Which course has THE MOST VARIED PAR 4s?

[John Kirk]

Pasatiempo has a nice varied set.

Did you know that's where I played?!

no...sorry, gotta run...back in a few hours

[Steve Lapper]

Pasatiempo has a nice varied set.

Steve Lapper and I have discussed this before, and will simply have to agree we disagree about Ballyneal.  I admit I was a little irritated when my beloved BN was mentioned specifically as not qualifying.  Steve asserts that our short par 4s turn right to left and favor a draw.  Holes 1, 7, 12, and 14 turn right to left and have bunkers guarding the left side.  9 is straight.  On any given day, one or two of these holes might be driveable for the power player.  After thinking about this for a while, I believe 1 and 12 favor a fade, while 7 and 14 favor a draw, with 9 being neutral.  You can't easily draw the ball into 1; the green slopes that way.  On 12, the green opens up from the left better.

Also, these holes, at 330-380 yards, are only driveable for maybe 5% of the golfers that play there.  I never try to drive them.  So while Steve's observation is a smart one, and well worth considering, I believe the holes actually play more neutral than they look.  Thanks for pulling my chain a bit.

John,

   My pleasure !!   Reading your civil and well-reasoned descriptions of the above holes, I'll concede to you that while the short fours at BN all do possess some considerable similarity in design and angle, I agree they play differently and do demand differing shot values  for the most part.

     With that conceded, it still doesn't permit BN a stronger comparison to Sand Hills for "variety of par fours." While #'s 2, 6,17 and 18 at BN are good long and sturdy tests, I'd still think #'s 2, 4, 10, 15 and 18 at SH are stronger examples and mix it up a bit and space themselves out a tad better.

   With the cat out of the bag, I'd argue that although BN's #3 is a wonderful little hole, it pales in comparison to SH #17 and neither do the BN's fives better #1 or #16 SH (IMHO).  I'll go one step further and say although BN#7 is really a terrific hole, it doesn't quite surpass SH#7 head-to-head. Neither does BN#15 stand up to the terror in trying to make par or better at SH#13. Up vs. down makes for more thought and precision as the bowl shape of BN's#15 readily allows for "feeding" shots (GG & I both got ours close with less than perfect strikes...soemthing we could never get away with at SH).  

  All just my opinions in a mano-a-mano comparison. That said, I'd happily play both, or either, anyday

[Jordan Wall]

Kaplua has some neat ones.

#6 is a 370 yard driveable hole!!

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike Sweeney,

Are there any similarities among those holes you listed? I cannot really see any overlap at all other than 7, 8 and 11 really do not offer a driver option to longer players (although I did see a driver or two during the Amateur on #7) I would put #12 in the mid-length category along with 14, 15 and 16. Pretty strong company there, with very little overlap in shots there as well. And finally #'s 5, 6 and 18 are a pretty good representation of the long difficult par 4 wouldn't you say. All three segments ask for shots to work both ways off the tee and offer different green site demands. I would not say it's the most varied set, but I have not seen more variety within one course.

I agree with everything you said. My take was more a direct shot at Mr Moore who has left Maine for 1 week of his life and now is commenting on threads concerning world wide topics.  

I have only been there once, but in Philly, Pine Valley would win out over Merion? Your thoughts?

[John_Conley]

I assume you mean the first two holes although they both are downhill which dilutes the distance to a degree.

Which holes are you defining as the Mega's and Long's?

Mike, this is HIGHLY open to interpretation since everyone plays differently, but I found #1 a long hole because the approach is uphill and it plays into the wind.  Of course, I didn't hit a good drive so maybe it isn't so bad from 457 with a nice teeshot.  Such is the limit of one round before reaching an opinion.

The new tee across the road on #2 is about 480.  Even with a little downhill that is a mega to me.  I didn't hit a great teeshot but it got out okay, landed in a dried out area in the right rough, and rolled to the fairway where I reached with a 6 iron.  I categorized this as "long" at 437 from the back tee (I played middle marker at 421).  The category in front of "long" is "average", and I'm guessing it plays longer than that.

My other two "longs" are #10 at 440 (I've read that MacKenzie had this as a par 5 from across the road) and #14 at 426.

You might have a different opinion, but my "checklist" is designed to help "quantify" various course characteristics and playing options.  Like Huckaby says, no matter how one looks at it there is a great deal of variety.

[John_Conley]

no...sorry, gotta run...back in a few hours

John, I wondered if anyone would nominate Pasatiempo without knowing that I played there.  It turns out you COULD have known if you heard from Mr. O'Neal at Meadow Club where I spoke to Sean Tully OR from Pete Galea, Tom Huckaby, or Tommyknockers who were helpful when I made plans to come to California.  Turns out you didn't hear from anyone and really just felt the same way about Pasatiempo that I did!

I told my playing partners, people I didn't know, on #17 that the par 4s were the best collection I'd seen since they were complaining about pace of play, conditioning, and the difficulty factor (both are seniors).  They didn't like the course much.

[Michael Dugger]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned Pacific Dunes yet....

4 & 13 are brutes
9 is, unique, diverse, first class
7 is stern
8 & 16 are rarely driven, plus possess tricky greens
2 & 6 are amongst the best the game has ever seen
1 is drivable, a strange opener but oddly perfect

Into a stiff wind, #2 is no cup of tea.  I have failed to clear the hateful little pot in the center of the fairway...the one with the weirdbranch.

Let alone take #4 into the wind.  It becomes a three shot hole.

[John Kirk]

no...sorry, gotta run...back in a few hours

John, I wondered if anyone would nominate Pasatiempo without knowing that I played there.  It turns out you COULD have known if you heard from Mr. O'Neal at Meadow Club where I spoke to Sean Tully OR from Pete Galea, Tom Huckaby, or Tommyknockers who were helpful when I made plans to come to California.  Turns out you didn't hear from anyone and really just felt the same way about Pasatiempo that I did!

I told my playing partners, people I didn't know, on #17 that the par 4s were the best collection I'd seen since they were complaining about pace of play, conditioning, and the difficulty factor (both are seniors).  They didn't like the course much.

Too bad about your playing partners complaining.  I'll assume conditioning was less than ideal because of recent aeration.  I didn't know you were there, so it's a nice coincidence.  I absolutely love Pasatiempo; what a great place.  Underrated in my book.

John

[John_Conley]

Too bad about your playing partners complaining.  I'll assume conditioning was less than ideal because of recent aeration.  

JK:

It wasn't a big deal.  They live in the California desert and may be comparing the course with wall-to-wall lush.  Also, they had to be somewhere for dinner at 6:00 and asked the shop when making a teetime how long the round would take.  They were told 4 hours when it was in fact 5:15 - a valid complaint as they would have played elsewhere had they known.  

Finally, his wife is a decent novice that got no breaks on the tees and was having a tough time.  (Example?  The 3rd is a long par 3 where she had to hit a bomb to clear an ornamental bunker halfway to the green and almost rolled back down the hill into it.)  I had a tough time from my tee, so she wasn't alone!  

The man recognized right away that he couldn't reach greens in regulation from the white, so he played with her from the red.  I commend him for that.  He's no hack, just an old man that lost his clubhead speed and has a harder time with the game than he did when younger.  He told me he played college golf at a Pac 10 school and I believe it.

I think the perfect golf course is equally playable for golfers of all abilities and Pasatiempo isn't.  Fine for me, but these folks might have enjoyed a day at Pinehurst or St. Andrews more.

[Tom Huckaby]

I think the perfect golf course is equally playable for golfers of all abilities and Pasatiempo isn't.  Fine for me, but these folks might have enjoyed a day at Pinehurst or St. Andrews more.

That's a very interesting point - and I've never thought of Pasatiempo in this light.  And you're right - if you can't carry the ball over 100 yards in the air, Pasa won't be much fun.  You'll need to do that on 3, 10, 11, 16, 18 for sure.. and lots of the shots into greens will have to carry bunkers - or take a very long way around - as well.  Interesting situation for one of MacKenzie's greats (if not his own personal fave) given his oft-quoted line that a course ought to be able to be played with a putter...

But note also the demarcation line of 100 yards - I do believe that is all that's required - and if one can't carry the ball 100 yards, well... perhaps one ought not to be playing championship-length golf courses?  Just a thought.  I know my 8 year old son couldn't handle Pasatiempo - but of course I'd never take him there.

I don't mean to denigrate your playing companions, John.  And Pasa is a a daunting challenge for all golfers - and the tee shot on 10, the shot into the green on 11, the shot into the green on 16 can be too much for golfers who can't carry the ball 100 yards.  But the carry on 3 from the up tees is  shorter than that, and the ball will stay on the far side of the bunker; and there's a tee the far side of the barranca on 10; and one can get it right down to the creek on 16 such that the carry over it is minimal.  On the whole it likely is too much course for them, and I can understand their discomfort.  I just wonder how they'd have been able to handle the bunkers at The Old Course... Maybe Pinehurst would have been the best place for them.  But does this necessarily make Pinehurst the better golf course overall for everybody?  

TH

[John Kirk]

The story about the woman clearing the carry bunker on 3 is interesting.  I am almost sure that bunker was restored for that very reason.  It's a clear example of MacKenize positioning bunkers for all levels of players.  On the previous hole, there's a new (restored) bunker over 300 yards from the tee which comes into play for the very long hitter, or the weaker player on their second shot.

She cleared the bunker with a good shot.  You would think that she would derive great pleasure from that.  The third hole says "par 3" on the card, which is deceiving, as it is a par 4 for many players.  It is the most difficult par 3 I play on a semi-regular basis.  The cross bunker is there to challenge the weaker player, and I say that's a great thing.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

I agree that is the intent of the bunker.  And I also agree that your description is how things SHOULD go - the woman should have been thrilled to make the carry.  I just wonder how many golfers who can't carry the ball 100 yards get a thrill about carrying over a hazard like that, and how many just think of it as a pain in the butt, as this woman and apparently her husband also did?  It's food for thought.  Maybe back in the day, this would have been considered a thrill.  And note I am also not questioning the bunker on 3 Pasa - it's beautiful, and it really doesn't take even a 100 yard carry from the very up tees, which are above it (to the left and up the hill as you play from the blues and whites).  I'm just wondering about the concept IN GENERAL... because hazards so close to the tee basically don't exist for good golfers, and would serve only to punish the weaker players.  I'm not sure in the end that the thrill of the carry outweighs the pain they feel when they don't make it... because remember they also MISS a lot more shots completely than does the better player.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

For reference, here's #3 Pasatiempo, with the restored bunker.  This was taken from blue tee.  Red tee is forward and to the left, up the hill - another pad up to the left of the ivy.  The shot from there requires no carry of the bunker at all.  But a shot missed to the right sure can get in it...

[Adam Clayman]

I was gonna ask...Do people really pay the frieght and can't carry the ball 100 yards?

Then I remembered a caddy job that included a mail order bride with store boughts who had never played golf before and who's husband paid for her to play Spyglass Hill with a caddy. Thank goodness it wasn't me. It was the number one caddie at Spy, who I'm sure had the longest day of his caddy life. The young bride was laying nine, still 300 yards fom the first green at Spyglass Hill.

[Tom Huckaby]

Aye, well that's the question I was hoping
most would ask, Adam.

That has to be a pretty tiny minority
of the golf world... so to me, if greatness
of a golf course is based on if they can
play it with impugnity, well... let's just
say that ought to be criteria #10, worth
5% at most in the overall.

It matters... just not that much.

[John Kirk]

I suppose if we had #3 to the list, it only strengthens the argument that Pasatiempo has a great set of par 4s.  Not an easy green.

[wsmorrison]

I heartedly agree that Pine Valley and Merion have a wonderful and varied collection of par 4 holes.

Nevermind the party line about difficulty, brutally punishing and all that as regards Shinnecock Hills.  There is no real basis for this misconception.  It, too, has a tremendously good and varied collection of par 4s.  It is eminently playable for all golfers that don't exceed their abilities when selecting tee locations.  There are no difficult carries for all classes of players.  

While it may not have the very wide playing corridors of NGLA (which goes a long way to account for most players enjoyment although many of the approaches remain very difficult), SHGC is still a fun and fair test of golf in a far more naturalistic presentation.  The view from the first landing area on 16 past the green up to the clubhouse is so good that it will be on the front cover of our Flynn book.

Consider the variety of par 4s from member back tees:

Short (less than 400)

#1 (East to West) at 391 yards, elevated tee shot (plays shorter than card yardage) to offset fairway doglegs left to right with ability to run the ball onto the slightly offset green.

#8 (North to South) at 361 yards, level terrain well-bunkered dogleg right with the ideal approach from the outside of the dogleg (left).

#13 (North to Southwest) at 372 yards, dogleg right from an elevated tee shot to landing zone and slightly uphill to green.  As with the 8th, the best approach is from the outside of the dogleg.

Mid-length

#4 (Northwest to South) at 409 yards, dogleg right on flat terrain with run-up or aerial option

#9 (Northwest to Southeast) at 411 yards, slight dogleg left with elevated approach to a saddled green requiring aerial approach.

#15 (Southeast to North) at 408 yards, dogleg right from highly elevated tee to green surrounded on 3 sides by bunkers requiring an aerial approach.

Long (greater than 425 yards)

#3 (South to North) at 456 yards, slight dogleg left with run-up option on level ground.

#6 (East to West) at 456 yards, slight dogleg right with hidden landing areas and a split fairway, water hazard to clear if on right side of fairway.

#12 (South to North) at 469 yards from elevated tee with winding fairway and many bunkers.

#14 (Southwest to Northeast) at 447 yards with offset fairway dogleg left to right.

#18 (Northwest to Southeast) at 426 dogleg left with hidden fairway and top of flag showing.  The correct play is towards the clubhouse and away from the slightly uphill green.  

[Tom Huckaby]

OK, back to the topic at hand.  Apologies for the
diversion.

So re Shinnecock... great call for this topic, Wayne.
The par fours are quite varied, and you describe them
perfectly.

Now if I may digress again... re the impression of
brutality, which I share:  it's not the length that
makes the course brutal - it's the narrowness
of the fairways combined with high rough pretty much
all the time (though of course not so high as US Open times)
combined with very penal greens and green surrounds.
I can't see a set of tees that would make that course
doable for me... Hell I hit LW into #1 nice and high
and it bounced like cement and bounded over the green
where I was faced with a chip back that Tiger himself
would have found difficult. (Should have run it in, yes, but
I didn't grasp the firmness at that point; and the point
is that was the hardest little 75 yard shot with nothing
in the way to a large green one can imagine.)

This is the point of the
brutality impression, as I see it anyway... You just have to
hit perfect shots into those greens - if you do, you'll then
likely have a really hard putt.  If you don't, god help you.

I'm not saying it's not great - it is.  I'm not saying it's not
fun - it is.  I just will stand by saying it's a brutally difficult
golf course.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

TH

[wsmorrison]

This makes for a great discussion, Tom.  I certainly won't take the Matt Ward approach that everybody but me is an idiot  

The fairway widths after the 2004 Open have been returned to the widths prior to the tournament.  There remains a bit more expansion to be done.  While they don't have 52 acres of fairway as Flynn planned and built, they are around 33 acres and that ain't bad with 2 par 5s and some short par 4s.

As to the firm greens...that's what they're supposed to be like.  Depending on the side you're coming in from, an aerial approach may be way too difficult for us mortals and possibly for Tiger himself.  If you misjudged your length or angle off the tee and ended up on the left side of #1, you're in the wrong spot and the penalty is not automatic but still severe.  I was in the rough recently and didn't think about an aerial shot.  I hit a shot short of the green and tried to run it on.  There I found a fascinating wrinkle that, depending on the precise line in could influence the roll onto the green, or in my case into the right bunker.  That's not a bad place to be and far better than the left bunker or over given the pin in the front middle.  I tried to indicate the variety of approaches, the possibility of aerial or ground approaches to some holes and aerial dictations on others.  It is a method of play we may not be that familiar with, but it sure is fun to figure out and try to execute (I was just having fun and not playing a serious match let alone a US Open).  Given the wind and firmness of fairways, approaches and greens, it is often best to improvise in ways we are not so familiar with and therefore comfortable with.  But as the maintenance practices of older courses start to revert back to intended presentations (when nature allows) it sure is a challenging and fun offering.  My mindset going to Shinnecock is enjoyable difficulty.  It sure meets or exceeds all expectations.

When you think of NGLA, don't you feel that the wide fairways can lead you astray and out of position for those green complexes?  The contours of those greens overtly show you where not to be in the fairway.  If you can look and learn and execute, you'll likely score well.  But those approaches are tough!  Flynn's greens aren't contoured in the same way---they are integrated slopes and can be subtle.  The angle of approach isn't always as apparent to greens that are highly contoured (whether natural looking or not) but the resulting difficulty is realized none the less.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne:

Great stuff.  And you and most here know these
courses FAR better than I do; I've only played each
once.  So I kinda like what you conclude about
Shinnecock - it's enjoyable difficulty.  That's a great
way to put it.

And I'm not sure why the course across the street
seems so much more doable - and to me, more fun -
because you're right, you sure can get the wrong
angles in there, making for damn tough approach shots
also....

Maybe it's the surrounds and what happens when one
misses the greens.  I recall being brutally punished
at Shinnecock, not so much so at NGLA.  Hmmmmmm....

TH

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Go East young man.  I hope you can return and we walk some courses together.  That would be fun!

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

Go East young man.  I hope you can return and we walk some courses together.  That would be fun!

Understatement of the year.    And here's another:
I need more golf education.  
Some day.....

TH

[George Pazin]

I'm not experienced enough to say it has the MOST variety, but Oakmont has phenomenal variety.

Unless your sole criterion is hard, in which case they're all the same.