[Jim_Kennedy]

PP,
When was the last time you had to make a club choice when standing on a longer par 4?  

Played a course with a few short and/or driveable 4s just the other day. Guy I was with was on or near every one of them and birdied none. Totally demoralized him - easy win for me. 
 

[Tom_Doak]

I must be missing something, because so many experienced golfers and top flight architects around here seem to think so. But to me: given than nothing in the world precludes an architect from finding/creating an interesting and challenging green on a hole of ANY length (any short/long Par 4, any Par 3 or Par 5), what sets the short 4 apart seems to be simply and solely the choice to hit less than driver off the tee.

Is that indeed it - is that the option most are praising? Because if it is, it doesn't seem to me all that interesting or difficult a decision -- and it's a decision made less and less interesting and difficult with each passing year, as technology has led to drivers (even the 10-15 year old driver I have) that are easier than ever to hit, and to golf balls that seem to keep driver shots as straight (or even straighter) than those hit by 3 woods or hybrids.     

Peter:

I think what you are missing is that architects have to keep in mind what golfers will accept.

If I'd built the green for #7 at Ballyneal on a 410-yard par-4, it would be infamous and not famous, because a lot of golfers would be approaching with a 6-iron or a hybrid, and they would be the first to decry it as unfair.  If I'd left the bumpy fairway on #16 at Pacific Dunes, and people had to hit a 5-iron from those lies and stances, many would call it unfair.  I agree with you that those holes could be longer and they'd still be great holes, but fewer people would be on our side of that debate ... including possibly my client(s) for the project.

There is one other reason shorter can be better ... because the closer you can drive to the green from the tee, the more you can affect the angle of approach.  That's key for a hole like #10 at Riviera; it could not be the same hole at 420 yards.

[Jason Topp]

I have to say that this is one topic that I really don't understand, i.e. I don't understand the assumption that a short 4 (say 320-360 yards) is almost by definition more interesting than one of standard length, or that it almost automatically provides a much wider range of options/choices.

I must be missing something, because so many experienced golfers and top flight architects around here seem to think so. But to me: given than nothing in the world precludes an architect from finding/creating an interesting and challenging green on a hole of ANY length (any short/long Par 4, any Par 3 or Par 5), what sets the short 4 apart seems to be simply and solely the choice to hit less than driver off the tee.

Is that indeed it - is that the option most are praising? Because if it is, it doesn't seem to me all that interesting or difficult a decision -- and it's a decision made less and less interesting and difficult with each passing year, as technology has led to drivers (even the 10-15 year old driver I have) that are easier than ever to hit, and to golf balls that seem to keep driver shots as straight (or even straighter) than those hit by 3 woods or hybrids.

So, unless there's a centreline bunker right at the 250 yard marker, most of us will fire away with a driver (easy decision); and if there is such a centreline bunker 250 yards out, most of us will hit 3 wood or a hybrid (no choice at all). What's left then is basically an easier hole, which I'm certainly not against -- over the course of a round, and in terms of flow and feeling and pacing, it's good to have a mix of challenging and less challenging holes, including holes that an average golfer of average length might birdie as often as his more accomplished opponent. But then, let's look at short 4s in THOSE terms, i.e. (relatively) easier holes, than in terms of being strategically more interesting in and of themselves.  

But again, I must be missing something, because I find little 'automatic' appeal to a short 4.

Peter      

Peter :  I agree that the length alone does not make a hole a good one.  However, my impression is that these types of holes are being squeezed out to some extent in modern designs.  I suspect it is because even shorter par fours are more frequently being built and are used as a replacement for drive and pitch par fours.   

[Dan Kelly]

Jason --

Two good holes at Midland Hills (Nos. 1 and would seem to fit your description.

I doubt if either of them would be built today.







 

[Jud_T]

Peter,

The other thing about them, in addition to variety and flow of the round, is that a well designed and maintained drive and pitch hole can be the most fun for the most people, particularly in match play.

[George Pazin]

When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole.  

However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.

Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)

Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me.  12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)

Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)

Glad you did the research. I know Tom D has lamented many times on here the death of the sub 400, non-driveable par 4 (I am paraphrasing, obviously, Tom D's words speak for themselves, this is merely my interpretation).

As the wise Ian - he who should be Sir Ian by now - has noted, Oakmont does a wonderful job with "short" par 4s - ie par 4s that aren't really driveable, but are extremely interesting nonetheless. #2, #6, and #11 spring to mind - even #14 in some ways. Just another thing to admire about one of the world's best...

But again, I must be missing something, because I find little 'automatic' appeal to a short 4.

Peter      

There's nothing "automatic" about it - hence the appeal...

[Dan Kelly]

Peter,

The other thing about them, in addition to variety and flow of the round, is that a well designed and maintained drive and pitch hole can be the most fun for the most people, particularly in match play.

Seconded -- and I will add:

Another beauty of the drive-and-short-iron hole is that it can play well (and similarly) for both men and women.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There is one other reason shorter can be better ... because the closer you can drive to the green from the tee, the more you can affect the angle of approach.  That's key for a hole like #10 at Riviera; it could not be the same hole at 420 yards.

This.

[Matthew Petersen]

When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole. 

However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.

Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)

Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me.  12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)

Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)

I think there are several holes that fit the profile among C&C's courses in AZ. #4 and #18 at Talking Stick south. #7 and #16 at We-Ko-Pa Saguaro. All short but not drivable, giving multiple options off the tee.

[Greg Tallman]

The reason I like #14 at Cabo del Sol and holes like it...

1. The play from the tee is not cut and dried in any condition - I will hit anything between driver and 4 iron from the tee with only the 4-iron eliminated when into a hurting wind.

2. I stand on the tee trying to figure out how to make 4 (rather than 3) - On the card it looks like a breather hole at 350-360 but even when playing well I rarely step on the tee thinking birdie and am always happy to make 4 (unless I have just missed a 3-footer).

3. I have approached the green with as much as a 4 iron after placing the tee ball in the fariway - the tee shot may not have been perfect but the play was to avoid the trouble from the tee.

4. I have approached the hole with 5-iron from 135 yards - into the wind, sidehill lie with ball well above my feet and hole cut hard right. Shot must be knocked down and from that lie the long club, cut knock down was the best play... actually was playing with Noel Freeman who posts here I believe... he asked what I hit... "you DO NOT want to know" was the response

5. I have approached the green with a lob wedge and not felt comfortable playing directly at the hole even though the consequences were not dire, just that a 15-20 foot putt which was easily attainable was preferrable to the recovery shot assuming I did not pull off the approach and get it to 5 feet or so... scoring average is going to be far better playing to 15-20 feet versus going for it though nothing more than 5 is in the cards either way.

6. Only an idiot would attempt to drive the green which I suppose is possible for the likes of Bubba but offers little chance for success

I simply think it is a fantastic golf hole for all levels even if some big numbers are recorded by the higher handicappers.
 

[Evan Louden]

Whitinsville #8 is a great example.

330 yard dogleg left.
Fairway is at a 45 degree angle guarded by 3 bunkers down the left side.
The green favors shots from the left side of the fairway.

So many options on the tee shot.
Try to hook a driver or 3-wood way down the fairway. Overcook it and you're in trouble. Block it and your angle to green suffers.
Hit a hybrid or long iron (if you're more accurate with those   )
Lay back with a mid iron to the beginning of the fairway. *This is my favorite feature of the hole* If you take this option, this part of the fairway is lower than the rest of the hole so your approach is blind.

I would happily play this hole over and over again. With my moderate length off the tee it offers me numerous strategic options. My guess is a big hitter who could hook/slice the ball might find it boring. I feel bad for that player. They're missing out.

~Evan

[George Pazin]

The reason I like #14 at Cabo del Sol and holes like it...

1. The play from the tee is not cut and dried in any condition - I will hit anything between driver and 4 iron from the tee with only the 4-iron eliminated when into a hurting wind.

2. I stand on the tee trying to figure out how to make 4 (rather than 3) - On the card it looks like a breather hole at 350-360 but even when playing well I rarely step on the tee thinking birdie and am always happy to make 4 (unless I have just missed a 3-footer).

3. I have approached the green with as much as a 4 iron after placing the tee ball in the fariway - the tee shot may not have been perfect but the play was to avoid the trouble from the tee.

4. I have approached the hole with 5-iron from 135 yards - into the wind, sidehill lie with ball well above my feet and hole cut hard right. Shot must be knocked down and from that lie the long club, cut knock down was the best play... actually was playing with Noel Freeman who posts here I believe... he asked what I hit... "you DO NOT want to know" was the response

5. I have approached the green with a lob wedge and not felt comfortable playing directly at the hole even though the consequences were not dire, just that a 15-20 foot putt which was easily attainable was preferrable to the recovery shot assuming I did not pull off the approach and get it to 5 feet or so... scoring average is going to be far better playing to 15-20 feet versus going for it though nothing more than 5 is in the cards either way.

6. Only an idiot would attempt to drive the green which I suppose is possible for the likes of Bubba but offers little chance for success

I simply think it is a fantastic golf hole for all levels even if some big numbers are recorded by the higher handicappers.
 

If more people understood the beauty of this post, there would be better golf today.

[Matthew Rose]

I like the "almost-driveable but not quite" par four. 350 yards I guess qualifies pretty well.

#3 at Augusta National is a good example and one I look forward to seeing every year. I love it because the green is so severe and the pin placement on a particular day may dictate strategy. It's fun to see guys play it differently every day based on that. The angle is really important, but it's also fun to decide whether you want to lay way back to 150, lay closer for an 80 yarder, or try to get as close to the green as you can and take your chances on a pitch or long chip.

I play a course with a lot of holes in this range, and it is fun trying to decide if I want to get close to the green or lay well back.

It's also fun to watch a player hitting a 50 or 60 yard shot. You feel like a shot of that length should not give you the trouble that it does.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents. Valid/helpful comments all. Still, what resonates most/makes most sense for me is the notion that a certain kind of very good green CAN be built on a short 4 that otherwise likely wouldn't be built on a longer hole.

(Of course, that doesn't mean that a certain kind of very good green WILL be built - and maybe that's one of the reasons for my lack of uptake here, i.e. perhaps I've played too many short 4s that were undistinguished by an interesting green, and thus were simply 'easier'.)

[Greg Tallman]

Thanks, gents. Valid/helpful comments all. Still, what resonates most/makes most sense for me is the notion that a certain kind of very good green CAN be built on a short 4 that otherwise likely wouldn't be built on a longer hole.

(Of course, that doesn't mean that a certain kind of very good green WILL be built - and maybe that's one of the reasons for my lack of uptake here, i.e. perhaps I've played too many short 4s that were undistinguished by an interesting green, and thus were simply 'easier'.)

PP, In fariness the green on 14 at CDS Ocean is nothing special in and of itself. It is more how it interacts with the rest of the golf hole that makes for a very interetsing 15 minutes (OK, in the name of Pat Mucci, 10 minutes) of golf. A wild green would likely detract from a shortish hole with so much else already going for it.

[J_ Crisham]

Olympia Fields has some very good 350yd holes. On the North , # 4and 5. Both require very accurate tee and approach shots. On the south course # 6 is as good a short par 4 as you will find anywhere .

[Sean_A]

There is one other reason shorter can be better ... because the closer you can drive to the green from the tee, the more you can affect the angle of approach.  That's key for a hole like #10 at Riviera; it could not be the same hole at 420 yards.

This quote is spot on.  I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range.  Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short.  Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer.  The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.   

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range.  Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short.  Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer.  The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.    

I agree with this.  There is a MacKenzie quote where he laments committees always wanting to lengthen the dullest holes.  His advice was to "shorten it and get it over with".    But elsewhere he pointed out that common sense would dictate that as equipment changed, for every hole that got LESS interesting as it got shorter, there ought to be another hole that got MORE interesting.  The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting".

[Mark Johnson]

When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole. 

However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.

Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)

Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me.  12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)

Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)

Jason,  you dont consider 14th at bandon trails here?

[Peter Pallotta]

I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range.  Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short.  Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer.  The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.    

I agree with this.  There is a MacKenzie quote where he laments committees always wanting to lengthen the dullest holes.  His advice was to "shorten it and get it over with".    But elsewhere he pointed out that common sense would dictate that as equipment changed, for every hole that got LESS interesting as it got shorter, there ought to be another hole that got MORE interesting.  The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting".

Sean, Tom - thanks, good and pertinent exchange.  But I'd suggest that it's not only changing technology that has led to hundrum holes. With newer/modern courses, there is also the issue of multiple tees to contend with. A 350 yard hole from the whites, for example, might be 385 from the blues and 410 from the blacks. And, since architects know that most average golfers will not play the correct set of tees (for their games), they tend to create less interesting greens than they would if there was only one set of tees. An architect who designs a green site that makes a 350 yard hole a great and challenging delight from the whites can expect a lot of criticism from all those average golfers who chose to play the hole from the blues or the blacks instead.   

[BCrosby]

Things that make it worth turning on your computer in the morning:

"The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting". TD

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Things that make it worth turning on your computer in the morning:

"The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting". TD

Bob,

I couldn't agree more.

For some reason, "difficulty" became a "gold standard" of sorts.

It's my belief that the golf magazines and TV were the culprit in replacing interest/fun with "difficulty"

Golfer's falsely equated "difficulty" with "quality"

And, once that happened, the local arms race was on.

Club after club tried to make their course more difficult.

Club after club beefed up the courses defenses anytime an outside tournament was held.

I think that's one of the reasons are areas where golf lost it's way and perhaps one of the reasons for a lack of interest.

What fun is it to play a dull 480 yard par 4

At 7:00 tonight, I played one of the most terrific 350 yard holes you could find, with my son, the 12th at Mountain Ridge.
It is such an incredibly interesting hole, from the tee, from the DZ, from around and on the green.
You have to THINK, from tee to green.
It's challenging, yet fun to play.

Golf needs to restore the interest and fun in the challenge, and not have a hole's sole reason for existing to be "difficulty"

End of rant 

[Sean_A]

I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range.  Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short.  Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer.  The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.    

I agree with this.  There is a MacKenzie quote where he laments committees always wanting to lengthen the dullest holes.  His advice was to "shorten it and get it over with".    But elsewhere he pointed out that common sense would dictate that as equipment changed, for every hole that got LESS interesting as it got shorter, there ought to be another hole that got MORE interesting.  The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting".

Sean, Tom - thanks, good and pertinent exchange.  But I'd suggest that it's not only changing technology that has led to hundrum holes. With newer/modern courses, there is also the issue of multiple tees to contend with. A 350 yard hole from the whites, for example, might be 385 from the blues and 410 from the blacks. And, since architects know that most average golfers will not play the correct set of tees (for their games), they tend to create less interesting greens than they would if there was only one set of tees. An architect who designs a green site that makes a 350 yard hole a great and challenging delight from the whites can expect a lot of criticism from all those average golfers who chose to play the hole from the blues or the blacks instead.    

Pietro

I agree with you, the mega multiple tee concept is for the most part one of the dopiest ideas to come along in modern architecture.  The push has been to create playability through yardage rather than playability through features and angles. In effect, mega multiple tees has made it excusable to build endless 7000+ yard courses.   

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Things that make it worth turning on your computer in the morning:

"The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting". TD

Bob,

I couldn't agree more.

For some reason, "difficulty" became a "gold standard" of sorts.

It's my belief that the golf magazines and TV were the culprit in replacing interest/fun with "difficulty"

Golfer's falsely equated "difficulty" with "quality"

And, once that happened, the local arms race was on.

Club after club tried to make their course more difficult.

Club after club beefed up the courses defenses anytime an outside tournament was held.

I think that's one of the reasons are areas where golf lost it's way and perhaps one of the reasons for a lack of interest.

What fun is it to play a dull 480 yard par 4

At 7:00 tonight, I played one of the most terrific 350 yard holes you could find, with my son, the 12th at Mountain Ridge.
It is such an incredibly interesting hole, from the tee, from the DZ, from around and on the green.
You have to THINK, from tee to green.
It's challenging, yet fun to play.

Golf needs to restore the interest and fun in the challenge, and not have a hole's sole reason for existing to be "difficulty"

End of rant 

So I assume this means you've cancelled your Golf Digest subscription as a matter of principal?

[archie_struthers]

 


When you talk about great short par fours, Flynn's work at Indian Creek has to be mentioned .  I know not many people have played there so it can be hard to get a lot of feedback but it is just a gem .  

When the greens get a little crusty and the wind blows , the 4th hole is so  good . The green is canted such that trajectory and spin on the second shot are at a premium . It was a lot easier with the old balata ball ( for you old guys who remember them )


Although drivable par fours don't necessarily float my boat the 13th is quite a  challenge , and  discretion is certainly the right play day in and day out.

Flynn built these fabulous greens at Indian Creek that only accept the shots really well from the right angle. So, even though the golf course isn't long , the tee shots need to be in the right spot. Even short irons from the wrong angle don't work well here. I used to talk to one of our esteemed members here about the Flynn greens, which to me were often a series of big overlaid triangles. lots of conical fronts to the greens he built /designed. 


Ray Floyd used to play there regularly in his prime, and I think the precise demands of Indian Creek were a big factor in his fantastic wedge and short iron play !

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()