[Gary Slatter]

Mike,

Great topic, and generally I agree. To be honest, I have always wondered why par 5 holes ever developed in the first place. I suspect it was to fit the land and for variety, but the second shot, which is hardly ever an attack shot on a true par 5, is not something I think we need to design for anymore, since its inherently weaker than a tee shot (set up or assist in basketball or hockey parlance)  or an approach shot.

I was discussing this yesterday, as a matter of fact, and kept thinking of the the Kurt Russel/Herb Brooks speech in Mircale on Ice about the vaunted Russian Hockey team.....

"Their time is over.....done.....screw 'em!"  I am starting to feel the same way about par 5 holes.

I agree mostly although I think you'll always find the odd piece of land that fits becoming a three shot hole. 
Many championships (men) are par 70s and it's usually a result of making two par fives into par fours).
However, to the average player,  par fives are still fun and challenging holes all the way.  And the third shot is not always easy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Gary,

I agree.  If you can build a good one, build a good one. I think we ought to just stop building them for the sake of building them.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think the 3rd shot is weak because we don't build enough wild greens. I can easily come up many different scenarios where a par 5 can be playable for everyone yet still hold enough interest as not to be described as weak. Its an opportunity to get a little crazy as the only other alternative is to build something so rigid that everyone has to hit their approach from the same area. The par 5 has fallen victim to formula of modern architecture with all the rules about greens slope and pinnable areas and how fast the transitions can move the ball and all the rest of that.
I think the 14th at WP is a good example of the type of par 5s we need more of. Plenty of room yet hazards to negotiate, some good areas to approach the flag from the fwy, reachable in the right conditions, room to recover, but a very tough green that requires either a surgeon's touch or enough smarts to just take your medicine and play away from the hole.

[Tim Gavrich]

Really interesting discussion.  I have always seen par 5s as the most naturally dramatic type of hole specifically because they often allow for the possibility of putting for eagle.  Short par 4s, in my experience, are rarely short enough for this to be a realistic possibility.  I think the problem is that on par 5s, architects don't often stretch out the tee yardages enough to give the mid-handicapper or the shorter hitter the opportunity to reach it in two.  For lower handicappers, par 5s up to 560 or do yards can be reachable, depending on wind and elevation change.  But on the vast majority of 560 yard par 5s I've seen, the next tee up is about 530 yards, which is absolutely unreachable for the majority of 7-15 handicappers.  In order to make the par 5 as thrilling for the higher handicapper as for the scratch player, that second tee shouldn't be any longer than 480-500 yards, IMO.  Also, mind you, that 480-500 number should be the upper limit for a par 5 for such golfers.  The mid-range number, I'd say, should be about 450-465 yards.

I also find a good par 5 to be a supreme strategic battleground in match play, especially if it's a hole that requires a more daring 2nd shot in order to reach the green.  The par 5 18th hole at Lexington G&CC, where my golf team practices most often, is a fantastic match play hole because it often requires a thoughtful decision, followed by great execution, if a player wants to go for the gusto and try to make 3.  Otherwise, a layup leaves a tricky uphill shot to a three-level geen and a tough 4.  Par 5s can certainly work, IMO.  They just need to be thoughtfully designed.

[Bill_McBride]

I think the 14th at WP is a good example of the type of par 5s we need more of. Plenty of room yet hazards to negotiate, some good areas to approach the flag from the fwy, reachable in the right conditions, room to recover, but a very tough green that requires either a surgeon's touch or enough smarts to just take your medicine and play away from the hole.

Don, has anyone ever reached that green in 2 from the back tee?  The fronting creek is certainly daunting!

[Phil_the_Author]

I think the problem here is in the unexpressed thought that every hole need have every stroke made on it be a challenging one. Why is this a requirement in the creation of a three-shotter that is able to challenge the accomplished player while it remains fun to play for the average one?

Here are two examples that fly in the face of this supposition, are quite different from each other, and which have, when the individual strokes are made well, at least one expected stroke that simply is not a major challenge. Both are on the same course yet are decidedly different in length, challenges offered, lay of the land and design.

The 4th hole at Bethpage Black is near-unanimously considered as one of the great par-fives on the planet. At 540 yards it is not overly long and theoretically should be reachable by good players in two shots, yet in the Open championship in 2002 not a single eagle was made on the hole by someone who reached the green in two and there but a handful made in 2009, and these are/were the best players in the world competing. For the very accomplished players a step below that level, the drive is not particularly daunting, but unless the approach shot is perfect one will be left with a long wedge that must carry a large area of rough and big, deep bunkers to a green that runs downhill and away from you, and that even if it is in the fairway. if it is struck even a bit wrong then it will find itself in deep rough and maybe even one of those bunkers. It takes two very good plays to leave oneself the easy third shot from directly right of the green, and even that is no gimme' as the slope of the green must be read well to get the pitch shot close.

A not difficult drive and a somewhat easy pitch and it is still one of the great holes in the world by anyone's standards and a wonderful challenge regardless of one's skill level.

The 13th hole on Bethpage Black. Again, here is a hole that also didn't give up a single eagle in 2002 from someone who reached the green in two and again, only a handful of them in 2009. Whether played from the front tees at 535 yards, the old back tees at 586 or the new championship tee at 640-660, this hole is not as much about length asn it is accuracy and risk/reward choices. The drive's landing area, even with the course set at "U.S. Open" widths is generously wide for even an average player. It is, once again the challenge if the second shot, that also sets this hole apart from Mike's theory. Even the big hitters have a go/no-go decision to make depending upon their drive, and often it is a dual one. For there are two potential lay-up areas to consider depending upon how the drive ended up. The large bunker on the left side that both protrudes into the fairway as rises up and out of the deep swale in the land also narrows down the landing area before and after it causing one who has any doubt of carrying it to lay up well shoprt of it, leaving a 170-190 yard third shot. If they try to carry it, they also need to be very accurate because the fairway, which is very narrow here, runs away at a slight angle making it effectively a much smaller target to hit. The big hitters who choose to take a run at it int wo face the large fairway bunker that must be carried on the fly. If the shot does so and is even a bit wayward, the player will end up in very heavy rough left, in another bunker right, or even worse, down a hill among trees further right.

Again, all these choices on a hole that has a remarkably easy driving challenge placed in front of the player standing on the tee.

Both these holes on a course designed more than 75 years ago. Maybe the answer lay in the fact that many of the ODG's (Old Dead Guys) simply were more creative in their ability to design long holes than most of the YLG's (Young Living Guys)...  

In all seriousness, I don't think that your premise is a strong one and believe that a well-designed three-shotter that it depends on three qualities, the same three qualities it always has:
1- The quality of the site.
2- The quality of the architect to envision the holes that the site may give him to create.
3- The quality of the owner/membership in their desire to have a course designed that will bring out the best course possible that the site has to offer regardless of challenge and difficulty.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think the 14th at WP is a good example of the type of par 5s we need more of. Plenty of room yet hazards to negotiate, some good areas to approach the flag from the fwy, reachable in the right conditions, room to recover, but a very tough green that requires either a surgeon's touch or enough smarts to just take your medicine and play away from the hole.

Don, has anyone ever reached that green in 2 from the back tee?  The fronting creek is certainly daunting!

Bill, every once in a while we get an east wind and if its been dry as well then it is reachable from the back tee. I've reached it once from back there. My son has reached it a few times but I think his scoring average on the hole is 7+. I do have a couple of buddies who carry + handicaps who have eagled the hole, but they've also made plenty of doubles. Its not all that hard to get over the creek but the tendency is to bail left where all the grass is,
 and a lot of the time you can't go at the pin from over there. Much better to be in the right bunker.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike

When we were designing and laying out the golf holes for The Rawls course at Texas Tech.  I had suggested to Doak to eliminate the par fives.  He told me that no one would go for that and including the NCAA if the golf course wanted to host a tournament. 

I find par fives very difficult to create since after the second shot 25 million golfers in America could be anywhere on the strip of land that is called a par five.  At least on a par three you know where the starting point is.

Jim:

I had forgotten you suggested that.  It's funny, because last week in Bandon some guy cornered me in the bar and said he had a revolutionary idea that would change golf ... to build a course with no par-5's!  At least I can tell him now somebody else thought of it first.

[Tom_Doak]

I am not in favor of eliminating the par five altogether, though.  In fact, I think if I built a championship course I would have MORE par-5 holes, not less.  I don't care what the winning score is in relation to par ... I just want to put long irons and hybrids in the Tour pros' hands because they are not used to it.

[Brent Hutto]

Aren't most "Par 5" holes half-shot holes for stronger player? And don't we revere half-shot holes around here?

If you like old-fashioned 200+ yard uphill Par 3's like a Pasatiempo and you like 300-ish yard Par 4's then it would seem reasonable to also like 450 yard Par 4's and 520 yard Par 5's for the same reasons.

[John Moore II]

In other words...the good player expects to hit a three metal or less into the GREEN on every par five.  And in most cases we have a too large margin of era for that shot...if we reduce the margin for era on the second shot to the point where it really has to be THOUGHT about then we  are getting somewhere....and as TD discusses in Reply#8...the green high miss is not penal enough...

You say pretty much the same thing that I said. There are very few par 5's that I can't reach or be very close to the green in two shots. So, the second shot needs to be thought provoking and then the thid needs to be played into an interesting green. Otherwise, they all become repetitive.

[Bill Brightly]

Mike,

I don't think the third shot needs to be a weak shot and I'll submit a few photos of really difficult 3rd shots:

Saucon Valley Old #15 (I'll tell you this player took the safe route to here: 3 wood off the tee, did not cut corner and challenge inside trap. Second shot was 5 wood down the hill short of bunker, not taking on narrow fairway even with the trap. But he has left himself a 160 yrd 3rd shot to two-tier green! )




#12 Plainfield




Baltustrol 17 (This is really the second shot, but you can see that the third will be no treat...Only picture I have.)





Ridgewood 8 West (#17 at the Barclay's)



Ridgewood 2 Center

[Bill_Yates]

Great topic!  Let's think about this for a minute.

I see the the design options this way, the "uninteresting" second shot could either go into a hazard (see above pics), or to a seemingly benign area of the fairway, an area that makes the probability of the third shot getting into trouble much more likely. 

For example Oakmont #12 has a cross bunker short left of the green on the high side of a sloping fairway.  The strategic second shot is over the cross bunker or just short of it - a risk/reward option that is visible and can be easily considered before pulling the trigger on your second shot. 

On the other hand, Pebble Beach #14 has no hazards in the second shot landing area, and givies the player no specific risk/reward target at all.  Landing anywhere the fairway seems at first undramatic.  However, in this case, it's the green design itself and the hole location for the day that are the key variables dictating where the second shot should be played.  It's not that the third shot at Pebble is a lesser shot, it's just that you won't find out how badly you placed your second shot (even though it landed in the fairway) until you try to play your impossible fourth shot from anywhere around the green.

[Mike_Young]

I am not in favor of eliminating the par five altogether, though.  In fact, I think if I built a championship course I would have MORE par-5 holes, not less.  I don't care what the winning score is in relation to par ... I just want to put long irons and hybrids in the Tour pros' hands because they are not used to it.

Agree....TD, your just a better wordsmith than myself.....long irons and hybrids....the best example i know is ANGC #13....if not on that green the only good approach is from in front...the left swale is extremely tough and can end up in creek for many of us..the back bunkers have to be played over a swale to the green and yet almost anyone can reach this hole in two which means that most will try....and thus many will bogey or double bogey much moreso than if they could not reach the hole.....but it is one of the only ways to get pros to play long irons and hybrids....just make the "miss" at least one shot penalty and a good possibility of two...then we have something....

[Peter Pallotta]

The last bunch of posts referenced a challenge for architects I hadn't thought of. I was thinking in terms of the challenge in building interesting par 5s that are in keeping with the ethos/style of the rest of the course; but the other challenge (especially for architects who aren't designing courses that will host PGA events) is that their thinking/designs for 14 or 15 holes is shaped by the games of the average golfers who'll play the course; and then suddenly for 3 or 4 holes (the Par 5s), they have to turn that thinking upside down in almost every way -- and either serve (and obviously serve) the rabbit/hack or serve (and obviously serve) his tiger/scratch opponent.  The former usualy makes for a bland Par 5; and the latter calls on architects to be more ruthless and mean than they like to be (except in their Walter Mitty moments...)

Peter  

[Roger Wolfe]

I wish this thread had been posted during US Open week.  We all got to see just how
"weak" the third shot to #14 was!

[John Moore II]

I am not in favor of eliminating the par five altogether, though.  In fact, I think if I built a championship course I would have MORE par-5 holes, not less.  I don't care what the winning score is in relation to par ... I just want to put long irons and hybrids in the Tour pros' hands because they are not used to it.

Couldn't you put long irons and hybrids in their hands with long par 4's and have it be more challenging? Just a thought. That more or less highlights the problem for par 5's. We've lengthened par 4's to the point that they are 550 yards in some cases and yet no one wants to lengthen par 5's very much. In person I've seen a 550 yard par 4 and on tv I've seen a 300 yard par 3. But the longest par 5 I've ever seen is about 675 yards. Thats a half wedge shot into the green, more or less, for the best players. No different than a 350 yard par 4 or an 80 yard par 3. Why don't we make a par 5 that requires Driver-3 wood-3 iron into the green, you know, like the yardage is supposed to require according to the USGA distance standards?

[Brad LeClair]

Philip:

I agree with you on both the 4th & 13th holes at BpB and if you hadn't posted, I was going to do the same!  It's interesting to me at least that Tilly proved u can defend the "lay-up" 2nd shot both with elevation / blind elements and also with angled / swale elements.  When playing my 2nd on the 13th from the fairway with 275 yards to go, I am more scared of missing the layup and usually try to hammer a 3wood over the tall tree at the left edge of the green.  I think misses are less penal when going for it vs. the layup albeit a much harder shot.

Brad

[BCrosby]

Ross said that the least interesting shot in golf was the lay-up on a par 5 that was unreachable. And most par 5's are unreachable for most players.

I take Jim's point that it is hard to design par 5 greens because of the range of possible locations from which approaches will be hit. That range on par 5's will always be much wider than on par 3's or 4's.

But that is a comment about the challenge to the designer (which is significant). It is not a comment about the interest and challenge of those approach shots themselves.

Following Ross, any shot that is intended to find the green will be inherently interesting. The less interesting shot - the one more in need of architectural juice - is the preceding shot - the second shot lay-up. Which is a shot played by 98% of golfers on 99% of par 5's.

Bob

    

[Mike Nuzzo]

Proof that Don lives by his words...

We have three 5s, they are all fun some say great.
The way Don plays (cross country) there are way more than that too...

[Tom_Doak]

I am not in favor of eliminating the par five altogether, though.  In fact, I think if I built a championship course I would have MORE par-5 holes, not less.  I don't care what the winning score is in relation to par ... I just want to put long irons and hybrids in the Tour pros' hands because they are not used to it.

Couldn't you put long irons and hybrids in their hands with long par 4's and have it be more challenging? Just a thought. That more or less highlights the problem for par 5's. We've lengthened par 4's to the point that they are 550 yards in some cases and yet no one wants to lengthen par 5's very much. In person I've seen a 550 yard par 4 and on tv I've seen a 300 yard par 3. But the longest par 5 I've ever seen is about 675 yards. Thats a half wedge shot into the green, more or less, for the best players. No different than a 350 yard par 4 or an 80 yard par 3. Why don't we make a par 5 that requires Driver-3 wood-3 iron into the green, you know, like the yardage is supposed to require according to the USGA distance standards?

John:

I think you misunderstood.  I was talking about building holes between 540 and 600 yards to get the pros to hit hybrids for their SECOND shots.  I know the scoring range will be mostly from eagles to pars, but that's okay with me as long as you are making them hit the long clubs a few times.  I normally take the position that par is irrelevant, but I do think that a 540-yard par-4 is ridiculous for 99.9% of people.

I would not be afraid to build a hole that took three full shots to reach the green, either.  The only problem is that in the modern day, to make them hit three woods, the hole would have to be up around 800 yards ... and then the USGA would call it a par six.

[Greg Tallman]

Mike,  I am of the belief that the second shot on par 5's, usually a lay up, is the weakest shot in golf.  It's generally between 150 and 200 yards.  The target is the width of the fairway.  Can someone name par 5s where the most challenging shot is the lay up?

Someone brought this up about links par 5s.  I thought the Machrihanish has by far the strongest set (that I've played in Scotland) because of the demanding nature of the second shots.

#2 - Cabo del Sol Ocean Course. This is the most confounding shot for me nearly every time I play the course. While this hole does not provide the eye candy of the remainder of the course it is a very, very strong par 5.

Heck now that I think about it the lay-ups at 2, 4 and 12 are all thought provoking shots that get one's attention.

[Rick Shefchik]

A short third shot into a par 5 isn't inherently less interesting than a short par 3 -- it's just that it takes you two previous shots to set up that short third, rather than just walking from the previous green and sticking your peg in the ground.

We try to add interest to short iron shots like this by making things more difficult around the green, but the real difference between a short par 3 and the third shot into a par 5 is the lie. On the par 3, it's always perfect (unless, perhaps, you're playing at a Jans-like beat-up muni); on the par 5, it could be uphill, downhill, sidehill or flat, depending on how skillful you are at placing your layup, and how contoured the fairway is. The par 5s at my home course (Stillwater C.C., Tom Vardon/Paul Coates 1924/1959) give you the opportunity for a flat, longer third shot, or an uneven shorter approach, depending on how you hit your second. There's some skill, strategy and interest there.

[John Moore II]

I am not in favor of eliminating the par five altogether, though.  In fact, I think if I built a championship course I would have MORE par-5 holes, not less.  I don't care what the winning score is in relation to par ... I just want to put long irons and hybrids in the Tour pros' hands because they are not used to it.

Couldn't you put long irons and hybrids in their hands with long par 4's and have it be more challenging? Just a thought. That more or less highlights the problem for par 5's. We've lengthened par 4's to the point that they are 550 yards in some cases and yet no one wants to lengthen par 5's very much. In person I've seen a 550 yard par 4 and on tv I've seen a 300 yard par 3. But the longest par 5 I've ever seen is about 675 yards. Thats a half wedge shot into the green, more or less, for the best players. No different than a 350 yard par 4 or an 80 yard par 3. Why don't we make a par 5 that requires Driver-3 wood-3 iron into the green, you know, like the yardage is supposed to require according to the USGA distance standards?

John:

I think you misunderstood.  I was talking about building holes between 540 and 600 yards to get the pros to hit hybrids for their SECOND shots.  I know the scoring range will be mostly from eagles to pars, but that's okay with me as long as you are making them hit the long clubs a few times.  I normally take the position that par is irrelevant, but I do think that a 540-yard par-4 is ridiculous for 99.9% of people.

I would not be afraid to build a hole that took three full shots to reach the green, either.  The only problem is that in the modern day, to make them hit three woods, the hole would have to be up around 800 yards ... and then the USGA would call it a par six.

Then the USGA needs to stop having two standards, calling 300 yard holes par 3's and 540+ yard holes par 4's. The standard says 250 and 470. Either keep the standard and use it at all times (pretty useless since today 470 yards is driver-8 iron, or less), change the standard to meet today's game, or just do away with any standard and let people build holes however they want to build them. I say do away with the distance standard and make holes however you want to make them.  And I fully understood what you meant initially, I was just saying that why build par 5's that are specifically designed to be hit in two shots? If a hole is reachable by 75% of a given group in two shots, doesn't that make it a par 4? And sorry to be a bad guy, but 13 and 15 at ANGC are no more par 5's anymore than the 14th that sits in between them (not exactly related to this, but still valid).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()