[Greg Tallman]

While many will disagree I have always thought #11 at Muirfield Village to be one of the coolest strategy laden par 5's anywhere but rather than a 4.5 i would label it a 4.75 or if my last go round is the yardstick... a 6.

[Carl Rogers]

If we all went back to the 1992 ball and club, the 14th hole at Riverfront might make a lot of lists of really good three shot holes.  If only a few more of you would show up and play there....

For the average single digit handicapper (me) it already is a three shotter.

[Ronald Montesano]

Pat,

Good counterpoints to my points.  When I played the Concord Monster around 2003, they had flipped the nines, so the long one was now #4.  Is it possible to make a Par 5 a 4.5 simply by creating an incredibly receptive green that funnels balls toward hole positions?  Can it be done, as you have indicated, by directing tee balls to a most propitious position via terrain?  It is not simply a result of length, correct?

Tom Paul,

Is that all it takes to arouse your ire?  I brayed quite loudly when I read your vitriol.

[Dunlop_White]

Are great par 5's are really par 4.5's. True, but it's not the 4.5 scoring average which makes these holes great. Instead, it's the "scoring spread". Look at the 4.7 scoring averages at Holes 13 and 15 at ANGC (pre-2002). It was actually the large number of eagles/birdies/bogeys and doubles that helped make these holes great -- to me!

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think they are as DW3 describes.....
I think another way to describe the great par 5's is in the "second shot"....the more critical the second shot in setting up the scoring opportunity the greater the hole IMHO.....and I think what makes that second shot much more critical is when the opportunity for an Eagle or bird is so reachable if the perfect shot is struck that the player blanks out on the  possibilities of the higher number.....you don't find such in unreachable 5's....

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Ronald Montesano,

The 1st hole on the 4th nine at Montclair is a dogleg left par 5 with a two tiered punchbowl green and a ramp that does funnel balls to the green, though not necessarily toward the hole.  It's a neat starting hole for that nine.

Mike and Dunlop,

While I might agree with you about the "spread" in scoring, isn't that almost always a function of another element ?  Water or OB.

It's hard to imagine a par 4.5 without those features that could produce big scoring spreads.

One could conclude that at great par 4.5 requires great danger at some point in the hole, with your suggestion that it be on the second shot the most likely or most desirable.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

How does a par 4 like Riveria's 10th or TOC's 12th produce such wide scoring disparity when there is no water or OB to be found?  Bunkers and small or crazy greens can take you pretty far.  Wind helps, too.

There's a great example of a good waterless AND BUNKERLESS par 5 not 15 miles from where I write this that has a great scoring spread.  I wish I had some good pictures, or could do it justice in a description.  It does have OB, but its immaterial to what makes the hole a great example (if it were removed you'd still have the same scoring spread)

Wind - you tee off nearly 100 feet above the level of the fairway - and angles - there is a mound in front of the green that dominates second shot strategy into the very wide but very shallow fall-away green - are what makes this hole.

I mostly see 4s and 5s there, but I've had more 6s than I care to think about, and have a few eagles and the odd 7 for my trouble as well.  That's about as good of a scoring spread as you are going to want, you can't get below 3 for a normal par 5 score.  To go very much beyond 7 on the other side for better players on a true par 4 1/2 you need to have killer rough or bunkers, or some futility feature like repeated wedges in the creek at ANGC or back and forth chipping as can happen when the green speeds are really up at Pinehurst #2.

[TEPaul]

"I brayed quite loudly when I read your vitriol."


RonaldM:


Hmmm, I may need to mull that one over for a while. It could become somewhat concerning and perhaps even disconcerting when a grown man begins to BRAY, and particularly loudly!     
 

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I don’t buy your argument at all.  Maybe you should explain what a par 4 ½ is?  That would help some of us who don’t know what you are talking about?  The only definition I can see for a par 4 ½ hole is in the context of a PGA Tour player’s game and what they might average on a certain hole (it might say par 5 or even par 4 on the card) but they average about 4 1/2 shots so we call it a par 4 1/2.  For the rest of the world, there are NO half par holes. 

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,
I don’t buy your argument at all.  Maybe you should explain what a par 4 ½ is?  That would help some of us who don’t know what you are talking about?  The only definition I can see for a par 4 ½ hole is in the context of a PGA Tour player’s game and what they might average on a certain hole (it might say par 5 or even par 4 on the card) but they average about 4 1/2 shots so we call it a par 4 1/2.  For the rest of the world, there are NO half par holes. 

Do I detect just a hint of disingenuity?  It seems pretty clear to me what Pat is talking about.  I'm a 13 handicap (at least until the next time I put a decent card in) and reckon, in good conditions, to hit drives around 250/260 yards.  The 3rd hole at my club is a 500 yard par 5 but with the prevailing wind.  In firm conditions and a prevailing breeze I know that if I hit a good drive I can reach the green in two.  In a wind I will expect to reach in two.  Two summers ago I hept a record of my hole by hole scores and had as many 4s as 5s on that hole.  That's what he means by a par 4 1/2.  Now good players at our club feel the same about our 4th hole (yes, consecutive par 5s) but a valley short of the green means I just can't get there.

[Niall C]

So far as I can remember, the only great 3 shotters I have seen are those which are 3 shotters due to weather conditions - though I must be forgetting a few true 3 shotters.  I can't recall ever playing a great true 3 shotter.  I am of the opinion that these are the hardest to design well and my experience of true 3 shotter bears this out.  To be honest, I dread seeing 550 or so on the card because its a great bet at 10 to 1 that the hole will be average at best. 

There are far too may superb 475-525 yard holes to recount here. 

Ciao

Sean,

13th at Silloth is a true 3 shotter. Yes, the pro's can get there in two most times but we're all agreed we're not discussing them. See Silloth is on your list to play, look out for this one.

Niall

[TEPaul]

Both of Pine Valley's and Merion East's two par 5s are true three shoters or were certainly designed to be that. Some few over the years have gotten on them in less than three shots but it is rare enough where their "true three shotter" status holds.

[Mark Pearce]

So far as I can remember, the only great 3 shotters I have seen are those which are 3 shotters due to weather conditions - though I must be forgetting a few true 3 shotters.  I can't recall ever playing a great true 3 shotter.  I am of the opinion that these are the hardest to design well and my experience of true 3 shotter bears this out.  To be honest, I dread seeing 550 or so on the card because its a great bet at 10 to 1 that the hole will be average at best. 

There are far too may superb 475-525 yard holes to recount here. 

Ciao

Sean,

13th at Silloth is a true 3 shotter. Yes, the pro's can get there in two most times but we're all agreed we're not discussing them. See Silloth is on your list to play, look out for this one.

Niall

Another great example of back to back par 5s.  You're right that 13 at Silloth is a three shotter.  14, on the other hand, playing back the other way, is a clear par 4 1/2 (though it's not as good a hole as 13 which is one of the best par 5s in the country).  Last time I played there last summer I hit Driver, Utility, 7 iron on 13 and was through the back on 14 with Driver 5 iron.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

How does a par 4 like Riveria's 10th or TOC's 12th produce such wide scoring disparity when there is no water or OB to be found? 


Who says it produces wide scoring disparities ?

What evidence is there to support this ?

I would imagine that the club probably has scoring statistics that enables them to handicap the holes.

Bunkers and small or crazy greens can take you pretty far.  Wind helps, too.

There's a great example of a good waterless AND BUNKERLESS par 5 not 15 miles from where I write this that has a great scoring spread. 


How do you know that it has a great scoring spread ?

I wish I had some good pictures, or could do it justice in a description.  It does have OB, but its immaterial to what makes the hole a great example (if it were removed you'd still have the same scoring spread)

How can the removal of OB NOT affect scoring on the hole ?

Wind - you tee off nearly 100 feet above the level of the fairway - and angles - there is a mound in front of the green that dominates second shot strategy into the very wide but very shallow fall-away green - are what makes this hole.

I mostly see 4s and 5s there, but I've had more 6s than I care to think about, and have a few eagles and the odd 7 for my trouble as well.  That's about as good of a scoring spread as you are going to want, you can't get below 3 for a normal par 5 score. 

A scoring spread isn't determined by the rare eagle or double bogey.
The determination is based on compiling and weighting the scores.

If there are 2 eagles, 4 double bogeys, 800 bogeys, 600 pars and 100 birdies, I wouldn't consider that a wide or a good scoring spread.

To go very much beyond 7 on the other side for better players on a true par 4 1/2 you need to have killer rough or bunkers, or some futility feature like repeated wedges in the creek at ANGC or back and forth chipping as can happen when the green speeds are really up at Pinehurst #2.

# 15 at ANGC will produce eagles, birdies, pars, bogeys, double bogeys and higher, but, water plays the major role in the scoring outcome.

On # 13 the creek AND woods can produce a wide scoring margin.
 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

I don’t buy your argument at all. 

That's probably because I haven't made one.

Maybe you should explain what a par 4 ½ is?  That would help some of us who don’t know what you are talking about?  The only definition I can see for a par 4 ½ hole is in the context of a PGA Tour player’s game and what they might average on a certain hole (it might say par 5 or even par 4 on the card) but they average about 4 1/2 shots so we call it a par 4 1/2.  For the rest of the world, there are NO half par holes.

RTJ Jr espoused the concept of introducing holes with a par 4.5
He did so at ANGC with # 13 and # 15.
These are holes that can be reached in two.
# 13 is 455 from the members tees, and that's measuring it the long way.
# 15 from the members tees isn't much longer and plays slightly downhill.

Both holes are reachable by amateurs, hence, they can be the equivalent of par 4's or they can be par 5's.  Explained another way, they can be par 4.5's.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

How does a par 4 like Riveria's 10th or TOC's 12th produce such wide scoring disparity when there is no water or OB to be found? 


Who says it produces wide scoring disparities ?

What evidence is there to support this ?

I would imagine that the club probably has scoring statistics that enables them to handicap the holes.

Bunkers and small or crazy greens can take you pretty far.  Wind helps, too.

There's a great example of a good waterless AND BUNKERLESS par 5 not 15 miles from where I write this that has a great scoring spread. 


How do you know that it has a great scoring spread ?

I wish I had some good pictures, or could do it justice in a description.  It does have OB, but its immaterial to what makes the hole a great example (if it were removed you'd still have the same scoring spread)

How can the removal of OB NOT affect scoring on the hole ?

Wind - you tee off nearly 100 feet above the level of the fairway - and angles - there is a mound in front of the green that dominates second shot strategy into the very wide but very shallow fall-away green - are what makes this hole.

I mostly see 4s and 5s there, but I've had more 6s than I care to think about, and have a few eagles and the odd 7 for my trouble as well.  That's about as good of a scoring spread as you are going to want, you can't get below 3 for a normal par 5 score. 

A scoring spread isn't determined by the rare eagle or double bogey.
The determination is based on compiling and weighting the scores.

If there are 2 eagles, 4 double bogeys, 800 bogeys, 600 pars and 100 birdies, I wouldn't consider that a wide or a good scoring spread.

To go very much beyond 7 on the other side for better players on a true par 4 1/2 you need to have killer rough or bunkers, or some futility feature like repeated wedges in the creek at ANGC or back and forth chipping as can happen when the green speeds are really up at Pinehurst #2.

# 15 at ANGC will produce eagles, birdies, pars, bogeys, double bogeys and higher, but, water plays the major role in the scoring outcome.

On # 13 the creek AND woods can produce a wide scoring margin.
 

Patrick, there was mention in another thread a few days ago that TOC's 12th had the largest scoring spread of any of the holes in the last Open.  I don't have stats for Riveria's 10th, but I would be surprised if it isn't tops amongst the holes in that tournament most years.

I'd wager more people would agree with me about Riveria's 10th than disagree, so let me turn this back on you and ask you what proof YOU have that I'm WRONG?

As for the OB on the hole I describe, its there but doesn't come much into play for anyone for whom this hole plays as a par 4 1/2 - its an internal course OB (yuck, I know) to protect people on another green.  If there was no OB and you hit into that area you would have a nasty sidehill lie in knee deep rough, assuming you found your ball at all.  It typically only comes into play for short hitters who miss their drives and try to make up for it on their second shots.

Since I haven't played the hole 1506 times, your example scoring spread is wrong.  I have played it perhaps 75 times, and I'd guess I have something like the following breakdown (and see similar results from other long-hitting single digit handicap golfers I've played with there)

eagles 5%
birdies 25%
pars 55%
bogies 10%
doubles & worse 5%

And no, I can't produce exact figures for that, at least not without devoting a lot more effort to an example than I'm willing to do.

Did Notre Dame teach you that proper debating technique involves making bold statements without proof, then when challenged to dismiss for lack of proof any counter-statements made by others?  If so, you may want to seek a refund

[Adam Clayman]

Doug. Ten @ Riviera doesn't have that great a spread in scores. What it does have is an ability to turn what looks like a low score into a higher one. 2-5 isn't exactly a 2 or 20.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick, there was mention in another thread a few days ago that TOC's 12th had the largest scoring spread of any of the holes in the last Open.  I don't have stats for Riveria's 10th, but I would be surprised if it isn't tops amongst the holes in that tournament most years.

You're viewing this issue in the sole context of the PGA Tour, totally eliminating the thousands of members and guests who play it day in and day  out.

I'd wager more people would agree with me about Riveria's 10th than disagree, so let me turn this back on you and ask you what proof YOU have that I'm WRONG?

I don't need any proof since I didn't make the statement or allegeation.
You made the statement so I'm asking you to supply the documentation and/or statistics to support your position.  Absent that evidence your position is tenuous at best.

As for the OB on the hole I describe, its there but doesn't come much into play for anyone for whom this hole plays as a par 4 1/2 - its an internal course OB (yuck, I know) to protect people on another green.  If there was no OB and you hit into that area you would have a nasty sidehill lie in knee deep rough, assuming you found your ball at all.  It typically only comes into play for short hitters who miss their drives and try to make up for it on their second shots.

You can't automatically dismiss short hitters from the broad spectrum of golfers.

Their play must be considered.

Since I haven't played the hole 1506 times, your example scoring spread is wrong.  I have played it perhaps 75 times, and I'd guess I have something like the following breakdown (and see similar results from other long-hitting single digit handicap golfers I've played with there)

eagles 5%
birdies 25%
pars 55%
bogies 10%
doubles & worse 5%

That's great scoring.
What's your handicap ?

And no, I can't produce exact figures for that, at least not without devoting a lot more effort to an example than I'm willing to do.

To base a conclusion regarding a hole, solely on your limited playing experience, while ignoring the thousands of rounds, played by the broad spectrum of golfers, is a seriously flawed sampling, contrary to accepted scientific methods, that also lacks credibility.

Did Notre Dame teach you that proper debating technique involves making bold statements without proof, then when challenged to dismiss for lack of proof any counter-statements made by others?  If so, you may want to seek a refund

On the other hand, if I received my four years of education vis a vis an academic/athletic scholarship, perhaps Notre Dame should be seeking back payment plus interest.

[Sean_A]

Both of Pine Valley's and Merion East's two par 5s are true three shoters or were certainly designed to be that. Some few over the years have gotten on them in less than three shots but it is rare enough where their "true three shotter" status holds.

Tom

But you wouldn't call Merion's par 5s great would you?  If there is a weak link for the course its the par 5s.

Ciao

[ChipOat]

Sean:

Merion's par 5's are weak links??  Not a chance!!  Also, PV #15 is a true 3 shotter on the nicest day of the year - even down wind.

Tom P.

Given current technology, #4 at Merion has become something of a lay-up 2nd shot if today's low-handicapper hits a GOOD drive - sort of the opposite of ANGC #13.  I'm beginning to think I like #2 better because of that - you can still rip it on your 2nd shot no matter how well you drive it (or not).  My guess is that #4 is still most people's favorite of the two.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()