[Ed Oden]

I have read that for most of its history TOC #17 played as a par 5.  And NGLA #7 has always been a par 5.  So both the original road hole and the original "template" were par 5s.  Yet it seems that virtually every road hole since has been designed as a par 4.  Why did the road hole template evolve into largely a par 4 concept?  Is there any merit to a par 5 design?

Ed

[Matthew Petersen]

When did the original become a par 4? I imagine that evolution is what drove the evolution of the template.

[Bill_McBride]

I have read that for most of its history TOC #17 played as a par 5.  And NGLA #7 has always been a par 5.  So both the original road hole and the original "template" were par 5s.  Yet it seems that virtually every road hole since has been designed as a par 4.  Why did the road hole template evolve into largely a par 4 concept?  Is there any merit to a par 5 design?

Ed

When I first saw ANGC #13 it was a 465 yard par 5.  Then it was 475 and whatever it is now, still par 5.

I think the 17th at TOC became a par 4 because it just wasn't long enough from the farthest back tee to meet the then-current par 5 minimum length of 475 yards.

Has it made any difference in how the top players play the hole?  I doubt it.

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:

That's a good question, and I've never really figured out the answer myself.

The seventh at National was a par-5, but many of the other Macdonald / Raynor Road holes are not:

Mid Ocean #10 (kind of a reverse Road green) is 400 yards.
Piping Rock #8 was less than 400 yards.
Chicago Golf #2 may have been a par 5 originally, but is now a long 4.

I don't know why, but on at least some of those, Macdonald decided the hole should be a par 4.

[Alex Miller]

Haha,

This thread might go into one of those "what is the value of par?" discussions. But to answer your question, I think it's because the template for the road hole calls for a longish approach. Even if it used to be a par 5, most golfers would probably have been hitting theirs 2nd shots around the green trying to negotiate the short left and long right hazards.

Part of the template changing to a par 4 also has to do with golfers being more successful now with those approaches then they used to be. In fact, the road hole as a par 4 might be a better hole because it gives more players the opportunity to try to pull of the difficult approach than a par 5 length hole would.

[Tim Gavrich]

Are there any Road-type greens that come on drivable par 4s?  It would be thrilling to take a swipe at a driver and try to fit a ball between the little pot bunker and the long skinny rear one.

[Alex Miller]

Are there any Road-type greens that come on drivable par 4s?  It would be thrilling to take a swipe at a driver and try to fit a ball between the little pot bunker and the long skinny rear one.

How about #14 at Cape Kidnappers? Closest one I can think of offhand but I am sure there are others.

[Ed Oden]

When did the original become a par 4? I imagine that evolution is what drove the evolution of the template.

Matthew, I actually sent Scott Macpherson an IM earlier this evening asking that very question.  But I would have thought that, at least in the US, NGLA #7 would have driven the evolution of the template since most were designed by CBM and his proteges.

[Ed Oden]

Tom, did you ever give any thought to a par 5 at OM?  Is the design concept thwarted if the typical approach (whether on a par 5 or a short par 4) is with a lofted iron?

[paul cowley]

it's all about 'par' and the values that are the current fashion of the day....since its inception.

[Colin Sheehan]

One idea is the structured formality of "par" wasn't there in 1911. It always was a "bogey" five, meaning a 4.5 hole. As par took over for bogey, it neatly slide into long, difficult par-four status. It was more about it's relative length.


In a very early mention of the layout of the Yale course, the fourth--it's Road hole--was labeled as a par-five at 440. But every mention after that, through coverage of opening day, listed it as a par-four. There probably isn't a single "road" hole that didn't played like a par-five on many days in the 19-teens and and twenties.

[Ed Oden]

I may be wrong, but I don't think this has much to do with the "value of par".  It seems to me that the concept of the road hole changed from one where very few golfers could reach the green in two shots (i.e., TOC #17 and NGLA #7) to one where most golfers could reach the green in two shots (i.e., almost everything after TOC #17 and NGLA #7).  So the prevailing approach likely went from a lofted club to a long iron.  I assume the designers intended this result, otherwise they would have continued to create longer holes rather than moving toward a shorter template.  If so, that is a change in the design concept and not a question of the value of par.

Ed

[Sean_A]

Well, I think The Road Hole changed par for the 1964 Open, the same year there was scuttlebutt about pushing the tee back like it will be for this year's Open.  Doing nothing and reducing par was probably the compromise solution as I think funds were tight then.  I know that green fees increased that year and the Trust looked for ways to reduce costs. 

Perhaps Mac/Raynor could see the writing on the wall and thought that eventually a 460ish par 5 would be seen as birdie hole regardless of how well it was designed.  What I find odd is that Mac/Raynor courses are not really known for championship status and one of the standouts to this is NGLA with its Road Hole a par 5.  It could just be that mac thought the concept worked better if guys felt they had to have a go BECAUSE it is a par 4.  The concept of par was just becoming solidified around this time and it could be a mind games issue. 

Ciao

[Jaeger Kovich]

The Yale road hole is also a par 5.

What do people think about the par-3 "Road hole" at Bandon... especially now there is another par-4 version at Old Mac?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, did you ever give any thought to a par 5 at OM?  Is the design concept thwarted if the typical approach (whether on a par 5 or a short par 4) is with a lofted iron?

Ed:  Figuring out the length of the Road hole at Old Macdonald was really tough, because of the prevailing wind.  If we kept it at 465 yards and played north, it would be out of reach for most visitors most of the summer; if it played downwind at the same length, they'd be hitting wedges in.

In the end, it fit better heading north, as the 11th hole.  It will play as a par five for many golfers, but it's still a 4 on the card.  We did build an alternate tee up at about 380 yards, which I think will be a long iron or hybrid approach for the typical visitor in the summer.

Macdonald, of course, became acquainted with the Road and the Stationmaster's Garden back in the 1870's.  I'm sure the hole was not often reached in two shots back then.

[Anthony Fowler]

Tom, I'm really glad that you didn't give up on a good hole just because it isn't easily categorized as a Par 4 or 5.  Did you get any opposition to the idea of a "Par 4" that most golfers wouldn't be able to reach?

I'm afraid that too many golfers, even passionate ones like us, get hung up on the concept of par.  If it's a good hole with a lot of interest, it doesn't really matter what we call it.  It sounds like the play of 11 at OM will vary quite a bit depending on the wind.  This is one of the best things about so-called half-par holes.  I played 4 at PacDunes on a day that it would have been unreachable in two for just about any golfer.  It was a great hole in those conditions, and the fact that par was nearly unattainable didn't detract from the experience. 

[George Freeman]

What do people think about the par-3 "Road hole" at Bandon... especially now there is another par-4 version at Old Mac?

Jaeger,

Which hole are you referring to?

[Tom_Doak]

I think he must be referring to #12 at Bandon Dunes.  The green is sort of like a Road hole, although I always thought of it more as a backwards Eden ... the angle is more like the Road hole, though.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

After Eden i.e. 1939


Before Eden i. e. 1900


Looks like TOC to me

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

The Yale road hole is also a par 5.

Jaeger,

Yale's is #4, a par 4.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the Road Hole template, particularly the green design is one of the truly great "par skewing" designs golf has ever known.

The original---TOC's #17 was probably "gettable" in two by some even in the old days but it is just such a dangerous shot. When they transitioned it down to a par 4 even that strategic reality held to the extent that a Tiger Woods in his blowout win in 2000 apparently didn't even try to get on the green when he was well within its range in two.

This history also includes the dictate of Bob Jones as the captain of an early Presidents Cup or whatever to his team that none of them should try for the green in two until Bill Hyndman playing cleanup on the last day had to make something happen and Bob Jones told him he could go for the green if he wanted to. He did with something like a 3 iron and he hit a remarkable shot and got a photograph some weeks later from Jones with the inscription; "That was the single best shot I have ever seen."

I believe Macdonald dearly wanted Piping Rock's #8 Road Hole to be quite a bit longer than it originally was which was around 350 yards but that is because the club would not allow him to put a tee in what was then a double polo field. In the 1950s and 1960s we used to hit like a nine iron into that green which was still pretty dicey---a bit more difficult than basically the same shot on Merion's #10. Today there is a tee in the back of that old double polo field (for many years the practice range) and the hole is much longer.

In my opinion, a pretty stock Road Hole green and stock bunker arrangement would make an awesome par 3 design approachable from three basic directions with wonderful challenges and strategies. The only direction I don't think would work so well would be from behind right.

One of the cool things about using the likes of TOC's #17 or NGLA's #7 (both have always been just about the exact same lengths) as a par 5 or par 4 is essentially it costs the club little to nothing to do. That seems to be a concept Pat Mucci cannot get his thimble sized mind around but he always has been a problematic student of mine on the finer points of golf and architecture.

[Matthew Petersen]

In my opinion, a pretty stock Road Hole green and stock bunker arrangement would make an awesome par 3 design approachable from three basic directions with wonderful challenges and strategies. The only direction I don't think would work so well would be from behind right.

The angles, if not the lay of the land, for the approach to a road hole-style green, have a lot in common with the angles of a Redan par 3.

[TEPaul]

"The angles, if not the lay of the land, for the approach to a road hole-style green, have a lot in common with the angles of a Redan par 3."


Matthew:

It's a good point you make there but I would take it a step or two further. Of the Road hole greens and the Redan greens I've seen I think they both get better as the long axis of the green gets further towards a right angle to the approach shot of the golfer. I'd be glad to give you some examples of what I mean if you'd like.
 
 
 

[Niall C]

Perhaps Mac/Raynor could see the writing on the wall and thought that eventually a 460ish par 5 would be seen as birdie hole regardless of how well it was designed.  What I find odd is that Mac/Raynor courses are not really known for championship status and one of the standouts to this is NGLA with its Road Hole a par 5.  It could just be that mac thought the concept worked better if guys felt they had to have a go BECAUSE it is a par 4.  The concept of par was just becoming solidified around this time and it could be a mind games issue. 

Ciao

Sean

I wonder how the other par 5's, long par 4's on the course effected Mac/Raynors views on whether their Road Hole on any given course should be a par 4 or a par 5. I don't know there courses at all but is it possible that they designated it a short par 5 if they felt that fitted the sequence of holes better or that they already had enough long par 4's ?

Niall 

[Matthew Petersen]

"The angles, if not the lay of the land, for the approach to a road hole-style green, have a lot in common with the angles of a Redan par 3."


Matthew:

It's a good point you make there but I would take it a step or two further. Of the Road hole greens and the Redan greens I've seen I think they both get better as the long axis of the green gets further towards a right angle to the approach shot of the golfer. I'd be glad to give you some examples of what I mean if you'd like.
 
 
 

Makes sense to me, but I would be interested to see some example of this nonetheless.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()