Should we be designing more par fours of over five hundred yards?

[Randy Thompson]

I have a nine hole course opening at the end of the month in Cordaba, Argentina. Some of the holes can be played as different parīs on each nine. The ninth hole is Par five of 573 yards and also can be played as a par four of 441 yards. To get a better understanding of the topic of discussion I want to take you through the hole first eventually getting to the topic of discussion in the conclusion.


All the teeīs are to be surrounded with long sheep fescue and the par four tees are situated at the end of sheep fescue area and the start of the fairway.

                                                The red X marks the area of the par four teeīs looking back from the landing area.

 The fairways are a mixture of three types of fescues and a new drought resistant bluegrass. The idea is to maintain the fairways, fast and firm and they already are running well. The stream shown in the hole diagram is actually a dry drainage creek. The landing area in the par four is between the dry creek and the second landing area of the par five shown in the diagram.


View from the tee 443 yards, slight dogleg left. The drive favors a a draw in relation to the natural layout of the hole but the hole slants right to left and the best angle of attack is from the right side but the small tree makes it difficult to hit the fade to ideal landing zone on the right side.


                                                  View from the first landing area platform just before dropping off to the dry creek


                                                             View of the landing area from just after the dry creek


                                                        View of the second landing area of the par five and the green in the background.



  The end of the second landing area of par five, sand bunker to the right of the green in the left side of the picture, followed by two grass depressions and another small sand bunker


                                                                                           Green site


Front part of the green slopes to the front, the small left pin positions slopes left and the back part of the green wraps around the bunkers and slopes towards the back


Vew from the left side of the second landing area from the rough and a view of the small irrigation pond.

Conclusions
So now you have an idea of the hole IMO the par 4 was designed to be a challenging par four, for all levels of players, On Friday I invited two player to break the courses virginity and hit a few balls for me. One was a past Argentine amateur champion and a twenty four year old pro being considered for the professional position. The amateur goes first and nails two into the trees to the right, so far so good.. The course is characteristically windy, even at night and this time of the year changes directions by the minute. The wind this particular day was in the players face and just slightly crossed. The 140 pounder potential pro is up next! The son of a bitch hits a low screaming fade about two feet above the trees on the left (red circle in the photo below), hits smack in the middle of fairway and runs another 30 yards and is left with about 110 yards to the green and a three hundred and thirty yard drive


My mouth drops and I quickly throw him another ball and say lucky shot, do it again. He hits the same shot again, only another twenty yards further right next to the bunker but in the center of the fairway. Three hundred and fifty freaking yards against the wind. Keep in mind the course is situated about 4,000 feet above sea level. My conclusions are either we have to take some par fours up over the five hundred yard barrier to challenge the long hitters or we just have to accept that technology will continue to improve and we just need to accept that we cannot design sufficient challenge requiring long second iron shots for this group of elite players?


                                                                                                  Without Zoom

[Duncan Cheslett]

Guys hitting 350 yard drives into the wind are freaks of nature and can safely be ignored. They have no relevence to the game of golf as played by 99.9% of its participants. Only a tiny proportion of regular golfers have the length, accuracy, and consistancy to view any hole of over 450 yards as a two-shotter.

If your course had pro tournament ambitions then maybe you would have cause for thought, but a nine-holer?

In Argentina?

In future ask a couple of 12 handicappers to deflower your new courses!

[Ronald Montesano]

don Randy,

I don't have a problem in the slightest with the young pro hitting the ball to where he did. As Duncan alludes, what are the chances that the shot will be replicated by 75%, 25%, 1% of the golfers that play your course? What did it take to carry the scrub on the left, to access Punto A, 110 yards out? My suspicion is that most of your golfers don't have that shot in their driver.

On to the hole. It seems to be a rumbling, tumbling enjoyable 4 to 6 shot hole. It has much width and apparent length to handle each of the 3 approach shots to the green. Will a lot of players go through the fairway to the right when playing it as a four? Is challenging the left scrub necessary when playing it as a four? Thank you for answers to your questions.

I'd play this hole in a Buffalo minute (which lasts 60 metric seconds.)

[Shaun Feidt]

I think the yardage depends on what the golfers hadicap index would be.  For the low handicap player, I think you could push the par 4 back tee another 20 to 25 yards deeper.  But for a mid or high level handicap, like myself (12), par fours that are in the 440-450 range are plenty challenging.  With a good drive, I would probably have a 5 or 6 iron for the approach shot. 

[Randy Thompson]

don Randy,

I don't have a problem in the slightest with the young pro hitting the ball to where he did. As Duncan alludes, what are the chances that the shot will be replicated by 75%, 25%, 1% of the golfers that play your course? What did it take to carry the scrub on the left, to access Punto A, 110 yards out? My suspicion is that most of your golfers don't have that shot in their driver.

On to the hole. It seems to be a rumbling, tumbling enjoyable 4 to 6 shot hole. It has much width and apparent length to handle each of the 3 approach shots to the green. Will a lot of players go through the fairway to the right when playing it as a four? Is challenging the left scrub necessary when playing it as a four? Thank you for answers to your questions.

I'd play this hole in a Buffalo minute (which lasts 60 metric seconds.)

The landing of the par four will handle a well struck straight drive or a slight draw. Fades will have to start left and challenge the shrubs on the left. Actually the shrubs are mainly made of the top of a medium size tree which is located on the far border of the creek. Itīs important for the par five to let player know where the out of view creek is located. If it was only to be a par four, I owuld probably eliminate it but it does force shot creativity for the four. A fade down the middle and long could go through the fairway but you should still have a good chance of recovery unless your unlucky and get close to one of the two trees. The predominant wind will be with the players, the first shot drops pretty good in elevation. Four thousand feet above sea level will probably give all of us about 10% more on ball flight.
 
Shauwn
I almost titled this, Should we forget about the proīs in our designs because basically I think we have no other choice.

[Tom_Doak]

Randy:

You should forget about pros unless you are designing a course that the pros will play regularly.

But, as for your original question, I think we SHOULD be designing more holes of over 500 yards.  But I don't think it matters what par you assign to them.

[jeffwarne]

Randy:

You should forget about pros unless you are designing a course that the pros will play regularly.

But, as for your original question, I think we SHOULD be designing more holes of over 500 yards.  But I don't think it matters what par you assign to them.

+1

[Sean_A]

But, as for your original question, I think we SHOULD be designing more holes of over 500 yards.  But I don't think it matters what par you assign to them.

Why?

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

I think the yardage depends on what the golfers hadicap index would be.  For the low handicap player, I think you could push the par 4 back tee another 20 to 25 yards deeper.  But for a mid or high level handicap, like myself (12), par fours that are in the 440-450 range are plenty challenging.  With a good drive, I would probably have a 5 or 6 iron for the approach shot.  

Sean,
anecdotally, this might be your answer.

Randy asked about 500 yards, presumably to test the elite player, and it seemed like 500 yards was a barrier he was reluctant to get to for a par 4
(despite the fact he's at altitude)
When I was 21 years old at presumably the prime of my length, 500 yards was a driver and a 3 wood (maybe not at altitude)
Now you have a 12 handicap who despite the fact that he no doubt receives a shot on the hole , is suggesting that 450 is plenty challenging for him because that's driver and a 5-6 iron.
So now we have to build a par 5 to test the second shot  long iron capabilities of a 12 handicapper, because driver 6 iron is challenging enough for a par 4?
That same 450 used to be driver 2-3 iron for me, or for that matter even Hogan at Merion
Now it's a driver-7 iron, (actually an 8 but only because today's 8 is a 7 )

That said I'm advocatng more holes like NGLA has/had 480-520 yarders that are 5's on the card (there were 5 before, but I know they've changed a par or  two since I was there)

Understand I'm not advocating for more total length, just more short 4's and the occasional long 2 shotter.
The UK/Irish courses have a lot of this par 4/5.
The idea that an 18 handicap should be able to reach any/every green in regulation "if he just plays the right tees" repulses me, and leads to tees littered all over the place.

Of course I'd prefer to see a ball/driver rollback so there wasn't such a disparity between long  and short hitters.

[jeffwarne]

double post (wasn't worth repeating )

[Sean_A]

I think the yardage depends on what the golfers hadicap index would be.  For the low handicap player, I think you could push the par 4 back tee another 20 to 25 yards deeper.  But for a mid or high level handicap, like myself (12), par fours that are in the 440-450 range are plenty challenging.  With a good drive, I would probably have a 5 or 6 iron for the approach shot. 

Sean,
anecdotally, this might be your answer.

Randy asked about 500 yards, presumably to test the elite player, and it seemed like 500 yards was a barrier he was reluctant to get to for a par 4
(despite the fact he's at altitude)
When I was 21 years old at presumably the prime of my length, 500 yards was a driver and a 3 wood (maybe not at altitude)
Now you have a 12 handicap who despite the fact that he no doubt receives a shot on the hole , is suggesting that 450 is plenty challenging for him because that's driver and a 5-6 iron.
So now we have to build a par 5 to test the second shot  long iron capabilities of a 12 handicapper, because driver 6 iron is challenging enough for a par 4?
That same 450 used to be driver 2-3 iron for me, or for that matter even Hogan

That said I'm advocatng more holes like NGLA has/had 480-520 yarders that are 5's on the card (there were 5 before, but I know they've changed a par or  two since I was there)

Understand I'm not advocating for more total length, just more short 4's and the occasional long 2 shotter.
The UK/Irish courses have a lot of this par 4/5.
The idea that an 18 handicap should be able to reach any/every green in regulation "if he just plays the right tees" repulses me, and leads to tees littered all over the place.

Of course I'd prefer to see a ball/driver rollback so there wasn't such a disparity between long  and short hitters.

Jeff

The 500 yard bit has me puzzled.  I don't mind more long holes, but I am not keen on 500+ yarders unless they are exceptional.  Too often 500+ yarders are used to bolster overall yardage without bringing any fun or different challenge to the table than shorter par 4s.  It wouldn't bother me if there were no 500+ yarders.  I prefer the testing holes to be in the 450-500 yard range - maybe 5 or 6 of them depending on the terrain and locale. 

I agree that the expectation to reach greens in regulation has led to an abomination of multiple tees focused solely on yardage difference.  That is the damage the concept of par has done.  Since few seem to understand that par is a score to be earned by experts of the game and the odd great game by mere mortals, I wish we could do away with it.  I always preferred bogey score as a more realistic number for good handicap players.  In any case, if par is going to remain so important to so many golfers, I absolutely don't want anything to do with increasing yardage to justify par.  I would rather see par for a course drop 3 or 4 strokes to a realistic level for "expert" golfers. 

Signed

One who wants shorter, not longer courses

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

  I am starting to like the idea of 500 yard holes that play as par fours from the back tees and par fives from the next set up.  The problem is setting up fairway hazards in such a manner that they are interesting for both groups.

I do not think this issue is limited to pros or top amateurs.  Run of the mill high school players hit the ball distances that are unimaginable to me.  Bunkers I do not view as in play with my 250 yard drive, they do not view as in play because they hit it over them. 

[jeffwarne]

Signed

One who wants shorter, not longer courses

Ciao
[/quote]

Sean,
As you know we share a lot of the same ideas.
The two courses I belong to top out at 6300 and 6400 yards.
I play most of my golf at a 9 holer that's 2600 yards.

That said, if you want a shorter course, just before you tee up,
walk forward to a yellow or red tee

[Mark Pearce]

I'm always puzzled by 12 handicappers who think of a 450 yard hole as driver and 5/6 iron.  I've been everywhere between 9 and 15 in the past few years and play with an awful lot of teen handicappers.  None of them regularly hit driver 6 iron anywhere near 450 yards.  The golfers I know who are that long are all lower single figure golfers or, in one freakish, exceptional case, a 25 handicapper!

[Sean_A]

Canary

Yes, I am much more likely to be hitting a good driver and wood to a normal 450 yard hole than a driver 5 iron.  But then I count on a good drive going about 240, sometimes less.  I think a lot of guys think of their very good drive and very good second when talking of their yardage capability. The strange thing is I don't often see these guys who consistently belt the ball 265 down the middle.  Not that I look too hard, but still....

Jeff

I am very happy to play yellows.  You might even call me a fan of yellow tees.  Like I say, sure, an interesting 525 yarder is welcome, but its hard for a long hole to be more interesting than the concept of being reachable in two.   

Ciao

[Josh Tarble]

My take is that 400-460 yard holes are now average.  I don't think this should be the case, I would like to see par 4s under 400 yards or over 470.  My thinking is that around those yardage make it very easy for the hole to be uninteresting - just bash a driver as far as you can or have a brutally long approach and not really much in between.

On the other hand, shorter and LONG par 4s are easier to build very strategically.  Longer can be made to adapt to shorter hitters by making the 3 shot strategy legitimate and shorter holes by making the driver not a high percentage play.

I definitely wouldn't want a steady diet of any one type of hole, but I especially wouldn't want to a course that is continually 400-460 yard par 4s.

[Shaun Feidt]

When I explained hitting a driver, 5 iron into a 450 yard par 4, that would be a best case scenario.  Above average drive in the fairway, with also considering the altitude and firm and fast conditions of the course described.  I was just making the point that par would still be attainable for the mid handicap, but a bogey would probably be more likely 7 out of the 10 times playing this hole.  I would consider myself a very defensive golfer, I play conservative and try to eliminate anything worse than bogey.  I think everyones own game comes into play when discussing these types of topics because its what you can relate to.

[Tom_Doak]

The 500 yard bit has me puzzled.  I don't mind more long holes, but I am not keen on 500+ yarders unless they are exceptional.  Too often 500+ yarders are used to bolster overall yardage without bringing any fun or different challenge to the table than shorter par 4s.  It wouldn't bother me if there were no 500+ yarders.  I prefer the testing holes to be in the 450-500 yard range - maybe 5 or 6 of them depending on the terrain and locale. 

I agree that the expectation to reach greens in regulation has led to an abomination of multiple tees focused solely on yardage difference.  That is the damage the concept of par has done.  Since few seem to understand that par is a score to be earned by experts of the game and the odd great game by mere mortals, I wish we could do away with it.  I always preferred bogey score as a more realistic number for good handicap players.  In any case, if par is going to remain so important to so many golfers, I absolutely don't want anything to do with increasing yardage to justify par.  I would rather see par for a course drop 3 or 4 strokes to a realistic level for "expert" golfers. 

Signed

One who wants shorter, not longer courses

Ciao

Sean:

I was on the same page you are - 25 years ago.  But today a 450-yard hole is not "long" for stronger players, and bunching several holes in this range just exacerbates the difference between strong players and the rest. 

A 500-yard hole is reachable with a mid-iron for good players now -- not just Tour pros -- and I want to test them at hitting longer clubs out of the fairway with their second shots.  [For Tour pros, even 600 yards is reachable now.]  These holes will necessarily be three-shotters for most of the rest of us, but so what?

If you don't go above 500 yards, then the only times a very good player will hit a hybrid or driver is on a very long par-3 or trying to drive a short par-4.  It's okay to have one of two of those holes, also -- as Rye and Swinley Forest do -- but I think that hitting the same clubs out of the fairway is equally important.

[Randy Thompson]

Shaun,
I am also a mid handicapp and play much the way you do and if I didnīt I would be in the high handicapp range. I just donīt have the confidence in my driver becasue I donīt practice enough and it gets me into trouble to often and the snowman appears or worst. This is the only long par four on the course, two are driveable with the wind and are set up in different directions, so that one will always be driveable but few will actually go for it because the cons will out weigh the pros. There is also a tee on the described hole that drops the length down to 420.

To all,
Its not just the professional I worry about, there are a long young big hitters today becasue of the technology changes. My desires were to on at least one hole, create a situation where they have to hit something more than a nine iron without taking the driver out of there hands which has been done on other holes. The angle of the holes favors a back tee up to this position and the landing is inviting and starring you in the face but if you go further back you lose that visibility, other wise I would have gone longer. My conclusions are most long hitters with average controll will be hitting nine or wedge into the green and at most an eight iron. I will probably be hitting five iron with the wind and three wood against. However there are two other par fiveīs of 609 and 540 where they will have to hit three woods and low irons as second shots, so thats good!

[Randy Thompson]

Tom is correct imo, there are more and more strong player hitting 300 yard drives and 200 yard five irons and while this is a three shoter for most of us..Today...then I think we should challenge them with a five hundred plus yards hole now and then. In order to do so, we will need to incorporate different tees, which so many seem to hate on this site or have different pars depending on the handicapp index.

[BCrosby]

Not to sound like Bill Clinton, but the math is pretty simple. If players are hitting it about 10% farther today than in 1980 (and that is roughly correct), a 450 par 4 then needs to be 495 yards to play the same way today.

If a 450 yard par 4 was a good idea circa 1980, then a 500 yard par 4 is a good idea today. Ceteris paribus.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

Anything under 500 yards should probably be a par-4 today [and the USGA seems to agree, based on their recent set-ups for the US Open and US Amateur]. 

But, for the average club member, anything near 500 yards is still a three-shotter, so calling the hole a par-4 is bound to cause some flak.  You should have heard the screaming when we changed the par on the first hole at Pasatiempo, by eliminating a silly back tee and taking the hole back to its original length of 475 yards!  My position there (as always) was that I don't care what par you call the hole.  Par is only a number on the scorecard.

[Mark Pearce]

What we don't need is more courses with the majority of holes between 420-450 yards.  Long enough to be a slog for most, not long enough to test the game of the best.

[Peter Pallotta]

Randy - I can't really address your question, but wanted to say congratulations: that's a very fine looking golf course you've designed.

Tom - far be it for me to argue with your position on "par", it has obviously served your courses very well. But I can't honestly understand, and probably never will, how "par is only a number on the scorecard."  If there ever comes a day when we take all numbers off the scorecard (pars and yardages and even hole numbers) I might understand, but until then it seems clear to me that the "signifier" that is par conveys and is meant to convey a whole packet of information (and, sometimes, for the wily architect, disinformation).  It is one tool and one element of gca and of the game of golf -- and if architects like to use the concept for their own purposes in one context, I can't see how they can turn around and suggest that it is purposeless/meaningless in another.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I understand that some architects occasionally use the designation of par to cause players to think about a certain hole in a certain way -- although, to be fair, the pars of 95% of holes are not up for debate.

Personally, I think the arguments over the remaining 5% are nonsense.  In match play, par has no meaning.  In medal play [aggregate score for 18 holes], par has no real meaning either.  I would be happy not to put it on the scorecard of any and all of my courses, but the masses [and the clients] would not stand for it, so I rarely argue the point.  But maybe it's worth more argument.