Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jason Topp on April 22, 2014, 11:22:44 PM
-
The last decade has yielded many interesting par fours of a semi-drivable nature. Most new courses have one or two of them.
What seems to me to have diminished are holes in the 350 yard range from the back tees. Regardless of the actual yardage of the hole, its nature is that the green cannot be driven, but nearly everyone can have a short-iron approach with a good tee shot using driver.
Ideally such a hole offers a short pitch if one is willing to hit driver off the tee, but provides a layup option that carries the drawback of (1) being 150 yards or more and (2) being more difficult because the green is small or something about the green demands precision on the approach.
Last year, Greg Tallman identified the 14th as his favorite hole at Cabo del Sol Ocean.
http://www.cabodelsol.com/content/golf_ocean_courselayout14.html
The choice surprised me, but after playing it a number of times, I see much wisdom in Greg's viewpoint. The green is pretty small with a stream nearby, thereby incenting the player to hit a driver or longer club to shorten the approach. The tee ball with a driver is very tight, with a wash to the left and bunkers and a hillside to the right. You can avoid most of that mess by leaving the tee ball short of the bunkers but you then face a demanding shot of 150 yards uphill with a bunch of trouble on the perimeter of the green.
350 yard holes carry the advantage of being reachable by everyone in two shots and can be set up in such a way to pose a series of interesting decisions on the player.
If I were a new architect seeking to create my own style, I might look for these type of holes.
-
Jason:
I agree that short par-4's are an important piece of great courses.
I think the emphasis on "drivable" par-4's in recent years has been promoted beyond reason. For the great majority of golfers, none of these short par-4's are ever drivable, even the sub-300-yard ones I built in Australia. Most golfers don't hit it 300 yards, and a lot of these holes were not really designed with that in mind ... but if a couple of yahoos with their Big Berthas get up there and knock a ball somewhere around the green, the hole is portrayed as "drivable" because that's the "in" thing now. The 16th at Pacific Dunes, for example, was not meant to be drivable, and actually winding up on the green from the tee is a matter of luck, even for long hitters.
I do think the drive-and-pitch holes are getting unfairly pushed to the side as a result. But I think there are several architects who place an emphasis on them, myself included.
-
One of the great things about older landlocked courses: some par 4s can't be lengthened.
-
One of the great things about older landlocked courses: some par 4s can't be lengthened.
Mike:
That's true, but by the same token there are a lot of 320-yard par-4's that could use a slightly longer back tee nowadays, to stop idiots from trying to drive them.
-
Or a few deep bunkers 20 yards short to discourage such behavior
-
There's a good hole of this sort at a course NW of Phoenix called Trilogy at Vistancia.
It's #4, 364 from the back tees, 344 from the whites. You play to what is probably the widest fairway on the course, but there are some drawbacks to just bombing driver.
If you hit driver, there's a good chance you'll catch a small downslope in the fairway. Then your wedge approach is from a downhill lie. Or you can lay back a bit further and have a flat lie. But the fairway is a bit tighter ... and it's a downwind hole with a wide fairway, mentally it's just tough to not pull driver on that tee.
What really makes the hole is the green, which is sort of triangular with a sloping front portion, a higher shelf left that's perched above a bunker, and an even higher back right location guarded by a deep bunker right and a high bunker long left.
It's just a drive and pitch hole, but there are plenty of options and little things that make it interesting.
-
Tom Doak,
How heavily do you defend the short drive and pitch holes ?
Is a green at a 45 degree angle a reasonable defense ?
Does that make driving it far more difficult ?
-
One of the great things about older landlocked courses: some par 4s can't be lengthened.
Good example is the sixth at The Valley Club, about 310 from the can't go back tips. It's a great little hole with a devilish green. The flat bellies there have successfully lobbied to make the short par 5s, 1 and 10, par 4s on the "championship" card. I'm sure they'd love to able to lengthen 6.
-
When we were working on Laval. We were very conscious of having multiple short fours just to get variety. I always admired Oakmont's interesting mixture of hole lengths and wanted that to play out at Laval. While we knew we were going to host a Canadian Open, we also decided from the outset to limit the yardage to approximately 7,100 and make sure we had mid length fours.
We have three between 350 and 375 at the full tournament length.
(one is made to be set up shorter if they want)
It allowed us some complicated choices from the tee and the opportunity to develop some very tough green contours (think crowns and fall away slopes rather than elephants). I think this architectural idea needs more latitude/lenience with yardage to work. At least in my opinion.
This conversation has helped me understand what I struggled with most on the Red at Streamsong. It was either very short or very long on the fours. I was clearly missing the middle length holes. Or felt I was in that wind and that day.
-
Short Par 4's can provide many strategic options that aren't simply hit driver as far as possible. Sometimes preferred landing areas could be 100 yards out, driver could put bogey or double bogey in play based on hazards in the landing zone. There is a par 4 at my local course where, depending on wind conditions, pin placement, and confidence on that particular day, it could be 4 iron through driver.
-
I totally agree with what's been said so far. 350 yard par 4s are probably some of the most strategic (generally speaking) in golf. I've found a lot of "drive-able" par 4s aren't so much strategic as they are bang driver as close to the green as possible.
Par 4s in the 340 - 360 offer far more options. Short enough to make iron off the tee a viable play, but long enough to give hitting driver a significant advantage. Although sometimes hitting too far is not good, as half pitches are difficult shots.
-
Tom Doak,
How heavily do you defend the short drive and pitch holes ?
Is a green at a 45 degree angle a reasonable defense ?
Does that make driving it far more difficult ?
Pat:
Certainly, a green at 45 degrees to the line of play will work as a defense; the 16th at Pacific Dunes has the angle you describe, plus a couple of very nasty hazards to boot. But I have to admit that I rarely build such a green. While the angle makes it difficult for anyone to drive the green, it opens up for the long hitter (unless he is very greedy) much more easily than for the short hitter.
The great thing about these holes is that it isn't always about defending the green ... you can get away with almost anything on holes of this length, because the player always has the option to lay back off the tee if they don't want to take on trouble with the tee shot. The 2nd at Pacific Dunes is one of my favorites for that ... there are lots of different places you can try to hit your tee shot, and two or three places you'd better NOT hit it.
-
We have two such holes at Wykagyl.
#15 is ~340 yards from the tips. From the whites, depending on where the tee is, is can be about 300 (though usually more like 310-320) so possibly reachable for the boomers, but not so for the vast majority of us (the green is elevated so very hard to roll a drive up). The hole has the smallest green on the course, with a false front, so it requires an accurate approach. There is plenty of room to the right, but trouble (rough and a creek) left...and yet seeing that green straight ahead seems to just such balls to the left side from the tee.
#17 is ~355 yards from the tips, starts slightly uphill, then sharply down and dogleg left, then back up slightly to an elevated green. Unless you can draw your driver with great accuracy, you can't play a driver off the tee (right has hazards, rough and trees, left is dead), although if you can, you will end up with a flat lie and a 50-60 yard pitch. Otherwise, you need to either try to leave your shot at the top of the hill for ~160-170 yards in, or hit it over the hill and leave yourself something between 70-120 yards, but with a fairly sharp downhill lie, and maybe a side hill one. The green is pretty big, but has some of the toughest bunkers from which to get up and down on the course if you miss.
I think they're great holes.
-
Is the paucity of 350 yard holes a result of the quest for 7,000+ yard "championship" courses? If you're trying to pump up the yardage, the par 4's need to be in the 425 average range to get to your "number".
-
One of my favorite holes at Kingsley is the 8th, which is 360 from the tips (349 from the member tees). A true drive and pitch hole, the preferred approach is from the right side, but it's a pretty small target if you hit it past the big center fairway bunker. Long and left is no bargain as you're approaching from the more difficult angle over a large bunker. Even if you hit the perfect drive up the right side past the fairway bunker you're left with a very precise pitch to a wonderful green that repels shots from 3 sides. You can use the hill in back as a backstop, but you better have your short game dialed in. Holes like these are wonderful for all abilities, and for variety and flow in the round, but as Ian mentions they depend on very good, strategic greens. As most things in golf, they function much better on F&F turf where a short approach which isn't executed precisely is punished by short grass as a hazard.
P. S. See my quote below...
-
I think one thing working against the proliferation of drive-and-pitch holes is that 99% of golfers are terrible at hitting pitch shots (e.g. 20-75 yards) and so if they play a hole where they hit driver and are left with a shot of that length, they're going to complain that the hole is too long to be drivable but too short to leave them a "full shot" without hitting less than driver. And asking an average golfer to voluntarily hit less than driver off a tee is pretty much heresy.
I'm not arguing against these holes, because they're great, but maybe it explains why we aren't seeing many more of them.
-
At our club we have seven par 4’s between 320 and 376 yards (total length from the tips just 6,800 yards, but can be stretched to 7,000). They are the key holes to playing well. Get out of position and you can inflate your score. They are great equalizers for long hitters as they have to choose wisely. The thing that I most admire about this length of holes is the many ways you can play them.
-
I like shortish par-4's, especially those with a bit of cunning about them, but players are getting longer these days and when there are players on the course, even in the same group, of multiple abilities, waiting for the green to clear so Mr Bomber can have a go at the green from the tee doesn't half effect pace of play, and not in a good way either.
atb
-
I love these holes, particularly the ones with options off the tee as well as the approach.
My favorites are Ballyneal #7, and White Bear #14.
The 2 at Kingsley - #8 and #13 - are very good and their green complexes demand good approach shots.
Didn't Ran say somewhere that there hasn't been a better built short 4 since Riviera #10.
-
Morgan, #13 at Kingsley is only 292 from the back and, while uphill, is driveable for many big hitters. So while it's a wonderful hole and does play as a drive and pitch for guys like me, I'm not sure it's really relevant to the discussion.
-
After 26 years I have been able to convince even a few members that the 13th at Shinnecock Hills is the best hole on the course.
350 yds par 4
Elevated tee, into a prevailing wind, 30 degree right bend to the hole, Stingray back green slanted left to right, large fairway bunker at about the 270 mark on the right side, plenty of room to the left. Seemingly 'amber waves of grain' framing the fairway and fairway bunker.
Brutal approach from the left side with many of the US Open contestants ending up in the right green side bunker due to the green cant and extra spin due to the wind. Or just dumping their pitch directly into it saving themselves the indignity of repairing the ball mark.
False front, tightly mowed chipping areas in back and back right. 'Elevated' bunker left side at apex of stingray hump.
Oh, and the Shinnecock clubhouse close within view during play of the entire hole and the best panoramic view of surrounding golf courses/clubhouses.
Pure Flynn genius
-
When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole.
However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.
Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)
Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me. 12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)
Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)
-
#5 at Royal Dornoch is a great short par-4. The angled & well defended green really makes the 2nd shot a challenge.
-
I have to say that this is one topic that I really don't understand, i.e. I don't understand the assumption that a short 4 (say 320-360 yards) is almost by definition more interesting than one of standard length, or that it almost automatically provides a much wider range of options/choices.
I must be missing something, because so many experienced golfers and top flight architects around here seem to think so. But to me: given than nothing in the world precludes an architect from finding/creating an interesting and challenging green on a hole of ANY length (any short/long Par 4, any Par 3 or Par 5), what sets the short 4 apart seems to be simply and solely the choice to hit less than driver off the tee.
Is that indeed it - is that the option most are praising? Because if it is, it doesn't seem to me all that interesting or difficult a decision -- and it's a decision made less and less interesting and difficult with each passing year, as technology has led to drivers (even the 10-15 year old driver I have) that are easier than ever to hit, and to golf balls that seem to keep driver shots as straight (or even straighter) than those hit by 3 woods or hybrids.
So, unless there's a centreline bunker right at the 250 yard marker, most of us will fire away with a driver (easy decision); and if there is such a centreline bunker 250 yards out, most of us will hit 3 wood or a hybrid (no choice at all). What's left then is basically an easier hole, which I'm certainly not against -- over the course of a round, and in terms of flow and feeling and pacing, it's good to have a mix of challenging and less challenging holes, including holes that an average golfer of average length might birdie as often as his more accomplished opponent. But then, let's look at short 4s in THOSE terms, i.e. (relatively) easier holes, rather than in terms of being strategically more interesting in and of themselves.
But again, I must be missing something, because I find little 'automatic' appeal to a short 4.
Peter
-
Even if driver is the obvious play off the tee, there are different options at the green end that one can present when the player is hitting a 9-iron or wedge than if the player will be hitting a 5-iron or longer.
A green that's purposely NOT super-difficult for a long iron approach may well be sort of boring with a sand wedge in your hand. And a green that offers interest and challenge to the player wielding a pitching wedge might be ridiculously difficult for a play approaching with a 3-iron or 5-wood.
Then of course you can add in various features on the tee shot to possibly make other than driver a safe choice. But I have a soft spot for the idea of letting the player go ahead and have at with the driver to an open fairway but then face a difficult challenge on the short second shot. This sort of "short Par 4" offers Par 5-like design options at the green end without having to accommodate the strong player who will reach it in one less than regulation (assuming it's too far to be "drivable").
-
PP,
When was the last time you had to make a club choice when standing on a longer par 4? ;)
Played a course with a few short and/or driveable 4s just the other day. Guy I was with was on or near every one of them and birdied none. Totally demoralized him - easy win for me. ;)
-
I must be missing something, because so many experienced golfers and top flight architects around here seem to think so. But to me: given than nothing in the world precludes an architect from finding/creating an interesting and challenging green on a hole of ANY length (any short/long Par 4, any Par 3 or Par 5), what sets the short 4 apart seems to be simply and solely the choice to hit less than driver off the tee.
Is that indeed it - is that the option most are praising? Because if it is, it doesn't seem to me all that interesting or difficult a decision -- and it's a decision made less and less interesting and difficult with each passing year, as technology has led to drivers (even the 10-15 year old driver I have) that are easier than ever to hit, and to golf balls that seem to keep driver shots as straight (or even straighter) than those hit by 3 woods or hybrids.
Peter:
I think what you are missing is that architects have to keep in mind what golfers will accept.
If I'd built the green for #7 at Ballyneal on a 410-yard par-4, it would be infamous and not famous, because a lot of golfers would be approaching with a 6-iron or a hybrid, and they would be the first to decry it as unfair. If I'd left the bumpy fairway on #16 at Pacific Dunes, and people had to hit a 5-iron from those lies and stances, many would call it unfair. I agree with you that those holes could be longer and they'd still be great holes, but fewer people would be on our side of that debate ... including possibly my client(s) for the project.
There is one other reason shorter can be better ... because the closer you can drive to the green from the tee, the more you can affect the angle of approach. That's key for a hole like #10 at Riviera; it could not be the same hole at 420 yards.
-
I have to say that this is one topic that I really don't understand, i.e. I don't understand the assumption that a short 4 (say 320-360 yards) is almost by definition more interesting than one of standard length, or that it almost automatically provides a much wider range of options/choices.
I must be missing something, because so many experienced golfers and top flight architects around here seem to think so. But to me: given than nothing in the world precludes an architect from finding/creating an interesting and challenging green on a hole of ANY length (any short/long Par 4, any Par 3 or Par 5), what sets the short 4 apart seems to be simply and solely the choice to hit less than driver off the tee.
Is that indeed it - is that the option most are praising? Because if it is, it doesn't seem to me all that interesting or difficult a decision -- and it's a decision made less and less interesting and difficult with each passing year, as technology has led to drivers (even the 10-15 year old driver I have) that are easier than ever to hit, and to golf balls that seem to keep driver shots as straight (or even straighter) than those hit by 3 woods or hybrids.
So, unless there's a centreline bunker right at the 250 yard marker, most of us will fire away with a driver (easy decision); and if there is such a centreline bunker 250 yards out, most of us will hit 3 wood or a hybrid (no choice at all). What's left then is basically an easier hole, which I'm certainly not against -- over the course of a round, and in terms of flow and feeling and pacing, it's good to have a mix of challenging and less challenging holes, including holes that an average golfer of average length might birdie as often as his more accomplished opponent. But then, let's look at short 4s in THOSE terms, i.e. (relatively) easier holes, than in terms of being strategically more interesting in and of themselves.
But again, I must be missing something, because I find little 'automatic' appeal to a short 4.
Peter
Peter : I agree that the length alone does not make a hole a good one. However, my impression is that these types of holes are being squeezed out to some extent in modern designs. I suspect it is because even shorter par fours are more frequently being built and are used as a replacement for drive and pitch par fours.
-
Jason --
Two good holes at Midland Hills (Nos. 1 and 8) would seem to fit your description.
I doubt if either of them would be built today.
-
Peter,
The other thing about them, in addition to variety and flow of the round, is that a well designed and maintained drive and pitch hole can be the most fun for the most people, particularly in match play.
-
When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole.
However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.
Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)
Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me. 12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)
Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)
Glad you did the research. I know Tom D has lamented many times on here the death of the sub 400, non-driveable par 4 (I am paraphrasing, obviously, Tom D's words speak for themselves, this is merely my interpretation).
As the wise Ian - he who should be Sir Ian by now - has noted, Oakmont does a wonderful job with "short" par 4s - ie par 4s that aren't really driveable, but are extremely interesting nonetheless. #2, #6, and #11 spring to mind - even #14 in some ways. Just another thing to admire about one of the world's best...
But again, I must be missing something, because I find little 'automatic' appeal to a short 4.
Peter
There's nothing "automatic" about it - hence the appeal... :)
-
Peter,
The other thing about them, in addition to variety and flow of the round, is that a well designed and maintained drive and pitch hole can be the most fun for the most people, particularly in match play.
Seconded -- and I will add:
Another beauty of the drive-and-short-iron hole is that it can play well (and similarly) for both men and women.
-
There is one other reason shorter can be better ... because the closer you can drive to the green from the tee, the more you can affect the angle of approach. That's key for a hole like #10 at Riviera; it could not be the same hole at 420 yards.
This.
-
When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole.
However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.
Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)
Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me. 12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)
Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)
I think there are several holes that fit the profile among C&C's courses in AZ. #4 and #18 at Talking Stick south. #7 and #16 at We-Ko-Pa Saguaro. All short but not drivable, giving multiple options off the tee.
-
The reason I like #14 at Cabo del Sol and holes like it...
1. The play from the tee is not cut and dried in any condition - I will hit anything between driver and 4 iron from the tee with only the 4-iron eliminated when into a hurting wind.
2. I stand on the tee trying to figure out how to make 4 (rather than 3) - On the card it looks like a breather hole at 350-360 but even when playing well I rarely step on the tee thinking birdie and am always happy to make 4 (unless I have just missed a 3-footer).
3. I have approached the green with as much as a 4 iron after placing the tee ball in the fariway - the tee shot may not have been perfect but the play was to avoid the trouble from the tee.
4. I have approached the hole with 5-iron from 135 yards - into the wind, sidehill lie with ball well above my feet and hole cut hard right. Shot must be knocked down and from that lie the long club, cut knock down was the best play... actually was playing with Noel Freeman who posts here I believe... he asked what I hit... "you DO NOT want to know" was the response
5. I have approached the green with a lob wedge and not felt comfortable playing directly at the hole even though the consequences were not dire, just that a 15-20 foot putt which was easily attainable was preferrable to the recovery shot assuming I did not pull off the approach and get it to 5 feet or so... scoring average is going to be far better playing to 15-20 feet versus going for it though nothing more than 5 is in the cards either way.
6. Only an idiot would attempt to drive the green which I suppose is possible for the likes of Bubba but offers little chance for success
I simply think it is a fantastic golf hole for all levels even if some big numbers are recorded by the higher handicappers.
-
Whitinsville #8 is a great example.
330 yard dogleg left.
Fairway is at a 45 degree angle guarded by 3 bunkers down the left side.
The green favors shots from the left side of the fairway.
So many options on the tee shot.
Try to hook a driver or 3-wood way down the fairway. Overcook it and you're in trouble. Block it and your angle to green suffers.
Hit a hybrid or long iron (if you're more accurate with those ;) )
Lay back with a mid iron to the beginning of the fairway. *This is my favorite feature of the hole* If you take this option, this part of the fairway is lower than the rest of the hole so your approach is blind.
I would happily play this hole over and over again. With my moderate length off the tee it offers me numerous strategic options. My guess is a big hitter who could hook/slice the ball might find it boring. I feel bad for that player. They're missing out.
~Evan
-
The reason I like #14 at Cabo del Sol and holes like it...
1. The play from the tee is not cut and dried in any condition - I will hit anything between driver and 4 iron from the tee with only the 4-iron eliminated when into a hurting wind.
2. I stand on the tee trying to figure out how to make 4 (rather than 3) - On the card it looks like a breather hole at 350-360 but even when playing well I rarely step on the tee thinking birdie and am always happy to make 4 (unless I have just missed a 3-footer).
3. I have approached the green with as much as a 4 iron after placing the tee ball in the fariway - the tee shot may not have been perfect but the play was to avoid the trouble from the tee.
4. I have approached the hole with 5-iron from 135 yards - into the wind, sidehill lie with ball well above my feet and hole cut hard right. Shot must be knocked down and from that lie the long club, cut knock down was the best play... actually was playing with Noel Freeman who posts here I believe... he asked what I hit... "you DO NOT want to know" was the response
5. I have approached the green with a lob wedge and not felt comfortable playing directly at the hole even though the consequences were not dire, just that a 15-20 foot putt which was easily attainable was preferrable to the recovery shot assuming I did not pull off the approach and get it to 5 feet or so... scoring average is going to be far better playing to 15-20 feet versus going for it though nothing more than 5 is in the cards either way.
6. Only an idiot would attempt to drive the green which I suppose is possible for the likes of Bubba but offers little chance for success
I simply think it is a fantastic golf hole for all levels even if some big numbers are recorded by the higher handicappers.
If more people understood the beauty of this post, there would be better golf today.
-
I like the "almost-driveable but not quite" par four. 350 yards I guess qualifies pretty well.
#3 at Augusta National is a good example and one I look forward to seeing every year. I love it because the green is so severe and the pin placement on a particular day may dictate strategy. It's fun to see guys play it differently every day based on that. The angle is really important, but it's also fun to decide whether you want to lay way back to 150, lay closer for an 80 yarder, or try to get as close to the green as you can and take your chances on a pitch or long chip.
I play a course with a lot of holes in this range, and it is fun trying to decide if I want to get close to the green or lay well back.
It's also fun to watch a player hitting a 50 or 60 yard shot. You feel like a shot of that length should not give you the trouble that it does.
-
Thanks, gents. Valid/helpful comments all. Still, what resonates most/makes most sense for me is the notion that a certain kind of very good green CAN be built on a short 4 that otherwise likely wouldn't be built on a longer hole.
(Of course, that doesn't mean that a certain kind of very good green WILL be built - and maybe that's one of the reasons for my lack of uptake here, i.e. perhaps I've played too many short 4s that were undistinguished by an interesting green, and thus were simply 'easier'.)
-
Thanks, gents. Valid/helpful comments all. Still, what resonates most/makes most sense for me is the notion that a certain kind of very good green CAN be built on a short 4 that otherwise likely wouldn't be built on a longer hole.
(Of course, that doesn't mean that a certain kind of very good green WILL be built - and maybe that's one of the reasons for my lack of uptake here, i.e. perhaps I've played too many short 4s that were undistinguished by an interesting green, and thus were simply 'easier'.)
PP, In fariness the green on 14 at CDS Ocean is nothing special in and of itself. It is more how it interacts with the rest of the golf hole that makes for a very interetsing 15 minutes (OK, in the name of Pat Mucci, 10 minutes) of golf. A wild green would likely detract from a shortish hole with so much else already going for it.
-
Olympia Fields has some very good 350yd holes. On the North , # 4and 5. Both require very accurate tee and approach shots. On the south course # 6 is as good a short par 4 as you will find anywhere .
-
There is one other reason shorter can be better ... because the closer you can drive to the green from the tee, the more you can affect the angle of approach. That's key for a hole like #10 at Riviera; it could not be the same hole at 420 yards.
This quote is spot on. I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range. Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short. Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer. The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.
Ciao
-
I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range. Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short. Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer. The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.
I agree with this. There is a MacKenzie quote where he laments committees always wanting to lengthen the dullest holes. His advice was to "shorten it and get it over with". :) But elsewhere he pointed out that common sense would dictate that as equipment changed, for every hole that got LESS interesting as it got shorter, there ought to be another hole that got MORE interesting. The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting".
-
When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole.
However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.
Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)
Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me. 12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)
Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)
Jason, you dont consider 14th at bandon trails here?
-
I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range. Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short. Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer. The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.
I agree with this. There is a MacKenzie quote where he laments committees always wanting to lengthen the dullest holes. His advice was to "shorten it and get it over with". :) But elsewhere he pointed out that common sense would dictate that as equipment changed, for every hole that got LESS interesting as it got shorter, there ought to be another hole that got MORE interesting. The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting".
Sean, Tom - thanks, good and pertinent exchange. But I'd suggest that it's not only changing technology that has led to hundrum holes. With newer/modern courses, there is also the issue of multiple tees to contend with. A 350 yard hole from the whites, for example, might be 385 from the blues and 410 from the blacks. And, since architects know that most average golfers will not play the correct set of tees (for their games), they tend to create less interesting greens than they would if there was only one set of tees. An architect who designs a green site that makes a 350 yard hole a great and challenging delight from the whites can expect a lot of criticism from all those average golfers who chose to play the hole from the blues or the blacks instead.
-
Things that make it worth turning on your computer in the morning:
"The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting". TD
Bob
-
Things that make it worth turning on your computer in the morning:
"The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting". TD
Bob,
I couldn't agree more.
For some reason, "difficulty" became a "gold standard" of sorts.
It's my belief that the golf magazines and TV were the culprit in replacing interest/fun with "difficulty"
Golfer's falsely equated "difficulty" with "quality"
And, once that happened, the local arms race was on.
Club after club tried to make their course more difficult.
Club after club beefed up the courses defenses anytime an outside tournament was held.
I think that's one of the reasons are areas where golf lost it's way and perhaps one of the reasons for a lack of interest.
What fun is it to play a dull 480 yard par 4
At 7:00 tonight, I played one of the most terrific 350 yard holes you could find, with my son, the 12th at Mountain Ridge.
It is such an incredibly interesting hole, from the tee, from the DZ, from around and on the green.
You have to THINK, from tee to green.
It's challenging, yet fun to play.
Golf needs to restore the interest and fun in the challenge, and not have a hole's sole reason for existing to be "difficulty"
End of rant ;D
-
I actually think there aren't enough holes in the 250ish to 350ish range. Much of the time the problem with 350ish yard holes, at least in GB&I, is many are old and at one time weren't considered short. Hence, many are rather humdrum holes without much to offer. The first thought many have is to lengthen these holes rather than find ways for its yardage to work in its favour.
I agree with this. There is a MacKenzie quote where he laments committees always wanting to lengthen the dullest holes. His advice was to "shorten it and get it over with". :) But elsewhere he pointed out that common sense would dictate that as equipment changed, for every hole that got LESS interesting as it got shorter, there ought to be another hole that got MORE interesting. The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting".
Sean, Tom - thanks, good and pertinent exchange. But I'd suggest that it's not only changing technology that has led to hundrum holes. With newer/modern courses, there is also the issue of multiple tees to contend with. A 350 yard hole from the whites, for example, might be 385 from the blues and 410 from the blacks. And, since architects know that most average golfers will not play the correct set of tees (for their games), they tend to create less interesting greens than they would if there was only one set of tees. An architect who designs a green site that makes a 350 yard hole a great and challenging delight from the whites can expect a lot of criticism from all those average golfers who chose to play the hole from the blues or the blacks instead.
Pietro
I agree with you, the mega multiple tee concept is for the most part one of the dopiest ideas to come along in modern architecture. The push has been to create playability through yardage rather than playability through features and angles. In effect, mega multiple tees has made it excusable to build endless 7000+ yard courses.
Ciao
-
Things that make it worth turning on your computer in the morning:
"The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting". TD
Bob,
I couldn't agree more.
For some reason, "difficulty" became a "gold standard" of sorts.
It's my belief that the golf magazines and TV were the culprit in replacing interest/fun with "difficulty"
Golfer's falsely equated "difficulty" with "quality"
And, once that happened, the local arms race was on.
Club after club tried to make their course more difficult.
Club after club beefed up the courses defenses anytime an outside tournament was held.
I think that's one of the reasons are areas where golf lost it's way and perhaps one of the reasons for a lack of interest.
What fun is it to play a dull 480 yard par 4
At 7:00 tonight, I played one of the most terrific 350 yard holes you could find, with my son, the 12th at Mountain Ridge.
It is such an incredibly interesting hole, from the tee, from the DZ, from around and on the green.
You have to THINK, from tee to green.
It's challenging, yet fun to play.
Golf needs to restore the interest and fun in the challenge, and not have a hole's sole reason for existing to be "difficulty"
End of rant ;D
So I assume this means you've cancelled your Golf Digest subscription as a matter of principal?
-
:)
When you talk about great short par fours, Flynn's work at Indian Creek has to be mentioned . I know not many people have played there so it can be hard to get a lot of feedback but it is just a gem .
When the greens get a little crusty and the wind blows , the 4th hole is so good . The green is canted such that trajectory and spin on the second shot are at a premium . It was a lot easier with the old balata ball ( for you old guys who remember them )
Although drivable par fours don't necessarily float my boat the 13th is quite a challenge , and discretion is certainly the right play day in and day out.
Flynn built these fabulous greens at Indian Creek that only accept the shots really well from the right angle. So, even though the golf course isn't long , the tee shots need to be in the right spot. Even short irons from the wrong angle don't work well here. I used to talk to one of our esteemed members here about the Flynn greens, which to me were often a series of big overlaid triangles. lots of conical fronts to the greens he built /designed.
Ray Floyd used to play there regularly in his prime, and I think the precise demands of Indian Creek were a big factor in his fantastic wedge and short iron play !
-
Jud T,
I never had a GD subscription, have you ?
-
I did. Till I cancelled it.
-
At 7:00 tonight, I played one of the most terrific 350 yard holes you could find, with my son, the 12th at Mountain Ridge.
It is such an incredibly interesting hole, from the tee, from the DZ, from around and on the green.
You have to THINK, from tee to green.
It's challenging, yet fun to play.
Did they end up removing the tree on the corner?
-
#17 at southern hills I think fits perfect for your description of great mid 300 yd par 4s. Creek right, trees left with a downhill fairway feeding into the creek to the right. Hitting to a small green overly bunkered. Great hole with driver or less off the tee.
-
At 7:00 tonight, I played one of the most terrific 350 yard holes you could find, with my son, the 12th at Mountain Ridge.
It is such an incredibly interesting hole, from the tee, from the DZ, from around and on the green.
You have to THINK, from tee to green.
It's challenging, yet fun to play.
Did they end up removing the tree on the corner?
Not yet, and unfortunately, neither Hurricane Sandy nor the winter storms took their toll.
Hope springs eternal that the FAA will bring about it's demise, sooner rather than later.
Tonight I had to hit a low cut driver underneath it in another match with my son, who was two over thru the first seven holes on the back nine, until poor club selection at the 17th green allowed his dear old dad to go one up......... and, that second shot driver on 18 preserved the one up win.
Now, we play without strokes, but, I can see him offering me a few by the time summer gets here.
I hope he beats me regularly, but, I'm not going to make it easy for him.
His golfing future is ahead of him.
Mine is behind me.
-
When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole.
However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.
Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)
Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me. 12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)
Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)
Glad you did the research. I know Tom D has lamented many times on here the death of the sub 400, non-driveable par 4 (I am paraphrasing, obviously, Tom D's words speak for themselves, this is merely my interpretation).
As the wise Ian - he who should be Sir Ian by now - has noted, Oakmont does a wonderful job with "short" par 4s - ie par 4s that aren't really driveable, but are extremely interesting nonetheless. #2, #6, and #11 spring to mind - even #14 in some ways. Just another thing to admire about one of the world's best...
But again, I must be missing something, because I find little 'automatic' appeal to a short 4.
Peter
There's nothing "automatic" about it - hence the appeal... :)
+1 on Oakmont. I loved the collection of sub 400 par 4s
-
When thinking about this issue before starting this thread, I lumped Doak and Coore together as both abandoning this type of hole.
However, based on checking the actual courses, it appears Doak features these holes more regularly than Coore/Crenshaw.
Streamsong Red – 0 (4 does not qualify to me. I lump it more in the driveable category, even though, as Tom notes above, most people have no chance at doing so)
Streamsong Blue – 2 (1, 6) (13 fits within the driveable category for me. 12 might fit the profile in the manner it played when I visited)
Bandon Trails – 0
Pacific Dunes - 2/3 (depending on how you classify 16)
I think there are several holes that fit the profile among C&C's courses in AZ. #4 and #18 at Talking Stick south. #7 and #16 at We-Ko-Pa Saguaro. All short but not drivable, giving multiple options off the tee.
How about 5 and 12 at Talking Stick North? Centerline hazards on both and neither driveable.
-
Things that make it worth turning on your computer in the morning:
"The problem is that few golfers can see past "difficult" to "interesting". TD
Bob
Actually I think it's not so much "difficulty" that's the issue, it's the lack of fairness and having a hole outwith the perceived notion of what a hole should look like.
Niall