Long par fours with demanding and unfriendly greens

[Tommy Williamsen]

I spoke with a friend a few days ago who disliked 17 at The Old Course because the green was too “unfriendly” for most players. Even if you have the distance to get there, it does not receive a shot well, and getting up and down is "too challenging." The same could be said for 14 at Dornoch and 13 at Crystal Downs.
The prevailing thought of many golfers is that the longer the hole, the more user-friendly the green should be. Overall I agree. However, periodically, I like a long hole that is both difficult to hit with tricky green surrounds where getting up and down is difficult. Such a hole generally is controversial, but it can’t be ignored.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Simple. Just change the par on the scorecard to a 5.


If they complain that the hole is now too easy ask “How exactly is the hole any different than it was before?”

[Tom_Doak]

Simple. Just change the par on the scorecard to a 5.

If they complain that the hole is now too easy ask “How exactly is the hole any different than it was before?”

Indeed, a lot of the holes that Tommy is thinking about WERE par-5's when the course opened. Before 1946, the cut-off for par-4 holes was 445 yards, so I believe that the Road Hole and the 14th at Dornoch and the 13th at Prestwick were all par-5's at that time, and possibly the 13th at Crystal Downs as well.  [I've never seen a 1930's scorecard from the Downs to be sure of that; it could be that they added a tee instead.]


In any case, I happen to like to include one or two par-4's on a course that are more like a par 4.5 for scratch players, because I also believe that there should be a hole where most players don't expect to reach the green in regulation, and in that case the green should be designed for a 50-yard approach instead of a 200-yard approach. 


If you're a 1-handicap, they should be the one hole where you don't expect to make par, but if you're a scratch player, they're the one hole where you have to be exceptional while giving away a shot to your opponent.

[Mike Hendren]

I like it when architects eschew traditional thinking such as a long approach calls for a deep green or a shallow green is appropriate for a short approach - I call this Garanimals design.  I think the 17th at Pebble is a very good underrated hole for this reason.

[Sean_A]

I spoke with a friend a few days ago who disliked 17 at The Old Course because the green was too “unfriendly” for most players. Even if you have the distance to get there, it does not receive a shot well, and getting up and down is "too challenging." The same could be said for 14 at Dornoch and 13 at Crystal Downs.
The prevailing thought of many golfers is that the longer the hole, the more user-friendly the green should be. Overall I agree. However, periodically, I like a long hole that is both difficult to hit with tricky green surrounds where getting up and down is difficult. Such a hole generally is controversial, but it can’t be ignored.

Tommy

You have raised this issue before. It seems to bother you. I have no problem with a few ball breaking par 4s so long as they have character.

Happy New Year

[Thomas Dai]

A view could be that tough greens on the end of tough holes are actually equalisers? The lessor hitter might have a tough shot from further back but (hopefully) so will the longer hitters from closer in if/when they miss the green in two.
Atb

[Tommy Williamsen]

I spoke with a friend a few days ago who disliked 17 at The Old Course because the green was too “unfriendly” for most players. Even if you have the distance to get there, it does not receive a shot well, and getting up and down is "too challenging." The same could be said for 14 at Dornoch and 13 at Crystal Downs.
The prevailing thought of many golfers is that the longer the hole, the more user-friendly the green should be. Overall I agree. However, periodically, I like a long hole that is both difficult to hit with tricky green surrounds where getting up and down is difficult. Such a hole generally is controversial, but it can’t be ignored.

Tommy

You have raised this issue before. It seems to bother you. I have no problem with a few ball breaking par 4s so long as they have character.

Happy New Year

Sean, you have a better memory than I do. I don’t remember bringing this up. It doesn’t really bother me. I like a hole where 4 is hard won.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tommy,


Your initial post made me think of #15 at the Kingsley Club, immediately. A hole I really like that fits this vein.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Your initial post made me think of #15 at the Kingsley Club, immediately. A hole I really like that fits this vein.


Jeff--

I thought the same thing.  Would also throw in #18 at Winged Foot West

[Michael Felton]

At my home club Effingham in Surrey, the 5th hole is 461 yards with OB left and sloping quite a bit left to right. In the summer if you miss the fairway right it can roll all the way down to the tree line on the right. It also has the hardest green on the course on it. It’s a really hard 4. Stroke 1 and deservingly so.


The other hole that springs to mind is the 12th on Walton Heath New. From the purple tee it’s 485 slightly downhill but if it’s into the wind it’s really tough. If it is that though then 13 is a short par 5 straight down, so those two holes really become just a par 9 between them.

[John Kirk]

Your initial post made me think of #15 at the Kingsley Club, immediately. A hole I really like that fits this vein.


Jeff--

I thought the same thing.  Would also throw in #18 at Winged Foot West

Gee, that makes three of us.  My first thought, even before finishing the opening post.

For those unfamiliar with the 15th at Kingsley, it's about 450-460 yards long with a slight bend left about halfway to the green.  Its pretty flat, maybe a bit downhill on the drive and a bit up on the approach. However, the green is perched about three to four feet above the fairway grade, and falls off on the front and both sides. The green is sloped decisively from back to front, and front hole locations are moderately scary.  It's very difficult, but I would also characterize it as very fun, very enjoyable to play.

Both #10 and #11 at Pasatiempo fall into this category.  They play quite long, and the greens on both are wild.

[Phil Young]

Bethpage Black has 5 par-4 holes that meet this (note yardage is white [regular] and blue [championship] tee lengths)

• 5th: 423/478
• 11th: 421/435
• 12th: 432/501
• 15th: 430/478
• 16th: 457/490 

This doesn't include the 9th hole whose white tees are 385 and blue tees 460. If for some reason you might discount the holes because 4 of them are less than 450 yards from the regular tees remember, Tilly said that a "hole is only as long as it plays."

A few years back I was at a Tilly club talking with several members, when another one walked into the room we were in. He said that he had a special guest with him he'd like us to meet. Walking out into the hallway stood a very-well known major championship winner. When I was introduced to him I said, "You and I have very different views on my favorite Tillinghast golf course." He asked me, "Which one is that?" After saying, "Bethpage Black," his response was so immediate that all were stunned, except for me because I expected it. "Bethpage Black! I hate that course! It is the hardest@#$%^&* course in the world! They should never have another tournament on it! Why anyone would sleep in a car overnight to play it is beyond me!" I, of course, laughed. To this day I can't help but think how proud Tilly would have been to hear him say that."

There is no question that those holes play very long and challenging...

[Mike Sweeney]

THE Phil Young?


Wow, nice to see you posting Phil. HNY.

[archie_struthers]

 


The second hole at Greate Bay (Wille Park 1925) is a perfect example of a 4/5 par hole. When we bought it in 1998 I didn't like the start being 4/3/4/3 with a cramped feeling. I looked back to the old Park design which was different and IMO much better. What it did was allow for a faster start to the day and opened up the holes . We found a spot close by where we could put the 16th hole as a replacement for the 2nd and rebuilt the old hole as #2.  It finished at the then 3rd green and measure 467 from the tips.


This created a tough par 4 which many of our players would be hitting a fairway metal or couldn't reach or hold the green . It features a front bunker that is hard to miss. I opened up the right front so you could run one up but it definitely changed the dynamic of the hole. It went from the 12th handicap to #1 and given my architectural pedigree wasn't exactly well known caused some concerns with the older members as to what was coming. My response was that I thought Willie Park Jr's original design was better than Ron Garl's 1970's redo and stood by my guns. Probably would have communicated the why better today.


This being said you guys above are right ! You have to look at the hole and play accordingly. If you are playing the road hole from the back tees hit it left then hit it right chip it on and beat your buddies who challenge the bunker.

[Kyle Harris]

If you're a 1-handicap, they should be the one hole where you don't expect to make par, but if you're a scratch player, they're the one hole where you have to be exceptional while giving away a shot to your opponent.

I think this idea is important in understanding how the handicap system (and allocation of strokes to holes) works in a match.

Stroke allocation should put pressure on the scratch player as much as relieving the bogey player. Simply allocating the first stroke hole to the most difficult, all too often, doesn't do this. Subsequently ranking holes on difficulty just furthers the problem.


The bogey golfer likely makes a double bogey and the scratch golfer likely makes par. No pressure on the scratch golfer.

Where does scratch golfer need to perform to overcome the two shot advantage of the 19 handicap? Where is that more interesting and equitable? There's your first stroke hole.

I think the hole described in the OP, more often than not, describes that.

[mike_malone]

This reminds me of 8 at Rolling Green.

[Phil Young]

Hello Mike...it be me. 

[Ira Fishman]

Ballybunion Old 11
Ballyneal 6
Cog Hill 4 13

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ballybunion Old 11
Ballyneal 6
Cog Hill 4 13

Hadn’t thought of 11at Ballybunion..good call. The first time I played it I stood in the fairway afraid to pull the trigger.  Great tough hole and it comes at a good time in the round.

[Tim Martin]

2 Wannamoisett

[Mike Hendren]

Kingsley’s 15th is a good call. 


In my amateurish mind I would ruin the hole with a pushed up reverse redan green fronted by a deep bunker with a cross bunker cut unto the rise in the fairway 40 yards or so short of the green.  Ignoring the fact that the next hole is a true redan.  I know, I’m fired.


Happy New Year.

[Sean_A]

I guess my PoV is why build a slog par 4 that doesn't have special characteristics? If you are going to have a 450 yard two shotter make it highly memorable for positive reasons. It's really a time to wow a golfer. That's why 17 TOC and Foxy are iconic holes. Golfers know a 4 is highly unlikely and that often a 5 will be a good score. We needn't reserve character features for short 4s and 3s. In some ways, the long par is exactly when the archie should pull something out of the bag. I played possibly a few of these at St Pat's, depending on wind. The 9th though, wind doesn't matter much... I can't reach that green from the good tee. I am not convinced I should be going for that green in two. In that way it isn't dissimilar to 17 TOC.

Ciao