[Jerry Kluger]

It seems to me that the vast majority of risk/reward par 5s are such to a very small percentage of golfers.  This is especially true when the second shot has a high degree of risk.  So the question is what level of golfer should be able to consider the risk/reward option in playing the hole?  Naturally, a top level amateur will have that shot but what about the 10 handicap or the 15 handicap - should it be a requisite of a good par 5 that the risk/reward option is available to a larger percentage of players?  You can play the correct set of tees for your ability to hit the necessary drive, but in most cases, all players have the same second shot and only a few can seriously consider going for the green.   

[JESII]

Aren't all shots Risk/Reward for most 15 handicappers?

[Rich Goodale]

Aren't all shots Risk/Reward for most 15 handicappers?

And for plus handicappers, too, of course.

[Jerry Kluger]

Yes, they all are risk/reward, but the fact is that we all comment about the risk/reward feature of a particular par 5 yet only a few can ever consider that option - so why is it so important?

[Mike Wagner]

Jerry,

I think the short answer is no - it should not be requisite to include the majority in the risk/reward.  Let's be honest here.....if you want to include the "majority" of golfers (your assumption is between 10 - 15 handicaps) - to solve the problem you pose, then a course specifically built for capability is in order - probably 5500 yards or so.

It's just the nature of the game.  If player A hits it 290 and player B hits is 210 - there's simply different games.  Can't player B still use some consideration to his 2nd shot and try to produce more reward for more risk - even though they might not hit the green in two?

The bottom line is a great golf course - let's take Bandon/Pac for example - can create tees for diffrerent players (which they did a great job) -  but if it were designed solely for the 15 handicap, well......B...O...R...I...N...G!!

I would also get away from using handicap as an indicator of distance - they really don't have much to do with one another.  I know plenty of 15's who hit it a long ways.....just not in the right direction!!

[Jerry Kluger]

Mike: I agree that you can make up for driving distance with different tees but that still leave the same second shot where consideration of whether to go for the green is only applicable to one player.  Perhaps that second shot should not be that long or maybe the tee difference must be greater.  The conclusion that I reach is that the risk/reward option is really not much of a design feature because it only is relevant to a very small percentage of players.  So many of us refer to a great hole because of its risk/reward option but should it be great when less than 1% of golfers will consider it?

[Mike Wagner]

Jerry,

I'm still puzzled as to what you'd like to see.  It seems to me that the reality is not all golfers will be able to take advantage of some par 5's - well, deal with it.   I'll go further and say that if you added scores on the typical risk/reward par 5 related to driving distance, over the long haul, a decent player who can't get there will probably score better.

I would also think this argument is more relevant to long par 4s as it relates to par.  Much easier chance of birdie on the short par 5 for a shorter hitter. 

[Bill_McBride]

It was interesting to see that #16 at TPC Las Collinas (Byron Nelson last weekend) played so much easier when the tour players went for it in two rather than laying up.  I guess it was because there was so much fairway bunkering that those who laid up had to lay up way back.  Those who went for it in two scored about 1/2 stroke better.

I think that was probably down to a good decision by the tour to set the hole up pretty easy, with the pin down front.  Back in the back of that green is a lot more difficult, even for a pitch shot third.

[JESII]

Aren't all shots Risk/Reward for most 15 handicappers?

And for plus handicappers, too, of course.

Exactly my point!

[Jerry Kluger]

Mike: My point is simply that the risk/reward feature is of little meaning except for the very best players and if that is so, then why do those of us who are love gca think it is such an important and significant feature?

[Mike Wagner]

Jerry,

If you theory is that it doesn't affect many players, then why are there so many 7000 yard courses out there packed day in and day out?  I think there might be a lot more players out there that can move a pretty good ball than you think.  Also, for players who can't reach those holes, there's a whole slew of people who WANT and DREAM to - and maybe that one in a thousand shot for someone can be enough to bring the excitement of the design to relevance..

[Sean_A]

Aren't all shots Risk/Reward for most 15 handicappers?

And for plus handicappers, too, of course.

Exactly my point!

Jim & Rihc

No!  There are many shots which have nothing to do with risk/reward.  For instance, there are plenty of holes with rough and/or bunkering lining both sides of the fairway.  There is no risk reward because there is no option other than to hit down the middle or pick up your ball and go home.  One day Rich, you will get your head around this risk/reward concept instead of treating all shots as if they have equal merit in terms of strategy.  While I understand your point that strategy is the plan developed by the player, it is equally true that for a meaningful plan to be developed the archie must provide thought provoking options.

Jerry

No, a good risk/reward par 5 doesn't need to be reachable for most golfers so long as the guy playing three shots has three interesting ones to play.  Its a tough sort of hole to pull off and that is why there are so few good par 5s.   

Ciao

[John Moore II]

No, 'risk/reward' par 5's need not play that way for everyone. I mean, for some of the really long hitters, a 600 yard hole is reachable (I can say that I've hit the green on a 595 yard par 5 before). While for others, either higher handicap players or people who can't hit the ball as far, a 450 yard hole is barely reachable. You can't make a hole that plays the same for all people. Even a 100 yard par 3 with no bunkers and a pan flat green plays differently for me who could hit a sand wedge and Mrs Havercamp who needs the full driver. Some holes are risk/reward for a certain group of people and not others, while other holes become risk reward for other groups.

[Carl Rogers]

This question dovetails with the 'drivable par 4' thread.   Reachable for who???

There has to be a realistic distance for the higher than average clubhead speed 8 handicapper to give it a go, without a profoundly unattractive penalty for missiing a by a little.  Riverfront No. 3 & No. 18 fit this description of the par 4 1/2, no free pass for wild or bad shots, but difficult scoring if you are out of position.

[Jerry Kluger]

Sean: Then what is a better par 5 - one that has 3 interesting shots for most players, or two risk/reward shots for a few players?

John: If you cannot design a par 5 which has a risk/reward feature for most players, then is that a significant feature which should be given much weight when evaluating the overall design of the golf course?

[Sean_A]

Sean: Then what is a better par 5 - one that has 3 interesting shots for most players, or two risk/reward shots for a few players?

Jerry, assuming the goal of the archie is to create a reachable par 5, then of course the better par 5 is one that is reachable for some AND interesting for those who take three shots.  I don't believe there are very many of these about because I think its the hardest hole to design.  I know I always get back to Addington's 16th, but it is a great example of the type.  The real kicker for the hole is that for the guy thinking of going for it in two, but not quite sure he can pull it off, the layup area is the same for the guy playing three shots unless he is willing to accept a pot luck outcome.  The other great par 5s of the heathlands, such as Sunny News' 6th, don't have that interesting layup component and as such are really only great for the guy able to reach in two.  This is one area where technology has been a tremendous boon for game.  So many par 5s and shorter par 4s have become reachable for a greater number of people, often times making these holes even more interesting than originally planned. 

Ciao

[John Moore II]

John: If you cannot design a par 5 which has a risk/reward feature for most players, then is that a significant feature which should be given much weight when evaluating the overall design of the golf course?

Yes, its a significant feature. But like I said, if you make a 480 yard par 5 that provides a good risk/reward opportunity for the average player, it might be able to provide a risk/reward chance for the better players (assuming they are playing different tees, like they should be) but a 480 yard hole for someone like me simply can't be risk reward, unless its made in such a way that I couldn't hit driver off the tee; otherwise, the play for me and better/longer players is something along the lines of driver-7 iron. Jerry, if you can make a D-7 hole risk/reward, then you've really done something.

Now, something could be done along the lines of 520 from the back tees, maybe 490 from the next set, 470, and maybe 400 from the most forward tees, it could play risk/reward for all (most) and be ok, but that would amount to a large amount of tee space to maintain.

You simply can't make a hole that plays a 'half-par' for all players.

[Jerry Kluger]

Sean and John: I think that sometimes we forget that the risk/reward option is often a feature which comes into play on the tee shot and this can be an option for a larger group of players.  I have seen this done especially well with split fairways:  A par 4 I have in mind has a wider fairway to the left but no chance to go for a middle or back pin as the center tree line blocks an approach shot from the left, however, the right fairway is at a tougher angle and is narrow.  A par 5 I am familiar with does the same thing with a center hazard line which creates a bad angle to the pin if you take the easier route.   

[Ian_L]

One way to create a risk-reward par-5 that comes into play for more golfers is having the risk-reward part off the tee.  A great drive can lead to a much shorter second shot.  An example of what I'm thinking is Stanford GC's hole #7, a short par-5 with a very sharp dogleg left. If I challenge the trees on the left I can have a 3 or 4-iron into the green (I drive it about 260 on a good day), but if I leave my drive on the right side I can't even reach it.  Missing left into the trees on the left almost always means a difficult pitch back into the fairway.

I would say the green is reachable for anyone who can drive 220 or more, but is still interesting for any length hitter.


Here's a picture taken from the black tees (the Cardinal tees are about 30 yards back)

[Mike Bowline]

One way to create a risk-reward par-5 that comes into play for more golfers is having the risk-reward part off the tee.  A great drive can lead to a much shorter second shot. 

Ian, to take that one step farther, a risk/reward option can be exciting for the second shot WHEN LAYING UP. Probably 99% of golfers are not going for a par-5 green in two anyway, so why not make the second shot also a risk/reward shot?

A landing area pinched with a bunker, mound, rough, or other hazard causes the player who hit a good drive to determine how much potential difficulty he is willing to deal with on an aggressive second shot. Should he attempt to carry the trouble, lay back of the trouble, or thread his second into the narrow area?

This can even have an effect on the tee shot: a longer, well-struck tee shot allows the player laying up to challenge the pinched target area with a shorter club, thereby improving his odds of success.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()