"Top" Drivable Par-4's

[Matt_Cohn]

Geoff Shackelford posted this link to the PGA Tour's "Top" Drivable Par-4's:

http://www.pgatour.com/r/drivable_par4s_2009/index.html

The chart provides % of players going for the green, average score of players who went for the green, and average score of those who lay up. My question is, is there a set of ideal numbers that would identify which of these holes is "best" or most effective?

Should the percent going for the green be right around 50%, indicating that it's a tough decision from the tee? Should there be a big difference or a minimal difference between the two scoring averages? Or is this too technical a way of thinking about these kinds of holes?

[David Whitmer]

I was actually surprised that the average score was higher for players who did not go for it (I think every single hole was that way). I would have thought that professionals who chose to lay up from the tee would have a low scoring average, because usually they would be hitting a wedge from the fairway. For those who went for it, I would have thought they would bring bogeys and even double bogeys into the mix which would have raised their averages.

I think that would be the case for amateurs. Of the driveable par 4s I have played, the 17th at Double Eagle stands out as being ideal to me. As a longer hitter, I can get there if I hit a solid and straight driver. If I choose to lay up, I can hit a 4 iron out to the left, and then hit a sand wedge approach...I should make a par or better darn near every time. If I choose to go for it, I need to hit a solid straight tee ball. If I don't, I will either be in a lateral hazard to the right or a large bunker to the left.

The "top" driveable par 4 is not discernable to me, because every one had a lower scoring average for players who went for the green. Either those players are unbelievably great with their drivers (very possible), or there isn't as much risk-reward as I think there should be on a hole of that length.

[JESII]

I didn't even look at the stats, but based on your comments it sure looks like the Tour guys short games are the difference. Their wedge games are obviously really good, but they are also incredibly efficient at getting down in 2 from anywhere reasonable around the green...I wonder if the new grooves will reduce their control on flop type shots out of zoisa (?)...

[Charlie Goerges]

I wouldn't worry too much about averages and stats for correlations with the greatness of a hole. Now if they tracked how worried a player is about a shot, or how much a shot made them think, or how much fun the player had, then you might have a good statistical method for determining the greatness of a hole.

[Tim Nugent]

"a drive that ends up 30 yds from the green is deemed 'driveable'"?  Boy, you learn something new everyday.  I always thought "Drivable" meant you can drive "onto" the green.  Seeing that JS has a 384 yd hole as driveable just seems silly to me.

[Tim Gavrich]

Funny that for all the grief some people give TPC courses, a bunch of them show up on the list with drivable par 4s.  I love the 15th at River Highlands and think it is among the very best golf holes I have ever played.  I can think of few holes about which I have been more excited to step onto the tee.

[Jim Colton]

I was actually surprised that the average score was higher for players who did not go for it (I think every single hole was that way). I would have thought that professionals who chose to lay up from the tee would have a low scoring average, because usually they would be hitting a wedge from the fairway. For those who went for it, I would have thought they would bring bogeys and even double bogeys into the mix which would have raised their averages.

I think that would be the case for amateurs. Of the driveable par 4s I have played, the 17th at Double Eagle stands out as being ideal to me. As a longer hitter, I can get there if I hit a solid and straight driver. If I choose to lay up, I can hit a 4 iron out to the left, and then hit a sand wedge approach...I should make a par or better darn near every time. If I choose to go for it, I need to hit a solid straight tee ball. If I don't, I will either be in a lateral hazard to the right or a large bunker to the left.

The "top" driveable par 4 is not discernable to me, because every one had a lower scoring average for players who went for the green. Either those players are unbelievably great with their drivers (very possible), or there isn't as much risk-reward as I think there should be on a hole of that length.

David,

 I think the difference is how they define if a player was going for it.  If a players was really going for it but hit it in the water 40 yards from the green, it would be counted as laying up.

 They should define drivable by the percentage of the field that reach the green (say 15-20% or more), then look at the standard deviation of all scores among the holes that meet that criteria.  That's how I would look at it.

[Cristian]

I think the best holes would be the ones with the smallest and the biggest scoring difference.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the best holes would be the ones with the smallest and the biggest scoring difference.

Cristian:

Why did you include the holes with the smallest scoring differential?  What's a great hole with a small one?  16th at Cypress Point [once you take out the 8's]?

[Tom_Doak]

There are a few driveable par-4 holes that I think are great holes, but as a group, I think they are overrated.

They're popular, because everybody loves having a putt for eagle.  But in general, I don't think a single great shot [combined with a bit of luck] should save you two shots.  If you reach a par five in two, at least you've hit two pretty good shots.

[JC Jones]

There are a few driveable par-4 holes that I think are great holes, but as a group, I think they are overrated.

They're popular, because everybody loves having a putt for eagle.  But in general, I don't think a single great shot [combined with a bit of luck] should save you two shots.  If you reach a par five in two, at least you've hit two pretty good shots.

I'm guessing you are exempting #17 at The Downs from your general rule?

[Ben Sims]

I think the best holes would be the ones with the smallest and the biggest scoring difference.

Cristian:

Why did you include the holes with the smallest scoring differential?  What's a great hole with a small one?  16th at Cypress Point [once you take out the 8's]?

Tom, I think that's the point of the 10th at Riviera.  Check the stats in this case.  It is 3.89 for the "drivers", 3.95 for the "lay-uppers".  That's what makes it such a great hole in my opinion.  Those guys all look at it as a birdie hole, sure.  But which way to birdie it is the question.

With Mr. Robin watching, I hit two tee shots.  A huge fade to the fringe of the temporary green over on the right with the driver, and a four iron in the fairway on the left.  I made bogey on both.  So for me, it was, "which way do I want to make bogey?"  A drive, flop attempt, chip and two putt.  Or a drive, full approach, chip and two putt. 

[David_Elvins]

There are a few driveable par-4 holes that I think are great holes, but as a group, I think they are overrated.

4 (or maybe even 5) of your best 10 holes built in Australia ar drivable par 4s.  If they are overated, what does that say about the rest of your work?   

Seriously though, did the number of very good short 4s in Australia influence you to build more down there? 

[Sean_A]

There are a few driveable par-4 holes that I think are great holes, but as a group, I think they are overrated.

They're popular, because everybody loves having a putt for eagle.  But in general, I don't think a single great shot [combined with a bit of luck] should save you two shots.  If you reach a par five in two, at least you've hit two pretty good shots.

Tom

Could this be because as a group they were never meant to be driveable?  Although, technology has given us a few crackers that happen to work out wonderfully as drivable par 4s.  The ones which tend to impress me the most are those which eat up awkward ground that could be used for long par 3s, but aren't. 

Ciao

[Cristian]

I think the best holes would be the ones with the smallest and the biggest scoring difference.

Cristian:

Why did you include the holes with the smallest scoring differential?  What's a great hole with a small one?  16th at Cypress Point [once you take out the 8's]?

Tom, I think that's the point of the 10th at Riviera.  Check the stats in this case.  It is 3.89 for the "drivers", 3.95 for the "lay-uppers".  That's what makes it such a great hole in my opinion.  Those guys all look at it as a birdie hole, sure.  But which way to birdie it is the question.

With Mr. Robin watching, I hit two tee shots.  A huge fade to the fringe of the temporary green over on the right with the driver, and a four iron in the fairway on the left.  I made bogey on both.  So for me, it was, "which way do I want to make bogey?"  A drive, flop attempt, chip and two putt.  Or a drive, full approach, chip and two putt.  

Tom,

I meant to say the same thing as Ben regarding Riv10. But I think the holes with a huge scoring difference are also interesting; apparently the hole has a large intimidation factor to not go for the green, whereas the players who do generally get rewarded up to half a shot!

As for the amateurs, really if you are not a low hcapper and a great driver of the ball, on all these holes for the other 99% of players the %play is to lay up on any of these short par 4's. (I am shocked by the way how 400 yd holes now apparently also fall in this category).

[Jeffrey Stein]

# 8 Bandon Trails 299- 321y.  Drivable from the middle tee but its got to be just about perfect to hit the front on the green from the back tee.  Plenty of trouble up the left and right side to give you a second thought.  I would call this a great hole and a tough par if your not on point with your approach.  I have to say that my buddies and I nearly always hit Driver here, I probably have just as many birdies as I have others on this hole.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Could this be because as a group they were never meant to be driveable?  Although, technology has given us a few crackers that happen to work out wonderfully as drivable par 4s.  The ones which tend to impress me the most are those which eat up awkward ground that could be used for long par 3s, but aren't. 

Ciao

Sean:

I think the ones that are meant to be drivable can work well, but only if the green is difficult and set at an angle.

A perfect example was the 255 yard 5th at Rosapenna. Nowadays it would be treated as a long par 3, but when I first played it 25 years ago, it was a genuine "drivable" par 4 for many low, mid and even the odd high handicapper.

Even before stepping onto the tee, you were thinking of driving the green and walking off with an eagle. The only problem is that the green is set at an angle to the line of play (similar angle to the 10th at Riviera), and it's sloped steeply from back to front. All along the back of the green is a slope that allows balls coming in from the left side to drift around to the right where the most difficult pin position is. It also slopes from the green centre to the front left and also to the front right. Combined with that is a nasty little bunker short and just right of centre. The ideal drive is a fade to the front of the green and hope that it it would run onto the green or possibly run along the back left of the green and drift along the back slope. Even if your drive lands short and left of the green, you are left with a nasty chip to a green that slopes towards this nasty bunker. Because of this, there is no obvious benefit or reason to lay up short. I wish I had a picture, as it would illustrate the difficulty of this hole.

In my opinion, it was one of the most difficult drivable par 4s you could get. You were expecting at least a 3 but many times, you'd end up with a 5 or 6. The strategy and psycology of the hole was brilliant.

Pat Ruddy recently extended it to 355 yards; I think he should have stopped at 300 yards. Colt would have had the possibility to make it longer in 1913, but maybe he felt it was a better hole at 255 yards.  I'm don't believe it can be as good a hole at 355 yds as it was at 255 yds.

Dónal.

[Dean Stokes]

# 5 at Friars Head.

It entices you to go for the front edge but miss and you are generally scrambling for a par.

The cleverness is in the hump that sits in the middle of the green complex and causes all kinds of problems to the golfer. That and the pot bunker in the middle of the fairway at about 250 off the tee that just makes you think enough that you miss the fairway and makes the hole harder!!!!! For the very good golfer(not really scrambling for par!!!!!), not a hard hole to par but you walk to the 6th tee frustrated at not making birdie and then have to hit a solid tee shot!!

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Based on what you said, "There are a few driveable par-4 holes that I think are great holes, but as a group, I think they are overrated.
They're popular, because everybody loves having a putt for eagle.  But in general, I don't think a single great shot [combined with a bit of luck] should save you two shots.  If you reach a par five in two, at least you've hit two pretty good shots." I assume you are very much against the forced turning of holes into drivable par-4s as has been the recent trend with US Open set-ups?

Me too...

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

They're popular, because everybody loves having a putt for eagle.  But in general, I don't think a single great shot [combined with a bit of luck] should save you two shots.  If you reach a par five in two, at least you've hit two pretty good shots.

Tom:

I assume you wrote this with your "par hat" on? It doesn't matter if a 250-300 yds hole is a par 3 or 4. If you get a two at it, you've obviously played the hole well. You can have luck on any hole, it could be a par 3, 4 or 5. Luck isn't skewed towards short par 4s. If it was, well it wouldn't be luck then.

Your argument makes sense when assessing the stroke index of a hole. It requires 2 or 3 good shots to hit a par 5, so it's stroke index can be very low, but you rarely get a par 3 with a stroke index lower than 5, as it only requires one good shot to hit the green.

Dónal.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Let's not forget the Old which (in no wind) has back-to-back drivable par 4s at 9 and 10.  Both are fun but mostly from a standpoint of avoiding a 3-putt.  JC

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

While you are at it, you should not forget the 12th at St. Andrews [which is one of the best driveable par-4's I know], and the 18th as well.  St. Andrews breaks all the rules.

Cristian:  Sorry, I had read your observation about scoring differential in a more general light, instead of just applying it to driveable par-4's, for some reason.  I think I agree with you, that a good driveable par-4 is one where there is no clear-cut favorite alternative ... if there was a considerable advantage to one approach or the other, everyone would do the same thing, and one of the values of such holes is confusion.

Philip:  I have mixed views on the subject of using forward tees in an Open to make a hole driveable.  If I was the architect of the course, I don't think I would like Mike Davis changing how I intended the holes to be played.  On the other hand, what he is trying to do is get the players off balance so they don't know what strategy to take, and I approve of that being a part of the U.S. Open examination.  Odd, though, considering for most of the round they make you hit it into a 25-yard area and take the strategy of holes away, and then they want to bring it back by moving tees around.

Donal:  I don't have a "par hat," as I could not find one that fits.  But most golfers do, that was my point.  There is no hole more reviled by most players than the very long par-3, for the mirror image of the rationale I outlined ... it is not at all flattering to most golfers.

[jim_lewis]

I caution against judging the quality of  holes (or courses, for that matter) based on how touring pros play them.

[Cliff Hamm]

From Links Magazine: 

 Best Drivable Par 4s in Golf

>> Bandon Dunes, No. 16
>> Bandon Trails, No. 14
>> The Belfry (Brabazon), No. 10
>> Chambers Bay, No. 12
>> Cruden Bay Golf Club, No. 8
>> Cypress Point Club, No. 9
>> Merion Golf Club (East), No. 10
>> National Golf Links of America, No. 2
>> Oakmont Country Club, No. 17
>> Old Course at St. Andrews, No. 12
>> Old Course at St. Andrews, No. 18
>> Pacific Dunes, No. 6
>> Quail Hollow Club, No. 14
>> Ridgewood Country Club (Center), No. 6
>> Riviera Country Club, No. 10
>> Royal Melbourne Golf Club (West), No. 10
>> TPC Boston, No. 4
>> TPC River Highlands, No. 15
>> TPC Scottsdale (Stadium), No. 17
>> Winged Foot Golf Club (West), No. 6

The article: http://linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/features/drivable_par_4s.aspx

I have never played any of the aforementioned.  Having watched the pros at TPC Boston I question that the 4th is that great of a hole.  There is reward but little risk.  Most pros either miss a bit short or go in the bunker to the left.  Very few scores seem to be beyond par so that there is little risk in going for the green.

[Tom_Doak]

The LINKS list is a hodgepodge.  Some of those holes were clearly not meant to be driveable ... like the 6th at Winged Foot.  Nor, for that matter, was the 6th at Pacific Dunes ... I can't imagine there are 20 golfers a year who actually knock it on that green and get it to stay.  It's just short enough to tempt many people to do something they can't.

My holes at Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach are better versions of a true driveable par-4, but I'm sure not many people at LINKS are familiar with them.

P.S.  Who comes up with these lists of golf holes?  Their knowledge is far from encyclopedic.