Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Matthew Mollica on May 22, 2017, 05:51:32 PM
-
"If a player is supposed to reach the green from the tee and you're always allowed two putts, well, that's a par 3." - Alice Dye
Please discuss.
-
I'm ok with occasionally having a par-4 that is drivable, but I don't think it should be easy for a long hitter to pull it off. If it is, then Alice is right, it's a par-3.
I do think that drivable par-4's have become overused in the modern era. "Occasionally" has morphed into some people thinking your course is diminished if you don't have one, or that good drive-and-pitch holes should be remodeled so that they're drivable. Somehow, Pine Valley and Shinnecock Hills managed to be considered great courses without one.
Many of the par-4's that can be driven are in places where the wind changes the calculation from one day to the next. When you get to a course that doesn't have a lot of wind, then the calculations aren't really very interesting, and don't change from one day to the next.
-
Is reaching the green the same thing as hitting the green? The entire concept of the driveable par 4 that isn't based on downhill yards should be predicated on the idea that if the player goes for the green and fails, then par is a good score.
I like reachable 4s for the simple fact that the yardage between 275 and 300ish exploited. I like them so much that I don't care if they are called par 3s. Why should this be a dark area of the scorecard simply because a par number doesn't fit the yardage? The weakest aspect of modern design is that 230 to 330 yards is not used well or enough. How else are small footprint courses going to be built if this 100 yard range is ignored? How else can the tide of longer is better be turned? The sooner we forget about par the better golf will be. Its pathetic that 6500 yards is the new 6000 yards.
Ciao
-
I like reachable 4s for the simple fact that the yardage between 275 and 300ish exploited. I like them so much that I don't care if they are called par 3s.
275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.
-
Great stuff Sean and Tom. Thank you.
I struggle with Alice's quote. Just too black and white for me.
Speaking of holes locally, the short par four second at St Andrews Beach and Barnbougle Dunes' short par four fourth just might be the best two short fours in the country. They are both easier to reach and hold than Royal Adelaide 3, Kingston Heath 3 & Royal Melbourne West 10.
MM
-
In everyday play this becomes an issue of elasticity.
A group of friends tee off on the weekend, they all agree to play one set of tees for social reasons. One big hitter and three medium to short hitters. The long donger easily reaches the 290 yard par 4 off the tee, the other guys are hitting driver and still 40-60 yards short. Given the variability in the average joes' games I think Alice's creedo fails on many levels, unless she thinks the long guy is supposed to play his round alone from the tips...
P.S. I'm curious if she also feels no par 5 should be reached in two either.....after all, if you follow her logic, any green reached in two is clearly a par 4, not a par 5.
-
The best “drivable” par fours, or whatever you want to call them, are simply about “temptation”. They are nothing more, nothing less. They just have a different label. Some people would call #16 at Cypress a “driveable” par three. The hole provides the temptation for some to get there with your tee shot but it comes with a price.
I love the concept of a "drivable" hole. But without the risk/reward (temptation) these kind of holes that are labled “drivable par fours” are nothing more than "easy" holes, relatively speaking, but they still can be fun!
-
The short par-4 craze of the last decade has been sensational in raising awareness of golf architecture. They've proven length is overrated and they provide holes that everyone can play. They offer hope and different challenges than any other type of hole, and also provide architects with the most opportunity to create new template holes. Oh and sometimes they let a shorter hitter out think and play a long bomber.
Those who watch tournament golf know these holes have added drama, intrigue and awareness of the role risk-reward architecture can play that have made the game more fun. Sure, there have been a few that were forced or didn't work, but the majority have made tournaments far more enjoyable to watch. Even better, they've helped tell us who the best players are because they ask for different decisions and skill sets that reachable par-5s used to call on.
Using at least one and maybe more in a routing might also let an architect get away with half-par holes that lean the other way. Really, the list of attributes and possibilities they bring is long and I can't fathom where golf architecture would be if we subscribed to par as such a defining role in course design, as Alice and Tom suggest.
Tom,
While Shinnecock doesn't have a really short two-shotter that could be driven in the right conditions, I see a bunch of others that are vital short par-4s at the rest of the current Golf Mag top 10!
12th Pine Valley
9th Cypress Point
3rd Augusta National
4th at Pebble Beach
17th Oakmont
2nd National Golf Links of America
1st Merion (East)
7th Sand Hills
-
Geoff
To me you are at cross purposes. There are intentional (or at least feasible when designed) drivable 4s and there are drivable 4s which have been created by technology and have nothing to do with the design intent. Take Merion's opener...I do question the idea that it is a true drivable 4, but I have no doubt that this wasn't the intention of the design. Does making that hole drivable mean it is better? IMO, it is the 10th which should be mentioned for drivable and the design highlights the issues associated with going/not going for the green.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I just like short holes which are, under some or all conditions, potentially drivable with some risk and reward. The first at Merion is the most debatable no doubt, but it also has always been in such a fun spot to start the round, noted for generations because of the odd location for a drive and pitch.
There is no doubt some of these holes have become better with technology as more golfers can drive near or on them. And they've replaced the risk-reward that many par-5's once offered but no longer do because they are drives and 8-irons.
So when we get the ball rolled back, we'll just have to remind courses to move the tees up so that the short par-4s continue to add fun, interest and comic relief!
-
Really, the list of attributes and possibilities they bring is long and I can't fathom where golf architecture would be if we subscribed to par as such a defining role in course design, as Alice and Tom suggest.
Geoff has misrepresented every post I've made on his site today, now he comes over here to do it some more.
Sorry, Geoff, but you aren't going to teach me much about good short par-4's. Here are a few of my better ones:
4th and 12th at Barnbougle Dunes
2nd and 14th at St. Andrews Beach
3rd at Old Macdonald [hat tip to C.B. Macdonald]
7th at Tara Iti, for drivable par-4's.
6th and 16th at Pacific Dunes
7th and 12th at Ballyneal
Most of those have pretty small greens, so it's not easy to get the ball on the green, even if you are long enough to get there. Many of the drivable par-4's we see today [especially the ones on Tour] pander to the players by making a big target for the long hitters. I don't like to pander. Neither did Pete Dye.
I just don't understand why Geoff conflates "short par 4" with drivable holes. There are so many great short 4's that were NOT meant to be driven, including two or three from his list above, and there is nothing wrong with that. Witness the 2nd, 8th, and 17th at Pine Valley.
Drive and pitch holes were part of the vocabulary of every Golden Age architect. Drivable par-4's were not. Some of us are trying to minimize the gap between great players and regular golfers, not to keep widening it. The equipment companies are already doing too much of that.
-
Geoff
I certainly agree that many decent drive and pitch holes have been made more interesting due to technology allowing more people to have a choice at going for the green. Indeed, the entire range of yardage between 200 and 300 has been potentially made far more interesting due to technology and I think this range should be exploited. However, it would be a shame to lose sight of the merits of the drive and pitch hole which really should be about 315-350 yards if we discount the best players in the world. That is a major part of the problem with architecture, much of the time the ideals of design are too heavily influenced by the best players, hence we get the notion that Merion 1st is a drivable 4 when really it is damn good drive and pitch 4...super opening hole which doesn't need the element of reachability. Sadly, the hole has lost its charm for the best players. Luckily, it remains charming for the likes of me. I would like to see more holes of this ilk built today, but it seems all archies have a total yardage target to hit and that means there cannot be a few drivable 4s and a few drive and pitch 4s...its a shame that.
Ciao
-
Tom, the man who can take any thread and make it a ranking of his works! BTW, will you be ranking your best GCA posts in The Little Red Book?
Seriously, if you watched pro golf and the new 12th at TPC Sawgrass you would have learned this wild occurrence: many shorter or medium precision hitters actually drove it while bombers treated it as either an auto lay-up or a semi-layup near the approach. The ShotLink scatter charts also showed a huge reward for those who gave them better views of the hole location by taking more risk on the lay up. The old Tom Doak would have found all of that fascinating, but you don't watch pro golf these days so you wouldn't know what you're missing!
It sounds like the word drivable is the problem here for many and I suppose I just find it hard to get bogged down in semantics over what makes for fun design. The tenth at Riviera was never called drivable but it was in the early days when the ground was firm and the turf bent. Captain Thomas and Billy Bell added bunkers around the green in response prior to the 1929 LA Open. And I'm pretty sure the second at National has always been drivable, but because the word wasn't used by CB Macdonald, that somehow changes things?
-
I would just encourage everyone here to go and read Geoff's site tonight and read some of what he's said to me and to Bob Crosby in his "comments" section. It speaks for itself. Plus he'll get some clicks, and isn't that what every web site purveyor wants?
Neither the old Tom Doak nor the current one finds any of it fascinating. Sorry it has changed the focus of the thread.
-
God bless, Alice - as straight a shooter as Pete!
I'm in the minority here, I know. But, IMO, the craze for the short 4 has led, with some exceptions of course, to the establishment of the second worst "category" of golf hole in the game -- second only to the Par 5. I'm not a well traveled golfer, but I've encountered more banal Par 5s in my life than I can count...and the short 4s are catching up quickly. In much the same way that someone like Mike Davis seemed to think he was improving the architecture and making the game more interesting by messing around with tee boxes, I think that in many hands the short 4 is little more than a trick; there is nothing *inherently* more strategic or fun in it. Very good architects will design some very good short 4s, and adequate architects will design adequate short 4s. And if they're going to be merely adequate, I'd prefer a nice old fashioned Par 4 instead. I'm an average golfer - but I don't want to be pandered to. Besides which, just earlier this afternoon I hit a 280 yard drive and a 240 yard second to a par 5 green and then two putted for birdie; and on the final hole - a short Par 4 - I drove the green and again two putted for birdie. I don't say that to boast - I am indeed - based on handicap - a very average golfer indeed. But there are *many kinds* of us "average golfers"...and treating us with a little pat on the head as if we'd *all* like the short 4 is, well, annoying.
Peter
-
"If a player is supposed to reach the green from the tee and you're always allowed two putts, well, that's a par 3." - Alice Dye
Please discuss.
I have never had the privilege of knowing Mrs. Dye, but I do know enough to think that she chose her words carefully. There is a chasm between "can reach the green with a superlative shot that has great risk" and "is supposed to reach the green" and there is another chasm between "a treacherous two putt" and "always allowed two putts". And in those chasms I suggest is the difference between a mediocre long par three and a great short par four.
-
The simple reality is that the TPC of Sawgrass is synonymous with Pete Dye in a way virtually no other course is with its designer. And, as a result, The Players Chamionship itself is perceived as relying on the course and the designer to create the drama.
Must have been a difficult realization for The Tour that their flagship pseudo-major is seen as the result of Pete Dyes work...
-
8) :P
The 8th at Pine Valley is drivable for sure , but not many are foolish enough to give it a try. Likewise , #12, which when conditions are firm , is an underrated drive and pitch .
I'm not a fan of trying to force one into your design , unless an unusual landform makes it really special. Also. If the risk isn't at least commensurate with the reward , it doesn't rock my world!
-
I would just encourage everyone here to go and read Geoff's site tonight and read some of what he's said to me and to Bob Crosby in his "comments" section. It speaks for itself. Plus he'll get some clicks, and isn't that what every web site purveyor wants?
Neither the old Tom Doak nor the current one finds any of it fascinating. Sorry it has changed the focus of the thread.
Sorry Tom I disagree with you. You also started this childish debate this morning.
Petes been messing up many of his designs over the years. I respect that he refused to change Golden Age courses in his prime.
TPC is poster child and started imo the building of courses in places they never should have been, a swamp and spending sick amounts of money. For Bob to say that course is in the same league as the others mentioned is baffling. How many millions have they spent renovating that course?
You and Geoff are excellent writers, let's all grow up and have real debates.
-
I would just encourage everyone here to go and read Geoff's site tonight and read some of what he's said to me and to Bob Crosby in his "comments" section. It speaks for itself. Plus he'll get some clicks, and isn't that what every web site purveyor wants?
Neither the old Tom Doak nor the current one finds any of it fascinating. Sorry it has changed the focus of the thread.
Sorry Tom I disagree with you. You also started this childish debate this morning.
Petes been messing up many of his designs over the years. I respect that he refused to change Golden Age courses in his prime.
TPC is poster child and started imo the building of courses in places they never should have been, a swamp and spending sick amounts of money. For Bob to say that course is in the same league as the others mentioned is baffling. How many millions have they spent renovating that course?
You and Geoff are excellent writers, let's all grow up and have real debates.
Ben, so a world top 100 course, and a course that is historical very significant is not worth a little more respect?
It's not as if the tour just added a couple bunkers, they bulldozed the hole and started over! The 3rd hole isn't super exciting. What if they bulldozed that one too?
Yes, the tour and Dye have tweaked the course, but the holes all remained basically the same. Dye never built a new hole! And in my mind, if he did he would be the only person allowed that free pass.
I think Tom see's things through the eyes of a designer and artist. I am not sure he would be thrilled if in 30 years someone erases one of his holes on one of his highly regarded courses and builds an entirely new one. Especially if the new hole is not in harmony with his design principles.
I don't understand how this is so hard to understand.
-
Matt,
You lost me after your first paragraph. World top 100, lol. To be honest with you, I hope a hurricane wipes the course out. As long as no one gets hurt. One of my home courses is a dye track.
How bad did Pete butcher the 17th at crooked.?.
Doak would never build a course like Pete did in a swamp. I like the dye rtj inspired years, it's not popular.
I understand it very much so, i disagree. the whole course is a superficial swamp
-
Tom,
That's the first I've heard the click bait accusation in hours! You're on a roll. FYI you've inspired me to ponder the best of my click bait, and I came up with The Pyramid Of Successful Blog Posts on Golf Architecture. You know, because John Wooden was a nice man and wouldn't have cared.
But seriously, as to the art of golf architecture that we all love and some still want to see advanced in ways beyond their self interests...it's rather amazing that Pete Dye could go and change Pete Dye's work at TPC Sawgrass multiple times, allow others to change it, then rubber stamp Tim Finchem's further sterilization of the course over the last decade, then change the 12th hole for the worse in 2006, yet somehow we are now at you suggesting on my site that he's being taken advantage of and there has been too much made of these short par-4s in golf?
All of this is disconcerting given that a case could be made for discussion and implementation of short par-4s having been the best thing that's happened to awareness of golf architecture since...Pete Dye came along and called Robert Trent Jones' bluff.
-
Ben,
How is saying that TPC Sawgrass is a world top 100 LOL worthy? Last I checked it has been a fixture in that world top 100 since its creation.
Yes, Dye butchered the 17th at Crooked Stick. But it's his baby, and thus his baby to butcher if the membership allows. Also, while the new 17th at CS sucks, it's not like the hole is not inline with Dye's design philosophy in any way. It's just a crappy hole.
I kind of suspected that most everyone commenting hates the course, and your comment confirms that. I guess if you hate the course you don't care what happens to it. I think Tom been trying to make the point that his opinion of the 12th hole (old and new) is irrelevant, because it's not about whether or not he thinks the hole has been improved or not, it's about whether or not it needed to be bulldozed at all. If Dye wanted to bulldoze it he had ample opportunity to do so. I agree with this point.
I am not here to speak for Tom, so I will just end it with that.
-
Geoff; Has the drivable par 4 (query drivable for whom?) created more interest than the island green did when TPC Sawgrass was opened? Moreover, merely because a particular feature draws attention to the discipline, does that make it good architecture or merely attention getting. That said, I think each of them needs to be separately analyzed and evaluated. I won't generalize about a "type" of hole.
-
SL,
I think to quote you, each needs to be analyzed and evaluated.
Island green: wow factor, and in TPC Sawgrass' case, strategies for different hole locations. But since then it really hasn't expanded much interest in creating even more intricate island greens.
Short par-4s? The list of tournament holes that spawned discussion of risk/reward, architecture, course setup and that then elicited great tournament moments continues annually in golf. Some don't like it, but most have recognized that most have generated debate, discussion and intrigue, even the 14th at Torrey Pines, which I thought was sensational as a short 4 in the 2008 U.S. Open, but which continues to be cited as a terrible day for the USGA. Given the role the hole played in the outcome of that event, such a response amazes me.
But to your larger question, golf architecture was not getting much attention beyond mentions of shot values or the architects name before this "fad" came along. The depth of the discussions, the expectation levels changing for risk and reward, and the overall reduction in penal design elements can all be attributed in large part to what goes on at tournaments with risk/reward short 4s.
-
Tom, the man who can take any thread and make it a ranking of his works!
so true, LOL
-
Like Tom, I don't watch much pro golf because I find it boring tv. Unlike Tom & Bob, I don't find the already much altered Sawgrass a special example of a special archie...enough so that what was last in place by the hand of Dye should remain forever. Lets revisit Sawgrass in 30, 40, 50 years before we heap untouchable status on the place. Let us not forget that all the revered championship courses in the UK underwent huge changes in their early decades. It takes more than an annual flagship event to pronounce a course untouchable. To suggest Sawgrass should be treated like TOC etc is well beyond a stretch especially as the name archie didn't treat his original design with much reverence. Rather ironically, it seems the more pros use a course the higher the chances it will be altered. A course built for pros is almost by definition an ever changing course and that shouldn't be in the least suprising...especially to industry folks.
Ciao
-
This is a depressing thread, partly because a bunch of people who are smart and whose hearts are in the right place are at each others' throats, and partly because, despite our best efforts, we have once again become dragged into the error of seeing golf and golf design almost entirely from the perspective of Tour pros.
Guys, a 300 yard hole is NOT driveable for 90-odd per cent of golfers (I'd guess high 90s at that) unless the ground is concrete firm or there is a howling gale at your back. The overwhelming majority of these 'driveable' par fours are STILL drive and pitch holes for the overwhelming majority of golfers.
Golf architecture simply has to get away from this obsession with what the pros do. I know Sawgrass was built for the pros, and so it must continue to be seen through that prism. But we have hundreds, thousands of 'championship' courses that have never hosted any sort of championship and never will.
Screw the pros. They aren't coming to your course, and if they do, they aren't paying to play. Let's focus on the people who actually keep golf going -- the paying golfers!
-
The pro/TV game is different. They are all damn good and the outcome of their shots is generally predictable. Far from the case with amateurs with a big variety between beginners/hackers and the better player. Age groups and gender too.
As such driveable par-4's holes don't help pace of play - folks hanging around on the tee whilst Mr Big Hitter (or Mr Big Ego or Mr Thoughtless) is waiting for the group in front to clear the green. And yes, I know about call-through holes, but in practice with amateurs this doesn't seem to happen too often.
atb
-
The simple reality is that the TPC of Sawgrass is synonymous with Pete Dye in a way virtually no other course is with its designer. And, as a result, The Players Chamionship itself is perceived as relying on the course and the designer to create the drama.
Must have been a difficult realization for The Tour that their flagship pseudo-major is seen as the result of Pete Dyes work...
Jim
Doesn't that cut both ways ? If Sawgrass hadn't hosted the Players Championship all these years it would still be a Dye course but just not nearly as well known and probably the owners would have had no compunction in making changes with or without Pete Dye's blessing.
Niall
-
Niall,
If Sawgrass hadn't hosted The Players, there would be no course.
I think Pete Dye is at least equally responsible for what the tournament has become as are Deanne Beman and Tim Finchem.
-
This thread has been derailed, however, I stand by my comment about temptation and risk/reward as the core aspect of the "drivable par four". You have to add "fun" in there as well. I see nothing wrong with the concept and am surprised there is so much debate about it??
For many of our tournaments at Lehigh CC like the member/guest and the member/member, the pro will almost always make one of our short par fours even shorter. Call it "drivable" if you want as it will be for some but it is fun to play and creates temptation off the tee to go for it. More trouble can come into play as well but that is the idea behind the shortening of the hole. If you want to play it as a drive and pitch you still can. For the player who can't reach, they will get closer to the green if they want than normal so all have some advantage. It adds some diversity and is simply just fun.
Call the par whatever you want but golfers (of any ability) by nature love to make pars birdies and an occasional eagle. Why not give them a better chance here and there?
-
Mark,
I don't think that's what's been debated in this thread (or the one on Geoff's site). This is about Pete Dye's belief that this hole should not be a drive-able par 4 and the Tour starting from scratch and creating one. The debate is whether or not the original architects intent and philosophy matter...and for how long.
-
For perspective, the original "Planning and Building the Golf Course" by NGF sometime in the late 1950's or early 60's(not my 1981 re-write) had a statement on short par 4 holes saying "They have no kick" if only a wedge/short iron is left to the green. Clearly, post WWII, and the RTJ related mentality had the idea of any par 4 under 350 yards as undesirable. Probably, many golden age short par 4 holes had now become relatively shorter, not unlike today. As Adam notes, this is only applicable to 1% or so of golfers.
Then, they became trendy, maybe because of Morrish/Weiskoph? Now, perhaps they have become too common through over use?
Certainly, Pete and Alice are of the age where they remember the 1950's thought process. While they have done some reachable par 4 holes, fraught with risk/reward, maybe they just feel they have run their course? Always the iconoclasts, maybe they advocate for something different than "now standard" just because.......
BTW, as it happens, I am now designing a new hole on a total remodel where we can add a fairway pad across a creek, extend a tee to play at 320 or the layup type yardage of 380 (back tees) so it can play either way. Design it to play either way, not unlike how the USGA sets tee markers way up one day. That seems reasonable to me, rather than design one that, as Alice says, is basically meant to be driven and if you don't, well what's wrong with you? LOL
-
BTW, as it happens, I am now designing a new hole on a total remodel where we can add a fairway pad across a creek, extend a tee to play at 320 or the layup type yardage of 380 (back tees) so it can play either way. Design it to play either way, not unlike how the USGA sets tee markers way up one day. That seems reasonable to me, rather than design one that, as Alice says, is basically meant to be driven and if you don't, well what's wrong with you? LOL
Jeff, hope you're well.
I only pulled out this last paragraph because it triggered the question..."why should the superintendent be dictating the options of the hole on a given day?"
I'll have to think through your reasoning a little more but that was my immediate thought. In that vein, I really dislike when Mike Davis takes a 400 yard hole and uses a tee from 320. Maybe there's something there I should reconsider but I can't seem to find it...
-
Mark,
I don't think that's what's been debated in this thread (or the one on Geoff's site). This is about Pete Dye's belief that this hole should not be a drive-able par 4 and the Tour starting from scratch and creating one. The debate is whether or not the original architects intent and philosophy matter...and for how long.
Well said, Jim. There has been a lot of point-missing here and at Geoff' site. The issue is not difficult.
Bob
-
BTW, as it happens, I am now designing a new hole on a total remodel where we can add a fairway pad across a creek, extend a tee to play at 320 or the layup type yardage of 380 (back tees) so it can play either way. Design it to play either way, not unlike how the USGA sets tee markers way up one day. That seems reasonable to me, rather than design one that, as Alice says, is basically meant to be driven and if you don't, well what's wrong with you? LOL
Jeff, hope you're well.
I only pulled out this last paragraph because it triggered the question..."why should the superintendent be dictating the options of the hole on a given day?"
I'll have to think through your reasoning a little more but that was my immediate thought. In that vein, I really dislike when Mike Davis takes a 400 yard hole and uses a tee from 320. Maybe there's something there I should reconsider but I can't seem to find it...
Doesn't he anyway, with cup settings, tee placements, mowing, green speeds, etc.? Ideally, he understands the architects wishes, and maybe got some input, but in most cases, as alluded by TD and others, once the course is theirs, the course is theirs. If the committee likes variety, if the pro agrees, then the super (who should have his/her own input, too) can do it. Good architecture CAN accept some flexibility, not shun it.
There might be an upper limit to how long a hole should be shortened, but generally on newer courses, any par 4 under 400 yards will probably have a pretty tricky green to approach, due to approach length anticipated, and would make a good candidate. Specifics would matter, of course. Over 400 yards being shortened might have a green that is too receptive, making it, as Alice says, a de factor long par 3.
Still, pros figure they can hit any club within 10% of length of the target, i.e. spray pattern is 32 yards on a 320 yard tee shot. I think the 50/50 width is about 50 yards total at 320 yards. Not many greens are that wide, meaning most would generally hit the hazard instead of the green.
So, no big whup to me what Mike Davis does, in reality. It's all in good fun, sorely lacking at most US Opens, no?
-
"If a player is supposed to reach the green from the tee and you're always allowed two putts, well, that's a par 3." - Alice Dye
Please discuss.
------
I have not been on Geoff's site so I don't know what has been discussed there. As for this thread, I thought we were discussing the concept of a hole that is reachable from the tee? Is the debate whether such a hole is called a "par three" or a "par four"? I guess I don't care what it is called by the architect or by the committee who sets the teeing location when it comes to par as it is just a golf hole. Take the 16th hole at Cypress Point. Is that a par three or a par four? It was "intended" by the architect to be reached from the tee for some but not for all. I play there a lot and usually at least one player in our group has no chance to reach the green from the tee so they play to the left and pitch on. As such, is this a drive and pitch par three? Frankly what it is is a 230 yard all carry hole that can play 270 or more into a strong breeze. What would Pete or Alice call this hole?
-
Mark,
Another Weiskoph trend was back to back 475 or so holes where one was a par 5 in normal wind, but 4 in opposite (headwind) while the other was the opposite. Never heard it done with consecutive short 4 and long 3, at least intentionally.
No one I know is very fond of the drive and pitch par 3. To most, par does matter and a par 3 green should be reachable by some kind of shot. Of course USGA just says 250 and below. I have built par 3 holes up to 290 yards back tees, but even a 250 into the wind might not be reachable.
Anyway, I agree golf should be fun, dammit. What part of any unusual length par 3 conveys fun? I actually think most golfers would be happy if they were all 170 and below from their main tee.
-
When Mike Davis puts a tee up on a "par four" all he is trying to do is make the golfers think. What is wrong with that? Should the par change? Why? Even in match play it wouldn't matter. Everyone is playing the same hole and trying to get round in the least number of shots. And who cares "what the architect intended" in these limited situations where the teeing location is changed. You know if the shorter tee is serving the intended purpose if there is a wide variety of shot selection (and outcomes) off the tee.
-
Really, the list of attributes and possibilities they bring is long and I can't fathom where golf architecture would be if we subscribed to par as such a defining role in course design, as Alice and Tom suggest.
Geoff has misrepresented every post I've made on his site today, now he comes over here to do it some more.
Sorry, Geoff, but you aren't going to teach me much about good short par-4's. Here are a few of my better ones:
4th and 12th at Barnbougle Dunes
2nd and 14th at St. Andrews Beach
3rd at Old Macdonald [hat tip to C.B. Macdonald]
7th at Tara Iti, for drivable par-4's.
6th and 16th at Pacific Dunes
7th and 12th at Ballyneal
Most of those have pretty small greens, so it's not easy to get the ball on the green, even if you are long enough to get there. Many of the drivable par-4's we see today [especially the ones on Tour] pander to the players by making a big target for the long hitters. I don't like to pander. Neither did Pete Dye.
I just don't understand why Geoff conflates "short par 4" with drivable holes. There are so many great short 4's that were NOT meant to be driven, including two or three from his list above, and there is nothing wrong with that. Witness the 2nd, 8th, and 17th at Pine Valley.
Drive and pitch holes were part of the vocabulary of every Golden Age architect. Drivable par-4's were not. Some of us are trying to minimize the gap between great players and regular golfers, not to keep widening it. The equipment companies are already doing too much of that.
Tom, I thought the 11th at Bay of Dreams (NLE) was quite good and far and away the best of the trio of short/drivable 4s on that layout.
14 on the other hand was not my cup of tea. Reachable but not really drivable. Maybe that is a great attribute but I never quite warmed up to that hole.
-
Tom, I thought the 11th at Bay of Dreams (NLE) was quite good and far and away the best of the trio of short/drivable 4s on that layout.
14 on the other hand was not my cup of tea. Reachable but not really drivable. Maybe that is a great attribute but I never quite warmed up to that hole.
Unfortunately, you played both of them more than I did!
The 11th was the very first hole I found on that site. I knew I had to get up and around the mountain somehow, and looked for how, and found that one. A Cape hole in the desert!
The 14th was actually going to be a long par-3 originally, but Brian Schneider suggested turning it into a very short 4 because the green site did not seem conducive to a big green.
I'm really a big fan of good short par-4's, as most people here know. The irony is that wasn't the point of this thread, or my original comment on Geoff's site, as Jim Sullivan notes above.
-
1. The popularity, watchability, ratings, and discussion generated by drivable par 4's in tour events is an entirely different discussion than the architectural bonafides of legit drive and pitch holes for members of varying lengths and handicaps. The two topics should be kept separate and not be blended into sh*te.
2. Pro golf, aside from the Sunday back nine at the Masters and, at times, the Open Championship in the post-Tiger era is the best nap inducement I've found this side of Ambien or strong drink.
3. I've no axe to grind as regards Sawgrass, not having played it or frankly having any interest in doing so.
4. While most wouldn't describe Tom as warm and fuzzy, there's something a tad chivalrous in his coming to Alice's defense here.
-
"If a player is supposed to reach the green from the tee and you're always allowed two putts, well, that's a par 3." - Alice Dye
What about reachable par 5s? Do the Dyes believe they should actually be par 4s?
-
Mark - "when Mike Davis moves up the tees on a Par 4 he's just trying to make the golfers think".
I thought that was the architect's job. I thought that was what gca, in skilled hands, was all about. I thought part of the architect's skill is creating a flowing, varied, challenging, well-paced and thought provoking 18 hole golf course - a true *round* of golf where both the individual golf holes and the *relationships* between those golf holes, the way one follows another with different questions/problems to be solved, are important. I thought architects studied and worked for years, in libraries and in the dirt and visiting the world's great courses in order to perfect their crafts - ie in order to learn how to make golfers think and test their skills in a myriad of ways. That's what I thought - but I guess Mike D must think he knows better. No, in his mind, it's not the original design but his clever course "set up" that gets the golfers thinking. He seems to think - at some level - that all the study and training and commitment to excellence that you architects bring to the table isn't actually worth very much at all; he has to "improve" your work, and obviously believes he *can* improve it despite his almost total lack of training in the art-craft that is gca. It really does surprise me; it's an attitude I'd expect from someone who wanted to mock gca instead of honouring it, and from someone who views examples of great golf architecture more as personal playpens than as creations that call for his stewardship. IMHO.
Peter
-
"If a player is supposed to reach the green from the tee and you're always allowed two putts, well, that's a par 3." - Alice Dye
What about reachable par 5s? Do the Dyes believe they should actually be par 4s?
Jim,
I asked this as well, with radio silence. I guess the rules are different for par 5s.
-
The term she used was "supposed to reach" whereas you're using the term "reachable".
I suspect the distinction can primarily be found in the distinction between a fun driveable (for some) par 4 and a quality drive and pitch two-shot hole.
Yardage is only 1 variable. There is a distinct pressure on the tee shot at 7 and 8 at Merion even though they are both long irons followed by sand wedges. While the tee shots aren't particularly difficult, a mistake is very costly and brings bogey very much into play. I suspect the old 12 at TPC had similar pressure from the tee.
-
What about reachable par 5s? Do the Dyes believe they should actually be par 4s?
Jim,
I asked this as well, with radio silence. I guess the rules are different for par 5s.
Radio silence? Well, to whom are you asking the question? Mrs. Dye does not participate at Golf Club Atlas, and I don't want to put any words in her mouth.
I do remember when I was at the TPC with Mr. Dye in 1982, when everyone was predicting the winning score was going to be very high, Pete predicted it would be 8 under par. He did the math for me out loud -- he said he figured someone would play the par-3's and par-4's in even par, and since three of the par-5 holes were really just long par-4's for the Tour players, he figured the winner ought to be able to make 4 on two of those per round.
BTW, Jerry Pate birdied the last three holes of the tournament to finish on Pete's number.
Griping at architects about "reachable par-5 holes" is really misplaced anger. It's not our fault the equipment has made so many of them reachable. Hell, Pete had me ghost-write articles for him back in 1983-84 about how the USGA was letting the golf ball get out of hand, long before the big drivers and the Pro V1. But that should really be a separate thread.
-
Peter,
Of course that is the architect’s job. However, Mike Davis doesn’t work in a vacuum. He consults with architects all the time and whether they agree on everything I don’t know (there is likely debate on many things). Remember, Mike is tweaking things (right or wrong) for the pros. I like some things he does and also disagree with things he does (like the narrowing of the fairways at Merion for the Open). But all we are talking about here is moving up a few tees to tempt a player to play the hole differently (maybe incorrectly, who knows). How much fun is it to see Pros hit 4I’s on par fours? Why is #10 at Riviera so much fun to watch? It is because it forces most of the pros to think because the shot off the tee is not obvious and their ego is tested because most know they can reach the green with ease. Mike Davis is just trying to find a hole or two on other courses that they play that might offer the same as #10 at Riviera.
Remember, most architects ARE NOT designing their golf courses for PGA Tour Pros! As such, there is no reason not to tweak a hole or two once a year or once every ten years to play a little differently just for them.
The same goes for a local club pro (or golf committee) like ours does at Lehigh as mentioned above for special events - to change a teeing location to make a hole play differently than originally planned. If that was done on every hole it would be a problem but it is not. It is usually just one hole though sometimes they will make one of our long par threes play considerably shorter. It adds some variety, it get debated, and it is fun and can lead to different outcomes.
It is ok to “think out of the box” - no pun intended ;)
-
Tom,
Thank you for addressing it. I think Jim and I were just looking for some logical discussion on why reaching a par 5 in two is OK, but reaching a par 4 in one isn't, especially in light of Pete seemingly admitting back then 3 of the 5s were just long 4s... The Dyes have been super ambassadors to the game no doubt, but her logic on this one just doesn't hold up. Sticking with "Pete designed it as he intended it to play" would have been a more palatable response, but perhaps this issue has been a bit of a mountain and a molehill.
On a more macro level, I think in general viewers want to see players "go for it"....just like every other sport, the drama is why they tune in. Players like Phil, Sergio, and Tiger weren't popular just for winning, it was the theater of it all. And A Phil or Sergio trainwreck at the end of a tourney is every bit as entertaining as the win...
-
Griping at architects about "reachable par-5 holes" is really misplaced anger.
I'm not griping about reachable par 5 holes. I like them, for the most part. They make things real exciting: major tournaments sometimes turn on such holes, and even long-hitting average golfers from time to time pull off the feat.
It seems to me if the logic applies to par 4s, it applies to par 5s as well.
I don't agree with the Dyes about the par 4s, though. Are there any par 4 holes on tour the players 'should' drive? The ones I know give risk/reward options. The photos and comments I see about your (Doak's) reachable par 4s offer the same thing.
fwiw, watching from the peanut gallery I agree with Geoff Shackelford: Dye's top proteges outdid their master, by a goodly portion, too.
-
"If a player is supposed to reach the green from the tee and you're always allowed two putts, well, that's a par 3." - Alice Dye
Please discuss.
that's the rub with all such statements of philosophy, especially regarding the alleged parameters of these "Card Pars" and what features just won't do....
"supposed to"...who says? By whose standards? Just because its achievable, doable, solvable, doesn't mean the hole's merits go up or down as a enjoyable test of golf skill, one of the 18 on the course.
I repeat: on a medal or stroke basis, every hole is a solution of "4;" there are simpler ones and easy ones, hard ones, medium ones, complex ones, impossible ones, short ones and long ones and all manners, but eighteen of them = 72, which is good enough for all but touring professionals.
cheers
vk
-
In one sense this is kind of a weird debate between Pete's opinion and Pete's ideas. At some level Sawgrass is about -- Dyes' design intent was:
1) when you make pros think, you've got em
2) make the pros uncomfortable, even to point of potential embarrassment
The new 12th seems to meet these principles, or at least seems to do so more than the previous version.
I appreciate saying all this is not to endorse one side or the other, and there's a danger in taking a few general principles and saying they should be applied exhaustively and exclusively. It's just an interesting way to look at it (for me at least).
Or maybe I should just paraphrase Calvin Trillin and say, Alice let the big dog eat.
-
The short par-4 craze of the last decade has been sensational in raising awareness of golf architecture. They've proven length is overrated
If that were even remotely true, then why are golf courses getting longer and longer?
Those who watch tournament golf know these holes have added drama, intrigue and awareness of the role risk-reward architecture can play that have made the game more fun. Sure, there have been a few that were forced or didn't work, but the majority have made tournaments far more enjoyable to watch.
Here's a quote from Tiger Woods about the 12th hole on The Old Course:
"I just hit through the green and chip back."
That's when the hole was 311 yards. It was then lengthened 37 yards. Maybe you have a different dictionary to me.
And golf tournaments have never been more boring to watch.
-
Tom, the man who can take any thread and make it a ranking of his works! BTW, will you be ranking your best GCA posts in The Little Red Book?
Seriously, if you watched pro golf and the new 12th at TPC Sawgrass you would have learned this wild occurrence: many shorter or medium precision hitters actually drove it while bombers treated it as either an auto lay-up or a semi-layup near the approach. The ShotLink scatter charts also showed a huge reward for those who gave them better views of the hole location by taking more risk on the lay up. The old Tom Doak would have found all of that fascinating, but you don't watch pro golf these days so you wouldn't know what you're missing!
It sounds like the word drivable is the problem here for many and I suppose I just find it hard to get bogged down in semantics over what makes for fun design. The tenth at Riviera was never called drivable but it was in the early days when the ground was firm and the turf bent. Captain Thomas and Billy Bell added bunkers around the green in response prior to the 1929 LA Open. And I'm pretty sure the second at National has always been drivable, but because the word wasn't used by CB Macdonald, that somehow changes things?
[size=78%]Let's see if I can contribute[/size]
Sorry. Removed upon further review....
-
I always thought that the par of a hole was the number of shots a Scratch golfer should be expected to take in normal conditions if he was playing consistently well.
Deduct two putts and you are left with the number of shots a Scratch player should take to reach (not necessarily hit) the green.
Tour pros are not Scratch players - far from it. They are probably players in the range +5 to +8 if they were given handicaps. Therefore their abilities are irrelevant to this discussion.
Also irrelevant are the abilities of average golfers - those say in the 8 - 18 handicap range. Many will often be unable to reach a long par 3 from the tee and will certainly not be able to reach most par 4s over 430 yards in two shots.
I've played a lot of golf with Scratch (and better) golfers and always at Golden Age courses. A "drive and pitch" will often be within reach for them but very rarely do they go for it other than in a pairs match after seeing their partner safely in play. They tend to take the view that a birdie is more likely from 50 yards short than from a bunker, the clag, or worse.
Alice Dye referred to players being "supposed" to reach the green. Just because a few can, it doesn't mean that they are "supposed" to.
-
It's a weird comment by Mrs. Dye and defense by Tom Doak considering Pete Dye has built many drivable par 4s, starting very early on with 9 at HarbourTown. We saw one on display recently at Austin Country Club.
-
Thanks Duncan, Kalen and Mark Fine. You've taken this thread in the direction it was intended. Perhaps I shouldn't have started it during the furore regarding the change to 12 at Sawgrass. Alice Dye's quote is however thought provoking on many levels. And despite the thread's varied directions, all the contributions have been interesting and appreciated.
Matt
-
What's the average distance of a modern drivable par 4? I've been walking with several architects that pointed out drivable 4's in the realm of 320-330 meters. No kidding. I always take a deep gasp and think to myself, if it's drivable why not make it 250 yds or something that makes the average guys want to take on the risk as well as the 1 percent who might as well hit 3 wood there.
Merion for some reason always sticks out in my mind as the poster child for a course with several awesome short - drive and pitch holes which of course is different.
If I just look at recent courses played there are a few "drivable" par 4's that come to mind. Let me call them intended drivable par 4's. which doesn't by any means suggest they were realistically drivable for me.
#7 at Tara Iti. Ok this one is definitely drivable given the wind and perhaps my favorite of the group. I drove it over the green twice, made one par and one birdie. The par was a miracle par given where my ball had ended up and the difficult shot I had.
#4 at Barnbougle. - 3 wood over the green twice (strong tail wind). Par - birdie. Definitely drivable but I was the only one in our groups that went for it. Everyone else laid up. That front bunker made them thing the risk was not worth it.
#14 (I think) at Ellerston. This hole was suppose to be drivable but not at 330 meters for me. Maybe if I went up to the front tee. Great hole but more a play for strategy hole for me.
#? (6) drivable par 4 at Kingston Heath, played straight into the wind and it was really windy, lot's of danger around this hole and feeling wise most of the other short 4's there. I didn't feel I could be accurate enough to actually try and go for any of them. However, I'm sure their great players do this.
Back to the original premise from Mrs. Dye. Indeed I find it a little black and white this statement and maybe there is a context around it we are missing (well at least I'm missing). If only 5% or even 1% can take on a hole and drive it, so what. I'd contend it's hardly drivable. If you can make it 1 out of 5 times in the right conditions...4 times losing your ball or incurring a penalty is it drivable? In theory yes but not really worth the risk.
I'd say a great short 4 or drivable 4 is the one that makes us all go for it even if that's not the smart play. One that makes us think very carefully on the tee and doubt our decisions. Where you hit driver and have to play your shot out sideways or backwards because you can't get to the green perhaps or where you lay up and then miss your delicate approach and think, damn fool, should of just went for it. Then end up the next time playing it back out of that bunker and struggling for 4.
Then of course there is the rare occasion where the stars align and you drive it on the green. Adrenaline rushes, high 5's are given and you proceed to 3 putt.
Ah the drivable 4....
-
I've never understood the 'risk' part of the equation. Unless for public play architects are building particularly deep and penal green-side bunkers (and they don't appear to be doing so, at least not en masse), I find little of the captivating risk-reward equation so often touted as the value of the short 4. I'm an average bunker player, but on a 250-280 yard Par 4, I'm going for the green every single time -- because while I may not get up and down from the bunker/rough, I'll almost invariably get the ball closer than I would laying up with an iron and coming in with a wedge. All of which is to say: if you can find a place to build a great golf hole that happens to be a short 4, wonderful; but the view that somehow short 4s are inherently anything special seems to me unfounded (in practical application if not in theory).
Peter
PS - Btw, if "The Old Course" is the answer to every question ever posed on gca.com, "the 10th at Riviera" must come a close 2nd. (I bet if we did a word-frequency search, they'd literally be 1 and 2!). Okay, I get it - it's a wonderful golf hole. But just like the Old Course is continually praised and yet never actually copied (or matched), the fact that the 10th has be trotted out every single time short 4s are mentioned is telling.
-
Pietro
I wouldn't say short 4s are inherently special, but I would say they are inherently important to an 18 hole design if variety is at all important. It doesn't make much sense to attack the concept of the short 4 when there are plenty of average and poor examples of medium, long and extra long 4s. Is the entire range of par 4s inherently flawed? Of course not. As with any hole, there are at least a few ways to examine its worth. At the very least there is the hole itself and the how it fits into the overall design.
I see plenty of short 4s and very few stand out as exceptional. But that is no different for any other type of hole with the possible exception of par 3s. I think the weakest type I see are par 5s and medium (maybe 350-380) length 4s. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Ciao
-
Peter,
With all due respect, I think you need to play/see some more great short par fours as they can be truly special.
On a separate note, particularly to David, MOST architects could care less how a PGA Tour Pro is going to play or score on their golf course. Unless the course is specific for pros, it is not worth (or smart) to try to design or defend a hole for or around how they will attack a golf hole!!!
I recently played a Nicklaus design in Memphis in a member guest. We were playing what I thought was a very clever "elbow" style hole - a "short" par four on the card of about 365 yards. The corner of the elbow was protected by a lake which was in front of the green. The "normal" play was to hit anywhere from a 200-280 yard shot along the elbow/left side of the lake to set up your approach to the green. The hole location and green contours/green side bunkering etc made the angle of approach for the second shot important which I thought was clever on Nicklaus's part, e.g. sometimes a shorter tee shot provided a better angle than a longer tee shot. The one player in our group was a web.com touring pro. Young kid, maybe 23 years old. He stood on the tee and couldn't figure out how to play the hole? He wasn't sure if it was a driver or a three wood. He choose driver and sure enough it was the wrong club - he flew it over the green which was 320 yards (all carry over the lake) :o :o :o Do you really think Nicklaus designed that hole for that kind of player ??? I don't think so and if Nicklaus were there, all he would do is shake his head and complain about how far the golf ball goes today!
-
Sean - as is often the case, your calm measured response is the correct one. I guess my thinking was: architects are going to continue to build 3s, 4s, and 5s - some more interesting ones and some less so; I just don't want them start building a preponderance of short 4s under the belief that they are necessarily better.
Mark - and your response is correct too! Even if said with no due respect, I do need to see some better golf holes!
-
Peter,
I did mean that with respect just so you know. Although "short" is a relative concept, par fours let's say under 400 yards can be very interesting architecturally (for most golfers). They are some of my favorite holes.
-
Mark Fine,just curious what you thought about SCR. I'm in Memphis.
-
What would be termed a reachable par-4 for ladies? Does the yardage gap between the very best/longest lady and a lessor lady player vary more or less than that for a male?
Atb
-
Don't want to jump off on a tangent on this thread, but SCR is a solid golf course. Maybe best to discuss separately or off line.
-
Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!
275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.
-
Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!
275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.
So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.
-
Lord, I missed the fireworks.
I would remind that legend has it that the 1st at NGLA was driven in its early days, and it cost someone an inheritance!! At the 2013 Walker Cup, over the course of two days' play, I believe I saw one world-class amateur lay up; the rest banged at the green with three-metal or driver. Same goes for hole #2. That's the combination of equipment and fitness.
I had forgotten the notion of a drive-and-pitch hole. I think the reason is, we are not the best at half-shots. Think about your accuracy from 30 or 50 or 70 yards, verse your full gap wedge. My guess is that the in-between shots cause you grief, more so than the full swing. If not, you win the majority of bets you make!
I have no problem with Tom listing his best short par 4 holes as evidence of an understanding of the genre. If I were at a teaching conference and failed to mention the tasks I utilize in class, bad move. Same goes for coaching techniques for high school golfers; they define my reason for being. Citing other architects' work is one thing, but establishing one's own facility with a skill elevates that one to a higher level.
There's no restricting a hole. The dispersion of shots based on skill, as has been mentioned herein, compels the expert golfer to play her/his ball more accurately, with greater consistency, than the weaker player. Therefore, the driveable par four is less so for the weaker player, no matter the tee deck. Same goes for the drive-and-pitch par four.
-
Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!
275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.
So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.
Grandpa Joe gives enlightenment. Class in session.
-
Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!
275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.
So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.
Grandpa Joe gives enlightenment. Class in session.
If you are under the age of 30 today and have a handicap less than 5 I would say there is overwhelmingly likely chance that you can drive the ball consistently over 300 yards. This is just the reality of the modern player. I am sorry if this is not your reality.
-
Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!
275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.
So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.
Grandpa Joe gives enlightenment. Class in session.
If you are under the age of 30 today and have a handicap less than 5 I would say there is overwhelmingly likely chance that you can drive the ball consistently over 300 yards. This is just the reality of the modern player. I am sorry if this is not your reality.
I don't know if this is true. I suppose it all depends on how we define "consistently", but there are not many players who hit it 300 yards more often than not. There are only 22 players on the PGA Tour averaging 300 this season. I wouldn't think many top flight amateurs are longer drivers than the average tour pro.
To make a hole driveable for the skilled amateurs, something in the 275-290 range would probably be more than enough for the vast majority. If tee to green measured 280, I would guess fewer than 10% single digit handicaps would hit less than driver.
-
Joe, if you averaged 300.0 yds, you would rank #76 on the Web.com tour. The tour average is 299.5 yds.
The average distance of PGA Tour professionals is not the "ceiling" on driving distance of younger players, both pro and amateur. Matt's post reflects the reality of today's game.
-
I had forgotten the notion of a drive-and-pitch hole. I think the reason is, we are not the best at half-shots. Think about your accuracy from 30 or 50 or 70 yards, verse your full gap wedge. My guess is that the in-between shots cause you grief, more so than the full swing. If not, you win the majority of bets you make!
Good point RM.
When playing from the same tees (eg say a handicap amateur competition) one mans drive-n-pitch is another mans driver-hybrid......but that's why we amateurs have handicaps.
One thing about a lot of 'bombers' though, their short games and, dare I say it, course management, is often pretty poor. Their frequent ability to hit wonderful full-shots and awful half-shots has always surprised me. The difference between say a long-hitting 5 hcp and a scratch or plus amateur usually seems to come down to the game from 50 or so yards of the flag.
atb
-
Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!
275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.
So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.
Grandpa Joe gives enlightenment. Class in session.
If you are under the age of 30 today and have a handicap less than 5 I would say there is overwhelmingly likely chance that you can drive the ball consistently over 300 yards. This is just the reality of the modern player. I am sorry if this is not your reality.
That tightens up the demographics of the discussion a bit. I guess if most modern players fall into that group, then my reality needs adjustment. Admittedly, I'm a dinosaur when it comes to keeping up with equipment and such. I just didn't realize that all good golfers are long, and that all long golfers are good.
-
One person recognizing a corroboration between distance and skill/talent is not reinforcement.
If you read my longer/windier post that follows, you'll see that length is not the only definition of greatness when it comes to golf.
I continue to deceive/delude myself into thinking that my tempo, my whip, my snap, my release, are as fast as they might have once been. At 51, I'm hitting the ball very well, which I would offer 75% to equipment and 25% to fitness.
Unless you're swinging hickory or other period pieces, yesterday's courses are today's courses. If you put on the restrictor plate, you're playing yesterday's courses as yesterday's courses.
I'm of the mind that tasting what it's like to be a pro, if only for a moment or a round, is enlightening. If technology allows us to have that sensation, we are privy to something that basketball, football, american football, swimming, diving, rugby, wrestling aficionados dream of. It's one of the perquisites of our chosen vice.
If a course like Merion East needs to change its setup to accommodate the elite touring pro, that's fine. Just change it back when the tournament ends, a festivus for the restofus.
-
Drive 225, 250 to 300 leaves partial pitch;
[/size]Drive 240, 265 to 315 leaves partial pitch;Drive 265, 290 to 340 leaves partial pitch;Drive 280, 305 to 355 leaves partial pitch;Drive 300, 325 to 375 leaves partial pitch;Anomalistic are the 400 yard par four hole at Whistling Straits that was driven by the elite touring pros a few years ago, but for how long?
-
Joe, if you averaged 300.0 yds, you would rank #76 on the Web.com tour. The tour average is 299.5 yds.
The average distance of PGA Tour professionals is not the "ceiling" on driving distance of younger players, both pro and amateur. Matt's post reflects the reality of today's game.
I still disagree. It just does not seem possible to me that the young single digit players are as long as even the 76th longest player on the Web.com tour. I agree that it is not the ceiling because young guys can swing for the fences, but it doesn't pass the smell test to me that they would be hitting it by many guys playing for money. If there were stats for State Ams, that would be the test. I highly doubt the average drive is 300 yards in these events.
However, even if I grant the average 5 handicap is hitting it 300, that is still not the reality of the game. Very few people are single digit players and even fewer of the single digits hit it 300. If we want a drivable par 4, some thing at 275-290 is going to be more than enough for more than 95% of golfers.
-
Joe, I agree with your last sentence, but we will have to disagree on distances that good young players (juniors, college players, competitive ams) hit the ball. They are not necessarily hitting first from the fairway when playing with touring pros. But that is a very small % of the overall golf population, so again I agree with your last sentence.
-
I love the anomalies of this Chat-Room software. Tiny, tiny font size from time to time.
Drive 225, 250 to 300 leaves partial pitch;
Drive 240, 265 to 315 leaves partial pitch;
Drive 265, 290 to 340 leaves partial pitch;
Drive 280, 305 to 355 leaves partial pitch;
Drive 300, 325 to 375 leaves partial pitch;
Anomalistic are the 400 yard par four hole at Whistling Straits that was driven by the elite touring pros a few years ago, but for how long?
-
I see very few club golfers of any age routinely carrying drives 300 yards, but a decent percentage who carry drives 275 and a goodly percentage carrying drives 250..maybe 10-15%. 250 was a big drive when I was 18 back in 1981. I would say 300 is the new 250, not exactly rare, but very noticeable when it happens. I literally cannot see where these drives land. But we are really splitting hairs... again. Guys are blasting drives a long way.
But we all know the best short 4s are those where huge hitters cannot simply go to the driver.. it may be too much club. The best drivable 4s are those where the ball must be bounced into the green.
Ciao
-
the curse of par, most of my favourite holes are short 4/5's. Just call driveable par 4's par 3's so the pros feel compelled to go for it so they still look manly and watch the fun unfold.
-
Agreed. The three most enjoyable short Par-Fours (i.e. in the 250-300 yard range) in the UK that I know well personally are
16th at Aberdovey (the overall category winner - a 'glorious and unique hole', to quote P Dickinson)
4th at St Enedoc
17th at Huntercombe
where a driver (depending of course on the wind) is rarely the best option for those with aspirations to drive the green.
-
The 8th at Oakmont last year played 299 yards as a par 3. Stick a bunker in front and it is a par 4...
Reachable and hittable are two very different thing, my favourite short par 4 is in Perth (Australia) - the 12th at Western Australia Golf Club, it is around 280m downhill with one of the best views in Perth. The green is well defended and there are no easy putts, the only opening to the green is on the front left corner. There is an easy lay up to a pitch but the pitch is difficult, go at the green and put it in a bunker and it takes a great shot to get your birdie, miss right and it is tough to make a four. You can go at the front left but the OOB fence is only 5-10 metres away. Reachable yes, hittable - not really.
The first at Victoria is another great one.
-
1. The average male player who even posts is a 15. They carry the ball, what, 225?
2. Sean, balls rarely bounce in the States. :)
3. There are a couple thousand college players and journeymen pros who hit the ball a very long way. Who cares? There are maybe 2 guys at my club who routinely carry the ball 300. They represent 1% of the membership. Fortunately the course wasn't designed primarily with them in mind.
-
For reference, I'm a 35 year-old 5 handicap. My typical carry distance for a driver is 250. This makes #5 at Sweetens a perfect example for me for this topic.
It's 283 on the card, so it's possible for me to get it on the green, particularly with a tailwind. But this is rarely the wisest play because of the nasty bunker fronting the middle of the green, the waste bunker short right, and the nasty chip coming back if I happen to go long. This is particularly true if the pin is on the left. I should also mention the difficulty added by the crowned green. Thus it is wiser for me to lay up if I wish to make a birdie, but that play also negates my possibility for a spectacular eagle, which means I end up pulling a driver more often than not. I imagine this calculus would hold true even if Jason Day were on the tee hitting two iron, which is what makes this a great hole to me, regardless of whether one calls it a par 3 or 4.
I also imagine that this is not the kind of hole Alice Dye had in mind. My guess is that her criticism of the new #12 at Sawgrass is that it is too easy to hit the green. Her sense seems to be that the pros were "supposed" to hit that green, and therefore it should have been called a par 3. I doubt she (or Tom) would aim the same criticism at Sweetens #5 or all driveable par 4's in general.
-
Just call driveable par 4's par 3's so the pros feel compelled to go for it so they still look manly and watch the fun unfold.
Nicely put.
atb
-
For reference, I'm a 35 year-old 5 handicap. My typical carry distance for a driver is 250. This makes #5 at Sweetens a perfect example for me for this topic.
It's 283 on the card, so it's possible for me to get it on the green, particularly with a tailwind. But this is rarely the wisest play because of the nasty bunker fronting the middle of the green, the waste bunker short right, and the nasty chip coming back if I happen to go long. This is particularly true if the pin is on the left. I should also mention the difficulty added by the crowned green. Thus it is wiser for me to lay up if I wish to make a birdie, but that play also negates my possibility for a spectacular eagle, which means I end up pulling a driver more often than not. I imagine this calculus would hold true even if Jason Day were on the tee hitting two iron, which is what makes this a great hole to me, regardless of whether one calls it a par 3 or 4.
I also imagine that this is not the kind of hole Alice Dye had in mind. My guess is that her criticism of the new #12 at Sawgrass is that it is too easy to hit the green. Her sense seems to be that the pros were "supposed" to hit that green, and therefore it should have been called a par 3. I doubt she (or Tom) would aim the same criticism at Sweetens #5 or all driveable par 4's in general.
Love short 4s and recently played a great one, though not driveable due to an uphill volcano green. The #13 Knoll hole at Piping Rock. 300 yards but only driveable if you can fly a drive and have it stop on a dime. I drove it nearly to the greensite base, long for me, then had a 40 yard uphill lob wedge to a small green. Smart play is probably a 200 yard tee shot and a full wedge. Beautiful golf hole, among many