Doing away with par 5's

[Niall C]

Plymouth Country Club is par 69.

The only five is the 16th - which is barely 500 yards.
It has five excellent long fours that are the strength of the round and turning any into a five would lessen the course.
When the holes are great, you don't miss the fives.

Ian

Absolutely spot on. I had the pleasure of hosting David Tepper and his wife at Old Moray recently. We were playing off the ordinary tees. When we were standing on the 17th tee I asked David how many par 3's and par 5's he'd played to that point and I think he was surprised to hear he had only played three par 3's and no par 5's to that point. 13 out of the 16 holes were par 4's but the variety is such that you don't count the pars or are conscious of the lack par 5's. Elgin is another nearby course that has a wonderful set of long, and not so long par 4's, and a par 68 or 69 from memory.

Niall 

[Ulrich Mayring]

The most boring shot in golf for me (and many other shorter hitters) is not the second shot on a par 5, because a lot rides on that shot: it determines whether I have a chance to reach the green in regulation with my next. For me the most boring shot is the second on a longer par 4, because usually nothing rides on it. If I whiff it, then I can still hit an iron into the green, if I execute well, then it's a wedge.

So, in my mind do away with long par 4s or make them a tad longer into short par 5s

Ulrich

[Kalen Braley]

The most boring shot in golf for me (and many other shorter hitters) is not the second shot on a par 5, because a lot rides on that shot: it determines whether I have a chance to reach the green in regulation with my next. For me the most boring shot is the second on a longer par 4, because usually nothing rides on it. If I whiff it, then I can still hit an iron into the green, if I execute well, then it's a wedge.

So, in my mind do away with long par 4s or make them a tad longer into short par 5s

Ulrich

+1

Nothing is more slog-like to me than a course full of long par 4s...where i'm constantly struggling to save pars.  Give me a 510 yard par 5 anytime where I can hit two good shots and have a sniff at bird.

[Tim_Weiman]

Niall,

I share Tom Doak's view that #16 at Crystal Downs is an essay on why doing away with par 5s doesn't make sense.

The tee shot reminds me of the tee shot on the previous hole, #15: you wonder why the architect wasn't more creative. But, as you walk forward and the hole is revealed you get it. On #16, the first two shots don't seem demanding at first. There is certainly plenty of width. Yet, as Tom suggests, you have to hit pretty good shots to set up a chance for a good third shot and chance for birdie or par.

Thinking of the golf population as a whole, I can't imagine why one would want to do away with such holes. It is challenging, but in a pleasant, non penal way.

Rec Park, a muni in Long Beach, CA has something similiar without the similar quality green complex. #14 is a 500 yard par 5 with a pretty wide fairway, but the failure to put a nice draw on the tee shot creates a semi blind second shot that really needs to be well struck to set up a birdie attempt.

The design seems pretty simple, but it works really well for the vast majority of golfers.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I played Wilmslow today with my big-hitting son, Edward. On the 500-yard par-5 7th he drove 300+ yards, hitting some sort of wedge towards the green. But he missed. I was just short in 3 and holed out for 5. He had to go round trees and also holed out in 5. On the par-5 13th he hit an enormous drive. Mine was probably 210 yards, his probably 350 yards. But I hit a 5-wood 50 yards short of the green, while Edward's wedged second shot went through the back of the green. We both finished with fives. I don't mean this as a boast - Edward is a far better golfer than I ever was, but he just hasn't played much over the past six years. But par-5s can be exciting. Both of these holes involve cross-bunkers at about 350-400 yards from the tee. They are seriously challenging for me - I happened to negotiate them successfully today. While they are of no significance to the good/long player the further defences of these holes await to punish those just the slightest bit off line.

I was beginning to think that long par 4s were becoming a greater hindrance to short hitters such as I. But I'm beginning to think that my bogey-5 on one of these holes is actually very competitive.

Par is a good way of comparing scores of various competitors at different parts of their round, but it is not a god. Few courses are going to be subjected to competitive play by professionals. Those that are might set limits of par 4 at 520 yards and par 3 at 280 yards. How many other courses will see that level of play? Why shouldn't the 17th at St Andrews be considered a par-5 for visitor play? We certainly don't play the 14th at 600+yards. While Hell Bunker might be of no significance to the professionals playing from the new back tee, it certainly is for us playing the hole at 500 or 540 yards.

I think par is a good reckoner for comparative scores, but bogey ought not to be forgotten for those who are not the longest hitters on today's planet. Over nine holes I actually beat Edward on gross score. He played the glory shots, but I just got my pars and bogeys. We only played a few holes on the back nine as the rain settled in for the rest of the day. But how wonderful to get out on the course at the beginning of October when usually we start to play winter rules..... 

[Ulrich Mayring]

But I hit a 5-wood 50 yards short of the green

I do that a lot, too. Pretty boring shot on most holes. I'd rather hit a mixture of clubs than the ole 5 wood and pitch all the time.

Ulrich

[Paul Jones]

I really enjoy a course that has at least 1 or more short Par 4 and short Par 5.  I always hear how people really like the "drivable" Par 4, but if a Par 5 is less than 510 I usually hear that it would be better as a Par 4 - Franklin Hills comes to mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

If part of the mission of the architect is to provide a disinterested challenge for all level of golfers, shouldn't one of those challenges be a test that requires the planning and execution of three consecutive shots ?

What's lost in your premise is the abandonment of having the architectural features interface with the golfer, on the drive, second and approach because with today's modern golfer, the features intended for the DZ are often ignored by the golfer's ability to fly it over them without much concern for consequences.

That then removes the sequence of challenges on the second and approach shots.

Recently, I was playing at Ridgewood, (NJ) and couldn't help but marvel how wonderful the par 5's that AWT crafted, had remained relevant, even though some of the tees remained stationary over the intervening years.

Holes like # 3 East, # 2 center, # 4 center, # 4 West and # 8 west are wonderful par 5's for 99 % of golfers.

For the other 1 %, # 4 West can be lengthened to 600+ yards and remain relevant, the others tend to be landlocked and for PGA tournament purposes have had the tees moved up and had the holes converted to par 4's.

If they had the land, I'd rather see the holes lengthened, such that the architectural features and their juxtaposition returned them to their intended mission, interfacing with the golfer.

Unfortunately, distance and high tech have prevented that from happening.

But, for the other 99 %, I'll let you play the par 5's at Ridgewood and bet you on par all day long.

[Michael Goldstein]

I like to think about par fives considering the old 'bogey' system.

The best par fives have a risk reward element and are often at the shorter end of the spectrum.  Applying the 'bogey' system they would be bogey 5's.

Personally, one or two holes with a 'bogey' score of 6 is enough in a round of golf.  Most modern par fives are too long and too penal and hitting 2 iron 2 iron wedge four times a round gets old quickly.

The perfect example of doing away with par fives is RM West. It has four par fives, but in practice it has about 7 holes with a 'bogey' of 5. 

[Sean_A]

I would never say do away with three shot par 5s, but I would like to see their numbers limited to what the land will give.  Too often I see boring three-shotters - archies don't seem able to create many gooduns.  Bottom line, I would like to see 1 proper par 5 on a course, but not at the expense of good golf. 

Ciao

[Mike Bowline]

If the second shot on a par 5 can be designed for the average player (who is not attempting to reach the green in two) such that one side or the other of the fairway is to be favored, the shot becomes a little more interesting. Or if the hole demands some thought on the 2nd shot's distance hit/line of flight to give the player something to think about, that's a good thing.  In other words, not just reaching for the 3-wood and hitting it as far as he can.

But not many holes have such attributes unfortunately. I would rank the second shots at Blackwolf Run #11, or Pebble #6 as truly memorable and challenging. But they are in the small sample of 2nd shots that fit that description.

[Adam Clayman]

Properly designed 3 shotters should afford every level of the opportunity to make strategic decisions. Whether its a "go or no go" or, whether to challenge some hazard or feature. Their loss in the scheme of averrage golfers would hurt more than help the game.

[Niall C]

Niall,

I share Tom Doak's view that #16 at Crystal Downs is an essay on why doing away with par 5s doesn't make sense.

The tee shot reminds me of the tee shot on the previous hole, #15: you wonder why the architect wasn't more creative. But, as you walk forward and the hole is revealed you get it. On #16, the first two shots don't seem demanding at first. There is certainly plenty of width. Yet, as Tom suggests, you have to hit pretty good shots to set up a chance for a good third shot and chance for birdie or par.

Thinking of the golf population as a whole, I can't imagine why one would want to do away with such holes. It is challenging, but in a pleasant, non penal way.

Rec Park, a muni in Long Beach, CA has something similiar without the similar quality green complex. #14 is a 500 yard par 5 with a pretty wide fairway, but the failure to put a nice draw on the tee shot creates a semi blind second shot that really needs to be well struck to set up a birdie attempt.

The design seems pretty simple, but it works really well for the vast majority of golfers.

Tim and others

As the promoter of the idea I must confess that I wouldn't be 100% prescritpive about it, indeed the thought that no par 5's would become the convention the way that 4 par 5's are expected at the moment would I think be as bad as what we have now. I too would hate to lose classic holes like the 13th at Silloth which I have rarely been in with a shout of getting on in two never mind actually achieving it. A classic hole where strategy is determined by the landform and the prevailing conditions.

I do however come back to Jeff B's point though that on a lot of par 5's the second shot can lack any real purpose other than bunting the ball up into general range of the green for the third shot. Even though I find that these holes are generally easier for me and provide a bit of a breather, I think we could do without them for the sake of saving on a few hundred yards. As Sean pointed out, better to go with what the land gives you than forcing something in to be conventional.

Niall