What are the characteristics of a good driveable 4?

[Doug Siebert]

Just focusing on the driveable short 4 for the moment.... I have to disagree with a couple of your premises here, Bryan.

First off, I don't think the distance should necessarily fit with a golfer's best drive.  I sometimes think the best ones fit more with best drive plus some favorable conditions (help from the wind, firm ground, etc.)  Or maybe there's a preferred landing area you need for a TEPaul turbo boost towards the hole.  I could see a 330 yard Redan where you use shot shape or ground slope properly to try to drive the green, though the Redan bunkers and green slope couldn't be too severe or few would attack it.

The other thing I have to take issue with is that a driveable hole necessarily allow you to put your ball on the putting surface.  Yeah, maybe that's a contradiction in terms depending on how you define driveable, but I don't think that a path for the ball to roll onto the green is strictly necessary.

The most interesting short par 4s offer trade offs, not just the chance at an eagle putt.  Does the player think they are better from 100 yards away with a full wedge?  Or is he willing to risk ending in that nasty hollow 10 feet below the green's surface in exchange for the chance to end up with a simple flop shot next to the green or with a benign bunker shot?

Some short par 4s are frustratingly difficult to do better than a par on no matter what strategy you employ off the tee, and you start to consider that rather than trying to figure out what offers the best chance at a birdie maybe you should start thinking about what offers the most safe and sure par.  That really messes with the head on a hole you can reach in one, distance-wise.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Yeah, 5,000 feet elevation is worth a few more yards on my preferred maximum.  Barnbougle seems like a pretty good poster-child for sub-300 yard holes.  I'm a bit surprised that you used the word "stigma" to describe sub-300 holes though.  Why should such holes be looked down upon?  Did you not design more such holes because of this perceived stigma?  

Pacific's 16th comes darn close to being one, missing by only a half dozen yards to the front edge.  With the winter wind helping it would be driveable.  And a great hole to boot.  But then I guess Pacific has been criticized from time to time because it's too short.  Silliness really.

Doug,

Sure a little over 300 hundred would be OK given the conditions you describe, or even elevation.  Usually the front edge would be 15 or 20 yards less than the listed yardage which makes yardages slightly over 300 yards feasible.  Holes with longer yardage that bend a little bit (like 16 at PD) and thus provide a shorter straight line over some hazard might also be good.

Disagree on the second point - if there is no possibility of driving the green, then it's not a driveable hole.  It may still be an excellent short 4 like 10 at Merion or 16 at PD.

As a matter of interest, what percentage of the golfing population of single digit handicaps or better do you think would be able to drive even a sub-300 hole in neutral conditions.  I know I could only do it if there are favourable conditions - hard and fast fairways, space to roll up, wind assistance, or an elevated tee shot for example.

I suppose maybe the real question here is whether there should be any "driveable" par 4's for other than long hitters?  Or are short 4's (that are not driveable for any player of any ability, playing off the right tees) the preferred model?  If the latter then would it make sense that the 10th at Riviera should have its back tee moved back so that professionals who are long hitters can't get there unless there are assisting conditions.  Or do we just have to accept that an entertaining and potentially testing hole model should only be available to the long hitters of the game?

[Tom_Doak]

Bryan:

I chose the word "stigma" carefully but I do think there is one.  Even the great holes which are under 300 yards (10 at Riviera, 10 at Royal Melbourne West) are usually measured on the dogleg so they are more than 300 on the card.  So many people judge a golf course by the scorecard that a lot of architects (and a lot of clients) are scared to put a 292-yard hole on the card.

The same is true for par fives under 500 yards -- not many of those have been built in the last 20 years, either.

Clients usually find another excuse for why they don't want a hole that short -- it might hold up the speed of play, for example -- but I think it's really 95% that they don't want their course to be thought of as having any "weak" holes.

[Mark_Fine]

We will have one hole at Cherry Hills that will be just under 300 yards (it will probably end up about 290 yards from the championship tee).  However, it will be a par 3    Amazing as this might sound, we still wanted the top players to have to hit a long iron into at least one of the par threes.  

[Tom Birkert]

My home course has a trio of short par fours, all of which you would think look easy by the yardages, but many scorecards would suggest otherwise.

What all have in common is that there is a risk when going for the green - if you don't hit the drive in the right area you can leave yourself with a very tricky (albeit short) approach shot. This is due to strategically placed bunkers, small, contoured greens and a variety of different pin positions.

I can't yet comment on the changes that have been done to the 3rd as it's not yet back in play, but it certainly looks like the bunkers are deeper and the approach to the green narrower.

The 9th has a couple of bunkers around landing area which can leave a very tricky long bunker shot as approach, and when the pin is positioned on the higher, right side of the green the pitch to it is very hard if you are not coming up the length of the green.

The 11th has probably the smallest green on the course, with fall offs all around it, making it very difficult to hold the green with a pitch, thus encouraging imagination with the short game.

Apologies if my descriptions aren't up to scratch, I love short par fours as they offer enticement to the golfer with the possibility of birdies / eagles, and often leaves one disappointed when you mess up and take a bogey!

[Ken Moum]

I suppose maybe the real question here is whether there should be any "driveable" par 4's for other than long hitters?  

Or do we just have to accept that an entertaining and potentially testing hole model should only be available to the long hitters of the game?

I'd hate to think that we have to accept that "regular" golfers, playing from the proper set of tees, would never have the thrill of trying to drive a par four.

Of course, since the average American male doesn't hit it over 200 yards, it's going to take favorable conditions, fast turf, and sub-300 yards to make that happen.

Given my rant about the bad short par four earlier, I offer that a good short par four should:

1) Be short enough to entice almost everyone to have go some of the time.

2) Offer an enticing place to lay up so that even those who can reach are faced with a difficult decision.

3) Provide an alternate route for players like my 83-year-old mother who hits it about 100 yards off the tee--including an optional spot from which they can approach the green.

4) Have a green that's closely guarded on at least two sides to make driving it a genuine challenge, but it should still;

5)Provide bailout room near the green for those who lack the skill or nerve to challenge the hazards--preferably without offering a simple up and down to save par or make birdie.)

K

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne, good call on Scarborough.  What does that hole run - about 265 or 270.  It certainly meets all the criteria, although the gap between the fronting traps might be a bit wider.  I'm just grousing 'cause I took a double from the trees left, the last time I was there.  But how can any self-respecting man play a hole 5 iron, SW?  As a member what percentage of time do you layup vs going for it.  Does one option work better for you score-wise, or does it all

The hole plays about 270 but it is generally into the wind.  I never use driver on that hole - my best drive would probably get close but best case scenario it would be at the bottom of the rise to the green.  I just don't think it is worth the risk to hit driver as if you don't quite hit it properly you are left with the dreaded long bunker short that Tom mentioned.  And if you spray your drive left or right then you are really toast.  I just hit a smooth 5 iron to about 90 yards and hope to put my wedge on the green.

You may remember that the green is very small, two-tiered and has a false front.  If the flag is on the front tier then you will have no chance to hold that tier unless you can hit a full wedge.  If you are on the back tier and the greens are fast then putting off of the green is a distinct possibility.

The other drivable par 4 at Scarboro is the 16th and on this hole I will drive to drive the green quite often, certainly whenever the wind is in my favour.  There is trouble if you spray your drive, but there isn't too much to worry about if you are a bit short, with the exception of a downhill lie to an elevated green

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Sad, but true.  Does this feeling about them being weak holes carry over to yardages from tees that are ahead of the tips.  For instance, can you get away with a hole that's 330 or 340 from the tips, but maybe 280 or 290 from the regular men's tees?

K,

Your point 3 is a whole other thread that was on here recently.

I'd debate your points 2 and 5.  Sounds like you'd like the options too easy or provide bailouts for missed shots.  Seems to me that would detract fro the challenge of the hole and the pride that should go with accomplishment.

Wayne,

I forgot about 16.  Seems a lesser hole to me because the results of failure are so much less.  Back in the late 60's I played the course in the Ontario Am and in those days 17 was driveable under certain conditions for the long hitters (Gary Cowan). I couldn't make it then, and I can't make it now, although I suspect that the tee is a bit further back now.    

[Ken Moum]

K,
I'd debate your points 2 and 5.  Sounds like you'd like the options too easy or provide bailouts for missed shots.  Seems to me that would detract fro the challenge of the hole and the pride that should go with accomplishment.

Well, by definition, a driveable par four is going to be a 3.5, so the "challenge" is in making a three, isn't it?

My point wasn't that it should offer an easy bailout for 4 or even 5. But I've seen more-or-less driveable par fours that are SO punishing on missed shots that in stroke play rounds no one is tempted go for it.

The 15th at TPC River Highlands (http://www.tpc.com/private/river_highlands/hole_15.html) is a decent example, IMHO.

It plays 285-295 when the pros are there, and it really tempts them to go for the green. Bobby Weed was in attendance a couple years ago, and ended up in the booth during the broadcast. He said he had been out at 15 watching the pros to see how it held up with today's equipment.

He said something like, "I watched several players put their hand on three or four clubs before they pulled one. That's what we're trying to do, put indecision into the minds."

That hole does  exactly what I suggest in 2 and 5.

It's a simple layup, so players have to choose between a the temptation of being able to drive the green and the obvious advantages of laying back to their ideal distance.

It not closely guarded on all sides so players have room both short and right to bail out without taking penalty stroke. But if they do, getting up and down requires an extraordinarily good shot.

In fact, I think it meets all five of my criteria, including the admonition about easy up-and-downs in #5.

Anyway, not every hole on the course has to be hard.... <grin>

(EDIT) I just went back and read your original post again... I think you and I agree completely on what a good driveable par four should be.  Truly enticing, with the punishment for a mistake reasonable enough to maintain the temptation.

Perhaps my 10 handicap mentality, and the fact that I play about 90% of my golf with women of varying abilities makes me a little more likely to see the value in offering alternatives to massive trouble around the green on such a hole.

I'd use tightly mowed swales where possible, because they bedevil the scratch man hoping to get up and down for birdie, while allowing the long handicap player a chance to get down in three without having to hit a lob wedge.

K

[Doug Siebert]

I'd hate to think that we have to accept that "regular" golfers, playing from the proper set of tees, would never have the thrill of trying to drive a par four.

Of course, since the average American male doesn't hit it over 200 yards, it's going to take favorable conditions, fast turf, and sub-300 yards to make that happen

Oh c'mon, that's crap and you know it.  Perhaps the average golfer doesn't AVERAGE over 200 yards, but I'll bet we're at well under 10% to get the number who won't hit their best of 20 drives over 200 yards.
 
A lot more golfers than you are giving credit for have the thrill of "trying" to drive a par 4.  Granted many are living in a fantasy world much of the time if they think they can do it, but if I'm putting out on the green of a short par 4, I want guys behind me to base their decision on whether to wait for me to leave the green or not on how far their BEST drives go, NOT their average drives!

Especially given that modern equipment now produces drives that are mostly carry.  It wasn't such a big issue in the past where a 300 yard drive always had at least 30 or 40 yards of roll on it; I don't care if a ball rolls into my ankle.  I do care if it hits my head on the fly.  The first hop probably doesn't feel too good either...

[Ken Moum]

I'd hate to think that we have to accept that "regular" golfers, playing from the proper set of tees, would never have the thrill of trying to drive a par four.

Of course, since the average American male doesn't hit it over 200 yards, it's going to take favorable conditions, fast turf, and sub-300 yards to make that happen

Oh c'mon, that's crap and you know it.  Perhaps the average golfer doesn't AVERAGE over 200 yards, but I'll bet we're at well under 10% to get the number who won't hit their best of 20 drives over 200 yards.
 
A lot more golfers than you are giving credit for have the thrill of "trying" to drive a par 4.  Granted many are living in a fantasy world much of the time if they think they can do it, but if I'm putting out on the green of a short par 4, I want guys behind me to base their decision on whether to wait for me to leave the green or not on how far their BEST drives go, NOT their average drives!

I can't disagree  re average vs best drives, and the "thrill."

But "driveable" pat fours still have to be under 300 from the regular tees to convince people they have a chance to get home. If the PGA Tour is playing the 15th at TPC River Highlands at ~290 to tempt pros to go for it, then most amateurs should get something around 250, else they won't be tempted.

Ken Kavanaugh created just such a hole on Logbow in Mesa, and it's 309 from the tips, 268 from the "championship" tees, 240 from the "regular" tees. and 213 from the forward tees.

I've played it many times from 268 and 240 and only been on the green once. And it's claimed many more bogeys than birdies for me.

K

[Brent Hutto]

I hit it shorter than any GCA-er I've played golf with so maybe my game is a good example.

If I were playing the River Highlands fifteenth I'd have to be on the red tees (226 on the card) to have a go at it. It would take a 99th-percentile good swing but it would be possible as long as the fringe in front of the green isn't soggy. At worst I could generally drive it far enough for a short chip or pitch-and-run from 10-15 yards short of the green which is still a fun hole.

At 247 from the white tee a driver would just give me a partial wedge layup. So it wouldn't be a "drivable 4" at that length for me. Most so-called "drivable 4" holes play for me a lot like a "long 3" of 200+ yards. Not reachable without driver and usually not a sensible play with the driver but it often makes sense to play for an open area 10-30 yards short of the green if I can play a ground shot from there.

So my conclusion is that if you want to offer the thrill of a "go for it" decision for shorter-hitting double-digit handicappers like me you need to put the tees they'll be playing somewhere in the 220-230 range on a flat hole, maybe even a touch shorter.

[Ken Moum]

I hit it shorter than any GCA-er I've played golf with so maybe my game is a good example.

If I were playing the River Highlands fifteenth I'd have to be on the red tees (226 on the card) to have a go at it. It would take a 99th-percentile good swing but it would be possible as long as the fringe in front of the green isn't soggy. At worst I could generally drive it far enough for a short chip or pitch-and-run from 10-15 yards short of the green which is still a fun hole.

At 247 from the white tee a driver would just give me a partial wedge layup. So it wouldn't be a "drivable 4" at that length for me. Most so-called "drivable 4" holes play for me a lot like a "long 3" of 200+ yards. Not reachable without driver and usually not a sensible play with the driver but it often makes sense to play for an open area 10-30 yards short of the green if I can play a ground shot from there.

So my conclusion is that if you want to offer the thrill of a "go for it" decision for shorter-hitting double-digit handicappers like me you need to put the tees they'll be playing somewhere in the 220-230 range on a flat hole, maybe even a touch shorter.

While you might be shorter than most GCAers, you're really not below average for American males.  One of the reasons I mentioned the 17th at Longbow is that even with sub-200-yard drives, the configuration of the hole would encourage you to have a go. It's slightly downhill, the course typically plays pretty fast, and 17 is often with the wind.

All of which makes going at the green both tempting and dangerous, because it has a very small green.

Short as it is, I don't think I've seen more than one birdie on it in 10 or so rounds.

K

[Doug Siebert]

I can't disagree  re average vs best drives, and the "thrill."

But "driveable" pat fours still have to be under 300 from the regular tees to convince people they have a chance to get home. If the PGA Tour is playing the 15th at TPC River Highlands at ~290 to tempt pros to go for it, then most amateurs should get something around 250, else they won't be tempted.

Ken Kavanaugh created just such a hole on Logbow in Mesa, and it's 309 from the tips, 268 from the "championship" tees, 240 from the "regular" tees. and 213 from the forward tees.

I've played it many times from 268 and 240 and only been on the green once. And it's claimed many more bogeys than birdies for me.

K

I don't disagree with the need to make holes well under 300 to bring them into driveable range for a majority of golfers.  I was only quibbling with you dropping that all the way down to 200.
 
The way that golfers tend to decide what tees to play on an unfamiliar course (look at slope/rating, total yardage and then quickly eye the yardages and pars of the various holes) would tend to argue against creating a par 4 that's truly in driveable range for average golfers.  The best way to do it would be to make a hole that's 301 on the card, but almost always plays up a set of tees at 268.

I wonder if the reason we don't see a lot of holes set up to be driveable for a majority of golfers is simple pace of play.  If a hole is reachable (enough that they feel like they have to wait for the green to clear) for 50% of golfers playing from their appropriate tees, almost every foursome will have to wait, making the hole play like a really long par 3.  If its a tricky or penal par 4 that includes a small wild green, places to lose your ball and other fun stuff, it can really bottleneck things unless its a private course that won't see a full tee sheet.
 
I think one of the most useless 'pace of play' things you can do is to let the group behind hit their tee shots on a par 3 after your group is all on the green.  However, I could see that as actually being somewhat useful on a par 4, due to the longer distances you need to go to get to your tee shots and the greatly reduced likelihood of the group behind hitting their balls or ball marks in the line of one of the balls on the green.

[Bryan Izatt]

Brent,

I'm not sure if you're being overly modest about your length off the tee, but to me a hole that is 30 or 40 yards beyond my average driving distance requires some thought as to whether it should be given a go.  If you hit it 210 or 220, would you not consider the wind, the course conditions, the slope of the hole, the ability to run it up when deciding on a daily basis how to play a 240 to 260 yars hole?  Do you not occasionally, in favourable conditions get it out that far?  Are you not tempted to try sometimes in some situations?

If you do drive it in the 210-220 range, what length of tees do you usually play?  There's one fellow at my course who drives it in that range.  He has trouble getting to par 4's over 400 and longer par 5's in regulation.  He uses driver on some off our 200 yard par 3's.  He is a master of the short game and putting, so often shoots high 70's, low 80's by getting up and down a lot - a solid 5 or 6 handicap.  But, he insists on playing the 6600 yard tees even though his game is more suited to something around 6,000 yards.  He's capable at 6,600 yards but he's not playing the same game as the rest of us.  I wonder he doesn't get frustrated or bored.  I guess his ego won't let him move up.

If you're driveable par 4 length is 220-230 then maybe you should be playing the forward tees.  But then, I guess that would be the double stigma - some sub-300 par 4's and foward tees.  Probably asking too much.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Doug,

I agree that pace of play might become an issue.  It's bad enough that guys wait to go for the green on par 5's when they're 250 or more away.  Lot of people have delusions about their length.  No doubt those types would wait on a driveable length 4, even if it was really out of their range.

I wonder how Pacific Dunes copes with the pace of play.  In 5 and 6 they have a par 3 followed by a sub-300 hole.  In theory that should be a bottleneck.  Then 9 and 10 are back to back 3's.  That should also be a hold-up.  And 16 is potentially driveable if you're playing the right tees and have the right wind.  When I've been there it all flowed fairly well and I don't recall being overly marshalled.  I'm not sure why it works there.

[Brent Hutto]

Bryan,

Well, right now I'm fighting my swing and my body so badly that I could tee it up at the 150 marker and perhaps not reach the green but my normal driver shot when I'm playing well goes about 185-190 in the air and then rolls anywhere from zero to 20-25 yards depending on how dry the fairway. Now that's on typical courses I play, when I was in England last summer I could roll it out there 225 or so with a 3-wood on firm links turf.

I do indeed play the up tees most of the time. My club's main 18 holes are about 5,700 yards from the blacks and 6,250 from the whites so I play the blacks in the winter and alternate between blacks and whites the rest of the year. Like the fellow you mention, anything over 400 yards is out of range. My summertime "reachable Par 4" distance is right around 385-390 with a normal driver/5-wood. Our Par 5's aren't very long but there are two of them with ponds in front of the green and that presents a problem for me from the whites because my two best shots leave me needing to carry 130-150 yards of water on the approach or else chip a 40 yard layup down to the water's edge and hit a 100-yard fourth.

Anyway, my comments were meant to suggest 230-ish yards from the front tees. That would probably equate to your 240-260 example from the regular tees and maybe a little under 300 from the back. Now if we're talking about a really tricky, well bunkered risk/reward drivable Par 4 it would need to be even shorter because I'm never going to try and fly it 200 yards over bunkers to a narrow or shallow target. For me there are two kinds of interesting short 4's:

One is the kind where I legitimately might put the ball on the green in one and that means leaving me at least a narrow runup area and keeping the fairway/apron firm enough to let me roll it the last 20 yards to the front of the green. Then the ideal would be some bunkers, rough, trees, hollows, etc. well short of the green to require accuracy on the layup and to penalize a very poorly hit drive-the-green attempt. I think some sort of Platonic Ideal would be a green complex contoured in a way that's receptive to an attempt at driving the green but with contours that kick offline attempts out in a direction that is not as receptive to the recovery shot. Don't know if you could actually build that or not.

The other is a short 4 that would be foolish to try and drive but that offers an angle and some sort of opening or contour to favor a pitch-and-run shot from a specific area short of the green. There's a hole on our alternate nine that's a little too long from the front tees (280, slighty uphill) to even be described as drivable but from the backs (310) it offers the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's a slight dogleg left and if you can hit the right side of the fairway, past the right-hand fairway bunker but right of the left greenside bunker you can leave a zero to forty yard shot that can be a putt, chip, pitch-and-run or spinny pitch shot that's right up the most favorable contour of the green. Or you can just lay back to 100-odd yards and have a semi-blind wedge approach but a less favorable contour. Big hitters who like to take changes try to hit a 280 yard drive all the way to the fringe on the front right of the green but an offline shot plus a bad bounce brings woods and cart path and who knows what all into play. The reward is an uphill eagle putt from the fringe and that target isn't impossibly small (maybe 15-20 yards wide).

[Bryan Izatt]

Brent,

I'm gad you have a course that's suited to your game.  It must be frustrating to play away courses that might be great courses but don't provide a playable routing and distance for you.

Your descriptions of two interesting short 4's sound good to me, and I'm sure can be built by thoughtful architects.

[Bryan Izatt]

Well and concisely said.  

For the temptation to be there on repeated plays, there must be a reasonable possibility of getting to the green if you're on the right tee - hence one of my criteria.

The hole that got me on this thread was a driveable 4 at Vista Verde that matches your requirements.  The tee I played was 279 yards, but downhill, downwind and hard and fast, so there was a real risk of going over with a diver.  I thought 3 wood but didn't think I could get it past the fronting desert wash.  Result, heel a driver that runs through the wash to a fronting embankment and then don't get up and down from maybe 40 feet.  Argggggh  

[Brian_Sleeman]

I also really short 4s which are in between driver and 3 wood with nasty trouble behind the green and bunkering maybe 40 yards or so short of the green.  So hitting either club is a risk and the safe (boring) shot is a layup.  

Interesting point.  I've played a few along those lines and remember them fondly as being holes where I had to hit a finesse-style driver and play with the trajectory in order to get the right distance control and landing.  

If it required something delicate to either stay on the green or just avoid disaster, I'd try to hit a high, soft, short cut.  If it required a runner I'd take the three wood and try to turn over a low draw or hit an awkward bunt driver.  This is always great fun because it's not often you're tempted, required, or able to finesse your drive to such an extent.  

It makes for something exceedingly rewarding if you pull it off or an exciting challenge if you don't, because in those cases you often can't wait to get back to that tee and try it again.

[Ken Moum]

Well and concisely said.  

For the temptation to be there on repeated plays, there must be a reasonable possibility of getting to the green if you're on the right tee - hence one of my criteria.

The hole that got me on this thread was a driveable 4 at Vista Verde that matches your requirements.  The tee I played was 279 yards, but downhill, downwind and hard and fast, so there was a real risk of going over with a diver.  I thought 3 wood but didn't think I could get it past the fronting desert wash.  Result, heel a driver that runs through the wash to a fronting embankment and then don't get up and down from maybe 40 feet.  Argggggh  

That sounds alot like the hole I mentioned, 17 at Longbow--also by Ken Kavanaugh.

Having played it several times now, with a better-informed eye toward GCA, I am beginning to think it's more golf course than I first imagined.

Has anyone else on here played it?

K