Par 5's and length - What's Best ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What par 5's have been harmed by adding length and why ?

What par 5's have benefited by adding length and why ?

What par 5's should be lengthened and why ?

What par 5's should be shortened and why ?

[wsmorrison]

Another question might be:
What par 5s without change could/should be par 4s?

Rolling Green 18th has been changed for the championship tees to a par 4 played from the members' tee.  Gulph Mills 18th is considering a change as well for some players to play hole as par 4.  

[Mike_Cirba]

The thing is, it makes perfect sense, as well.  All "par" was ever supposed to represent was "the score an expert golfer could be expected to make on a given hole".  

If a hole that was formerly 480 yards and played to a par five is now reachable by expert players with Driver/6-iron, it is clearly no longer a par five, and the par should be changed to reflect that from the "expert" tees.

I can think of a few holes at NGLA where the same can easily be done, and all of a sudden the cry that NGLA is "too easy" will dissipate.

Hell, the most famous par four in golf started as a par five, until it was deemed to be too short as a five for "expert golfers".  

[John_Lovito]

Patrick,

The 16th at Plainfield is a par 5 that I believe has benefited from added length.

A new tee box was constructed last year adding approximately 30 yards.  With the additional length, a good drive more than ever is required to have any chance of clearing the cross bunkers on the second shot.  Given the terrain, (past the cross bunkers the fairway drops allowing for a fair amount of roll) the clubs required on your third shot could be as great as a 3 wood if you have to lay up or as little as a wedge if you catch the hill.

In the spring there will be a third option.  The restored alternative fairway, around the left side of the cross bunker complex will allow you to lay up to a mid iron length third shot.  The angle however, for the approach shot will be less than ideal bringing two green side bunkers more in play.

[Matt_Ward]

Would like to piggyback what John Lovito mentioned but speak more about the 12th at Plainfield. In my opinion -- it's the finest par-5 in New Jersey -- with all due considerations to PV but the options at the 12th are more plentiful.

Yes, the hole is 585 yards from the tips and long hitters can get home in two if their tee shot hits the downslope of the elevated fairway and runs out.

The second shot presents the most vexing of choices as a marvelous serpentine creek winds its way through the fairway. You just must pay heed to it at all times. Even if you can land a second shot on or near the green you still must deal with a putting surface with a spine that runs right down the middle of the green.

Like I said -- the best par-5 in New Jersey and one of the finest I've played in America. There are always options -- and those options exist for the long and short hitter. You get no reprieve because you are successful with one shot.

In my mind -- a great par-5 puts in play a wide range of options and tied with that is a range of scoring possibilities. Plainfield's 12th hole has few peers in that regard.

[Doug Siebert]

Related question:

Why do we need 4 par 5s on a course?  Why are courses that are "only" par 70 perceived as weak by many?  Par 5s nowadays that don't want to be seen as weak have to either be over 600 yards long or require the heroic carry over water.  I have to wonder if architects are now somewhat restricted in having to plan out the par 5s before anything else to insure they can make them tough, possibly at the expense of optimal routing for the meat of the course.

[wsmorrison]

I think the lengthened par 5 3rd hole at Philadelphia Country Club is better for the recent lengthening by Ron Forse, Mike McNulty, et al. with the tee moved all the way back against the fence.  This is the former 18th hole which cost Snead the the 1939 US Open.  It has become a brute of a par 5 where you don't want to miss the green on the right side.  In 1939 it played to 558 yards from the championship tees, today it is 585 yards with the last 130 yards uphill.  The added length definitely makes you think about the right hand fairway bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can we remain focused on this topic, and start new related topics if you wish

[Dan Grossman]

Risk/Reward Par 5s are the one type of hole where I actually like the use of a runway tee or multiple tees.  I think the tees need to be moved up or back depending on the course conditions (either soggy & wet or hard & fast) to allow the hole to have the same shot values.  I seem to see many golf courses in the off-season and many really cool risk-reward par 5's are turned into dull three shotters due to the course playing longer than normal.  

So to answer Pat's question, I don't think it is a case of absolutely lengthening or shortening par 5's, but making them flexible to allow for wet or dry periods.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I believe it is integrally related.

We keep talking about lengthening holes as if acreage and course property is unlimited, but in many cases, particularly on classic courses, this just isn't the case.  Even worse, many times new tees cannot be accommodated without changing playing angles, without cramping holes together, without creating safety issues, and without regard for whether addressing only one half of the "distance problem" (today's players hit their irons much further too) is really going to yield the desired results.

We even went so far last week as to talk about removing the gate on the 18th at NGLA to squeeze a few extra yards out of that hole!  Silly me, I understand now that it's probably going to happen!  

All of this eventually comes down to the somewhat lame concept of "protecting par".  Once again, Par is "what an expert player is expected to score on a hole".  That's IT!  Nothing more!  

If expert players should be expected to make four on the 5th and 18th at NGLA, then they ARE par fours, simple enough.  

The same holds true at ANGC where the 13th & 15th ARE par fours.  There is no shame in that...

The only shame is that technology has been allowed to grow unchecked, to the point where we are even debating these questions time and again, and where a Merion is no longer deemed long enough to hold the US Open while a hyper-extended Torrey Pines is.  

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Now that we've all been severely reprimanded by Patrick, I'll keep to the subject at hand.  I was about to dwelve into the topics brought about my wsmorrison and Doug Siebert, but I won't.  

I'd guess the 8th at Augusta National was harmed by adding length.  It went from a risk-reward combination of a drive over the bunker and a draw 'round the trees.  Now, however, you can't clear the bunker, and you can't reach the green.  Just lay up in that big fat area to the right and see how close you can pitch it.  Pretty boring stuff, if you ask me.

Oh well, I guess it makes the course more "difficult" to "protect the integrity of par"...  (Oops, don't get me started   )

[Tim Weiman]

Pat,

There is a danger in the questions you are asking: there is already widespread confusion about the issue of length generally.

Like the frog that didn’t jump out of the pot when the heat was slowly turned up, golfers today have lost sight of what Simpson wrote about years ago. In his famous essay “Attack and Defense”, Simpson expressed the difference between “absolute length” and “relative length” and wisely counseled us to remember that “relative length” is really what the game is all about.

Unfortunately, the golf industry has hoodwinked everyone into believing that a never ending cycle of new technology followed by course modifications followed by more new technology and still more course modifications is a natural and desirable way to go.

We’ve become like pigs going to slaughter, classic victims of groupthink. After buying the latest driver, we insist that new tees must be built and bunkers must be moved. At one fine club, we hear they are even considering moving the front gate just to accommodate new golf balls and clubs.

Pat, the best thing you could do is speak out against this senseless pattern. We need to turn this situation around and stop wasting money on inappropriate technology that only requires us to spend more money changing courses to accommodate it.

The golf industry doesn’t want us to think clearly about these issues. They want to shut down the discussion altogether. Don’t let them do that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I think most on this site are in agreement that they would like to see controls inserted, based either on current day performance, or a rolled back performance level.

But, absent that, I think par 5's, the holes most affected by distance, can be discussed, pro and con.

I'm one of those individuals who think PAR is important.

It sets the mental tempo, the expectation level for the hole.

Some holes might be better as long par 4's, others as short par 5's.

At a course in NJ that I'm fairly familiar with, the membership has changed the 1st and 9th holes back and forth as a par 4 and par 5 for 30 or so years.  And I can tell you, that they play differently, physcologically as a par 4 vs a par 5, even though they are the same holes.

I do believe that a par 5 can be improved, in the context of meeting today's play, by adding distance.  However, adding distance to some par 5's may defeat the intended architecture, and make the hole uncomfortable or less appealing.

Jeremy Glenn,

I think you're prone to exageration.
I didn't severely reprimanded anyone.  
Rather than let this thread drift off course, I requested that contributors remain focused on the issues raised.
That's not unreasonable.

[Jeremy Glenn,]

Patrick,

I think you're prone to have lost your sense of humour.

It was meant as a "poking-fun" tease of your previous post, to be taken in jest.  And yes, it was an exageration, that's what humour is.  

Just look at your typical "Your mama is so fat..." joke.

_____

So staying with the subject at hand, here's a question:

Do you think we (in the general sense) feel that a par 5 should be shortened for the same reason that a par 4 should be lengthened?  To bring each closer to that tantalizing par 4.5?

[THuckaby2]

Dave - was #2 at Pebble lengthened?  That back tee sure seems the same as always to me, and the web site lists it at 484.  I thought what had changed is the HUGE tree to the left of the ditch died, opening up the shot to the green to a large extent... that, along with today's distances, allowed the USGA to call it a "par4" for the Amateur and the Open and become the nasty bitch you seem to ask for...  The normal scorecard still lists it as a par5... but in any case I really don't recall any distance being added to the hole.... wasn't app. 484 what the back tee always was?  What's made the hole easier is the tree removal....

TH

[THuckaby2]

Aw hell, I could be mistaken also. I just pretty much remember the tee always being where it was... perhaps they did add length to it, it is one big runway.  But it's to the right of 1 green and a little back... maybe they did add something to the back of it for the Am and Open, cuz I sure remember that playing 490... but they called that a par 4 anyway....

Oh well.  Kinda need to go down there and see for myself, huh?  

TH

[Andrew Roberts]

Pgatour.com says that No. 2 at Pebble is a 502 yard par 5.  But for the open, it played as a 484 par 4.

One big difference is that durring the At&t the ground is usually very soggy and no roll is provided. And the fairways are usually firm during open week.
At these times of the year and the extra length, I,m guessing the pros are using three-four clubs more during the At&t.  

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: I am really wondering if we are sometimes getting too carried away with the length of the hole rather than the challenges which its poses and if it seems repetetive when we play it on a regular basis.  The question is not only how long is the hole but how does it play; what happens to the less than ideal tee shot and your ability to recover based upon what hazards you face.  I would think that a wide open 630 yard par 5 would be a very boring hole and not one which I would like to have on my home course.  On the other hand a hole which is not as long such as the 12th at Plainfield can be very enjoyable when you do not hit the ideal shot yet you are able to walk away with a par, or sometimes even a bogey.  You have to have the option to recover from whatever position you are in and the challenge then comes to avoiding the hazard and making your best score.  I dare say that the 13th and 15th at ANGC would be great holes to play on a regular basis as you are always thinking about your options and at what point you are willing to deal with the hazard and the risks that it poses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry K, et. al.,

Let me modify the questions by posing them in the context of amateurs, not PGA Pros.

But, realize that even low to mid handicap amateurs are hitting the ball further and straighter in these last ten years.

If you want to examine the questions in the PGA Touring pro context, just reference your perspective, thanks.

I recall the best players in the world hitting second shots into the 13th and 15th holes at ANGC with woods.  
Gene Sarazen to name one famous shot.
Today, mid to short irons are being hit.

 While the holes haven't changed, play of them has.

[ian]

Dave made a great point, the 18th at Pebble has become an even better finishing hole now that players have a realistic chance of getting there in two.

The lengthening of 13 and 15 at Augusta made the holes better. It was nice to see players hitting some longer irons in for a change

[TEPaul]

I believe the entire concept and overall "principle" of the par 5 hole has changed immensely from the way this "par" hole was originally intended!

I look at the "par 5" hole in two distinctly separate categories or two ends of a spectrum.

1. The shortish "go/no go" par 5
2. The true three shotter

And athough the same "par", these two types should be wholly different animals!

The first type should be a progressive strategy type basically involving tempting a player to hit the bejeesus out of the ball off the tee with only moderate degrees of risk on the tee shot simply to set up the DECISION on the second shot to TEMPT the player to "shoot the bones" and risk a lot for a one to two shot "reward" on par!!

Of course most of the "risk" on this type hole is in that gambling second shot (the "go/no go" option) and should excentuate the decision making of the second shot as much as the execution of it! But atTEMPTING the second shot or not and pulling it off or not is the absolute MEAT of this type par 5!

#13 ANGC is a classic example of this except now the "risk" on the second shot has lost most all it's impact and meaning! As to adding length to this type hole, unfortunately what's called a "two way stretch" is necessary but also virtually impossible. For this type to stay current to original concept the tees need to be moved back to get today's golfer into the originally planned LZ but from the tee shot LZ to the green needs to be "stretched" too for the obvious reasons todays players hit the rest of their clubs commensurately farther against yesteryear as they do their drivers against yesteryear!

Again the test of effectiveness of this type hole is in it's overall "scoring spectrum". Wide is excellent, narrow is not! Translated against par this type holes should have some eagles, quite a lot of birdies and pars, lots of bogies and a good number of "others".

The second type--the true three shotter should be exactly what architects like Crump and Tillinghast envisioned their true three shotters to be!

Basically if you missed your first two shots even slightly you weren't going to be able to get to the green in THREE! And generally because you were too far away!

This type of concept is almost completely gone now in golf with very good players!

How to bring it back today is an interesting question and clearly the logical answer would be massive amounts of added ttee length (which noone seems to want to do)!

But in concept this is an excellent hole to offer a golfer occasionally. Certainly #15 Pine Valley would be such a hole. Some say #15 is not very multi-optional and they're right it really isn't!

It really wasn't intended to be, even in original concept! What it was intended to be is a strict three shot high demand requirement, even if somewhat one dimensional in that requirement. As such it wasn't much different than a very long par 4 in concept (miss it a little and you weren't getting home in regulation because you were probably too far away, period!).

Translated against par holes of this concept are where a good golfer has to work hard just to make par, where bogies are as common as par and birdies quite rare and an eagle about once every five years! The scoring spectrum on this type would generally be narrower than the first type but the scoring "average" would be higher!

But to answer at least one of Pat's questions should these holes be lengthened to stay in concept and true to what they were supposed to be?

I guess so! But for a hole like #15 Pine Valley to do that the hole would have to be lengthened to around 750 yards for a player like Tiger and last time I asked they told me Pine Valley doesn't own the land on the other side of the railroad tracks!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

To me, one of the "problems" with 3-shotter "par" 5's these days is the fact that pros (and even we mortals) tend to have some very specific comfort zone with the various wedges they (we) carry.  Perhaps it's 93.72 yards with the SW for Mickelson, or 5189.5 centimeters for TE Paul's 64 degree "I have to duck or it'll hit me on the chin" lob wedge, or whatever.

What this does is make the 2nd shot on "unreachable" holes a fairly simple exercise of hitting to a "designated landing area" 60-120 yards from the green which is normall quite easy to hit.  Is there anything more boring than laying up with a 7-iron on such holes?

What if, rather, there was a real wasteland of real hazards at the 50-150 range, and some sort of Elysian fields in the 10-50 area just short of the green.  Then the option would be to lay back to 160-170 or so (a bit outside the comfort zone--make the lies hilly there, just for added effect!) or try to bust a long iron or wood to the area short of the green, from which you have a 1/2-3/4 lob wedge (also outside most people's comfort zone, but probably much higher average reward for most people).

I can't think off the top of my head of a good example of this sort of hole (i.e. one that has both the "Hell's Half Acre" occupying the "comfort zone" as a well as some sort of "Elysian Field" near the green complex that gives you a reward for taking on the HHA complex).  Can anybody else?

[Philippe_Binette]

First of all, the notion of par should not influence the design of a hole. When the USGA is changing a par 5 to a par 4, players mind is turning around.

Let's face it:
- On a 505 yards par5, pros are thinking birdie 4
- On a 485 yards par 4, pros are thinking bogey 5

Which hole is physically easier.....

I think there is a bunch of great par 5 of less than 520 yards and a bunch of boring par 5 of more than 560 yards.

A great par 5 is a hole where players can make 3 or 6 depending on their second of third shot....

At my home course, we have a 450 yards par 5, and it's a good par 5. After a good drive, players are left with a 180 yards shot to a small, reverse bowl green, with the left side protected by a ravine that is not a hazard, but if you're there, you're dead. So if players go left, they have to replay from 180 yards, with the same don't go left shot....

It's a great hole that have seen a lot of 3 and 4 but much more 6 and 7 of the years.....

[Mark_Fine]

I didn't have time to read this whole thread but I'd like to ask the question - What is a "par five" in the first place???  For many long hitters, there is no such thing!  What is the "definition" of a par five?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

The definition (USGA) of any "par" hole is a hole that an "expert" or scratch player normally gets on (with good shots) in X shots (par3=1, Par4=2, par5=3, and should normally 2 putt)!

Looked  at in this way it can be seen that a true par 5 in that context would almost have to be what I described above in another post as a "true 3 shotter".

Obviously, that's not completely necessary in the sense that every par 5 should be that way (how could they possibly even be that way today--ie lack of overall length requirement) but the question is in a "par" context should a par 5 be as rare to reach in two shot as the "short par 4" is to reach in one shot?

Personally, I certainly don't think so but possibly they should be harder to reach in 2 shots than they have become by good and strong players today.

As evidence of this, I recall a very good American player who knew him saying over 15 years ago that he was aware of no more than a handful of par 5s in the world that Davis Love3 could NOT reach in two if he really wanted to!

That to me (at least at that particular level of player if it needs to be considered in golf) was evidence of the end of the true Three shot par 5 as it was originally conceived of as a realistic offering in both concept and shot requirement in golf!

Just as a point of historical reference on the true three shot par 5. It was George Crump's definite intention--written even-- (backed up by Tillinghast's thinking) that the two par 5s at Pine Valley should NOT EVER be reached in two shots! And by that he did not mean occasionally--he definitely meant NEVER!

The idea and concept of those two par 5 that even many good players had to hit quite good shots to even reach those hole in THREE shots and for the rest of the players they'd have to be satisfied to 'get on' in four shots!