News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
IMHO it seems that we so often just allow for the third shot on our Par 5's to be the weakest strategic shot in the design arsenal.  We either use length whereby the longer hitter has no issue and the shorter hitter just has a simple short wedge or either many of the mid range or short par 5's are not penal enough for a "miss" green high etc....  yes or no??
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
The third shot from right in front of the big central fairway bunker on #3 at Longshadow is no simple pitch.  Last month I hit what I thought was a nifty PW to a back left pin and found out there isn't much depth there.  Got up and down with putter for a hard earned par.

I suspect you are focusing your thoughts on the longer hitters.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Wouldn't that also be the case for the 2nd shot on very short par-4's where there is a option to lay up or go for the green in the same risk/reward sense?
H.P.S.

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,  I am of the belief that the second shot on par 5's, usually a lay up, is the weakest shot in golf.  It's generally between 150 and 200 yards.  The target is the width of the fairway.  Can someone name par 5s where the most challenging shot is the lay up?

Someone brought this up about links par 5s.  I thought the Machrihanish has by far the strongest set (that I've played in Scotland) because of the demanding nature of the second shots.

Peter Pallotta

Mike -

My take: the challenge/problem is that one of the few things that makes the 3rd shot on a Par 5 interesting and worthwhile - i.e. a small, perched green surrounded by all sorts of trouble -- is the very thing I don't like seeing much on any other holes, the Par 3s and 4s.  

In other words, I think the challenge for good architects, especially those who want to follow the land as much as possible, is that they have to choose between a) veering away from the ethos/style they have used for 14 other holes in order to make an interesting 3-shot Par 5, and b) staying with the ethos/style they've used for the other 14 holes and thus limiting their options/ hamstringing themselves when it comes to making the best Par 5 they can.

Perhaps only rarely does the land offer 14 or 15 opportunities for at-grade-level greens with openings and subtle breaks AS WELL AS three or 4 possible spots for small, perched-up greens.

Peter  

« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 05:40:21 PM by PPallotta »

Rob Bice

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,  I am of the belief that the second shot on par 5's, usually a lay up, is the weakest shot in golf.  It's generally between 150 and 200 yards.  The target is the width of the fairway.  Can someone name par 5s where the most challenging shot is the lay up?

Someone brought this up about links par 5s.  I thought the Machrihanish has by far the strongest set (that I've played in Scotland) because of the demanding nature of the second shots.

The second shot on the 8th/17th at the Dunes Club.  Brutal.
"medio tutissimus ibis" - Ovid

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike -

My take: the challenge/problem is that one of the few things that makes the 3rd shot on a Par 5 interesting and worthwhile - i.e. a small, perched green surrounded by all sorts of trouble -- is the very thing I don't like seeing much on any other holes, the Par 4s and 5s. 


You are describing Mike's third hole at Longshadow to a tee, the hole I described above.   "a small, perched green surrounded by all sorts of trouble"

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
I think we are all trying to say the same thing in different ways....my concern is that for those that can reach a par five in two the "miss" penalty is not nearly as penal as it should be for the miss....example...if one reaches green high in two and is on the wrong side of the green then the slope away from him or what ever needs to be penal enough not to allow for a chip up birdie....REALITY is that the good young players expect to have four birdie holes on a par 72 American course....they have come to manage their games expecting 4 birdies before they tee the ball....JMO
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Mike:

Generally, I agree with your point.

I've always thought about trying to make par-5 greens so that a shot from wide left or wide right is a lot harder than a shot from short of the green.  You can do this with bunkers away from the green (requiring a long bunker shot), water or other hazard, trees, or just a narrow green that's very difficult to hold (though, in most cases, what's hard to hold from one side is easier from the other ... which is okay because it rewards the player who hedges to the correct side).

I am not known for my par-5 holes, but I think all of them at Lost Dunes scored pretty well on this scale.  Being hole-high but wide to either side on #4 might cost you a bogey ... a lot of guys from the Midwest Mashie could vouch for that one.  The eighth, tenth and fifteenth are also fearsome from wide of the green.

Carl Rogers

Mike,  I am of the belief that the second shot on par 5's, usually a lay up, is the weakest shot in golf.  It's generally between 150 and 200 yards.  The target is the width of the fairway.  Can someone name par 5s where the most challenging shot is the lay up?

Someone brought this up about links par 5s.  I thought the Machrihanish has by far the strongest set (that I've played in Scotland) because of the demanding nature of the second shots.
If you can hit the ball only 230 to 240 at your best shot, then try your hand at the 14th hole at Riverfront.  Your shot will be off a slightly down hill lie into the wind and you will ask yourself can you knock it over two bunkers at the a corner of a dogleg, miss left into wetland, miss right into two trees and OB ... you might change your mind.

A 90 yard third shot is slightly blind of an up hill - side lie and the green runs away from you, 5 is a good score here.

Jamey Bryan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike;

If you're looking to design to combat this "symptom" take a look at Lester's 15th at Ballyhack.  It's one of the most unique holes I've ever played, and offers many different strategic options to attack it.  If you take the "Bomber's" approach to the hole, and fail to execute the tee shot (assuming you can find your ball) you have a very difficult layup (if you do execute it well, you have a straightforward shot to the green, but with penalties for faulty execution).  I love this hole, it's among the most memorable I've ever played.

Jamey

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
A fairly new course (about four years old) by Hurdzan/Fry near Buffalo, called Harvest Hill, has five long holes, all different from the last and the next, all requiring enough strategy to not hit the second shot too short nor too far, too left nor too right.  The third shot, thanks to the grading, the bunkering, the contouring of the greens and the mounding around the greens, is never weak nor boring.  I have written on my own site about the weakness (the short holes) of the course.  I believe that the long holes effectively balance out the short holes (also five one-shotters), leaving the ultimate determinant of the worth of the course to be the two-shotters.

Number two:  A late dogleg right over a gnarly creek.  The tee shot rises and plateaus, at which point the decision is, lay up to the flat to leave a wedge in or bust a long hybrid or fairway metal over the creek to the front left of the green.  Anyone aiming right at a right pin is foolish or medicated.  The green is hourglass-like and sits sideways to the approach.

Number six:  also a mid-length hole, this one moves from right to left.  Tee ball must be played farther right than anticipated, as irrigation pond lurks on left and fairway can kick deceptively in that direction.  Similar situation to number two, except that fairway runs out up right, the gnarly creek is farther back from the green, and the green sits in an irish hollow, fading from front right to back left.  A layup within 80 yards of the green (over the creek) allows for a run-up or a fly-in third shot.

Number ten:  tumbling hole that drops from on high to the landing area.  Second shot traverses the gnarly creek (which never has the same appearance, even though it bisects four of the five long holes!) as the hole rises to the left, toward the putting surface.  Second shot can lay back to 120 yards, push out to the right, leaving a parallel, 50-yard pitch, or tempt the putting surface from about 240 yards out.

Number thirteen:  the one long that does not cross the creek, this one plays nearly 600 yards and moves oh-so-slightly left.  It reminds me of a sandhills par five.  The slight dogleg left moves oh-so-gently uphill, to a well-protected-on-the-sides putting surface.

Number eighteen:  the Bethpage Black hole, 18 crosses gnarly creek one last time, a nearly 240-yard carry from the tips.  The second shot rises up to a second tier of fairway, much like number four at the Black.  The green sits up to the right, unlike the up to the left at Bethpage, but the result is no less dramatic nor challenging.

In summary, these five holes represent all that is wondrous about par five holes in America and serve to contradict (to a certain extent) the question raised in this thread.  Keep in mind that I speak from my perspective, that of a five-cap that drives the ball 260 and hits a two hybrid about 215-220, a four metal about 235.  For lesser hitters, short to mid irons come into play for third shots; for longer strikers, greenside recovery shots and putts for eagle!
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

John Moore II

Well, for me, yeah, third shots on par 5's can be fairly boring, maybe repetitive since they are generally pitches or putts when I am striking the ball well. But the overall interest in the third shot comes from the interest of the green. If the green is highly interesting, then the third shot can be interesting, even if it is only a pitch or chip.

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Steve,
  Have you been to Ridgewood CC before?  The first par five on the East Course features a green angled to the line of play.  I was there once, but found you couldn't just slop the ball down the fairway into wedge distance. (Granted, I played like hell that day).   Too long and too short were no good-green is narrow.  Great hole on a course with 27 great holes. 
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Par 5s in general are often the weak link of courses.  This is why I prefer there to be only one or two on a course.  Generally speaking, this is all a property will give an archie if he wants the holes to be good rather than ground eaters.  To me, it is usually much better to plug in 5 or maybe 6 par 3s and cut back on the 5s.  I think it is awfully difficult to get 3, 4 or 5 very good three-shotters.  Surprisingly, the best 5s I ahve seen these past few years have been on Kiawah's Ocean Course.  Somehow Dye managed to create separate design strategies, but still tempt the player to take on dangerous shots and yet still offer space for the rabbit.  Still, Dye only managed 3 out of 4 as the 7th isn't up to much.  Can anyone name a course with four very fine par 5s?

Ciao    
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
In other words...the good player expects to hit a three metal or less into the GREEN on every par five.  And in most cases we have a too large margin of era for that shot...if we reduce the margin for era on the second shot to the point where it really has to be THOUGHT about then we  are getting somewhere....and as TD discusses in Reply#8...the green high miss is not penal enough...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,

Great topic, and generally I agree. To be honest, I have always wondered why par 5 holes ever developed in the first place. I suspect it was to fit the land and for variety, but the second shot, which is hardly ever an attack shot on a true par 5, is not something I think we need to design for anymore, since its inherently weaker than a tee shot (set up or assist in basketball or hockey parlance)  or an approach shot.

I was discussing this yesterday, as a matter of fact, and kept thinking of the the Kurt Russel/Herb Brooks speech in Mircale on Ice about the vaunted Russian Hockey team.....

"Their time is over.....done.....screw 'em!"  I am starting to feel the same way about par 5 holes.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mikethe second shot, which is hardly ever an attack shot on a true par 5, is not something I think we need to design for anymore, since its inherently weaker than a tee shot (set up or assist in basketball or hockey parlance)  or an approach shot.
Jeff,

I don't suppose you have played the 13th at Silloth?  The 2nd shot there may be the most demanding shot in the round.  Your drive will have reached a flat area of fairway a little short of a gap between two hillocks, from where the hole goes reasonably steeply uphill, along the spine of a dune.  A shot missed to the left or right will find thick rough (left) or heather (right) and also is likely to fall off to the side of the dune, leaving an extremely awkward lie.  It may also be what makes the hole a great par 5.  Perhaps, in fact, that is what makes a great par 5 - a truly challenging and interesting second shot?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1

I was discussing this yesterday, as a matter of fact, and kept thinking of the the Kurt Russel/Herb Brooks speech in Mircale on Ice about the vaunted Russian Hockey team.....

"Their time is over.....done.....screw 'em!"  I am starting to feel the same way about par 5 holes.

Jeff:

Apparently the USGA and the R & A have spent the last 20 years slowly agreeing with you.  And surely the equipment companies agree.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Does golf really need proper three shot holes?  In any case, I am skeptical of the need if it is so difficult to build good ones.  Tom hints that back in the day there were more proper three-shot holes that have been reduced to par 4/5 holes, but were these good holes?  I don't recall many examples being thrown forward in the literature from back in the day, but we must also remember that in a great many cases bogey 5 and not par 5 is what existed at least in the UK.  I am wondering if proper par 5s EVER played much of role in architecture or if they were merely tolerated with the ever hopeful wish that more good ones may be built, much like they are today.

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ryan Farrow

Jeff, are you talking about cutting down the number of them  to 2 or 3 instead of 4? If so... I think your on the right track... Seems C&C are on the same boat as well.

IMO they just take up too much land, too easy for the long hitter and too hard for the short hitter. Mine as well just cut em down, you just need to convince your clients a par 70 or 71 is ok....


considering nobody I know really gives a damn to begin with, and just how many PGA tour events are held on par 71 or 70 courses?

Whats the beef? I mean how many times have you gone to a course, opened up the scorecard and said, damn I really wish it was a par 72, or you say, "the course could have been better if there was 1 more par 5"...... Does anyone on this planet think that way?

Roger Wolfe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Aren't the two scariest shots in golf the 3rd to ANGC #13 and #15 ?  I have seen
dozens of train wrecks on these two holes by the best players in the world!

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike

When we were designing and laying out the golf holes for The Rawls course at Texas Tech.  I had suggested to Doak to eliminate the par fives.  He told me that no one would go for that and including the NCAA if the golf course wanted to host a tournament. 

I find par fives very difficult to create since after the second shot 25 million golfers in America could be anywhere on the strip of land that is called a par five.  At least on a par three you know where the starting point is.

Anthony Gray



  It can be if your third shot consists of pulling your ball out of a hazard.

  aNTHONY


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mark Pearce,

We can always find the exception that proves the rule, but statistically and in general, most second shots on par 5's are inferior inherently.  I haven't played the hole in question.  If it demands extreme accuracy, it might be a unique enough shot to purposely include in a round and warrant a par 5.

In general though, par 5's work best when its a tweener for going for it in two, which is exciting. But, do we need 4 of those opportunities a round?  I think two per round is enough and see no reason to build 600 yard par 5's just to make sure they are par 5's for good players.  Keep those two at under 550 or so and let nearly everyone go for them.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back