[Patrick_Mucci]

Which great golf courses have the weakest set of par 5's ?

Which great golf courses have the weakest set of par 3's ?

Which not so great courses have a great set of par 5's ?

Which not so great courses have a great set of par 3's ?

Lastly, what makes them great or weak ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:  I played the West course at Royal Melbourne a couple of months ago with Michael Clayton and my two interns.  We all believe it's one of the great courses of the world, but we all agreed that all four of its par-5 holes are "weak" ... not one of them is even 500 yards long.

(The fourth and twelfth holes of the West course are converted to par-4's for major events; the second is played as a short par 5; and the fifteenth hole is not used on the Composite course, replaced by the long seventeenth on the East.)

They are all very good holes for the 3-10 handicap who will have some chance to go for the green with a long club if he flirts with a bunker off the tee (on all except the 15th); but they are driver-7 iron for Tour pros and (except #4 West) pretty simple three-shot holes with acres of fairway for the average member.

The fourth on the West is one of my favorite holes in golf, but the other three are just okay ... and yet they do little to diminish my impression of Royal Melbourne as a whole.  What does that mean?

By contrast, I can't imagine a great course with a weak set of par-3's.  The only one that comes to mind is the Old Course at St. Andrews, which has only two ... one of which is mediocre, but the other possibly the best short hole on this planet.

[Bill_McBride]

Similarly, the par 5s at The Valley Club of Montecito are not its strongest feature.   Number one is a MacKenzie "get away" par 5, 480 slightly downhill.  Number two is very challenging, dogleg left with a steeply sloped small, well bunkered green.  Number ten has the hillside problem, can be very simple with a strong tee ball up the left which may or may not bounce down into good position to reach the green.  Number fifteen is a strong hole with great spectacle bunkers which is now reachable with modern equipment (saw Fred Couples hit what looked like five or six iron).  But the great sets of par 4s and par 3s more than make up, and the par 5s add a lot of spice with scoring opportunities.  

[Steve Lapper]

The arguement could be made that Cypress Point's par 5's are relatively weak....thoughts???

[Joel_Stewart]

I agree that Cypress par 5's are weak and I would add San Francisco's par 5's are not that interesting.

Wannamoisett is a great course with only one par 5 and its not that great.

As for par 3's, I think its difficult for a great course not to have great one shotters.  Personally I don't think the par 3's at Olympic are that great except for #3.

[GeoffreyC]

Winged Foot West- weak par 5's

Westchester CC West - weak par 5's

Yale- weak par 5's

[Evan_Green]

Geoffrey-

Re: Winged Foot having weak par 5's- how about considering  9 and 16 as great par 4's and the fact that #12 is having 100 yards added to it to make it a 625 yard beast.

Joel-

Re O Club par 3's - i agree that #8 is not great (the weakest hole on the course in my opinion and they should move the tee over near the 4th tee to make it a 200+ yard great hole)- however i think 13 is a solid hole and 15 is quite interesting with its raised green and cavernous bunkers- and of course #3 is a truly all world great hole- they arent the best set of par 3's in the work, but I wouldnt call them weak.

[brad_miller]

3 of my favorite Tillie par 5's are #9 at SFGC, #3 at Fenway and #5 at WFW.

[BCrosby]

Geoffrey -

Man, you are tough. Yale's 18th makes up for the weakness of any other par 5 on the course. A terrific hole. A world class hole. Plus, I don't think 16 deserves the criticism it gets. Some interesting slopes in the landing areas make it play much tougher than the seemingly benign hole you see from the tee. (Is the present 16 a Raynor hole?)

Pat -

PII's two par 5's (as set up by the USGA) were the least interesting holes on the course.

Bob

[GeoffreyC]

Evan- I feel that WFW is the reason people mistakenly thought that Tillinghast didn't build great par 5's. Call 9 and 16 whatever you want but 5 and 12 are not at the same level as the par 4's or especially the 3's on that course.  The level of excellence of WFW does NOT come from its 5 pars!

Sorry Brad but I think 12 is way better then 5. What elements of that hole other then a green typical of the rest lead you to that conclusion?

Bob-  #16 at Yale is by far the most pedestrian hole on the course.  A way to get to the great 17th tee shot over the saddle. It is an original Raynor except a superintendent built a new green beyond and to the right of the original.  It was originally flush up against a swamp on the left that served as a hazaard for the 2nd or 3rd shots.  It was a MUCH better hole and there was room back then for a back tee (now in play) to make the hole 550.  It would be great with the original green, hazard to the left and playing 520-530 instead.  Needless to say the original greensite was reasonably intact until a few weeks ago when that great restoration artist Roger Rulewich took his bulldozer and vanqished all evidence forever       .  What an A%%h##e he is!

I love #18 but it is controversial and its current maintenance is a joke that leads to unfair loss of ball situations.  Again, the 5 pars at Yale are not up to the same standard as the 4 and 3 pars.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()