[Keith OHalloran]

On the Sand Hills, vs Riviera thread, the fourteenth at Sand Hills is mentioned as a great "half par" hole.  The status refers to the fact that you can make a 4 on the hole in a reasonable amount of the time you play it.
On the same thread, the 13th is called prohibitively hard. The thirteenth at Sand Hills is very hard especially from the Diamond tees, where a golfer has to hit a long iron/hybrid/wood/driver depending on the wind to a tough green. Bunkers surround the sides of the green, making the shot even more intimidating. There is a slope short of the green that will repel balls down to a flat area of grass. On the tee side of the cart path, there is even a pristine fairway that not  many have hit off.
The question is, why don't more people hit the ball intentionally short of this green, land on the flat area, and chip up? You would almost guarantee yourself a 4 and have a shot at 3.  What makes this hole too hard instead of a great half par hole?

[Chris Johnston]

The proper shot on 13 at SHGC is landing on the front of the green over the center of the left front bunker from 216 yards uphill.  Hitting short with any spin and you are well down the front with an uncomfortable pitch.  Off the back and you have a long and tricky uphill chip.  Heck, I've hit close to the middle and gone off the front and off the back due to wind and the very exposed green.  Par is a good score.

After the false front, the green slopes from front to back so chipping is not easy.

This is definately a 3-1/2 followed by 14 as a 4-3/4.  Both fun holes.  14 ain't as easy as some here may believe- green is small and steep from back to front.

[Adam Clayman]

Regardless of score the 14th green at SH is pure beauty. It is easily a green site that makes you feel why golf in a natural setting is and will always be the pinnacle of what great golf course architecture is. Art. 

[Ronald Montesano]

I maintain that the debate is over which side of par the half inclines...1/2 stroke difficulter versus 1/2 stroke easier

[Keith OHalloran]

Ron,
I would tend to agree, but would like your opinion on the 16th at Cypress. I have not played it, but it seems that for some shorter hitters, it can be a lay up to the fairway and a pitch.  If this can be considered a half par hole (maybe it isn't), why is this an "over" hole that is beloved? Does it come down purely to setting?

[Phil Benedict]

I maintain that the debate is over which side of par the half inclines...1/2 stroke difficulter versus 1/2 stroke easier

The overwhelming preference is for holes that are 1/2 stroke easier. 

I think these holes are great if an over par score is a real possibility if you fail to execute the aggressive strategy.  The 10th of Riviera is great because if you go for the green and miss in the wrong spot par becomes a challenge becomes a challenge because the target is so narrow.

[Doug Siebert]

There are plenty of popular half par over holes....the Road Hole is a good example (I find the Road Hole is a good example of about half the things that GCA discusses )  Heck, even Hell back before technology rendered Hell Bunker a non-factor for reasonably long hitters (you don't even need to be tour length for it to be a non-factor since non-pros aren't playing the 600 yard version)  Obviously these days TOC is full of the under version of half par holes, but even courses that have been outdated by technology such as Prestwick still have very strong par 4s such as 13 that due to the prevailing wind are essentially over half par holes.

I wouldn't include #16 CPC because its pretty uninteresting and unstrategic for short hitters, who have only the layup but not the "try to reach the green even if I have to take a driver and see if I can up and down if I fail" option because the heroic carry makes that pretty poor odds from a strategic POV.  It may be stunning, but its definitely not a poster child for half par holes.

There aren't a lot of over half par 3s anymore, because 250 yard par 3s were for some reason completely accepted back in days when far fewer golfers were capable of 250 yard drives than are today capable of 300 yard drives, but today the idea of par 3s where a player needs a fairway wood or driver is seen as unfair by most golfers.

[Scott Warren]

For me a half par hole should offer a reasonably straightforward way to make the score that is .5 of a shot over "par", but such a combination of temptation and possible disaster that you feel a huge lure to go for the score .5 or even 1.5 under "par" and quite possible end up making 1.5 or 2.5 over "par"...

A hole like 13 at The Addington, 5 at Pine Valley, 4 at Riviera, 12 and 15 at Swinley, 4 at Sandwich, 17 at TOC... all great holes that play a half shot harder than par, where bogey is quite straightforward, but pursuit of the lower score can easily result in double or triple.

[Kyle Harris]

A good half-par hole separates the "field."

When erring on upper half, a player loses a shot to the field, when erring on the lower half, the players gains one.

Half-par holes are especially effective when they break up a stretch of otherwise stout holes, therefore placing a sense of urgency on the shot. Think where the 13th at Augusta National lay in the context of the holes immediately before and after.

[Sean_A]

Light (ie 300 yard par 4s etc) half par holes are best when they come at the right time in the round and are used as a balance against heavy half (ie 275 yard par 3s etc) par holes and vice versa.  Sure, all this business of score spread and great strategic options is fine and dandy, but if the hole is decent that will come naturally.  Its not as if archies just build total crap - thats all just bluster from board members.  If the hole isn't decent it doesn't matter what we call it.  We have to remember that half par holes don't have to be awesome or the most memorable.  They have their own intrinsic value that is either respected or not.  Thankfully, tech has made the concept of half par holes come alive for a great many more golfers.

Ciao

[Scott Szabo]

When Ballyneal first opened I made the comment that I thought the green at the 6th was just too tough given that the hole was already 480 yards in length.  That's when Tom Doak stated that he considered the hole to be a par 4 1/2.  I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I believe he said that into the wind, the hole won't be reached in two shots and the contours are fine for a short third. 

After playing the hole quite a few times the past few years, I'm not so sure it isn't more of a par 5 1/2!  I've personally made a mess of the hole on more than one occasion, and saw it happen repeatedly at this year's Yucca.

[Scott Szabo]

.

[Will MacEwen]

I maintain that the debate is over which side of par the half inclines...1/2 stroke difficulter versus 1/2 stroke easier

The overwhelming preference is for holes that are 1/2 stroke easier. 

I think these holes are great if an over par score is a real possibility if you fail to execute the aggressive strategy.  The 10th of Riviera is great because if you go for the green and miss in the wrong spot par becomes a challenge becomes a challenge because the target is so narrow.

I'm always a little more pleased with a par on the overs than a birdie on the unders - it seems like a tougher test to meet. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()