A great short par-4 made greater with added length?

[Rich Goodale]

The "under 330 par 4" topic made me think of Dornoch, as it is on my mind, and particularly the 15th.  From the front tees it is a 295-yard "par" 4 which can be driven under favorable conditions by reasonably long players (240 carry), but which is made interesting by a Redannish (plateau, hard right to left, front-back sloping) green and a large high hump in the middle of the fairway at 200 yards or so off the tee.

When one moves to the "medal" tee, 25 yards are added, and carrying the hump gets problematical when hitting into the wind, but one still thnks that a 3 is very possible, and thinks this when planning the play of the hole.

Last week, for the first time, I twice played the new "championship" tee from just over 350, and it was a revelation.  Now the carry of the hump was at least 250, and it was a great reality check on how far one actually hits the ball.  Mentally one thinks that the carry is still in play, but it is really not.  I watched the finalists of the Carnegie Shield play this hole and neither took on the hump (why am I thinking of "Candy".....?).  The best angle to just about all pins is down the left, but that channel is significantly narrowed by the added length.  The second shot, regardless of whether you go right or left, must still be made to the problematical green, but with a much less lofted club inj your hand.  The pitch and run has been largely eliminated, but not completely.  Finally, downwind (which it was not in the Shield) it is still driveable.

The "new" hole is not as fun as its 320 or 295 yard versions, but it is a much "stronger" golf hole.  To me, this says a lot about the quality of the hole's "design."  The fact that it plays so differently depending on tee and wind reinforces my belief that this is one of the great short "4's" in golf.

Any comments on the hole itself, or how flexible are other "great" short-4's (e.g. Cypress 9, riviera 10, Old Course 12, etc.) to possible extension?

[Bill_McBride]

Rich, I loved the way the hole fit into the routing between Foxy and that uphill beast.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rich

I think what you're postulating is that it's possible to think of a short 4 as two different holes:
driveable par 4
short-but-two-shot-for-everybody par 4

These are irreconcilable or "binary" in that it's one or the other -- but it's possible to design the hole so you get a twofer.

The keys are:
1. There's a "magic length" which must be geared off the short / two-shot type of hole.  This is roughly 350 yards
2. Design tee flexibility so that markers can be moved up and back, depending on which hole is desired
3. Green complex not particularly unusual in regard to changes from standard driveable-4: hard to hit, penalty for missing, etc.
4. Pay special attention to designing the landing area roughly 100 yards short of green: this will not come into play for the driveable-4 hole but is critical to making a successful short / two-shot hole.

Re #4: if you're going to design a hole to be driveable or nearly so, why would you make 100 yards short a bi*ch, too? Most would complain to no end about that, wouldn't they?

Anyway, what short 4s out there have action 100 yards short?  (I ask the question that way because it's not just a matter of asking which holes could be lengthened but also which holes might be shortened, yes?)

Do Cypress, Riviera, and TOC?

Mark

PS Doesn't Riviera have plans in the can for lengthening 10, the trigger being when they decide too many pros drive it? I think Tommy N's biffle mentioned this in the R/T discussion on Riviera 10 that Doak managed for Links Magazine.

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

The thing you left out in your analysis is that the hole got better for YOU with those extra 30 yards ... but it got worse for a guy who hits it 30 yards shorter than you do (it was perfect for him from the mdeal tee), and it's still not long enough for Tiger Woods to do anything but take a rip at the green.

There is never a perfect final solution because it all depends on the talents of the player on the tee.  All you can do as an architect is create a hole interesting enough that different players will try different ways to play it.

[Greg Tallman]

Whilst Seņor Morrissett was tanning below the harsh Cabo sun we had a similar conversation about one of the holes on our Ocean Course here at Cabo del Sol actually made better by technology making it driveable.

Already one of my favorite the 14th is 360 from all the way back and while never intended to be a drivable risk reward hole (correct me if I am wrong Jim Lipe) it may have eveolved into a GREAT drivable par 4. The direct line may be no more than 330 or so with a carry of say 285 or so to a tight area.

We would have to clear the vegetation growing in the active arroyo to reveal the option and may consider doing so. JWL if you are reading... shoot me a message with your thoughts.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Greg

At first that hole reminded me on a driveable par 4 on the back nine (I think) of the links at Hope Island.

But instead of a concavity short left there is a convexity.

Which loops us back to Tom's comment: could Royal Dornoch's convexity be replaced by a concavity to regulate distance?

I am beating on the Mimosa Hills #7 horse here. There's a concavity followed by a convexity; the combo creates a distance regulator. The concavity helps lengthen short drives, while the convexity limits longer drives.

Can this concept be applied to Rich's example? Also, should it?

Mark

[Walter Bart]

Rich

    Being an average length driver, I had real trouble with the tee moved back on #15 last week..  With a hooking tendancy, rough that was not in play became a potential  problem for me.

      I suppose you could say it was still a special short par 4 from back there,   but, I prefer the simpler option of going right or left over the hump,  hoping I miss it,   and then coping with a very tough green.

[Rich Goodale]

Sorry for the late replies, but I check in infrequently these days and I thought this thread had died an early death.....

Mark

Very good points.  The 350-yard number is a good one these days.  I've always loved the 15th at Dornoch, but now I love it more with the new tee, as it challenges the best players to still go for the green.  In recent years the "old" 320 yard back tees were just too easy for the elite players (although very interesting for moderately good players like me). Now there are 3 tees with significantly different challenges.  From the front (295) it is a long par-3 for the best players, a possible eagle for single digit players and a chance to take on an "alp" for the higher handicaps (180-190 yard carry).  From 320  the higher handicaps must play right or left of the hump, but the single digits can take it on.  From 350, the single digit player has to go right or left (preferably right, as there is little room on the left).  And, as Walter says, regardless of where you play from or what your ability, you always have a great green to contend with.

Not sure about your convexity/concavity argument/question.  The 15th is defined by three convexities (the central humpo, the shorter ridge to the right and the green itself.  If any of those were replaced by a concavity, it would have to be a water hazard, which would not suit Dornoch....

Tom

Sorry for misleading you into thinking that I was defining greatness only in relation to my game (as ungreat as you know it is).  I play golf with all sorts of players and am a very empathic person.  The back tees on the 15th are great for all players, even if (or particularly if) they make the hole a bitch for the weaker players.  Hard as it may be from the back tee for them, a 200-yard drive to the ample landing area on the center-right just leaves 150 to the green.  Even though the shot might be blind, it is not at all impossible, and possibly even thrilling for the distance-challenged but excitement-sensitive golfer.

All

Thinking concavely, I wonder if the converse of this situation might not work, i.e. how about creating a great short 4 from a longer hole by using/creating a forward tee?  Some examples:

--the 5th at Dornoch.  I saw Els nearly drive it from the back (353) several years ago, and we had a recent post about a vistor who manged to navigate his drive along one of the ramps between the bunkers to the green twice in one visit from the front tees (~300)!  I now try to drive that green whenever the ground is firm and the wind is favorable.  It is a thrilling golf shot, and a very prudent one if the pin is at the front (only way to get is close downwind on the 2nd is to splash it out of one of the front bunkers).
--the 1st at Cypress Point.  Solve the "stupid hedge" problem by making the current tee a putting green/short game area.  Build a new 1st tee across the road at 350, probably to the right, forcing the player to deal with the big cypress(?) on that side.
--Merion.  Needs a driveable par-4.  Maybe the 10th or 11th, or 12th or even two of them?  Now that would be some sort of "Amen Corner"....
--TPC Sawgrass.  Ditto.  Maybe the 5th?
--the 4th at Pebble Beach--make it short enough to tempt the bombers
--the 10th at Lytham.  Again, temptation.
--the 16th at Bandon Dunes

Interestingly, the one course that really doesn't need any more of these holes is NGLA....

Slainte

Rich

[David_Tepper]

Rich -

A few thoughts on #15 at RDGC. 

From the regular tee or the "old" medal tee, carrying the mound is not quite the problem it once was, especially downwind.  If my memory serves me correctly, there is a little more room down the right side than there used to be, as the gorse was cut back there about 4-5 years ago.

I am wondering if it might make sense to put in 1 or 2 bunkers on the right side of the fairway beyond the mound.  That would tighten up the landing area a bit and give the bombers something to think about before routinely driving the ball within 20-40 yards of the green.

Does that make any sense?

DT 

[Rich Goodale]

David

IMHO bunkers right would be both inappropriate and not in the character of Dornoch, as they would be blind.  As the hole is designed, the Redanish cant of the green means that any shot hit from the right will be problematical.  I'd vote for slightly thickening the rough onj the top of the short right ridge off the tee (and maybe further on, where you would have bunkers), as in each of the 3 tiomes I played that hole in match play, my opponent carved/sliced a "shot" right onto that ridge and then had a relaitvely easy shot to the green.

Rich

[David_Tepper]

Rich -

It sounds like we are in agreement that the landing area on #15 beyond the mound could/should be tightened up a bit.

While I am not a big fan of sprinkling bunkers about, there are a few at RD that are blind. The bunker 30 yards short & right of the #18 green comes to mind.

Perhaps creating a hollow or two with some shaggy rough down the right side of the fairway might do the job.

DT

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I played Dornoch last Tuesday, with a member and a member of Royal Troon. Years ago I had my lowest gross score (77) at Dornoch (off the whites). This time I thought I would beat it. From the 1st tee I drove the 18th green. I am sure I would have sunk the putt.

As to the 15th, we played from the yellow tees. I completely mishit my tee shot, which finished just to the left of the mound. It was dead easy from there - I think I won with a 6. Pity about the 16th....

My friend is also a member of Nairn. We played 12 holes before being driven off by torrential rain. I'd forgotten what a fun hole the 5th is. Has anyone done a photo essay of Nairn?