[Jason Topp]

One positive trend in recent years has been the creation of many high quality short par fours.   For excample, at the Bandon courses, each course features a number of high quality short par fours that present interesting and sometimes controversial challenges. Other designers have followed the trend and it is rare to play a new course without at least one very short par four in the mix.

Less discussed, but equally prevalant on such courses in my experience have been some very long par fours, that often require a belt from a driver and a three wood for most players.  Even on courses measuring 6500-6700 yards, it seems like there are a number of holes that measure well in excess of 450 yards. 

Such courses also often feature a short and long par three as well as reachable and very long par fives.

The result is that one plays reasonable iron shots far less often.  The recent pro tournament at Kapalua demonstrates this trend.  Approaches from in excess of 220 yards and wedge shots were far more common than 5-8 irons.  In my experience, the same thing happens to the recreational player on such courses.

On one hand, I enjoy variety.  On the other hand, I consider mid-iron play to be at the heart of the game from tee to green.  Is there a danger of course design going too far in eliminating the driver-mid iron hole?  Shouldn't such holes be encouraged given the prevalence of wedge play at all levels of the game already?

[Sean_A]

Jason

By mid iron I assume you mean something like 4-7 irons.  Why do you consider these irons the heart of the game from tee to green.  Man, thinking of it, I don't even carry a 4 or 7 iron!

Given that I am a mid capper, for me, the heart of the game has been for many years the tee shot, chipping and putting.

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

Jason

By mid iron I assume you mean something like 4-7 irons.  Why do you consider these irons the heart of the game from tee to green.  Man, thinking of it, I don't even carry a 4 or 7 iron!

Given that I am a mid capper, for me, the heart of the game has been for many years the tee shot, chipping and putting.

Ciao

Sean:

Every course will test the tee shot, chipping and putting. 

Mid-iron shots are enjoyable to me because they can create birdie opportunities for great shots, par opportunities for average shots in which a player accounts for his limitations, and punish poorly executed and/or poorly planned shots. 

For me (high single digit) the best strategy for dealing with such shots changes daily depending on the weather conditions and the quality of my game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know Mr. Doak has belittled the idea of varying length artifically on par 4's here, and know why - just having five par 4's on a nine of 485-455-425-395-365, or so, doesn't necessarily account for wind, downhill/uphill, logical tee shot layups and ground slope, etc.,  that affect tee shot length.  However, if you account for that to make holes effectively play a certain yardage under normal conditions, a variety of hole lengths is still a good idea.

I think part of the variety conundrum comes from tour pros in design. If I heard one talk about the "edge of par" they all have.  So, if we put more of those holes in (as many here call for, even as they say par makes no difference!) the mid length holes that aren't as exciting, but are certainly pleasant are reduced. 

I think the average player would love a course from the blue or white tees that features 18 approach shots with all 12 clubs (except driver and putter)  But, Jason even mentions the pro tour as an example.  If we worry about their approach distance, its hard to design variety for the other 25 Million US golfers who will actually play the courses we design.

[Jim_Kennedy]

...."its hard to design variety for the other 25 Million US golfers who will actually play the courses we design". -JB

there's not much more to say than that.

[Jason Topp]

I think the average player would love a course from the blue or white tees that features 18 approach shots with all 12 clubs (except driver and putter)  But, Jason even mentions the pro tour as an example.  If we worry about their approach distance, its hard to design variety for the other 25 Million US golfers who will actually play the courses we design.

Jeff - you have identified four groups of driving distances that account for nearly everyone.  Isn't that a reasonable basis upon which to meet the every club idea (if it is worth striving for)?

[John Moore II]

I don't think this idea of 'every club in the bag' should be artifically put into a design. If it happens, great. But if not, just go with it. Many times, not all shots will fit into a certain design. I think if anything, the current design of courses, and equipment, etc., is more forcing the long iron play out of the game far more than it is forcing out mid-iron play. I have openly wondered if Ben Hogan would have been the great long iron player he was if he played today.

As far as guys on the tour go, they are hitting drives, many of them, and especially the ones on TV all the time, in the range of 300+ yards. So, on a 450 hole, that becomes D-9 iron or even wedge. I mean, if you want those guys to hit 5 iron into a par 4, without some kind of obstacle to shorten the drive or force them to hit a club other than driver off the tee, the hole needs to be 510ish yards long. And that 510 assumes no altitude, a general lack of wind, and so on. You can't really design courses for those guys out there. The level and quality of play among those few is so much more advanced than just about anyone else who will play the course. The vast majority of golfers who play a given course will hit all 14 clubs in the bag.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, Dave.

I especially like (and think relevant) this part:

"I like mid length par 4s because if you bust a drive, you've got a wedge in, but if you semi-whiff it off the tee, you've got a long iron in.  That's nice variety."

I think in all our talk about how far the pros drive the ball, we don't mention enough the big difference between them and us with our irons. For me, the difference in iron play is, in relative (and sometimes even absolute) terms, actually more pronounced with the irons than with the driver. That is, my very best drive gets close to a decent drive by the average pro; but my best 7 iron doesn't come close to their average 7, and my 4 iron lags even further behind.  (I don't know if that experience is common).

All of which is to say, yes, I think "there's definitely a place for the mid-length par 4 in the world"...especially in terms of providing "variety" to the average golfer.  The different results off the tee (i.e. from very solid to semi-whiff) that the average golfer gets lead to a greater range/disparity in their approach shots and the irons coming in.

I'd never thought of it that way before.

Peter

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Jason

Your statement appears to be contradictory!!

The very fact variety is sought should offer the chances for the mid irons to come into play among the short and the long - n’est-ce pas?

I think one of the largest obstacles to courses having either too short or too long holes and not enough mid length is the desire for the considered best standard of Par 72 and 7000+ yards.

Usually topography and fixed obstacles influence and determine the layout of a course, often forcing the designer to go through contortions and unsatisfactory balance of hole values to get a par 72 out of the land available.

More acceptance of Par 68 and Par 69 courses would go a long way to getting courses with balanced hole values. 6 Tees a hole can also offer a lot of flexibility for holes length - however in the end it’s the land that is available for the designer that can make the difference.     

[JohnV]

Given the inconsistent distance that the average golfer hits his driver, I think that he will have the opportunity to hit every club in his bag over a few visits to any course.  There may be days when he hits every club, but not necessarily on the holes where the architect might have thought he would.

As an example, I played the front 9 at Poppy Hills three times this weekend.  On the 1st hole I hit the same club off the tee each round and hit 8-iron, 4-iron and 9-iron.  On the 8th hole I hit Gap wedge, Pitching Wedge and 6-iron.  No wind considerations in any of the shots.

[Chris Garrett]

The lead post raises an interesting question, and no straight-forward answers.

Lest we not forget that the evolution of equipment has not only brought about issues of distance, but also issues of the way that we approach how we hit shots.  We not only aim long, but we also aim straight, for with today's clubs and today's golf balls, there is not a hazard or obstruction which we can not clear.  For example, who really worries about stopping their 7-iron these days (aside from during the US Open)?

One of the issues with the average player that I noticed while working in the industry was that many golfers do not choose the proper tee to play from.  Often players will either over-extend themselves or end up hitting wedges into par-4s all day long.

It is quite difficult to say exactly what the answer really is.  Most golf holes are designed with one landing area in mind.  This means that should the pro and the average 16-handicapper both get to the landing area, they may find a 4-club or so difference when hitting their approach shots.  This is the heart of the lead post, and a difficult topic to tackle.  If we continue to build courses meant for all players, will it be necessary to build multiple landing areas for differing playing abilities? 

[Jason Topp]

Jason

Your statement appears to be contradictory!!

The very fact variety is sought should offer the chances for the mid irons to come into play among the short and the long - n’est-ce pas?

John - I do not think it is contradictory.  If a course requires a ton of wedges and bashed 3 woods for approach shots there necessarily will be fewer mid-irons.  Whether that is good or not is open to debate. 

[jeffwarne]

 If we continue to build courses meant for all players, will it be necessary to build multiple landing areas for differing playing abilities? 

Chris,
Surely you don't believe there is (or should be) only one landing area for tee shots on most courses? Then we all play the same yardage/angle in?
That would make me take up bowling

We need to be be building (and playing) courses that have more than one landing area for each player of different levels.

i.e. the scratch player should have 1,2.or three landing area(choices on many holes) as well as other level players.
I mean if it's fairway from 80 yards to 420yards,isn't it all landing area?

[Tim Pitner]

Jason,

I agree it's possible to overemphasize 1/2 par holes (either short, 3 1/2 par holes or long 4 1/2 par holes).  I enjoy the solid par 4 where one is generally required to hit driver and then mid- to long iron--pars and the occasional birdie on these holes can be very satisfying. 

Tee placement can play a large role here.  As a 9/10 handicap, I'm often torn between playing the back or up tees.  Playing back can beat me up if I'm driving wildly, but playing up can lead to too many wedges into par 4s, especially if I'm driving well.  Sometimes I play the back tees just so I'll be forced to hit my mid-irons.  From a selfish standpoint, I'd like to see more consideration in tee placement given to players like me who hit the ball far enough but who are mid-handicappers for reasons other than distance. 

[Sean_A]

Jason

By mid iron I assume you mean something like 4-7 irons.  Why do you consider these irons the heart of the game from tee to green.  Man, thinking of it, I don't even carry a 4 or 7 iron!

Given that I am a mid capper, for me, the heart of the game has been for many years the tee shot, chipping and putting.

Ciao

Sean:

Every course will test the tee shot, chipping and putting. 

Mid-iron shots are enjoyable to me because they can create birdie opportunities for great shots, par opportunities for average shots in which a player accounts for his limitations, and punish poorly executed and/or poorly planned shots. 

For me (high single digit) the best strategy for dealing with such shots changes daily depending on the weather conditions and the quality of my game.

Jason

I have never been one to worry about what type of club to approach with the design of the hole calls for.  Playing year round on the courses I do and my inconsistent game provide all the variety I could want.  A whiff here and the ball getting caught up in rough there more than does the job.  Besides, I honestly don't see how an archie can design specifically for shot lengths unless he knows who he is specifically designing for and I have never been one for mega tees creating stupid differences in yardages between front and back tees.  I am much more impressed with the creation of width and angles from alternate tees than I am with distance. 

Somebody else mentioned it before and I agree 100%.  All the variety the handicap golfer could ever want can be achieved on a par 68-69, 6200 (or less) yard course.  Some day a savy archie will convince a client that this is the way to go.

Ciao 

[Chris Burgard]

Jason,

Are you advocating more par 3s on courses?

Chris

[Carl Rogers]

This has morphed into a good thread.

Holes that do not fit into a simple category are conceptually more challenging and clearly neglected.

The only good course I know is Riverfront.  Holes 1, 6, 9 & 16 (maybe 15) qualify as holes that require middle iron play (for a middle age mid single digit handicapper like myself).  Holes 4 & 13 are par threes that require a middle iron shot though 4 is shorter than 13.  They require, what ever club you hit a pretty good high quality shot to hit the middle of green usually because of the subtle roll & tumble out in the fairway and a lot of movement and bunkers at the green complex.

Holes 7 & 17 qualify as short par4's, 7 could be driveable by a Collegiate Division 1a golfer while 17 could be driveable by a tour pro.  Holes 5 & 10 are a little longer.

There is huge variety on this course and plenty of iron play.

Riverfront was designed in the early nineties (right Tom??) and thus before the issues brought up by this thread became a perceived problem. 

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

Are you advocating more par 3s on courses?

Chris

No  Chris.  I am not really taking a position and my focus is on par fours.

Perhaps an illustration would help.    Here is the scorecard for Pacific Dunes.



I played it three times all with about a 5-15 mph south breeze.  The only holes where I consistently had mid irons were 8 and 13.  Everything else was either a whack with a 3 wood, a layup, or a short iron.  The par fives were reachable in 2 except for 18, which usually was a wedge because I had hacked it out of a hazard somewhere along the way.  I think my tally would be similar at many other recent courses.

By contrast, on most courses I have more than half of the par fours in the driver mid-iron range (provided I am playing from the correct tees).  I always think of those holes as the meat and potatoes of golf and it never occured to me that those holes get squeezed out when a course creates multiple very short par fours.

One can argue that this change in approach is a good thing.

[John Moore II]

Jason,

Are you advocating more par 3s on courses?

Chris

No  Chris.  I am not really taking a position and my focus is on par fours.

Perhaps an illustration would help.    Here is the scorecard for Pacific Dunes.



I played it three times all with about a 5-15 mph south breeze.  The only holes where I consistently had mid irons were 8 and 13.  Everything else was either a whack with a 3 wood, a layup, or a short iron.  The par fives were reachable in 2 except for 18, which usually was a wedge because I had hacked it out of a hazard somewhere along the way.  I think my tally would be similar at many other recent courses.

By contrast, on most courses I have more than half of the par fours in the driver mid-iron range (provided I am playing from the correct tees).  I always think of those holes as the meat and potatoes of golf and it never occured to me that those holes get squeezed out when a course creates multiple very short par fours.

One can argue that this change in approach is a good thing.

I trust you had long irons into 3 and 7?? I'm not sure I follow you, are you trying to say that Pac Dunes is a poorish golf course because you didn't hit mid-irons into par 4's? I mean, having never played there, I would assume the holes were designed the way they were because those were the holes that best fit the land in a given area. Would you rather force mid-iron par 4's into the design regardless of whether they fit the land or not? I'm just not sure I follow you. Yes, variety is good, but it has to fit the land.

You also state that you played the course in a 5-15 mph south wind every day. I wonder how it would play in a 10-20 mph north wind or a 20-30 mph east wind straight off the Pacific Ocean. Those things might need to be considered when you speak of a possible lack of variety in holes.

[Jason Topp]

I trust you had long irons into 3 and 7?? I'm not sure I follow you, are you trying to say that Pac Dunes is a poorish golf course because you didn't hit mid-irons into par 4's? I mean, having never played there, I would assume the holes were designed the way they were because those were the holes that best fit the land in a given area. Would you rather force mid-iron par 4's into the design regardless of whether they fit the land or not? I'm just not sure I follow you. Yes, variety is good, but it has to fit the land.

You also state that you played the course in a 5-15 mph south wind every day. I wonder how it would play in a 10-20 mph north wind or a 20-30 mph east wind straight off the Pacific Ocean. Those things might need to be considered when you speak of a possible lack of variety in holes.

John:

I'm using Pacific Dunes as an example because it is a course I admire.  I'm pointing out that one cost of designing many long and short par fours is that it gets rid of those in the middle.  It changes the nature of the game from what I normally think of as a round of golf.  Whether that change is good or bad is a personal decision. 

I also doubt the decision to eliminate such holes has much to do with the land.  Most of the Doak and Coore/Crenshaw courses I have played feature similar types of holes - Stoneagle, Barnbougle, WeKoPa Saguaro and Sand Hills all feature multiple par fours that are close to driveable as well as others that require two full shots from most.  I highly doubt that the nature of the land dictated those types of holes in every single location.  Instead I think it is the strong preference for short par fours as well as a less discussed penchant for building very long par fours that results in the middle being squeezed out. 



At Pacific Dunes, I would guess the opposite wind (the normal summer wind from the north) would change the calculation a bit but not much. 1 and 2 probably become mid irons but 13 becomes a full three wood.  You are correct that 7 is a 3 wood for me and probably for most mortal golfers into any sort of wind.  3 is a par five. 

[John Moore II]

Jason: Sorry, I meant, holes 4 and 7. The long par 4's on the front. I am just not sure how much of the 'shortness' of Pac Dunes and these other courses has to do with specific design. I recall Tom Doak saying here on the site before that he designed Pac Dunes basically just to be the best it could be knowing that it didn't have to be any type of tournament course with Bandon Dunes being on the property. Like I say, I think given wind variability, over the long run, you'll get every shot imaginable and every club in the bag used, if not all on the same day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()