[Mark Saltzman]

Has anyone played any holes that play as a par 5 for all tees except the tips, which play as a par 4 and the tees are moved up in front of several of the other tees?

I've only seen this a couple of times, but in my opinion, it didn't work.

The first time I saw it is the 7th at Rocky Crest, north of Toronto.  The hole plays as a very interesting 480 yd dogleg par-5 for the men's tee and a 435 yd par 4 from the championship tee.  It's a great short par-5 from 480, with a fairway that runs off into woods/hazard on the outside of the dogleg and a rock outcropping on the inside of the dogleg that catches those players that are a little too aggressive.  From the 435-yd tees, it is almost impossible to get the ball inside the 200-yd marker because of the shape of the hole and most players playing the tips end up laying-up off the tee and then having a very long, uphill shot to a very well protected green. 

Furthermore, many of the times I've played the course, people didn't understand how the golds could be in front of the blues and ended up playing from the wrong place (ie people playing the blues presumed their tees should be further up and played from 435 yds).

The only other time I've seen this configuration is a hole at Bay Harbor in Michigan.  I remember that one not really working either as the hole became and impossible par 4, requiring a long-iron/hybrid into a very shallow green with water short (and long too, I think).

Does anyone have an example where this strategy of making the tips a par 4 works?

Mark

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Riviera 2nd

[Wade Whitehead]

A course in Botetourt County here in Virginia places the "front" tee all the way back on a long par three.  It plays as a par four for women from there.

Strangely, the hole makes a good par three but a terrible par four.

WW

[Scott Szabo]

 Baysiide in Ogallala Nebraska has one of these, I believe it's number 6.

[Bill Satterfield]

The 12th hole at Hudson National in NY is like that.  It is a very challenging hole that doglegs to the left with very little chance of shortening the hole by trying to cut the corner.  The inside of the dogleg is protected by dense forest and bushes that will create a lost ball most of the time.  The green isn't huge and is well protected by bunkers - pretty tough target to hit in two from 225+ yards out.

[GBoring]

Baltusrol Lower #1

[Ronald Montesano]

CC Buffalo, #7...goes about 480 from members as a 5, 465 from champs as a par 4. In my opinion, they should flip the tees and keep the pars...480 for a 300 yard driver ain't nothing to negotiate and the members would benefit from the extra 15 paces.

[JNC Lyon]

CC Buffalo, #7...goes about 480 from members as a 5, 465 from champs as a par 4. In my opinion, they should flip the tees and keep the pars...480 for a 300 yard driver ain't nothing to negotiate and the members would benefit from the extra 15 paces.

17 used to be like this as well, as was 17 at Oak Hill (East).  Frankly, the "different" pars make little sense and, more than anything, demonstrate that par becomes meaningless at the margins.

[Jason Topp]

When I first played at Turnberry (1992) one of the holes on the front side was a 465 yard par four from the guest tees and a 475 yard par five from the medal tees.  That seemed a bit unfair to me at the time.

[Tom_Doak]

I think Riviera has abandoned that feature on their second hole, and they just call it a long par 4 for everyone now.

Coore and Crenshaw did that with two holes at Cuscowilla -- the ninth, and I think the eighteenth as well.

I agree with your take that it's awkward for many people to understand.


One of the oddest things I've seen is a course that does it the other way around.  At Woodhall Spa, there are three holes which are listed as par-5's from the back tees, because they are over 470 yards, but par-4's from all the other tees, because they're under 470.  So, par is THREE SHOTS LESS from the middle tees, which are really not all that much shorter!

[Kevin Lynch]

I'm curious about the examples people give. Are the green designs on these holes versatile enough for the differing shot demands?

For example, I'm thinking that a 485 yard par 5 may have a small green or tight hazard to provide an element of high risk for member who tries to get home in 2. However, the green is ultimately built to receive a short approach. Does this type of green lend itself to the longer approach demanded by a 460 yard par 4?

While not exactly the same situation as the original post, two par 5s in my area were arbitrarily changed from great risk/reward 5s to overly demanding Par 4s, as the greens were not meant for such long approaches.  I could understand such a switch if there was a large, open-fronted green. In that case, the short par 5 is too easy, and would be better by losing a few yards to be a long 4.  But in situations where the green is difficult, reducing par seems like an oversimplified attempt to "toughen up" the course without proper consideration.       

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Interlachen has been doing this on their 'contreversial' 475 yard par-5 11th hole. The hole bends around a pond and uphill, with the fairway taking a right hand turn at a 60-70 degree angle about 230-250 yards from the tee. However the big hitters can fly it over/through a row of 5 tall trees on the other side of the pond to leave themselves with anywhere from 220 to 150 left making it a prime eagle and easy birdie opportunity.

A few summers back they took out two bunkers short and left of the green, leaving only a deep bunker short right around the green. (which doesnt see many balls due to the rough in front of it.) the attemot was to make the hole 'easier' and they 'switched it' to a par-4 on the card and it went from the easiest to the hardest hole on the back nine. Of course the 80%of the membership that cant hit the ball more than 225 were outraged and for the last 2-3 summers its been a par 5 from the middle and front tees while staying a 4 from the tips.

The debate thats gone on since is whether to take down the 5 trees blocking the fairway on the far sie of the pond and make it a 4 for all with more forward middle and front tees. (An alternative front tee that cut out 15 yards and allowed a better angle was built 2-3 years ago but rarely used) I've heard but not yet seen that they are or have taken them down and the hole will be changed to a 4. I believe the argument was that Brian Silva who did the restoration as well as number of archies and pros consulted including local boy Tom Lehman agreed it was the right thing to do. I'm not sure if they will bring the fairway to the far edge of the pond or add a trap on that inside edge.

FWIW I'm not positive but I believe the women played it as a 4 in the 2008 US Open. I cant remember where it ranked on hardest holes. I'll try and look it up and post a few pics later.

[Matthew Rose]

One of the oddest things I've seen is a course that does it the other way around.  At Woodhall Spa, there are three holes which are listed as par-5's from the back tees, because they are over 470 yards, but par-4's from all the other tees, because they're under 470.  So, par is THREE SHOTS LESS from the middle tees, which are really not all that much shorter!

I grew up playing Riverside Muni in Janesville, WI. There was a period of time where the 10th hole was a 494 yard par-five from the blue tee and a 439 yard par four from the white tee. Not only was the blue tee further back but it was also much lower and to the left, on the other side of some large trees and was needless to say a very different hole. At that time, the course only had a white set and a red set, but the back tee on #10 was a "bonus" tee - it was maintained and had the yardage printed on the card, but no markers. All the better players went back to that tee so they could play it as a par-five.

When the course changed management, the new folks realized it was stupid, so they made it a par-five from every tee (with the white tee listed at 445) and installed a blue set on the entire course.

What is also strange is the yardage from the white teeing area was once listed as 467 yards, but later became 439 and then 445 even though nothing was changed at all. Perhaps as the years went on, they had more accurate measuring devices.

[Sean_A]

I think Riviera has abandoned that feature on their second hole, and they just call it a long par 4 for everyone now.

Coore and Crenshaw did that with two holes at Cuscowilla -- the ninth, and I think the eighteenth as well.

I agree with your take that it's awkward for many people to understand.


One of the oddest things I've seen is a course that does it the other way around.  At Woodhall Spa, there are three holes which are listed as par-5's from the back tees, because they are over 470 yards, but par-4's from all the other tees, because they're under 470.  So, par is THREE SHOTS LESS from the middle tees, which are really not all that much shorter!

Tom

That set up at Woodhall bugs me.  There is no question it is easier to play to handicap from the backs than from the daily tees and if there is anything back tees should provide is for a player to have a more difficult time doing the opposite. 

Not quite the same, but I like the idea of the back tee being a par 4 and the forward tee a par 5 (within reason of course).  This can work especially well on a lot of older courses that don't have a huge yardage spread between tees.   It helps reduce the perceived need for 7000 yard courses and instead reduces par for the flat bellies.  It also helps differentiate between who should be stepping back on those tees on who shouldn't.  Eventually, developers, archies and whoever will figure out that you can't combat flat belllies with more and more length without sacrificing how a course plays for  nearly everybody else.

Ciao 

[David_Madison]

Oakland Hills #18

[Jason Topp]

FWIW I'm not positive but I believe the women played it as a 4 in the 2008 US Open. I cant remember where it ranked on hardest holes. I'll try and look it up and post a few pics later.

Patrick:

It was played as a par five and the course a par 73. 

I did not realize they now call the hole a par 4 from the back tees.  It was labelled as a five the last time I played there which I think was in 2009.  I had understood they abandoned the par 4 idea.

[jeffwarne]

I think Riviera has abandoned that feature on their second hole, and they just call it a long par 4 for everyone now.

Coore and Crenshaw did that with two holes at Cuscowilla -- the ninth, and I think the eighteenth as well.

I agree with your take that it's awkward for many people to understand.


One of the oddest things I've seen is a course that does it the other way around.  At Woodhall Spa, there are three holes which are listed as par-5's from the back tees, because they are over 470 yards, but par-4's from all the other tees, because they're under 470.  So, par is THREE SHOTS LESS from the middle tees, which are really not all that much shorter!

i hate changing the pars because it's awkward.
I hate moving the tees up for the cahmpionship markers and calling it a par 4 because it's stupid (and certainly doesn't play the way it was intended-even if some of that is lost due to technology)
To me the best solution is to keep it as a par 5 because the players playing the forward markers are certainly not reaching the green in two, and why not make the hole as long as possible for the low hdcp players-and maybe even find tham a back tee or different angle
a handicapping nightmare if the back tees are forward of the middle tees.


Trying to even out par on each and every hole is an exercise in futility and boredom.

During the Mid-Am at our club (played in pretty good winds) a player told me our par five seventh should be a par 4 but that it would be awkward because the fairway narrowed at the speed slot which would make it an "unfair" par 4  the exact quote was "what the fuch is up with that hole"
the hole was 30 mph downwind and because players could fly into the speed slot,many players were hitting wedges for their second shots.
I asked what he hit into the previous hole a par 4 "3 wood and didn't reach-they should move the tees up with this wind"
This was a top player from a highly regarded club.
boneheaded remarks nonetheless

[James Boon]

I'm curious about the examples people give. Are the green designs on these holes versatile enough for the differing shot demands?

For example, I'm thinking that a 485 yard par 5 may have a small green or tight hazard to provide an element of high risk for member who tries to get home in 2. However, the green is ultimately built to receive a short approach. Does this type of green lend itself to the longer approach demanded by a 460 yard par 4?

While not exactly the same situation as the original post, two par 5s in my area were arbitrarily changed from great risk/reward 5s to overly demanding Par 4s, as the greens were not meant for such long approaches.  I could understand such a switch if there was a large, open-fronted green. In that case, the short par 5 is too easy, and would be better by losing a few yards to be a long 4.  But in situations where the green is difficult, reducing par seems like an oversimplified attempt to "toughen up" the course without proper consideration.       

Kevin,

Your post above has got me thinking in relation to the age of courses. A lot of old courses here in the UK used to have (and a small number still do) the Bogey system instead of par, where a lot of these long par 4s would be called bogey 5s. So I'm curious how the notion of larger greens on long par 4s and smaller ones on short par 5s as they are designed to receive a shorter shot, fits into this? And was it an idea utilised by the architects of the Golden Age or is it a newer notion from say RTJ or perhaps Pete Dye or the like?

Back to the original question, a course near me, Sherwood Forest, has a short par 5 16th that plays as a long par 4 from the Championship tees, say when its hosting Regional Open Qualifying, and this works fine as its a down hill approach to a reasonable sized green. Also, isn't the 17th at Ganton a par 3 for Chamuionships but a short par 4 for everyday play?

Cheers,

James

[Ronald Montesano]

The holes of this ilk at CC Buffalo both accept the long iron/hybrid easily.  The 7th is more long than narrow, is well above the fairway and is quite deep.  17 is the opposite, at fairway height or slightly below, wider than deep, but not so shallow that a longer shot won't hold.  Neither green is as small, say, as that wee postage stamp on a 470 yard par five at Lookout Point (I believe, #3) in Ontario.

[Matt Waterbury]

We've thought about doing this for tournaments on #5 at Black Rock (Hingham).

It's an alps hole with bunkers that pinch the fairway ~300-250 yds out and a large hill (the "alps") that you have to shoot over about 140 yds short of the green. It's a 20 ft high hill, so blind shot.

From the tips its 563 yds. So off the tee you can lay short of the bunkers and have 300+ yds left (which usually requires a layup short of the hill and a 140 yd blind 3rd shot) or you can take on the bunkers and try to go "over the top" in two.

Now, from the whites/reds, the tees can be set in the 412-450 range. So can play like a more traditional par four alps: try to fit someting (less than a driver for the target tournament golfers) over the bunkers but short of the hill, and then over the top on your 2nd.

Cheerio,
Matt

[Cristian]

I think Riviera has abandoned that feature on their second hole, and they just call it a long par 4 for everyone now.

Coore and Crenshaw did that with two holes at Cuscowilla -- the ninth, and I think the eighteenth as well.

I agree with your take that it's awkward for many people to understand.


One of the oddest things I've seen is a course that does it the other way around.  At Woodhall Spa, there are three holes which are listed as par-5's from the back tees, because they are over 470 yards, but par-4's from all the other tees, because they're under 470.  So, par is THREE SHOTS LESS from the middle tees, which are really not all that much shorter!

I have seen this a lot in Europe/UK; Haagsche hole 6 used to be par 5 from the backtee and par 4 from the medal, also RAF and New Zealand have 1 or two holes where this is the case and there are others, especially on older courses. I guess at the time they just wanted to make the hole a little easier for less accomplished players not caring much about par, since mostly matchplay was played anyway.

Another explanation might be, if the courses are pre 1920-1930, that by the original Bogey rating these holes would be 5's from all tee's.

[Bill_McBride]

One of the oddest things I've seen is a course that does it the other way around.  At Woodhall Spa, there are three holes which are listed as par-5's from the back tees, because they are over 470 yards, but par-4's from all the other tees, because they're under 470.  So, par is THREE SHOTS LESS from the middle tees, which are really not all that much shorter!

North Berwick does the same thing with #8.  It's a much better hole for me as a par 5, but from the yellow visitor tees it's a par 4 I can't reach so I just play it as a par 5 anyway!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()