[Kalen Braley]

Tom and Tom,

You are right, in re-reading the posts, I read a little too much into the implied message.  I apologize if this was taken the wrong way. 

That being said, I think it is still interesting to look at a par 5 and break it down into its parts to figure out how to make a good one a great one.  I can see how this would turn into a maddening exercise real fast.

I'm trying to think of a world class par 5 and figure out from an interface standpoint what makes it so good.  PB 18 comes to mind, but I think sometimes the eye candy of the hole overweighs what one has to actually face to play it successfully.

[Peter Pallotta]

Any value in looking at this question the other way around?

That is, what would it say about an architect's inate talent if his BEST holes tended to be his Par 5s?  Would it be, as Bob Crosby might say, counter-indicative?

I'll tip my own hand by saying that, while I've never played a Par 5 from one of the great old ones and so am open to changing my mind, I'm currently not a big fan of Par 5s in general.

To me, Par 5s are sort-of like the original nod to popular taste - ie. long before directional bunkers and containment mounding, there was the first Par 5 saying, "hey, look at me!"

Peter

[TEPaul]

I'll tip my own hand by saying that, while I've never played a Par 5 from one of the great old ones and so am open to changing my mind, I'm currently not a big fan of Par 5s in general."

Peter:

Interesting!

I'll tip my hand off your remark and sentiments and tell you that I think really good par 5s are probably the best and also the most democratic type hole in golf for the simple reason they are one shot more and consequently give golfers just that much more opportunity to do stuff like outfox their opponent (and the far larger invisible "field" in stroke play). It's the old "tortoise and hare" analogy. I hadn't really thought of it before but probably the best par 5s are those ones that have really dangerous or penalty conducive greens or surrounds. The fairly ultra long 15th at Pine Valley may be a classic example of that----eg miss it and you probably have your hands totally full! 

Very few seem to appreciate it or even think of it anymore but one of the coolest things in golf to me is to instantly recalibrate one's strategy off one's opponent's play, particularly the mistake prone "hare" or "Tiger"and particularly on par 5s. The deal is not just that you strategize to nip him on that particular par 5 hole but also if you do it can actually be worth a little more benefit in match play than just that one hole. "Hares" and "Tigers" just totally HATE to be nipped on par 5 holes by the "Tortise" set.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, TE - now that's interesting - i.e. that you approach the question from the standpoint of a competitive amateur, and in the context of the tortoise and the hare/tiger.

I've often said that I'm missing (and will always miss) at least one important aspect in understanding golf course architecture (and what men like Behr were talking about), i.e. I don't understand how the game is played at the higher level, and can't play it at that level.

I really did mean "I" don't generally like Par 5s, the "I" being an average golfer. For me, most Par 5s are like Par 4s, except with one extra half-assed shot thrown in there (most of the times) or a lot of putzing around a greensite not designed to easily accept a long 2nd (the few other times).

But what do you think about an architect's "inate talent" if his best holes are his Par 5s? Am I totally off the mark in divorcing the "playable architecture" from the "routing/design architecture"?

Peter

[Matt Varney]

I am interested in what makes a par 5 really fun?  Is it the risk reward shot making that tugs at the inner person in all of us that tempts you to try things you normally would not do?  Is it the visual length and intimidation to overcome a forced carry or natural hazard taking a more direct angle route to try and setup a shorter second shot to the par 5?

We are working with Pete & P.B Dye on a new course in Tennessee.  In a couple more weeks, I am going to post some pics that will show some really cool par 5's.  We have 4 total with 2 on each nine hole loop and wait until you see the bunkering, contour shaping and the natural hazards like rocks that are in play.  Each side allows you to have a short par 5 and a longer par 5 each one is unique and allows you to make birdie but, if you get too aggressive you could make a big number losing your ball.

 

[TEPaul]

"I've often said that I'm missing (and will always miss) at least one important aspect in understanding golf course architecture (and what men like Behr were talking about), i.e. I don't understand how the game is played at the higher level, and can't play it at that level."


Well, maybe that's so, Peter, but the thing that always pretty much amazes me about you is the way you do look at this thing from the particular perspective you have. That is really impressive to me and as you know always has been.

I wonder how much I would have loved golf and even golf architecture if my life in it was devoid of competition and the consequences of competition. What are the consequences of competition really? I guess noone can ever really know until they do it and then look inside themselves as to what it does to them and means to them. For the longest time I never even knew why I did it but now I know. I'm actually a timid guy--pretty shy and in the beginning it really scared me so to go out there and to see what I had against the rest.

At the end of the day, I grew proud of myself because for whatever reason I never had the distance or maybe even the talent for that but I felt like I just out thought 'em and that is so cool to me now. I pretty much always felt that I had absolutely no right talent-wise to have ever knocked off some of the golfers I did. What that meant to me then and now is just that they don't always do what they are so capable of. That's the greatest thing I ever learned and played for and to.

Playing golf competitively just can't be really explained to those who haven't tried it, in my opinion---it really is something else, and again, Peter Pallotta, that you've never done it, but yet that you can see this whole thing as you do makes it that much more impressive to me.


PS:
Just, maybe, PeterP, one of the best things of all about COMPETITIVE golf, and compared to other sports, or maybe life or whatever, is I think it really does teach you and tell you well----depending on what your own bag is about winning----what failing is all about and that it ain't the end of the line, no matter what. The thing about golf is that if winning is your only deal you just have to learn it ain't going to happen that much of the time. Even the great Tiger Woods, who, if he is anything, certainly is the consumate and ultimate all time winner, fails to do that close to 75% of the time across his career.

WHAT A THING GOLF IS, don't you feel?

[Sean_A]

Par 3's seem simple to design and build.
Par 4's a little more complicated.

It seems that par 5's are the most difficult to design.

Could that be the reason why many courses only have two or three of them ?

Are PAR 5's one of the key indicators, along with routing, by which we should judge the quality of an architect's work ?

Can an architect whose par 5's are mediocre to lacking, ever be considered great ?

I don't believe the word "inate" has much to do with the subject.  Though I do believe that generally speaking, par 5s tend to be the weak link for most courses.  Maybe it is down to their being more difficult to design because of the length and how that translates to players across the spectrum of ability.  Perhaps its part of balancing easyish holes and tough holes and that par 5s are seen as the most acceptable holes to offer a breather.  I don't really know, though it has always been my preference to have less than four 5s and never more than four on a course.  I can't think of a course with more than four par 5s which really is a good set.  It is usually the case where having holes that rabbits can feel good about themselves is desirable.   

In any case, I don't believe par 5s are any sort of litmus test for talent if we are talking about the best archies of all time - though it certainly doesn't hurt when I look back at courses.  I can say for certain that the par 5s at Cruden Bay lift the interest of that course for me because its so unusual to have two crackers on one course.   To me, the most interesting par 5s tend to be the reachable ones or those juxtaposed against a very difficult par 4.  For instance, reachable downwind par 5s followed by into the wind long par 4 that is often not reachable demonstrates the folly of par as a design concept. 

Which leads me as to why I think par 5s are often so average.  They are usually designed as par 5s rather than designed to be interesting.  If folks could get into their minds that par is a scoring mechanism rather than a design mechanism than  perhaps a lot of what we consider average par 5s may seem much better.  For instance, many folks on this site decry the concept of a layup drive par 5 - usually they say the hole is forced as three shot hole when it isn't long enough to be.  Is this because of folks ideas of what a par 5 hole is/should be or just what a hole should be regardless of par? 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

Are PAR 5's one of the key indicators, along with routing, by which we should judge the quality of an architect's work ?

Par 5's typically make up a very small percentage of the holes on a course.  Very rarely more than four, and often only two or three.  Numbers alone argue against your question. 

And let me tip the question around a bit.  Suppose an architect routes beautifully, designs wonderful par 5's, but has mediocre to poor par 3's and par 4's.  Can we consider this architect great?   

Can an architect whose par 5's are mediocre to lacking, ever be considered great ?

Can you think of any architects, whose par 5's are mediocre to lacking, but are considered great?  The other question is, can you think of any architects who would be great, if only their par 5's were better? 

[Mark Pearce]

Do you think there would be any architectural merit in trying to hide a par 5 green so first time players literally couldn't find it? Well, maybe not never find it but how about if they couldn't find it for at least fifteen minutes? I think I should add to that they also need to hit their ball within at least a minute once it's their turn or suffer the consequent Rule 6-7 penalty. This could actually add some of that wonderful old cowboy "bandit" strategy of "Let's split up" to golf.

You need to play Cruden Bay.  Two great par 5s, neither green visible from the driving area or where many mortals will leave second shots and neither obvious.  Indeed I still couldn't see where I was going after two shots on both.

[Dan Boerger]

Before we paint too broad a brush stroke on Mr. Ross, I offer that Aronimink's 16th par 5 is a tremendous piece of work.

A well placed bunker challenges you to hit a tee shot that will leave you with a much better approach. You can take the bunker out of play and bail out right a bit and you'll have a bit more work to do, but still a good chance at a par or birdie.

One can reach it in two, but that green is far more receptive to a shorter iron. Miss right and there's significant mounding and bunkers to deal with. Miss left and a tricky greenside bunker awaits.

If you play 50 - 100 yards out you'll have a slight downhill pitch to a greensite that's got a lot going on.

I never tire of this hole!

(PS - I would post a pic of it, but much technical skills are lacking!)

[Dan Boerger]

Link:

http://www.aronimink.org/tour/tours.cfm?tourid=1052

[Bradley Anderson]

I think Patrick is asking a great question here.

But it is difficult to judge the compentency of any architect's abililty to build a sound par five hole because of the evolution of the equipment used to play the game.

A great par five has bunker hazards placed in the range of the second shot, but given the fact that that range has moved every 15 years or so with the everchanging upgrades in equipment technology, those hazards are fairly short lived in terms of how effective they are in challenging the better players.

The integrity of the par five hole has probably suffered most from the changing of equipment technology.

[Kalen Braley]

Can we get some examples of par 5's that work really well and are considered top notch?

As well some examples of holes that may have gotten better with technology.  I think ANGC #8, 13 and PB #18 are better holes now that they are more reachable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

# 13 has been reachable for a long, long while.

I believe that Jones himself defined it as a par 4.5, not a par 5.

Several very good par 5's come to mind.

# 3 on the East Nine at Ridgewood is one,
I also like # 2 on the Center nine, and # 4 and # 8 on the West nine.
Most haven't played # 4 from the back tees

Pine Tree's 5th hole is a very good par 5 from the back tees.
While # 16 is slightly longer, # 5 has more factors/features/strategies.

# 15 at ANGC is good, but many consider it a par 4.5 and not a par 5.

I like # 9 at Somerset Hills, # 7 and # 18 at NGLA, # 16 at Shinnecock, # 6, # 8 and # 12 and # 16 at Plainfield, # 1, # 8, # 10 and #16 at Boca Rio, # 9 at Seminole and # 7 at Newport, to name a few.

[Kalen Braley]

Patrick,

Good point, I should have clarified what I was thinking when I included that.  It has been reachable for a long time, but in the past it was more about hitting the perfect drive to get home in two.

Whereas now I'd argue it plays even better because many are tempted to go for it even with just an OK or so-so drive.  So in effect players have to think about giving it a go on a more frequent basis, thus adding more options and grey areas to the golf hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

What can't be appreciated on TV is how steep the fairway slopes.
It's mind boggling and intimidating.

Then, there's Rae's Creek and the green to contend with.

Some say that the hole gets harder as you get closer to it.

It's a frightening shot from directly right of the green, irrespective of the club you use.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()