Does anyone build consistently great par 5's ?

[Pat_Mucci]

Modern and/or old ?

The answer doesn't lie in citing a random hole or two, but rather, in the entire body of the architect's work.

And, if the answer is NO, several questions must be asked.

Why do par 5's seem to be the hardest holes to design with distinction ?

What about them dooms architects to mediocrity ?

IF an architect created a great par 5 ..... shouldn't he replicate it ?     ........ often ?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

The bigger the puzzle piece, the harder it is to make it fit.

Please name ten great par-5 holes you could go about replicating easily from one site to another, and I'll be glad to use some of them.  Most of the really great par-5's I know of rely on some unusual undulations and/or great natural hazards for their quality.

 

[mike_beene]

Thinking of Spyglass I was going to say RTJ.However I am having trouble remembering others.Don't know why he did two mundane back to back 5's at Shady Oaks on a course I otherwise like.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pete Dye is one modern man who can make them fit.
The 11th & 16th at Sawgrass
All on BWR River are great.
Snake #1
Unter der Linden #16
Hell's Gate #8
and,

 On the meadow  courese he has a couple that are really good too, especially the home hole the originl closer with the double green
Then there's the Mountain course.

Interesing How Pete can replicate his cape Par 3 hole almost anywhere but it seems that the par 5's have more flair and fit into thier respective locals.
 

[Pat_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

That makes sense.

Length equals difficulty in design from the perspective of duplication.

While intervening topography can be ignored on par 3's it must be utilized on par 5's.

Perhaps this is why some of the great par 5's are on the short side.

Wouldn't an out and back routing lend itself to the creation of superior par 5's, because it's easier to fit the larger piece into that configuration of a puzzle ?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, excellent question for TD or any other archie that cares to respond.  As TD comments above on finding that interesting portion of land with great natural terrain features, I wonder if a certain method or approach is followed by the Dye organization, and passed on to the likes of Doak, Coore, Weed, etc., where they scope out the best long tracts for great par 5s, then design around them.  I was trying to get at that same principle on the other par 5 thread...

[Mike Hendren]

Pat:

Please name ten great par-5 holes you could go about replicating easily from one site to another, and I'll be glad to use some of them.  Most of the really great par-5's I know of rely on some unusual undulations and/or great natural hazards for their quality.

Tom,

A tough proposition.  "Great" is a high bar, but given my limited travels I'd start with the following "pretty good" holes:

1. The 5th at Holston Hills - brilliant use of modest shaping in the fairway.

2. The 2nd at Talking Stick North (requires a boundary) - great example of how a green side bunker dictates play from 500 yards away.

3. The 9th at San Francisco Golf Club - the fairway bunkers complement each other so well.

4.  The 3rd at Shoal Creek - excellent use of bunkering to create a double-dogleg hole that can be played in a straight line by the stronger player.  

Mike

[Joe Hancock]

While intervening topography can be ignored on par 3's it must be utilized on par 5's.

I'm imagining how vastly inferior the par 3's at Kingsley Club would be had Mike chosen to ignore the topography when fitting those pieces of the puzzle together.

I know what you meant, though. On 4's and 5's, the ball has to land on something other than the tee or green. On the other hand, with large earth moving equipment topography can be ignored altogether, but it usually doesn't result in a superior product. I suppose that there are instances, such as parts of Florida, where earthmoving and ignoring topography is required to create any interest whatsoever.

Joe

[JESII]

I think Flynn wrote about par 5's that they were very difficult to make interesting. That was a theme in his work as a large number of his courses had no more than two.

[RJ_Daley]

Of course, once you get to the interesting topography for the LZs, you get to the interesting drainage patterns...  Isn't that where great design and constructors come in?

[Phil Benedict]

The problem with Par 5's is that true three-shot holes are boring - keep the ball in play off the tee; lay up; hit a short iron to the green.

The best par 5's are really par 4 and a halves that incorporate some element of risk and reward.  The 13th at ANGC is the classic example - but this hole relies on a natural feature, the creek, for a big part of its character.  Without the creek, it's really just a long par 4 because the penal element of going for the green in two is missing.  The shot is all reward and no risk. I don't think this sort of natural feature is that common.

The other problem with par 5's is that they disproportionately reward one element of golfing skill - power - whereas par 3's and 4's can call upon more diverse skills such as the ability to curve the ball and to control trajectory.  

[RJ_Daley]

Phil, I don't agree.  Many great par 5s are three shoters and not just a test of power.  They are generally unreachable in 2, and have options for each shot; off the tee, the second to optional lay-up areas or angles, and delicate third shots to well designed greens and surrounds.  The trick is to find a big enough palate of topography to encorporate the variety.  Yes, power is its own reward.  But, if the tee ball is set up to a varied LZ where there is true options (including an iron or fairway metal safe strategy) yielding to longer lay-ups but equally optional second LZs, then it isn't just about the power.  I do think Dye does that well.

[JLahrman]

RJ and Phil, would you consider the 15th at Harbour Town to be a great par 5?  It's a true three shotter for almost everybody.  The hole does not reward power, asks for carefully shaped shots, and to me does not really have distinguishing topographical characteristics that would make it unrepeatable.  The hallway-like feel of the hole might be a negative for some on this forum, as well as the reliance of the big tree to dissuade the golfer from trying for the green in two...

[Pat_Mucci]

Phil,

Pine Tree and Boca Rio have some very good par 5's that are around 600 to 666 yards.

"Boring" is not a word I'd use to describe them.

They require superior drives, seconds and approaches.

Add the element of the wind and they become extremely interesting.

By your criterion long par 4's and long par 3's reward power, thus, wouldn't length of any degree reward power ?

[Paul_Turner]

I would say no.   I think they are often over the least interesting terrain on a course-to use it up.

[Pat_Mucci]

How would the following rank ?

Charles Blair MacDonald

Seth Raynor

Charles Banks

[Matthew Mollica]

Please name ten great par-5 holes you could go about replicating easily from one site to another, and I'll be glad to use some of them.

I know some are listed above Tom, but you could add to the list -

Royal Melbourne West #2
Royal Melbourne East #17
The National (Moonah) #2
Royal Melbourne East #10
Metropolitan #8

All on relatively flat terrain. They are often based on double dogleg shapes, or a go-no go decision for the green in two. They also often possess diagonal hazards, sometimes in the second shot landing zone.

MM

[Mike Policano]

Pat, what do you think of Tillinghast's par 5s as a body of work?  Ridgewood's 8 West is a classic and 3 East and 2 Center are no slouches.  I am currently away, but I seem to remember a couple of great par 5s at BCC, San Fran GC, Quaker Ridge, #3 at Fenway, Bethpage Black #4?, Winged Foot, etc.

Hope you're the ball well in windy Florida.

[Pat_Mucci]

Mike Policano,

I'm a big fan of the par 5's at Ridgewood.

From what I've seen, I also think AWT's body of work on Par 5's is good.

It's sunny and great for golf in the afternoon.
The mornings are a bit chilly, but that's about to change.

[Pat_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I'm still reflecting on your question.

As one of the five par 5's worth replicating, I'd cite the road hole.

I think it's brilliant design, works on flat land, and provides challenge off the tee, on the second, on the approach and on the recovery.

The 7th at NGLA is a great example, although, with today's hi-tech and distances, a little more length from the back tees would work well.

The second hole for replication would be the 7th hole at Pine Valley.

The dual carry with the elevated green.

It doesn't possess the tactical qualities of the Road Hole, but, that's not its purpose.  The intent is to require the golfer to execute three consecutive shots of high quality.
The decision to contour or not contour the green could be length dependent.

[wsmorrison]

I agree with Pat.  The 7th at Pine Valley is a hole worthy of replicating.  The hole does not depend on topography at all.  Flynn was heavily influenced by Pine Valley and his work there had been replicated conceptually and in the case of the 17th at Boca Raton South very closely.  Bunkers, mounds, sandy waste areas and wind influenced play on the hole.  Here's Flynn's version (colorized by that 135 pound heavyweight researcher Craig Disher):



Flynn's 3rd (original 18th and scene of Sam Snead's demise in the 1939 Open) at Philadelphia Country Club is a remarkable hole with some of Flynn's best parkland bunkering.  There is a wonderful fall-off to the right of the green with a deep bunker.  The hole is played from an elevated tee.  The first 2/3 of the hole up to the cross-bunkers is flat then there is a rise to the green with the fairway canted left to right.  The green slopes slightly front to back.



There is one feature that I cannot believe is not conceptually copied and that is the general nature of the par 4 18th green at Merion.  The first half of the green slopes back to front and the back half slopes front to back.  This is a very interesting design and results in some very interesting situations and of course a wide scoring spectrum.  If I were building a golf course, I'd have at least one green per course with such a design.

Then there is the mighty 620 yard uphill 9th at Rolling Green with its canted fairway.  Too bad the bunkering isn't exposed as at Philadelphia Country Club and in the same scale:



The 583 yard 5th at Cascades uses some really nice elevation change, interrupted fairways set at offset angles.  It once had a stream across the front of the green but it was turfed over and directed through a conduit due to flooding.  In some ways it is reminiscent of the 4th at Merion.





Flynn's B-4 at TCC, Brookline is the 12th on the Composite course and the 8th on Primrose.  It plays as a par 5 for members and the hardest hole on the golf course in championship play as a par 4.  Steeply uphill with strategic trees on the left:




Flynn was a terrific designer of par 5 holes.  And par 4 and par 3 holes for that matter  

[George_Bahto]

I agree with JAL about the 15th Harbour Twon being such a great hole.

As he described narrowing landing areas and Pete left a great pine guarding the left corner-area approach near the green.

The hole was much better before the green was expanded  so much .... it was so shallow then from your second shot landing area that holding the green was a challenge .... and of course there was the fronting greenside bunker.

Similar to 11 TPC Sawgrass, Pete has an optional play for the long hitter (to go for the green and flirt w/disaster) and if you play "forward" you have to come into the green with a half shot to a shallow green.

Also at Harbour Town the great 14th was really originally a very small green with a very deep pot just beyond the green along the center line of play. The first time I played the hole the bunker seemed about 3.5 ft deep and they kept making it shallower because of the complaints. Then the expanded that green to the left a lot. Still a great hole but was much tougher originally.

gb

[Jim Nugent]

Great post, Wayne.  The photos and diagrams really bring the holes alive for me.  

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks for the suggestions, gentlemen.

On reflection, I think one of the reasons people are picking Pete Dye as a great designer of par-5 holes is that on a high percentage of his courses he was working with relatively flat ground, so there were no undulations to get in the way of what he wanted to do!  

With par-4 holes you can place the tee to use the contours in the landing area how you want, and then build the green you want.

But with par-5 holes there are TWO landing areas and they are spaced by God, not man, so you can't always get what you want [without a bulldozer, anyway].  This is the main reason it's harder to follow a template.  Pat is right though ... if the hole is 480 par 5 then you don't really have to worry about two landing areas, just one plus the green.

However, Pat, I was surprised to see you pick Tillinghast as a designer of great par fives.  He made no bones about the fact that he looked for great short holes first, and Frank Hannigan's landmark article on AWT chided him for building poor par-5 holes [which the USGA often converted to par-4 holes for their events].  The fourth at Bethpage Black is a standout exception to this rule!

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I am glad you appreciated the posting.  Nobody else seemed to take any note of it at all.  Ah well.  If you notice the bunker labeled E in the Flynn drawing of B-4 at The Country Club, you'll notice the ticking lines running back middle to front middle.  This indicates that the floor of the bunker had two levels separated by that ridge.  I've seen Flynn have undulated floors to his bunkers.  I think this is much more natural a look than flat bottom sand and grass faces or even flat bottoms with sand flashed up.  The undulations lead to iffy lies and I think this is a great feature.  Of course with sand pros today they're probably wiped out by now at most places.