[Mark_F]

On another thread I wrote that I thought short par fours were supposed to be the great equalizer, a test of precision over power.

By this I mean that power hitters who fail to display precision surrender their advantage to the more precise.

Is this how others see the great short fours they are familiar with?

Is this what architects have in their mind when designing them?

[Brent Hutto]

A short Par 4 (whether truly drivable or not) and a reachable Par 5 have the same purpose. Each offers two significantly different approaches to achieving the lowest possible score. "To go for it or to lay up?" is the most fundamental kind of strategic question that a golf course can pose to the player, understood by anyone who has played the game no matter what his/her skill level. So I would argue that one criteria for excellance in a short Par 4 or reachable Par 5 is the extent to which the design brings both of those possibilities into play.

Imagine a Par 4 that's 305 yards with a slightly elevated green placed behind a water hazard such that the forced carry from the tee is 280 yards. For anyone other than the longest-hitting elite players that's not a "option" hole at all, it's a layup. So played from the 305-yard tees the only things the hole does are: a) serve to separate the 280+ yard drivers from the other 99.99% of players and b) see how good you are at hitting a 100-yard wedge over water.

Now imagine the same hole, 305 yards to a slightly elevated green. But the water hazard is a creek well short of the green making the forced carry only 210 yards. However, the creek is wide enough that the layup has to be 125 yards back from the green. Now the player has to decide whether he hit a 170-yard iron shot and then a short iron of 130-ish yards or attempts the carry (managable for any player who ought to be playing the back tees).  Plus there's the option of not trying to drive the green but hitting it between the creek and the green and having a short wedge shot of 30-60 yards to an elevated green.

I'd say the second example serves the purpose of offering meaningful options to the largest variety of players better than the first. The all-carry hole will probably be termed "stronger" and the creek hole will be denigrated for offering the option of 6-iron, 9-iron versus a likely partial wedge shot.

[Doug Wright]

Is this what architects have in their mind when designing them?

Mark,

I'm no architect and hopefully some will chime in here but I'd say the following in response based on what I've seen:

--To offer strategy, challenge and fun to all levels of players

--To fit a hole into the routing and/or a particularly good feature of the property

--To conform to an owner's expectations of what a modern day course should have

[Jason Blasberg]

I think their purpose is exactly the same purpose as long par threes or fours, it's just that we never think of them in the same way because of our focus on par.

There is little difference in a lot of instances between a 255 yard par three and a 295 yard par 4.  Same as between a 470 yard par 4 and a 510 yard par 5.  

The point is to force the player to play a heroic shot with great potential reward but a larger margin of error or play a more safe shot with lower margin of error.  In theory the fact that the hole is a "short par four" vs. a "long par three" should be irrelevant but we rarely hesitate to take out driver on a 255 yard par three that's up hill into the wind.  Meanwhile, we likely don't hesitate to hit a 200 yard tee shot on a 295 yard par 4.  

It's all about the intersection of shot value and score expectation.  I think our obsession with par often causes us to hit shots we wouldn't otherwise try.

[Tom_Doak]

Jason and Brent:  You're describing driveable par 4's which are only a small subset of short par-4's.  The subset of drive-and-pitch holes is larger and therefore more important.

The purposes of short par-4's are numerous but can include:

1.  Providing a par or even birdie chance for the average golfer.
2.  Providing a hole where the good player thinks he should make birdie and therefore puts pressure on himself.
3.  Providing opportunities to use more controversial design features (severe topography, central bunkering, small or difficult greens) in a setting where players feel the severity is offset by the shortness of the hole.

[Jim Johnson]

It's to increase beverage cart sales.

Guys take an iron off the tee to keep the ball in play, stripe it down the middle about 200 yards, then schmooooooze with the cute cart girl for an extra minute or two, knowing that they won't have to spend time looking in the woods for their ball.

 

JJ

[Paul_Daley]

Mark:

Short par-4s provide 'brain-teasing' variety among the various par categories, but especially among the fours. If well designed, they allow golfers to present a gambler's hand, possibly, in the process, contributing to one's downfall. Or glorious success. Lets face it: they occupy less land, so do save a little $$. Rarely, if ever, from the design fee, but later on. Some contend that a short par-4 represents an opportunity for a land 'grab'. They also help to publicly display a designer's flair for the bold and imaginative. Equally, too, they allow golfers to demonstrate creative play and problem-solving, be it from cheeky club selection, or tee-shot line. In matchplay, they often produce fun scenarios. In keeping with short par-3s, they de-emphasise the power game, seemingly, bringing about the equaliser effect. Yet it could be argued that these types of holes favour, even more so, the better (not necessarily longer-hitting) players due to their precision with short-game technique. Thinking about Kingston Heath's 3rd hole, even hackers can get within throwing distance of the green. They'll rarely walk off with a birdie, however, due to the intracacy of approach play, thereafter. A double-edged sword appears with short par-4s: they have more potential to titilate golf design enthusiasts; yet are easier to screw up (design-wise) and dissapoint. Not all architects, it would seem, are willing to take the chance. Although one hankers romantically over the short par-4, to artificially cram one in, just for the sake of it, doesn't make sense, either. Perhaps when it is all done and dusted, golfers appreciate short par-4s because these holes represent a change of pace and are challenging when cleverly designed.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

What Tom D said. Implied, but not stated is the value of a change of pace among other, harder holes.

Also, for a while we viewed it as a chance to get someone to play an approach shot that may be less than full distance, requiring something other than a standard swing, which we felt was one way to challenge shot making.  Then Pelz popularized the four wedge concept, so you could alway be using a full swing.....

I have elaborated at times on the different strategic concepts of "Position Paradox" or "Butt Pucker" (yes, that is spelled the way I meant to.....) strategy of "I really, really, want to be next to that bunker, but I really, really, really, don't want to be in it....." favored by the old guys vs. the newer design paradigm of a couple of fairly equal choices (made usually to fit a golfers game)  As Tom notes, golfers seem to more readily accept a really precise tee shot demand to get a premium approach position on shorter holes.  So, its a chance to use a different type of strategic design.

[Dan Kelly]

..."Butt Pucker" (yes, that is spelled the way I meant to.....)

Next time we play, would you mind standing in front of me?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

You are aware that while the visual senses might be in for an architectural edumacation (as if you couldn't ID a Butt Pucker tee shot any other way, should I stand in front of you, there is always that chance that your olafactory senses might be treated to something altogether different, especially if the Quarry still serves those "Coiled Bratwursts"

[TEPaul]

Mark Ferguson:

Interesting questions.

Yeah, I guess one could say a really great short par 4 like Riviera's all-world #10 is something like a vortex in that the closer you get to the green with your tee shot the more there is that can potentially go wrong from there.  

[Brent Hutto]

I suppose there's no rule that says a short Par 4 has to be easier than a long one. How hard is it to design (and have accepted by golfers) a 320-yard hole that plays to the same or higher stroke average as a typical 380-yard one?

Of course I recognize that "to the same or higher stroke average" might not work out exactly the same for all levels of player. But surely there are examples out there of a course with a short Par 4 that plays harder than some of the long Par 4's on the same course for both good players and bogey golfers.

[Jason Topp]

While bored on a recent conference call, I looked at my scores from the 10 most recent rounds at my course and found it pretty interesting that the second toughest hole for me was the 13th, at about 340 yards.  It ranked much more difficult than several longer par fours that I think of as much more difficult.

I'm sorry about the size.  I tried to shrink but it will not work for some reason.

The tee shot:



The approach from 130 - if you cannot carry the ridge, you hit it here, otherwise the approach is from 70-90 yards



What happens if you leave it short on a green that slopes severely for the first 1/3 of the green:

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()