[hhuffines]

Got a chance to play #2 last week and was very surprised to see the new tees on hole #5.  My caddie said the U.S. Open will have hole #4 playing as a long par 4 and hole #5 playing as a par 5.   We didn't climb back to the new tee but it seemed to be way back up the hill there.  Should be interesting to see how they play it.  I used to think hole #16 was long until I watched a kid hit driver and 4 iron 540 yards to pin high.

[Phil Benedict]

Got a chance to play #2 last week and was very surprised to see the new tees on hole #5.  My caddie said the U.S. Open will have hole #4 playing as a long par 4 and hole #5 playing as a par 5.   We didn't climb back to the new tee but it seemed to be way back up the hill there.  Should be interesting to see how they play it.  I used to think hole #16 was long until I watched a kid hit driver and 4 iron 540 yards to pin high.

It's hard to build a par 4 that plays long for some guys.  When guys routinely drive it 320 and hit their 7 or 8-irons 180, a 500-yard par 4 (an absurd notion in the past) isn't that long.  Bethpage didn't seem long for big hitters like Watney and Sergio.

[Jason Thurman]

Following what Phil said, my best friend is a golf pro. He's built like an NBA small forward and, when we were in college at the University of Kentucky, he had his ball speed measured at a pro shop. Apparently JB Holmes had visited the same shop a few days before, and my friend's ball speed was identical to slightly faster. I've seen him carry a ball to the center of the green on a 372 yard par 4 before.

I played a course with him last weekend that has only two par 4s under 400 yards, and has five or six over 450. The longest is 490. I don't think he hit an approach all day with more than a 7 or 8 iron.

Now, I'm not sure that today's pros hit the green from 180 yards any more frequently than players in Hogan's era did. But they definitely hit smaller clubs into them. There's just no real way to test long iron ballstriking for these guys anymore, aside from long par 3s. Hell, my buddy only hit 6 iron into a 220 yarder...

As for Pinehurst, I'm very excited to play it in a few weeks.

[Frank M]

I'm not sure how recent this addition is, but I'm pretty sure the work started back in May. I did not notice any other tee, but they were taking down some pretty big trees right behind the 4th green/5th tee and I am assuming that was done to build a tee? We actually had to wait to putt on the 4th green to ensure the tree wouldn't fall towards us.

[Alex Miller]

I got the chance to play Pinehurst in June. I parred both holes (5, then 4) and they played great as pars 5 and 4 respectively.

First of all both those holes are world class and amazing. I think the changes make a lot of sense for a couple of reasons. First the prevailing wind (when there is any) is down on 4 and into on 5. Hole 4 as a 530 yard par 4 will not play particularly long. Hole 5 as a par 5 is great because the green is more severe and befitting of a par 5, as well as the landing zone for the new back tee will be flatter, less blind, and flanked by a new attractive bunker; perhaps making for a more fair drive.

[Bruce Wellmon]

I was at Pinehurst in January and the caddy mentioned a new tee being built on #5.
I glanced that direction. Didn't walk up there.
Sure looked like a long way back. 

[BCrosby]

I don't get the change. 4 is not a terribly interesting hole. 5 is a great par 4.

I worry they are trading one great hole and one ok hole for two ok holes.

Bob 

[Ed Oden]

Hart, there was a thread on this a few months back... http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51395.0.html

I really don't understand the change and see it as a net loss if it results in a permanent alteration.

[Jud_T]

I don't get the change. 4 is not a terribly interesting hole. 5 is a great par 4.

I worry they are trading one great hole and one ok hole for two ok holes.

Bob 

+1

[hhuffines]

I mised that one Ed, thanks!  I need to get down there more often...  Funny thing, I usually make par on #5 but bogey #7.  Go figure.

[Jackson C]

It is a lost opportunity to showcase one of the world's great hole to the general public.  That is a shame.

[Ronald Montesano]

Time out, players.

This is one of those additions that goes in play only for the US Open contestants, correct? They didn't bulldoze the other tees, ?es cierto?

I had a chance to discuss a sliver tee (a wee tee in play only for Porter cup contestants) with the tournament director, on a par five hole. He wanted it to play longer from the tee for the bombers, so that the original landing area (with its delights and troubles) would be in play. I suggested such a tee, that it not be mowed (as much as possible) during non-Porter Cup weeks and gave him a location. He rubbed his chin.

We've reached a time when the youngest generation hits it way the hell farther than "us." My question is, will the next generation hit it way the hell farther than the current youngest generation?

[Jeff Dawson]

For what it's worth... I was riding the course with a Coore Crenshaw associate during the renovation and when we got to 5 tee he said Mike Davis was pushing to have the hole changed to a par 5 and making 4 a par 4.  Coore resisted the change and won the day.  I was also led to believe that Davis wanted the second hole to be more narrow and Coore resisted and a compromise was made which led to a new tee box adding a bit of length.  It appears that Davis is getting his way for the Open by switching the par on 4 and 5.  While Davis is getting lots of credit for his Open setups I am not sure this is his best move. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't get the change. 4 is not a terribly interesting hole. 5 is a great par 4.

I worry they are trading one great hole and one ok hole for two ok holes.

Bob 

I absolutely agree. Number five is one the really great par fours in the country.  Why change it?  It doesn't make sense.  Didn't they play number four as a par four at the last Open?   

[Tommy Williamsen]

I got the chance to play Pinehurst in June. I parred both holes (5, then 4) and they played great as pars 5 and 4 respectively.

First of all both those holes are world class and amazing. I think the changes make a lot of sense for a couple of reasons. First the prevailing wind (when there is any) is down on 4 and into on 5. Hole 4 as a 530 yard par 4 will not play particularly long. Hole 5 as a par 5 is great because the green is more severe and befitting of a par 5, as well as the landing zone for the new back tee will be flatter, less blind, and flanked by a new attractive bunker; perhaps making for a more fair drive.

Alex, I think the green at number five makes the hole a great par four. 

[rjsimper]

5 was originally intended as a par 5, was it not?

[Chris Buie]

Can you guess what this hole has in common with the Road hole and 13 at Augusta?

[hhuffines]

Chris, I give... What years was that card in use?

[Chris Buie]

Hi Hart! I don't remember what year the card is from - my guess is the 40's. I do wish they kept the KEEP MOVING OR GIVE WAY on the scorecards though.

(They're all half par holes)

[hhuffines]

I agree.  I am stunned that with all the advances in technology in our game it still takes so many players too long to get around!  I wish the USGA could help with that in some way...

[Tom Fagerli]

I know this is no revelation, but I always found it easier to make 4 on 4 than on 5! Five is one of the greatest par 4s ever. Let the tour boys play them both as 4.5s and go on! Par is irrelevant to them anyway. No matter what we try, there are two games of golf-tour golf and the rest of us. Might be three games- the highly skilled non-tour players being the third game of golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()