[Mark_F]

My second course on the meanderings and travails of Mark Ferguson, Esquire, was Burnham and Berrow, in Somerset.

I thought it was a terrific course, lots of inspiring tee shots over or through dunes, a nice mixture of greens, some plateua, even a punchbowl, but I thought the course suffered dreadfully from only having one decent par five, the 13th.  

The others neither required a pinpoint drive in the manner of the par fours, and the greens were pretty innocuous as well.  

The par threes, in particular the ninth and fourteenth, were the equal, to me, of the famed seventeenth, and quite memorable holes.

Great short par fours also tend to stand out in many minds, but why is it so hard to find a quality set of par fives?  After all, even if there is only 480-500 yards or so, especially in the tumbling dunesland of Burnham, a savvy architect can create a memorable hole that tests all facets of the game.

If there is only one great par five to be found, is it better to have only the one?

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

If you attach extra value to things which are rare, then a great par five is worth a lot.  There are certainly fewer of them in the world than great 3's or 4's.

However, I disagree with those who insist on a certain number of par-5 holes as part of their formula for what makes a course great.  It IS hard to design a great par-5 on undulating terrain and in a windy spot.  If the designer can't find one which works well, wouldn't you rather have a really good par-4 in that spot instead of a yawner of a par five?

Two good par fives in a round is plenty for my tastes ... a la Crystal Downs and Pine Valley.  One is acceptable [Rye, West Sussex, etc.].  I've only seen one course with three great par-5 holes ... Muirfield.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom Doak et al,

Please elaborate on the difficult of designing par fives.  I don't disagree - I just don't understand why.

Thanks,

Mike

[Wayne Freeman]

These are the kinds of discussions that I think make this site fantastic.---
                     Tom-  why do  you have to only have great par 5's to have a great course.  I like the idea of easing you into the round -  this is seen at our big 3 here-  Bel-Air, LACC, and Riviera. Colonial is another example that comes to mind. None are out of this world ( although the drive at Riv is pretty spectacular). And I think it's nice to have a couple of solid par 5's in a round that give most golfers a chance to make a 4.  

[Mark Brown]

I think mid and high handicappers like 3 or 4 par-fives, as well as short par-fours because they feel like they have a shot at a birdie. I like one short par-three that's do-or-die like 10 at Pine Valley, and no. 8 at PV is a great example of a do-or-die short par-four. You know it's really good (or bad) if you start thinking about it after the first hole.

Long Cove has a pretty good set of 3 par-fives, as does the TPC at Sawgrass 9,11,16 (2 isn't great). You can make eagle or double on 2 of them. The suspense is what makes them both fun and great.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike H:  The tough part about designing par-5 holes is that you have no idea where a player will be for his third shot.  Some will still be 225 yards from the green; others 100 yards; and a few will be chipping or putting!  It's hard to make a hole interesting for that wide a range of potential approaches.

The other problem is simply that of visibility.  Most people want to be able to see the target area clearly for each of their shots, but on undulating ground this is not always possible.  On my favorite par-5 in golf, the 8th at Crystal Downs, the second shot is often blind, although you have a tree on the corner and some landmarks on the horizon to guide you.

Wayne:  I've started several of my courses with par-five holes, but playing them has soured me on the notion.  If they're too short they hold up play because someone in every group thinks he's going to hit the green in two; if they're reasonably difficult then a missed shot may put a six on the card right out of the blocks.  That isn't a problem at LACC or Bel Air because they're not that busy.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Bravo TD, then for having 3 5s on the back at Pacific Dunes. If that is what worked best with terrain and routing. Personally I have no problem with the par 5 which is drive followed by short par 4 (for mortals). So long as it is not just plain dull. I enjoy the multiple choices they offer with club selection, players have an opportunity to play to their strengths (T Watson in his prime used to lay up to 8 iron distance), I'm currently playing my local bete noir with a pair of 2 irons and a short iron.

[Mike Hendren]

Thanks, Tom.  Your first point was lost on me but makes perfect sense.  

If I interpret your second reason correctly, it is more about the consumer (what people want/don't want or like/don't like) and less about architectural merit?


Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()