[Dan_Lucas]

Several recent comments regarding Kingsley's 7th hole and others over the years have me wondering, why is it unacceptable for an architect to occasionally make the bombers play a par 5 the same way a normal human has to. Nobody seems to have a problem with occasionally having to hit less than a driver off a par 4 tee. Why is it different for par 5's. I make this specific to Kingsley because that is what I know best, but there are many other examples around the world. Kingsley has 3 other par 5's that are reachable for the bombers, #7 makes you make choices. The trees are 300 yards off the back tee, because of the elevated tee it plays like 250-260 with no wind. The second is dictated by player preference, pin position and wind. Do you want a semi-blind flip wedge or a 110-130 yard shot. You have to play it in many different winds and conditions to really appreciate it, but I really like it.

I have watched hundreds of people play this hole and played it myself too many times to count. You have to execute three good shots to have a birdie chance. There are many ways to make double. If the left trees were removed it would make it a semi-easy 2 shotter for the bombers. Aren't there enough of those?

Tiger can win at St. Andrews without hitting driver and "It's a great example of course management, taking the hazards out of play." But ask your average golfer to hit less than driver on a par 5 and it's a bad hole

[Mark Saltzman]

Dan,

I don't think every par5 need be reachable in two, but I wonder if the criticisms of 7 at TKC arise because its design takes away the choices that you espouse from the bombers. Is the hole not a little thought hybrid-5i to the layup area for the bomber who has no option to hit driver?

[JC Jones]

Dan,

Firstly, I don't think it is fair to discuss this subject without letting the world know about your persimmon 4-wood that is perfectly placed every time and how that might affect your view of this tee shot.   

It is interesting that you bring this up because I have always said that there is only one shot on the entire course at Kingsley that isn't great and that is the tee shot on 7.  You bring the best argument to the table that I have heard to date and that is how much we applaud a par 4 that doesn't allow for a driver off the tee and yet don't seem to afford that same thinking to the par 5.

I can tell you that it isn't the taking the driver out of my hand that is my problem, but rather, the lack of options, period.  I don't think that removing the trees would make it a semi-easy 2 shotter.  It would still require a long and accurate tee shot, followed by a long up-hill and blind second shot and given the false front and the death behind and to the left of the green, I'm not sure there is any incentive for the bomber to go for it.  The only advantage the bomber would have would be a shorter club with which to play his lay-up, thus allowing him to play to a flat lie about 120 out rather than a longer shot or risking going long and running down the hill.

From the 2nd shot in, I think #7 is a great hole, I would just like more options off the tee than the 215 yard shot and nothing else.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Tiger can win at St. Andrews without hitting driver and "It's a great example of course management, taking the hazards out of play." But ask your average golfer to hit less than driver on a par 5 and it's a bad hole

Tiger can't win at St. Andrews without hitting driver! In fact it is his driver clearing all the trouble that has let him win there!

[Jud_T]

From the 2nd shot in, I think #7 is a great hole, I would just like more options off the tee than the 215 yard shot and nothing else.

JC,

You could hit wedge, wedge...  

Seriously, it took me quite a while to fully appreciate this hole.  There's actually a pretty small section of the left side of the fairway if one wants to have a flat lie, a good angle for the second shot and no tree trouble.  If one is right you either end up in the gunch on the hill or with an uphill lie and a blind second.  If one is too aggressive you risk bringing the trees at the bottleneck into play.  What's wrong with asking for a precision shot off the tee in terms of distance and accuracy?  Everyone seems to love it on #9.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

it is a great par five..strategy supreme...you CAN hit driver if you want to...over the corner and then go for it in two.
My aprtner at the Peninsula Cup did judt that...perfect drive, into the "go " area and made seven...but it was possible.
For me..not...but that is what makes it so good.
I certainly dontthink every par five should be reachable... one of mmy Favourite par fives is #15 at Pine Valley..not reachable by many, and a great placement par five with a mulitude of options on how to play the hole.

I personally hate the obsessions with reachable in two par fives....probably because I dont hit far enough to get there!!!!

[Shane Wright]

...
Tiger can win at St. Andrews without hitting driver and "It's a great example of course management, taking the hazards out of play." But ask your average golfer to hit less than driver on a par 5 and it's a bad hole

Tiger can't win at St. Andrews without hitting driver! In fact it is his driver clearing all the trouble that has let him win there!

Garland - don't take this the wrong way, have you played St. Andrew's?  What holes do you need a driver on to clear the "trouble?" I can't think of one.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

I have come to love the 7th at Kingsley, but it was tense relationship at the start.  The first time I hit driver into the trees on the left and quickly found myself in jail without a key.  The next few times I hit three wood hoping to get as much out of the drive as possible and usually ended up some where on the right either on the hill or just short.  I finally wised-up and now hit hybrid each and every time - I think I played Kingsley 20 times this year and hit hybrid each and every time.  

My second shot is a mid iron to the plateau and usually have between 110-125 to the green for my third.  This is a fun shot to play because you don't always know where you are going to end up and I am picking a line from one of the big trees on the right as most if the fairway and green is blind.

From there, my shaky short game comes into play and I am either putting for four (hopefully from not above the hole) or I still have a wedge/iron/putter in my hand trying to figure out how to get up and down.

There are several holes at Kingsley where when you get "out of position" it is punishing - I think no other par 4 or 5 at Kingsley fits this description more than #7.  It can be brutal at times (especially up on the right hand side) and sometime finishing the hole is an accomplishment.

I love this hole for a lot of reasons - I especially love the view from the tee out to the right as you leave the openness and amazing routing of the front and you see the beautiful view down seven and up to eight green.

I don't think every par 5 needs to be reachable and I love the fact that the precision of each shot on this hole get more demanding as you get closer to the green.

The Toughman is up there this coming weekend - I wonder where the pin will be on this green?

[Shane Wright]

To the archies on the board - is a par 5 the hardest type of hole to design?  I can't think of many brilliant 600+ par 5's that no one except for the very longest players (Woodland, Bubba, Quiros) can reach in two.  Many of the great ones in the UK are unreachable on some days, and easily reachable others depending on the wind conditions.  13 and 15 at Augusta are brilliant in my mind because everyone can get home, but it doesn't necessarily always pay to try it.  

It seems to me that deciding on designs for par 5's would be difficult.  

[Shane Wright]

...
Tiger can win at St. Andrews without hitting driver and "It's a great example of course management, taking the hazards out of play." But ask your average golfer to hit less than driver on a par 5 and it's a bad hole

Tiger can't win at St. Andrews without hitting driver! In fact it is his driver clearing all the trouble that has let him win there!

And he won at Liverpool with a 2 iron.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Yet if memory serves me correctly Tiger bombed at Carnoustie a few years ago and had a splashing time.

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

...
Tiger can win at St. Andrews without hitting driver and "It's a great example of course management, taking the hazards out of play." But ask your average golfer to hit less than driver on a par 5 and it's a bad hole

Tiger can't win at St. Andrews without hitting driver! In fact it is his driver clearing all the trouble that has let him win there!

Garland - don't take this the wrong way, have you played St. Andrew's?  What holes do you need a driver on to clear the "trouble?" I can't think of one.

Shane,

Don't take this wrong, but is Shane Wright an alias for Pat Mucci? I'm just reporting on the reports from Tiger's first win at St. Andrews. He did not get in a single bunker. My understanding from the reports is that he could take an aggressive line that normally would bring bunkers into play, but instead he just hit it over those bunkers. Once there, it is easier to miss green side bunkers with wedge in hand.

[Sean_A]

Dan

Every par 5 doesn't have to be reachable in two, but in my experience these are the best par 5s.  I think par 5s are the hardest holes to make interesting and making a deliberate 3 shotter is that much more risky in terms of holding the attention of golfers.  Personally, I prefer there to be only two or the par 5s, this frees up more space for par 3s which are the chances for an archie to create some excellent set pieces.  It also means less land is necessary to build a good course.  It just seems to me that unless that cracking true three-shot par 5 is there for the building than I wouldn't want it on my course. 

Ciao

[Matthew Petersen]

To the archies on the board - is a par 5 the hardest type of hole to design?  I can't think of many brilliant 600+ par 5's that no one except for the very longest players (Woodland, Bubba, Quiros) can reach in two.  Many of the great ones in the UK are unreachable on some days, and easily reachable others depending on the wind conditions.  13 and 15 at Augusta are brilliant in my mind because everyone can get home, but it doesn't necessarily always pay to try it.  

It seems to me that deciding on designs for par 5's would be difficult.  

Seems like they would be the hardest holes simply because you need that much more good and appropriate land. You can make an excellent par three with little more than a green site and somewhere to put a tee box. but a par 5 requires a lot of land, plenty of area for fairway, a green site, appropriate tees, etc.

[David Lott]

Of course for most players they are not. Thus they have to be designed with two categories of player in mind.

Architecture is not just for the low handicap.

[Garland Bayley]

The core of golf is the two shotter. When you go to three shots, you have a difficult time creating the interest of a two shotter. The second shot of the two shotter gives you scoring opportunities. Therefore it has stringent requirements on it's execution. The first shot gives you to opportunity to set up the best second shot to meet those requirements. When you go to three shots, you don't have then necessity of setting up the best approach with the first shot. Therefore, you get somewhat of a pass on it, unless you have a very interesting par 5 on very interesting land, as there are most times many places where the first shot can be played to that allow the second shot to set up the best approach.

The par three has the stringent requirements for scoring, so it retains half of the interest of the two shotter. Therefore you see GCAs creating par 3 courses, but you don't seem them creating par 5 courses unless their names are John Daly. Big John apparently has not learned that golf is a game of accuracy instead of one of distance.

A. Vernon Macan for one did not believe in creating true 3 shot holes.

[Shane Wright]

...
Tiger can win at St. Andrews without hitting driver and "It's a great example of course management, taking the hazards out of play." But ask your average golfer to hit less than driver on a par 5 and it's a bad hole

Tiger can't win at St. Andrews without hitting driver! In fact it is his driver clearing all the trouble that has let him win there!

Garland - don't take this the wrong way, have you played St. Andrew's?  What holes do you need a driver on to clear the "trouble?" I can't think of one.

Shane,

Don't take this wrong, but is Shane Wright an alias for Pat Mucci? I'm just reporting on the reports from Tiger's first win at St. Andrews. He did not get in a single bunker. My understanding from the reports is that he could take an aggressive line that normally would bring bunkers into play, but instead he just hit it over those bunkers. Once there, it is easier to miss green side bunkers with wedge in hand.

You are right, he did not go in a single bunker for 4 days which is incredible at St. Andrew’s.  But it wasn’t because he was hitting driver over all the trouble.  In fact, on a couple of the holes, 9 for sure, he laid up short of the bunkers (all four days) with an iron, wedge on, 1 putt for birdie (all four days).  His Open title was because of strategy and course management not because he was bombing past everything. This is something that a course like St. Andrew’s demands a lot of.  And it doesn’t matter at St. Andrew’s if you have bombed it past everything and have wedge in your hand.  If you are approaching the pin from the wrong angle, you are flat out screwed.  There is not a chance of getting the ball anywhere near the hole.  This is why The Old Course is so brilliant.
And being called Pat Mucci is a compliment, thank you.

[Garland Bayley]

...
And being called Pat Mucci is a compliment, thank you.

You poor soul. At least I hope you can attract the attractive nurses he does.

Tiger chose to only use driver three times (I believe) at Royal Liverpool if my memory serves me right. If I recall correctly, he did hit driver most of the time at St. Andrews, even if he didn't use it at 9 as you report.

[Tim Bert]

Dan - I can't relate to the question posed in the subject line of this topic since 99% of par 5s are not reachable in two for me. I obviously don't see a problem with it.   I like the occasional monster long par 5 (sticking with the Kingsley example either 14 or 1 from the tips) and also the occasional hole that takes driver out of your hand (hard to do to me because I'm not that long off the tee). 

For me, the second shot at #7 is probably the most dis-orienting shot for me on the entire course and I really enjoy it.  It is probably my favorite 2nd shot on any of the par 5s at Kingsley.

I think it is the kind of hole that can strike some people in the wrong way, particularly those that don't have the opportunity for repeated plays.  At the same time, as we are reading here, the hole grows on most of the people that play the hole with any regularity.  It is possible to hit the green in regulation without seeing any of your three shots come to rest. Not too many par 5s where you can say that.

I think the hole is unique and I love the twisted look and feel of the 7th, 8th, and 9th standing on the 7th tee.  I also think the various tees provide good variety here. As an example, if JC doesn't want to hit the "215 shot" then he can play the golds and probably hit his driver.  Personally, I hit driver from the blues 8 of 10 times here and rarely run out of room. I'm probably hitting driver 230 there.  The moderately long hitters can go up to the whites (depending upon ego) and challenge themselves to hit it over the hill to the flatter landing area if they really want to play it as a par 4.5. I can do the same from the red tee.  The gold is all I can handle here.

[Andy Stamm]

...
And being called Pat Mucci is a compliment, thank you.

You poor soul. At least I hope you can attract the attractive nurses he does.

Tiger chose to only use driver three times (I believe) at Royal Liverpool if my memory serves me right. If I recall correctly, he did hit driver most of the time at St. Andrews, even if he didn't use it at 9 as you report.

He hit driver once on 16 the first day. He missed it right of the next fairway over. He still made birdie. He hit no fairway bunkers during the tournament and he only missed 4 (I think) fairways for the week.

That's by far the may favorite tournament. The course was stunning, a real test, and yielded wonderful action. Tiger's performance was just incredible, and his final round was a virtuoso performance. He was so patient, but yet ruthless.

[Carl Rogers]

...
Tiger can win at St. Andrews without hitting driver and "It's a great example of course management, taking the hazards out of play." But ask your average golfer to hit less than driver on a par 5 and it's a bad hole

Tiger can't win at St. Andrews without hitting driver! In fact it is his driver clearing all the trouble that has let him win there!

I think you gents mean Royal Liverpool.

[Carl Rogers]

I must seond the idea of making the plus golfer hit 2 long shots and 1 precise shot .... once a round anyway.

[Dan_Lucas]

Personally I just enjoy an occasional hole where the guy that hits it 50 yards past me all day has to play it the same way I do. The only other way to make a true 3 shotter is to make it 650 yards and that just makes it another advantage for the bomber. Not all low handicappers hit it 300 off the tee.

In general the guys that hit it 300+ in the fairway have a distinct advantage and that's ok. They have practiced and payed for the clubs to gain that ability and it's a beautiful thing to watch. I just think it's a good thing to take that advantage away here and there and make them manage their game.

Are there other ways to do that?

[Mark Pearce]

And he won at Liverpool with a 2 iron.

Shane,

That's Garland's point.  The OP is confusing TOC with Royal Liverpool, where Woods famously only hit driver once in 72 holes.

[Adam Clayman]

I'm a big fan of the 7th at Kingsley. I love the look from the tee, and the darkness that looms left. A hole that needs to be figured out, is vastly superior to a hole that is so straight forward, it's bomb and gouge time after time. The world has enough of those. Because a par 5 hole, plays prudently, where getting closest to the green in two, or farthest from the tee, aren't always the smart choices, is refreshing, identifies brains over brawn does not necessarily make it a "bad hole".  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()