[David Stamm]

In this day of technology=distance, there still a few par 5's that stand up to the long hitters and provide a test, albeit sometimes for different reasons. For example, technology has actually made the 18th at Pebble quite interesting to watch because now a hole that was thought unreachable is attacked in two more often than it used to. Then you have a hole like the 7th at Pine Valley that must be played with caution or all kinds of numbers can come into play. What are some examples of par 5's that have gotten better w/ age becuase of the real risk/reward options and what are the ones that have truly stood the test of time?

[David_Tepper]

Did anyone reach #16 on the OC Lake Course at the US Am last summer?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think one guy did. That par 5 is solid with no fairway bunkers.

[cary lichtenstein]

I don't think par 5's should be 3 shot holes, period the end. We need to bring par back to 72 or make'm all par 4's for the pros.

[Dave_Miller]

I don't think par 5's should be 3 shot holes, period the end. We need to bring par back to 72 or make'm all par 4's for the pros.

Cary:
cannot believe you made that statement.  Par is a meaningless number other than a way to give results and standings on TV.  Low score wins who cares what par is.
Best
Dave

[John Moore II]

I don't think par 5's should be 3 shot holes, period the end. We need to bring par back to 72 or make'm all par 4's for the pros.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Aren't par 5's designed to cause the player to hit 3 shots in order to reach the putting surface? Anything less becomes a par 4. So how exactly can a par 5 not be a three shot hole without changing the definition of 'par?'

[Tim Bert]

I think Ekwanok #7 is a good example of one that has stood the test of time.

[Ronald Montesano]

My opinion is that par did matter to Robert Tyre Jones, Junior, so it should matter to us.  Par is an individual measurement, as Shivas Irons alluded.  The 13th hole at Country Club of Buffalo demands a great deal to get home in two.  Even more demanding in the Buffalo area are the 2nd at Crag Burn and the 6th at Ivy Ridge, both beyond 600 yards and fraught with peril.

[Bob_Huntley]

When Spyglass Hill opened in 1965 it was thought that the 603 yard opening hole was unreachable. It was for awhile until George Bayer uncorked a couple of big ones and got on the putting service. Nowadays, there are youngsters from the  San Jose State team that seek birdie there at every opportunity.

It's really interesting to me that the NCGA used to hold their Nor. Cal. Championsip at Spyglass and always played from the back of the back tees. The pros in the Crosby never played all the way back. The course record for the first two or three years after the opening was Forrest Fezler' score of two under par 70.


Bob

[Jim Nugent]

What do you guys think of #17 at Baltusrol? 

[Matt_Cohn]

What do you guys think of #17 at Baltusrol? 

I think guys reach it even though it's 650 now.

[Kyle Henderson]

I think the 14th at Pebble has stood the test of time more than the 18th. They tee shot must be played left of the trees but short of the left edge of fairway, leaving a very long way to the green for the second shot. The giant bunker guarding the elevated green make it foolhardy to go for the green in two, even for the pros in most cases.

The 18th may be better than it was (depends on who you ask) now that it's reachable, but the 14th, having stood the test of time, plays more as it did in the 1920's.

[Mark Chaplin]

#7 at PV has anyone ever hit it in 2??

[Paul Nash]

Ninth hole at the Hotchkin course at Woodhall Spa - one of my favourite holes - has a big set of fairway bunkers right the way across apart from a couple of small walkways through - can't remember exactly how far it is from right up by the bunkers but I think it is circa 250 - and you can't be too daring or you will go in - a great hole and thinking about it has just made me check the website as I am yearning for another game there as it has been several years since the last visit to one of the best value golf courses in the world with the some of the best greenside complex's you will ever see

[Matthew Rose]

Hard to argue with Augusta #13....  510 yards and still makes the best players in the world crap themselves.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Ninth hole at the Hotchkin course at Woodhall Spa - one of my favourite holes - has a big set of fairway bunkers right the way across apart from a couple of small walkways through - can't remember exactly how far it is from right up by the bunkers but I think it is circa 250 - and you can't be too daring or you will go in - a great hole and thinking about it has just made me check the website as I am yearning for another game there as it has been several years since the last visit to one of the best value golf courses in the world with the some of the best greenside complex's you will ever see

Paul

I wass there a couple of weeks ago.  Depending upon which set of tees you are playing from I think it may be nearer 275 to the cross bunkers.

Agreed that Woodhall is a must play and relatively cheap in comparison with other courses in that category, even without the EGU member discount.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The 16th at Firestone South:





Hole #16
(667 yards, par 5)

The 16th is the signature hole at Firestone. The extension of the tee now brings the bunkers into play, which are approximately 280 to 290 yards off the tee. A long iron second shot down the hill must avoid a creek on the right and stay short of the pond that guards this small green. The front right pin is the most challenging.

[Cliff Hamm]

What do you guys think of #17 at Baltusrol? 

I've always thought the 18th was underrated and the better hole.  I don't like the addition of the fairway bunkers by Rees Jones.  I do wish the green was a bit smaller to make it a tougher target in two for the pros with perhaps more undulations. Also, might be better if the creek to the left were brought in a bit. To me it is just a better hole than 17 and overall an excellent par 5.

[Jerry Kluger]

Most people view par 5s that stand the test of time as those which have severe trouble when considering the risk/reward feature of the hole.  I don't think that it has to be the case that the penalty should be severe but it should require some really good imagination/execution should the second shot be less than perfect. 

I think that Ballyneal #4 is a hole which should stand the test of time.  The tee shot is certainly demanding and often subject to a strong wind factor.  The second shot is rarely from a level stance into an elevated green. The green has a large false front where a front pin can pose a significant challenge even if the player has chosen not to go for it in two and has a wedge in hand. The player going for the green in two and missing on any side results in a very demanding recovery shot from a significant slope where the ball can easily run away from you and possibly off the green. 

It is not a simple formula that a par 5 which is unreachable in two stands the test of time - it is the par 5 which poses many different challenges and options from day to day which stands the test of time.

[Kevin Pallier]

What are some examples of par 5's that have gotten better w/ age becuase of the real risk/reward options and what are the ones that have truly stood the test of time?

5th NSW = I'd challenege anyone to hit it in two off the plates into a strong sountherly 

14th TOC = it still with todays technolgy presents one with so many options

[Pete Lavallee]

5th NSW = I'd challenege anyone to hit it in two off the plates into a strong sountherly 

I'll be there Sat, can you arrange for me to try it!

14th TOC = it still with todays technolgy presents one with so many options

Yes, but only if they tee off outside the golf course!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

#15 at Pine Valley will last the test..even if the oddd person can get there in two...heaven forbid that long shot into the green is wayward..can you say triple bogey?

[Peter Pallotta]

It's really interesting to me that the NCGA used to hold their Nor. Cal. Championsip at Spyglass and always played from the back of the back tees. The pros in the Crosby never played all the way back. The course record for the first two or three years after the opening was Forrest Fezler' score of two under par 70.

Bob - I'm not sure what I'm asking, but I'm asking if you can get into this a little more. Are you suggesting that the set-up for the pros was more interesting and even challenging that it was for the Nor Cal?

Peter

[PCCraig]

The 11th at TCC-Brookline.

The most perfect par-5 I have ever played.

[Bill_McBride]

I don't think par 5's should be 3 shot holes, period the end. We need to bring par back to 72 or make'm all par 4's for the pros.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Aren't par 5's designed to cause the player to hit 3 shots in order to reach the putting surface? Anything less becomes a par 4. So how exactly can a par 5 not be a three shot hole without changing the definition of 'par?'

I think the best par 5's fall into one of two categories.

Great par 5's can be either reachable, risk/reward holes, or virtually unreachable three-shot holes.

If risk/reward, there must be both great risk and great reward.  None of this getting away with a sloppy shot, but also a way around for the higher handicap and a complicated lay up for those not willing to take the risk.

If virtually unreachable, the usual challenge to the GCA is making the second shot interesting.  Nothing does this so well as a Hell's Half Acre hole, or a hole like #14 at The Old Course with a bunker like Hell Bunker that dictates strategy the entire playing of the hole.

One reason I loved Elie is Scotland was that there were no mediocre par 5's!  In fact, no par 5's at all.  I didn't know what to think about that, but loved it!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()