A weakness of Golden Age architects is . . .

[Steven Blake]

Par 5's

It seems to me that Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, Alison etc. did a great job building awesome Par 3's and Par 4's. And we can go on and on about all the great Par 3's and Par 4's they designed.  It seems but with a few exceptions (Augusta #13, any of Pine Valley's, or #4 at Bethpage Black)  we do not talk about classic age Par 5 holes like we do their shorter cousins ... why? 

To me it seems they tend to stick out as some of the weakest holes on lots of golden age courses.  Not to mention in some instances they are only 10-30 yards longer than some par 4's. Now being a 4.5 par doesn’t in my mind make such a hole weak but that lack of originality and variety in yardages makes them more mundane IMHO.  Am i wrong? Its just an observation and feeling I’ve had. Very rarely does someone comment on how great that par 5 hole was ... par 5's tend to be graded down in the lower half of most courses best holes.

I will take a golden age course in Wisconsin like Raynor's Bluemound Country Club.  The course has a lot of great holes but when evaluating the course the Par 5's tend to be at the bottom of the list. That’s not saying they are bad holes but they are not as remembered as highly as some others.

I know Tom Doak has said that par 5 holes tend to be some of the hardest to design.  I really can't remember why (I'm sure Mr. Doak can verify) but I guessing it has something to do with the length and possibly the routing of the course?? Who did or does a great job with solid par 5 holes.  Is there an architect who consistently designs par 5's that on the courses he designs that rank as some of the best holes on that property or that he built in the on any course? This is subjective of course but I think Mr. Dye does build some rather good Par 5 holes that one could argue rank as some of the best holes on his courses.   Here in Wisconsin the Par 5 holes at Blackwolf Run and Whistling Straits (#5 straits is the exception) are outstanding and IMHO are some of the best on their respective properties.  TPC Sawgrass has some memorable par 5's as well. 

So am I wrong? If I'm right why are some of the best architects in the history of game lacking in designing par 5 holes? And who did or does design some great par 5's?

[Jud_T]

Steven,

While you may have a point, I think you need to take into account the changes in technology and distance that have taken place in the past 90 years.  Many par 5's of the golden age were full blooded 3-shotters for all but the very best players of the day and some have been reduced to essentially long par 4's or easy par 5's by today's standards.  Those courses who don't have the luxury of additional real estate to keep hazards and strategy to what was originally intended have paid the price in this regard.

[Steven Blake]

Mr Tigerman,

You are right but then why for instance have par 4's a mere 20-30 yards shorter??  They must have been bruts!

Steven Blake

[Sean_A]

Steven

Par 5s are a weakness in gca period.  I think there are many reasons for this, but for me, chief among them is likely the idea of architects building par 5s whether or not they make sense or provide for the best sort of hole on a particular piece of land.  Perhaps if archies went into projects thinking they won't built par 5s and instead found them than we might all be better off.  Somehow (can't explain why), par 5s are at an inherent disadvantage in terms of entertaining the golfer.  It is the very rare true par 5 which interests me (modern or classic).
Ciao

[Steven Blake]

Mr, Arble


You bring up a great point that I never really considered and that is par 5's, perhaps; have a disadvantage in entertaining the golfer.  I guess we have to remember the average golfer is no better today than 20-30 years ago.  And the longer the hole the less interest it has because it seems almost insurmountable.  That being said a Par 3 hole entertains even the 25 handicap because he/she knows that a well struck shot can yield a memorable experience.  Flip over to the par 5 a 20-25 handicap is unlikely to hit 3-4 decent shots in a row hard to make it interesting for all players??

Steven Blake

[V. Kmetz]

Hiya,

I believe the reason why Par 5s "feel" deficient is because:

- they are only ones on the course where the "par" of the hole doesn't regularly betoken great quality; and the birdie seems less extraordinary, more expected, than the "2" or "3" on a one or two shot hole.  The par seems most "artificial" of a thing when it comes to a great deal of Par 5s

- certainly distance, technology etc... have made most Par 5s into half par holes for elite players and left most of the rest of us with wedges and short-irons for a regulation approach shot.  This builds a bit on the first point as if the final shot to the green is short, is it so amazing that you got a birdie?  And how much less amazing that you get a par. Even my favorite par 5 (#4 Bethpage Black) is really at its best when you consider that it's the pursuit of a seemingly (by distance) available 4 that puts teeth in to the hole of 505-530 yards.

- that hole definitely shaped my notion that EVERY hole is a medal solution of "4" when I step on the tee. I say that every time...what is the best way to make "4" today? 100 yard par 3s and 600 yard par 5s alike.  To shoot level fours (72) on almost any course is a pretty neat trick (for most of us) and so I don't concern myself too much with the course stated-"par" of a hole.  I for one, would love to see a trend where there are no pars on the scorecard...just 315, 412, 145, 559, etc...who can't figure it out and needs to have a "par" to govern success?  Certainly, you can always have an available "par" ready when you play competitions that have a Stableford or similar element (or ladie's ringers/birdies).  But why limit what success or failure is in medal play (match play we know) when we're going to add up the 18 holes anyway at the end?

When I think about the great Par 5s, it is because to get the 4 (or 3!!), you invite disaster, or if you're not an elite or crack player, where 5 feels just fine when its over.  You of course have to play competently to get your 5 but subconsciously you know a 5 is off the program of "4"...especially in the elite competition.  Best Par 5s I've experienced directly or indirectly?

#4 BB
#14 Quaker Ridge
#4 WFE
#14 Pebble
#18 Pebble
#6  Pebble
#17 Baltusrol Lower
#8 Century
#18 NGLA
# 7 PV

cheers

vk

[Ronald Montesano]

At CCB (Ross), the 13th is the great par five of the bunch. The others are par 4.5s.

At Cherry Hill (Travis), the 18th has a beguiling green and is amazing for that reason. The others are 4.5s.

However, take a look at Bethpage Black. The 4th is a prize, one of the best in the game. The 7th is a brute of the "inviting disaster" mold. #13 is also excellent and proper length. I can't speak to the Reesification of these holes, but none of them was weak in my book. #1 on the Red course is also a fine hole, as were others on that course.

Did Tilly design the best par 5s of the golden age lot?

[Joey Chase]

Did Tilly design the best par 5s of the golden age lot?

I can't speak for all of his courses but Fenway has an epic three shot hole in the 3rd!

[Mark Saltzman]

I've actually found golden age par 5s, generally, to be superior to modern day par-5s. I find there is now too much emphasis placed on the risk/reward of going for the green in two and little effort is put into designing interesting decisions for those that must/choose to lay-up.

Holes like Plainfield's 16th have both an interesting second shot decision and fantastic green site. While modern swings/equipment have rendered this second shot decision meaningless for longer hitters, the interest and challenge remains for the average golfer.

[Bill Brightly]

At CCB (Ross), the 13th is the great par five of the bunch. The others are par 4.5s.

At Cherry Hill (Travis), the 18th has a beguiling green and is amazing for that reason. The others are 4.5s.

However, take a look at Bethpage Black. The 4th is a prize, one of the best in the game. The 7th is a brute of the "inviting disaster" mold. #13 is also excellent and proper length. I can't speak to the Reesification of these holes, but none of them was weak in my book. #1 on the Red course is also a fine hole, as were others on that course.

Did Tilly design the best par 5s of the golden age lot?

Yes, I think Tilly did the best job on par 5's. In fact, I think his par 5's are better than his par 3's, certainly when you put his work up against other ODG's. At Ridgewood he built five par 5's over 27 holes and four of them are superb. As Mark Satlzman suggests, the greatness of his holes does not lie in the potential risk/reward of going for the green in two. Rather, I think Tilly did his most aggresive shaping on par 5 greens, like the angled, triple-tiered green on 3 East at Ridgewood and the severe right-to-left tilt on 8 West (the hole where Sergio landed in a "mole hole" and got a free drop.) To play these holes well, you have to play two well-placed shots to leave a 100 yard or less approach. If you are not in the proper position, par becomes a very tough score. But if you are in position, and execute the third shot to the proper section of the green, you will, by definition, have good chance at birdie. Start these holes with a wayward drive and you will rarely escape with par.  Tilly normally made the first two shots interesting, either by making the hole a dogleg, or the insertion of "bumps" that must be navigated along the way.

8 West

[Steven Blake]

It does seem Tillinghast has bulit some gems... wasn't it also his idea for "hell's half acre"?? The great hazard idea that he discussed and is this an ode to the hell bunker at St. Andrew's?  Aren't #4 @ BB, #7 PV, and #14 St Andrews all in the same vain and has this type of hazard been copied lately?? Too bad Tilly didn't build as many courses in the midwest!! 

How does Doak and C&C's par 5's stack up against there other holes?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Weakness, now that is a good word and IMHO describes the untested development to the new aerial game. This being developed mainly in the USA in the early 20th Century. Most of the designers were either Scottish emigrants or had been influenced by the Scottish game so it took time to learn the purpose of the long aerial shots. 

Par 5 in the Golden Age (second) may well have suffered due to the ball change and size debate that ran for many a year. With distances/flight of ball getting longer and new courses still normally being 9 Holes, the land was still an initial issue. The more we travel in time into the 20th Century the more the game expanded land was found to match St Andrews and the NGLA.

Par 5’s are fairly common place pre 1900 due to the only gutty ball and club technology back then. The original 1st at Prestwick being one Hole that springs to mind. It was relative easy to adjust to Par 3’s or 4’s, but to get close to the old Par 5 meant more ground, that balanced with the equipment development from the early 1900 to 1930’s needed a new learning curve which I believe explains the weakness.

In other words it’s all relative with the exception of Par 5’s which had to go through a new learning curve thanks to the new ball, its size and the understanding of an aerial game that’s seemed to shortcut the game of golf.

Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

Steven,

I suppose I disagree with the premise of the thread.

The list of great par fives from the Golden Age is lengthy, IMO.

I can think of numerous examples by Colt, Simpson, Fowler, MacKenzie, OTM et al from GB&I and Aus and even in my limited play in the US, both three-shotters at PV, 7 and 18 at National, 1 and 17 at Riviera, 15 at The Valley Club, 9 at MPCC (Dunes) are all supremely interesting.

There's also the fact that not as many were built in the Golden Age. Many old courses have less than four three-shot holes, but have up to six par threes and 12 or so par fours, so it stands to reason that there will be fewer great par fives from that period.

And that's all before you consider the impact of technology, both in decimating par fives and in covering them into holes we now class as great two-shotters.

As for modern exponents of the par five, I'm not sure I have played a weak one by Coore & Crenshaw. And while I am not a fan of Aussie designer Ross Watson, I do like his par five holes more often than not.

Also not sure Doak's are as weak as some say. 1 and 17 at St Andrews Beach, 1 and 14 at Barnbougle and 10 at Renaissance Club are all fantastic.

[Ronald Montesano]

Bill,

KLynch and I laugh about Tilly and his par 3s...find a barranca, put the tee on one side, the green on the other, and you have a Tilly par 3. Easy way to eliminate difficult ground.

[Sean_A]

Scott

How often are the par 5s the best holes on even the courses with good par 5s? 

I would also say that a great many of the very good par 5s are really par 4s.  In other words, technology has altered the design intent so much that we can't really say the hole plays as designed.  Then again some of the great short par 4s are all that much better solely due to tech advances.  The two really go hand in hand.

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Bill,

KLynch and I laugh about Tilly and his par 3s...find a barranca, put the tee on one side, the green on the other, and you have a Tilly par 3. Easy way to eliminate difficult ground.

I am far from a Tilly expert, but I envision him finding the most interesting greensites and making par 4's out of them, and occaisionally par 5's. His par 3's seem to be "connector" holes, whereas some archies have their par 5's knocked for this.  Tilly's par 3's are fine holes, but just not the most memorable ones on his courses, IMO.

[Scott Warren]

Sean:

How often are the par 5s the best holes on even the courses with good par 5s?

Notwithstanding the statistical mountain to climb for that to be the case with any frequency, I think that when the hole as a puzzle is considered in full, more three-shot holes would be held high and celebrated.

Where three-shotters lose out to a one-shot or short two-shot hole, I suspect, is in the gratification and understanding being slowly drip-fed rather than administered in one swift shot. You can often take in a sub-275m (300y) hole instantly, while a 450+ hole is not as easily surveyed or understood. It takes time, and a lot of people don't like that as much as instant gratification.

That said, at The Old Course (14th), Royal Dornoch (12th), MPCC Dunes (9th), Royal Melbourne West (2nd), NGLA (18th), Royal Cinque Ports (3rd and 16th), Worplesdon (12th), dare I say Burnham & Berrow (13th) there are par five holes that are among the finest handful on the course and have certain claims on being the best hole on the course.

I would also say that a great many of the very good par 5s are really par 4s.  In other words, technology has altered the design intent so much that we can't really say the hole plays as designed.

Who gives a cuss what you call them, they are great holes that at least some golfers (probably most golfers) cannot reach in two and perhaps even more golfers are foolish trying to reach in two (which is crucial to their greatness).

Name me some great par fives on which you comfortably hit the green in two shots. I know that even for me, driving about 230-240m, there aren't that many. And part of the genius of many of them is that you know you could just get there, but you know it's wiser not to go for it.

Technology has made many of these holes more interesting for regular golfers, IMO. A hole like 12 at Worplesdon or 16 at Deal seems far more interesting currently than it would have been if I couldn't have had that dilemma of whether to go for the green in two. Likewise short par fours.

The one massive plus of technological advancement in golf might be on holes of 260-300m and 430-460m.

[Mike Policano]

Bill,

Thanks for sticking up for Tilly and his par 5's at Ridgewood. As you say, four of them are excellent. And the fifth is in the process of being Improved.

As for Tilly and par 3's, perhaps his best set is at Somerset Hills. The Redan is looking stellar this spring since they cleared all the pine trees from behind the green.  The long 8th has had new tee boxes built this winter, a chipping area restored to the right of the hole and the fairway widened to match the flanking greenside bunkers.

The short 12th over water is a stellar throwback par 3 and the 16th perched above the creek is well situated with a very good back to front green.

A really great set of par 3's which also go in four different directions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steven,

I would disagree with you, I think AWT's par 5's are exceptional as a body of work

I'd have to devote more time in reviewing Dr Mac, Ross and others.

Inherently, does quality diminish as quantity increases ?

[Dan Herrmann]

For what it's worth, I think Flynn built some great 5's - although he could be considered post-Golden Age.

Question for Steven Blake - are good 5's being built today?  Were they built in the 50's? 

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

I think, off the top of my head, that 5 and 17 at Muirfield and 13 at Silloth all at least feature in a discussion of the best holes at those courses.  Others that might include 9 and 11 at NBWL and 6 at Cruden Bay.

[JC Urbina]

I tend to agree with Bill and Mucci.

Tillinghast said that the three shotter should be in the 600 yard range ( 1920's discussion ) and that each shot should require finesse and accurate play.  He disagreed with a fellow architect of that era who suggested that the green of a three shotter should be of a" generous dimension"   Tillinghast believed that the green should be built with the size and accuracy of that final shot, " The size of the green ,their very contour must fit the shot"

Tillinghast called for a great hazard to protect that second shot from not being well placed.  He felt that "Dog-legging was a way to stifle the drive or second shot. 

With that in mind think of Tillinghast's best par 5's today and what comes to mind are the great hazards being the common factor, even by today's standard.  Of course Tillinghast's requirement of at least a 600 yard hole as the starting point does not even come close to today's technology.

 If you believe that length is important, that three shot hole should measure around 700 yards today with the same complications.  Most importantly a great hazard.

The reason par 5's are so tough to design strategically is that the starting point maybe roughly the same for all players by the third stroke
people are so scattered about  at varying length's that the third shot may vary anywhere between a wedge and a long metal or recovery club.  How can that par 5 be intrinsically interesting for every caliber of player?

[Tom_Doak]

The one thing I remember vividly about Frank Hannigan's seminal article about Tillinghast in GOLF JOURNAL back in 1974, was that he said while Tillinghast prided himself on his par-3 holes, his weakness as an architect was his par-5 holes, with a few exceptions.

The exceptions are his "Sahara" type holes, of which the 7th hole at Pine Valley is the original, and holes like #17 at Baltusrol (Lower), #14 at Five Farms, and #4 at Bethpage (Black) are all derivatives.  [I happen to think the fourth at Bethpage is the best of the lot.]  The ninth at San Francisco Golf Club [in my opinion, the best par-five there] was also built on the same template, although it was an awkward version because the carry bunkers for the second shot were positioned just before a drop-off, so you couldn't see whether you made it over them, and two of those bunkers have since been removed.

I do agree with Jim that par-fives are the toughest holes to find in the landscape, because you have to find a place where three consecutive shots work, and because the third shot could be from almost anywhere.  It's funny, though, the same technology that has made many older par-5's pushover holes for the young and strong, has made them great holes for the 5- to 10-handicappers who now have real options for their second shots.

[Steven Blake]

Mr. Doak and Mr. Urbina,

Very well said and I keep forgetting the fact that some of the "weaker" par 5's on the older courses do present some intriguing options for the 5-15 handicap.  Personally I love the shorter Par 5's like the 13th at Augusta ... because it’s really a 4.5 par for the expert golfer whom does faultier from time to time! But i would think chime in Tom and Jim that such short Par 5's may take away some good land that perhaps a good par 4 and a nice par 3 could be used there instead ... hence the reason sometimes Par 5's are weaker?

And back to the great hazard ... why is not used as much anymore?? Is it too penal?  It seems to present the player with a lot of options particularly if the first shot was not in the correct location.

Steven Blake

[Brad Isaacs]

The answer to par5's is to design them as par 4.5's.  Example #13 and 15 at Augusta. Those holes get the juices flowing and are a lot of fun.
Other examples 6 & 17 at Old Mac , 3 at Pacific while 18 at Pacific just doesn't do it for me.

This said, why doesn't the ninth at Bandon attract me?

Brad

[Tags:]

Tags: