Mark -

Good question. People don't fully appreciate how short courses play today. When you do the numbers, it gets loopy.

The math is simple. If you assume pros now hit it 10% farther than they did in 1925 - a very conservative estimate - a par 4 today must be 506 yards to play to the same distance that a 460 yard hole did in 1925.

If you assume pros hit it 15% farther than they did in 1925 - which is probably closer to the mark - the same par 4 must be strectched to 529 yards.

Intuitively, that strikes me as about the right distance for a modern long par 4. Anything very much shorter and they are hitting approaches with lofted clubs.

For example, if you go by historic yardages a 500 yard par 4 today plays like a medium/short par 4 would have in 1925.

Bob

   

Bob,

Put another way, the famous Hogan 1 (or 2) iron shot at Merion occurred on a 458 yard hole. I presume his shots were about a 250 yard drive and a 210 1 iron.  I think the prevailing (formerly conventional) wisdom is that a long par 4 ought to make you max out a driver and long iron.

To put todays average tour pros - but not necessarily the top driving length pros (as Hogan wasn't necessarily the longest hitter in his day, just the best player) in that position on a par 4, you would have to assume about a 290 yard drive, and 235 yard 2 iron (since 1 irons are so rare) for a total of about 525 yards as the maximum par 4 on the PGA Tour.

The last at Atlanta Athletic Club played as a 500 yard par 4, as I recall, and was difficult for some in the PGA field to reach, but of course, it was designed as a par 5 with a pond in front. I doubt I would design it that way if it was a par 4.

To recreate the Hogan/Merion challenge for the very longest hitters, which is perhaps an unfair standard, you might have to figure a 325 yard drive and up to a 250 yard 2 iron, (since 1 irons are rare, except for those that are actually called 2 irons!) for a whopping 575 yard hole.  Perhaps we could round that down to 560, to make it an even 100 yards added in just over 50 years.

And, I just read this on MSN:

"Wie had a good chance to take the lead by herself after hitting a 6-iron to 6 feet on No. 18. She just missed the putt, though, and the first round closed without one player making birdie on the difficult, 459-yard par-4. The hole played at an average of 0.741 strokes above par."

So, the 460 yarders are a 6 iron, not a 1 iron, for the longest hitting women golfers now.

If the USGA ever changes the distance standards, I doubt they would go as high as necessary for the pro tour, since the pro tour is such a small slice of golfing life.  However, I think 275, 500, and 725 yard limits splits for 3, 4 and 5 par holes is realistic right now, since the standard is based on scratch players and there are usually multiple tees for shorter players.

I think any new TPC Course might use 300, 525, and 750 as limits, and the option for a specific course or tournament to exceed a recommended distance for a par 4 has always existed.  

George,

Good point.

One of the problems in designing up in the Minnesota/Lake Wobegone area was that, like this site, "all golfers were above average."

And, what is a good long par 4?  I stand by the traditional definition - while I wouldn't like all par 4's to be long, I think most folks used to think that a few that required near maximum tee shot distance and a long iron approach with accuracy were essential to championship tests, or even good tests of golf.  

The idea that in the future, only par 3s will allow us to test long shots is a bit scary.  Will all par 3's need to exceed 250 yards to test long iron play against par (as opposed to the free shot on reachable par 5 holes)?

I think it's 500-525 yards, like Pete Dye has been saying for years.  We were building 480-yard par-4's twenty years ago, and it has to be 10% longer today.

However, I do want to point out what several players have told me, that there is a huge difference between a Tour player's AVERAGE drive (week-in, week-out) and his driving distance when he is in one of the final groups on TV.  He's in those final groups because he is hitting the ball as pure as he ever has in his life; what you're seeing is not his average distances but his exceptional distances.

Seems like the more my hips slide the longer they get !

Cheers!

JT

Philip,

I love and uphold in my own mind Tilly's reference to the second shot being slightly under the length of the drive, and that a "long drive" can be followed up with an "equally long brassey or cleek". And this was to "get home", as opposed to playing a definitely controlled shot deep to a back hole location or anything. Just around the green complex and possibly on the green itself if the shot is well aimed.

My take? That too many single digit players of average distance believe they must be able to reach every par 4 (they don't because if the hoel is so long, they'll get a shot on it) or that they shouldn't be faced with a fairway wood after a reasonably good drive. This way of thinking is not only wrong, it prevents the setting up of holes so that elite players and pros need more than 4-5 irons in.

On a course with say three sets of tees, I see no reason for a golfer to complain about the length from the tips.

If we are talking what pros hit, what Tilly expected the elite to hit, and using hole lengths in pro events as examples, then I would at the very least assume that the competent club golfer would more often than not face the same hole 20-50 yards shorter.

To me long par 4's don't bother me as much as long par 3's.  I usually will select my tees for the day based on the avg. par 3 length.  I don't like par 3's over 220, which based on my average dirve somewhat translates to a par 4 not being over 490.  

I usually find that if an architect gives you a long par 4 though there are minimal amounts of hazards or incumbrances, meaning the length is the biggest obstacle (give you large fairways, large greens, large landing area, etc.)  Or at least they should design long par 4's this way.

So if those things are provided then I don't mind long par 4's.  This is usually not the case on long par 3's which always seem to have shorter landings areas than an approach shot on a long par 4.