Does "par 5" matter in this situation?...e.g. Mannies' #9

[Charles Scalzott]

Is it necessary to change the card on a short par 5 to reflect its true playability as a par 4 in today's day and age?

Example:  #9 at Manufacturers' Golf and Country Club is a 465 yard straight away par 5 that by today's standards would be considered a really good par 4 hole and only a mediocre 5 shotter in my mind.  In a way, par has been overcome by the realities of today.

So, would it be perceived better as a great long par 4 bringing the course to a par of 70 or just another par 5?  I think I would make the case that the good qualities of the hole can be over looked because of the fact that someone would dismiss it as a pushover par 5.  Also, I think that the way this hole fits into the collection with the other 17 can influence the overall feeling of how good a course is by almost instantly dimissing this hole as a pushover blip on the radar throughout the round, rather than a meaningful and memorable test.

Can you think of any other holes that fit this characteristic?  I guess anything from 450-490 that you think would be better served as a par 4...

[Kyle Harris]

Is it necessary to change the card on a short par 5 to reflect its true playability as a par 4 in today's day and age?

Example:  #9 at Manufacturers' Golf and Country Club is a 465 yard straight away par 5 that by today's standards would be considered a really good par 4 hole and only a mediocre 5 shotter in my mind.  In a way, par has been overcome by the realities of today.

So, would it be perceived better as a great long par 4 bringing the course to a par of 70 or just another par 5?  I think I would make the case that the good qualities of the hole can be over looked because of the fact that someone would dismiss it as a pushover par 5.  Also, I think that the way this hole fits into the collection with the other 17 can influence the overall feeling of how good a course is by almost instantly dimissing this hole as a pushover blip on the radar throughout the round, rather than a meaningful and memorable test.

Can you think of any other holes that fit this characteristic?  I guess anything from 450-490 that you think would be better served as a par 4...

Reach that green in two but be in the wrong spot and you'll quickly feel like you made a par 5.

But, par is irrelevant, play the shot in front of you as best you can and you'll be fine.

[Charles Scalzott]

I did make a "par" 5 (ha) but it wasn't because of the length.  I just think the hole makes more sense and adds more value as a par 4.

[Kyle Harris]

I did make a "par" 5 (ha) but it wasn't because of the length.  I just think the hole makes more sense and adds more value as a par 4.

What value is added? It's still the same length.... regardless of the number on the scorecard. A 4 is a 4 whether birdie or par.

[Charles Scalzott]

Not the quantitative value.  The perceived value of whether it is a good hole or not based on the question it asks.  I think it is a good par 4 and a very blah par 5 lacking length and strategic merit other than "stay below the hole".  My point is when considering the "worth" of this hole architecturally and strategically and how it aggregates to or affects the perceived "worth" of the overall golf course, this goes from potentially being a very strong link in the chain to probably the weakest.

[Kyle Harris]

Not the quantitative value.  The perceived value of whether it is a good hole or not based on the question it asks.  I think it is a good par 4 and a very blah par 5 lacking length and strategic merit other than "stay below the hole".  My point is when considering the "worth" of this hole architecturally and strategically and how it aggregates to or affects the perceived "worth" of the overall golf course, this goes from potentially being a very strong link in the chain to probably the weakest.

I'll say the hole still asks the same question - can you maneuver a golf ball over 465 yards and then putt on a treacherous green? My point is, regardless of what par value is, the question of the hole is still to get the ball there in the minimum amount of shots. Does the value of the hole prior change if the par was changed to 4 or 5?

Par really just offers a relative value by which one can compare that success. If it plays dead into the wind (as is often the case) the par will change.

May I ask how you played the hole? Perhaps upon repeat playings you'll find the case for "5" over "4" to be more compelling.

[JESII]

I think it's a good question...and this is a great hole to ask it about because it is fairly non-descript prior to the green and the green is so difficult...kind of like 2.5 full shots and 2.5 putts would be par, and on the day that you beat them both by half a shot you get your 4. And that 4 should feel like an accomplishment.

7 is a pretty short par 5, make this one a 4 and then you don'thave to be shy about using a shorter tee, or even building a shorter tee...

[Charles Scalzott]

The relativity of par is obvious and not the crux of my question.  That is true that all the hole does is ask you to carry the ball x yards and make a putt...obviously.

However this hole is better presented as a par 4 than a par 5...it is an obsolete par 5 with nothing but a prescription to hit it straight.  A good assignment of par is one that can be perceived through play without looking at the card.  This hole plays as a par 4 thus is a par 4.  It hurts the experience of and opinion of the hole to call it a par 5 as it pales in comparison to other true par 5's - even short par 5's because good short par 5's offer some degree of risk and reward...this plays as a very straightforward and good par 4.  Playing it as a par 5 seems contrived and strange...in the end it doesn't affect the score - we are in agreement there.  I do steadfastly think it afffects the hole's perception from "pushover" (hardly but for lack of a better word) to "strong test".

[mike_malone]

My recollection of that hole is that  a REQUIRED approach with a long club to that elevated and sloping green would be goofy . That's what gives it its threeshottedness.

  I think you "parians" may need therapy . To think changing the par makes a hole better is a bit crazy!!!!

[Charles Scalzott]

My last post was posted prior to your response JES.  I agree with you that in the event of prevailing wind in the face and a missed tee shot this could be considered a half par hole.  Agreed again with the comment on #7, however there is a stark difference in "feeling" while playing the hole that it is a par 5...perhaps it is the uphill nature in addition to the additional length and the encroachment of the deep bunker on the front left of the 7th green rather than the elevated tee shot on the 9th.

[Charles Scalzott]

My recollection of that hole is that  a REQUIRED approach with a long club to that elevated and sloping green would be goofy . That's what gives it its threeshottedness.

  I think you "parians" may need therapy . To think changing the par makes a hole better is a bit crazy!!!!

I suppose it is relative to the player but I don't consider this hole to ask that a LONG club be carried into the green...I'm neither short nor long but from the back tees with a necked broken bat single still hit a missed 4 iron to the front.  Thus two decent shots from the middle tees would be all that is required to hit a mid to short club into the green.

Certainly a good tee shot from the back would leave 6 iron or less for the average "good" player while the middle tee would afford an average golfer to get home without too much anxiety.  And perhaps that is it also...the second shot is not "intense" as TEPAUL would say...perhaps only if the greens are firm and fast with the pin front and your ball back would you be faced with a large amount of anxiety but with the shortish/middle club that is in your hand going into the green it is not "intensely" experienced.

[Kyle Harris]

My recollection of that hole is that  a REQUIRED approach with a long club to that elevated and sloping green would be goofy . That's what gives it its threeshottedness.

  I think you "parians" may need therapy . To think changing the par makes a hole better is a bit crazy!!!!

I suppose it is relative to the player but I don't consider this hole to ask that a LONG club be carried into the green...I'm neither short nor long but from the back tees with a necked broken bat single still hit a missed 4 iron to the front.  Thus two decent shots from the middle tees would be all that is required to hit a mid to short club into the green.

Certainly a good tee shot from the back would leave 6 iron or less for the average "good" player while the middle tee would afford an average golfer to get home without too much anxiety.  And perhaps that is it also...the second shot is not "intense" as TEPAUL would say...perhaps only if the greens are firm and fast with the pin front and your ball back would you be faced with a large amount of anxiety but with the shortish/middle club that is in your hand going into the green it is not "intensely" experienced.

Chuck,

I think you may be answering your own concern. You hit a tee ball about 250 and a 4 iron about 190.... right?

Two decent shots lead to a short iron into a very severe green where missing can cause bogey or even double to enter the equation.

From the front of the green what did you do? Not get up and down.... 

Sully,

Chuck is about to play Huntingdon Valley - would you agree that the 14th hole would offer some sort of comparison as a similarly long par 4? However, that green is not nearly as severe as the 9th at Mannies.

By the way, all you Philadelphians - I'll be back in the area from the 20th through the 24th, pending this hurricane.

[Kyle Harris]

By the way,

I've always been curious as to how the hole would play with a tee built that would require a carry OVER the 8th green...

[Charles Scalzott]

You may want to move that trip up a few days to make sure!

[Kyle Harris]

You may want to move that trip up a few days to make sure!

I would have flown out today if I had enough warning that we wouldn't be working tomorrow. I think I'll be okay with the flight - it's just starting to rain now.

Call me later, we should meet up for drinks at a minimum.

[Charles Scalzott]

By the way,

I've always been curious as to how the hole would play with a tee built that would require a carry OVER the 8th green...

Now that would be interesting.  The fairway bunkers would need to be moved to challenge the tee shot.  I think the green has a perfect opening to run in a fairway wood...closely mown and uphill to take the heat off a little and allow for a very well struck shot to stay on the appropriate level.  Another 40 or 50 yards would make this a very good par 5 for reasons such as these I think.

[Charles Scalzott]

You may want to move that trip up a few days to make sure!

I would have flown out today if I had enough warning that we wouldn't be working tomorrow. I think I'll be okay with the flight - it's just starting to rain now.

Call me later, we should meet up for drinks at a minimum.

Will do...any excuse for a pint and some golf chatter!

[Kyle Harris]

By the way,

I've always been curious as to how the hole would play with a tee built that would require a carry OVER the 8th green...

Now that would be interesting.  The fairway bunkers would need to be moved to challenge the tee shot.  I think the green has a perfect opening to run in a fairway wood...closely mown and uphill to take the heat off a little and allow for a very well struck shot to stay on the appropriate level.  Another 40 or 50 yards would make this a very good par 5 for reasons such as these I think.

That upslope sends balls left in a hurry... you'd have to hit a very hard running cut to fight the tendency to throw the ball left. I believe that is what gives the hole the push to the 5 over the 4.

[Sean_A]

Chuck

IMO the par designation is of no real architectural concern.  Either the hole is good or it isn't.  Of course, how the hole fits in with the remainder of the course is of great importance.  For instance, if there were a few other demanding par 4s on that side of the card (or running a bit too much in a row) or if there really wasn't a par 5, then I may consider keeping it a par 5 just for these reasons.  Many times its good to offer breather holes so long as there is some sort of sting in the tail.  There is no point in designing a blah hole - afterall there are only 18 of them.  Some may consider the actual decision making about par designation an architectural matter and there may be something to this at least to some degree, but I would hope archies don't spend too much time dwelling on par designation. 

Having said all that, I haven't seen too many courses which deviate very much from the par range of 68-73 (for men) so there must be something about par designation which influences archies.  For instance, it can't be dumb luck that it is a rare case when say a par 4 doesn't appear on one side or another.  If this sport of case presents itself in the land most archies will move dirt to create par 4s.  I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, just that it may be a contributing factor to homogenized designs.  In all honesty, I don't believe archies really think outside the box this way.  Either that or they don't believe an outside the box design would be accepted. 

Ciao