[Greg Murphy]

A month ago I had the pleasure of playing the We-Ko-Pa courses a couple times each. Saguaro had a few shortish par 4's. I didn't make note of the holes when I played them but looking at the card there is #2 (299 yards), #7 (305 yards), #10 (322 yards) and #16 (315 yards). My recollection is that most if not all played uphill, some significantly so. The Plantation course has one of these too. I can't say I particularly like this style of hole and maybe they were a necessary evil in the routing to bridge elevation transitions but the fact that C & C seem to repeat them would suggest they may find them desirable.

What are the merits of uphill par 4's with distances that would be potentially driveable if not uphill but are really rendered undriveable due to elevation change?

[Carl Rogers]

The distance on the card may not mean much .... they just play 30 or 50 yards longer and thus not drivable.

[Carl Nichols]

I think #16 at Saguaro is a really good hole, as it forces the player (especially the long hitter) to make a decision off the tee:  either hit driver but likely leave a tricky short (30-60 yard) uphill pitch, or lay back for a fuller uphill shot that will be more exposed to the wind (at a green that, because it's uphill, is likely windier than the fairway).  Short uphill par 4's on windy sites present this choice, which I like.  I bet 16 at Saguaro plays as one of the harder holes out there, notwithstanding its length.

[Garland Bayley]

...

What are the merits of uphill par 4's with distances that would be potentially driveable if not uphill but are really rendered undriveable due to elevation change?

Since these factors contribute nothing to the quality of the hole, your question is completely unanswerable.

[Tom Yost]

Why is a short uphill par 4 that is undriveable different than a level but longer par 4 that is undrivable?

[Charlie Goerges]

Why is a short uphill par 4 that is undriveable different than a level but longer par 4 that is undrivable?

It could be undriveable for reasons other than the effective increase in distance. I.e. the loss of trajectory on the landing, or the fact that it might be blind or any number of other factors.

The first of the three seems to make the most sense. Basically your ball would be coming in too hot to possibly hold the green. This would be especially true if there were a carry hazard that meant one couldn't run it on with a shorter club (like a 3-wood).

[Adam Clayman]

The first two aspects that came to my mind that make such holes interesting and worth repeating are temptation and the difficulty in judging approach shots, after the reality that you can't reach is forced upon you.

Colorado GC has a lovely one transitioning out of the flats and dry wash on the back nine.

[Greg Murphy]

Carl,

I agree #16 is certainly quite a tough hole, but I honestly don't recall much choice off the tee. anything hit close to the green brings more trouble left and right and arguably a tougher shot into the green -- a lofted semi wedge to get on to the table top rather than a full club from a bit further out. In either case, I don't think running it up is much of an option because of the uphill climb.

Garland,

A level or downhill tweener 3.5 hole gives many options depending on the wind and bounce of the ball and ability of the player. An uphill hole of the same length seems to result in holes where hitting driver brings more trouble into play with no balancing reward, such as the chance to bounce a perfectly placed long one onto the green. or set up an easier second shot.

Tom.

These short uphill par 4's seems to demand lay up/wedge, which is no different than a level hole of longer yardage (with danger off the tee), except in the latter case a low shot into the green is more of an option.

Carl,

Agreed, these holes just play a bit longer, putting them in that Driver/half wedge range or lay up/full wedge range. I guess not my favourite length of hole. For variety, can be fun, but 4 in a round?

Adam,

Asking for a soft lofted uphill approach shot, from an uphill lie, would seem to be the primary allure of this sort of hole. For some reason, I would rather see this shot on a par 5 where the two preceding shots might be designed to hold more interest.

[Ben Sims]

Having recently played Saguaro, I'll try to add my two cents.  I'll also try not to say the word Merion, dang it I said Merion.  Merion, land swap, Wilson, Francis.  Oh no, I've got Merion thread tourettes again.  I digress.

I thought the short par 4 collection at Saguaro was superb.  Mostly because their length belies their difficulty.  Numbers 2, 7, 10, and 16 all lie in the magical 300-350 yard range.  However, as mentioned above, I only consider 2 of the 4 "drivable".  Numbers 2 and 10, IMO, are the best options for driving the greens, especially in firm and fast conditions.  Because of the angles into the openings from the tees, 7 and 16, do not represent drivable par 4's.  Options off the tee abound at 7, you can hit anything from a long iron to the driver.  16 left me with little option off the tee.  I hit a four iron and left myself with a pitching wedge.  It's shape to the right--for most I would think--precludes it's categorization as a drivable par 4. 

Out of all of these holes, I consider 2 and 7 to be the strongest.  7 has options, 2 is so tempting. 

I think most surprising is that C&C decided on 4--four!!--holes of this length and genre.  Though many will consider them of the same hole type, I would categorize them as two drivable par 4's and two drive and pitch par 4's. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()