A question about drivable par-4's

[Matt_Cohn]

In your opinion, do they play better when the hole location is accessible from the tee, or when the hole location cannot be accessed with a driver?


At the Western Amateur this morning (in match play), #12 at Sunset Ridge was played from a forward tee to make it drivable (~330 yards).




The hole location was front-right, immediately over the bunker, where it was not possible to hit a teeshot within about 30 feet of the hole.


If you were setting up this hole as drivable — let's say you were just doing it for one round only — would you put the hole location there, or somewhere on the left where it was possible to hit a driver close?

[Jeff Schley]

IMHO if you are going to have a drive able par 4 for one day put the pin accessible as more guys will go for it and those that took the risk are rewarded with the rare eagle.  Very exciting hole when executed. To tuck the pin behind the bunker you are still going to have 25-30 feet putt for eagle which is nice but not nearly as fun as inside 10 feet potentially. I'm sure many guys will just layup and spin a wedge into that front right hole location over the bunker for a higher percentage play.
BTW you would have to take 50 yards off the hole, add a concrete halfpipe for the fairway, or play with a superball for a 330 hole to be drive able for me.

[Kalen Braley]

According to some who have posted "research" on the issue....it doesn't matter where the pin is. 


You always get as close to the hole as you can on every shot.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I tend to like short 4 holes where the green needs to be accessed by a curved shot, but you can always dink an iron out to a generous fairway.  The peek-a-boo template?  I also think it's a good use of a specimen tree on a parkland layout (generally not a fan of trees).

[Matthew Petersen]

On a designed driveable hole you can put the pin anywhere. But I will agree with Jeff S. If you're going to take a drive and pitch or longer hole and move the tee up to make it driveable, then why tuck the pin? In that case, really go for it, and make the reward large.

[Tom_Doak]

Why not reward the player who dares to skirt closer to the bunker, instead of the guy who can just fly the ball over it??

[Kevin_Reilly]

Why not reward the player who dares to skirt closer to the bunker, instead of the guy who can just fly the ball over it??

How do you "skirt closer to the bunker" on a 330 yd shot?  Try to land it short and run it by the left side of the bunker?

[Thomas Dai]

Blue touch paper time perhaps, but if it's drivable shouldn't it be classed as a par-3?
Or maybe 100-200 yd holes should be classed as par-4's for shorter hitters, most ladies, most seniors and young juniors!?

atb

[Duncan Cheslett]

A hole is "driveable" at 330 yards only for elite players. For even very good handicap golfers "driveable" is more likely to mean 270 - 300 yards.


To my mind simply having the ability to smite a ball 300 yards shouldn't give a player a considerable advantage. The green should be difficult to hit and/or hold and only a very brave and well-executed shot should result in an eagle putt.


Ideally the pin position should be less accessible from the tee shot than from an ideal and more "sensible" lay-up position. 


Golf should involve decisions, strategy, and risk/reward.  Not just be a driving and putting contest.

[Peter Pallotta]

I've never understood the intention/goal behind setting up a driveable 4 during a tournament. Whether it's at the US Open or the Western Amateur, if the goal is to make it player-neutral and present to both the longer hitter and the shorter one a different question-choice than the one they faced the day before, the set-up doesn't work as intended -- only the longer hitter is faced with a new choice to make. I suppose one could argue (though I wouldn't) for the merits/validity of an alternative goal i.e. to preference one type of golfer over the other, at least for one round -- but then (using Matt's example) that's likely achieved by choosing the least challenging pin position possible, centre back, thus turning what looks to be an already mediocre/poorly designed golf hole (IMHO) into an even less interesting one.
More generally, I think tournament set-up staff should leave architecture to the architects: the notion that you can turn even a very good short Par 4 into a good driveable par 4 simply by moving up a set of tees is, at best, misguided. 
Peter 

[Tom_Doak]

Why not reward the player who dares to skirt closer to the bunker, instead of the guy who can just fly the ball over it??

How do you "skirt closer to the bunker" on a 330 yd shot?  Try to land it short and run it by the left side of the bunker?

Exactly.  It would also make the hole more about distance control, than just about whether you're strong enough to carry the bunker.

[Sean_A]

In your opinion, do they play better when the hole location is accessible from the tee, or when the hole location cannot be accessed with a driver?


At the Western Amateur this morning (in match play), #12 at Sunset Ridge was played from a forward tee to make it drivable (~330 yards).




The hole location was front-right, immediately over the bunker, where it was not possible to hit a teeshot within about 30 feet of the hole.


If you were setting up this hole as drivable — let's say you were just doing it for one round only — would you put the hole location there, or somewhere on the left where it was possible to hit a driver close?

I am not one to be precious about archie intentions when it comes to (temporary) course set-up simply because the smallest thing like contrary wind can blow holes in that idea.  I like the concept of short 4s, however, I don't know what the terrain is like.  It doesn't seem as if this hole is well suited to pros having a bash because the penalty for missing seems light.  My instinct would be to keep the hole tucked regardless of the tee situation. 

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

According to some who have posted "research" on the issue....it doesn't matter where the pin is. 

You always get as close to the hole as you can on every shot.

If you're referring to me… you've misunderstood the research, as it doesn't say that. But a 50-foot putt (or even a bunker shot) is generally more likely to go in or get close than a wedge from 50 to 100 yards.

To the question… I prefer that the flag be located where you can get tap-in eagles and short eagle putts. Tucking the pin behind a bunker is a sort of half-assed way of making a drivable par four, IMO.

I'm also not a big fan of making a hole that wasn't designed to be a drivable par four and making it into one just for the sake of "excitement." Odds are the original architect/designer put the tees and the green where they were intentionally.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


As it pertains to this hole specifically, your comment seems to confirm what I said earlier. 


Hit it as close as you can to the hole and if you go in the bunker, green side rough, or run it on the green...its always preferable over laying back according to the data.


So in that sense, there is no "strategy" for those who can drive the hole.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As it pertains to this hole specifically, your comment seems to confirm what I said earlier. 

Hit it as close as you can to the hole and if you go in the bunker, green side rough, or run it on the green...its always preferable over laying back according to the data.

So in that sense, there is no "strategy" for those who can drive the hole.

I'm not denying the lack of strategy here. I think it's a poor move to put the tees forward here. But one of the few times when laying back has its advantages over getting closer is when the pin is up front and you can spin the ball back to the pin instead of hitting a lower-spin shot that will need to carry something and will still roll out.

This generally applies only to higher skilled players (like would be playing in this event), but still… it's not always about getting as close as possible. Other examples exist too, particularly if the players (like most golfers) are bad out of the sand, or other things.