putting surface.  If a short par 4 is designed to entice players to give it a go, should there be an opening to the green?

Ed

[Bob_Huntley]

Yes.

Bob

[Andrew Summerell]

I've played several par 4s recently where the distance was drivable but the positioning of bunkers or other hazards effectively cut off access to the green.  While it might be possible to get close to the green or find a green side bunker from the tee, there was very little realistic chance of finding the putting surface.  If a short par 4 is designed to entice players to give it a go, should there be an opening to the green?

Ed

In most cases, I hate short par 4's that are cut off. I really don't see the point to a drivable or near drivable par 4 being cut off.

Somebody else said it on here a while back: "Never take the driver out of the hands of a fool"

I love that saying. There should always be an attractive reason for the golfer to take driver on every par 4 & par 5, even if it's the wrong decision the tee shot should entice the golfer to take the risk.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,

In general, yes. and no.  The recent Cape Hole discussions show that you can have a good par 5 (then in the 290 range, but now almost anything under 390) that is specifically NOT driveable.

But, if you want it driveable, make it driveable with an opening.  That said, I recall seeing the 14th at Franklin Hills near Detroit, a 300 yard Ross Gem fully ringed with green side bunkers to prevent driving the green.  Damned if some members don't just tee a driver high and still land tee shots on that green with some regularity!  If you are worried about the very best players, you can eliminate the opening.  If you are worried about the 3-15% or so who might be able to take advantage of a driveable par 4, by all means, leave an opening.

Its sort of the reverse of a bank building a safe but then leaving the door open, isn't it?  I could think of many other examples, but you get the idea.

[Ed Oden]

Somebody else said it on here a while back: "Never take the driver out of the hands of a fool"

Andrew, that is a great quote!  Of course, the fool (i.e., me) will likely hit driver even if there is no opening.  The only difference is he knows he is a fool when there is no realistic access.

Ed

[Scott Henderson]

The previous postings say it all - especially Bob Huntley's posting!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,

I have likened gca to child phsycology - you never tell a kid or a golfer no. That just causes a temper tantrum.  You offer them a choice between dessert now or dessert later and let them make up their minds.......they fall for it every time!

[Matt_Cohn]

Agree with Bob. A good shot and bad shot will both end up in the same place - that is to say, off the green. Doesn't seem like a very interesting setup to me.

[Carl Nichols]

My answer is that it depends.  If there are 1 or 2 places where a near-miss leaves you with a pretty easy shot -- e.g., a greenside bunker that's not particularly challenging, or a place where you have a pretty easy chip or pitch -- then I think the hole can work, because you still have outcomes that are better than laying up even if you don't get on the green. 

[Brent Hutto]

If a short par 4 is designed to entice players to give it a go, should there be an opening to the green?

If there's no opening at all, then it isn't exactly enticing players to give it a go is it? I've often wondered if there is (or ought to be) two distinct classes of "Short Par 4" hole designs. You can have a 300-yard hole that is designed to be drivable, even if that would take an extremely accurate shot.

Why couldn't you have a 300-yard hole that's designed to be virtually unreachable but that offers the strong player a choice between laying back to wedge distance vs. playing into a front bunker vs. maybe deliberately missing hole high to one side or another and chipping? I'd think that could be especially interesting if the green were smallish or effectively small (i.e. with falloffs) so that the second shot was still exacting, thereby making hitting into a bunker or trying to leave a chip shot from one side more attractive options.

[Eric Smith]

What if you don't leave an opening but rather shorten it to say 270.  Isn't that enough?

[JESII]

And then you can surround it with whatever you want...


I disagree that there should be an opening in every instance, it's still weighing the best way to make a three and if the layup area doesn't look good for some reason why make it easier to get on the green?

[BCrosby]

I'm with Sully. What matters is not access, but positioning for the birdie. The 7th at Sand Hills is a great example. It's small, elevated green means driving it is unlikely however long you are. Positioning the approach is what the hole is about. And why its great.

Bob

[Sean_A]

I don't think all reachable par 4s should have an opening, but there should be a good reason why not.  I say this because we have plenty of non-reachable par 4s and very few reachable par 4s - some of which were never designed to be reachable, but are these days.  

I think instead of cutting off the access for reachable par 4s it is better to create a severe penalty for a badly placed shot.  For instance, one could end up in trees or short-sided to a green sloping away etc etc unless the direction (if not the length) isn't spot on.  This rewards accuracy as well as length rather than solely how far one can carry a ball.

Ciao

[Ed Oden]

By drivable par 4, I mean a hole where more than a token percentage of golfers playing from the correct tee for their skill level feel like they have a chance to hit the ball far enough to reach the green with their best shot.  So I'm not talking about the 350 yarder that one in 10,000 golfers can reach under perfect conditions.  Rather, I'm thinking of holes where the distance would suggest that drivability must have been considered in the design.  In these circumstances, why wouldn't there be a viable opening, however small?  I don't see a down side.  Isn't part of the appeal of a drivable par 4 the premium placed on strategy?  If so, closing off the green only serves to reduce options, thereby risking loss of sex appeal. 

Ed

[Jay Flemma]

Jim Engh's rule on drivable par-4s and short par-5s - "I'll give you a chance to reach in one shot less than regulation, but I certainly won't help you do it."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Isn't it a matter of degrees?  If a long driver can hit most of his drives in a 30 yard wide area, wouldn't narrowing it to 15 or even 20 yard opening at the green test accuracy plus distance reasonably?  Cutting it all off takes the play away from the guy who can't carry it the requisite distance, which creates too much of an advantage for the longest hitters, IMHO.  An opening makes the challenge available to many more players, not just 1%.

I do like the idea of certain death if pin high but innaccurate.  The green can only slope one direction though, so one side or the other will probably have a tough recovery shot, not both. But, that is all part of the strategy.

BTW, not busting chops here, but in a discussion like this does "it depends" really answer anything?  If you were deciding how to build an actual hole, the whole answer would depend on what it depends on!

[Michael Huber]

I don't think all reachable par 4s should have an opening, but there should be a good reason why not.  I say this because we have plenty of non-reachable par 4s and very few reachable par 4s - some of which were never designed to be reachable, but are these days.  

Good point.

Lets say we have a course that was built 90 years ago and has a 320 yard hole with bunkers surrounding it. For 70 years, there was no reason to have an opening at the front of the green to accomdate a risky drive of the hole.  Is a 90 year old green complex poorly designed if current technology has changed the way the hole is played?

FOr the record, I'm all for an opening at the front of the green for a driveable hole

[Ronald Montesano]

A)  I'll be your fool every time.  I love taking that war club to the green.  That's the fun of the game.  Case in point...A week ago, The Scrambler and I played Witter's Arrowhead.  I played 14 from the 330 yard tees and ended up 40 yards shy.  He moved up to the 300 tees and found the greenside bunker.  If you want to go for the green, move up to your proper tees and have a go.

B)  Just don't put ridiculous rough in front of the green.  Sand is one thing, rough is quite different.  One who can bomb it is a beast; one who can bomb it straight deserves a sand shot at worst, a chip or a putt at best.

[Giles Payne]

it is a par 4 - surely it is again a question of the degree of risk and reward. If you are tempted to drive it surely there has to be penalty for failing and if the penalty is not great enough there is not enough risk.

I would have thought that the balance should be that if you miss there is a good chance that you will end up with a bogey. There needs to be a real test of your short game  -  if it is too easy to get up and down from round the green there is no risk. I personally don't think that the course should give birdies away.

[Ed Oden]

Giles, at least in the case of the holes I was thinking of when I started this thread, I see the exact opposite holding true.  There is plenty of risk, including OB, poor angles, very difficult recoveries, etc.  But without an opening to the green, there is not enough reward to justify taking on the risk, unless you consider a greenside bunker a worthwhile reward.

Ed

[Giles Payne]

Ed - If your bunker play is good enough to have a chance of getting up and down for a birdie, but with little likelihood of any worse than a two put once out I would argue that it is a risk worth taking.

I think that it should ask you the question -  if you are coming down on the side of caution because you feel that the risks outweigh the rewards, take the lay up - I just don't believe that it should be an easy par if you fail to hit the green, it shouldn't be a win-win choice - if you aspire to a "safe" birdie you can always make the decision to lay up and trust the accuracy of your chosen wedge but this route would tend to lead to a par.

This has to be a fine line taken by the architect to encourage you take the risk even if you can see the real danger - some players will nearly always be drawn to the challenge, others will seek safety. I would however agree with you in that out of bounds in a scenario like this would very quickly persuade me that it was not a risk worth taking due to the immediate two shot penalty.

These sort of holes really come into there own late in the round in match play situations - if you are down do you have to attack it - if you are up do you just play safe or do you go for the jugular.

[Mark_Fine]

Thank goodness for variety    What a shame it would be if everything was formulaic. 

[Carl Nichols]

BTW, not busting chops here, but in a discussion like this does "it depends" really answer anything?  If you were deciding how to build an actual hole, the whole answer would depend on what it depends on!

Jeff:
As someone who said "it depends," I was saying that in response to the question of whether a short par 4 can still be interesting (in the sense of inducing some people to go for it) even if it's very difficult to hit the green.  And I'll stick by my answer:  if the green is  hard to hit AND there is no plausible recovery from near the green, then it's pretty boring because a layup is really the only play; if, on the other hand, the green is very hard to hit but there are 1 or 2 places where a recovery is reasonably easy, then it's interesting because it entices hitting driver but still requires execution. 

[Adam Lawrence]

My feeling is that if the green is surrounded by hazards then it isn't really driveable in any meaningful sense, except via a fluke shot that bounces over the hazards. A green, unless it's an absolute monster, that allows any normal golfer to land a driver on it and expect the ball to stick is TOO SOFT!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()