Driveable Par 4 for 2011 PGA at Atlanta Athletic - Does this hole work?

[Mark Saltzman]

I recently had the opportunity to visit the Highlands Course at Atlanta Athletic Club outside of Atlanta, Georgia.  A member that I played with (and confirmed by a pro) told me that they were considering using the par 4, 6th (426 yards from the championship tees) as a driveable par 4 for a couple of rounds.  The hole would be played from the ladies tees at 300-ish yards.

The hole features a long series of bunkers down the right side (these would not be in play if the hole played 300 yards).  The key to the hole, however, is a steep run-off into a water hazard that guards the left side of the green.  In my opinion, the only pins that would make sense on a driveable par four would have to be on the right side of the green as I am not sure the players would risk trying to drive the  right portion of the green for a long eagle putt. 

Will this hole work as a driveable par 4?  Is there the appropriate risk/reward here?  Are there any other holes that work as a driveable par 4 at AAC?  I thought of 13, but I think moving the tees up would ruin a great short par-4.

6 tee (championship tee)



Approach from right bunkers (not in play from short tee)



Approach



Just Short of Green



From Left



From Back Left

[Phil McDade]

Mark:

It looks like everything feeds toward that pond -- some very sharp run-offs are apparent on the left side of the fairway, and short. My guess is that, because of that, the big hitters will simply hit over all the trouble, and not care that they land in those bunkers back of the green, hoping for an up-and-down birdie. I like short, driveable par 4s where there is a sense of "threading" the tee shot through trouble that, if not properly executed, leads to possible bogey. This to me looks overly penal for the benefit it might provide to the short-medium hitter.

Good post.

[Matthew Sander]

Mark,

It is hard to say without seeing the hole in person, but I'm a little skeptical considering the pictures. The entry to the green just seems too narrow. Sure there is risk/reward in an attempt, but the risk seems to far outweigh the reward. The water hazard looks to play larger than it is because of the shaved slopes on all sides. Also, is a miss to the right of the green jail?

Compare this to two Tour stops that have driveable par 4s, I believe the 15th at TPC River Highlands, and the 17th at TPC Scottsdale. Those are driveable 4s that also have water near the green (both on the left if I'm not mistaken). However, the entire front entrance of those greens are accessible. In this example, it looks like at least 50% of the green is fronted by the water hazard which makes the entrance just too small to risk it. You know, it looks as if it might play like a longer version of the second shot at the 18th at Torrey Pines South.

That said, many of these guys can fly the ball 300 with a 3 wood so all bets are off...

[Sam Morrow]

Just looking at the pictures it seems like there isn't enough reward and to much risk. Hit something off the tee, wedge it close, birdie. Next hole. That's why I think  a hole like 10 at Riviera works so well, the greensite is so different that anything can happen.

[Tom_Doak]

Is this officially a fad yet?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Is this officially a fad yet?

I think so 

[Ronald Montesano]

Trending...

[Chris Cupit]

Wow those bunkers are beautiful.  And they blend in so nicely with the concrete looking wall that frames the bird bath, er, pond

[Chris Cupit]

Damn that was a grumpy post by me.  Not very fair as I am sure the pond is lined with very nice stone work and the cap just looks white instead of grey in the picture.  And almost every high end club favors the bright white sand that I find so glaring.  Anyway, sorry for the above post being so snarky.

The course really bends and turns and has lots of eevation change.  #6 may be the straightest, flattest and least interesting topography on the course and the view just struck me as representing alot of what isn't good about architecture. 

Again, sorry for the tone.

[David Camponi]

Chris this is a message board; if you can't speak your mind here than where can you.

This course sucks; that hole sucks and could not be less suited to being a drivable par 4; the only thought of the pros would be to bomb it into the back bunkers.  That fairway has the gerth of my neighbors genatalia; and it might be one of the wider ones on the course.

Chris you are completely correct; AAC Highlands defines crap arch. The picture is of #6, #7 is a decent par 3 I guess, and then #8 is the worst hole in championship golf.  Does Rees Jones actually still get work? Who is dumb enough to pay that dude to design there course; I wouldn't let him chose the placement of my backyard driving net

[Matt_Cohn]

Why is #8 so bad?

[Pete Lavallee]

Mark,

That's a very thought provoking question. I have a couple of views on the matter:

Shortening a 400 yard par 4 by 100 yards just does not work. The 14th at Torrey South being the perfect example; that experiment just didn't work. It would appear this ais a bad rehash of that attempt.

As noted by others the risk is too high; the banks sloping into the water just don't give the player enough confidence that he can pick up strokes on the field. Tour pros might not be the brightest bulbs in the circuit, but they make or break their livelyhoods by carefully weighing risky options. They almost too a tee do try anything with that high a risk quotient; unlike the average golfer who has nothing but a ball and 2 strikes to loose for trying it.

Great short par 4's are designed with that thought in mind. What makes the 10th at Riviera so great is that even knowing they stand a better chance to make birdie by laying up, Tour Pros cannot resist having a go at that green. In their minds, obviously the risk isn't that great. It would appear the the risk/ reward quotient needs to be better than 50/50 to entice Tour Players to take a rip. I don't see that on this patricular hole.

[George Freeman]

If it won't work at 300, would it work at 270-280?  Or does that only benefit the longest of the bunch who could then reach with something less than a driver?

[Matthew Sander]

Pete,

Well said...Do you think that the best driveable par 4s use hazards that don't present penalty strokes (water, lost ball, OB) as part of the risk? Obviously, you mentioned the 10th at Riviera, which is widely considered the best driveable par in the U.S. for Championship golf. The uphill "5 and dime" hole at Ridgewood also comes to mind, with its miniscule green benched into the side of a hill surrounded by rough and bunkers.

It seems that looking at a driveable hole, the player sees a water hazard as much more penal than the angles, small green, and bunkers that make Riviera's 10th so hard. However, while the players aren't going to incur any penalty strokes at Riviera's 10th, they make all kinds of messes there. If you watched this year, the pros had all sorts of trouble even making 4.  

In my previous post, I mentioned the driveable 4s at TPC River Highlands and TPC Scottsdale, and both have water around the green. They seem to work well for the tournaments and provide some excitement. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are great examples of short 4s...

[Pete Lavallee]

In my previous post, I mentioned the driveable 4s at TPC River Highlands and TPC Scottsdale, and both have water around the green. They seem to work well for the tournaments and provide some excitement. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are great examples of short 4s...

Matthew,

I agree that these holes are interesting for tournament play. The use of water is a crutch that is all too often leaned on when there isn't a significant land form to add the interest. But on both these holes the Tour Pro doesn't see a 50/50 chance of rinsing his ball, so they do indeed go for it.  C&C build very good driveable par 4's and I can't think of one with water on it. But their greens all have significant contour, something that is shyed away from at the PGA level due to the lightning fast green speeds. It really is the contour of the 10th at Riviera that makes the hole; the bunkering is just window dressing.

[Mike Cirba]

Let me guess...Rees Jones did the bunker work?

[BCrosby]

The problem is that bunkering and hazard schemes that might make sense on a 426 yard par 4, rarely make sense if the hole is being played at 300 or so yards.

The 6th at AAC is a good example. The main problem is the hole's huge green. If you can approach the green from back in the fw with a wedge and a reasonable chance of getting it close (which you can given the large green), why bring a bogey or worse into play by risking the pond, trees and the gunk behind the green? The big, ovoid green makes the conservative option the most rational one.  

Which takes the fangs out of a 'drivable' par 4. On a good, drivable par 4 conservative playing choices should make a birdie less likely, not more likely. Think Riv. 10. Sand Hills 7. Cuscowilla 5 and 12. There are a couple of good ones at Pac Dunes and Bandon Trails. On those holes the shape and size of the putting surfaces, their contouring and their hazard placements tempt players to go for the green because the safer, more conservative options offer little scoring potential.  

The real test will be scoring spreads (as opposed to scoring averages; recall the TEP Conjecture.) durng the PGA. Will the shortened 6th at AAC give up lots of eagles/birides and but extract lots of bogies and higher scores because players are tempted to go for the green (some will pull off; others will pay a high price)? Or will play be more conservative (most players laying back) with the scoring bunched between biridie and par?

I'll bet a beer that scoring spreads on the shortened version of the 6th turn out to be about the same as on the hole played at its full length. Because most players will lay back on the shortened version.

Bob

[David Camponi]

Why is #8 so bad?

Not a fan of 500 yd par 4's with 15 yd wide fways with deep penalizing bunkers on one side and water on the other.

[Philippe Binette]

Too risky because of the shaved bank...

a rolling ball in the fairway can roll in the water... the margin is too tight for those guys

[Mark Saltzman]

Bump as PGA approaches

[Kalen Braley]

I like that the hole will make these guys think twice about going after a pin anywhere short or on the left side....

...but I agree with Chris, the hole sure is fugly, even if it seems to get the job done from the aspect of both small numbers and big numbers can be had/incurred.

[Sean Leary]

Do any holes that have to be played from an up set of tees to be drivable really work? Seems like if it wasn't intended to be drivable then it is more difficult to make it work.

[PCCraig]

Yeah, I'm not sure this one will work. The risk for going for the green, so early in the round, isn't worth the reward IMO. I think you'll see a repeat of 18 at Bethpage Black where guys will just hit 5-iron off the tee and leave themselves a wedge into the green.

[Matthew Rose]

I don't think it works, either.

I don't think you can force the driveable angle onto a hole clearly not designed as such. It's awkward.

[Greg Tallman]

Is this officially a fad yet?

All it says to me is that the original design was probably repetitious and somewhat boring so they had to spice it up artificially. I see no harm in doing that.