Hardly any stuff on this from this weekend. I'm disappointed in you guys! Especially after some interesting comment on it from earlier in the week.

Scores from the 4th of the Top 5 finishers:

Phil
Round 1-2
Round 2-3
Round 3-5
Round 4-3
Total--13
Arron Oberholser
Round 1-2
Round 2-3
Round 3-5
Round 4-3
Total--13
Tiger (Woods, not Bernhardt )
Round 1-6
Round 2-2
Round 3-4
Round 4-4
Total--16
Brent Wetterich
Round 1-4
Round 2-4
Round 3-3
Round 4-4
Total--15
Aaron Baddley
Round 1-2
Round 2-3
Round 3-5
Round 4-3
Total--13

Now, I'm not a numbers guy, but I know there is truth in them and to them in golf. Even though Phil played magnificently and seemed to be fearless against El Tigre, it would seem to me if your looking at numbers that Tiger Woods, the greatest player in the world if not of all-time, may have lost this tournament because of this hole....or did he?

Actually my question here is if the architecture won? If it did, then "Long live golf architecture!" The greatest champion of them all!

Hanse Pronounciation

Pants with an H instaed of a P

Just to be contrarian, I didn't see anybody lay up on the 4th. Didn't every player hit the club that would put them on the front of the green?

There aren't even any different places you can aim there.

I do think it's a cool hole but it seems like of any options available, only one was ever taken.

I'm with Brad on his view of the 17th. I was thinking Sunday, "Oberholser has to go for this with driver." Nope. Nobody did. I'd love to see how many players did not lay up. Faldo made a comment about it in the first round when it became apparent everyone was laying up. He said in his experience if the risk did not give at least a four-club advantage PGA pros would not go for it.

Anthony

My take on the 4th is like watching today's pros play the 10th at Riviera.  They think they have to go for it.  They are thinking about a possible 2, a definite 3 and fail to look back and wonder if they were to lay up, a 3 and at worst 4 would be their score.
They think a 5 is made by their poor play, not poor thinking.  They truly believe they can overpower every hole they play (well maybe not the 13th at ANGC).

Dr. Klein,
Unfortunately I didn't even watch the tournament, well at least I saw very little of it. I don't even know the par of #17, nor what type of hole it is, but I do know that the 4th, one of the more talked about golf holes of the tournament served it's purpose by giving some much needed excitement to a PGA Tour broadcast, and it seemed all weekend up here in Tacoma that people we're talking or at least interested in the golf course.

I think the PGA Tour take a chance here by forgoing their normal routine--their normal set-up. They could have pushed the hole back and made it less of an eagle opportunity, right? I think this is a winning situation for golf architecture and Golf in general. Bring some excitement back to the boob tube.

But in the end, bad putting stroke and all, Tiger three-putted the hole in the last round. Take three strokes off of that final talley--if he plays to par on a 298 yard hole--there is nothing text book about it. After all, These Guys Are Good.....

From what I saw there wasn't that much "strategy" on the hole since virtually everyone went for the green.  Basically it played like a long par 3.  On the best short par 4's (10th at Riviera and 17th at Oakmont) the players have more options.  Tiger's double was a bit of a fluke since he messed up a routine bunker shot which ended up in the lip of the same bunker.  

Bob,

I didn't see enough play on the hole to gauge what risk the players were taking by going for the green, or how laying back was a less risky option.  Did you see any one lay up with an iron?

Scoring spread is certainly a valid way to evaluate a hole.  

Lynn,

Again, I didn't see enough of the hole to judge its strategic merit.  It looked like a lot of guys ended up in the left front bunker, which wasn't a terrible place.  Driving the green didn't seem all that challenging (Baddelay made it with a three wood on Friday) and going for the green didn't strike me as a gamble per se.  

I have seen enough of the 10th at Riviera to know that an off-line driver can leave you with no shot because of the angle and narrowness of the green.  It's a great hole because hitting driver is a gamble.  The same can be said of ther 17th at Oakmont, although laying up was no bargain either.

I would love to hear what the architect(s) thought of the results after seeing the pros play the hole for 4 days.  Did it play as they intended?  Did the pros have an easier time with it than they expected?  

Cheers,
Brad

I'm not familiar with the hole in question but isn't it possible to have a hole with huge scoring spreads and absolutely no strategy or options whatsoever? I guess by that I mean a do or die hole with very penal hazards and a very exacting target.

Heck, I'd think the seventeenth at TPC Sawgrass would have a pretty large scoring spread when there's any significant wind. Yet the only choice involved is whether to aim directly at the flag or if not, how far away. If that hole is strategic then the word has no useful meaning at all.

I'm not familiar with the hole in question but isn't it possible to have a hole with huge scoring spreads and absolutely no strategy or options whatsoever? I guess by that I mean a do or die hole with very penal hazards and a very exacting target.

Heck, I'd think the seventeenth at TPC Sawgrass would have a pretty large scoring spread when there's any significant wind. Yet the only choice involved is whether to aim directly at the flag or if not, how far away. If that hole is strategic then the word has no useful meaning at all.

Brent,
If this was the mindset, then there would be no such as a strategic par 3 one-shot hole.

The difference is that the strategy plays itself out at the tee. The chance to score is the strategy because the mindset is your going to go for it most every time. This is where GREAT golf holes begin. the strategy is you can lay-up, take your chances in the bunker or whatever decision or direction you want to go with your initial shot on the hole.

If that isn't strategy, then I'm a Tuskeegee Airman.......

Phil,
I appreciate the honest answers!

The answer to the question, at least for me, and maybe Lynn or Michael Robin can chime in is the cant or slant of the green falling away left and the crown that goes with it. It's just a very strong defense that has you thinking negative thoughts when you walk away from it with a par. You feel like you either blew it or were ripped-off. That's what this kind of a hole does to you, this short thing that looks so defenseless. It's like Jim Murray once accurately described it, “This is a shameless little harlot that just sits at the end of the bar in mesh stockings and a mini-skirt just waiting for you.".... (as quoted by Nick Faldo)

Or for that matter....

Q.    Charles, during the ride past on the playoff on the tenth hole, Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo were talking about world ten what's the history with that whole number?

CHARLES HOWELL III:  We've had a love/hate relationship, I think it's one of the greatest par4's that we play and it was different this year, and I think you saw more guys go at that green off the tee because the green was so hard.  In the years passed here, that green has been so soft with all of the rain you can lay the ball up to the left and hit a wedge in there and hold it.  I saw a lot of great wedge shots this week land on the green and end up in the bunker.  With the greens being as firm as it was, around the green, as to why we don't have more, I don't know.  Because that one there is every bit as nerve-racking and exciting as we need.

Q.    Where are you trying to play it on 10 when you are playing?

CHARLES HOWELL III:  Anything.  Anything at this front edge of the green or just left of it and pinhigh.  So the reason that hole is so good is that the golf ball is going so far now that a driver actually gets past that and you end up chipping back this way.   So Phil hit a 3wood, I hit 3wood, we've got to hit those 3woods pretty darn good to carry that last bunker to left.  So it's really hard to get that ball pinhigh left.  Like I said with that green firm, that front right bunker is no bargain.  

So, I guess it comes to this, looking at it on TV, especially since it's a young hole--just a baby--so it probably needs to mature, but holes like the 4th need to be a part of GREAT Golf Architecture. I obviously disagree, even with Brad Klein to some extent that it did have some affect on the outcome. Regardless of just how good he is as a golfer, Tiger Woods is still a human with the same sort of emotions, mental lapses and quirks as all of us. I guess I'm a little more positive in thinking that he was not completely focusing on that shot that nipped the lip and came back down. Could this have been intimidation by the nasty looking bunker which is a style and look I favor? (with-in reason) Could it have been a lapse in judgement by the world's greatest golfer?

Three strokes is three strokes as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not even a numbers man!