Do we really need any holes longer than driveable par-4’s?

[Thomas Dai]

Do we really need any holes longer than driveable par-4’s?
Um?


Say we have ....
18 holes of variable length between very short like <100 yds and driveable par-4 length, say for arguments sake 350 yds, with a few different tee-boxes on each hole to provide variable length/angle.
Each hole to have a really evil, highly challenging green surrounded by all sorts of humps and hollows and bunkers etc.
Some tee-boxes to be flat, some sloping to give variety in stances and lies.


Now ....
Long hitters and those who get thrill and satisfaction from giving the ball a damn good thump off the tee can go for the green on the longer holes from whichever tee-box they may be able to reach the green from.
Those who get thrill and satisfaction from playing long approach shots into greens can do so from the tee on the middling length holes and maybe some of the longer ones too.
Those who get thrill and satisfaction from playing intricate shots into the greens can do that on all the holes with either their first, second, third etc shots.


Do we really need much more than this?
Smaller area.
Less costs.
Quicker rounds.
Challenge and fun still with plenty of thrill and satisfaction.


Thoughts?


Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Personally, I think that two-shot holes are the essence of the game.  At least, they are the essence of golf architecture . . . trying to decide where to drive the ball to give yourself the best chance of getting close to the hole.


If you're going to reduce the game to essentially all one-shot holes for the best players, you might as well just hold the competitions at Top Golf.

[David_Tepper]

I suppose the question is "Driveable by who?" (or is it whom? )

Lincoln Park in San Francisco comes close, a par-68 course of 5,150 yards, where the 3 longest par-4's are 359, 334, & 389 yards from the blue tees. Six of the twelve par-4's are under 300 yards. However, all but one of them play uphill. The one par-5 is 500 yards. Three of the par-3's are over 200 yards.

The scorecard: 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e148af5dbf4a5ba1728ffedd17031ff4?AccessKeyId=6F5A4831EF967E1E4C09&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
 
Good fun to play, especially for a short hitter like me.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Personally, I think that two-shot holes are the essence of the game.  At least, they are the essence of golf architecture . . . trying to decide where to drive the ball to give yourself the best chance of getting close to the hole.


If you're going to reduce the game to essentially all one-shot holes for the best players, you might as well just hold the competitions at Top Golf.

Tom,


What's the smallest green that a 10-12 handicap player could hit +50% of the time from 100 yards? If you were to build a course with the general idea of being short that had minimally tiny greens could that setup be used to combat the idea of each hole being a one-shot hole for the best players?


I'm imagining something like 18 holes of Riv 10.

[Thomas Dai]

Personally, I think that two-shot holes are the essence of the game.  At least, they are the essence of golf architecture . . . trying to decide where to drive the ball to give yourself the best chance of getting close to the hole.
If you're going to reduce the game to essentially all one-shot holes for the best players, you might as well just hold the competitions at Top Golf.

Tom,
What's the smallest green that a 10-12 handicap player could hit +50% of the time from 100 yards? If you were to build a course with the general idea of being short that had minimally tiny greens could that setup be used to combat the idea of each hole being a one-shot hole for the best players?
I'm imagining something like 18 holes of Riv 10.

The 10th at Riviera was the kind of a hole I had in mind. Holes like Calamity at Portrush, the Redan at North Berwick, the tiny but evil 8th at Burnhams Channel Course as well.
Not thinking about just the best players either. There'd be scope for all abilities to play holes such as these but play them in different ways depending on their age, ability, physical strength, skill, expectations etc etc.
There'd be a whole bunch of challenge as well, plus temptation, and analysing temptation is a key aspect within the mental skill that is course management, for a whole spectrum of players without the need for a large area of land.
Just a discussion point though.
atb

[Ken Moum]

Personally, I'd much prefer the Ely model, where there are 16 two-shot holes. Make them all par fours.


It's much easier to keep track of who's over or under par.



K

[jeffwarne]

Goat Hill in a nutshell.
No par 5's, a par 4 that's a 5 iron to a five wood to drive for experts, par 3's that are 9 iron, 6-7 iron and one that's 4 iron to 3 wood.
the rest are par 4's, three of which I've seen driven, two more 400ish par 4's which are as hard of holes as you'll find.
2500 yards of strategy and interest and a variety of clubs used, yet driver used to tee off on 5 of 6 par 4's.

[Sean_A]

Personally, I think that two-shot holes are the essence of the game.  At least, they are the essence of golf architecture . . . trying to decide where to drive the ball to give yourself the best chance of getting close to the hole.

If you're going to reduce the game to essentially all one-shot holes for the best players, you might as well just hold the competitions at Top Golf.

I agree, but I still take WW's point. The 275 to 315 range could do with further exploration. Equally, the 450 to 475 range isn't well represented.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

It would be a shame for an architect not to take full advantage of the distance-related options that a variety of Par 4s provide. Hitting 3 wood instead of driver off the tee on a long Par 4, knowing that it will leave me a hybrid instead of a mid iron but making that choice because of a particular combination of fairway width & green complex & pin position, is very enjoyable to me  -- and an underrated aspect of strategic golf.

[James Brown]

Yes!  You have to test more than driver and wedge.  My ideal course makes you hit every club in the bag on approach shots, or at least close to it. 

[Tom_Doak]

What's the smallest green that a 10-12 handicap player could hit +50% of the time from 100 yards? If you were to build a course with the general idea of being short that had minimally tiny greens could that setup be used to combat the idea of each hole being a one-shot hole for the best players?

I'm imagining something like 18 holes of Riv 10.

Well, the 10th at Riviera has an alternate green the club uses 1-2 days per week, because the real green isn't big enough for all the traffic the course gets.  So you can't really build a course with 18 tiny greens.


I have no objection to a course with a bunch of short par-4's, and agree with Sean that having some holes in the 230 to 310 range would add a great deal of interest and substitute well for a smaller sampling of par-5 holes.


You're not going to make an elite player "hit every club in the bag" on a course like that unless you've got eight or ten par-3's.  But I don't think that is as important as others do.  Plus, I'm down to five clubs again, so it isn't hard to make it happen for me   

[David_Elvins]

Its an interesting question, ATB.


On a related note, I have been playing a fair bit of pitch and putt golf this year and I am not certain that golf is a superior game to pitch and putt.

[Thomas Dai]

Some very interesting responses so far.
The greens could be big Tom, multiple pins positions, humps and hollows, run offs and all that.
Like it David, pitch-n-putt more interesting than conventional golf.
Lots of other Goat Hills/Shelter Islands around as well Jeff. Many a course, often of the more rural and rustic variety, just 9-holes, built circa 1890-early 1900's but never extended when the longer travelling ball came into being.
Indeed maybe what I've described in the OP could become almost by default the future of golf if the game continues to go down the longer distance avenue but land to extend courses stops to exist. Food for thought?
atb

[archie_struthers]

 


maybe because i"m the worst driver on the planet   I'm not the biggest fan of driveable par fours. Once in a while they are fun but the need to force them into every routing leaves me cold.


Ten of them might send me to the funny farm!

[Mark Kiely]

I'm having nightmares from the pace of play I imagine on such a course.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm having nightmares from the pace of play I imagine on such a course.

Ask Jeff Warne if Goat Hill is slow.


If such a course was very busy, you might have to wait longer on some tees, but the overall time for the round should still be less, with less ground to cover.

[Thomas Dai]

If such a course was very busy, you might have to wait longer on some tees, but the overall time for the round should still be less, with less ground to cover.

+1
Also, if ‘drive-up’ as it’s called in some places, where those on the green stand aside while those behind tee-off, play should be quicker.
And Archie, it doesn’t have to be ten driveables, all sorts of combinations are possible.
Atb

[Bruce Katona]

Pace of play for the average foursome of mid-teen handicap golfers for the following few reasons;


1. Looking for wayward shots in the taller rough/woodline.
2. Taking more than 1 stroke to get out of greenside sand traps.
3. Green speeds that are much above 10 as this can dictate 3 putts for more than 1 player in a group.


The above doesn't typically apply to most here on GCA as many posters are well above average players, with solid single digit handicaps or less.  I always though at the more difficult courses it would be a goof idea to include a dozen new balls (cost built into the green/cart fee price) in each cart for the customer so they would stop looking for golf balls until at least the back 9 when the supply of new ammo was exhausted......but what do i know anyway.

[Garland Bayley]

Do we really need any holes longer than driveable par-4’s?

Yes!

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55136.0.html

[Thomas Dai]

Do we really need any holes longer than driveable par-4’s?
Yes!
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55136.0.html

Reminds me of pantomime and Punch and Judy ...... "Oh no we don't!" "Oh yes you do!"

atb

[Garland Bayley]

Personally, I think that two-shot holes are the essence of the game.  At least, they are the essence of golf architecture . . .

The essence of golf architecture in the John Low school of thought. But, was it the essence of golf architecture before John Low came along? Was it the essence of golf architecture in the time of the feathery? I think not.

[MCirba]

The answer overall is "yes", we do need courses with holes longer than driveable par 4's.   


However, the course I joined this year that was the first course I ever played where I grew up is about 2,000 yards, par 32 with only one hole that's not driveable and it's quite fun.   They have excellent juniors and ladies programs which is why I joined to support the effort.

Variety and outside the box thinking is the future, as is sustainability. 

[Thomas Dai]

Could a scenario akin to this, ie nothing longer than driveable par-4’s, become almost by default the future of golf courses if equipment, both ball and clubs, and players physical attributes as well, continue to develop allowing shots to travel ever further but land to extend courses stops for whatever reason to exist?

[/size]Atb[/color]

[David_Tepper]

Thomas D. -

Please define what makes a par-4 "driveable?" What distance of a hole are you referring to?  What percentage of golfers in the world do you think drive the ball more than 300 yards?


Given that the vast majority of golfers don't drive the ball more than 250 yards, for them there is no such thing as a driveable par-4. 


DT

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas D. -
Please define what makes a par-4 "driveable?" What distance of a hole are you referring to?  What percentage of golfers in the world do you think drive the ball more than 300 yards?
Given that the vast majority of golfers don't drive the ball more than 250 yards, for them there is no such thing as a driveable par-4. 
DT

I'm wondering about the next few years/decades.
Driveable from the tee by some.
atb