Par 5 second shot strategies today......have they changed?

[Mike_Young]

In the past it when par 5's were considered three shot holes there was emphasis placed on a strategic placement of the second shot in order to create the best approach for the third shot.  Now it seems that most college players and definitely the pro's expect to carry the green on that second shot thus voiding any such strategy.  And same goes for many scratch players.  Therefore it seems to me that the more "in play" strategy today is penalty either directly in front or  lateral of the green or even  the acceptance of the green itself.  No one is looking to lay up to the correct angle 50-70 yards in front of a green anymore.  Am I out of whack here?

[John Moore II]

Mike--When players hit 325 yard drives and 275 yard 3 woods, the hole now has to be 680+ yards to make them have a reason to lay up and place the ball to 70ish yards from the green. Thats why strategies have changes. If we don't start seeing par 5's in the 700 range, to match the par 4's in the 500 range, you will no longer see real third shot strategy on the par 5's. I can say that I rarely think about third shot strategy on the par 5's because its rare that I can't get into a greenside bunker or rough short of the green on my second shot. If I actually have to think about the strategy, its likely I have hit a poor tee shot.

[Matthew Mollica]

Many golden age architects considered par 5s as long two shot holes for better players. Why  should it be different today? Sure, less accomplished or shorter hitting golfers can play them. I suppose the best par 5 designs cater to both styles of play.

MM

[Mike_Young]

Many golden age architects considered par 5s as long two shot holes for better players. Why  should it be different today? Sure, less accomplished or shorter hitting golfers can play them. I suppose the best par 5 designs cater to both styles of play.

MM

Matthew,
Yes , I think the ODG's did expect  5's to be 2 shotters but not via carry.....more like a running approach..would you agree?

[Mike McGuire]

  No one is looking to lay up to the correct angle 50-70 yards in front of a green anymore.  Am I out of whack here?

90% of golfers can't reach par fives in two.

Doesn't the strategy you design into the need to layup to a certain spot make going for it two dicey?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

In many cases, it seems par fives today offer tons of problem around the greens, which lead players to often hit 9-iron second shots rather than attempt a shot at the hole, and then wedge in.

It's tough to imagine a solution, but it's tougher to think that hitting driver, nine-iron, pitching wedge is a very good golf hole either.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

In many cases, it seems par fives today offer tons of problem around the greens, which lead players to often hit 9-iron second shots rather than attempt a shot at the hole, and then wedge in.

It's tough to imagine a solution, but it's tougher to think that hitting driver, nine-iron, pitching wedge is a very good golf hole either.

Mike,
I think what you are saying is what is happening and is what many players do , as Mike M was describing.
The only solution I have been able to use is to develop a green complex whereby you either place the shot in front at the correct location BUT since many can reach it and if you do but miss it either right or left at the right distance you have a more difficult shot than from directly in front due to slope of green etc....which hopefully will make you think about the lay up even though the you can reach with no problem.....

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I do know what you're saying and both par fives on the front side at Long Shadow have variations on the theme.

I think the trick is to make the layup area just as tenuous as going for it.

Seriously...how many par fives have a brutally difficult layup area??   

I can even see turning the whole idea on it's head and making the layup area as more exacting and certainly more potentially damaging to a good score as trying the longer approach on the second.    In a way, that's a little bit what a well-executed "Hell's Half Acre" accomplishes (perhaps unintentionally), but I would like to think that today's architects might be able to advance that theme in more subtle, more creative ways.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I do know what you're saying and both par fives on the front side at Long Shadow have variations on the theme.

I think the trick is to make the layup area just as tenuous as going for it.

Seriously...how many par fives have a brutally difficult layup area??   

I can even see turning the whole idea on it's head and making the layup area as more exacting and certainly more potentially damaging to a good score as trying the longer approach on the second.    In a way, that's a little bit what a well-executed "Hell's Half Acre" accomplishes (perhaps unintentionally), but I would like to think that today's architects might be able to advance that theme in more subtle, more creative ways.

yep.....sort of like putting the lay up right in front of the green...

[Mike_Cirba]

Bingo, Miguel.

This whole second shot with a wedge or other short-iron to a bland, placid, flaccid open area if just awful design...sort of like hopscotch when the second jump is just one of those cushy, rock in hand, leap as far as you can snorefesters.

[Ken Moum]

I really wish you guys would stop worrying so much about the handful of guys who can hit it 300 yards off the tee.

I'm a 10 handicapper and unless a hole is under about 420, I have a heck of a time reaching it in two.

In my world, the only strategy to a 550-yard hole is a hope that I can get close enough in two to hit a short iron.

Ken

[John Moore II]

To go with this question, I recall from about a month back a thread about Par 6 holes. Tom Doak was commenting about how you need to design for an average golfer who can hit the ball in the range of 250-260 off the tee. That you can't design entirely for someone who is hitting the ball 300 or 325 yards. I agree with that, but my answer here was based on the original question which was talking about pros, at least I thought it was questioning Pro strategy.

[Mike_Cirba]

kmoum,

I do understand what you're saying but there are a considerable number of golfers who hit it around 270 from the tee.

If you take a normal par five of say, 530 yards, that leaves about 260 to the hole.    A lot of guys hit their nine-iron about 140, leaving another 120 to the hole.

Considering how many par fives offer water or other severe penal hazards right around the green that leaves a heckuva lot of guys hitting really, really boring layup shots on their second.

[Matthew Mollica]

Considering how many par fives offer water or other severe penal hazards right around the green that leaves a heckuva lot of guys hitting really, really boring layup shots on their second.

You're right Mike,

that's why diagonal features within the second shot landing zone are such good design. Sand, ground movement, water, whatever. It can be tackled with ease on one hand, and leave a proportionately harder approach, or one may be temped to do more with their second, possibly realising an easier approach, but also bringing bogey into play.

MM

[Ken Moum]

kmoum,

I do understand what you're saying but there are a considerable number of golfers who hit it around 270 from the tee.

If you take a normal par five of say, 530 yards, that leaves about 260 to the hole.    A lot of guys hit their nine-iron about 140, leaving another 120 to the hole.

Considering how many par fives offer water or other severe penal hazards right around the green that leaves a heckuva lot of guys hitting really, really boring layup shots on their second.

I can't disagree. But I would add that I have never been a fan of forced carries on par fives anyway.

If I had the task of befuddling the long hitters, without makiing the holes unplayable for guy like me, I'd lean more toward defending the green in a way that made them think twice about going for it in two.

Nothing is more effective IMHO than giving the hole-high miss a tough recovery. And that also gives the someone like me a bit of pause if I don't hit two good shots. The reality is that I have a lot of long (for me) third shots into par fives, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be challenged to make a good stroke.

K

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

I do know what you're saying and both par fives on the front side at Long Shadow have variations on the theme.

I think the trick is to make the layup area just as tenuous as going for it.

Seriously...how many par fives have a brutally difficult layup area??   

Mike,

You get bonus points for this one.  The layup should be as challenging if not just as dicey as going for it...

[John Moore II]

I think the trick is to make the layup area just as tenuous as going for it.

Seriously...how many par fives have a brutally difficult layup area??   

I am not sure I agree with this. I think for a daily play course there should be some line of play that allows the bogey player to have an easy route. The shot can require precision to have a perfect angle, but it does not need to be 'brutally difficult.' Give all golfers a chance to enjoy themselves.

[Sean_A]

I ask again - why the hell do folks care what the best players do?  GCA cannot be determined by the pro game or we are all in a world of shit.  Let those knuckleheads figure their own way out of their own mess.

Ciao

[Mark_F]

That's why diagonal features within the second shot landing zone are such good design. Sand, ground movement, water, whatever. It can be tackled with ease on one hand, and leave a proportionately harder approach, or one may be temped to do more with their second, possibly realising an easier approach, but also bringing bogey into play.

Matt,

Yet National Moonah doesn't have this sort of design on three out of four par fives, and the one that does is the weakest of a rather good set?

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

I would have thought 3 of the 4 par fives at Bob Harrison's National course had diagonal options with the second shot.

At the 2nd the closer you go to the green with the second the longer the carry across the corner.
There is no diagonal element at 7.
At 12 the further right you go the longer the carry across the rough - but the green is better approached from the left.
At 15 the shot across the dune has a diagonal element in that the further left you go the longer the carry, the closer you get to the green and the better the line in to the green.

[Mark_F]

Mike,

I know the 12th does, I wasn't contesting that.

15 you are correct too, in a sense, although the player out to the right doesn't necessarily have to challenge the dune on the left with a second shot if going for the green in three?

Unlike say RM East 10/17, where the diagonals figure for any player on any part of the fairway?

Not sure about 2 at all.  I am struggling a bit to remember it exactly, but I would have thought there would only be a diagonal element if going in two from the right hands side of the fairway, and surely no one is silly enough to try that?  Best line in is from the left hand side, and even if you are on the right and laying up, it is more of a bottleneck?

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

I agree that 10 and 17 at Royal Melboure East are fantastic.

Its a pity about the tee shot at 10 and the fact the hole plays quite short now.
Its the best long second shot from 250- 300 yards in Australia in my opinion - which would make it the best 300 yard par four in the country.

I still think there is a bit of a diagonal at Moonah 2nd - but obviously nothing like the Royal Melbourne holes.

[SB]

Mike,

I do know what you're saying and both par fives on the front side at Long Shadow have variations on the theme.

I think the trick is to make the layup area just as tenuous as going for it.

Seriously...how many par fives have a brutally difficult layup area??   

Mike,

You get bonus points for this one.  The layup should be as challenging if not just as dicey as going for it...

It's this sort of thinking that results in a slope of 135 from the white tees and is destroying the game.  Because if the guy who hits is "only" 270 needs to have a "dicey" layup of 140, then an actual normal golfer who only hits it 230 now has an impossible 170 yard "layup" shot.  The guy who should have the "dicey" shot is the guy going for it in two. 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I do know what you're saying and both par fives on the front side at Long Shadow have variations on the theme.

I think the trick is to make the layup area just as tenuous as going for it.

Seriously...how many par fives have a brutally difficult layup area??   

Mike,

You get bonus points for this one.  The layup should be as challenging if not just as dicey as going for it...

It's this sort of thinking that results in a slope of 135 from the white tees and is destroying the game.  Because if the guy who hits is "only" 270 needs to have a "dicey" layup of 140, then an actual normal golfer who only hits it 230 now has an impossible 170 yard "layup" shot.  The guy who should have the "dicey" shot is the guy going for it in two. 

I AGREE.......

[Kalen Braley]

I disagree..

I think its the boring ho-hum slogs with no thought required thats killing the game.  I'm a high capper and love to be challenged with quandries that get me thinking about how I should play the hole even based on my meager skills.

Time after time when I take my "non-GCA educated" friends to more interesting strategic courses that have holes such as these, they always talk about the course more and how much fun they had.

Even though, as MacK penned, they don't know why.