What Makes for Great Driveable Par 4s? (Barnbougle Pics Added)

[Tom Huckaby]

Three words come to mind when defining a hole of this type.


Decisions, decisions, decisions. That is what makes hole of this type in my mind great. The thought process.

But are there multiple decisions because of the hole or by your golfing ability? 

The best golf holes offer both multiple decisions to be made as well as multiple outcomes; every golf hole offers the latter, few the former.

That's also one of the cool things about golf in general.. the best laid plans so often go awry, and the universe of possibilities is pretty darn large for one and all.  Even Tiger Woods hits shots that don't come off as planned.

TH

[Kyle Henderson]

I was 20 yards short of the 6th green at Pacific Dunes from the black tees both rounds (slight helping breeze) last month. Good driving day.

 I would think highly skilled players (i.e. not me) would lay back with a three wood to leave a simple pitch instead of gambling with an attempt to hold that itty bitty green.

Kyle:

Do you really think there is such a thing as a "simple pitch" into that tiny sliver of a green?

I don't.  And for that reason I am a firm believer in getting as close as possible, but of course favoring the right side.  There is tons of room over there....

Relatively speaking, yes. Missing long or left will leave a much more difficult pitch than a 3-wood hit short short and right. For a highly skilled player, that pitch isn't overy tough. For mortals, there is no simple pitch on that hole.

[Tom Huckaby]

I was 20 yards short of the 6th green at Pacific Dunes from the black tees both rounds (slight helping breeze) last month. Good driving day.

 I would think highly skilled players (i.e. not me) would lay back with a three wood to leave a simple pitch instead of gambling with an attempt to hold that itty bitty green.

Kyle:

Do you really think there is such a thing as a "simple pitch" into that tiny sliver of a green?

I don't.  And for that reason I am a firm believer in getting as close as possible, but of course favoring the right side.  There is tons of room over there....

Relatively speaking, yes. Missing long or left will leave a much more difficult pitch than a 3-wood hit short short and right. For a highly skilled player, that pitch isn't overy tough. For mortals, there is no simple pitch on that hole.

But the highly-skilled player will be good enough to control a shot that attempts to get close to the green.  For that reason - and for the reason that the pitch from 100 yards and the perfect angle on the right will still be damn tough - I don't see the great benefit of laying back.

That being said, Doak reported that during the Curtis Cup ALL of those players laid back to their preferred wedge distance, and most did pretty darn well.  I wondered then - and still wonder - how realistic it was for any of them to get very close to the green - that is was that even possible - but that does go toward laying back a little.

In any case, once again part of the coolness of the golf hole is that none of this is very crystal clear.  I'd bet one can play that hole dozens of times and never feel 100% certain about the right play.  I find that to be fantastic.

TH

[Mike Benham]

In regards to driveable par-4s, and Matt Cohn is correct, Actual drivability is important, how many plays of the hole does it take to realize that all the decisions or options are eliminated, leaving the way you will play that hole all the time?

[Kalen Braley]

In regards to driveable par-4s, and Matt Cohn is correct, Actual drivability is important, how many plays of the hole does it take to realize that all the decisions or options are eliminated, leaving the way you will play that hole all the time?

Mike,

I've never felt these are black and white/static decisions.  Often times a decision can be made on the fly depending on wind, tempature, how well your playing that day, what your score is, etc.

In that sense I don't think there are any short 4s that you will play the same everytime...

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt (and Mike) are correct for the most part in that one does have to have a realistic chance to actually get it on the green, or the decisions are rendered moot - on most holes like this, anyway.

However, I don't think that's true re #6 Pacific Dunes... I know I can't get the ball on the putting surface - but I know the shot from just short of the green - which I CAN make happen - is gonna be a happy outcome, compared to laying back anyway.  So there's an exception to the rule.

Kalen's right also:  many factors can go into this besides what's the average correct play on an average day.  That ought to be the over-riding thought; but the things he mentions do play into perhaps changing that thought.

As for how many times before one realizes the options are eliminated, well... on the best holes the answer is A LOT.  And I do think such holes exist.  But they are few and far between, for sure.

TH

[Kyle Henderson]

Mike,

I've never felt this are black and white decisions.  Often times a decision can be made on the fly depending on wind, tempature, how well your playing that day, even what your score is.

In that sense I don't think there are any short 4s that you will play the same everytime...

One of the reasons I wish match play was more prevalent on the PGA Tour, if only for the early rounds to prevent boring Sunday routs. Wouldn't a match play format for the firt two days at Rivera be fantastic (with medal play on the weekend)?

[Kyle Henderson]

I was 20 yards short of the 6th green at Pacific Dunes from the black tees both rounds (slight helping breeze) last month. Good driving day.

 I would think highly skilled players (i.e. not me) would lay back with a three wood to leave a simple pitch instead of gambling with an attempt to hold that itty bitty green.

Kyle:

Do you really think there is such a thing as a "simple pitch" into that tiny sliver of a green?

I don't.  And for that reason I am a firm believer in getting as close as possible, but of course favoring the right side.  There is tons of room over there....

Relatively speaking, yes. Missing long or left will leave a much more difficult pitch than a 3-wood hit short short and right. For a highly skilled player, that pitch isn't overy tough. For mortals, there is no simple pitch on that hole.

But the highly-skilled player will be good enough to control a shot that attempts to get close to the green.  For that reason - and for the reason that the pitch from 100 yards and the perfect angle on the right will still be damn tough - I don't see the great benefit of laying back.

Which means they are not trying to drive the green. Exactly the point I'm making. The intention is to be short of the green. The only question is how far.

[Tom Huckaby]

I was 20 yards short of the 6th green at Pacific Dunes from the black tees both rounds (slight helping breeze) last month. Good driving day.

 I would think highly skilled players (i.e. not me) would lay back with a three wood to leave a simple pitch instead of gambling with an attempt to hold that itty bitty green.

Kyle:

Do you really think there is such a thing as a "simple pitch" into that tiny sliver of a green?

I don't.  And for that reason I am a firm believer in getting as close as possible, but of course favoring the right side.  There is tons of room over there....

Relatively speaking, yes. Missing long or left will leave a much more difficult pitch than a 3-wood hit short short and right. For a highly skilled player, that pitch isn't overy tough. For mortals, there is no simple pitch on that hole.

But the highly-skilled player will be good enough to control a shot that attempts to get close to the green.  For that reason - and for the reason that the pitch from 100 yards and the perfect angle on the right will still be damn tough - I don't see the great benefit of laying back.

Which means they are not trying to drive the green. Exactly the point I'm making. The intention is to be short of the green. The only question is how far.

Huh.  Guess I am missing your point, Kyle.  What is it again?

I maintain that it's not a no-brainer smart play for ANY golfer to lay back.  The highly-skilled ones can get it on the green, but also can control the ball such that if they miss they miss right or short.  But trying to get it on the green (erring right and short) would be the goal.  In any case the more skilled one is the less of a wise play it would be to lay back... or at least I think so...

TH

[Mike Benham]

I've never felt these are black and white/static decisions.

We should probably clarify that the options aren't black and white, your decision of what to do better be clear in your mind when you stand over the ball ...

[Kalen Braley]

I've never felt these are black and white/static decisions.

We should probably clarify that the options aren't black and white, your decision of what to do better be clear in your mind when you stand over the ball ...

Mike,

I certainly agree with this last statement. 

The black and white decision was in reference to your comment where it seemed you were suggesting that one eventually comes to a "way you will play that hole all the time".  I just don't think one way, everytime, exists.

[Kyle Henderson]

I was 20 yards short of the 6th green at Pacific Dunes from the black tees both rounds (slight helping breeze) last month. Good driving day.

 I would think highly skilled players (i.e. not me) would lay back with a three wood to leave a simple pitch instead of gambling with an attempt to hold that itty bitty green.

Kyle:

Do you really think there is such a thing as a "simple pitch" into that tiny sliver of a green?

I don't.  And for that reason I am a firm believer in getting as close as possible, but of course favoring the right side.  There is tons of room over there....

Relatively speaking, yes. Missing long or left will leave a much more difficult pitch than a 3-wood hit short short and right. For a highly skilled player, that pitch isn't overy tough. For mortals, there is no simple pitch on that hole.

But the highly-skilled player will be good enough to control a shot that attempts to get close to the green.  For that reason - and for the reason that the pitch from 100 yards and the perfect angle on the right will still be damn tough - I don't see the great benefit of laying back.

Which means they are not trying to drive the green. Exactly the point I'm making. The intention is to be short of the green. The only question is how far.

Huh.  Guess I am missing your point, Kyle.  What is it again?

I maintain that it's not a no-brainer smart play for ANY golfer to lay back.  The highly-skilled ones can get it on the green, but also can control the ball such that if they miss they miss right or short.  But trying to get it on the green (erring right and short) would be the goal.  In any case the more skilled one is the less of a wise play it would be to lay back... or at least I think so...

TH

My point is that while the green is reachable, it's scarsely "holdable."

I doubt many pros could control a driver well enough to hold that green from that distance, especially if there's any wind whatsoever. I will concede that they can probably control their drive enough to make sure they miss right, but they could end up too far down and have that nasty slope at the right rear of the green to contend with.

Let's see if we can get one of our resident sluggers to try going for the green 10 times and then lay up a bit for another 10 tries. My money (both dollars)says they make more birdies with the lay-up (say 20-40 yards... wherever a fairway wood puts them).

Ditto Riviera's 10th.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle:

Well of course no one is going to fly a shot onto that green and hold it; nor would anyone ever be silly enough to try.  My points here were predicated on the skilled golfer landing it short and rolling it on to the green.  And I do believe that could be done, with said skilled golfer also favoring the right side for the miss.

I also defined a "layup" as laying up to one's preferred wedge distance.  If you mean 20-40 yards short, then that's what I meant all along about NOT laying up.   That's the longest the vast majority of golfers can hit it - not on the green, but just short.

And thus my contention was that most golfers would be better off hitting it to this distance - not laying up to 80-110 yards (whatever their comfortable wedge distance is) as the shot from there is pretty darn tough also.

So it would appear in the end that we agree....

TH

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle:

Well of course no one is going to fly a shot onto that green and hold it; nor would anyone ever be silly enough to try.  My points here were predicated on the skilled golfer landing it short and rolling it on to the green.  And I do believe that could be done, with said skilled golfer also favoring the right side for the miss.

I also defined a "layup" as laying up to one's preferred wedge distance.  If you mean 20-40 yards short, then that's what I meant all along about NOT laying up.   That's the longest the vast majority of golfers can hit it - not on the green, but just short.

And thus my contention was that most golfers would be better off hitting it to this distance - not laying up to 80-110 yards (whatever their comfortable wedge distance is) as the shot from there is pretty darn tough also.

So it would appear in the end that we agree....

TH

Gravy.

[Patrick Kiser]

I'll throw a wrench here ... or maybe not.

With equipment coming into the mix and the ball being ridiculously out of control for the big hitters ... how are these short par 4s not really long par 3s?

Does it come down to the choice of tees?  The wind element?  Or is there much more to this?

[Sean_A]

I'll throw a wrench here ... or maybe not.

With equipment coming into the mix and the ball being ridiculously out of control for the big hitters ... how are these short par 4s not really long par 3s?

Does it come down to the choice of tees?  The wind element?  Or is there much more to this?

Patrick

I don't think tehre is a whole lot more to all of this except that for par 4s to be reachable for the 12 capper then this more than likely means the a flay belly uses less than a driver to reach the same hole.  So what?  Folks can get loaded up on all sorts of feel good action for having a whack at a par 4.  This is probably one of the most overlooked aspects of drivable par 4s, for years they have been the domain of flat bellies and better equipment has essentially made these holes better because a lot more people can have a go.  The real kicker in all of this is that nearly of these newcomers shouldn't even dream of hitting these go for it shots, but the doing of such is one of the great things about the game.

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

With equipment coming into the mix and the ball being ridiculously out of control for the big hitters ... how are these short par 4s not really long par 3s?

So what if they are long par 3s?  There shouldn't be any difference in the design of a really long par 3 or a really short par 4 (say 240-295 yard range)  In both cases some players will drive it and some will be looking for the best lay up.

[Patrick Kiser]

With equipment coming into the mix and the ball being ridiculously out of control for the big hitters ... how are these short par 4s not really long par 3s?

So what if they are long par 3s?  There shouldn't be any difference in the design of a really long par 3 or a really short par 4 (say 240-295 yard range)  In both cases some players will drive it and some will be looking for the best lay up.

David,

I guess that's what I was driving at and I think you're confirming this for me.  The waters are just more muddled.  Long par 3 or short par 4 ... kind of the same these days.

[David_Elvins]

  Long par 3 or short par 4 ... kind of the same these days.

Patrick,

I think in some ways they always have been.  Look at some of the long par 3s and short 4s of the golden age (eg CPC 16).  I think it is a design issue and not an equipment issue in that in the period between the Golden Ages no-one really built par 3.5s.  In the second Golden age we have started to see again the really long par 3s (265 yards or so) whilst some designers have not increased the length of short 4s.  It is really just filliing in a yardage gap that went missing 60 years ago. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Chris and Patrick you raise good points.  The 8th hole at Pinnacle Point is in many ways homage to CPC 16 -- save for its "official" status as a par 4.

It's a dramatic hole, but the the problem is the "bailout:" it's visually intimidating and places a premium on execution.

Now, the fairway down there has an upper-left and lower-right tier, and there is an advantage gained by going for the cliff-side tier on the right.  It should leave you a level lie inside of 140-150 yards.  I would say there's a decision involved as far as how far down the bailout corridor to hit it, but because of the visual intimidation off the tee, there really isn't.  I think most golfers are just happy to find fairway -- misses are death.

That said, the articulation of the green relative to the fairway does reward a longer tee ball.  Not only is the angle better, the forced carry is reduced plus the side slope can be used to approach away from the cliff.

From the tee:


Oddly, the hole seems less intimidating when the bailout is blinkered out of the golfer's view so that he reconceives the hole as a straightforward if difficult / impossible do-or-die:


From the layup zone, lower tier in foreground -- note the green does open up the further down the fairway one drives the ball:


Mark

[Patrick Kiser]

Mark,

To your point from the get go then: more options with a definitive conservative option.

So maybe we can say there will typically be more options on a great driveable par 4 than on a long par 3?  Maybe that's the differentiating factor.

On the Pinnacle Point hole you display, if you take away that fairway to the left ... fewer options obviously and it's more of a long par 3.  Bomb it (with an option bail to the left) and pick the right set of tees for your game.

The fairway option coming in creates more options and now this turns into a definitive par 4.

Gotcha...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Interesting point!

Long par 3 bailouts seem to involve a longitude decision - there's often not a lot of latitudinal decisionmaking.

Conversely, good driveable 4s add latitude decisions.

Mark

[Patrick Kiser]

From a little while ago, but very a propos...

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2008/02/gw20080201shackelford

[Jeff Fortson]

This...




Jeff F.

[BCrosby]

Interesting point!

Long par 3 bailouts seem to involve a longitude decision - there's often not a lot of latitudinal decisionmaking.

Conversely, good driveable 4s add latitude decisions.

Mark

Mark - Interesting distinction.

Proposed axiom: Good architects are all latitudinarians when they design drivable par 4's.

Bob