[Ryan Book]

Having played The Loop earlier this year, I immediately tried to find an objective reason why I enjoyed Black more. It seemed to me that Black featured a great range of par four lengths (several quite large and several quite short) even when compared to Red. I measured the "mean distance from the median" (MDFM) for the average par four at each course because A) just measuring a standard deviation could make outliers of the most extreme hole lengths and B) "MDFM" sounds like an industrial band. Comparing the two Loops, I found that I was correct; Black had a (slightly) higher MDFM than Red. Not stopping there, I took the best ranked courses from three modern architects to see A) if a higher MDFM correlated to course rankings and B) if the kinds of architects favored in modern GCA chatter (Doak, Coore) had much higher MDFMs than those who weren't (Fazio). The answers were "no" and "yes, but not aggressively so," respectively.

The truly eye-opening development was comparing the MDFMs at courses by Doak/Coore/Fazio against those of Ross/Raynor/Tillinghast. The variety of distances between par fours on any given course during the Golden Age was significantly less than those at modern builds.  For example, the average distance of a par four at Seminole is just 18 yards from the median par four's distance...that same value is 43 yards at Gozzer Ranch, which falls somewhere in the middle of the modern architects I sampled. The mean distance from the median par four length at Kapalua Plantation is a mind-boggling 70 yards. And yes: I did use corrective adjustments so that the final MDFM value for each course reflects what the value would be if the course were the same distance as Loop Black's middle tees. This is not merely a reflection of increased length at modern courses.

My theory is that modern architects are less chained to the concept of par; even audiences who typically play strokeplay still adore the matchplay design sensibilities of an Old Macdonald-type course, which doesn't shy away from exaggerating its par fours long or short.

For an even wind-baggier read, you can catch all my hot air here. I am of course open to other theories as to the "why."


Measuring the Variance in Par Four Distance as a Component of Course Rankings | BPBM

[Brian Finn]

I'd be very curious to know how some of the links courses of GB&I compare by this measure. 

[Jason Topp]

Interesting theory Ryan.  Remember that golf is a 3D game played in wind so ideally that would somehow be taken into account. At Kapalua, the trade wind is close to 20 mph and blows down the severe slope of the course.  As a result, a 400 yard downhill hole can be driveable (6 or 12) and a 350 yard uphill hole can require two healthy blows.  In theory you could have holes that vary greatly in distance but effectively play similar distances. 


I do think that courses built in the 50's and 60's tended to follow a standard formula of a bunch of 400 yard par 4's with one short one per nine and perhaps a long one, long par 3's to increase the playing yardage and relatively short par 5's.  The result would be a healthy total distance on a course that did not beat the player up too much. 


As for Golden Age courses, there are some writings on hole lengths that you can find.  I would have thought that there would have been more variation in length.  Your data suggests that is not the case which is quite interesting. 

[Ryan Book]

I had the same thought. Remind me in a few years when I feel like number crunching again!

I'd be very curious to know how some of the links courses of GB&I compare by this measure.

[Ryan Book]

You are of course correct; the best architects of any age are surely thinking about a sensible route foremost versus a yardage. Donald Ross may not have offered a wide variety of lengths at Seminole but few would deny he created a variety of holes nonetheless.


I also cheated a bit by using Seminole as an example in my first entry above...it's toward the tail end of the spectrum in this regard. Still, I believe Shoreacres was the "most varied" in terms of par four lengths, and it clocked in at about the same as Gozzer. I suppose I was a little surprised by the relative lack of length variety among the MacRaynor courses. I suppose I expected some combination of Road / Prize Dogleg / Punchbowl with a group of Leven / Bottle / Whathaveyou to have really blended up the scorecard!

Interesting theory Ryan.  Remember that golf is a 3D game played in wind so ideally that would somehow be taken into account. At Kapalua, the trade wind is close to 20 mph and blows down the severe slope of the course.  As a result, a 400 yard downhill hole can be driveable (6 or 12) and a 350 yard uphill hole can require two healthy blows.  In theory you could have holes that vary greatly in distance but effectively play similar distances. 


I do think that courses built in the 50's and 60's tended to follow a standard formula of a bunch of 400 yard par 4's with one short one per nine and perhaps a long one, long par 3's to increase the playing yardage and relatively short par 5's.  The result would be a healthy total distance on a course that did not beat the player up too much. 


As for Golden Age courses, there are some writings on hole lengths that you can find.  I would have thought that there would have been more variation in length.  Your data suggests that is not the case which is quite interesting. 

[Ken Moum]

Two courses that taught me how much this can factor into making for an interesting design are the divine Elie and the NLE C&C Sugarloaf Mountain in Florida.


Elie's 16 par fours range from ~250 to 460 yards.  If you played it without a card, there's no chance you'd guess it had to par threes of 131 and 214 yards, with every other holes being a par four.


Sugarloaf, on the only mountain I'm aware of in Florida, had a similar spread, and equally significant, it' shortest four and longest three we about the same length.  One playing downhill, and the other uphill.


As a short hitter, I hate courses that throw a bunch of mid-length fours at me.  They all end up being two wood shots.

[David_Tepper]

I think there was a thread about this subject here within the past year or two.

James Braid had a reputation for designing courses with long and short par-4's. At Golspie and Brora (2 Braid courses in the Scottish Highlands) the par-4's are either under 350 yards or over 395 yards.

[Adam Lawrence]

I strongly suspect that much of the reason for the difference between old and new courses is that the lengthening that the old ones have been through over a century or so has made the holes lengths more samey. Shorter holes are obvious candidates for new tees to be installed by committees looking for more length. Long ones get less attention.

[Ryan Book]

This is an interesting theory, and one with logic behind it...if anyone has an original record of hole yardages for <choose a club from the graph in my post that has a MDFM less than 30>, I'd be both willing to do the math and curious to see how this plays out.

I strongly suspect that much of the reason for the difference between old and new courses is that the lengthening that the old ones have been through over a century or so has made the holes lengths more samey. Shorter holes are obvious candidates for new tees to be installed by committees looking for more length. Long ones get less attention.

[Michael Felton]

One thing to consider here I think is that Standard Deviation might not be the best measure here.


For example, if you had two courses. One has par 4s of:


250, 270, 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 410, 430, 450, and 470. The other has:
250, 250, 250, 250, 250, 250, 450, 450, 450, 450, 450, and 450.


The standard deviation of the first course is about 69, while the second is 100. I think most would agree that the first one offers more variation though.

[Ryan Book]

You'll note from the initial post that I did NOT use standard deviation as the metric. The actual measure I used (again, see above) won't find a workaround for your trick example either. Unfortunately, you'll just need to trust me when I promise that none of the courses looked at as part of this exercise had such clearly disruptive data as to require me to show the mode as well as the MDFM.


Needless to say, if a course with two half-dozens sets of par fours that are the same exact distance manages to make some U.S. ranking, we probably have bigger issues on our hands. 

One thing to consider here I think is that Standard Deviation might not be the best measure here.


For example, if you had two courses. One has par 4s of:


250, 270, 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 410, 430, 450, and 470. The other has:
250, 250, 250, 250, 250, 250, 450, 450, 450, 450, 450, and 450.


The standard deviation of the first course is about 69, while the second is 100. I think most would agree that the first one offers more variation though.

[Matthew Lloyd]

Ryan, very curious on your assessment of Black v. Red in terms of the variety of length on par 4s. What set of tees did you play from? I ask because it feels like the metrics come out fairly even from the back tees, but despite this I did come away feeling like the Black routing had more variability in the distances on the par 4s.


From the back tees, here are some metrics to consider:


Par 4s over 440 yards:
Red - five holes (#5, #8, #10, #16, #18)
Black - four holes (#1, #3, #9, #14)


Par 4s under 320 yards:
Red - one hole (#12)
Black - one hole (#7)


Par 4s between 360-420 yards:
Red - four holes (#1, #3, #7, #15)
Black - three holes (#4, #11, #12)


Average par 4 length:
Red - 418 yards
Black - 412 yards


Par 4s going uphill enough to impact strategy: (based on memory)
Red - #5, #8, #18
Black - #1, #12, #14, #18


The minutia on this probably isn't important. As mentioned, I felt the same way after playing the two courses, and would have guessed that the metrics were a bit further apart. Perhaps they are from the middle tees. We noticed the often huge gaps in distance on some of the par 4s between tee boxes for sure. Both courses play much longer than the actual yardage, that's for sure.


*** Looking at one detail in particular: we found that Black #7 and Red #12 play very differently despite essentially the same yardage. I think the hole numbers are correct - the "drivable" slightly downhill par 4 on the black, and then the uphill tee shot on the back nine on the Red. Black #7 plays more like a drivable hole and is more of a "change of pace" than the uphill return hole on Red - which added a degree of variability to that round ***


Curious to hear more of your thoughts on this as I'm obsessed with The Loop but when pitching the courses to others I find that I can never quite articulates its merits as convincingly as I'd like.

[Tim_Weiman]

I strongly suspect that much of the reason for the difference between old and new courses is that the lengthening that the old ones have been through over a century or so has made the holes lengths more samey. Shorter holes are obvious candidates for new tees to be installed by committees looking for more length. Long ones get less attention.

Adam,


It would probably take a lot of research to confirm your theory, but it does seem to make sense.


Tim

[Ryan Book]

Matthew, I didn't too into the weeds on the origin of this project because, despite the vibes, there was not much that objectively proved the Black Loop was any more varied in its par four distances than the Red (which most of your numbers point to being the case). I took my numbers from the middle tees and, while Black did indeed have a higher MDFM value (implying more variety), the difference between the two was too minute to suggest a significant difference.


I'd need to do a real hole-by-hole comparison to explain the psychological reasoning for why the two of us shared a gut feeling as to why Black subjectively felt more varied than Red. I've got a few theories, some of which you hinted at as well.

1) The short par fours came across as more gettable on Black. It seemed that nos. 4, 7 and 12 on Black would have been doable for golfers bigger hitting than I, due to their downhill nature. Honestly a few holes of a similar distance on Red -- nos. 1 and 7 -- didn't strike me as par 3.5s per se. The former hole leads into my next thought...


2) "First impressions are important impressions." It's a popular belief that the last hole has the biggest impact on one's remembrance of a round but I'm not sure that the opening hole doesn't have equal opportunity to set a tone. Here, the Black opens with a beefy par four; the Red opens with a quite short par four, but it's not a drivable one...much more of the "relaxed handshake" opener. Perhaps if it were 30 yards shorter, we'd both be remembering the Red course as more varied due to its noticeable opener! A flimsy theory, but a theory.


3) I'd really need to dig into each hole's topography but there's no doubt that, somewhere, the uphill nature of certain holes makes the difference. For example (getting away from par fours), if you had asked me at the end of both rounds what the longest par three on either course was, I would have answered No. 13 on Black. It's not...it's nearly 20 yards shorter than No. 11 at Red. One is uphill and one is down. As Jason noted earlier, golf is 3D and that the objective reality of that impacts subjective perceptions as well.

Ryan, very curious on your assessment of Black v. Red in terms of the variety of length on par 4s. What set of tees did you play from? I ask because it feels like the metrics come out fairly even from the back tees, but despite this I did come away feeling like the Black routing had more variability in the distances on the par 4s.


From the back tees, here are some metrics to consider:


Par 4s over 440 yards:
Red - five holes (#5, #8, #10, #16, #18)
Black - four holes (#1, #3, #9, #14)


Par 4s under 320 yards:
Red - one hole (#12)
Black - one hole (#7)


Par 4s between 360-420 yards:
Red - four holes (#1, #3, #7, #15)
Black - three holes (#4, #11, #12)


Average par 4 length:
Red - 418 yards
Black - 412 yards


Par 4s going uphill enough to impact strategy: (based on memory)
Red - #5, #8, #18
Black - #1, #12, #14, #18


The minutia on this probably isn't important. As mentioned, I felt the same way after playing the two courses, and would have guessed that the metrics were a bit further apart. Perhaps they are from the middle tees. We noticed the often huge gaps in distance on some of the par 4s between tee boxes for sure. Both courses play much longer than the actual yardage, that's for sure.


*** Looking at one detail in particular: we found that Black #7 and Red #12 play very differently despite essentially the same yardage. I think the hole numbers are correct - the "drivable" slightly downhill par 4 on the black, and then the uphill tee shot on the back nine on the Red. Black #7 plays more like a drivable hole and is more of a "change of pace" than the uphill return hole on Red - which added a degree of variability to that round ***


Curious to hear more of your thoughts on this as I'm obsessed with The Loop but when pitching the courses to others I find that I can never quite articulates its merits as convincingly as I'd like.

[Simon Barrington]

I think there was a thread about this subject here within the past year or two.

James Braid had a reputation for designing courses with long and short par-4's. At Golspie and Brora (2 Braid courses in the Scottish Highlands) the par-4's are either under 350 yards or over 395 yards.

James Braid in "Advanced Golf" (1907) which IMHO is an over-looked (and oft misinterpreted) detailed and simply worded exposition of a good compromise between penal and strategic design:

"There should be a complete variety of holes, not only as regards length, but in their character - the way in which they are bunkered, the kind of tee shot that is required at them, the kind of approach, and so forth."

He went on to describe the dozen or so two-stroke holes:

"The remaining holes should vary in length between about 320 and 420 yards, those between 360 and 420 yards, representing always good two-shot holes, predominating."

He considered it was generally, but not always, good to have 4x "short holes" (Par 3's in today's parlance) and 2x "very long holes" of 500-550yds (and there are very many exceptions in his own work driven by topography and suitability to the layout)

N.B. These statements were not some "formulaic" or "scientific" (pejorative) approach that fitted all courses or even his courses.
He was clear he was suggesting ways to create a sporting and varied course on a poor piece of inland park or meadowland.

His practice and desire was always to discover holes in naturally good environments ("sandhills" being the most desired) but in growing the game that was not always possible.
Several members on here have rightly lauded Braid's great ability to route holes across seriously challenging terrain, that in itself belies the formulaic myth.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Could it be that the possible range of par 4 lengths has increased?  From 251-445 a century ago to 251-470 (or more, up to 530 in some cases)?

[Joe Hancock]

After watching golfers play a new course for the past few days, I’m convinced more than ever that “variety in length” has forever been reduced by the equipment used to play the game. Whether a hole is 360, or 450, the better player of today is hitting some sort of wedge into the green. The yardage variety is muted by the distances these golfers can hit it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()