Should we be designing more par fours of over five hundred yards?

[JESII]

I personally think the par number on the scorecard dicates expectations for a wide range of players. No, calling a 350 yard hole a par 5 is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the half-par idea between 4's and 5's. A rare par 3/4 could do this but it better be close to driver length.

Maybe I'm a weak mind...but that's the architect's opportunity, isn't it?

[BCrosby]

I don't think there is much question that par shapes your expectations about how a tweener hole should be played. It is a consensus take on how a scratch golfer would play the hole. And ridiculous or not, we all measure ourselves against the good golfer.

There aren't many such tweener holes on most courses. But on those hole the par number on the card is a factor in how I play it. More power to those who can just shrug off the par expectations of a hole. I can't.

Bob

[Ivan Morris]

Actually, you're right about 'par' Tom! As for more par-4s over 500-yards - a definite no thanks. We need shorter courses with a greater premium put on the second shot. Unless whippersnappers drive 350-yards onto the putting surface, they should be stuffed!   

[Garland Bayley]

Par is irrelevant. Take the longest hitter in the world. Find out what is the longest he can reach in two. Make that your longest hole, and vary the rest of the holes significantly in length so everyone can find something to love.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50179.0.html

[Sean_A]

The 500 yard bit has me puzzled.  I don't mind more long holes, but I am not keen on 500+ yarders unless they are exceptional.  Too often 500+ yarders are used to bolster overall yardage without bringing any fun or different challenge to the table than shorter par 4s.  It wouldn't bother me if there were no 500+ yarders.  I prefer the testing holes to be in the 450-500 yard range - maybe 5 or 6 of them depending on the terrain and locale. 

I agree that the expectation to reach greens in regulation has led to an abomination of multiple tees focused solely on yardage difference.  That is the damage the concept of par has done.  Since few seem to understand that par is a score to be earned by experts of the game and the odd great game by mere mortals, I wish we could do away with it.  I always preferred bogey score as a more realistic number for good handicap players.  In any case, if par is going to remain so important to so many golfers, I absolutely don't want anything to do with increasing yardage to justify par.  I would rather see par for a course drop 3 or 4 strokes to a realistic level for "expert" golfers. 

Signed

One who wants shorter, not longer courses

Ciao

Sean:

I was on the same page you are - 25 years ago.  But today a 450-yard hole is not "long" for stronger players, and bunching several holes in this range just exacerbates the difference between strong players and the rest. 

A 500-yard hole is reachable with a mid-iron for good players now -- not just Tour pros -- and I want to test them at hitting longer clubs out of the fairway with their second shots.  [For Tour pros, even 600 yards is reachable now.]  These holes will necessarily be three-shotters for most of the rest of us, but so what?

If you don't go above 500 yards, then the only times a very good player will hit a hybrid or driver is on a very long par-3 or trying to drive a short par-4.  It's okay to have one of two of those holes, also -- as Rye and Swinley Forest do -- but I think that hitting the same clubs out of the fairway is equally important.

Tom

Two flaws in the theory.  First, added length for the expert player does not create more difficulty.  Hitting the ball far is not a problem for them, but it is for the vast majority of handicap players.  No matter how far they claim to hit the ball, they don't seem able to get it into the hole any better than previously.  The game is still about getting the ball in the hole.  Second,  it is my opinion that the game was too hard in the length department when I was young (I can only imagine how ridiculously hard it was in 1930).  Meaning, courses relied so much on length that other features meant to challenge golfers were secondary.  When speaking of what is best (meaning most fun) for most golfers, the designs with the best balance between length, ground features, proper maintenance and hazards are supreme.  I never bought that the Golden Age was the most fun time for golfers to play the game.  New equipment on so many of the older courses is a bloody godsend. 

Remember, folks think of shots from the perspective of a perfect drive and approach in lovely weather.  How often is that the reality?  Throw in 10mph of wind, a slightly cooler day and a handful of mediocre drives and wallah, there is all the extra yards any archie could want.

Where I do agree with you is on the entire concept of par.  It makes no sense to me that guys can get wrapped up in a number on the card when that number is meant to represent what an expert player is meant to earn.  I guess many golfers want to walk in shoes a size or two too big. 

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

Par 4s: By all means give us these over 500 yards behemoths, but throw in a few fiendish 300 yarders too and I will die a happy golfer.

F.

[jim_lewis]

What the hell! The way I am putting these days, I would prefer one 6700 yard hole, one tee, one greeen. Cut out all that space from green to tee.

[Jon Wiggett]

I don't think there is much question that par shapes your expectations about how a tweener hole should be played. It is a consensus take on how a scratch golfer would play the hole. And ridiculous or not, we all measure ourselves against the good golfer.

I think Bob has hit the crux of the problem. Handicap in golf was set to offset the difference between the scratch player and the rest of the golfers. The problem is that the recent changes to the distance that the ball flies has helped the long hitter imensly but not helped the shorter hitting average golfer. The USGA and R&A are both burying their heads in the sand by refusing to tackle the most important issue and problem facing golf namely reducing the distance the ball flies.

Randy,

500 yard par fours are not the answer and just make a farce of the game. The USGA have 'Empora's new clothes' syndrome with this years US Open proving the point. Maybe you should just stick a fairway bunker deep enough to take the green out of range in the middle of the fairway at 320 to challenge the long hitter.

Jon

[Randy Thompson]

Jon,
We have a responsibility or should I say our objectives are to create a a fun and challenging test for all level of golfers and the strong hitters should be also be considered. I am not advocating a bunch of holes over the 450 yard range for all levels of golfers, I think I understand what the average golfer wants and cater quite a bit to them especially since I am one. Your suggestion of bunkers in the 320 range is valid and can be used sometimes just like other design elements that take the driver out of the strong hitters hands. But we all seem to know that repetition can ruins a good design. Those who have responded negatively to longer courses on this thread need to understand I am not questioning if we need to lengthen the course for the average golfer but I think the stronger players need also consideration and if the correct circumstances presents itself for a hole that plays 420 to 440 for the average player and an ideal back tee is also available in the 500 yard range, we should incorporate this tee and build it. I am 100% total agreement that the ball flight must be controlled and this has created a larger gap between the average golfer and the stronger players but until the governing bodies actually do something about controlling ball flights, our only defense as architects is to continue to create more tees for more alternatives and varying lengths. Once again, not all the time but it should be considered as another one of our options.

[BCrosby]

What the hell! The way I am putting these days, I would prefer one 6700 yard hole, one tee, one greeen. Cut out all that space from green to tee.

These days, I feel the same way. Only three putting one green would be a great relief.

Bob

[Paul Gray]

Randy,

It seems to be that knowledgeable golfers bulk at the idea of length for the sake of length and, therefore, more 500 yard plus par 4's is surely not a good call. By all means build the holes, but call them par 5's and tell me as an 8 handicapper that on an average day I have to hit two very good shots to get up in two, maybe with different shapes required, and my interest is suddenly up. On the other hand, tell me the holes are par 4's and I'm immediately thinking long slog. One of the beauties of the game is just how much the conditions can vary a hole; it would be true to say that with everything in my favour that short par 5 could just be, say, a driver and a 6 iron on one day of the year, but in the grips of a British winter I know numerous 400 yard par 4's which can't be reached in regulation. Mr. Doak, for whom I have a great deal of respect, feels par on a scorecard is of little concern and I suppose the variance of conditions I've just referred to supports that point. However, rightly or wrongly that little number effects how I view the challenge ahead. If you build a course which goes on to hold pro events, much like has happened in The British Open, just tell the pros the short 5's are actually par 4's and the overall par, rather than being 72, is 70. I realise that this issue of reducing par still concerns some of the powers that be but surely in the long term this will have to be accepted. Full time professional athletes, quite rightly, have higher levels to aim for.

I'm increasingly thinking that greater tee variations is antisocial and, frankly, panders too much to the masses. I fully appreciate the commercial pressures you face, however, when the improving player begins to find that previously unreachable targets are in range the joy is far greater than simply moving further and further back to begin each hole. Thinking back to my years as a growing boy, that was certainly the case for me. Playing from tees further forward would simply not have been accepted and, looking back, I'm very glad.

Tom made reference to the variety of Rye and Swinley Forest and I can think of any number of shortish courses on this side of the water that demand creativity, intelligence and focus to score well on. I regularly play such course with friends, many of whom are of a similar level to me, some of whom are what I'll politely call novices and two are club pros. We all play from the same tees and everyone enjoys the challenges presented. That variety is what's required, not penal length.

[jeffwarne]

What the hell! The way I am putting these days, I would prefer one 6700 yard hole, one tee, one greeen. Cut out all that space from green to tee.

These days, I feel the same way. Only three putting one green would be a great relief.

Bob

But Bob,
Your answer's in the anchor thread

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

Touche.

[Randy Thompson]

Paul,
The course we are talking about has lots and lots of variety and I will post more on the specifics at a later date. But basically nine hole courses donīt get respect and I have tried over the last two years to design something that overcomes that perception. Your post is well written and with many good points to consider and I thank you for taking the time and sharing your views. You close your post though with, penal length. Penal length can only exist if you choose to use the particular tee that makes the hole penal for your game. Hopefully there will be an alternative tee more suited to your game. That same penal tee for you, gives a strong player the same aternatives and variety that you will recieve from a more forward tee and is not penal for him at all. This course will also have a strong wind factor which in mind also justifies more alternatives in teeing surfaces. The course has been seen by less than fifteen golfers and a high percentage of these have suggested a certain par three that looks longer than it is, should be played as a par four. Its 220 and yards from the back and few will arrive with an average or just a little better than average wind. The wind changed directions the other day and one of the persons advocating this hole as an alternative par four, reached the green with a seven iron. If your objectives are to make an enjoyable golfing experience for the vast majority in a windy terrain than alternative tees need to be strongly considered. 

[Paul Gray]

Randy,

Thanks for your response. I hear and appreciate what you have to say.

I think we are talking about slightly different scenarios and, for that reason, after all I've said, I suspect I'd have no objection to your 500 yard par 4's just so long as they were limited in number. In typical British conditions, in the summer, I'll hit driver a similar length to my professional friends. Over here, for the purposes of calculating standard scratch, driver length is given as 260 yards, 3 wood 240 yards, 7 iron 150 yards and so on. Those figures are conveniently spot on for me and, in view of that, I'm level with EGU reckoning for a scratch player. Anything over 500 yards, on paper at least, becomes more than a driver and a 3 wood and is thus a three shot hole.

Clearly your 220 yard par 3 is long but not too long. This is slightly different in that a good golfer should be able to get up, on paper, in regulation.

I grew up playing links golf and therefore know all about playing in the wind. If you can't get up in regulation because of the wind then so be it, just so long as older/weaker players aren't faced with simply unmanageable carries to distant fairways. Minor changes in length based upon the seasons are fine in my book but multiple tees I see as a waste of time and money. Possibly that sounds as if I'm now favouring penal golf as a result of wind conditions but that's traditionally been an inherent part of the game. Besides, it works both ways; last summer I seem to recalling hitting driver/wedge through the back of the green to a 474 yard hole. Accepting nature, rather than trying to fight it by shifting tees around because of a breeze this way or that, is fundamental to our relationship with the game. A lack of understanding of this fundamental principle is, in my opinion, responsible for many of the errors made in modern course design. In short, for too long we tried to eliminate nature rather than embrace it.

I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I think that there is any definitive right or wrong answer to any of the interesting questions posed on this site. I'm not the first one to voice the opinion that course design is an art and not a science. Furthermore, Randy, I do hope you don't think I'm trying to find fault with any of your views. I'm looking forward to seeing more pictures of your nine holer. Just from the pictures you've already posted I think it looks very inviting and in keeping with its natural environment.

[Randy Thompson]

Paul,
My views are just that..views, I do not know it all, my designs are evolving and improving and I am trying to do the same. I have one course on the ocean where the wind blows in the afternoon and one that can produce windy conditions in the spring. This is the first time I have been presented with such a windy site and I am anxious because it should really bring out shot creativity. I have not been to England or Scottland, the home of the great links courses and I know it would be super beneficial to me at this stage of my career but the economic realities prohibit such a trip at this time. So I spend a lot of time on this site, listening and digesting to what others have to say who have seen more than I have. The photos from around the world are also a blessing when trying to gain basic concepts that one likes and dislikes. So I am always open minded and listening and looking for something that really clicks when I have an uneasy feeling about something, like what was produced when the pro hit the first two shots on this hole. You wrote one particular view that clicked and hit home and I am now more at ease.
Accepting nature, rather than trying to fight it by shifting tees around because of a breeze this way or that, is fundamental to our relationship with the game.
The land is special and IMO ideal for golf and I have focused on leaving nature in her natural state, so what you wrote fits with the overall theme and is more important than trying to cater to 100% of all players. Just to give one example, on another par five has two levels, the first 330 at one level and then drops down about two to three meters for the remaining two hundred and twenty yards and then the green goes back up about four meters in the last twenty meters. I left it, like I found it and added a rock wall where the drop occurs. I was asked why I didnīt fill in that areas to make a smooth gradual transition from one level to the other which is more common. Twenty trucks loads of dirt would have done it but I prefered to leave it in its natural state. We have all the tools available to us to fabricate something out of nothing but when one recieves an ideal property, I prefer to do look at things through the eyes of past architects who didnīt have those tools and therefore did nothing or did less.

[Paul Gray]

Randy,

I'm genuinely flattered that something I had to offer could be of value to you.

The sheer drop off on the par 5 you described sounds exactly in keeping with the old school philosophy which I'm so keen on. As you said, twenty truck loads of dirt would have done it but why waste the money trying to fight nature? It may not be too educational for you but it occurs to me at this point to recommend the Finegolf.co.uk website to you.

One final point regarding those 500+ yard par 4's, and probably one you're way ahead of me on: I'd strongly consider the direction of the prevailing wind on such holes. If not being able to get home in regulation was the exception, rather than the rule, I see no problem whatsoever with the length. That 220 yard par 3 should pretty much always be in range for the scratch golfer in all but the strongest of winds and, again, if you can't get up from time to time then so be it. If it were touching 250 yards I'd suggest otherwise but 200ish yards on your hole to the front of the putting surface seems reasonable to me.