Reachable par 4 holes and Alice Dye

[Matthew Mollica]

"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.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm ok with occasionally having a par-4 that is drivable, but I don't think it should be easy for a long hitter to pull it off.  If it is, then Alice is right, it's a par-3.


I do think that drivable par-4's have become overused in the modern era.  "Occasionally" has morphed into some people thinking your course is diminished if you don't have one, or that good drive-and-pitch holes should be remodeled so that they're drivable.  Somehow, Pine Valley and Shinnecock Hills managed to be considered great courses without one.


Many of the par-4's that can be driven are in places where the wind changes the calculation from one day to the next.  When you get to a course that doesn't have a lot of wind, then the calculations aren't really very interesting, and don't change from one day to the next.

[Sean_A]

Is reaching the green the same thing as hitting the green?  The entire concept of the driveable par 4 that isn't based on downhill yards should be predicated on the idea that if the player goes for the green and fails, then par is a good score. 

I like reachable 4s for the simple fact that the yardage between 275 and 300ish exploited.  I like them so much that I don't care if they are called par 3s.  Why should this be a dark area of the scorecard simply because a par number doesn't fit the yardage?   The weakest aspect of modern design is that 230 to 330 yards is not used well or enough.  How else are small footprint courses going to be built if this 100 yard range is ignored?  How else can the tide of longer is better be turned?  The sooner we forget about par the better golf will be. Its pathetic that 6500 yards is the new 6000 yards. 

Ciao

[Matt Kardash]

I like reachable 4s for the simple fact that the yardage between 275 and 300ish exploited.  I like them so much that I don't care if they are called par 3s. 

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.

[Matthew Mollica]

Great stuff Sean and Tom. Thank you.


I struggle with Alice's quote. Just too black and white for me.


Speaking of holes locally, the short par four second at St Andrews Beach and Barnbougle Dunes' short par four fourth just might be the best two short fours in the country. They are both easier to reach and hold than Royal Adelaide 3, Kingston Heath 3 & Royal Melbourne West 10.


MM

[Kalen Braley]

In everyday play this becomes an issue of elasticity.


A group of friends tee off on the weekend, they all agree to play one set of tees for social reasons.  One big hitter and three medium to short hitters.  The long donger easily reaches the 290 yard par 4 off the tee, the other guys are hitting driver and still 40-60 yards short.  Given the variability in the average joes' games I think Alice's creedo fails on many levels, unless she thinks the long guy is supposed to play his round alone from the tips...


P.S.  I'm curious if she also feels no par 5 should be reached in two either.....after all, if you follow her logic, any green reached in two is clearly a par 4, not a par 5.

[Mark_Fine]

The best “drivable” par fours, or whatever you want to call them, are simply about “temptation”.  They are nothing more, nothing less.  They just have a different label.  Some people would call #16 at Cypress a “driveable” par three.  The hole provides the temptation for some to get there with your tee shot but it comes with a price. 

I love the concept of a "drivable" hole.  But without the risk/reward (temptation) these kind of holes that are labled “drivable par fours” are nothing more than "easy" holes, relatively speaking, but they still can be fun!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

The short par-4 craze of the last decade has been sensational in raising awareness of golf architecture. They've proven length is overrated and they provide holes that everyone can play. They offer hope and different challenges than any other type of hole, and also provide architects with the most opportunity to create new template holes. Oh and sometimes they let a shorter hitter out think and play a long bomber.

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. Even better, they've helped tell us who the best players are because they ask for different decisions and skill sets that reachable par-5s used to call on.

Using at least one and maybe more in a routing might also let an architect get away with half-par holes that lean the other way. Really, the list of attributes and possibilities they bring is long and I can't fathom where golf architecture would be if we subscribed to par as such a defining role in course design, as Alice and Tom suggest.

Tom,
While Shinnecock doesn't have a really short two-shotter that could be driven in the right conditions, I see a bunch of others that are vital short par-4s at the rest of the current Golf Mag top 10!

12th Pine Valley
9th Cypress Point
3rd Augusta National
4th at Pebble Beach
17th Oakmont
2nd National Golf Links of America
1st Merion (East)
7th Sand Hills

[Sean_A]

Geoff

To me you are at cross purposes.  There are intentional (or at least feasible when designed) drivable 4s and there are drivable 4s which have been created by technology and have nothing to do with the design intent. Take Merion's opener...I do question the idea that it is a true drivable 4, but I have no doubt that this wasn't the intention of the design.  Does making that hole drivable mean it is better?  IMO, it is the 10th which should be mentioned for drivable and the design highlights the issues associated with going/not going for the green. 

Ciao

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Sean,
I just like short holes which are, under some or all conditions, potentially drivable with some risk and reward. The first at Merion is the most debatable no doubt, but it also has always been in such a fun spot to start the round, noted for generations because of the odd location for a drive and pitch.

There is no doubt some of these holes have become better with technology as more golfers can drive near or on them. And they've replaced the risk-reward that many par-5's once offered but no longer do because they are drives and 8-irons.

So when we get the ball rolled back, we'll just have to remind courses to move the tees up so that the short par-4s continue to add fun, interest and comic relief!

[Tom_Doak]

Really, the list of attributes and possibilities they bring is long and I can't fathom where golf architecture would be if we subscribed to par as such a defining role in course design, as Alice and Tom suggest.

Geoff has misrepresented every post I've made on his site today, now he comes over here to do it some more.


Sorry, Geoff, but you aren't going to teach me much about good short par-4's.  Here are a few of my better ones:




4th and 12th at Barnbougle Dunes
 2nd and 14th at St. Andrews Beach
 3rd at Old Macdonald [hat tip to C.B. Macdonald]
 7th at Tara Iti, for drivable par-4's.


6th and 16th at Pacific Dunes
7th and 12th at Ballyneal 




Most of those have pretty small greens, so it's not easy to get the ball on the green, even if you are long enough to get there.  Many of the drivable par-4's we see today [especially the ones on Tour] pander to the players by making a big target for the long hitters.  I don't like to pander.  Neither did Pete Dye.


I just don't understand why Geoff conflates "short par 4" with drivable holes.  There are so many great short 4's that were NOT meant to be driven, including two or three from his list above, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Witness the 2nd, 8th, and 17th at Pine Valley.


Drive and pitch holes were part of the vocabulary of every Golden Age architect.  Drivable par-4's were not.  Some of us are trying to minimize the gap between great players and regular golfers, not to keep widening it.  The equipment companies are already doing too much of that. 

[Sean_A]

Geoff

I certainly agree that many decent drive and pitch holes have been made more interesting due to technology allowing more people to have a choice at going for the green.  Indeed, the entire range of yardage between 200 and 300 has been potentially made far more interesting due to technology and I think this range should be exploited.  However, it would be a shame to lose sight of the merits of the drive and pitch hole which really should be about 315-350 yards if we discount the best players in the world.  That is a major part of the problem with architecture, much of the time the ideals of design are too heavily influenced by the best players, hence we get the notion that Merion 1st is a drivable 4 when really it is damn good drive and pitch 4...super opening hole which doesn't need the element of reachability.  Sadly, the hole has lost its charm for the best players.  Luckily, it remains charming for the likes of me.  I would like to see more holes of this ilk built today, but it seems all archies have a total yardage target to hit and that means there cannot be a few drivable 4s and a few drive and pitch 4s...its a shame that.

Ciao

[Geoff_Shackelford]

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?

[Tom_Doak]

I would just encourage everyone here to go and read Geoff's site tonight and read some of what he's said to me and to Bob Crosby in his "comments" section.  It speaks for itself.  Plus he'll get some clicks, and isn't that what every web site purveyor wants?


Neither the old Tom Doak nor the current one finds any of it fascinating.  Sorry it has changed the focus of the thread.

[Peter Pallotta]

God bless, Alice - as straight a shooter as Pete!

I'm in the minority here, I know. But, IMO, the craze for the short 4 has led, with some exceptions of course, to the establishment of the second worst "category" of golf hole in the game -- second only to the Par 5. I'm not a well traveled golfer, but I've encountered more banal Par 5s in my life than I can count...and the short 4s are catching up quickly. In much the same way that someone like Mike Davis seemed to think he was improving the architecture and making the game more interesting by messing around with tee boxes, I think that in many hands the short 4 is little more than a trick; there is nothing *inherently* more strategic or fun in it. Very good architects will design some very good short 4s, and adequate architects will design adequate short 4s. And if they're going to be merely adequate, I'd prefer a nice old fashioned Par 4 instead. I'm an average golfer - but I don't want to be pandered to. Besides which, just earlier this afternoon I hit a 280 yard drive and a 240 yard second to a par 5 green and then two putted for birdie; and on the final hole - a short Par 4 - I drove the green and again two putted for birdie. I don't say that to boast - I am indeed - based on handicap - a very average golfer indeed. But there are *many kinds* of us "average golfers"...and treating us with a little pat on the head as if we'd *all* like the short 4 is, well, annoying.     
Peter

[Ira Fishman]

"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.

I have never had the privilege of knowing Mrs. Dye, but I do know enough to think that she chose her words carefully. There is a chasm between "can reach the green with a superlative shot that has great risk" and "is supposed to reach the green" and there is another chasm between "a treacherous two putt" and "always allowed two putts". And in those chasms I suggest is the difference between a mediocre long par three and a great short par four.

[JESII]

The simple reality is that the TPC of Sawgrass is synonymous with Pete Dye in a way virtually no other course is with its designer. And, as a result, The Players Chamionship itself is perceived as relying on the course and the designer to create the drama.


Must have been a difficult realization for The Tour that their flagship pseudo-major is seen as the result of Pete Dyes work...

[archie_struthers]

 


The 8th at Pine Valley is drivable for sure , but not many are foolish enough to give it a try.  Likewise , #12,  which when conditions are firm , is an underrated drive and pitch . 


I'm not a fan of trying to force one into your design , unless an unusual landform makes it really special. Also. If the risk isn't at least commensurate with the reward , it doesn't rock my world!

[BCowan]

I would just encourage everyone here to go and read Geoff's site tonight and read some of what he's said to me and to Bob Crosby in his "comments" section.  It speaks for itself.  Plus he'll get some clicks, and isn't that what every web site purveyor wants?


Neither the old Tom Doak nor the current one finds any of it fascinating.  Sorry it has changed the focus of the thread.

Sorry Tom I disagree with you.  You also started this childish debate this morning.


Petes been messing up many of his designs over the years. I respect that he refused to change Golden Age courses in his prime. 


TPC is poster child and started imo the building of courses in places they never should have been, a swamp and spending sick amounts of money. For Bob to say that course is in the same league as the others mentioned is baffling.  How many millions have they spent renovating that course? 

You and Geoff are excellent writers, let's all grow up and have real debates. 

[Matt Kardash]

I would just encourage everyone here to go and read Geoff's site tonight and read some of what he's said to me and to Bob Crosby in his "comments" section.  It speaks for itself.  Plus he'll get some clicks, and isn't that what every web site purveyor wants?


Neither the old Tom Doak nor the current one finds any of it fascinating.  Sorry it has changed the focus of the thread.

Sorry Tom I disagree with you.  You also started this childish debate this morning.


Petes been messing up many of his designs over the years. I respect that he refused to change Golden Age courses in his prime. 


TPC is poster child and started imo the building of courses in places they never should have been, a swamp and spending sick amounts of money. For Bob to say that course is in the same league as the others mentioned is baffling.  How many millions have they spent renovating that course? 

You and Geoff are excellent writers, let's all grow up and have real debates.

Ben, so a world top 100 course, and a course that is historical very significant is not worth a little more respect?
It's not as if the tour just added a couple bunkers, they bulldozed the hole and started over! The 3rd hole isn't super exciting. What if they bulldozed that one too?
Yes, the tour and Dye have tweaked the course, but the holes all remained basically the same. Dye never built a new hole! And in my mind, if he did he would be the only person allowed that free pass.

I think Tom see's things through the eyes of a designer and artist. I am not sure he would be thrilled if in 30 years someone erases one of his holes on one of his highly regarded courses and builds an entirely new one. Especially if the new hole is not in harmony with his design principles.
I don't understand how this is so hard to understand.

[BCowan]

Matt,


    You lost me after your first paragraph.  World top 100, lol.  To be honest with you, I hope a hurricane wipes the course out. As long as no one gets hurt.  One of my home courses is a dye track. 


How bad did Pete butcher the 17th at crooked.?.


Doak would never build a course like Pete did in a swamp.  I like the dye rtj inspired years, it's not popular.


I understand it very much so, i disagree.   the whole course is a superficial swamp

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom,
That's the first I've heard the click bait accusation in hours! You're on a roll. FYI you've inspired me to ponder the best of my click bait, and I came up with The Pyramid Of Successful Blog Posts on Golf Architecture. You know, because John Wooden was a nice man and wouldn't have cared.

But seriously, as to the art of golf architecture that we all love and some still want to see advanced in ways beyond their self interests...it's rather amazing that Pete Dye could go and change Pete Dye's work at TPC Sawgrass multiple times, allow others to change it, then rubber stamp Tim Finchem's further sterilization of the course over the last decade, then change the 12th hole for the worse in 2006, yet somehow we are now at you suggesting on my site that he's being taken advantage of and there has been too much made of these short par-4s in golf? 

All of this is disconcerting given that a case could be made for discussion and implementation of short par-4s having been the best thing that's happened to awareness of golf architecture since...Pete Dye came along and called Robert Trent Jones' bluff.

[Matt Kardash]

Ben,

How is saying that TPC Sawgrass is a world top 100 LOL worthy? Last I checked it has been a fixture in that world top 100 since its creation.

Yes, Dye butchered the 17th at Crooked Stick. But it's his baby, and thus his baby to butcher if the membership allows. Also, while the new 17th at CS sucks, it's not like the hole is not inline with Dye's design philosophy in any way. It's just a crappy hole.

I kind of suspected that most everyone commenting hates the course, and your comment confirms that. I guess if you hate the course you don't care what happens to it. I think Tom been trying to make the point that his opinion of the 12th hole (old and new) is irrelevant, because it's not about whether or not he thinks the hole has been improved or not, it's about whether or not it needed to be bulldozed at all. If Dye wanted to bulldoze it he had ample opportunity to do so. I agree with this point.
I am not here to speak for Tom, so I will just end it with that.

[SL_Solow]

Geoff;    Has the drivable par 4 (query drivable for whom?) created more interest than the island green did when TPC Sawgrass was opened?  Moreover, merely because a particular feature draws attention to the discipline, does that make it good architecture or merely attention getting.  That said, I think each of them needs to be separately analyzed and evaluated.  I won't generalize about a "type" of hole.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

SL,
I think to quote you, each needs to be analyzed and evaluated.

Island green: wow factor, and in TPC Sawgrass' case, strategies for different hole locations. But since then it really hasn't expanded much interest in creating even more intricate island greens.

Short par-4s? The list of tournament holes that spawned discussion of risk/reward, architecture, course setup and that then elicited great tournament moments continues annually in golf. Some don't like it, but most have recognized that most have generated debate, discussion and intrigue, even the 14th at Torrey Pines, which I thought was sensational as a short 4 in the 2008 U.S. Open, but which continues to be cited as a terrible day for the USGA. Given the role the hole played in the outcome of that event, such a response amazes me.

But to your larger question, golf architecture was not getting much attention beyond mentions of shot values or the architects name before this "fad" came along. The depth of the discussions, the expectation levels changing for risk and reward, and the overall reduction in penal design elements can all be attributed in large part to what goes on at tournaments with risk/reward short 4s.