Are Drivable Par 4's Becoming a Cliche?

[Tom Bagley]

Bob:
I agree 100% with what (I think) your train of thought might be:  we clamor for half-par holes as long as that "half-par" is "under-par."  

The old courses not only had some very short "two-shot" holes (but likely not driveable), but also some brutally long one-shot holes (full drivers and brassies!).  Many of the short par-fours simply became driveable over time.  In the old days they were probably "nearly driveable" by the longest players (read Bobby Jones description of his "perfect" 66 at Sunningdale).

The Road Hole, on the other hand, has been a great half-par hole, regardless of whether the par was four or five!

Some might cite pace-of-play issues as rationale for abadoning the long one-shot hole.  But don't "driveable" two shot holes and "reachable" three-shot holes create the same bottlenecks when most, if not all, of the field choose to go for it?

[Peter Pallotta]

real good post there, Tom - clear and concise, thanks.

Peter

[Thomas McQuillan]

Why are drivable par 4's are in vogue but extremely long par 3's are not?

Bob

For the tour pros they are basically the same thing, par is just a number.

[Bill_McBride]

Why are drivable par 4's are in vogue but extremely long par 3's are not?

Bob

I dunno.  Oakmont had #8 at 280-300 yards par 3 and #17 at about the same, par 4.  Half par holes, two thumbs up, maybe 3.

[Carl Rogers]

The tenth at Riveira is usually thought of as a very good hole.  However, missing the green for tour pros, does not carry much penalty.  Does that make it less of hole?

Is the tenth at Riviera now cliche?

[JNC Lyon]

The tenth at Riveira is usually thought of as a very good hole.  However, missing the green for tour pros, does not carry much penalty.  Does that make it less of hole?

Is the tenth at Riviera now cliche?

I think Riviera's 10th is and always will be the gold standard for short fours.  There are plenty of short fours, but how many really have the intricacies of that hole?  Additionally, how many tour pros actually drive on that green?

[Steve Kline]

The tenth at Riveira is usually thought of as a very good hole.  However, missing the green for tour pros, does not carry much penalty.  Does that make it less of hole?

Missing the green doesn't carry a penalty!?! Have you looked at the actual stats. First, the scoring average is the highest of any drivable par 4 on Tour. Second, the scoring average is virtually the same for those that try to drive the green versus those that lay up. I'd say that's a pretty good penalty for not pulling off the attempt to drive the green. It's the only short par 4 on Tour that has one. If you search the archives you'll find the stats as I believe I posted them once before - or maybe that was at Shackleford's site.

[Sean_A]

I don't think short 4s are anywhere near a cliche because there aren't that many good ones.  The same argument can be made for very long 3s - good ones are difficult to design and most are merely boring.  Plus, I would contend that if an archie has a chance to build good par 3s, he will look for ways to create a set piece which doesn't require driver to reach the green (driver being my definition of a really long par 3).  I would alsso say that most archies at the most would only be looking for one very long par 3.  IMO, the concept for both is usually best served on windy land when the archie can make a mockery of yardage.  For instance, Portrush Valley has two cracking back to back holes.  The drivable par 4 5th and the very long par 3 6th.  They work beautifully side by side because they go in opposite directions.  Plus, it was if Colt was saying F... You.  Though I am sure the 6th would have been a par 4 back in the day.  This course has a few other pairing holes which do the same thing.   Finally, where is the harm in having a 260 yard par 4 when most know it should be a par 3?  I don't see anything wrong in trying to lift the spirits of a golfer after having kicked his teeth out with 460 yard par 4 or whatever.  The important thing is that these lengths holes (say 240 - 300) are included on a course if at all possible.

Ciao  

[jeffwarne]

 The important thing is that these lengths holes (say 240 - 300) are included on a course if at all possible.

Ciao  

Spot on Sean.
and lengths such as that can make for an interesting golf-regardless of par or perceived risk reward.
It's OK to have a 300 yard par 4 where the challenge is to hit it 300 Yards-not deal with 3 choices or strategy

[Carl Rogers]

The tenth at Riveira is usually thought of as a very good hole.  However, missing the green for tour pros, does not carry much penalty.  Does that make it less of hole?

Is the tenth at Riviera now cliche?

I think Riviera's 10th is and always will be the gold standard for short fours.  There are plenty of short fours, but how many really have the intricacies of that hole?  Additionally, how many tour pros actually drive on that green?

I do not think that some of you quite got my statement's meaning.  The 10th at Riveira is a terrific hole WITHOUT resorting to the usual bag of TRICKS.