[Matt_Ward]

With all due respect to George Crump -- a par-5 without risk on the second shot in attempting to get either on or very close to the putting surface is really lacking in the risk and reward aspect that Bobby Jones articulated at Augusta National. I favor the latter in terms of strategic philosophy.

I don't doubt that having a long (no one can go for it) in two par-5 is certainly a worthy addition to the collection of holes at any golf course. The 17th at Baltusrol Lower is a marvelous hole with its Sahara like bunker that serves a worthy chain reaction type effect on the pivotal nature in placing the tee shot.

Personally, I believe having a risk and reward aspect on par-5's is a major league plus because the aspect of uncertainty and scoring ranges become even more heightened.

[Mark_Fine]

I agree with Matt.  I think the "risk" factor is the key.  Given the length that golfers hit the ball today, possibly the most important difference between "a par four" and "a par five" is the risk that the golfer faces in attempting to knock his second shot on in two!  

[Mike_Cirba]

I understand the fascination with the risk/reward, reachable, half-par, par five, but let's not forget that the whole concept of "par" designation includes two putts.  

Any hole that is reachable in two ad nauseum by anyone who hits the ball a reasonable distance is frankly, a par four.  If an "expert player" should make four on the hole, it's a par four, no matter what we call it.

I'd be more interested to hear what everyone thinks would make for true, interesting, strategic, and workable "three shot holes...real par fives" whose fascination doesn't wane with each additional yard to be negotiated.  

[TEPaul]

Mark & Matt:

With all due respect to George Crump, Tillinghast, Bobby Jones and the both of you, I think you're missing the point somewhat of what Crump and Tillinghast were conceiving of and what they were talking about with their ideas on a "true three shotter! You may also be assuming that Jones was not aware of this with the "other" type of par 5--the true three shotter or that he may not have agreed with it in concept!

The whole point (theirs) is this type of "par 5" was SUPPOSED to be a completely different animal than the par 5s at ANGC that Jones was conceiving of--ie the high risk second shot par 5s (ala #13 & #15).

Frankly, the reasons ANGC's original nines were reversed are well known but it wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the motivations was to get these two holes on the incoming nine instead of the outgoing one!

Why? Simply because in that postion (coming in) they created the necessary excitement of both decision making and gut wrenching temptation to "get it to the house" with a clearer realization (back nine) of what needed to be done and where!

In this sense the par 5s of even ANGC can be seen better in their necessary design and function and necessary DIFFERENCE! I don't know the front nine par 5s well at ANGC but #8 must have been conceived as pretty much a "true three shotter" originally! This shows the different animals of the par 5 holes in concept and function--ie high risk second shot "go/no go" type and the "true three shotter". The deal is in their overall and somewhat vast differences--and necessarily so!

Having both simply creates more variety and shot testing. Their differences are really not much unlike the long par 4 concept against the short par 4 concept, only adding an additional stroke as a par 5!

I would hate to see all par 5s made into ones that just centered their themes and concepts on a high risk/reward second shot as do most of the best "go/no go" types.

To do this to a "true three shotter" would be to misunderstand what it is and was conceived to be, in my opinion and corrupt its overall concept.

A hole like #15 PVGC is an excellent example really. Some have criticized it for not being multi-optional enough (to reach the green in two or three shots).

Those critics are failing to see the true intended concept of holes like #15! The point of it was not centered on multi-optionalism! The point of it was to be a STRICT progressive three shot "TEST" of a good golfer to put together (progressively) the best three shots he had just to get there! That alone was the meat of the concept of the hole, and not to offer some high risk/reward situation along the way of decsion making or temptation consideration!! The fact that a hole like #15 was probably conceived of to just have a caddie just hand a player a driver and two 3 woods is primary and  multi-optionalism and risk/reward considerations along the way are very much secondary because the hole was intended to be mostly a strict test of putting together a good drive and two good 3 woods--or something very much like that! That was the entire point and concept whether or not golfers agree with it!

It was supposed to be just a very different animal in the par 5 category, again probably not much different than the far end of the spectrum on the par 4 hole (the very long one that required a good golfer's two best shots to get home). Incidentally these types of long par 4s for lesser mortals were not SUPPOSED to be reached in two but with today's overriding GIR mentality most golfers don't seem to accept that or acknowledge it.

I realize you two may not like this type of par 5 concept (the "true three shotter) but recognize it for what it was intended to be an don't suggest it should be morphed somehow into the other type--the shorter, high risk second shot centered "go/no go" par 5!

Again, like in a lot of golf architecture the real deal was in the differences--in this case the differences in concept in either end of the spectrum of the par 5 hole!

[TEPaul]

And additionally, the fact that both ends of the spectrum in the concept of par 5 holes (the short high risk second shot "go/no go" type) and the true three shotter have been severly corrupted and compromised by the realities of the lengths good player hit the ball today is also beside the point!

The concepts of both types are very strong and very varied and should be seen as such! Again, the deal was in the difference and the idea is not to try somehow to make one into somewhat of the other, but to preserve their variations in both concept and play as much as possible!

How to do that exactly is a complex issue both architecturally and to do with how the regulatory bodies administer other things and other areas!

I don't want to see anyone-architects, golfers or regulatory bodies try to "meld" the different par 5 concepts into some single vaguely standard one!

Golf would lose a lot in that case, in my opinion! Frankly it already has!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Don't let anyone know I said this, but I agree with you.

There isn't one cookie cutter "Par 5".

There are those that invite the decision, the challenge, the heroics, the risk/reward of going for it in two shots, and there are those that demand the execution of three fine shots in order to reach the putting surface.

And while PV's par 5's are of the latter type, they achieve their objective by presenting differing architectural features, different challenges from one another.

Matt Ward,

Isn't the risk of going for the 15th green in two, the ability to thread the eye of a needle, judge the cant of the fairway and green, shape your shot accordingly, and pray that it stays on the golf course should you fail ?

[TEPaul]

I don't know that #8 ANGC was ever intended by MacKenzie and Jones to be a "true three shotter" in concept!

But let's suppose it was! (and again, what I mean by "true three shotter" is difficult to get to in three shots LENGTH-WISE!).

If it was I can't agree with the recommendations of Dave Schmidt above to make that hole into some hybrid it was not intended to be (as good and interesting as Dave's recommendations appear to me to be in concept).

I would say another hole should be on the course that would in "concept" be something of a "middle ground" concept of a par 5 as Dave's recommendations seem to suggest!

I realize the realities of distance and all today but we're talking architectural concept here, the validity and interest of it--that's all!

And as such, why try to compromise those concepts or morph them? Look at them purely as what they were originally intended to be and then we can see how valid and interesting they are to architecture and the overall playing of golf!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Now that we've sort of had our wrists slapped for excessive fooling around and constantly ribbing each other and wasting everyone's time and space on here, I'm turning a new leaf and I'll admit that we really do (in person) agree on maybe over 90% of all things on golf architecture. And I will admit that I really don't think, and never have, that you're wrong 98% of the time and right only 2% of the time as I've so often said!

So that ruse is over, as much fun as I had with it!

But I'm still concerned about that remaining 5-10% of the time when we truly don't agree! You're so far out in left field in that 5-10% that you really do have to do something about it and work harder to see things my way in that area if you ever want to truly get to the essence of golf architecture!

(just kidding fellows)!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I would think, that if we agreed on 100 % of the issues,
100 % of the time, it would be boring, and indicative of a lack of independent thought.

But, I do see part of the problem, you think I'm over in left field, when I'm in right field, waving my arms feverishly to get your attention.

I think our differences are a matter of a few degrees, and wish on many occassions, that we could make field trips to examine the features and designs in question, and then discuss them with Exhibit A staring us in the face.

I would like to get back to Merion with you before the snow flies to reexamine our furniture.  Perhaps we could get others to join us, followed by food, drink and debate.  

[TEPaul]

I think this is a fantastic thread so far, dealing with and discussing the various types and "concepts" of par 5s really well.

And the 15th PVGC has been used on here a lot as an example of the "true three shotter", at least certainly in original concept. It's very important to know that, know what it means, particularly what Crump (and others) meant by the concept, and how he meant to execute it in design and play and also to know how the concept was supposed to DIFFER from other par 5 concepts!

The history of the conceptual creation and construction of #15 PVGC is an odd one! In many ways the evolution of #15 during PV's creation is interesting, confusing, somewhat sad and ultimately redeeming! But it may be the best indication of the overall "process" of creation Crump used with PVGC.

Crump was an amateur architect, there's no question of that. PV is the only course he ever created! But his single minded dedication to the course in both time and effort and personal money was almost mindboggling!

What does this have to do with #15? #15 has a lot to do with it because it's probably the clearest indication of not just the product Crump created (the entire course and club of PV) but it shows most clearly the "process" Crump used to create Pine Valley.

And by that I mean that Crump, probably without even realizing it began constructing PV and even putting some of the holes and then most of them into play before finalizing his entire routing and design concepts on the final group of holes! And what I mean to say by "without even realizing it" only means the enormous burden he was progressively putting on himself in dealing with design and routing of those final holes AFTER constructing the rest. Routing and hole designing is hard enough without building your way into a routing and design box like that!!

And the very last of all of them to fall into place was #15! In a way it apparently never fully did fall into place for him, in his mind.

Since Crump apparently did not write much if at all about his plans and feelings for PV the nearest indications of that are from what's known as "the remembrances" from his two closest friends and compatriots at PV, W.P. Smith and Father Carr. Both of them wrote two purposely and distinctly independent hole by hole remembrances after he died of all that Crump had ever talked with them about concerning his plans and feelings about the course and the individual holes.

Again, Crump had designed and constructed portions of the courses and put them into play (in the end of his life exactly 14 holes). Holes #12-15 were not constructed although 12-14 had been completely finalized in design by him. But that left #15.

He apparently had not completely come to grips with the finishing touches of it's concept.

Crump put further burden on himself in the creation of PV by going into the project with a crystal clear idea of not just balance and variety but EXACTLY where he wanted that balance and variety.

Anyone can imagine how difficult that must have been when you have four more holes to go, you know what they're to be and you have a limited amount (or I should say a fairly clearly defined stretch) of land to put them on! And on top of that a very complicated remaining portion of land topographically and otherwise.

And sadly, Father Carr (who saw Crump so frequently) in his remembrances on hole #15 said in the last sentence on that hole; "It (#15) was the last thing on which I talked with him before he died, ......"

But when you analyze the working routing map that apparently Crump used for so many years you can see his final ideas for #15 before he died.

He wanted two unreachable and "true three shotters" and by his instructions par 5s that could NEVER be reached in two shots. #7 was done and built and he was happy with it! But he couldn't figure out exactly how to make #15 (the other true three shotter) different enough in play and particularly in look from #7.

You can also see that Crump had drawn in an enormous cross hazard across the fairway from maybe 180-100 in to the green. This was very reminiscent in look and concept to #7's Hell's Half acre but in a different place on the hole and clearly Crump must not have been happy about the similarities of those features.

But he died suddenly before the hole was totally completed and constructed and apparently the Wilsons of Merion (and possibly Flynn with them) came in and constructed the hole as it is today along with holes 12-14 exactly to Crump's specs.

And so it was done as it is now without that enormous cross feature Crump had drawn in near the end of the second shot landing area and which he apparently wasn't happy about anyway.

In the end the hole was built differently in look and play from #7, as Crump had wanted it to be, but it very much is a "true three shotter" as he also wanted. Unlike #7 there is nothing to carry over on the hole as there is on #7 and that's the part that's different enough, at least it is for me.

The concept is to just hit three shots as far and as accurately as you can and hope you get there, particularly as the green and green-end are immensely complicated to both approach and play! Again, the hole's concept is not supposed to be multi-optional--it's supposed to be an out and out shot testing requirement, even if that does seem slightly one dimensional. If Crump, some of his friends and collaborators were anything in their ideas for PV they were MOST definitely into real "SHOT TESTING" and of very good golfers! In that particular way parts of PV never really were supposed to be multi-optional exactly!

But it's a true three shotter and my only regret is it may not be today for the likes of a Tiger Woods, particularly since the  course has been near top ranked for years. My regret about that is that PV doesn't own more ideally usable land at the tee end of #15!

If they did though, I would seriously recommend that a tee be built for golfers of the likes of Tiger making the hole play 725+!

I'm serious! Everybody else could use the original back tee but for the likes of Woods with a tee back at that length the hole would be again a "true three shotter", requiring of a great player like Woods to hit his three best just to get there!

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

No shame on you at all for your suggestions on ANGC's #8. They're excellent--let's just do it somewhere other than actually on ANGC's #8.

[Mark_Fine]

Par fives are controversial and everyone will have different opinions of good ones and bad ones.  There is no answer to the initial question - What's best?  

Dave comments that a forced 7I layup on a par five is boring!  He may be right.  But if the reason a 7I layup is required is because the drive was less than ideal, then maybe that's all the golfer deserved.  

#7 for example at Pine Valley is in my opinion one of the weaker holes on the course.  For a decent golfer, it requires not one but two layup shots!  Talk about boring    You can't hit driver off the tee and the next shot is a function of picking a club that gives you the proper wedge distance you want into the green.  My guess is the pros would hit two irons of some kind and a wedge.  For the weaker player, the hole is an absolute nightmare but then again the course was not designed for the average player so who cares.  Thank goodness the green is outstanding or I'd venture to call it a throw out hole!  

Again if you want a great par five, I believe you have to have some degree of risk/reward.  I can't think of too many par fives that I'd call great that do not exhibit that character!  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark;

Everyone is definitlely entitled to their own and personal opinions of golf holes but I for one pretty strongly disagree with yours of PVGC's #7 as just a good green now and the rest of it a "throw out" hole!

Because of the increased distances players hit the ball today the basic concept of that hole's theme which is the hole's midsection "Hell's Half Acre" as most all the orginal "risk" on that hole is now compromised very much for long hitting players. Even for a very good and very long player, though, miss that fairway by just a bit (even though it is wide) and that severe "risk" of carrying "Hell's Half Acre" is very much back in the equation to complicate matters! So at least there's that and puts some premium on accuracy on the drive for today's bombers who have compromised the original length issue on the tee shot and second shot!

So the second shot (to struggle to carry HHA) is not what it was and consequently the second half to the green is not much of anything to risk but the approach to the green end is far more complex than even most good players realize if they are looking for a birdie.

But still #7 is not a "throw out" because it's still very much a "true three shotter" (those that have hit and held that green in its history probably number no more than two handfuls!) and if you're looking to birdie #7 it's going to have to be done exclusively with one putt!

In that sense how can you consider the hole (other than the green) as a 'throw out'?

And if you're sticking to your opinion that any par 5 should somehow be legitimately reachable in two by a strong player I disagree with that even more!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

You've returned us to the core of this thread.

Would # 7 at PV benefit if the tee were moved back 20-50 yards ?

Is there something wrong with requiring a rather well defined standard examination of the player's skills, ala # 7 ?

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom- when I was last at PV, it was very early in the season and the course was quite empty.  We saw a small level patch of ground to the right of and behind the 14th green.  We chose to play #15 from that spot.  It created more length and in addition a more angled tee shot relative to the fairway across the lake.  While not practical for regular play when the course is crowded, a tee built in that spot or even behind it could give the 15th some of the added length and difficulty you want for special occasions.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Let's maybe agree on this, #7 is not a "throw out" hole, but it sure can't be classified, especially today, as a great hole even if it is a hole at "Pine Valley".  Last time I played it, I believe I hit 3W,5W, wedge and I don't bomb the ball off the tee.  There wasn't much going on strategically and I don't think I'd play the hole much differently any other day unless the wind was really blowing.  Of course it is very penal if you miss the fairway but most holes are at PV.  How do you play the hole?

Regarding having every par five reachable in two, I never said I agree or advocate that.  I just said that I believe the most interesting par fives and the ones that most of us would consider "great" are par fives that have risk/reward whether it be on the tee shot, or second shot, etc.  How many great par fives can people name that do not have this feature??  My guess is a few at best.

However, if there is a need for a "true three shot" par five the only solution without adding the risk/reward factor that I can see is adding length.  Today, that yardage probably needs to be in the 650 plus range to get something a little longer than a wedge in for the third shot.  Obviously wind/ground conditions etc. push that yardage up or down.  

Of course you can force players to "layup" but rarely do you find holes with that feature all that inspiring.  Saucon Valley's Weyhill course has a few of these forced layup par fives.  The idea was similar to Crump's in that no way was anyone going to reach these holes in two shots.  So the holes zig and zag so there is no way to reach in two.  You hit from spot to spot, then hit your third on the green.  They are all boring non-inspiring golf holes but they are truly three shot par fives.    

Pat,
I guess adding 20-50 yards would help make #7 a bit more difficult for the better golfer (it would destroy the weaker player), but not sure it would make it that much better given that even with their best drive, the green is out of range.  It probably would force driver or 3W off the tee which would put more demand on a tee shot in the fairway.  

Mark

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul:

I don't buy your concept of a "true three shotter" being something you need three of your best shots, no misses allowed, just to reach the green.  I've never seen such a hole.  Sure, its theoretically possible, but like you point out, you are talking 700+ yards, more like 800 yards for the likes of Tiger, Phil, Sergio, etc.

To me a true three shotter is one that will require a full shot for the third shot.  That's a lot more achieveable, and can even be done with holes that might allow a half wedge for your third in theory if you busted two of your absolute best, but in practice wouldn't because there'd be too little gain trying to do so.

Par 5s may have existed on equal footing with 3s and 4s 100 years ago, but that day is long past.  The best a par 5 can hope for is to emulate a good shortish par 4 where you have a choice off the tee of busting driver in exchange for a less than full wedge to the green or laying up with a fairway wood/long iron off the tee and leaving a longer full iron.

A course here in Iowa called Hunter's Ridge has a good example of this type of par 5.  617 yards, plays directly into the prevailing wind off the tee and into a quartering right to left wind the rest of the way.  The tee shot requires a 225 yard carry over other teeboxes, junk and a creek to reach the fairway.  Right is dead.  Left is a creek, though there's a bit of room over there, more the further you carry it.  A true test.  Then you lay up, pond to the left from 180 all the way to the back of the green, right is lined with several bunkers from 80-150 yards.  I usually lay back to 150 to take the pressure off my second, but I know people who play it with a fairway wood to try leave a shorter third.


Dave Schmidt:

Ugh, I hate par 5s that may require laying up off the tee to enforce their shot values.  Brad Swanson and I played together the Monday before the Wild Horse thing and both hated one par 5 that required us to lay up off the tee, the fairway went out to about 310 as you describe, with the fast fairways we'd both easily be through it with a well hit drive (he hit his 3W about 3 yards short of the end of the fairway, how's that for control )  I have no problem with using narrower fairways, bunkers, water or terrain to ENCOURAGE players to lay up off the tee, but having a hole that's well over 500 yards that requires laying up from the tee is just plain old bad design, IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark FIne & Doug,

Pine Tree has an interesting mix of par 5's though I think one, # 10, should be coverted, back, to a par 4.

The 16th hole at 666, usually downwind requires three solid shots.

But, the sleeper is # 5 which is about 610, usually into a quartering right left wind, narrower driving area, narrower second shot area that requires a decision, risk/reward with respect to getting as close to the small, into the wind green as possible.  Bunkers pinch the fairway at the second shot, whereas on # 16 it's relatively wide open, and there's a much larger green, maybe 2 x or 3 x.

Both holes have their unique architectual features, but generally require three really solid, well placed shots, with # 5 being the more demanding of the two from the back tees.

Holes # 9 and 10 are reachable par 5's and usually play down wind.  But, they have their own obstacles to contend with.

TEPaul,

I expect you in Florida this winter to see for yourself.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I've played Pine Tree so I know what you are refering to.  You said the key words though, risk/reward, which translates into options and shots that require some thought.  These are elements in most great golf holes.
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()