Why Is It Always the Poor Old Short par Four?

[Mark_F]

... that goes missing on so many modern designs, presumably in the quest to make a course more "challenging", when it is the par fives that are generally a course's weaker point?

For instance, in last year's aborted Australian Open, the newly lengthened 558 metre 9th averaged 4.7, whereas the piddly 297 metre 15th played right on its par.

Many of the classic courses featured and talked about on this website seem to feature 3 or4 great little short par fours, how do they stack up against the par five's in matters of par?

And why is the short ones that so often go missing?  Surely it must be more difficult to find 500-odd metres of land nicely suited for a par five?  Surely a short par four is also cheaper to build and maintain than a par five?

[tonyt]

Amen.

Even the short par 4 that aspires to be a great hole but maybe misses it's mark, can still be one of the most exciting and anticipated in the round.

For me, Belfry #10 doesn't work as well as it's concept possibly could, and yet with the tee up at the Ryder Cup, it was great spectator matchplay.

[Matthew Mollica]

Spot on Tony and Mark. These are the sorts ofholes that make golf great. CPC #9, RMW #3 & #10, TOC #12, ANGC #3, KH #3, Riviera #10, and loads more others. I played National Moonah today, and my playing partner and I bemoaned the absence of just such a hole. We even resorted to re-routing the holes, making a short 4 from the elevated 5th tee, to the nearby par 5 15th green!

Short par 4s take courage, intelligence and guile to design, and even more of this to play well. I think that so many designers are so scared of club and ball advances, that they just can't be bothered fiddling around with a shortish hole, which they suspect would be overpowered soon after having  been built. It's a hame, as smart design can see such holes define a course.

Commonwealth has a goodie too Tony (#14). I'm not sure if you know about it  

MM

[ian]

When people are obsessed with yardage, it takes a lot of large numbers to get to 7500 yards. The same individuals actually claim that a 370 yard hole is a modern short par 4 .

I was thinking the other day of all the favourite holes I have seen this year, and I immediately thought of #15 at French Creek. This clever short our stands out as one of my favourites among some pretty nice company.

[TEPaul]

I don't believe the lack of popularity and production of the short to very short and complicated par 4 in the modern era has as much to do with the fact that designer's feel they will be weak holes in a scoring sense as it has to do with the fact that they inherently bring down TOTAL CARD YARDAGE! Total card yardage seems to be the over-riding interest, concern and desire on modern golf courses! If an architect or client feels some over-riding need to have a course of 7,000 yards or over it's just very difficult to include in the course's routing a number of really short par 4s which used to be a standard on most of the great old courses of the former era!

[A_Clay_Man]

This is one of the aspects that Baxter Spann seems to utilize extremely well. Not only the short fours at Black Mesa but the short 5's, too. Both at Black Mesa and Riverview.

There more fun for us "Joes" and I think even the big boys enjoy the risk reward aspect of nailing one 360, with death evreywhere but perfect.

[tonyt]

Adam,

To some extent, I still believe that to create a number of ideal short par 4s, would involve a perfectly nailed 360 yard drive putting one 30-50 yards over the green.

[A_Clay_Man]

tonyt- I understand what you're saying and the short fours are less yardage than that at Black Mesa. As I was writting, I was reminded of the one time this summer I met up with a twosome on this 360 par 4 the 13th at Riverview. I had never seen anyone try for it but this guy (I guess he's legendary in town) goes for it, left himself a 20 footer up hill. It was exciting to watch and as long as the hole gives everyone options to play(which it does) to their ability, the length is perfect for pushing the envelope. But mind you it was not intended as a short four in the driveable sense, unlike the two at Black Mesa, which were.

[Mark_F]

TE Paul,

Is it really that bad that total yardage is assumed to make a course "good" or "great" before any other consideration?

Maybe some of the other Australians who post here can give their thoughts, but the 7600 yard Moonah Links, for example, didn't "seem" to be all that long to me.  I didn't play from the back, and on some holes there may be a hundred metres or so difference, but then again on my one round there I used a four wood off most of the tees, and there's an easy hundred metre between my four wood and an Adam Scott drive...

Much of the talk down here has been about how tough the course will be for the Australian Open, but I think that, unless the weather is ridiculous, or they do something stupid to the course, scoring won't be all that much higher than the miniscule club courses the Australian Open is usually played on.

Par fives obviously inflate total yardage a fair bit, yet why design par fives that can be easily reached in two by good players most of the time, just to have that nice comforting 7000 plus yardage?

Do you, or anyone else know, how architects are given briefs these days?  Is it "Build me the best course you can", or do some developers honestly insist on "7500 yards minimum, buddy?"