Did the ODGs sometimes ‘Originally Intend’ long irons into Par 4s

[Peter Pallotta]

Did some of the great golden age architects on some of their great golden age courses “originally intend” for average golfers to be hitting long irons into Par 4s, at least on occasion?

And if so, has that particular original intention — and that particular golf shot/challenge — been brought back to the modern game as part of the many restorations and sympathetic renovations of famous old courses we’ve seen over the last few years?

[Tom_Doak]

It's pretty hard to make it happen.  Some guys are hitting long irons into the 1st & 14th at Memorial Park, but those are converted par-5 holes playing 510-520 yards.  And somehow Koepka had 150 yards for his approach to #1 yesterday.

[JESII]

Tom,


He’s asking about average golfers.


Curious to hear what history says.


Clearly a driver wedge hole for an expert will have been a long iron for an average player but I’m curious, too, if the intent was there.

[Tim Martin]

18 Merion East

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - yes I think that’s one of them.

So many high quality renovations over these last many years, but discussions and critiques seem always to focus on aspects like lost / shrunken greens and contouring, fairway widths, bunkers, and trees and sight lines.

But IF the ODGs at least sometimes and on some of their great courses intended average golfers & everyday club members to be hitting long irons into Par 4s, and if in the decades since that original intention has been obscured by new club and ball technology, isn’t ‘restoring’ some of those shots/challenges a legitimate goal of any renovation?

I ask because a) I don’t know the history very well and b) that aspect of recent renovations is hardly ever mentioned — in fact I can’t remember ever reading about it.

That the 18th at Merion is the only one you mention and the only one I can think of seems telling.

[Peter Flory]

If the architect intended the average player to hit a long iron in, then that would be like intending a scratch player to hit a short iron in.  Aren't there thousands of holes that were designed like this? 

[mike_malone]

I think the original intent on 8 at Rolling Green required a wood even for the expert golfer on a par four. Of course they only had yardage and the hole number on the design! 
2 on the C nine at Huntingdon Valley is similar originally.


I think it may have been a Flynn thing —- ballbuster par four.


Wayne Morrison sent me this list.




https://drive.google.com/file/d/10d0au2f0OZRH5d-Va0cS9qDdEA8ax9eO/view?usp=drivesdk









Sorry Wayne I can’t seem to get it right!

[Thomas Dai]

Not convinced many average handicappers of any era could hit a long iron made during the ODG period even half decent.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Not convinced many average handicappers of any era could hit a long iron made during the ODG period even half decent.
Atb

A lot of holes were intended as par-4's for elite golfers and "Bogey 5's" for members. They barely moved the tee forward, and many holes had a bunker 40-50 yards short of the green to discourage members from going for it.

[Sean_A]

Pietro
I am not sure I understand the question. Are you assuming that if a long iron was required for expert players that average players could reach these greens in two?

There was a plethora of holes between 340 and 380. I don't think expert players often needed long irons, but I suspect a large percentage of average players did for these holes.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - thanks for asking, I didn’t realize my questions were unclear.

1. Circa the 1920s, did golden age architects design some/many Par 4s that required the average golfer of the day to hit long iron approach shots?
2. If so, have some/many of those Par 4s been ‘restored’?

In other words, on classic golden age courses still being played in 2020 (including the many that have been/are being renovated) is that ‘original intent’ now being honoured?

Are today’s average golfers once again being asked to hit long irons/hybrid approaches on those same holes?

[So far examples ‘in the affirmative’ include the 18th at Merion and the 8th at Rolling Green.]

Now, if I understood you and Peter F correctly, you’re saying that, yes, there were literally hundreds of such holes designed during the golden age — ie holes that required average golfers back then to hit long irons into Par 4s; but if that’s the case, where have they all gone? I rarely read about such holes-golf shots these days, despite a couple of decades’ worth of courses being lengthened and restored and sympathetically renovated.

Or (it just occurred to me): are they in fact all ‘still there’, but simply ‘incognito’? Are they being disguised by the use of multiple tee boxes/teeing grounds?

[Tim_Weiman]

Did some of the great golden age architects on some of their great golden age courses “originally intend” for average golfers to be hitting long irons into Par 4s, at least on occasion?

And if so, has that particular original intention — and that particular golf shot/challenge — been brought back to the modern game as part of the many restorations and sympathetic renovations of famous old courses we’ve seen over the last few years?

Peter,


I am a little unclear what you are asking. It appears you are asking about the intent of ODGs as it relates to average golfer (not the most skilled) and hitting long irons into greens.


Are you asking whether these architects intended average golfers to hit long irons while understanding that skilled players would hit shorter irons?


If that is your question, I would find that hard to believe.

[Sven Nilsen]

1.  Yes


2.  N/A - the game has evolved

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
No idea what you are getting at here.  You obviously know classic courses were designed with long and short "Par 4s".  What did you think the architect intended the average golfer to do on those longer holes??  The same goes for short and long par threes?  I don't understand the question. 

[JESII]

Did they design the strategies and green complexes with the average player long iron approach?


I’m thinking equally important; have the restovation efforts retained/recaptured that intent?

[Mike Bodo]

I think when examining this question it's important to keep in context the period in which Golden Age courses were built, the equipment used at the time and the average skill level of most golfers. Those who played the sport then were using hickories and gutta percha balls. With the exception of a very select few, all were amateurs. The disparity in distance in the length the best amateurs could hit ball vs. the average or good amateur isn't anywhere near what it is today. If i had to guess, I'd be willing to say Bobby Jones could hit the ball 20 - 30 yds. longer on average than most B level amateurs of the day, whereas the top pros today hit the ball 40 - 50 yards longer than your typical 10 - 15 handicapper. In short, the distance gap needing to be accounted for in Golden Age course designs wasn't nearly as dramatic or severe as it is today. Where a B level amateur was hitting a 4 iron for an approach shot into a green a top amateur of the day may be hitting a 6 iron. Contrast that to today. If say I have 175 yd. approach shot to a green on a par 4 I'm hitting 5 iron whereas a touring pro is hitting a 9 iron or pitching wedge from that same distance. There's only so much "lengthening" that can be done on the vast majority of Golden Age courses, as most were built on small parcels of land by today's standards. Heck, most barely had enough space for a proper practice range. They shoehorned those things in where they could without any forethought that there may come a day where players are hitting practice balls 275 - 300 yds. As such, we're at a place and time where the vast majority of these courses are unable to lengthen holes to account for the way the original architects intended them to play.


In the 10's, 20's and 30's a green on a par 4 designed with a long iron approach shot in mind typically was large and open in the front, allowing balls that landed short the ability to run up on it. If a hole was designed with a short iron approach, the green would tend to be smaller and more closed in the front, placing emphasis on landing the ball on the green. If Golden Age courses could be lengthened to account for the distance today's average player hits the ball, holes requiring long iron approaches could conceivably restore green complexes to how the original architect intended them to look and play. Those that can't be lengthened or lengthened enough may have to resort to things such as diminishing or closing access to the greens as a means of defending par or making the green complexes smaller, as sad as it is to say.

[Mark_Fine]

I think we all know a good player (even some average players) can hit a long iron as high and as soft as some players hit their wedges.  I don’t buy the design strategy that every green needs to be designed to handle a certain kind of golf shot.  If that was the case, there would be sooo much uniformity in golf course design.  My wife for example struggles to hit any shot more than 40 or 50 feet in the air.  Many golfers hit the ball that low with any club they choose.  I think architects expect all kinds of shots to happen on their golf holes.  If you study someone like Ross he talks a lot about this.  Remember these guys weren’t all that concerned about “fairness”.  They didn’t think that word had any place in golf. 

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


Equipment has changed so much, it’s very difficult to know, much less replicate, the intent the ODG’s had in mind when they did their thing. Dimple patterns alone have changed the flight of the ball, and the ODG’s obviously weren’t designing for 100 years later....I’m certain that, while they knew equipment changes were inevitable, the ability to understand today’s game wasn’t possible.


There is a par 3 at Barton Hills (Donald Ross) that is over 200 yards, has a deep chasm between tee and green, and the green tilts from front left to beck right. There is a knob just short and left of the green. Knowing that most every golfer would have to hit everything they had, with a ball that didn’t get too high off the ground, it becomes easier to imagine what DR was giving the golfer as an option to play the hole with success.


So, to answer your question (which seems plain and clear to me), I’m sure there was a variety of par 4’s on ODG courses....some were meant to be reached with a long iron by the average golfer....and they often were designed with an avenue that was accommodating to a low, running shot. If a golfer was wise and understood the hazards and skill level they possessed, they may very well have chosen to take three strikes to reach a green on a long par 4.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - thanks for the clarity.
Sven - thanks for the ‘yes’, and I have a feeling that the N/A actually means ‘no’
Mark - the question is: when you renovate golden age courses or create master plans for such renovations, do you make sure to have Par 4s where average golfers have to hit long iron/hybrid approaches, if that was the original intention?
Joe - thanks much for the detailed answer. Your approach to the question & the points you make seem aligned to Sven’s N/A and his reference to the game having ‘evolved’ — and that’s valid. But your last point strikes me as where the rubber hits the road on this: when renovating classic old courses, today’s architects are getting the bunkers ‘right’ and the fairways ‘right’ and the greens ‘right’, but I can’t remember reading many examples of them getting (or even trying to get) that particular challenge and choice ‘right’, ie requiring today’s average golfers to make a similar choice and take three shots to reach a Par 4, if they know they can't get there with a long iron/hybrid.
(Hope you’re well, Joe — I realized last week that I’m now only a five hour drive from Gamble Sands and 13 hours to Bandon, so look forward to seeing your work there one day soon.)

[Peter Pallotta]

And Mike - meant to thank you for your post too: yes, your point about the relatively small (compared to today) disparity between the good amateur and the pro back then was always in the back of my mind with this question.

[Sean_A]

Sean - thanks for asking, I didn’t realize my questions were unclear.

1. Circa the 1920s, did golden age architects design some/many Par 4s that required the average golfer of the day to hit long iron approach shots?
2. If so, have some/many of those Par 4s been ‘restored’?

In other words, on classic golden age courses still being played in 2020 (including the many that have been/are being renovated) is that ‘original intent’ now being honoured?

Are today’s average golfers once again being asked to hit long irons/hybrid approaches on those same holes?

[So far examples ‘in the affirmative’ include the 18th at Merion and the 8th at Rolling Green.]

Now, if I understood you and Peter F correctly, you’re saying that, yes, there were literally hundreds of such holes designed during the golden age — ie holes that required average golfers back then to hit long irons into Par 4s; but if that’s the case, where have they all gone? I rarely read about such holes-golf shots these days, despite a couple of decades’ worth of courses being lengthened and restored and sympathetically renovated.

Or (it just occurred to me): are they in fact all ‘still there’, but simply ‘incognito’? Are they being disguised by the use of multiple tee boxes/teeing grounds?

Pietro

For the average player I don't think there can be any doubt archies wanted them to hit long irons into greens. Although, I am not sure 18 Merion counts because it has been a very long par 4 from 100 years ago no? I think this would have been an expert's par 4 and the average golfer's up and down par 4.

I would say some reachable, but long par 4s grew with the times and some didn't. Other, formerly very long 4s such as 18 Merion are now reachable for many average golfers.

Ciao

[Jeff Loh]

Mike B
The guttie was gone by 1910.
Hickories (mostly) by 1930.

[Mike Bodo]

Mike B
The guttie was gone by 1910.
Hickories (mostly) by 1930.

Thanks, Jeff. I thought the Gutta was still around, but there was a different version of it that had a rubber core by the early 1900's or was that considered the Haskell ball?

[Jeff Loh]

Mike
Exactly. Original guttie was all gutta percha. Haskell/Rubber core changed everything.
Irons, golf courses, etc...