Long par fours

[Tommy Williamsen]

It seems to me that long par fours might be the most difficult holes to design. Anymore anything over 430 yards requires a run up shot. The same hole for younger players might demand a only short iron. I would think designing a hole that is fun, playable for all levels of players, and demanding would be one of the more difficult things to do.

[Blake Conant]

Long 4s seem to be the best match play holes, too, probably for the reasons you mentioned. 

I appreciate how Bill Coore uses flat or uninteresting land on the property and makes those his difficult, long holes (whether long 4s or 5s)  They eat up more of the uninteresting land and maximize the site's potential.  The flat holes at Friars Head come to mind, or Trails, Dormie, and Sand Valley.  Seminole, Fenway, and NGLA do the same. 

[Kyle Harris]

Long 4s seem to be the best match play holes, too, probably for the reasons you mentioned. 

I appreciate how Bill Coore uses flat or uninteresting land on the property and makes those his difficult, long holes (whether long 4s or 5s)  They eat up more of the uninteresting land and maximize the site's potential.  The flat holes at Friars Head come to mind, or Trails, Dormie, and Sand Valley.  Seminole, Fenway, and NGLA do the same.

In a way this should be an obvious use for flat and uninteresting land. The scale suggests that the player should be able to flail away and long shots "feel" more comfortable in open spaces.

[Blake Conant]

For sure, I just don't see the green site and the strategy done well on long flat holes on a regular basis.  Mr. Coore is great at finding/creating good long par 4s using the largest amount of uninteresting land and the least amount of interesting ground.  On a site where the interesting ground or cool green sites is limited, that maximization skill is emphasized. 

[Kyle Harris]

For sure, I just don't see the green site and the strategy done well on long flat holes on a regular basis.  Mr. Coore is great at finding/creating good long par 4s using the largest amount of uninteresting land and the least amount of interesting ground.  On a site where the interesting ground or cool green sites is limited, that maximization skill is emphasized.

Agreed!

The irony is that it does not seem obvious for many other architects throughout history. The best courses have an adept use of this.

Unfortunately "large and flat" also is a good use for housing.

[Peter Pallotta]

And then there is also the choice *not* to make it a short Par 5, which, given the love many golfers have for that type of hole, is for me an admirable one. The long 4 'works', when it does, in part because of the architect's awareness that most of us - sophisticates and Joe H aside - really do want to hit a green in regulation, i.e. we really do take 'par' seriously. The trick the architect then sometimes manages to pull off is providing a genuine (if differing) challenge to all of us while at the same time not demoralizing the weaker players among us. It is so much easier, and will likely be much more popular, just to make a Par 5 out of the crappy land instead; then, when bogey golfers bogey them, as they often do, at least they only blame themselves and not the architect (the concept of 'par' seeming to still have been validated and respected). And that choice, I think, is one of the reasons, maybe the main reason, why I come across so many banal/uninteresting Par 5s, i.e. they've been created more by default (a  doubt about managing to pull off a much-liked long Par 4) than by sincere intention.
Peter   

[Tom_Doak]

And then there is also the choice *not* to make it a short Par 5, which, given the love many golfers have for that type of hole, is for me an admirable one.  ... 


 It is so much easier, and will likely be much more popular, just to make a Par 5 out of the crappy land instead; then, when bogey golfers bogey them, as they often do, at least they only blame themselves and not the architect (the concept of 'par' seeming to still have been validated and respected). And that choice, I think, is one of the reasons, maybe the main reason, why I come across so many banal/uninteresting Par 5s, i.e. they've been created more by default (and fear of pulling off a much-liked long Par 4) than by sincere intention.

I don't agree.


Sure, there is room for difficult, long par-4's, but these are hardly missing in most architects' work ... most new courses are loaded up with them in order to get over the magic 7,000-yard threshold. 


What's missing are the short par-5 holes like the old days at Augusta, where you could get home in two by taking a risk with a long second shot.  They're missing because architects are too focused on total yardage ... gotta make all the par-5's 550 or 600 yards in order to get that total up ... or too focused on making every hole "tough".


There is room for great short par-5's, just like there's room for great short par-4's.  I don't build them because I'm pandering to players ... I build them because those lengths of holes often provide interesting results.

[Tom_Doak]

As for the opening post, the general rule of routing is to take as much length as a particular hole will give you.  Flatter holes tend to be longer, because it's easy to go farther back for a tee without running into an obstacle; the decision of whether they will be long 4's or par 5's often depends on where the previous dune is.


For example, one of my early routings for Pacific Dunes had a hole playing from the 3rd tee to today's 12th green, which would have been a long par-4 over flat ground.  Eventually, we found the green site for today's 3rd, and it became a par-5 ... and then the hole that connected #11 green to #13, using the green site mentioned, also became a par-5.  None of that had to do with my preference for par-5's over par-4's; nor did the fact that #13 is a long par-4.  That's just how long it was from the previous dune to its obvious green site. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I hear you, and I believe you. But I think our exchange points to the fact that you live (and work, and play golf) in one world and I live and play golf in another.  You (and folks like Tommy and Kyle etc) play a variety of courses by a variety of architects; in my world, i.e. on the courses I play, the long Par 4 is very rare, while four Par 5s per course seems like a one of the ten commandments. Does that mean that the architects of the courses I play are smarter/better than the ones you reference? I don't think that likely. I think instead it's because they make a calculation similar to the one I suggest in my post - and so turn to the Par 5 (short or long) by default. It's not flattering or trying to ingratiate myself to you to say that you're operating-creating on & striving for one level, while most architects - of the courses I play at least - are operating on and striving for a much different one.

Peter     

[Scott Weersing]

If you want a course with good long par 4s, go to Old Mac with no. 4, 10 and no. 11. Each one is unique because of the fairways and the greens. While the greens are elevated, you can still roll a 3 wood on to the green.

[Richard Fisher]

and of course so many 'long par 4s', especially here in the UK, were once listed on the card as 'short par 5s' or perhaps, more accurately, 'short bogey fives'. They were designed, insofar as they were ever designed, as two-and-half shot, or two-really-good-shots, challenges. One of the more refreshing aspects of the past couple of decades has been a removal of the tyranny of exact yardage as the only measure for par, so that we can go back (e.g) to the c440 yard par 5 13th at Westward Ho, which starts off very straightforwardly and gets (much) harder as you near the hole.

[Tommy Williamsen]

and of course so many 'long par 4s', especially here in the UK, were once listed on the card as 'short par 5s' or perhaps, more accurately, 'short bogey fives'. They were designed, insofar as they were ever designed, as two-and-half shot, or two-really-good-shots, challenges. One of the more refreshing aspects of the past couple of decades has been a removal of the tyranny of exact yardage as the only measure for par, so that we can go back (e.g) to the c440 yard par 5 13th at Westward Ho, which starts off very straightforwardly and gets (much) harder as you near the hole.

Richard, the par five 13th is one of the most inventive short par fives I know. There is no trouble getting close to the green in two. Getting up and down, though, demands a lot of creativity and good execution. Couple that with the par five 9th and you have two terrific par fives.

[Richard Fisher]

Complete agreement. And one of the many reasons why RND remains such a wonderful golf course with, as Ran always says, as great a variety of hazard as can be found anywhere.

[Sean_A]

It seems to me that long par fours might be the most difficult holes to design. Anymore anything over 430 yards requires a run up shot. The same hole for younger players might demand a only short iron. I would think designing a hole that is fun, playable for all levels of players, and demanding would be one of the more difficult things to do.

Tommy

Designing longer holes in general is hard to do, judging by the results I see.  However, I do think it is imperative that the length between 440ish and 490ish should be exploited (especially between 440 & 470), regardless of the par number, for two reasons. Better players should have some holes in which their skill can be demonstrated and simply for variety.  So many holes are between 340-410 that surely it gets a bit tiresome unless the holes are quite special.

I am not that keen on holes longer than 500ish so that still leaves plenty of room for long 3s and short 4s 

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

It seems to me that long par fours might be the most difficult holes to design. Anymore anything over 430 yards requires a run up shot. The same hole for younger players might demand a only short iron. I would think designing a hole that is fun, playable for all levels of players, and demanding would be one of the more difficult things to do.

Tommy

Designing longer holes in general is hard to do, judging by the results I see.  However, I do think it is imperative that the length between 440ish and 490ish should be exploited (especially between 440 & 470), regardless of the par number, for two reasons. Better players should have some holes in which their skill can be demonstrated and simply for variety.  So many holes are between 340-410 that surely it gets a bit tiresome unless the holes are quite special.

I am not that keen on holes longer than 500ish so that still leaves plenty of room for long 3s and short 4s 

Ciaou

Sean, I agree. I don't mind having to hit three wood once in a while. It makes me keep that part of the game sharp. The difficult part for the architect is to make it interesting for the guy who hits it 100 yards past me and has an eight iron in. I play with guys who will move up when they come to a long hole. I understand it but I like the thrill of making par on a hole that I can barley reach. Score isn't everything. It's the thrill of the chase.

[Sean_A]

Tommy

People act as though this problem of distance gap is a recent problem.  In truth, the best players always hit it much further and straighter than 18 cappers.  Traditionally, it was the 18 capper who suffered...just think of the courses that were built in the 20s and 30s...they must have been monsters for all but the very best players.  I know clever archies like to say they build for all skill levels, but what they really do is create back tees and come up with some gimmick(s), be it tons of bunkers, water, narrow fairways, rough or over-emphasing the importance of the green.  This wasn't really the approach of the golden age archies...they simply made the choice to focus on the elite end of the game.  Some of the sensible clubs have simply allowed that focus to gradually shift to higher and higher cappers.  Some clubs have insisted on focusing on the elite player...this to a large degree is what has caused the long ball controversy....an insistence that the intentions of the original architecture should be preserved at all costs...even if that means the higher capper is being more and more marginalized by the gimmicks of architecture while still being asked to foot the bill.  Archies today are faced with the same questions as they were 80-100 years and they too will eventually figure out that you can't design for all levels.

Ciao