Hard half-par holes

[Phil McDade]

Someone (I forget who) on a recent thread (I forget which one ) mentioned that golfers -- perhaps especially those here on GCA -- like to praise half-par holes, unless the half-par is on the plus side. That is, we like half-par holes if birdie is a real opportunity, but perhaps don't like as much the half-par hole where bogey is as much a possibility as par.

What are some good, hard half-par holes? Photos welcome! I'll start with one I saw two years ago -- the 17th at Flossmoor CC in Chicago's south suburbs. Excerpted from my photo thread of Flossmoor:

No. 17 (par 4, 473/461/418)
Long regarded as one of the toughest par 4s in the Chicago area, and rightly so. From an elevated tee, the golfer is encouraged to take a healthy swing to a broad and beckoning fairway. It’s a long way to the creek in the distance; Greg Ohlendorf said few members playing from the whites even try to carry the creek (292 yards to the creek).


The green sits on top of the ridge – even with a healthy drive of, say, 275 yards, the player is left with a long and sharply uphill second shot.


Another look at the ridge that must be carried to get to the green. A solid, half-par hole.

[Jud_T]

The benchmark:

[Will MacEwen]

I see #12 at Bandon Trails as a par 3.5.  Better players may not.

[Kalen Braley]

The benchmark:

Only by todays standards.  When it was 1st built it was intended to play as a par 5.

[Mark Smolens]

Keeping memories of last weekend's Mashie alive, how about #10 at Lawsonia? Or even #4. Or, #5 if you play it as a long par-4 from the forward tees.

[Mark Pearce]

Or 13 at Lawsonia?  The only half par par 5 I have played recently.

[Dan Kelly]

Or 13 at Lawsonia?  The only half par par 5 I have played recently.

I would add Sutton Bay No. 8 to the list of par 5.5s.

Lawsonia No. 4, for sure, is a par 3.5. (And: I didn't say I didn't like the hole. I said I think the hole would be better 30 yards shorter.)

No. 5 at Lawsonia is definitely a 4.5 from the forward tees.

[Jud_T]

Kingsley #15, although some here might debate it's greatness....

[Ryan Kelly]

#14 Olympia Fields CC (North) 445/438/420

Long Par 4 with Butterfield creek all along the right and then bisecting the fairway about 125 yards from the green.  Elevated tee shot that leaves an uphill second shot with a green that has very deep bunkers right and left.    Drive the ball to close to the creek and you will have a semi blind shot to a green that slopes severly from back to front.  Being a newbie, I don't know how to post pictures yet, but here is a link to a flyover. 

http://www.ofcc.info/files/hole14.html

[Mark Saltzman]

Someone (I forget who) on a recent thread (I forget which one ) mentioned that golfers -- perhaps especially those here on GCA -- like to praise half-par holes, unless the half-par is on the plus side. That is, we like half-par holes if birdie is a real opportunity, but perhaps don't like as much the half-par hole where bogey is as much a possibility as par.

Isn't the reason for this is that it is much harder to make a great, short and birdie-able half-par hole?  There are many holes that are considered great that are very difficult. 

[Phil McDade]

Someone (I forget who) on a recent thread (I forget which one ) mentioned that golfers -- perhaps especially those here on GCA -- like to praise half-par holes, unless the half-par is on the plus side. That is, we like half-par holes if birdie is a real opportunity, but perhaps don't like as much the half-par hole where bogey is as much a possibility as par.

Isn't the reason for this is that it is much harder to make a great, short and birdie-able half-par hole?  There are many holes that are considered great that are very difficult. 

Mark:

As TEPaul would say, it's a big world out there, and I couldn't honestly say whether there are more great half-par holes on the birdie side as there is on the bogey side. In majors, the set-up committees get away with it by converting par 5s into long par 4s -- not the original intent of the architect, of course, but it works to make par more challenging.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen half-par holes (par 4 variety) on the birdie side that I'd consider awfully good. But I'd be hard-pressed to come up with great ones (again, par 4s for sake of the argument and comparison) on the bogey side that are great for reasons other than just sheer length. For instance, is there a terrific half-par-on-the-bogey-side par 4 that 420 yds or less?

[Will MacEwen]

Phil - Bandon Trails #14 is less than 400 and is a par 5.5.

[Mark Saltzman]

Someone (I forget who) on a recent thread (I forget which one ) mentioned that golfers -- perhaps especially those here on GCA -- like to praise half-par holes, unless the half-par is on the plus side. That is, we like half-par holes if birdie is a real opportunity, but perhaps don't like as much the half-par hole where bogey is as much a possibility as par.

Isn't the reason for this is that it is much harder to make a great, short and birdie-able half-par hole?  There are many holes that are considered great that are very difficult. 

Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen half-par holes (par 4 variety) on the birdie side that I'd consider awfully good. But I'd be hard-pressed to come up with great ones (again, par 4s for sake of the argument and comparison) on the bogey side that are great for reasons other than just sheer length. For instance, is there a terrific half-par-on-the-bogey-side par 4 that 420 yds or less?

Phil,

Fair enough.  I was thinking of great holes that are very hard.  Think of Merion.  I would consider holes 3, 5, 17 and 18 as great half-par holes on the plus side.  They are great holes from any length.  I guess, though, a part of their difficulty is the result of sheer length (both par 3s 230+ and the 4s 500+).

I think your final question was the key. is there a terrific half-par-on-the-bogey-side par 4 that 420 yds or less (or at least is half-par-on-the-bogey-side not because of sheer length)?

[Matthew Mollica]

2 from Doak - the long par 4 8th at Barnbougle Dunes, and the long par 4 13th at St. Andrews Beach.

MM

[John Turner]

Oakmont #12 is one of the few par fives that should be a 6.  667 from the tips and deadly bunkers make hitting driver scary.

[Tim Martin]

Oakmont #12 is one of the few par fives that should be a 6.  667 from the tips and deadly bunkers make hitting driver scary.

John-First of all welcome to GCA. Although you might like it to be a par 6 #12 at Oakmont is about as far from a half par hole as you will find on the easy side. On the hard side I think you got something.

[Keith OHalloran]

The 11th at Shinnecock is a great par 4.5. (at least for me!)

[Mac Plumart]

Eh...it's not too difficult.   

[Keith OHalloran]

Maybe for you, not everyone "eagles" it on the first go 'round.

[Kevin Pallier]

Bethpage has a few from memory.

[Jim Nugent]

Seems to me this depends on how good the golfer is. 

For pro's, Oakmont has more than one, including #18.  Carnoustie has a few, including #18 and #17 I believe.  #18 at Oakland Hills is brutal.  Pebble #14 averaged nearly 5.5 in last year's Open.  Maybe unheard of for a par 5.   

For a low-handicapper, ANGC would have lots of tough half-pars from the tournament tees.  At least 1, 7, 10, 11 and 18, with maybe 14 and 17 as well. 

Pebble #9 and #10? 

A few years back, the toughest par 4 on tour against par was a 420 and change hole on one of the clambake courses -- Poppy Hills, maybe. 

Any par 3s on the list, for scratch and better golfers? 

[Kevin Pallier]

Any par 3s on the list, for scratch and better golfers? 

Would CPC 16th count ?

[Tom_Doak]

I have always liked the long par-4 with a tough green, which would have been called a "bogey 5" hole fifty years ago, instead of a par 4.

There are tons of them in the UK, which is where I got the idea they were acceptable design -- i.e. the Road hole at St. Andrews (or the fourth at St. Andrews), the 16th at Deal, Sea Headrig at Prestwick, and so on.  The 1st and 13th at Crystal Downs are two that I see on a more regular basis.

I have often included such holes in my own courses, and they are usually the holes which the good players criticize most, because modern beliefs on design seem to insist that a long approach shot have a bigger and gentler target in the interest of fairness.  But how does that explain any of the holes described above?  To me, the really long 4 with the tough green is THE place to separate the pretenders (3-handicaps) from the really gifted (Tour pro, +3 handicaps).  At the same time, a long 4 with a tough green gives the senior player with a great short game a chance to shine against all opponents, if he can hit a great shot from 50-75 yards, whereas a big flat green would give him nothing much to do on the same shot.

[Eric Smith]

Eh...it's not too difficult.   

Maybe for you, not everyone "eagles" it on the first go 'round.

Sa wha??

[Doug Siebert]

Phil,

I think it was probably my post in one of the threads about Lawsonia you were thinking of.  I always see a lot of appreciation for half par holes here, but the ones mentioned are almost always half par in the golfer's favor.  I never see any love for the hard half-pars.

Perhaps it is my visits to Scotland and Ireland that made me appreciate them so much.  Tom Doak makes a great point - there really are a ton of these over there, and used to be far more before advances in equipment made everyone longer, more consistent with the driver, and much better driving the ball into the wind.  That is, the holes are the same, but the typical result for players at all levels when hitting a driver is much improved - vastly improved when playing into a 25 mph wind.  For that matter, the majority of golfers didn't even tee off with a driver 25 years ago....it was too difficult for them to hit consistently!

There are of course the great examples like TOC's Road Hole and Prestwick's Sea Hedrig, along with some par 3s like Carnoustie's 16th, but you find these holes everywhere over there, not just on the big name courses that host important tournaments, or have fantasies of one day doing so.  In the US it is far more common to see such holes played with a higher par, so here you get the 240 yard par 4 and 450 yard par 5 to make you feel good about yourself.  Because it is somehow "unfair" if only longer hitters can reach the green in regulation (but allowing them an eagle putt versus the other guys' birdie putts somehow isn't)


Jim,

Obviously you're correct it depends on how good the golfer is, but that's true for the easy half-par holes.  You have to make some assumptions about who we're talking about.  Witness how all over the map the opinions were on what the acceptable forced carry distance from the back tees were - and that was narrowed down to that small percentage of golfers who choose to play from the back tees.  Further narrowed by many respondants to toss out those who they felt didn't really belong back there