Hitting driver

[Jason Thurman]

Should you be able to do it on every par 4 or 5, or most of them? Or are layup holes a good thing?

[Wayne_Kozun]

I like short par 4s where you can hit driver but where it brings more trouble into play of the tee it and can be harder to hit the green with your second shot. On such holes you can hit driver but it is rarely the right call. In other words you have to think about your tee shot rather than bombing it as far as you can. And making golfers think is a good thing.

[Will Lozier]

You can hit driver off the tee on ANY hole you like.  Have to on many par-3's - 16 at CPC into even a modest breeze really.  Obviously the best strategic holes offer a realistic option to EITHER bomb away to gain an advantage or...lay up to take a theoretically safer line.  Back to the most famous hole in golf, you have an option to not play to the green, to lay up left with a mid-iron (or long-iron if said breeze is present).  Perhaps you can provide an example to give your question more context.

[Philip Hensley]

Are you talking about forced lay-ups where you have no choice, or holes designed where lay-up is probably the smart play for 90% of golfers, but if you really want to hit driver there is room?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Being able to and being the prudent play are very different things. Even if the par 4 in question could be reached and/or cleared by a driver, the club is still a viable option. In any case its all about evaluating risk, A hole that forces the player to stop and think before playing their tee shot is preferred to one where they player doesn't have to think at all and the risk is very minimal. In the realm of par 4's this should be a frequent occurrence, with a periodic inclusion of breather holes where the player can free wheel it with the driver. For par 5's, If playing less than a drive off of the tee is the more prudent play there would be little flaw in the design of the hole as long as the average player can reach the green in 3 or less. This, though, requires that the reward for hitting the driver is suitably balanced with the risk.

[Josh Tarble]

I was about to type "No, you should not be able to hit driver on every hole"

But then the second part to my comment was "Variety is a good thing and you shouldn't be forced into any one decision"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Ben hit on the head, being able to do so and being the prudent play are very different.

[Philip Hensley]

Lonnie Poole (NC State course) has a couple of holes like this where you can hit driver if you want, but it's probably not the best option. #4 and #12 come to mind. The holes appear pretty wide open but play much narrower. And on both holes if you get too far to one side of the joke it slopes away from the player and down a valley. Both holes are under 400 yards and yet it never ceases to amaze me how many bad scores I see out up on those holes. A hybrid/long-iron off the tee leaves you with short-iron/wedge into the green.

[Matthew Petersen]

I was discussing this with someone recently as it relates to the remodeled / restored (I ad kit I'm not sure) 17th at Cherry Hills.

It's a 550 yard par 5 to an island green, but given the altitude of Colorado, actually very reachable for a good player. The Doak team's work there added or restored cross bunkers at two points in the fairway.

I'm most familiar with the course from prior to the restoration and my initial take was that I preferred the old version, where you could either try to kill a drive in the hopes of getting down in two, which brings into play the potential for a wayward drive that could find either significant tree trouble or even OB, or you could throttle down, hit the fairway, and make it a three shot hole.

What I know of the current version of the hole comes from watching the US Am there a few years ago and last fall's BMW Championship. Most of the players in those competitions could clear the first set of bunkers with a good drive (but even a slight mishit wasn't guaranteed to clear, even McIlroy failed to carry the bunkers in one round). I guess I sort of assumed that meant for a mortal player, that meant the bunkers were located in an area where they might restrict a player from hitting driver, which I didn't like.

The argument I got back was that it's over 300 yards (Google actually gives me about 320) to the end of the fairway, so it's probably only talking driver out of the hands of a few players. I'm not entirely sure that's right, however. Again, given the altitude, anyone playing the back tees is very possibly long enough to reach those bunkers. Then if you factor in what the hole plays from the member tee, how the course typically plays firm, etc, it still seems problematic.

But this gets into the central question which is, even if you do take the notion that a "forced layup" is bad, how far away must something be before it's out of range of anyone? If Bubba can reach it? The average pro? A good member? An average member?

So, in this case, I think I'd prefer the hole if the bunkers pinched the fairway, but still allowed a big, perfectly placed drive to get through. That's the argument I think Ben and Josh are lobbying for, as well--make driver be reckless, but possible.

[Andrew Bernstein]

Lonnie Poole (NC State course) has a couple of holes like this where you can hit driver if you want, but it's probably not the best option. #4 and #12 come to mind. The holes appear pretty wide open but play much narrower. And on both holes if you get too far to one side of the joke it slopes away from the player and down a valley. Both holes are under 400 yards and yet it never ceases to amaze me how many bad scores I see out up on those holes. A hybrid/long-iron off the tee leaves you with short-iron/wedge into the green.

#4 is by far my favorite hole at Lonnie Poole because of that narrowing feature. Every extra yard of distance on the drive brings with it an almost equal amount of risk. You walk up to the tee expecting to make 3 and walk off shaking your head, trying to figure out how you made 5.

[Ben Hollerbach]

17 at Cherry Hills is an interesting example.

 I think the question that matters most is if a player tries to carry the first set of cross bunkers with their drive and fails can they still reach the green in 2, would the struggle to reach the green in 3? By my measurements, From the back edge of the very back tee box a tee shot of less than 313 will keep the player short of all of the bunkers and to reach the second fairway will require a tee shot of over 339 yards. If a player plays short of the bunkers they will face a second shot of over 226 yards to the green, while a player that successfully clears the first set of bunkers will have a second less than 199.

From the perspective of a professional/very low handicap player, this seems like a rather fair tee shot decision. At this altitude, one could still hit a second shot from short of the cross bunkers with an iron and hold the green, while the trade off of trying to clear the bunkers would net the player a shorter iron. At the same time, If the player fails to clear the bunkers they are not excluded from going for the green in 2, but the shot would be made more difficult by the lie. On the whole the options seem like a wash with no clear advantage.

From the perspective of the club member, While the reach/carry distance are reduced the approach distances are not. A player choosing to lay up short of the bunkers has all but removed their ability to go for the green in two and has decided to play the hole as a 3 shot hole. A player that chooses to attack the cross bunkers can be rewarded with the chance to hit the green in two, but even with the altitude and slope of the shot, would face a very hard approach for the average club player. A player that challenges the bunkers but fails to clear them will, like the first player, all but remove their ability to go for the green in 2 and play the hole as a 3 shot hole.  In this instance, the penalty for failing to clear the bunkers appears to be the same as not even trying and it would suggest the correct play is to attempt to carry the bunkers. That being said, the advantage on both lay-up shots would fall to the player who is playing from short of the cross bunkers. The risk to hit their lay-up into the second set of cross bunkers is much lower, and this is where the advantages is given. For the average club player the spectrum of risk/reward is much greater and forces them to make an appropriate decision off of the tee.

[Dave McCollum]

I recall playing a par 4 hole where the prudent play was to hit a mid iron off the tee (7-9 iron for better players) leaving a full 225 yard approach uphill to the green.  I guess you could hit driver, but there was so much junk in the DZ it was a fairly dumb play.  Which is exactly what I did, of course, much to my opponent’s delight.  I thought it a dumb hole, mostly because it seemed impossible for geezers and women.

[Neil Johnston]

I was thinking about this topic while watching the Valspar tournament this weekend; specifically the 12th hole. It is short par 4, about 380 yards, and there was a lake starting at about 250 yards from the tee. There was a sliver of fairway on the left side, but I did not see a single guy take a shot at hitting it.

Every tee ball was a carbon copy. 210-230 yards, with about a 150-160 yard shot left. I think a hole which demands you to hit two shots of specific length, neither of which with your driver, is perfectly acceptable. That said, I wouldn't want every hole on a course to require such precision or such little thought.

[Matthew Petersen]

17 at Cherry Hills is an interesting example.

 I think the question that matters most is if a player tries to carry the first set of cross bunkers with their drive and fails can they still reach the green in 2, would the struggle to reach the green in 3? By my measurements, From the back edge of the very back tee box a tee shot of less than 313 will keep the player short of all of the bunkers and to reach the second fairway will require a tee shot of over 339 yards. If a player plays short of the bunkers they will face a second shot of over 226 yards to the green, while a player that successfully clears the first set of bunkers will have a second less than 199.

From the perspective of a professional/very low handicap player, this seems like a rather fair tee shot decision. At this altitude, one could still hit a second shot from short of the cross bunkers with an iron and hold the green, while the trade off of trying to clear the bunkers would net the player a shorter iron. At the same time, If the player fails to clear the bunkers they are not excluded from going for the green in 2, but the shot would be made more difficult by the lie. On the whole the options seem like a wash with no clear advantage.

From the perspective of the club member, While the reach/carry distance are reduced the approach distances are not. A player choosing to lay up short of the bunkers has all but removed their ability to go for the green in two and has decided to play the hole as a 3 shot hole. A player that chooses to attack the cross bunkers can be rewarded with the chance to hit the green in two, but even with the altitude and slope of the shot, would face a very hard approach for the average club player. A player that challenges the bunkers but fails to clear them will, like the first player, all but remove their ability to go for the green in 2 and play the hole as a 3 shot hole.  In this instance, the penalty for failing to clear the bunkers appears to be the same as not even trying and it would suggest the correct play is to attempt to carry the bunkers. That being said, the advantage on both lay-up shots would fall to the player who is playing from short of the cross bunkers. The risk to hit their lay-up into the second set of cross bunkers is much lower, and this is where the advantages is given. For the average club player the spectrum of risk/reward is much greater and forces them to make an appropriate decision off of the tee.

I agree with all of that. The hole is less egregious than some to me, because those are bunkers and could be carried by a really long player. A lucky shot could even theoretically run between the two traps. Also, unless you draw a terrible break right next to the face, if you drive it in those bunkers, you still can probably reach in 3.

I have much less acceptance for a hole where laying up is the only option. A hole like #5 at JF Kennedy in Denver comes to mind, with a 100-yard wash crossing the fairway, or any number of desert courses. I like a lot about the Dove Mountain course where they used to play the WGC Match Play event, but to varying extents, as many as 5 holes there can take driver out of your hands depending on how firm the ground is, what tees you're playing, etc.

[A.G._Crockett]

As I age, this question becomes less and less relevant; I rarely have to worry about hitting the ball too far anymore.

That said, the only "layup" tee shots that I mind are the ones that leave a second shot that is nearly as long or longer than the tee shot itself.  Though not always, I often find such holes to be at best forgettable and at worst awful.

[John Percival]

A perfect example of dialing back, for me, would be 18 at PB. Have lost length thru the years, so reaching in two is almost impossible. Thus, hit 3 wood, 4 iron and wedge. In fact, would argue that for most people laying back for a full wedge on many 5 pars is the best play vs the half wedge.
So, at PB, if I hit driver and gain 25 yards, my lay-up is with a 6 or 7 iron. Not much easier than the 4 iron, but a much greater risk of nonsense on the tee shot and a nasty number on the hole.
For many golfers, the likelihood of reaching 5 pars in two is remote. So, keep your tee ball in play with a lesser wood and you'll be amazed at how many more birdie opportunities you'll have.

[Mark_Fine]

There are golfers who hit driver on every hole including par threes!  

The first hole at The Old Course can be a "forced layup" and not just for the pros but for many golfers depending on the wind and turf conditions.  Having said this, I have never been a big fan of holes where the architect plays a heavy hand.  It is one thing on say a "par four" to have to throttle back with a driver and/or hit a long iron or fairway wood off the tee instead.  It is another thing to have to hit an 7I or 8I and then hit a 230 yard shot for your second because there are NO other options.  That to me is heavy handed and not great course design in my opinion.  

By the way, Cherry Hills #17 is not a good example of heavy handed architecture as there are plenty of options off the tee even with the restored cross bunkers.  

[BCowan]

JP,

   I hit 4 iron off the tee, then 3 wood, and approach PW or 9 on #16 at Radrick.  Found it to be the best way to play the hole.  Scores have improved immensely.   

[Philip Hensley]

#4 is by far my favorite hole at Lonnie Poole because of that narrowing feature. Every extra yard of distance on the drive brings with it an almost equal amount of risk. You walk up to the tee expecting to make 3 and walk off shaking your head, trying to figure out how you made 5.

I like #4 more than #12 because since it is shorter, there really is no reason to hit driver. Even if you hit one straight you will likely catch a left or right bounce farther down the fairway that will put you in an awkward stance.

#12 is around 395 yards from the red tees if I recall correctly, and so for the average amateur it's not completely unreasonable to risk driver since they likely hit it 220 yards or less and now still have 180 yds+ into the green. On #4 there is no such length issue. I like seeing the 12 handicap that drives it 225 but thinks he drives it 265 try to pound driver on #4 because he thinks if he catches one he might roll up near the green. He's likely going to be in the woods on the right instead.

[John Percival]

Ben,
That's a smart play on a SCARY tee shot.

Never figured out what left is. Hazard or lost ball. They need to clean that area out. 'Cause unless you KNOW it's in the hazard, you better find it.

[Mark_Fine]

Aren't some of you guys off topic?  The question was should you be able to hit driver on every hole not whether it was a smarter shot or not!  These are two totally different things!

Some of the best holes are ones that tempt a driver off the tee but it really isn't always the best play 

[John Percival]

Aren't some of you guys off topic?  The question was should you be able to hit driver on every hole not whether it was a smarter shot or not!  These are two totally different things!

Some of the best holes are ones that tempt a driver off the tee but it really isn't always the best play 

You mean like 18 at PB? 

[Carl Johnson]

Should the club dictate to the holes, or the holes dictate the club?  For me, it's the latter.  I use a 3 wood off the tee max.  Don't carry a driver.  The course is there, you've got the right under the "rules" to carry 14 clubs.  Pick-em out and play.

[archie_struthers]

I'm all about limited rules in GCA these days .  Maybe there is a hole where driver puts you in the hazard, maybe it doesn't . I'm cool with that .

Lay up with a 😪.  Five iron and hit three wood is surely annoying  but mandate driver only is too restrictive


So my vote is no ,

[Philip Hensley]

The Preserve at Jordan Lake has a few forced lay-up holes that do not let you take driver off the tee. And then the landing areas are small. So the effect is that par 4s of short length become like two par 3 holes wrapped into one hole.

[Ken Moum]

That said, the only "layup" tee shots that I mind are the ones that leave a second shot that is nearly as long or longer than the tee shot itself.  Though not always, I often find such holes to be at best forgettable and at worst awful.

There's one of those at Colbert Hills in Kansas,and I pretty much hate it. It's the fourth, and follows two holes with similarly disorienting tee shots for me.

After struggling with the hole several times, I played with a guy whose game was about like mine, but who had considerable experience playing there.

He hits seven iron off the tee leaving a shot of ~220 into a difficult green. What caused my problem is that there SHOULD be room to layup closer to the green but the slope of the fairway almost always causes balls that are hit a little too far to end up in the junk.

Not my favorite hole, on not my favorite golf course.

It was clearly built to challenge college golfers and I guess it does.

But it's no fun for guys like me.

K