The five par-5 and five par-3 course set-up

[Matt_Ward]

It seems a number of courses I have played in the last few year are beginning to move towards an 18-hole alignment that includes five par-5's and five par-3's. The overall par remains at 72, however, the total number of par-4's drops from ten to eight.

Jim Engh and Tom Weiskopf are two of the architects where this happens in a few of their efforts -- I'm sure I can mention others who seem bent in doing this. Lakota Canyon Ranch in New Castle, CO -- an Engh design -- is the latest such example I've played with this format of holes.

Part of the rationale I have heard is that including moe par-5's and par-3's is meant to make the game more fun and interesting for the average player.

There is the notion that par-4's are really not as "interesting" and fail to provide the same kind of thrill that par-5's and par-3's can. I have to wonder if designing five unique par-5's and five distinct par-3's can be done given the fact that duplication of shot values -- similarity in terms of appearance -- and frankly a lack of quality land for all of them -- can be accomplished.

I also wonder whether a course loses a good bit of its backbone strength when the total number of par-4's is decreased. Can a course achieve maximum diversity in its grouping of par-4 holes with a number that's reduced two holes?

I admire the idea in trying to provide excitement for the average player, but is this concept one that can be taken in all situations and topography?

Be curious as to the comments of those who have played a few where such a situation occurs and from those who may not have but care to offer an opinion.

[kurt bowman]

Matt, We are opening up May River Golf Club at Palmetto Bluff in Bluffton SC Friday of this week. If you go to the Nicklaus.com website you can find a few photos of it under featured course. I will take my digital camera this week, and hope to post some next week.
It features 5 par threes, and 5 par fives. The back nine has 3 of each. When Jim Lipe and Jack worked through the routing, they had to avoid the wetlands and thus was the reason for this scenario.  The par three yardages are 206, 186, 169, 190, and 234. Hopefully Jack uses atleast 4 different irons, if not five. The five pars are very diverse, and memorable IMHO.
I am not sure that Jack has done this anywhere else, but it is a nice change of pace, and a bit unusual. I think that par three's and fives tend to be a bit more memorable, as well as short par fours.  If you make it to the Hilton Head area, I would be interested to see how you like it. I think you will be pleasantly surprised as you were the day I met you at Outlaw. Kurt Bowman  

[Tyler Kearns]

Matt,

My home course features the 5 par-three, 8 par-four, 5 par-five set-up, and in our case I would say that it provides for more exciting golf. However, the par-fours do get clumped up yardage wise, not providing a huge spectrum of diversity.

But in reality, 3 of the par-fives play as half-par holes, which when seen in the eyes of the accomplished player, are tough and very challenging par-fours, and realistic three-shotters for shorter hitters. Thus, the gap is somewhat filled when considering the yardage of the holes irrespective of the par value.  

I do not think that this set-up necessarily cramps the overall diversity of the golf course, just as long as each hole presents a new challenge. Of course, in the case of my home course, if one is not challenging the 4.5 par holes in two full strokes, the lay-up second shots become somewhat repetitive & bland. The challenge lies in laying up to a comfortable distance for the next stroke, a talent indeed, but not really exciting. I suppose this is a drawback to the design of our course, but it does not have to do with the 5-8-5 set-up.

Tyler Kearns

[Dave_Miller]

Matt:

Charles River (Donald Ross - 1921) consists of five par 5's and 5 par3's and it is always a pleasure to play these holes.  I don't feel that anything is lost here by having only 8 par 4's. However I will point out that for any major tournament the course plays as a par 70 with two of the holes the members play as 5's being made into 4's.  These two holes are always the most difficult in those tournaments.

Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[mike_beene]

Throw in a short par4 and you end up without much in the way of good solid midlength holes.Maybe I'm boring,but to me par 4s are the heart of a good course and often the holes that either run together in your mind or stand out.Are these also the most difficult to design?5par 3s,ok.5par 5s,borderline goofy.

[Brad Klein]

The original Forest Highlands Course in Flagstaff, Az., by Weiskopf & Morrish has 6 par-3s, 6 par-4s and 6 par-5s. So does Pocono Pines in Pa. by Chris Commings.

Such courses play very short compared to the par. That's because you lose yardage when you have an extra par-3/par-5 combo instead of two par-4s.

A reasonably long par-3 of 200 yards paired with a reasonably long par-5 of 550 yards only equals the distance of two short par-4s of 375-yards each.

[Matt_Ward]

kurt b:

Thanks for the info and opportunity. As a Gamecock I get back to my alma mater when time permits and a side trip to Bluffton as I have some friends in the Beaufort area.

P.S. I hope more people do in fact play Outlaw -- a superb design by the Bear and his design team. Flies in the face of the BS argument that the Bear is one dimensional in his edesign efforts. I hope to get back there sometime in '05.

Gents:

My issue on this subject boils down to the idea expressed to me by a few key people in the design industry that par-4's really don't provide the kind of "buzz" that a par-5 and par-3 type hole provides. Hence -- the desire to "spice" up the designs with an array of risk and reward type par-5's and for a wide assortment mof par-3's because mid to high handicap types enjoy the thrill of having only to make one good swing on a par-3 as opposed to the length and demands many par-4's can present.

What strikes me on this subject is that the par-4 is looked upon by a few in the design industry as being the odd-hole out.

I was always under the belief that the par-4 is the backbone of a design because of two reasons; the first being the sheer number of par-4's in any design; the range of yardages that par-4 holes can be played.

The real issue is making sure that when you have thaaaaaaat many par-5's and par-3's on the course that they individually can hold their own and are not filler or transition sequences to get from one part of the property to the other.

When I played Jim Engh's design at Lakota Canyon he spaced the nature of such holes in a grand way that you don't get the sense that the par-5 / par-3 holes have been "forced" into the overall routing scheme.

I'm glad Brad mentioned Forrest Highlands / Canyon Course because Tom Weiskopf and Jay Moorish very cleverly incorporated the sheer number of par-3 and par-5 holes to defeat the gain that elevation provides at the altitude that Flagstaff enjoys.

Par-4 holes at higher altitudes need to have even greater distance to be effective against the better player, however, the greater the distance on one side of the ledger will mean more issues for the player with less skill and even less distance.

Brad is also quite correct in that splitting such holes can mean lesser overall yardage but Dave M is also right that such par-5's -- where possible -- can play as long par-4's in major events.

I'm very interested in seeing if this desire to use the five par-3 and par-5 holes is something others will follow and if such an inclusion is carried out to the broad spectrum of golf courses whether they be daily fee, gated community or resort.

Dave S:

Glad you mentioned Skokie -- I'm a big fan of the layout -- how the layout doesn't receive national acclaim is truly mind boggling -- I guess some see Shoreacres as being better than Skokie. That is simply laughable IMHO. A shame more people don't play from beyond the immediate Chicago area.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Don't forget Myopia Hunt Club, which has 3 par 3s, 12 par 4s, and 3 par 5s.

[Matt_Ward]

Martin:

Hate to bust your bubble -- the thread was on courses configured with at least five par-3's and five par-5's.

[Robert Thompson]

While I have not seen a move towards the five-3, five-5 routing, I must admit that more par fives typically make a course more fun for the average player. That probably has something to do with par fives allowing a player to hit one below-average shot and still recover to make par.
In Canada, Stanley Thompson, among others, took this another step and often incorporated a six-six-six setup.  I think it is particularly interesting and once more, a lot of fun to play.
Kind of the anthesis of those UK courses that often sport 14 par fours...

Robert

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

Your point about courses at altitude is interesting.  Have you noticed a higher percentage of new designs having fewer par 4s at altitude than not?


One possible objection to the idea of fewer par 4s is that it seems to me that it may be hard to keep the yardage up, since the distance of a par 3 + par 5 is probably less than two additional par 4s would be.  I figure from the tips for new designs, your par 3s probably average 200 these days, your par 4s (excluding the driveable par 4s that are in a separate class) average about 430, your par 5s average about 560.  If those completely random guesses of mine are correct, that's 100 yards you have to make up, and nearly a half stroke of course rating.

Assuming you have an owner who cares about reaching a certain yardage or rating to fit into his idea of "championship", the architect would need to add about 5 yards per hole to make up for adding another par 3 and par 5.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug S:

I don't see a trend in this area but I think it's something to consider if hole differentiation can still be achieved.

I had a conversation with Jim Engh and his comments to me were most enlighteing regarding par-4's. When you have high altitude the likelihood of challenging the better player is at best problematic unless the penal dimension is greatly enhanced. Of course, if you do that, you also hurt the mid to high handicapper -- probably even more so.

The long par-4 may also limit strategic choices for the mid to high handicapper -- since many of them likely cannot reach the target in the regulation stroke.

No doubt the design by Wesikopf and Moorish at the original 18 at Forrest Highlands (Canyon) is done to keep the "fun" element alive for the mid to high handicapper while also not just adding one long par-4 after another.

I like the concept but like I said originally I have to wonder if an architect can really diversify the amount of par-5's and par-3's that are then included in the layout. Sometimes -- you do have overlaps and the repetitive nature can detract from what was originally envisioned.

Doug -- I see your point on yardage being lost -- also CR and Slope being adjusted downwards -- but it's possible from the times I have seen this format carried out by Engh and Weiskopf, to name just two, that it can be done.

Clearly, the "fun" dimension lies at the heart of this effort. If the land is solid and if the totality of the par-4's (the eight one would have) are not compromised downwards I think you can have a very meaningful and interesting layout.

Be curious if other examples of this type have happened.

[ChrisHervochon]

Personally, I think that a 5 par 5/par 3 layout would be a fresh change of pace, although maybe not necessarily as an industry trend.  In my mind, par 5s, depending on length and setup, can either provide a realistic birdie opportunity or a realistic par opportunity for say the 90s shooter.  Reason being, par 5s allow for you to make a mistake on at least one shot and still come away with a respectable score.  In addition, I am of the opinion that most players prefer to play a par 3.  For one, and I am not saying I enjoy this, they often provide the most aesthetic value on today's modern courses.  Plus, they can be made relatively short from the middle tees so as the average player only feels he needs to make one good swing which provides him confidence.  If at least two of the par 5s are made long enough so as to not be reachable at all, I think par 5s have the most otential for strategic value.  For one, you would need to make three good swings, each one building upon the quality of the other.  In this sense, angles may again become important in the modern game.  As far as balance, my ideal course layout for such par values would be as follows:

par 3s of about 120, 160,180 210, and 240ish from the back tees.
par 4s of about 320, 390, 410, 410, 460, 460, and 480.
par 5s of about 500, 500, 540, 590, and say 610.

I think such a layout would provide many opportunities for birdies as well as afford the ability for at least two par 5s to be turned into long par 4s for important tournaments.  Such a golf course if designed with the proper angles and variety as to shape and wind may infact be very interesting to play.

[Tony_Chapman]

Matt - Wonderful thoughts on this thread. Do you really think that what the architects may be finding is that most players really "love" the non-par four.

I find, even myself an 8-handicap (except when I play with Brian at Raleigh CC  ), that the par-3 and the par-5 hole are the only real holes during the round where I feel I have a chance to make birdie. The par-3 just takes a great shot. The par-5, I may even be able to miss a shot and still make four.

On most par-4's, save the occasional 300-325 yarder, I am standing on the tee thinking how I can make par. Not that I don't enjoy that. Sometimes a hard earned par is much better than a birdie.

It seems to me that may be what some architects are thinking when they design. I grew up on a course that was a par-70 and featured six par-3s, four par-5's and eight par-4s. It pretty short, but provided enough fun challenges that it didn't get old. You can read it in MHC.

Cheers,

Tony

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

I think that having a good amount of wind and/or elevation change would help a great deal to alleviate your concerns about not differentiating the par 3s and par 5s as much.  In addition I think something that's often underrated is the types of the holes, in terms of which are attackable or where you must play more conservative, and what types of shots are encouraged or punished by the hole's design.

When you were visiting Iowa I mentioned Saddleback Ridge as a course you might want to check out if you had time -- that's given me an interesting perspective on this since it has 6 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 6 par 5s.  Due to a large ridge that gives the course its name running across the land, and the fact the surrounding land is mostly farmland that lies below the ridge and has few trees to provide wind breaks, it takes the full brunt of any wind.

While the routing is by no means perfect, I think a good job was done of varying between holes of each par going over flat land, going slightly uphill or downhill and going steeply uphill or downhill.  I'd have liked to see more variation in the distance of the par 3s since it ends up being about a 4 club spread between all six for me, playing (with wind & elevation figured in) about 160 to 210.  But each par 3 does manage to have a pretty unique feel in terms of the ability to attack and try to get a birdie and what types of misses are allowed or punished.  And I see a lot of courses where that's a problem even with four par 3s, let alone six!

It made me think that while one will usually hear a lot of complaint about repetitive or overly similar par 3s and par 5s, it is rarely mentioned for par 4s.  Do people just take into account that with 10-12 par 4s on a typical course that repetition is nearly unavoidable there?

[Matt_Ward]

Tony C:

I really do believe that the "fun" element is really at the heart of this effort with the five par-3 and five par-5 inclusion on an 18-hole routing.

Par-4's -- save for the short variety -- are not exactly loved by the masses -- especially those with higher handicaps and those without sufficient distance.

I'm not suggesting that such a situation become the norm for every layout, but at higher altitude of the type you find in much of the mountain time zone it's something to combat against the long hitter, while at the same time providing a reasonable alternative to the shorter and higher handicap player.

Your own words said it best -- you look forward to the par-3 and par-5 holes because of what they can provide in regards to your game.

Doug:

Par-4 courses can be repetitive because unless the architect is really paying attention you're likely going to get at least a few holes in the final routing that are merely empty suit types. What I am saying is that many long par-4's defeat the weaker player because of the length issue. That's why many high handicap types and those lacking distance always sulk when playing such holes. They really aren't engaged mentally to cause them to long forward to such holes.

At least with par-3's you have one stroke to make a big play. On par-5's there are options in getting to the hole even if one stroke is not played perfectly.

My only issue is that the concept of five par-3's and five par-5's has to have some serious differentiation because otherwise you get holes that are cut'n paste versions of holes already played.

From the Jim Engh and Tom Weiskopf courses that I have played that feature this inclusion the courses have generally been fun to play and certainly keep the interest level throughout the time you are there.

In my mind, if an architet can do that he's done quite well.

Doug -- clearly the aspect of quality par-4's needs to be further flushed out. I'm always interested in seeing how architects collectively design them to maximize the greatest amount of shot values possible. The work by Engh and Weiskopf is clearly an attempt to shift the focus on what constitutes the overall hole presentation. More of this type would be interesting to see from the likes of Doak, Hanse and even C&C. Clearly, the land will dictate what can be produced.

P.S. I hope to return to Iowa some time next summer and play Saddleback Ridge.

[Mike McGuire]

Lawsonia , the William Langford classic in Green Lake WI has 5/5's & 5/3's.  Langford believed a good test of golf should require a lot of long shots into the green, hence an extra long par 3 and short par 5. Because of this Langford said its possible for a 6500 yard course to play shorter than a 6200 yard course.

FYI - The routing at Lawsonia holes 9 thru 14 is 5-3-5-3-5-3.

Mike McGuire

[peter_p]

It may be easier to route the 5/3 5/5 on any piece of land, especially if you have some topography issues or have to shoehorn a hole into a particular sport. Any course that has two 400 yd par fours running on the same axis could be altered from 4/4 to 3/5 or 5/3.
I play at a complex that has both a 4/10/4 and 5/8/5 lineup.
The latter setup always feels more volatile and alive.

[Matt_Ward]

Peter:

You make a good point -- the key for the five par-5 and five par-3 concept to work is how well suited is the land and how much differentiation they provide.

I know from playing a number of Engh and Weiskopf designs this detail is kept front and center.

Clearly, when you have such a combo it's an attempt to mitigate the advantage of length the long players have on the par-4 side of the equation.

[MClutterbuck]

Very interesting thread that could be continued now that several prominent new courses have 5 par threes and 5 par fives.


I believe that as more courses are built on great topography and with more emphasis put on moving less dirt and natural green sites, it is probably natural and a matter of probabilities that more par 5's and 3's fit in the routing.

[cary lichtenstein]

I've always liked this configuration, makes for a more interesting round and less redundancy on the par 4's

[Tom_Doak]

One's opinion on this matter depends on who you think your target market is.


I have always felt that the most boring shot in golf, generally, is the second shot on a par-5 where one can't go for the green.  Long hitters tend to think that par-5's are super exciting, but for the average guy they are often a slog.  Having five or six of them in a round would rarely be a plus as I see it -- unless you are building a course for the pros, and you want to make them hit long irons and woods for approach shots.  [But not many courses are really built for pros.]


There is a much wider variety of par-4 holes that can be built than there is for par-5 holes.  There are lots of great courses that have 10 or more par-4 holes that are each outstanding in their own right.  There aren't so many that have even 4 outstanding par-5 holes.

[JStewart]

Cedar River in northern MI is a fun Weiskopf-design with five 5s and five 3s. There's plenty of variety there amongst the 3s, 4s, and 5s.

[mike_beene]

Par 5s are the worst feature on any golf course. Length has enough rewards in this high tech age. And why waste land when you don't have to. Give me a course with 4 or 5 holes that are essentially 4 and 1/2 and call a few of them 5s. Then put some par 3 s in to test mid to long irons. Keep the par 70 or 71 because you have to, but quit this crazy marriage to par 72. Par 72 equals Three Rivers Stadium or Riverfront Stadium and even baseball was smart enough to get rid of those and build a bunch of unbalanced smaller Par 69,79 and 71s.

[Peter Pallotta]

When I think of 5 or 6 Par 5s, I imagine trying to stretch a linen suit jacket into a full-length mink coat. There's only so much material to go around, and none of it is mink. As a suit jacket it serves its purpose well, and can even be worn over a pair of jeans; but stretched out and pretending to be a full length mink coat, it's not good for anything. Which is to say, if there's design talent and land good enough on a site for even one terrific Par 5 I'm impressed and happy; there is no way in heaven any site (or architect) is good enough to create 4, 5 or 6 of them! Which means that on such a course, there will be a minimum of 4,5, or 6 totally meaningless golf shots; hit it anywhere, as long as you move it down the fairway.
Peter