News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Using short holes as templates for long holes
« on: February 09, 2021, 09:54:44 AM »
Beyond a few Redan greened par 4's I can't think of any holes that use a shorter hole template for a longer application. Why do we not see more par 4's and par 5's being based on great par 3's and short par 4's?

For example, if one was to build a replica of the 10th at Riviera, but extend it by ~275-300 yards to make it into a par 5 wouldn't it not be a really good par 5? The same risk/reward approach, but now with the need to hit a good drive. Even if the driving zone was bunker free, I'd imagine it would still be a compelling hole that would captivate the same style approaches to the green.

I also wonder if the postage stamp green would make for a great short par 4 of around 350-370 yards.



Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2021, 04:36:28 PM »
There are a few par 4s and 5s around based on the Biarritz I think. I feel like this could be a pretty good template for a borderline drivable par 4 in the 280-320 range or for a par 5 where a second shot has a chance to chase up

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2021, 04:47:29 PM »
Ben,
I think this happens far more often than you realize.  We just don’t always identify the holes as such.  You also have to remember that on par three holes for example, the architect gets to select the starting point.  They can set up a green site and hazards layout based on those set teeing areas.  On longer holes, golfers can be playing into those holes from literally anywhere.  It is just something that needs to be considered but I still believe many shorter holes act as guides for longer holes. 

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2021, 05:35:43 PM »
Mark,


I would have imagined using short holes for inspiration when building longer holes was a regular occurrence. But I'd also believe if this practice was common it would have been written about or discussed more regularly. Considering how often architects reference templates or other holes they took inspiration from, if a one shot template inspired a two shot hole it is conceivable they'd talk about it the same way and we'd have specific records of this occurring.

If you have a list of holes that are spoken in this way, or you presume were template inspired I'd very much like to take a look at what holes meet this criteria.



I understand the idea that a one shot hole allows the architect to dictate the distance and angle of an approach, If it the design was incorporated into a 2 shot hole, the ability to dictate that specific approach is lost. How you phrase it, it sounds to me that you don't believe that is a positive towards the design. I would very much disagree and believe that is a fantastic asset to the design.

Among all the accolades frequently used to describe Augusta National, two that I believe speak to this concept the best are:
A: Augusta National is an playable golf course for players of all ability, it is relatively easy for a player to steer their ball around the course without risking much or getting into much danger.
B: A player must hit the ball to specific locations in order to gain ideal angles towards hole location to capitalize on their scoring, but playing to these locations unsuccessfully may leave the player in dangerous positions that are hard to recover from.
So a player who's goal is to enjoy playing and not be bloodied can do so with ease, while a player who's goal is to go low must do so by playing close to the edge of destruction.


When we think of the great short holes in the game, one characteristic that is commonly found is an interesting and challenging putting surface that is typically on the smaller side & approach angles that are either well suited or poorly suited for such a green. For a one shot hole, the approach angles are dictated to us, while in a 2 shot hole the player has input into the required angle. In the best cases, the required approach angle is often dictated by the day's pin position. it seems that as the concept of a golf hole is lengthened too often this formula is flattened and dumbed down. The green become less severe, the angles less relevant or more acute, the options and playable interest less compelling. This is where I look back towards these great short holes and wonder why they are not used in this way more often, especially when building next level holes that are in the length of a half par hole.

Take for example my proposal of using the 10th at Riviera in the design of a par 5. Considering the location of the tee boxes and the angle of the green. If we presume that the tee box would be the architects preferred position to attack the green from, then a par 5 in which that position is on left edge of the driving zone would require the player to attempt to play their tee ball down the left to earn that angle for their second. Of course if a player is unsuccessful and loses their tee ball to the right, they would still be in the fairway, but with a compromised angle and would most likely choose to lay up with their second. Due to the design of the approach and the preferred approach angle laid out by the architect they have created a compelling drive without requiring the introduction of hazards. Now, if they chose to take the design a step forward. they could build a fairway bunker in the location of this preferred position and then extend the fairway line left of the bunker some 15 yards, or so. Now a player who is willing to take on the bunker and the left-hand edge of the fairway could leave themselves a second shot from a more ideal angle than the architects original preferred position while risking potentially hitting their drive into the bunker or the left rough. A player would also have the option to play short of the bunker, to still achieve the preferred playing angle, but with a longer second. While the more prudent player could play away from the bunker, towards the wide right side of the fairway, and steer their ball onto the green in 3.


This design would encourage the player to play towards the preferred positions, but only punish the aggressive player who failed to pull off the shot.





Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2021, 05:50:02 PM »
Ben:


I think your idea of the 10th at Riviera as a par-5 would be very difficult for average players, who are often going to be faced with a 150- to 200-yard approach into a green that just won't hold it.


Of course, we hardly ever get to build greens like that in modern design, either, because they are "too small to maintain".


I don't discount your idea of using ideas from one hole for another hole of different length or par, though I am not a big believer in using templates.  But the templates are used the most on par-3's for a reason -- because the shot values are so rigidly controlled for all players -- and they are harder to use on a par five where some players will be going for the green in two, and others won't even be able to reach it in three.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2021, 07:06:07 PM »
Ben,
Tom gave a good example why you don't see a hole design like #10 at Riviera replicated very closely to that on much longer holes.  I said the same - it often has to do with the architect having control of the starting point for the approach shots as they do on par threes.


Since we have been talking about the TPC at Scottsdale let's look at the par five15th hole there as just one example.  Compare that green site to that of the par three island green at East Lake GC.  See any similarities  :D


Name some par threes you like and I can probably point out examples of longer holes with similar design concepts.  Again, hopefully the architect didn't replicate the par three concept exact and more or less used it as a "guide" for the golf hole they were designing. 

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2021, 07:08:24 PM »
Tom,


What are the playing distances you'd expect from an average player? Below is a version of the hole I'm thinking of that would be 562 yards from the tips. The blue line is my estimation of an average player, 225 yard drive, 200 yard layup, and an 88 yard approach.



Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2021, 11:58:50 AM »
Tom,

The green complex on the 3rd at PD reminds me a bit of Riv. 10 in the way its oriented, with difficult recoveries short, right and long, and the bail out being left.

Google maps shows the 3rd green at PD is more than 2x larger that #10, but given Bandon on average is far windier that LA do you think it can effectively play similar to Riv #10?

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2021, 02:58:08 PM »
Since we have been talking about the TPC at Scottsdale let's look at the par five15th hole there as just one example.  Compare that green site to that of the par-three island green at East Lake GC.  See any similarities  :D

Mark,

I'm afraid to say, but I believe the comparison between the 15th at Scottsdale and the 15th at East Lake illustrate the dumbed-down nature I spoke of previously. The green at East Lake is smaller (~5,400sqft vs. ~6,200sqft), The island at East Lake is smaller (~15,000sqft vs ~24,000sqft), The clearance between the waterline and front edge is less (5 yards vs. 18 yards), but yet the approach distances are similar. From the back tee, the 15th at East Lake plays 223 yards to the middle. In comparison, Brooks 4 approach shots to the 15th last week were played from 224, 206, 215, and 239 yards.

There is no reason that the green and its surrounding at Scottsdale needs to be as large as they are, especially considering it's on a par 5. With 10 eagles and 179 birdies last week, the hole sure didn't play as a par 5 for most of the field. So much of the design around this green is geared towards enticing players in going for it in two, but why? The large catcher mitt bunkers and runup short of the green virtually negate the surrounding water, taking the decision out of the decision. Only 49 times last week did someone fail to make a par or better, So where's the risk in the risk/reward proposition of an island green?

For the average player who is unable to go for the green in two, they'd be left with a 3rd shot approach of fewer than 100 yards. Presumably, controlling the distance on their layup to not go too far and into the water will be a more challenging shot than their approach to the island. Compare that to the 15th at East Lake, where the average player would be playing from a tee set at 150 yards to a much smaller target. Even if the average player played a poor drive on the hole in Scottsdale, it's still likely they would be able to play a recovery shot near about the 150-yard marker, still leaving them an easier approach than the standard shot at East Lake.

So, what can we say was taken away from the par 3 at East Lake that beneficially inspired and improved the design of the par 5 at Scottsdale?

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2021, 03:36:12 PM »
Ben,
A few thoughts, for one, the single biggest reason that the design theme for par threes is not copied exact for par fours and par fives is because on par threes the architect has control of the starting point for the shot into the green.  He does not have that control on most par fours and certainly not on par fives. 


As far as your par five version of #10 at Riviera; that hole could very well be built but it would be a very difficult golf hole for almost everyone.  Honestly the alternate fairway off the tee on the left is mostly eye candy as no one is going to purposely hit it over there (to use an old saying the juice isn't worth the squeeze) unless you widen the fairway or wrapped it all the way around those bunkers.  As far as the balance of the hole, I have seen that "similar" kind of bunkering/green set up a zillion times.  You have a cross bunker that is mostly a carry bunker, a bunker short that provides some deception and makes many longer players think twice about going for it in two and/or demands a precise layup and then you have a heavily fortified green side set on a diagonal.  Any smart player is going to know their only miss is left as they are dead right.  If they are in the perfect spot (like they would be on the tee at #10 at Riviera with a perfect lie) they might be tempted to go for it but otherwise it is a forced layup and most likely a difficult one at that. 


My comparison of #15 at TPC Scottsdale and #15 at East Lake is actually not that far off what you asked about to start.  You have to remember that the pros only play at the TPC once a year and East Lake is private. 

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2021, 04:33:12 PM »
As far as your par five version of #10 at Riviera; that hole could very well be built but it would be a very difficult golf hole for almost everyone.  Honestly the alternate fairway off the tee on the left is mostly eye candy as no one is going to purposely hit it over there (to use an old saying the juice isn't worth the squeeze) unless you widen the fairway or wrapped it all the way around those bunkers.  As far as the balance of the hole, I have seen that "similar" kind of bunkering/green set up a zillion times.  You have a cross bunker that is mostly a carry bunker, a bunker short that provides some deception and makes many longer players think twice about going for it in two and/or demands a precise layup and then you have a heavily fortified green side set on a diagonal.  Any smart player is going to know their only miss is left as they are dead right.  If they are in the perfect spot (like they would be on the tee at #10 at Riviera with a perfect lie) they might be tempted to go for it but otherwise it is a forced layup and most likely a difficult one at that. 


Mark,
 
I have a hard time understanding why this par 5 would be very difficult for almost everyone? Challenging, yes, but it would still be playable for almost everyone.


The line down the alternate fairway represents a 294-yard drive, or the average PGA Tour driving distance at Riviera last year. At this location, the alternative fairway is 23 yards wide, which would be only slightly narrower than the average fairway width at Bethpage Black during the 2019 PGA Championship. At the point in which the fairway forks around the 2 bunkers in the driving zone, the lefthand portion of the fairway is 36 yards wide and the righthand portion is 48 yards wide. There is ample space to play down the left for anyone who chooses to do so. If the average player (blue line) chooses not to attempt to clear the second set of fairway bunkers on their layup and instead plays left, the fairway as it wraps around the last fairway bunker is 27 yards wide and would leave an approach from 110 to 130 yards directly down the length of the green. What is the GIR rate for the average golfer from this distance in general and how much lower would their GIR rate be on this green? It safe to believe it would be lower, but how much lower? My guess is it would not be dramatically more challenging to the average player to hit this green. For those laying up beyond the second set of fairway bunkers and short of the large bunker 20 yards short of the green, they are playing into a landing zone that is 50 yards deep by 45 yards wide at its narrowest point. That's a pretty generous landing zone for a player to leave themselves a sub 100-yard approach.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2021, 05:06:02 PM »
Ben,
What I think you are missing is that what you describe on paper how to play the hole is not what will happen the far majority of the time in real life.  Most golfers will struggle to clear the second set of bunkers and not even a pro wants a third shot that is well over 130 yards into that green.  I can see portions of that green and bunkering set up that would work but using all of it as you described would be a very difficult hole for most.  If that is what the intent is, go for it. 


But think about for example many of Pete Dye's par threes and then think about some of his green sites for some of his par fours and par fives.  They should ring a bell  :D

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2021, 05:13:52 PM »
Beyond a few Redan greened par 4's I can't think of any holes that use a shorter hole template for a longer application. Why do we not see more par 4's and par 5's being based on great par 3's and short par 4's?

For example, if one was to build a replica of the 10th at Riviera, but extend it by ~275-300 yards to make it into a par 5 wouldn't it not be a really good par 5? The same risk/reward approach, but now with the need to hit a good drive. Even if the driving zone was bunker free, I'd imagine it would still be a compelling hole that would captivate the same style approaches to the green.

I also wonder if the postage stamp green would make for a great short par 4 of around 350-370 yards.


10 at Riviera would be a great par 5. I remarked on a Twitter thread recently that many par 5's would be greatly improved by having tougher, smaller green complexes, where "going for it" and missing the green, carried a real consequence. Miss the par 4 at Riviera in two, and it's very, very easy to make bogey, or worse, as we've all seen.


Don't necessarily like the idea of a green like the 10th at Riv as the green on a long or longish par 4, but love it on a long par 5, even/especially on a "3-shotter," 600+.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2021, 05:29:57 PM »
David,
As you know it is pretty common to make the green smaller on par fives.  The challenge these days is spreading out wear on a small green.  If you have any contour in it, your hole locations are very limited.  You could easily use #10 as a guide for a par five (I actually think many do), they just don't make it quite as challenging knowing who is going to be playing the hole.  I can tell you right now, #10 at Riviera is one of my favorite golf holes.  I have played it many times and love it.  But if you put the average golfer on that hole and I would be surprised of the average score is less than 5 (with a lot of X's)  :D  It is scary to hit that green even from 50 yards out no matter what your handicap. 

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2021, 05:52:24 PM »
Back in the 80's and 90's I don't remember the green at Riviera's 10th playing nearly as extreme as it does now. Has something been changed with the green, or is it solely down to maintenance making so difficult? How severe does it play for the membership, does a 10 handicap have any chance of holding the green from 80-100 yards coming in from the left?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2021, 11:23:19 PM by Jim Sherma »

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2021, 06:01:29 PM »
But if you put the average golfer on that hole and I would be surprised of the average score is less than 5


Mark,


On a dead flat, dead straight, featureless par 4 of 400 yards, the average golfer would still average a score around 5. So why should we limit ourselves from building compelling and strategically interesting holes, especially when we know that it won't make a difference in how well the average player will score but will have a large impact on their engagement with the game.


What I think you are missing is that what you describe on paper how to play the hole is not what will happen the far majority of the time in real life.  Most golfers will struggle to clear the second set of bunkers and not even a pro wants a third shot that is well over 130 yards into that green.


Sure, we are looking at this hole concept on paper, but it's not like we are short on references as the source hole is one of the most documented and studied in the game. Plus the hole has little to no elevation change that would need to be considered when discussing distances. I've already shown that the average player could clear the second set of bunkers with their layup, but even if they didn't, they could still play their second down the left and leave in a wedge or short iron approach shot.


The only possibility for a pro to leave themselves a 3rd of more than 100 yards would be if they plugged their drive into one of the fairway bunkers and could not advance it. Even if the pro played a safe fairway wood tee shot down the right, they'd have a layup of less than 200 yards to clear the second set of bunkers.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2021, 06:51:33 PM »

Ben,
In some ways you are making my point about difficulty. Even as a par four from roughly 250 or 260 yards which is where most members probably play #10, the average scores are as you say, well above 5.  Now make that a long par five hole and what do you think they will shoot? There will be a lot of X’s. 


That is an EXTREMELY difficult green site, far too hard for the average golfer for being as short as the hole is.  On the other hand for an excellent golfer, that hole is a 10.  Just my opinion.


But getting back to your main point of this thread, there are many short holes that act as guides for longer holes.  Most architects just take into account that golfers will be playing them from lots of different locations once they get off the tee. 

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2021, 08:51:13 AM »
Mark,

As you acknowledge that the game is inherently difficult and there is little the architect can do to make it easier for the average player, why do you feel compelled then to reduce the holes complexity and interest when it gets longer? As long as par is the standard benchmark, a scoring and difficulty adjustment is already applied.

The single greatest reason architects should use par three design themes on longer holes IS BECAUSE the architect does not have control of the approach position into the green.  This creates strategy for the tee shot, as the inherent green design encourages a player to attack it from a specific angle. It gives greater meaning to the tee shot without having to pepper the landing zone with hazards, having the positive effect of not being overly penal to the average player.

So frequently on this site we speak of width and angles. This concept works best when there are strongly preferred angles into greens and width is made available as a recovery mechanism for those who were unsuccessful at positioning their ball accurately off of the tee. Building softened greens just dilutes the tee shot of strategy and meaning, reducing the need to find the specific approach angle, and negating the benefits of width.

You've mentioned a few times now that there are many short holes that act as inspiration for longer holes. If so, I encourage you to list them so we can have the opportunity to discuss their merits in expanding on the source hole's design. Since we already spent a length of time discussing the implementation of the 10th at Riviera in a par 5 package, What are some of the zillions of holes that use a similar bunker and green setup?


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2021, 09:11:00 AM »
Ben,
I already mentioned Pete Dye as one architect how uses some of his par three green sites as models for his longer holes.  If you have played a lot of Dye courses you will see what I am talking about.


As far as making holes difficult and tee shots meaningful; my point about the 10th green site at Riviera is that there is such a small window (ideal angle) into that green that very few will ever find it as a par four or par five.  You have to make the game interesting and challenging but most courses need to be playable for a wide range of golfers.


I just modified a par three hole that was actually a bit like the 10th at Riviera in that the green site was very narrow and it was flanked by deep bunkers.  The pro said he hated the hole because it was the hardest on the golf course and backed up play.  He said many people just picked up after a point because it was too difficult.  Have you ever played Riviera #10?


Obviously you know the Redan concept is copied often on par four holes.  We have one at Lehigh, #8, that Flynn used that concept on.  The Eden hole is also used as a guide quite often on longer holes with deep bunkers left of the green and short right and a hazard long (replacing the beach on the original hole at St. Andrews).  Green contours vary but many tilt back to front as the original did. 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 10:28:40 AM by Mark_Fine »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2021, 10:07:38 AM »
Whether consciously or subconsciously, don't well traveled architects frequently use other holes on other courses they are familiar with for inspiration or ideas? The more well traveled and experienced the architect, theoretically, the larger their palette of choices.


I think there are some cool holes that are templates, and in fact several of my favorite courses contain templates, made unique by their own variation of the template, in a perfect world made different and enhanced by the terrain.
Going a step farther, combining greensites from different length holes as the thread suggests(there's been plenty of this over the years as tees go back and "Shorts" become "Mediums")expands the list of variables, but still has a limited combinations-and thus COULD limit the possibilities.


But why limit oneself to a finite set of templates and their combinations?
It seems looking for the classic templates might cause someone to miss something even more possible about a unique piece of terrain.
Seems like a totally open mind, full of experience and open to suggestion(and not locked into templates), could exponentially open the possibilities for a given unique greensite/hole as opposed to going looking for, or building a preconceived type of greensite and the teeing/fairways strategies that go with it.


For my money, if I was instructing an architect, I would want one who had a wide range of experience and was looking for more possibilities to utilize/enhance interesting ground, or having enough experience/imagination to know when to be inspired by something else, put his own spin on a similar inspiration, or simply to create/incorporate something he believes to be not only unique, but fun and challenging-while also serving the master of being practically and affordably built and maintained.


Such an architect would also have the experience/expertise to understand how to make it all fit together while they route you around the property-which of course means knowing that certain holes MIGHT just have to be subtle connections between other great holes, giving the player a chance to catch his breath-both figuratively and literally.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2021, 10:30:13 AM »
Jeff,
Well stated  :D

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2021, 10:38:59 AM »
David,
As you know it is pretty common to make the green smaller on par fives.  The challenge these days is spreading out wear on a small green.  If you have any contour in it, your hole locations are very limited.  You could easily use #10 as a guide for a par five (I actually think many do), they just don't make it quite as challenging knowing who is going to be playing the hole.  I can tell you right now, #10 at Riviera is one of my favorite golf holes.  I have played it many times and love it.  But if you put the average golfer on that hole and I would be surprised of the average score is less than 5 (with a lot of X's)  :D  It is scary to hit that green even from 50 yards out no matter what your handicap.


A green like 10 is one that I would love to play as a par 5. And truly short hitters should be playing a truly short set of tees to allow greens like that to be in play for them with a third shot from a reasonable distance. And if they are approaching from 180, then so be it, they need to get up and down. Or, on a green like at Riviera, maybe up, up, and down. ;-)


The whole reason for a complex like that on a par five would seem to be: "Once you're close, your work has only just begun!"


I love holes where a long-hitting 2-capper gets beaten by the wily veteran 9 because the veteran knows where to miss and has a decent short game and imagination and makes par, meanwhile, the 2-capper is greenside in two and makes bogey.


To me, those are great holes. One or two of those a round is great. Lakeside in California has a hole like that: The wonderful, short par 4 13th, with a green very much like the 10th at Riviera, just on the opposite angle (runs away and to the LEFT).


But yes, I guess the smallness of a green that size makes them difficult to maintain and keep healthy.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2021, 10:58:24 AM »
David,
If you think about some of the best par fives, many ofter temptation and risk/reward for those who are thinking about playing aggressive.  No one here is advocating a huge green with no hazards around it.  My MAIN POINT is that on par three holes, architects have more leeway because they control the starting point.  Take the 2nd hole at Somerset Hills as just one example.  If there was a tee placed well to the left, the hole would be borderline unplayable but because the architect can set the starting point, he is able to design it as is.  How would you like to play Riviera #10 from a tee 40 yards to the right?  The hole wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now. 

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2021, 12:26:50 PM »

Mark,


I think I get what you're saying. However, as a short hitter, 10 at Riviera from 40 yards right, I would play exactly the same as I do today. Would probably just need one more club off the tee to leave myself 70 to 85 yards and as far left in the fairway as I can go.


In other words, if the tee were to the right, don't you simply play more to the left as an average player? Certain holes what you are saying makes sense, but not necessarily at Riviera number 10. Or maybe I'm just not understanding you.




Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using short holes as templates for long holes
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2021, 12:58:16 PM »
David,
The par three 2nd at Somerset might be a better example because most every golfer, if playing from the appropriate tees for their skill level, is trying to reach the green with their tee shot.  Drivable par fours are a different story as the reality is most players can’t reach them in one shot even if playing the appropriate tees.  They end up just being short par fours.  What makes the 10th hole at Riviera great is the temptation and options it presents to players who have the ability to go for the green off the tee.  Otherwise it is mostly just a very good short par four (as you described it) with a very difficult approach shot.