[Anthony Gray]

  THe drivable par 4 can add a great deal of fun to a round. The drivable par 4 can be a good way for the architect to add risk/reward to the layout.

  What are the plus/minuses to the course featuring a drivable par 4?

  Anthony

 

[Carl Rogers]

Mr. Gray,
You might have to define what you mean a little more.  For me, the drivable par 4 can't be more than 255 (my handicap index is 4.5, but I am on the wrong side of 50) otherwise it is not drivable.

I think that its location in the round is important, say the 16th or 17th hole.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont think every course should have a driveable par 4 as a definite rule, but its something I like. When I see questions like this I always think of the courses I have done and at about 60% of the course's I have done I have had a sub 320 yarder. I think if the land suits one do it. You probably would not want a 270 yard first hole, the more easily it is driveable the more it behaves like a long par three which ofcourse can take a long time to play.

[Garland Bayley]

First hard and fast rule of golf course architecture. There are not hard and fast rules of golf course architecture.

No. If the optimal set of holes have been found that fit the land, and no driveable par 4 is there, then the answer is no. That of course does not say the next piece of land won't have 2 or 3 drivable par 4s.

Not being a GCA, I can only guess, but I am wondering if a more severe site would provide more opportunities for a drivable par 4 for the minimalist than a site with ferwer features that will provide fewer interesting green sites.

[Bill_McBride]

I love short par 4s and long par 3s.  Half par holes are what make golf fun.  If it's not fun, why build a golf course?  Golf is a game!

[Adrian_Stiff]

First hard and fast rule of golf course architecture. There are not hard and fast rules of golf course architecture.

No. If the optimal set of holes have been found that fit the land, and no driveable par 4 is there, then the answer is no. That of course does not say the next piece of land won't have 2 or 3 drivable par 4s.

Not being a GCA, I can only guess, but I am wondering if a more severe site would provide more opportunities for a drivable par 4 for the minimalist than a site with ferwer features that will provide fewer interesting green sites.

I think a more severe site would Garland.

[Tom_Doak]

I like the occasional driveable par-4 ... or at least one that LOOKS driveable, understanding that even the players who are capable of reaching the green are actually going to knock it on the green only about 1 in 20.

But, I think the proliferation of them in the last 10-20 years has been mostly just pandering to long hitters who will love them and rate the course higher accordingly.

How many truly great driveable par-4's have been built in recent years?  I think we've done a couple ... the 4th at Barnbougle Dunes and the 2nd at St. Andrews Beach.  Somebody will bring up the 6th at Pacific, but it only looks driveable, hardly anyone ever succeeds.

[Tim Bert]

I like the occasional driveable par-4 ... or at least one that LOOKS driveable, understanding that even the players who are capable of reaching the green are actually going to knock it on the green only about 1 in 20.

But, I think the proliferation of them in the last 10-20 years has been mostly just pandering to long hitters who will love them and rate the course higher accordingly.

How many truly great driveable par-4's have been built in recent years?  I think we've done a couple ... the 4th at Barnbougle Dunes and the 2nd at St. Andrews Beach.  Somebody will bring up the 6th at Pacific, but it only looks driveable, hardly anyone ever succeeds.

Do you consider the 7th at Ballyneal "driveable" or in the same bucket as #6 at Pacific Dunes?

[Mike Hendren]

Mr. Gray,
You might have to define what you mean a little more.  For me, the drivable par 4 can't be more than 255 (my handicap index is 4.5, but I am on the wrong side of 50) otherwise it is not drivable.

I think that its location in the round is important, say the 16th or 17th hole.

Carl,

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I am tired of having 330 yards par four holes deemed "driveable."   The last par four I drove was the 18th at Kilspindie all of 250 yards backed by the clubhouse.

Kindest regards,

Mike

[Matt_Cohn]

Should every course have a barely-reachable, or just out of reach, par-3?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

No, I don't consider the 7th at Ballyneal driveable.  There are days when it plays downwind and that's possible, but it's got to be a fairly rare occurrence.

[Bill_McBride]

Mr. Gray,
You might have to define what you mean a little more.  For me, the drivable par 4 can't be more than 255 (my handicap index is 4.5, but I am on the wrong side of 50) otherwise it is not drivable.

I think that its location in the round is important, say the 16th or 17th hole.

Carl,

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I am tired of having 330 yards par four holes deemed "driveable."   The last par four I drove was the 18th at Kilspindie all of 250 yards backed by the clubhouse.

Kindest regards,

Mike

The last one I drove was #7 at Elie, all of 256 yards uphill and blind. 

Needless to say I was so thrilled I promptly three jacked from 30 feet. 

That is so much fun. 

[Greg Tallman]

The Ocean Course at Cabo del Sol actually has 3 drivable par 4's though only one was designed with that as the intent almost 20 years ago. Highly doubt that Jack and Jim Lipe were thinking 365 was drivable back them, interesting short par 4 maybe drivable? Today it is. 

Weiskopf's 4th on our Desert Course is among my favorite holes on the property. Literally any score from 2 to 8 is in play. Heck 2 to 5 is in play even after a well struck tee shot.

[Phil_the_Author]

Not a single comment yet about one of the more important aspects of this design concept... LIABILITY!

[Garland Bayley]

Should every course have a barely-reachable, or just out of reach, par-3?

No, that's called a par 4.

Seriously, Tilly wrote that a par 3 should require no more than an iron.

[Greg Tallman]

Not a single comment yet about one of the more important aspects of this design concept... LIABILITY!

Philip,

No such worries here south of the border.

[Dan Chapman]

While I don't really believe that every course should have one, I personally would enjoy seeing one on most courses.  I think they're alot of fun and that most people look forward to them when they see the yardage on the scorecard.  Even if the risk is much greater than the potential reward, I think many enjoy the idea that they have a chance for glory.

[Phil_the_Author]

Garland,

You mentioned that, "Seriously, Tilly wrote that a par 3 should require no more than an iron..."

If that is so, then why did he design some par-threes to be played in two shots into the green? Take a look at his design for the Reef Hole that he wrote about and published in 1926. A "one-shotter" that ahd two different purposefully-designed routes of playing to the hole in two shots...

He also designed a variation of the Reef hole on one single occasion as a drivable par-four of 300 yards. It is the 5th hole on the original Bethpage Blue course.

[Sean_A]

What, only one drivable par 4?  I like to see two or three on a course.  Or better yet, I like to see maybe 7-8 holes that are reachable from the tee. What par designation they are is largely irrelevant - though I think people feel good if the inbetween hole is called a par 4 rather than a par 3. 

Even on a championship course there should be 5-6 holes reachable from the tee. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean- I dont think 6 holes reachable from the tee is realistic on a championship course; par 4s 'need' to be virtually 500 yards to test the very best and 500 to themis like 400 to us, you are going to lose a lot of length off the total yardage by having 2 short fours...no reason why not to have them on a members layout, but some of the 7500 yarders cant afford a hole under 400 yards let alone a pair under or around 300. When you consider total yardage 2 holes of 475 equal 950 yards, a 200 yard short hole and 550 yard par 5 are equal in par but you are -200 overall. It should not matter but the powers that be seem obssessed with length. TOC is quite long now although the total yardage is almost a false add up because of just 2 short holes. A run of par 3s 160,180, 200, 220 par 4s at 290 and 310,4 par 5 holes at 525, 550, 565 and 600 leave 8 holes of par 4 status that need if they average 400 yards its 6700 yards,430 yards take the course to 6940 averaging 460 yards its 7180. The secret might lie in reducing the normal amount of short holes from 4 on a golf course.

[PCCraig]

I think ideally every course should have at least one "half par" par-3 (longer than average), par-4 (short), and par-5 (short)

[Trey Stiles]

Absolutely Yes ... These can be fun holes !

Example : It's been about 15 yrs since I played Riviera ... What hole do I remember the most ... # 10 of course ... It's a lovely hole ... It demands a decision from the tee that starts at the green and works backward ... You can hit a controlled shot and have a very short and demanding 2nd shot or you can blast away and leave yourself anything from a putt to a bunker shot to a flop shot to a bump and run to a XXXXXX shot.

We did a 27 hole course with Tom Clark a few years ago ... We put a short par 4 on every nine ... Of course we got a looong par 4 on every nine as well.

I love the short par 4 javascript:void(0);

[Scott Henderson]

Anthony,

Being on the back side of 60 a drivable par 4 isn't what it used to be.  Today what you would call a long par 3 has become (for me) a short, but not necessarily drivable, "par 4."  Of course long par 4s are "short par 5s."  At the KP my foursome at Soule Park decided that we would play from the back tees, so at #11 I had to lay up on my tee shot (the other 3 in the foursome had no problem) even though it is a relatively short hole, and then was unable to reach the green with my second - thus a very short par 5 in my book even though for some people it might be considered a drivable par 4.

[Sean_A]

Sean- I dont think 6 holes reachable from the tee is realistic on a championship course; par 4s 'need' to be virtually 500 yards to test the very best and 500 to themis like 400 to us, you are going to lose a lot of length off the total yardage by having 2 short fours...no reason why not to have them on a members layout, but some of the 7500 yarders cant afford a hole under 400 yards let alone a pair under or around 300. When you consider total yardage 2 holes of 475 equal 950 yards, a 200 yard short hole and 550 yard par 5 are equal in par but you are -200 overall. It should not matter but the powers that be seem obssessed with length. TOC is quite long now although the total yardage is almost a false add up because of just 2 short holes. A run of par 3s 160,180, 200, 220 par 4s at 290 and 310,4 par 5 holes at 525, 550, 565 and 600 leave 8 holes of par 4 status that need if they average 400 yards its 6700 yards,430 yards take the course to 6940 averaging 460 yards its 7180. The secret might lie in reducing the normal amount of short holes from 4 on a golf course.

Adrian

I point to Riviera's 10th and Oakmont's 10th (a par 3 I know, but still in that length of hole which acts as a half par hole and is reachable from the tee) and 17th.  All fit the idea of what I am talking about.  Furthermore, having six holes reachable from the tee could mean 5 par 3s.  I envision all the reachable holes as between 120 and 320 yards and the full range of this gap to be used. 

Its definitely possible.  The question is more about what golfers want and how organizations like the USGA want to present their championships.  We can continue to add yards to courses or we can get smart.   

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

You mentioned that, "Seriously, Tilly wrote that a par 3 should require no more than an iron..."

If that is so, then why did he design some par-threes to be played in two shots into the green? Take a look at his design for the Reef Hole that he wrote about and published in 1926. A "one-shotter" that ahd two different purposefully-designed routes of playing to the hole in two shots...

He also designed a variation of the Reef hole on one single occasion as a drivable par-four of 300 yards. It is the 5th hole on the original Bethpage Blue course.

All I can do is report on what he has written. He put an upper limit of length at 195 yards, and wrote that you should not be required to hit the woods from the tee, because you spend all day hitting them from the tees of 2 and 3 shotters. I will leave it to the Tilly expert, to explain any contradictions in what he did and wrote.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()