[William_G]

Tom, the man who can take any thread and make it a ranking of his works!

so true, LOL

[Sean_A]

Like Tom, I don't watch much pro golf because I find it boring tv. Unlike Tom & Bob, I don't find the already much altered Sawgrass a special example of a special archie...enough so that what was last in place by the hand of Dye should remain forever.  Lets revisit Sawgrass in 30, 40, 50 years before we heap untouchable status on the place. Let us not forget that all the revered championship courses in the UK underwent huge changes in their early decades.  It takes more than an annual flagship event to pronounce a course untouchable. To suggest Sawgrass should be treated like TOC etc is well beyond a stretch especially as the name archie didn't treat his original design with much reverence.  Rather ironically, it seems the more pros use a course the higher the chances it will be altered.  A course built for pros is almost by definition an ever changing course and that shouldn't be in the least suprising...especially to industry folks.

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

This is a depressing thread, partly because a bunch of people who are smart and whose hearts are in the right place are at each others' throats, and partly because, despite our best efforts, we have once again become dragged into the error of seeing golf and golf design almost entirely from the perspective of Tour pros.


Guys, a 300 yard hole is NOT driveable for 90-odd per cent of golfers (I'd guess high 90s at that) unless the ground is concrete firm or there is a howling gale at your back. The overwhelming majority of these 'driveable' par fours are STILL drive and pitch holes for the overwhelming majority of golfers.


Golf architecture simply has to get away from this obsession with what the pros do. I know Sawgrass was built for the pros, and so it must continue to be seen through that prism. But we have hundreds, thousands of 'championship' courses that have never hosted any sort of championship and never will.


Screw the pros. They aren't coming to your course, and if they do, they aren't paying to play. Let's focus on the people who actually keep golf going -- the paying golfers!

[Thomas Dai]

The pro/TV game is different. They are all damn good and the outcome of their shots is generally predictable. Far from the case with amateurs with a big variety between beginners/hackers and the better player. Age groups and gender too.


As such driveable par-4's holes don't help pace of play - folks hanging around on the tee whilst Mr Big Hitter (or Mr Big Ego or Mr Thoughtless) is waiting for the group in front to clear the green. And yes, I know about call-through holes, but in practice with amateurs this doesn't seem to happen too often.


atb

[Niall C]

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...

Jim


Doesn't that cut both ways ? If Sawgrass hadn't hosted the Players Championship all these years it would still be a Dye course but just not nearly as well known and probably the owners would have had no compunction in making changes with or without Pete Dye's blessing.


Niall

[JESII]

Niall,


If Sawgrass hadn't hosted The Players, there would be no course.


I think Pete Dye is at least equally responsible for what the tournament has become as are Deanne Beman and Tim Finchem.

[Mark_Fine]

This thread has been derailed, however, I stand by my comment about temptation and risk/reward as the core aspect of the "drivable par four".   You have to add "fun" in there as well.  I see nothing wrong with the concept and am surprised there is so much debate about it??



For many of our tournaments at Lehigh CC like the member/guest and the member/member, the pro will almost always make one of our short par fours even shorter.  Call it "drivable" if you want as it will be for some but it is fun to play and creates temptation off the tee to go for it.  More trouble can come into play as well but that is the idea behind the shortening of the hole.  If you want to play it as a drive and pitch you still can.  For the player who can't reach, they will get closer to the green if they want than normal so all have some advantage.  It adds some diversity and is simply just fun. 


Call the par whatever you want but golfers (of any ability) by nature love to make pars birdies and an occasional eagle.  Why not give them a better chance here and there? 

[JESII]

Mark,


I don't think that's what's been debated in this thread (or the one on Geoff's site). This is about Pete Dye's belief that this hole should not be a drive-able par 4 and the Tour starting from scratch and creating one. The debate is whether or not the original architects intent and philosophy matter...and for how long.

[Jeff_Brauer]

For perspective, the original "Planning and Building the Golf Course" by NGF sometime in the late 1950's or early 60's(not my 1981 re-write) had a statement on short par 4 holes saying "They have no kick" if only a wedge/short iron is left to the green.  Clearly, post WWII, and the RTJ related mentality had the idea of any par 4 under 350 yards as undesirable.  Probably, many golden age short par 4 holes had now become relatively shorter, not unlike today.  As Adam notes, this is only applicable to 1% or so of golfers.


Then, they became trendy, maybe because of Morrish/Weiskoph?  Now, perhaps they have become too common through over use?


Certainly, Pete and Alice are of the age where they remember the 1950's thought process.  While they have done some reachable par 4 holes, fraught with risk/reward, maybe they just feel they have run their course?  Always the iconoclasts, maybe they advocate for something different than "now standard" just because.......


BTW, as it happens, I am now designing a new hole on a total remodel where we can add a fairway pad across a creek, extend a tee to play at 320 or the layup type yardage of 380 (back tees) so it can play either way.  Design it to play either way, not unlike how the USGA sets tee markers way up one day.  That seems reasonable to me, rather than design one that, as Alice says, is basically meant to be driven and if you don't, well what's wrong with you? LOL

[JESII]

BTW, as it happens, I am now designing a new hole on a total remodel where we can add a fairway pad across a creek, extend a tee to play at 320 or the layup type yardage of 380 (back tees) so it can play either way.  Design it to play either way, not unlike how the USGA sets tee markers way up one day.  That seems reasonable to me, rather than design one that, as Alice says, is basically meant to be driven and if you don't, well what's wrong with you? LOL

Jeff, hope you're well.


I only pulled out this last paragraph because it triggered the question..."why should the superintendent be dictating the options of the hole on a given day?"


I'll have to think through your reasoning a little more but that was my immediate thought. In that vein, I really dislike when Mike Davis takes a 400 yard hole and uses a tee from 320. Maybe there's something there I should reconsider but I can't seem to find it...

[BCrosby]

Mark,


I don't think that's what's been debated in this thread (or the one on Geoff's site). This is about Pete Dye's belief that this hole should not be a drive-able par 4 and the Tour starting from scratch and creating one. The debate is whether or not the original architects intent and philosophy matter...and for how long.

Well said, Jim. There has been a lot of point-missing here and at Geoff' site. The issue is not difficult.


Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, as it happens, I am now designing a new hole on a total remodel where we can add a fairway pad across a creek, extend a tee to play at 320 or the layup type yardage of 380 (back tees) so it can play either way.  Design it to play either way, not unlike how the USGA sets tee markers way up one day.  That seems reasonable to me, rather than design one that, as Alice says, is basically meant to be driven and if you don't, well what's wrong with you? LOL

Jeff, hope you're well.


I only pulled out this last paragraph because it triggered the question..."why should the superintendent be dictating the options of the hole on a given day?"


I'll have to think through your reasoning a little more but that was my immediate thought. In that vein, I really dislike when Mike Davis takes a 400 yard hole and uses a tee from 320. Maybe there's something there I should reconsider but I can't seem to find it...

Doesn't he anyway, with cup settings, tee placements, mowing, green speeds, etc.?  Ideally, he understands the architects wishes, and maybe got some input, but in most cases, as alluded by TD and others, once the course is theirs, the course is theirs.  If the committee likes variety, if the pro agrees, then the super (who should have his/her own input, too) can do it.  Good architecture CAN accept some flexibility, not shun it.


There might be an upper limit to how long a hole should be shortened, but generally on newer courses, any par 4 under 400 yards will probably have a pretty tricky green to approach, due to approach length anticipated, and would make a good candidate. Specifics would matter, of course.  Over 400 yards being shortened might have a green that is too receptive, making it, as Alice says, a de factor long par 3.


Still, pros figure they can hit any club within 10% of length of the target, i.e. spray pattern is 32 yards on a 320 yard tee shot.  I think the 50/50 width is about 50 yards total at 320 yards. Not many greens are that wide, meaning most would generally hit the hazard instead of the green.


So, no big whup to me what Mike Davis does, in reality. It's all in good fun, sorely lacking at most US Opens, no?

[Mark_Fine]

"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 not been on Geoff's site so I don't know what has been discussed there.  As for this thread, I thought we were discussing the concept of a hole that is reachable from the tee?  Is the debate whether such a hole is called a "par three" or a "par four"?  I guess I don't care what it is called by the architect or by the committee who sets the teeing location when it comes to par as it is just a golf hole.  Take the 16th hole at Cypress Point.  Is that a par three or a par four?  It was "intended" by the architect to be reached from the tee for some but not for all.  I play there a lot and usually at least one player in our group has no chance to reach the green from the tee so they play to the left and pitch on.  As such, is this a drive and pitch par three?  Frankly what it is is a 230 yard all carry hole that can play 270 or more into a strong breeze.  What would Pete or Alice call this hole? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Another Weiskoph trend was back to back 475 or so holes where one was a par 5 in normal wind, but 4 in opposite (headwind) while the other was the opposite.  Never heard it done with consecutive short 4 and long 3, at least intentionally.


No one I know is very fond of the drive and pitch par 3.  To most, par does matter and a par 3 green should be reachable by some kind of shot.  Of course USGA just says 250 and below.  I have built par 3 holes up to 290 yards back tees, but even a 250 into the wind might not be reachable.


Anyway, I agree golf should be fun, dammit.  What part of any unusual length par 3 conveys fun?  I actually think most golfers would be happy if they were all 170 and below from their main tee.

[Mark_Fine]

When Mike Davis puts a tee up on a "par four" all he is trying to do is make the golfers think.  What is wrong with that?  Should the par change?  Why?  Even in match play it wouldn't matter.  Everyone is playing the same hole and trying to get round in the least number of shots.  And who cares "what the architect intended" in these limited situations where the teeing location is changed.  You know if the shorter tee is serving the intended purpose if there is a wide variety of shot selection (and outcomes) off the tee. 

[Greg Tallman]

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.

Tom, I thought the 11th at Bay of Dreams (NLE) was quite good and far and away the best of the trio of short/drivable 4s on that layout.

14 on the other hand was not my cup of tea. Reachable but not really drivable. Maybe that is a great attribute but I never quite warmed up to that hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, I thought the 11th at Bay of Dreams (NLE) was quite good and far and away the best of the trio of short/drivable 4s on that layout.

14 on the other hand was not my cup of tea. Reachable but not really drivable. Maybe that is a great attribute but I never quite warmed up to that hole.

Unfortunately, you played both of them more than I did!


The 11th was the very first hole I found on that site.  I knew I had to get up and around the mountain somehow, and looked for how, and found that one.  A Cape hole in the desert!


The 14th was actually going to be a long par-3 originally, but Brian Schneider suggested turning it into a very short 4 because the green site did not seem conducive to a big green.


I'm really a big fan of good short par-4's, as most people here know.  The irony is that wasn't the point of this thread, or my original comment on Geoff's site, as Jim Sullivan notes above.

[Jud_T]

1.  The popularity, watchability, ratings, and discussion generated by drivable par 4's in tour events is an entirely different discussion than the architectural bonafides of legit drive and pitch holes for members of varying lengths and handicaps.  The two topics should be kept separate and not be blended into sh*te.

2.  Pro golf, aside from the Sunday back nine at the Masters and, at times, the Open Championship in the post-Tiger era is the best nap inducement I've found this side of Ambien or strong drink.

3.  I've no axe to grind as regards Sawgrass, not having played it or frankly having any interest in doing so.

4.  While most wouldn't describe Tom as warm and fuzzy, there's something a tad chivalrous in his coming to Alice's defense here.

[Jim Nugent]

"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

What about reachable par 5s?  Do the Dyes believe they should actually be par 4s?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - "when Mike Davis moves up the tees on a Par 4 he's just trying to make the golfers think".

I thought that was the architect's job. I thought that was what gca, in skilled hands, was all about. I thought part of the architect's skill is creating a flowing, varied, challenging, well-paced and thought provoking 18 hole golf course - a true *round* of golf where both the individual golf holes and the *relationships* between those golf holes, the way one follows another with different questions/problems to be solved, are important. I thought architects studied and worked for years, in libraries and in the dirt and visiting the world's great courses in order to perfect their crafts - ie in order to learn how to make golfers think and test their skills in a myriad of ways. That's what I thought - but I guess Mike D must think he knows better. No, in his mind, it's not the original design but his clever course "set up" that gets the golfers thinking. He seems to think - at some level - that all the study and training and commitment to excellence that you architects bring to the table isn't actually worth very much at all; he has to "improve" your work, and obviously believes he *can* improve it despite his almost total lack of training in the art-craft that is gca. It really does surprise me; it's an attitude I'd expect from someone who wanted to mock gca instead of honouring it, and from someone who views examples of great golf architecture more as personal playpens than as creations that call for his stewardship. IMHO.
Peter

[Kalen Braley]

"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

What about reachable par 5s?  Do the Dyes believe they should actually be par 4s?

Jim,


I asked this as well, with radio silence.  I guess the rules are different for par 5s.

[JESII]

The term she used was "supposed to reach" whereas you're using the term "reachable".


I suspect the distinction can primarily be found in the distinction between a fun driveable (for some) par 4 and a quality drive and pitch two-shot hole.


Yardage is only 1 variable. There is a distinct pressure on the tee shot at 7 and 8 at Merion even though they are both long irons followed by sand wedges. While the tee shots aren't particularly difficult, a mistake is very costly and brings bogey very much into play. I suspect the old 12 at TPC had similar pressure from the tee.

[Tom_Doak]

What about reachable par 5s?  Do the Dyes believe they should actually be par 4s?

Jim,

I asked this as well, with radio silence.  I guess the rules are different for par 5s.

Radio silence?  Well, to whom are you asking the question?  Mrs. Dye does not participate at Golf Club Atlas, and I don't want to put any words in her mouth.


I do remember when I was at the TPC with Mr. Dye in 1982, when everyone was predicting the winning score was going to be very high, Pete predicted it would be 8 under par.  He did the math for me out loud -- he said he figured someone would play the par-3's and par-4's in even par, and since three of the par-5 holes were really just long par-4's for the Tour players, he figured the winner ought to be able to make 4 on two of those per round.


BTW, Jerry Pate birdied the last three holes of the tournament to finish on Pete's number.


Griping at architects about "reachable par-5 holes" is really misplaced anger.  It's not our fault the equipment has made so many of them reachable.  Hell, Pete had me ghost-write articles for him back in 1983-84 about how the USGA was letting the golf ball get out of hand, long before the big drivers and the Pro V1.  But that should really be a separate thread.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Of course that is the architect’s job.  However, Mike Davis doesn’t work in a vacuum.  He consults with architects all the time and whether they agree on everything I don’t know (there is likely debate on many things).  Remember, Mike is tweaking things (right or wrong) for the pros.  I like some things he does and also disagree with things he does (like the narrowing of the fairways at Merion for the Open).  But all we are talking about here is moving up a few tees to tempt a player to play the hole differently (maybe incorrectly, who knows).  How much fun is it to see Pros hit 4I’s on par fours?  Why is #10 at Riviera so much fun to watch?  It is because it forces most of the pros to think because the shot off the tee is not obvious and their ego is tested because most know they can reach the green with ease.  Mike Davis is just trying to find a hole or two on other courses that they play that might offer the same as #10 at Riviera. 


Remember, most architects ARE NOT designing their golf courses for PGA Tour Pros!  As such, there is no reason not to tweak a hole or two once a year or once every ten years to play a little differently just for them. 


The same goes for a local club pro (or golf committee) like ours does at Lehigh as mentioned above for special events - to change a teeing location to make a hole play differently than originally planned.  If that was done on every hole it would be a problem but it is not.  It is usually just one hole though sometimes they will make one of our long par threes play considerably shorter.  It adds some variety, it get debated, and it is fun and can lead to different outcomes.   


It is ok to “think out of the box” - no pun intended 

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


Thank you for addressing it.  I think Jim and I were just looking for some logical discussion on why reaching a par 5 in two is OK, but reaching a par 4 in one isn't, especially in light of Pete seemingly admitting back then 3 of the 5s were just long 4s...  The Dyes have been super ambassadors to the game no doubt, but her logic on this one just doesn't hold up. Sticking with "Pete designed it as he intended it to play" would have been a more palatable response, but perhaps this issue has been a bit of a mountain and a molehill.


On a more macro level, I think in general viewers want to see players "go for it"....just like every other sport, the drama is why they tune in.  Players like Phil, Sergio, and Tiger weren't popular just for winning, it was the theater of it all.  And A Phil or Sergio trainwreck at the end of a tourney is every bit as entertaining as the win...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()