Would You Miss Par 5s If There Weren't Any?

[Mark_F]

At my club there are only two par fives, something I believe many older courses in the UK and the US also have.  

West Sussex in the UK in fact doesn't have one, depending on the tees used, and I think the same exists at Rye?

Are par fives an anachronism in this day and age?

What would you miss about them if they didn't exist?

For mid-handicappers like myself, they 'give' me an extra shot, but for better players they seem to be merely long fours - and if you build a couple of long iron par threes, you don't need them anyway.

What do par fives 'do' for the various levels of player?

[Brian_Sleeman]

Despite the fact that I'm intrigued by many of the positions on here recently questioning the importance of par and "half-pars," I guess 5's are an example of a hole where par itself makes it a little more exciting.  There's more to the risk/reward aspect when the reward means the greater likelihood of birdie or eagle, and not just the satisfaction of pulling off a great shot.

For great players who expect to birdie them every time (and if they're well-designed par 5's from the back tees that expectation shouldn't be fulfilled), I guess it doesn't matter quite as much, except for the fact that for them the possibility of making eagle is the exciting temptation.  

If designed well, a great semi-reachable par 5 has a lot of the appeal of a great short par 4.  A good course has got to have some excitement to it, holes where if we smash a couple of solid shots we can all feel like a tour pro, if only for a moment.  Par 5's accomplish that well.

Add in the myriad of strategic options open to players on long 5's (though perhaps more complicated to design) and I for one would miss them.  

And a question for you architects: on average how much more difficult are long par 5's to design?  I'm just guessing they're a little more difficult because so many more variables seem to come into play.  It'd be interesting to get an experienced explanation.

[Mark_F]

Brian,

Maybe it just comes down to not many par fives filling those criteria.  Maybe one per round would be enough?

I wonder how architects feel.  Would they be able to get away with only one par five, if it was a great one?

Or do we as players like them because they are a bit more generous?   I know I like the 17th at my course for precisely that reason - I've made several birdies and numerous pars there, which does provide that thrill.  

But I'd still rather stick an iron to one of the par threes at least once...

[Pat_Mucci]

Mark,

YES, I think that they're an integral part of golf and serve the unique function of demanding three superior, consecutive shots.

[Sean_A]

I would like to agree with Pat, unfortunately, hitting three superior shots is not required on a large pertentage of three shotters.  I believe par fives are important, but not essential.  

For me, much has to do with the rating of the course in relation to par, which normally means the course could play a bit tougher with very little expenditure by the club.  I think this is especially pertinent to older clubs which are only 5900-6200 long.  If a course is rated below par and it has one or two weak par 5s (not weak because it is reachable, but because if one goes for it and fails, there is little penalty), I would then make at least one a par 4, which afterall would still be a "4.5" par.  

Pennard is a very good example.  The course is rated 70 to a par of 71.  All four three shotters are reachable.  Two are magnificent and have a large element of risk/reward (#s 10 & 17).  Two are reachable depending on wind conditions, but there is very little risk in going for the green (#s 4 & 16).  Also, there a plenty of birdie opportunities with short par 4s.

As Pennard has only two longish par 4s, (#s 6 & 9), I would make #16 a par 4 as well.  I would also consider making #4 a two shotter, but only if the tee was moved to the other side of #3 green.  Currently, the drive has to go right over the third green.  However, there is a house on the right with OB around it, this is a potential disaster waiting to happen if the tee was moved forward.  Granted, they would both be very difficult to par, but so what?

Ciao

Sean

[tonyt]

Maybe it just comes down to not many par fives filling those criteria.  Maybe one per round would be enough?

Given that architects don't try to build bad holes, if somebody believes that one in four par 5s achieves the aims, then a course with four par 5s may have one. If a few courses had one par 5, one in every four courses would have one. I think going from 1-2 up to 3-4 definitely increases the chance of the course having a really good one.

I do take your point. But I think the variation is good, rather than having 13-14 par 4s. Not every course can keep you interested in 14 par 4s like say TOC.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I like this topic! Kind of food for thought, although, I will go down and have some oatmeal for breakfast after this......

The logical progression of design should be to reduce to par 70 with only two par 5's, or design four, with the idea of shortening two for any good player event, a la the US Open.  

As to designing par 5 holes, especially true three shotters, if there is such a thing, the biggest challenge is to give the player something meaningful to do other than advance the ball as far as possible.

My question is, how did par 5's (and par 3's) come about anyway?  Is there any historical record of how they came to exist as "standard?"  I ask this, because I assume strategy was always a component of the game, and creating a relationship of shots can be efficiently established in two shots on par 4 holes.  Par 3's don't allow this "strategy" of one shot setting up the other, and no matter how you cut it, the middle shot in a par 5 is not as strong as the starting shot or the ultimate goal shot, unless you are trying to reach the green.

I have always presumed the four holes of each were created for variety, even given their relative conceptual weakness vs. par 4's.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:  Great topic!

My guess is that most Americans like to see four par-5's because they're used to it, and because a par-5 is the best birdie chance out there.

Some will defend it as "traditional," but it's really not.  The links courses seldom had a hole over 500 yards, because their designers understood that into the wind that might be a four-shot hole.  A lot of the little courses in Scottish towns have no par-5 holes at all, and there are many examples of excellent courses in the UK with only one or two par-5's (Rye, West Sussex, Saunton, and Swinley Forest all have one, although I suspect that's the reason they are "held back" in the top 100 lists).

And if you look back to the "ideal scorecard" layouts proposed by George Thomas and C.B. Macdonald in their books, I don't believe either of them had four par-5's in the eighteen, although unfortunately I don't have those books handy to check myself.  Given that, I'm curious when the standard par-72 layout really became standard.

The only problem is that with modern equipment, if you don't have a couple of holes over 500 yards, when is Tiger Woods going to hit anything but a nine-iron or wedge out of the fairway?

P.S.  I suspect you've noticed there are no par-5 holes on the Gunnamatta course between the first hole and the seventeenth!

[Bill Gayne]

I would miss par fives if there weren't any. I know of courses that I like with five par fives and other courses with three par fives. Build what fits the land the best. The course that I play most of my rounds on has three par fives.

The first two are short fives that measure 476 and 471 from the blue tees. It's the green complexes that make the holes interesting. They are designed to have a short iron or wedge to the green with one on a sloping green over water and the other a blind shot to a well bunkered green. For the longer player that goes at in two with a fairway wood or long iron has a very difficult shot. Players of all levels really like these holes because they can post most any score ranging from 3 to 9. However if the land yeilded only one short par five and a good four in it's place that wouldn't bother me.

The third par five is a 613 yard dead straight brute. Many have called this the most boring hole on the course. I'd disagree because at some point the golfers ability to hit driver straight followed by two long iron/fairway woods into a large narrow green needs to be tested. My mindset when playing the hole is that par on this hole is like birdie on most any other because for the person I'm playing it's generally a bogey hole for him also.

Par fives often requires golfer to adjust their scoring expectations to something different then what's printed on the cards. Better golfers have adjusted their scoring expectations lower. The good short par four would yeild more fives and highers than fours but tempt the good player to give it a go.

[Pat_Mucci]

I would like to agree with Pat, unfortunately, hitting three superior shots is not required on a large pertentage of three shotters.  I believe par fives are important, but not essential.  

Sean,

What's your handicap ?

In many cases some questions are answered in the context of the PGA Tour player, rather than the average player whose handicap is in the 15-19 range at most clubs.

I suspect most par fives, at most clubs, require their membership's to hit three consecutive, superior shots.[/color]

[tonyt]

Jeff/Tom,

Where playing to the green complex is not involved, what scenarios or elements for second shots on par 5s are among those you are most enamoured with?

And what (when setting up for a go at the green complex is not involved) can be done to make the tee shot as purposeful as that of a par 4?

[Sean_A]

Pat

I am a run of the mill 9 capper who makes a point not to practice.  

I am not saying most par 5s don't require three shots from most players.  I am saying they don't require three superior shots.  Often, three quite average shots or one good and two average shots is enough to hit a par 5.

I think an excellent three shotter is the rarest of breeds.  

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I am someone for whom all par 5s are genuine 3-shot holes, but I can think of many that I should not miss if they were ploughed up tomorrow, the 4th and 6th at Royal Troon, for instance, which are just long slogs for me.  I can think of some par 5s under 500 yards which are real fun for me (the 12th and 14th at Conwy, for instance) but are child's play to big hitters.  The 10th at Alwoodley (possibly the prototype for the 13th at Augusta), 9th at Royal County Down, 11th at Fulford, 15th at Hunstanton, 8th at Royal Ashdown, 8th at Formby, 6th at Southerndown, 6th at Royal Lytham, 10th at Sunningdale, 4th at Wentworth West and 8th at Royal West Norfolk are other examples of short par 5s that I love to play but are probably too short for 300+-yard drivers.  I should miss each of those holes were they to be abolished.

I have no idea when par 72 became 'standard' unless The Old Course set the standard, as it were.  It, of course, only has two par 5s, but par is 72 because it also only has two short holes.  It allows the overall length to be something like 7,200 yards for this year's Open, despite having such short two-shotters as the 1st, 7th, 9th, 10th, 12th and 18th.   I am told that even as late as the 1950s St Andrews (Muirfield, too) had no Standard Scratch Score.  How they monitored handicaps I do not know.  Many courses did not have par but had bogey scores and Woodhall Spa, Delamere Forest and the Addington still do.  Par for The Hotchkin Course is 73, sss 75, bogey 78; Delamere is par 69, sss 70 and bogey 72.  On both these courses some of their longest par 4s are going to be three-shot holes on most occasions to me and others of my ilk.  So, if you look back to Horace Hutchinson you find that Harlech had a bogey score of 80 (it is now par 69) and Eltham (now Royal Blackheath) also had a bogey of 80 despite an overall length of only 5016 yards.  Writing of Royal Liverpool, Hutchinson records that the medal play record is 76 (John Ball), '....but in 1890 in a private match, the same gentleman recorded 74, this being the par of the round.'  I was unaware that par was a recognised term in 1897.  A glance at Davies' Dictionary of Golfing Terms reveals that Golf Magazine used the term in June 1891.  James Braid, writing in 1911, states, 'The difference between par and bogey is, of course, that the former represents perfect play and the other stands for good play, with a little margin here and there.'  

I like a little margin here and there.

[TEPaul]

I'd certainly miss par 5s if a golf course had none. I think par 5s in the future should be designed more strategic and multi-optional than ever before.

I'll tall you who'd miss par 5s if they didn't have any on a golf course---Tiger Woods. A few week ago on the weekly pro tour telecast they produced a stat of how far below par Woods is on par 5s throughout his ten year pro career. It's absolutely mind-boggling. Take away the long par 5 on tournament courses and you would definitely take away a distinct edge Woods enjoys on the rest of his fellow competitors.

[PThomas]

I seem to recall that Merion has only 2 par 5's...and if it's good enough for that course it's good enough for me!

[Pat_Mucci]

Paul Thomas,

So you wouldn't miss # 2 and # 4 if they were eliminated ?

[PThomas]

Pat -- no, I meant to say that if a course has only 2 par 5s I see nothing wrong with that

[ForkaB]

Pat is right that "3 good shot" holes are challenging and add variety, but why not "4 good shot holes?"  I assume that the Long Hole at TOC was a "4 shot hole" in Alan Robertson's day.  Well, the answer is that to get a "3 good shot" hole today would require 700 yards or so.  So.........we're left with what we've got which is that there is no "par" 5 hole today on any course we really respect which can't be had by the best players in the game, just as there is none of these courses which cannot be had.  So what?  I'm still well above average long, and the number of times each year I hit the 500-530 yard holes that I play on most in 2 is still limited to finger orders of magnitude, and there are a few "par" 4's on these courses that are more often than not challenging 3-shotters, so, no, I don't feel that I am missing soemthing, Pat.  The game is hard enough as it is.

[Mark_F]

Pat Mucci:

I didn't say eliminate.  I said 'are they an anachronism?"

Sean said it best when he said that often, three average or one good and two average shots are enough to hit a par five.

I quite like them, but they must be terribly hard to design properly. I, a humble mid-handicapper, feel disappointed if I don't at least par them, and smile gleefully if my lower handicap playing partners don't make their expected birdie.  

But even 'average' single figure handicappers can hit 500-odd metre holes in two these days.

Tom Doak:

We must be thinking of different courses, as Gunnamatta has three par fives between the first and seventeenth - the 4th, 6th and not least the 16th.  




Tony Titheridge:

Gunnamatta has 12 par fours, and they keep you pretty darn interested...  Great land, obviously helps, but how about Woodlands and Commonwealth?  Granted, they have 3 fives, but if you cut them down to one and played the others as fours,  would you complain about monotony?  

[James Bennett]

Mark

haven't played Woodlands for probably 15 years, but aren't/weren't there 4 par 5's.  Viz #2, #6, #15 and #18.

Par 5's generally are a gambling hole - miss the drive and you can normally still hit the green in regulation.  The land needed to make a great par 5 can be quite difficult to find on some parcels of land.  

Woodlands #15 was/?is a great par 5 because of the tests applied to tee shot, second shot and third through the greenside and fairway bunkering and roughs faced.

[Andrew Summerell]

Both 15 & 6 are good par 5's at Woodlands, with the 2nd & 18th being good par 4 and a halves.

Par 5's will often have different green complexes than long par 4's. Par 5's will be tighter around the green in a way that may seen too difficult for a long par 4. They will often set up for a third shot pitch, so if you want to take it on with your second you have a more difficult shot than you would at a long par 4.

Andrew

[RT]

Sean,

How do you play, as a nine handicap level, the drive (from the tips) on the par-5 17th at Pennard?  Two enquiring and wandering minds (maybe more out there) are just in a baffle on that one.

RT

and 16 played as a p-4? I think the green itself (with its complex) can be played as a par-5!  Personally dont have a problem driving over no. 3 green either.

[Sean_A]

RT

It depends on the wind and the situation of the match.  If the hole is downwind, I usually hit 3 wood, 8 iron, wedge.  If the hole is into the wind, I will hit driver, 5 ironish and wedge.  If I am giving a shot away and I need to win the hole and it is downwind, I will take a chance on the second with a 3 wood or 7 wood.  Mind you, unless there is a spotter up top, this is a very low percentage shot!

I am not a huge fan of this hole because the fairway is so narrow after the dogleg and one is invariably hitting across the fairway rather than up it.  Downwind in the summer it can be hard to hold the fairway with a wedge!

I played last Sunday and hit driver, 5 iron, wedge.  Still made bogey.  The hole is not long, but it is still a proper three shotter.  Many people find it their favorite hole on the course.  I must admit, it is growing on me.  From thinking it was the worst hole on the course three years ago, I now think it is only the fourth least favorite hole.

I know what you mean about #16.  The green is very difficult.  When approaching, hit the shot low and to the right third of the green.  The ball will almost always roll right around to left side.  It is amazing to watch because it doesn't look possible from the fairway.  I have only seen the pin on the right a few times.  Now that is difficult!

#4 has been radically changed.  There used to be quite hairy rough up the left side starting with the second shot.  I am not sure if the club cut it down or if the sheep/horses/cows finished it off.  In fact, there is virtually no rough on the course.  The left used to be dead so going for the green in two was dicey business.  Now, there is virtually no punishment.  The only place not to be is behind (or in) the bunker on the right about 40 yards short of the green.  Very difficult chip.

My favorite three shotter is #10.  I am always tempted to drive past the water, but one must be extremely accurate and I might add a bit fortunate to pull it off.

One thing is for certain, I always look forward to playing Pennard.

Ciao

Sean

[RT]

Sean,

Thanks for the explanation of no. 17 how you approach it in varying states.

I think the next time I play it I am going for no. 16 fw up top and avoid that heavy handed right slope of a fairway in the 1st landing area, and take my chances I have a good looping hook to take it out and over the gorse towards the second landing area (and tight isnt even the right word).  If it is now your fourth least favorite hole on the course, what are the three before it?

One thing is certain; Pennard is a most unique piece of golfing ground.

When are you next to B&B?  Might want to join you and look for Majuba.

RT

[Paul Richards]

Mark

>Would You Miss Par 5s If There Weren't Any?


Ask the guys from the PGA Tour, since there really aren't any out there anymore.

 

[Tags:]

Tags: