[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[TEPaul]

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


Sure, Donald Ross. I don't think anyone considered par 5s his strong suit. I don't think he did either. He said the long par 4 was what he considered to be the meat of good architecture and where the good player showed his best stuff.

[John Moore II]

I am not sure I would consider the Par 5's on Ross courses weak. I would say that at Pine Needles and Southern Pines, the par 5's are some of the better holes out there, 10 at Needles and 5 at Southern Pines specifically. And from the other Ross courses I have not played in a while, I can't recall those par 5's as being weak.
--I would say that an architect can be considered great if the par 5's are not great. As long as they fit well with the course and the course itself can turn out great. Not sure if I can think of any examples where that is the case, but I suppose its possible if the course can turn out great.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Three of Plainfield's par 5's are outstanding.
The forth is a combination of a par 3 and a par 4 that came about when other holes were converted to a practice facility, a situation that I know you're familiar with.

Seminole's par 5's are pretty good as well.

[mark chalfant]

I feel  the Ross  par fives on well known his  tournament venues, such as Oakland Hills and Aronimink are not his best. However, many of his courses
have very fine sets of three shot holes. Winchester, Longmeadow, Roaring Gap and White Bear Yacht come to mind. I have not played Beverly CC, but have  read some positive comments about Beverly's long holes. 

[John Moore II]

--I thought the par 5's at Interlachen (the ones we saw) were pretty good. Ross course.

[Ed Oden]

Patrick:

I wholeheartedly agree on Plainfield.  Interesting, fun, challenging and all VERY different.  In my opinion, Plainfield has one of the best collections of par 5s anywhere, not just in the limited world of Ross designs. 

J. Kenneth:

I am not sure I entirely agree on Pine Needles.  While I think the 1st hole is outstanding, 10 and 15 are very average I my opinion.  I love Pine Needles.  But I don't see its par 5s as a strength in relationship to the rest of the course.

Mark:

With regard to Roaring Gap, 7, 11 and 16 are solid and great fun.  But the first hole is so weak it really detracts from the course.

As to the original question, there are countless par 3s and par 4s that immediately come to mind when I consider the best holes I've played.  Far fewer when it comes to par 5s.  So I suspect there is merit to the idea they are the most difficult to design.  Yet, when done right, they can also be some of the most memorable.  Shinnecock #16, Friars Head #14, Five Farms #14, Firestone #16, to name a few, are indelibly etched in my mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Tillinghast was notably "weak" in his design of par five holes as well, and he was anything but a weak designer.

I think it is simply a matter of priorities.  If making some great par fives was my first priority, I would build more great ones, but the rest of my holes would suffer in the bargain.

[Brett Hochstein]

Tom,

I understand the potential loss of many other great holes in designing specifically for great par 5's.  In The Anatomy of a Golf Course, you make a strategic analogy of golf to billiards, where the player has to carefully consider his next shot and how it will affect the next shot and so on; one must be constantly setting himself up for the best possible situation in the next shot, offensively or defensively.  I don't have the exact text with me, but that is how I remember it.  So, my question is, disregarding the flow of holes and completeness of the routing (which would very likely destroy a golf course),  is a par five as itself not the ultimate in shot planning strategy, that type of strategy most similar to billiards where the greatest of players can think as far as 8 shots ahead?  It has always seemed to me that with more room, length, hazards, and slopes that there is more to consider from tee to green.  I'm curious to hear any sort of further elaboration on this.

[Mike Policano]

Tom, how's it going? Tillie's 5's at Ridgewood East West seem pretty good especially now that mounds are maintained with high grass that needs to be avoided.

Are these and BCC #14 the exception?

Cheers

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,

How do you assess your effort at the Riverfront 14th?  With the location within the topography of the overall layout and its design after its deceptively simple drive, it seems to me you and group gave it quite a bit of effort?!

For me is a very strong hole, particulary difficult for moderate length hitters at about 540 to 550 into the wind coming from the west or southwest.  It is one of the few holes at Riverfront the gives a decided advantage to the big hitter that alllows them to hit past the semi-blind or blind third shot approach to the fall away green.  The front pin position for me is the most difficult.

[Jim Nugent]

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

Are there any architects like that, who design great par 3's and 4's, but sub-standard par 5's? 

Not sure Tillie counts, as he designed some great par 5's.  Bethpage Black and Baltusrol are two examples. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim N:  I was referencing Frank Hannigan's seminal article on Tillinghast, where he said that Tillie was weak on par-5 holes, because the par-3's were most important to him.  Tillinghast did have the one "Sahara" type of par 5 that he liked to repeat over and over again (Baltusrol, Five Farms, etc.); you could even argue that #4 at Bethpage Black is a variation on that hole.  But he built a lot of par-5 holes that they convert to long 4's for the Open.

Brett:  The 8th at Crystal Downs might be the only par-5 I know where you have to play for a precise position on all three shots, and if you mess up the first or second you are really struggling even if you're in the fairway.  Nearly all the others (even the supposedly great ones) let you mess up a bit on the first or second shot unless there is a forced carry on the second shot like Tillie's Sahara holes.  Most other par-5 holes that are considered great are really two-shot holes for the expert player, and the early architects shied away from having more than one or two three-shotters because, without forward tees and with wind, most long par-4's would play as three-shotters for the majority of golfers.

Nobody who is a great designer really designs bad par-5's, but those holes are more important to some people than others. 

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Plainfield's par 5s are good ones. I'm not saying Ross never did any good par 5s just that I don't think that was a type of hole he concentrated on. Ross did an awful lot of courses too. Personally, I've never thought Seminole's par 5s were strong or even good, certainly not anywhere near the caliber of its other par holes.

In my opinion, the best par 5s from that era were on courses that were decidedly done with championship golf or the championship caliber player in mind. It's not lost on me that some of the best par 5s from that early era were off the palletes of those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects such as the Fownses or Hugh Wilson or George Crump or Macdonald's NGLA (other than #9 which I think is that course's real "weak-link" hole, although it is not lost on me what Macdonald himself apparently thought to do with it but never did).

[Chris Cupit]

I do agree that interesting Par 5s are the most difficult to pull off.

I also agree with TP that for all of Ross' greatness his par 5s can be a little weak.  Again--he's great but all greats have a weak spot (Nicklaus and his wedges, Tiger and his........knee)

Two courses that come to mind are Holston Hills and Linville Golf Club.

HH is a fine course and the first par 5 on the front is very good.  But I have never understood the infatuation with #7 and #18 seemed like a pretty bland uphill slog to a very forgetable green benched into the hill. 

Linville has four par 5s.  The best of the bunch is clearly #4 but it is not a Ross hole (his #4 was a par 4).   

I'll try and describe the other 3:

#7  A 80 degree dogleg right.  Off the tee are two streams one in front and another along the right cutting the fairway in two.  Trees/rhododendrum bushes flank the right and into the right tress/bushes is a lost ball.  The left side of the fairway is bordered by a perfectly linear set of white pines.
Off the tee you can:
     a.  Lay up to an island of fairway with about a 3 or 4 iron and leave yourself between 240 and 300 yards in depending on how far away from the creek you play.
     b.  Try and go over the creek.  You can try and hit a 40 yard slice (minimum).  No slice and you are in the creek.  (Actually it is not uncommon for a big hitter to aim for a cut and double cross himself and end up safe--left of the creek!!)

If you cut it only 20-30 yards you will almost certainly go through the fairway on the left and be up under one of the white pines.  A real risky shot  starts the drive up over the trees and the line is as much as 100 yards to the right of the lay up shot!

If you hit it over the creek you have a 4-6 iron into the green.  The green is pitched strongly from back to front and has two flanking bunkers to either side.

#13  Slight dogleg right cut into the side of the mountain.  Rt. is mountain laurel/rhododendruns and certain lost ball.  The fairway slopes at a 45 degree angle left towards two fairway bunkers and a creek.  Given the slope it is always a rock hard fairway and given cart traffic there is also little rough to slow a ball up going toward the creek.  You could stand on the right edge of the fairway and drop a ball at shoulder height and at best it is in the left rough and it could go through the rough, across the cart path that sits along the hazard's edge and into the creek 

It is a very slight dogleg but you must either lay up with a 3 or 4 iron to hit to a flat part of the fairway or try and hit a 20 yard cut into the hill to keep the ball in play.  The saving grace of the hole is the green which is phenomenal and features a unique bAck-middle tier that wreaks havoc with anything less than the perfect pitch.

#15  Another sharp dogleg this time left and there is also a creek running left to right and away from the player.  If you try and go over the creek it is a 250 carry on the left and about 275 on the right.  But, again, given some trees and the angle of the tee shot you almost have to hit a hook of at least 15 or 20 yards.

There is INTERNAL OUT OF BOUNDS along the left side so a ball that misses the fairway on the left by 15 yards is OB.  Another hole where you can play safe but are forced to do so with a 2-3 iron up to maybe a 5-wood or try and go over.  Over the creek you have a shot of 200-220 in.  Again, you have a great green flanked by two bunkers but the entire hole is the tee shot. 

In looking at the course though there is no way to shift tees or really do much.  Linville is a VERY compact and borderline dangerous when the course is full. 

Having said all this, I really like both courses. I have had more fun playing Linville (both in competition and in rounds with my wife) than any other course I have played in the last few years.  I think it almost perfectly fits the description of a "sporty" golf course.

[Ed Oden]

Chris, I actually really like the 13th at Linville and haven't had quite the same experience you describe with the cant of the fairway.  Regardless, your assessment of the green complex is spot on.  I also agree with your assessment of 7 and 15.  In particular, the drives on both holes leave much to be desired.  Fortunately, the par 5s do not detract from an otherwise great experience at Linville.

Ed

[Matt Varney]

So if the Par 5's really define an architect's talent, what is the best type of Par 5 to play?

I personally love short par 5's around 500 yards that give you a good chance to get home in 2 shots but, can also penalize you if you hit your second shot poorly.  I really don't like long par 5's that are 600+ yards long unless it allows you to hit 3 differnt types of shots that value good shotmaking from the tee, the fairway, then a short approach into the green.

[Chris Cupit]

Chris, I actually really like the 13th at Linville and haven't had quite the same experience you describe with the cant of the fairway.  Regardless, your assessment of the green complex is spot on.  I also agree with your assessment of 7 and 15.  In particular, the drives on both holes leave much to be desired.  Fortunately, the par 5s do not detract from an otherwise great experience at Linville.

Ed

Linville is a special place and I wish blogs didn't read as "harsh" as they tend to since my aim was not to be overly critical.

I think the original 13th tee gave you a much more straight shot down the fairway (based on the oil painting of Ross with the 13th hole in the background hung in the golf shop).  In that case I think it would be a terrific hole.  Maybe they went back and a little right for length and to get away from the 12th green??

This year at the Four-Ball the ground was very firm and I played the tee shot with everything from Driver to 3 iron.  But I also tend to hook the ball so the hole also doesn't fit my eye and that could be a subliminal source of my angst   The green is fantastic and the terrain 35 yards short leading up to it is wonderful as well.  Often times a run up approach is the best way to go and given the lay of the land you really have to favor the right side (near the bushes, and trouble) to keep the ball from veering hard left and coming to rest in that diabolical swale short and left of the green.

[TEPaul]

"So if the Par 5's really define an architect's talent, what is the best type of Par 5 to play?"


MattV:

Probably any type and I don't think it matters whether they're short or really long it's just about what's going on with them from tee into and on the green.

I mean look at NGLA's #7 or #18, they're around or under 500 and there is just so much going on from tee onto and around their greens even for players who can hit them in two with irons.

Or look at PVGC's #15 or Oakmont's #12, pretty hard to reach in two for most anyone but there is just so much going on with those two from tee to the green and then on those greens and around them. They're just good and challenging and interesting holes that you always need to really apply yourself to when playing them.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Actually the 4th on the Black is more of the Tilly double-dog-lg concept than the Sahara. When viewed from over head one can clearly see that the hole dog-legs left on the lower plateau and also sog-leg's left on the upper, especially as the 3rd shot into the green is meant to be played at a 60 to 90% angle depending upon where the shot ends up.

The 7th hole is a true Sahara type of hole, especially from the championship tee, with the massive waste bunker that stretches completely from the outside rough area on the left to the tree line of the right and there is a forced carry over it ranging from 180 yards far left to to nearly 260 yards far right.

It is one of the rare par-5 Sahara-bunker type holes of his where the large cross-bunker is challenging on the tee shot. It is interesting that the 4th hole also offers a nearly identical challenge to the player on a par-4.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Kalen Braley]

I must admit, I was a little surprised to hear TomD admit that he gives par 3's and 4's more attention than the 5s.

I'm not sure what to make of that, and I can't even pretend to know what its like to design a course to say one way or another.  I'm curious if other GCA.com contributing architects feel the same way.

I would think all the holes deserve full attention...but then again as was alluded to before, on a par 5, there is so many permuations of how a golfer plays the hole, perhaps its just not practical to even give too much thought on bunker placements, fairway undulations, distance from tee, etc.

Interesting topic!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

Doak didn't really say that, did he?

I read his statement as saying his top priority is not proving his talent by making great par fives and ONLY great par fives.  He could do so, but it might be at the expense of other great holes in the course in question.  His priority is making a great golf course, not any particular type of great golf hole.

The course AS A WHOLE is what gets his full attention... not any one type of golf hole.

But hopefully he'll chime back in and say one way or the other!

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:  Thanks for the defense.  You are right, I didn't say what Kalen thought I said.

I just try to find what are the best holes on any property, whether they are 3's, 4's or 5's, without a particular bias.  Occasionally I have seen properties which favored a couple of great par-5 holes first, but since it is more likely that one will find great par-4's, those tend to win out in most of my designs.  It's not a bias, any more than I've got a bias for par-70 or par-71 designs ... it's just the law of averages.

[Tom Huckaby]

TD:  heck I just thought you wouldn't see this for awhile; thus I wanted to get it straight.

And law of averages is a great way to put it.  There are gonna be more par 4s no matter what you do.

That is unless you got really crazy with a routing, like oh I don't know, a certain back nine we all love and are discussing in another thread right now?  Pushing that out to a full 18?

Now that would be freakily cool.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()