[Jim Nugent]

Griping at architects about "reachable par-5 holes" is really misplaced anger. 

I'm not griping about reachable par 5 holes.  I like them, for the most part.  They make things real exciting: major tournaments sometimes turn on such holes, and even long-hitting average golfers from time to time pull off the feat. 

It seems to me if the logic applies to par 4s, it applies to par 5s as well. 

I don't agree with the Dyes about the par 4s, though.  Are there any par 4 holes on tour the players 'should' drive?  The ones I know give risk/reward options.  The photos and comments I see about your (Doak's) reachable par 4s offer the same thing. 

fwiw, watching from the peanut gallery I agree with Geoff Shackelford: Dye's top proteges outdid their master, by a goodly portion, too.   

[V. Kmetz]

"If a player is supposed to reach the green from the tee and you're always allowed two putts, well, that's a par 3." - Alice Dye


Please discuss.

that's the rub with all such statements of philosophy, especially regarding the alleged parameters of these "Card Pars" and what features just won't do....


"supposed to"...who says? By whose standards? Just because its achievable, doable, solvable, doesn't mean the hole's merits go up or down as a enjoyable test of golf skill, one of the 18 on the course.


I repeat: on a medal or stroke basis, every hole is a solution of "4;" there are simpler ones and easy ones, hard ones, medium ones, complex ones, impossible ones, short ones and long ones and all manners, but eighteen of them = 72, which is good enough for all but touring professionals.


cheers
vk

[Mark Bourgeois]

In one sense this is kind of a weird debate between Pete's opinion and Pete's ideas. At some level Sawgrass is about -- Dyes' design intent was:

1) when you make pros think, you've got em
2) make the pros uncomfortable, even to point of potential embarrassment

The new 12th seems to meet these principles, or at least seems to do so more than the previous version.

I appreciate saying all this is not to endorse one side or the other, and there's a danger in taking a few general principles and saying they should be applied exhaustively and exclusively. It's  just an interesting way to look at it (for me at least).

Or maybe I should just paraphrase Calvin Trillin and say, Alice let the big dog eat. 

[Mark_F]

The short par-4 craze of the last decade has been sensational in raising awareness of golf architecture. They've proven length is overrated

If that were even remotely true, then why are golf courses getting longer and longer?

Those who watch tournament golf know these holes have added drama, intrigue and awareness of the role risk-reward architecture can play that have made the game more fun. Sure, there have been a few that were forced or didn't work, but the majority have made tournaments far more enjoyable to watch.

Here's a quote from Tiger Woods about the 12th hole on The Old Course:
"I just hit through the green and chip back." 

That's when the hole was 311 yards.  It was then lengthened 37 yards.  Maybe you have a different dictionary to me.


And golf tournaments have never been more boring to watch.

[Pat Burke]

Tom, the man who can take any thread and make it a ranking of his works!  BTW, will you be ranking your best GCA posts in The Little Red Book?

Seriously, if you watched pro golf and the new 12th at TPC Sawgrass you would have learned this wild occurrence: many shorter or medium precision hitters actually drove it while bombers treated it as either an auto lay-up or a semi-layup near the approach. The ShotLink scatter charts also showed a huge reward for those who gave them better views of the hole location by taking more risk on the lay up. The old Tom Doak would have found all of that fascinating, but you don't watch pro golf these days so you wouldn't know what you're missing!

It sounds like the word drivable is the problem here for many and I suppose I just find it hard to get bogged down in semantics over what makes for fun design. The tenth at Riviera was never called drivable but it was in the early days when the ground was firm and the turf bent. Captain Thomas and Billy Bell added bunkers around the green in response prior to the 1929 LA Open. And I'm pretty sure the second at National has always been drivable, but because the word wasn't used by CB Macdonald, that somehow changes things?

[size=78%]Let's see if I can contribute[/size]



Sorry.  Removed upon further review....

[Duncan Cheslett]

I always thought that the par of a hole was the number of shots a Scratch golfer should be expected to take in normal conditions if he was playing consistently well.


Deduct two putts and you are left with the number of shots a Scratch player should take to reach (not necessarily hit) the green.


Tour pros are not Scratch players - far from it. They are probably players in the range +5 to +8 if they were given handicaps. Therefore their abilities are irrelevant to this discussion.


Also irrelevant are the abilities of average golfers - those say in the 8 - 18 handicap range.  Many will often be unable to reach a long par 3 from the tee and will certainly not be able to reach most par 4s over 430 yards in two shots.


I've played a lot of golf with Scratch (and better) golfers and always at Golden Age courses. A "drive and pitch" will often be within reach for them but very rarely do they go for it other than in a pairs match after seeing their partner safely in play. They tend to take the view that a birdie is more likely from 50 yards short than from a bunker, the clag, or worse.


Alice Dye referred to players being "supposed" to reach the green.  Just because a few can, it doesn't mean that they are "supposed" to.

[JC Jones]

It's a weird comment by Mrs. Dye and defense by Tom Doak considering Pete Dye has built many drivable par 4s, starting very early on with 9 at HarbourTown.  We saw one on display recently at Austin Country Club.

[Matthew Mollica]

Thanks Duncan, Kalen and Mark Fine. You've taken this thread in the direction it was intended. Perhaps I shouldn't have started it during the furore regarding the change to 12 at Sawgrass. Alice Dye's quote is however thought provoking on many levels. And despite the thread's varied directions, all the contributions have been interesting and appreciated.


Matt

[David Davis]

What's the average distance of a modern drivable par 4? I've been walking with several architects that pointed out drivable 4's in the realm of 320-330 meters. No kidding. I always take a deep gasp and think to myself, if it's drivable why not make it 250 yds or something that makes the average guys want to take on the risk as well as the 1 percent who might as well hit 3 wood there.


Merion for some reason always sticks out in my mind as the poster child for a course with several awesome short - drive and pitch holes which of course is different.


If I just look at recent courses played there are a few "drivable" par 4's that come to mind. Let me call them intended drivable par 4's. which doesn't by any means suggest they were realistically drivable for me.


#7 at Tara Iti. Ok this one is definitely drivable given the wind and perhaps my favorite of the group. I drove it over the green twice, made one par and one birdie. The par was a miracle par given where my ball had ended up and the difficult shot I had.


#4 at Barnbougle. - 3 wood over the green twice (strong tail wind). Par - birdie. Definitely drivable but I was the only one in our groups that went for it. Everyone else laid up. That front bunker made them thing the risk was not worth it.


#14 (I think) at Ellerston. This hole was suppose to be drivable but not at 330 meters for me. Maybe if I went up to the front tee. Great hole but more a play for strategy hole for me.


#? (6) drivable par 4 at Kingston Heath, played straight into the wind and it was really windy, lot's of danger around this hole and feeling wise most of the other short 4's there. I didn't feel I could be accurate enough to actually try and go for any of them. However, I'm sure their great players do this.


Back to the original premise from Mrs. Dye. Indeed I find it a little black and white this statement and maybe there is a context around it we are missing (well at least I'm missing). If only 5% or even 1% can take on a hole and drive it, so what. I'd contend it's hardly drivable. If you can make it 1 out of 5 times in the right conditions...4 times losing your ball or incurring a penalty is it drivable? In theory yes but not really worth the risk.


I'd say a great short 4 or drivable 4 is the one that makes us all go for it even if that's not the smart play. One that makes us think very carefully on the tee and doubt our decisions. Where you hit driver and have to play your shot out sideways or backwards because you can't get to the green perhaps or where you lay up and then miss your delicate approach and think, damn fool, should of just went for it. Then end up the next time playing it back out of that bunker and struggling for 4.


Then of course there is the rare occasion where the stars align and you drive it on the green. Adrenaline rushes, high 5's are given and you proceed to 3 putt.


Ah the drivable 4....

[Peter Pallotta]

I've never understood the 'risk' part of the equation. Unless for public play architects are building particularly deep and penal green-side bunkers (and they don't appear to be doing so, at least not en masse), I find little of the captivating risk-reward equation so often touted as the value of the short 4. I'm an average bunker player, but on a 250-280 yard Par 4, I'm going for the green every single time -- because while I may not get up and down from the bunker/rough, I'll almost invariably get the ball closer than I would laying up with an iron and coming in with a wedge. All of which is to say: if you can find a place to build a great golf hole that happens to be a short 4, wonderful; but the view that somehow short 4s are inherently anything special seems to me unfounded (in practical application if not in theory).
Peter


PS - Btw, if "The Old Course" is the answer to every question ever posed on gca.com, "the 10th at Riviera" must come a close 2nd. (I bet if we did a word-frequency search, they'd literally be 1 and 2!). Okay, I get it - it's a wonderful golf hole. But just like the Old Course is continually praised and yet never actually copied (or matched), the fact that the 10th has be trotted out every single time short 4s are mentioned is telling. 
 

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I wouldn't say short 4s are inherently special, but I would say they are inherently important to an 18 hole design if variety is at all important.  It doesn't make much sense to attack the concept of the short 4 when there are plenty of average and poor examples of medium, long and extra long 4s.  Is the entire range of par 4s inherently flawed?  Of course not.  As with any hole, there are at least a few ways to examine its worth.  At the very least there is the hole itself and the how it fits into the overall design. 

I see plenty of short 4s and very few stand out as exceptional.  But that is no different for any other type of hole with the possible exception of par 3s.  I think the weakest type I see are par 5s and medium (maybe 350-380) length 4s.  That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.     

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
With all due respect, I think you need to play/see some more great short par fours as they can be truly special.


On a separate note, particularly to David, MOST architects could care less how a PGA Tour Pro is going to play or score on their golf course.  Unless the course is specific for pros, it is not worth (or smart) to try to design or defend a hole for or around how they will attack a golf hole!!!


I recently played a Nicklaus design in Memphis in a member guest.  We were playing what I thought was a very clever "elbow" style hole - a "short" par four on the card of about 365 yards.  The corner of the elbow was protected by a lake which was in front of the green.  The "normal" play was to hit anywhere from a 200-280 yard shot along the elbow/left side of the lake to set up your approach to the green.  The hole location and green contours/green side bunkering etc made the angle of approach for the second shot important which I thought was clever on Nicklaus's part, e.g. sometimes a shorter tee shot provided a better angle than a longer tee shot. The one player in our group was a web.com touring pro.  Young kid, maybe 23 years old.  He stood on the tee and couldn't figure out how to play the hole?  He wasn't sure if it was a driver or a three wood.  He choose driver and sure enough it was the wrong club - he flew it over the green which was 320 yards (all carry over the lake)      Do you really think Nicklaus designed that hole for that kind of player    I don't think so and if Nicklaus were there, all he would do is shake his head and complain about how far the golf ball goes today!

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - as is often the case, your calm measured response is the correct one. I guess my thinking was: architects are going to continue to build 3s, 4s, and 5s - some more interesting ones and some less so; I just don't want them start building a preponderance of short 4s under the belief that they are necessarily better.


Mark - and your response is correct too! Even if said with no due respect, I do need to see some better golf holes! 

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I did mean that with respect just so you know.  Although "short" is a relative concept, par fours let's say under 400 yards can be very interesting architecturally (for most golfers).  They are some of my favorite holes. 

[JMEvensky]

Mark Fine,just curious what you thought about SCR. I'm in Memphis.

[Thomas Dai]

What would be termed a reachable par-4 for ladies? Does the yardage gap between the very best/longest lady and a lessor lady player vary more or less than that for a male?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Don't want to jump off on a tangent on this thread, but SCR is a solid golf course.  Maybe best to discuss separately or off line. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!

275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.

[Joe Hancock]

Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!

275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.

So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.

[Ronald Montesano]

Lord, I missed the fireworks.


I would remind that legend has it that the 1st at NGLA was driven in its early days, and it cost someone an inheritance!! At the 2013 Walker Cup, over the course of two days' play, I believe I saw one world-class amateur lay up; the rest banged at the green with three-metal or driver. Same goes for hole #2. That's the combination of equipment and fitness.


I had forgotten the notion of a drive-and-pitch hole. I think the reason is, we are not the best at half-shots. Think about your accuracy from 30 or 50 or 70 yards, verse your full gap wedge. My guess is that the in-between shots cause you grief, more so than the full swing. If not, you win the majority of bets you make!


I have no problem with Tom listing his best short par 4 holes as evidence of an understanding of the genre. If I were at a teaching conference and failed to mention the tasks I utilize in class, bad move. Same goes for coaching techniques for high school golfers; they define my reason for being. Citing other architects' work is one thing, but establishing one's own facility with a skill elevates that one to a higher level.


There's no restricting a hole. The dispersion of shots based on skill, as has been mentioned herein, compels the expert golfer to play her/his ball more accurately, with greater consistency, than the weaker player. Therefore, the driveable par four is less so for the weaker player, no matter the tee deck. Same goes for the drive-and-pitch par four.

[BCowan]

Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!

275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.

So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.

Grandpa Joe gives enlightenment. Class in session. 

[Matt Kardash]

Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!

275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.

So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.

Grandpa Joe gives enlightenment. Class in session.

If you are under the age of 30 today and have a handicap less than 5 I would say there is overwhelmingly likely chance that you can drive the ball consistently over 300 yards. This is just the reality of the modern player. I am sorry if this is not your reality.

[Joe Zucker]

Matt, that's a great player. I'm a good player (4 handicap, traveling) and those aren't my numbers!

275 is definitely a par 3 for today's good player. Sadly, 275 is now between a 2 iron and a 3 wood for a good player.

So the quality of a golfer is based on how far they can hit a ball? I would not have thought this idea would be so reinforced on this website, but here it is.

Grandpa Joe gives enlightenment. Class in session.

If you are under the age of 30 today and have a handicap less than 5 I would say there is overwhelmingly likely chance that you can drive the ball consistently over 300 yards. This is just the reality of the modern player. I am sorry if this is not your reality.

I don't know if this is true.  I suppose it all depends on how we define "consistently", but there are not many players who hit it 300 yards more often than not.  There are only 22 players on the PGA Tour averaging 300 this season.  I wouldn't think many top flight amateurs are longer drivers than the average tour pro.


To make a hole driveable for the skilled amateurs, something in the 275-290 range would probably be more than enough for the vast majority.  If tee to green measured 280, I would guess fewer than 10% single digit handicaps would hit less than driver.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Joe, if you averaged 300.0 yds, you would rank #76 on the Web.com tour.  The tour average is 299.5 yds.


The average distance of PGA Tour professionals is not the "ceiling" on driving distance of younger players, both pro and amateur.  Matt's post reflects the reality of today's game.

[Thomas Dai]

I had forgotten the notion of a drive-and-pitch hole. I think the reason is, we are not the best at half-shots. Think about your accuracy from 30 or 50 or 70 yards, verse your full gap wedge. My guess is that the in-between shots cause you grief, more so than the full swing. If not, you win the majority of bets you make!

Good point RM.
When playing from the same tees (eg say a handicap amateur competition) one mans drive-n-pitch is another mans driver-hybrid......but that's why we amateurs have handicaps.
One thing about a lot of 'bombers' though, their short games and, dare I say it, course management, is often pretty poor. Their frequent ability to hit wonderful full-shots and awful half-shots has always surprised me. The difference between say a long-hitting 5 hcp and a scratch or plus amateur usually seems to come down to the game from 50 or so yards of the flag.
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()