Length differentials...when is too big too much?

[paul cowley]

Assume you had to design two par fours with a combined length of 800 yds.

What would you prefer;

An 390 yard hole followed by a 410 yarder
or a
290 yarder followed by a 510? [if this one bothers you, just pretend its a par 3 and a five ]



Or how about back to back par threes with a combined length of 400 yds

Would you prefer a;

210 yarder followed by a 190 hole
or a
280 yd hole followed by a 120 yarder?



How about two par five holes that stretch over 1100 yds?

Would you prefer a;

560 yd hole followed by a 540 yarder
or a
625 yard hole followed by a 475 yarder?





*all serious answers will be used and compiled for the upcoming addition of Poor Cowley's Quirkmanack [ghousted by M Cirba]

[BVince]

Interesting question.

I think the most important consideration to your question will be answered by the features of the piece of land.  But for the sake of argument, I will assume the land is flat and relatively featureless.

I would rather see a 360 and 440 yard par 4 because this differential will allow the architect to use hazards that will allow the hole to be challenging without becoming unreasonable.  IMO the 460-500+ yard par 4s should be reserved for the professional golfer in championship conditions.  

But another interesting question along the lines of your thread is the use of length in designing courses.  It seems like some architects try not to get fixated around 7000+ yard courses, but how much of this thought process comes from studying the works of the "Golden Age" architects.  I think that MacKenzie, Thomas, Tillinghast, Crump, Fowler, Bell, Ross, Perry, etc. would be trying to build courses over 7000 yards due to technology improvements.  If we really think about it, most of their designs are "growing" today to meet the increasing demands of today's game.  Although I  read a book where the architect discusses methods of routing the course to allow for lengthening, how many of these architects would be happy with the amount of changes to their original layout?

I am getting off topic, but I think the length differential should be enough for the course to remain interesting without making "length" the hazard.  All length of hitters should have a reasonable chance at par.  Making par 4s 500+ yards may be too difficult for the average to short length golfer.

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul,

While assembling your Quirkmanack, always remember that half-par holes are almost inevitably more exciting than middle-range holes.  That's one of the things I think Gil Hanse does really well on a number of his courses.  (see French Creek)

Similarly, holes that offer the possibility for the widest ranges of scoring differentials are usually much more fun and exciting to play than holes that are "tough par, easy bogey", as RTJ Sr. used to call them.

Of course, this dogmatic tripe I'm spewing at present runs counter to the whole idea of quirk, because the first rule of quirk to me is to throw out the rulebook and any preconceived notions and just use what's there...or change it.  

[Ken Moum]

As a relatively short hitter I definitely prefer one short par four and one long one.

I commonly have to hit a fairway wood or hybrid into anything that's in the 380-440 range, and sometimes even shorter than that. So I figure that one of ~300 is what it takes for me to have a chance at a drive and pitch.

Once you get past 410 or so, it might as well be 460+.

I have a pretty good short game, so against better players, I'll take the short/long combo as it makes them a little uncomfortable.

It means slightly less to me on the par threes and fives, but I hate seeing a bunch of threes that are ~200 yards, because I have to hit a three wood to all of them.

Same thing with the par fives. Even though 465-475 seems to favor the longer hitter, it still gives me some chance for simple birdie, while the 500 yarders are completely out of reach.

I'll take one I can reach, and one that's too long for the longer hitters for the same reason I like that combo in the fours.

Variety is the spice of life.

K

[Bart Bradley]

Paul:

I think so much depends on the remaining design of the hole.  As a decent golfer with reasonable length, I am often put off by shorter par 5 holes that, by their design, require 3 shots.  For example, I played a Nicklaus course last week that finishes with a par 5.  I believe it plays 510 from the blue tees.  After hitting my drive about 290 off the tee and in the fairway, I had to hit two 52 degree wedges to reach the green.  Now if I were Tiger I might have been able to hit a 5 iron to carry over two creeks and have it hold on a heavily guarded green, but my choke down 3 metal would not have been a good play.  My chances of hitting safely were probably 1 in 10 if I had gone for it.  Additionally, the last time I played there I caught my driver flush and hit it about 310 but the fairway runs out at about 300...so that time I was in deep rough and of course had to lay up as well. Anyway, I think if you are going to have a shorter par 5 you must allow for reasonable risk/reward for players trying to reach the green in 2 shots; and if you are going to require 3 shots to reach the green then it seems reasonable to add some length to that hole.  So I guess I would vote for the 500 and 600 option. (or something like that)

For par 3s, I really like a course that at least has one shorter par 3 and then 1 or 2 mid and 1 or 2 long.  I will often be disappointed if I hit the same or very similar club off all the par 3 holes.  Sometimes, the course designer can't control the way the course plays on a specific day because hole location/tee box placement can so drastically affect the play of a set of par 3s.  (short hole with back hole location, then medium length hole with front location may end up the same club).

I think this sort of question affects the play and enjoyment of a golf course to an incredible degree.  Thanks for taking the time to think about it.

[Tim Gavrich]

Assume you had to design two par fours with a combined length of 800 yds.

What would you prefer;

An 390 yard hole followed by a 410 yarder
or a
290 yarder followed by a 510? [if this one bothers you, just pretend its a par 3 and a five ]



Or how about back to back par threes with a combined length of 400 yds

Would you prefer a;

210 yarder followed by a 190 hole
or a
280 yd hole followed by a 120 yarder?



How about two par five holes that stretch over 1100 yds?

Would you prefer a;

560 yd hole followed by a 540 yarder
or a
625 yard hole followed by a 475 yarder?





*all serious answers will be used and compiled for the upcoming addition of Poor Cowley's Quirkmanack [ghousted by M Cirba]

On pure length alone (which is what I consider for my LD formula), I'd say that the bigger the gap, the better.

To carry through the example I used in my initial post on this matter, I find the fact that all the par fours on the front side at Lexington CC vary by only 36 yards (334 to 370; the longer ones are all on the back) makes it quite tedious, despite the inherent interest cause by all those pr 4s being birdie opportunities.

Then, on the back nine, #s 15 and 16 are 396 and 417, respectively.  I usually hit the same clubs into the green (the 417 hole plays a bit downhill).  I would much prefer they be 356 and 457, for pace's sake.

[bakerg]

Without seeing the sight I would let the greensites dictate the length of the holes.  Unless this is on a dead flat site wouldn't you seek out the greens and possibly work your way back?

[Doug Siebert]

I like having a lot of variety of lengths, but I wonder to what extent one's answer to this question might be a function of how far one hits the ball?

If you take a guy who hits it average distance and a guy who is pretty long, having a 390 and a 410 is probably a wash.  The longer hitter is hitting wedges to both, the average hitter needs more club but can easily reach them.  Compare that to a 310 and a 490 and the advantage goes to the long hitter, who has one driveable hole and another that is reachable for him that probably isn't for the average guy.

Whether the long hitter can actually capitalize on that (rather than knock it into jail on that 310 yarder while the average hitter lays up to wedge distance and probably does no worse than 4) is of course another matter, but that's what keeps the long hitters from eating the shorter hitters' lunch every day