News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2014, 07:39:26 AM »
Jud T,

I never had a GD subscription, have you ?

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2014, 07:41:53 AM »
I did.  Till I cancelled it.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2014, 12:57:32 PM »
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?
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Marc Huther

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2014, 01:05:15 PM »
#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.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2014, 08:55:40 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2014, 12:05:13 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2014, 11:54:32 PM »
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

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2014, 10:14:36 AM »
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.   

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 350 yard Par 4's
« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2014, 10:22:18 AM »
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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back