[Jeff_Brauer]

I woke up this morning thinking about par 5 design....then about peeing....and then to making coffee, but then RIGHT BACK to par 5 design, I swear!

I don't want to direct the discussion too much, but I was thinking about what kind of holes and features within that hole make an ideal par 5 for you, allowing for the fact that there would be a mix, etc.  I am just asking what you like to see, off the top of your head.  (or the bottom, really doesn't matter!)

For instance, on a true 3 shotter vs. a reachable, should the tee shot be wider or narrower?

What second shot strategies do you like to see?  Should bunkering force vertical (i.e. distance decisions) or accuracy (lateral decisions?)

Greens smaller, larger?  More contoured or less?  More shape of ovals?

Just trying to get us back on topic, and not talk economics.....of course, tomorrow might be a big day for OT discussions, so this might go nowhere!

Have at it!

[Kyle Harris]

I like par 5s that make me shape shots. Rolling and tumbling terrain. I want to stand over a second shot with the question being posed that I have to shape a shot, and choose the correct trajectory to either reach the green in two or to put myself in a good position to approach the green for birdie.

Club selection isn't nearly as important to me on the second shot as trajectory control and shot shape. Make it so I'm deciding between a 7-iron or 3-wood, and that both options are equally appetizing.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

As you may remember, my favorite par-5 at Crystal Downs has got nothing between tee and green but a lot of contour [and one big tree inside the dogleg]. 

The two things I love about that hole are the risk of trying to play a long second shot off a weird lie or stance, and the reward for positioning your second shot on a particular piece of contour ... both of which will remain valid for years to come, no matter what happens on the equipment front.

[Kyle Henderson]

For instance, on a true 3 shotter vs. a reachable, should the tee shot be wider or narrower?

Generally speaking, I prefer wider fairways with a preffered side which is guarded by a hazard. Thus, one who successfully challenges the hazard will have a better chance of reaching the green in two or laying up safely.



 Should bunkering force vertical (i.e. distance decisions) or accuracy (lateral decisions?)

Diagonal hazards that force both  (i.e. farther left = farther to carry trouble)




Greens smaller, larger? 
Large enough to accept a well struck approach with a longer club.  Around the green, short grass with green tilted towards that side, bunkers opposite to create varying degrees of penalty for riskier/safer errant shots.

More contoured or less?
Depends. I detest holes that funnel everyone's drives and/or approaches to the same spot. I enjoy holes that feature turbo boosts for well-placed drives.

More shape or ovals?

No ovals.


Some of my favorite par 5s: Sand Hills # 1 and 16, Ballyneal # 8, Tobacco Road # 4, MPCC-Shore # 10, Lakota Canyon # 5, Morgan Creek # 5, 12 and 15

[Ian_L]

Could it be said that the key to a good par-5 is providing an interesting second shot, beyond the simple risk/reward of going for the green in two?  Some of the most fun par-5's I have played have choices on the layup shot (I lay up on most par 5's so I might be biased), either with hazards around the landing area or risk/reward on the layup itself.  I have particularly enjoyed diagonal water hazards that give the player the option of laying up short of it for a full iron to the green or negotiating it to get a pitch shot to the green.

[Anthony Gray]

  Jeff,


  I prefer risk/reward off the tee. The result would be the possibility of getting home in two with a well placed drive or double boogy with a bad one. But a conservitive approach results in an easy par.


    I do want to compliment you on your thoughts while urinating. A true conniseur of the game!!

[Will MacEwen]

As much as it doesn't help my score, I don't mind one tough par 5.  In the winter, #18 at Pacific Dunes is tough, even in no wind or little wind.  A 5 takes some work.  It makes for gruelling fun.

Courses are full of 3s and 4s that are tough pars - 5s, not so much.

[Jeff_Brauer]

  Jeff,


  I do want to compliment you on your thoughts while urinating. A true conniseur of the game!!

I played Muirfield with Pete Dye once and found the urinal after the round.  Pete follows me in, and says "I ain't standing next to you...the way you putted you're probably going to miss this one left, too!"

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

One of the elements I feel strongly about is that if a hole provides for the strong player to reach the green in two blows albeit with a bit of high risk should he fail -- the player who opts for the shorter 2nd shot and thereby leaving a wegde or its equivalent for a 3rd shot -- that person should not automatically get a far easier and no risk element with such a play.

Far too often the architect defends the green from two blows for the strong player but when the hole is played as a three-shot situation the 2nd and following 3rd shot to the green is really benign to the point of being quite simple and elementary from a design perspective.

Much of this is tied to angles. For example, the 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch by Jim Engh provides for a range of different shots and even the supposed "safe" play doesn't absolve the player in facing some sor of risk as well -- albeit far less than a player who opts for the green in two blows but nonetheless still present proportionally.

I concur with what Ian mentioned in his post.

Let me also point out that having uneven lies is also a nice touch -- esepcially when you have wide fairway so that getting to the optimum location is still a necessity. I like spine fairways which will propel balls to either side. The worst thing to have is a dead flat fairway because positioning to either side is irrelevant -- you get the same advantage / disadvantage no matter what. Doak's comments are spot on.

I would also make the putting surfaces favor certain positions when approaching from different spots. Those who opt for the safe 3rd shot into the hole should still face a delicate play -- too often the attention is only placed on the player going for the green in two blows. I like par-5 holes with specific "mini" greens within the larger one. The 16th at Black Mesa is quite severe but it does the trick quite well. It makes the player think very carefully about where to place the shot -- hitting the green alone is not just sufficient.

One final thing -- I like what Kidd did with the 2nd at Tetherow - great turning right hole which features a speed slot for those who dare to hit it. You can play the hole in a safe manner - which is good for those who don't want to take on the risk -- but the speed slot does funnel the ball much further down the fairway -- but there's no automatic approach because you still have to hit a capable approach. Those who lay back need to get to a optimum angle for their 3rd.

Last item -- I don't like rough grass around the greens -- let me be cut to fairway height or less. The 1st at Greywalls at The Marquette Club is a great example. The green is quite narrow and deep which forces a solid play with the approach -- especially when coming into the target from anywhere beyond 200 yards. Should you pull or push the approach the green can and will funnel the ball further and further away. Rough grass along the green only serves as a backstop and makes it easier for the better player to use the lob wedge and walk away with a birdie at least 50% of the time. If you have tee shot funnels - then you need green area funnels -- the kind where the ball will run out to when not played well.

[Lester George]

Jeff,

I am really fond of multiple routes with interrupted second landing areas. 

Lester

[Mark_Rowlinson]

A good par 5 is surely a hole which holds interest throughout the enitrety of the hole for every level of player. While the good player is faced with the can-I-get-there?/should-I-lay-up? dilemma the chap who drives only 180-200 yards is still given decisions to make during his 4-shots-to-the-green route. And how interesting is the hole for the lady golfer who doesn't even hit the ball 180-200 yards?

The 5th and 14th at St Andrews seem to have the necessary qualities.

[John Kirk]

Jeff:

As you may remember, my favorite par-5 at Crystal Downs has got nothing between tee and green but a lot of contour [and one big tree inside the dogleg]. 

The two things I love about that hole are the risk of trying to play a long second shot off a weird lie or stance, and the reward for positioning your second shot on a particular piece of contour ... both of which will remain valid for years to come, no matter what happens on the equipment front.

I have a question, Tom.

I've played Crystal Downs three times.   On the 8th hole, it seemed to me no significant "flat spot" worth shooting for on the second shot existed.  Two times I ended up about 135-140 yards away, with a reasonably flat stance.

1.  Is there a flat spot you shoot for?

2.  Would you, or have you designed a hole where you leave the ground undisturbed, if no best "flat spot" exists?

Thanks in advance.

[John Kirk]

Jeff,

I am really fond of multiple routes with interrupted second landing areas. 

Lester

I noticed.  Kinloch #9 and #11 have this feature.  In fact, doesn't the last par 5 at Ballyhack also share this trait?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

You say "One of the elements I feel strongly about is that if a hole provides for the strong player to reach the green in two blows."

I think I provide that kind of par 5.  At least, I recently overheard some comments about my par 5s and something about "real blows."  Or, was that 'really blows?" 

It is interesting that you advocate larger greens for varied third shots.  Lately, I have been using more of those.  I also try for more intimidation on the bunkers, for example, finding that a solid bunker edge along the top, rather than the curvy cape and bay just looks a little more fearsome with a wedge in hand.....

[archie_struthers]

 

Par fives give the architect a wide range of liberties....but for me the key is to get the player thinking...

First to the tee shot ...It's fun to hit driver ...but it should be important to challenge the players ability to hit it  stragiht and not just far ...pick the right angle and it makes the second shot easier...perhaps giving you a shot at the green or an easier play on the layup ...ie. let you play into a slope and , which makes distance control easier

Reachable par fives are great ...they add excitement to the game , but  on short par fives should be difficult if you miss left or right ...not just long or short....this adds to  creativity and rewards good course management!

..water..while a great visual feature tends to be overused as a hazard....use it for beauty more than stategy...I'm a pace of play nut ....can't help it ...and the overuse of agua as an impediment to scoring is anathama to me ...obviously there are exceptions to every rule...such as the fabulous par fives at Augusta (13 & 15 )  but as a rule ...I'm for less water in the target areas

I'm not for rules as to green sizes relative to length of hole...but ....you should  (note should )  match the green to the shot that you are expecting to see a majority of the time...ie on a tough to reach par five where you expect a lot of lay-ups and medium to short third shots ...I'd suggest a smaller green works best ...it fits the eye much better...likewise if you have a hole designed that will challenge many of the players to even reach in three ...you need to allow some room to run the ball into the green...long forced carries from more than 175 yards don't  do it for me..

that s a good start ...I'm anxious to read other thoughts on same and elaborate !

"Archie"

[Dan Kelly]

As a guy who almost never reaches a par-5 in two:

I like HUGE greens on reachable par-5s, so that the big bombers will occasionally have REALLY long two-putts for their birdies.

[Lester George]

John,

You are correct.  All of those, and others I have done have those traits.  I just think it inspires thought and adds challenge.  I guess I have been doing this long enough to have fallen upon a "philosophy".

Lester

[Jeff_Brauer]

Archie,

Does "AGUA" stand for American Golfers Underwater Association?

[Jim Franklin]

One of my favorite par 5s anywhere is #18 at Flint Hills National. It is a great risk/reward hole. The tee shot has water down the left and this water continuesdown the left side and you 2nd and, if you lay up, your 3rd shot need to go over this water. The cool part of thehole is there is a tree that needs to be challenged with the second shot. If you do not want to challenge it, you lay up further up the fairway. It is a very cool, fun hole to play.

[Sean_A]

Some of the best par 5s require position first and distance second off the tee.  For those who are in position and far enough down the fairway, I really like what I call do or don't die shots.  Its the sort of shot where trajectory and line mean everything (as Kyle suggests) - even if you do come up short with the approach you are sitting in good position for the 3rd.  If you don't hit a proper second you are in trouble for making par, but not so much trouble for bogey - if you aren't greedy and know when to take your lumps.  For the rabbit, the second should offer a clear advantage for making the smart positional play which isn't necessarily based on distance.  Of course, their 3rd would entail much the same risk as the low capper going for the green in two, but with proportionally less club in hand.  I spose the hole I am envisioning as I describe this is Addington's 16th. 

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


Jeff....  good one  !  A esthetic  G olf    U se   A  rea   


     gotta work on this one

cheers   

[Philippe Binette]

To me, I love par 5's that put pressure on the tee shots, (I don't mean stupid pressure like a lake that will force you to play safe, I mean something that would take an exacting shot to hit the fairway).

From then, I'll focus on green strategy. I don't care if some players have a 6 iron to go to the green after a well executed 300 yards tee shot. I don't want the approach to be penal, but once again, make the green so if you hit the ball 40 feet from the hole in 2, it's not gimme birdie.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I think greens need to be large to handle general wear and tear -- however ...

such greens can really have smaller sub-greens which provide a compact area for putts within that paritcular zone -- should you hit a shot outside the immediate "zone" the need to skillfully negotiate a two-putt for the birdie is going to be tested.

Jeff, I say bag the bunkers -- Jim Engh did extremely well at Four Mile Ranch with NO bunkers. Bunkers for the better player are the next best landing area -- short of the actual green itself. I would create more false fronts and for drop-offs to the sides which can be rather extreme.

Going for the green in two should not be an automatic proposition for the longer player but I am a fierce advocate in stressing that those players who lay up should not be left with a 101 level design approach either.

It is interesting that you advocate larger greens for varied third shots.  Lately, I have been using more of those.  I also try for more intimidation on the bunkers, for example, finding that a solid bunker edge along the top, rather than the curvy cape and bay just looks a little more fearsome with a wedge in hand.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()