Par Fives as Opening Holes

[Tom_Doak]

Our discussion of the new routing at Dismal River got a bit off track when we started talking about the first hole.  A lot of people thought it was the least exciting hole there, and I couldn't really argue with this because I've purposely held it back a little bit -- it will play into the wind sometimes and it has a fairly difficult green out of necessity, so I've been afraid to bunker it too much for fear of people making 7 out of the blocks.

John Kavanaugh quickly pointed out that our neighbor, Sand Hills, has a par-5 opener that is by acclamation a great hole; and Peter Pallotta has offered good defense of the par-5 opener, which I hope he will re-post here.

What say others?  I've built a lot of par-5 openers over the years -- in my early designs because I was convinced by George Thomas' fondness for them as good 19th holes for match play.  But I've grown to dislike them based on stroke play mentality, and the likelihood that some people will start with a 6 or a 7.  They do make it hard to get players off the first tee, too, but that is less of an issue for some courses than for others, and not really much of an issue at all in a remote spot like the sand hills of Nebraska.

One other hole worth discussing here is the first at Kingsley, which I know will come up because someone expressed love for it just the other day.  For me, the decision on that tee shot is not so welcome for the first swing of the day ... kind of like a coffee drinker's mood before that first cup of coffee in the morning.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - to repeat/rephrase and add a little:

I'm not a a big fan of Par 5s in general, but I've never met a golfer who doesn't like a gentle opening hole, and who doesn't like even more a gentle Par 5 opener. It gives us a chance; and if we make a hash of it we've got no one to blame but ourselves. Now, that kind of opener usually won't make for a 'great' golf hole, but it can play a good and useful part in the making a great golf course, the first step in the journey and first link in the chain.

One of the good points of a gentle Par 5 opener is that it offers a decision-making opportunity right away.  Even for me (an average golfer), if it is gentle enough I get to my tee shot and right away have to decide whether to go for the green in two or not -- in other words, I have to feel/sense whether or not "I have it" on this particular day, whether my body/mind will cooperate.  The fact that it usually doesn't and that i usually make the wrong decision doesn't alter the mini-thrill of having to make that choice right off the bat. (And if, upon making the wrong choice, the golf hole still allows me to make a bogie at worst, that's a nice bonus -- and a kind of promise that, while I will have to prepare myself for justice and judgement, I can also expect a little mercy and grace.)  

The opening hole, it seems to me, is its own "species", different from any other hole in the course. (The 2nd hole can be 'exchanged' for the 12th, for example, and the 5th for the 9th etc etc -- but there can only be one and one kind of opening hole).  I think opening holes have to be judged differently. As I may have mentioned to you, the 8th at Crystal Downs is one of the few Par 5s I've ever even liked, let alone loved.  But in my opinion, and for my skill level, it would be a terrible opening hole.

(Conversely, for my tastes and temperament, a Par 5 anywhere else on the course should be challenging, like the 8th a CD; otherwise I find them bland and uninteresting, but mostly I feel like the rabbit to whom the architect is non-to-subtly throwing a bit of lettuce.)

Peter

[Michael George]

I actually like the par 5 as an opening hole.  It usually allows me to hit my driver off the first tee and then a utility or longer iron for my second shot and a wedge for my third.  As a result, I kind of think it is the ultimate warm-up hole because it lets you hit different clubs.  

I fully agree with Tom that it should never be too difficult.  However, I also don't think it should be too easy - as the golfer will be upset from the start if he/she does not make a birdie.   My favorite par 5 openers have been ones where the placement of the second shot is key.  Hit the second shot to the correct side of the fairway and you are left with an open, inviting approach to the green.  Hit it to the incorrect side of the fairway, you either have a blind shot or difficult shot where birdie is taken out of the golfers hand, but par is still achievable with a 2 putt.  

Based on Tom's courses that I think would make good par 5 openers - #12 at Pacific Dunes would be a great example.  Very picturesque hole.  Very wide fairway to hit your drive and pretty easy second shot that you can hit utility or long iron.  The approach is with a wedge or short iron, but the approach from the right side of the fairway is a lot easier than the approach from the left side of the fairway.  Thus, par is protected, but it still is not too difficult to make par.  

[John Kavanaugh]

I remember the first time I played the first at Olympic I thought it was too easy. Funny how the highest ranked three players in the world proved me wrong.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I don't mind an opening par 5 but I am used to it as my club Scarboro (a Tillinghast redesign) starts with a par 5.  With a par 5 you can still have a chance at making par even if you hit somewhat poor shots as your first or second and still have a chance at making par if you hit a good third shot.  And it does give you a bit more chance to warm up if you are not the sort of person that spends a few minutes at the range before your rounds, which is generally less of a issue at new courses vs classic era courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

You might even say that an opening par 5 works well on a travel day. Two off the first tee is less likely to give an opponent a distinct advantage.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't disagree with anything that's been said so far, in theory ... but I still wonder if deliberately sacrificing the chance to have a great hole for the first hole is the best choice if you're trying to build a great course.

When in doubt, I go back and analyze.  So, I went to the list of the top 50 courses in the world, and I was surprised to find that EIGHT of them start with a par-5.  In addition to Sand Hills, Riviera, and Olympic [already mentioned], here are the others:

Royal County Down
San Francisco Golf Club
Sunningdale (Old)
Los Angeles CC (North)
Barnbougle Dunes 

None of these is a very dramatic opener -- Barnbougle's is probably the hardest, but only because it plays into the prevailing wind.   But these par-5 openers didn't hold back the courses too much.  So maybe I'm wrong to dislike some of my own courses for starting with par 5's ?

[Matt Kardash]

Tom, maybe you are thiking about this too hard? Sure, I see the appeal of easing a golfer into a round, but I don't see how starting with a par 5 could seriously make somoene like a course a whole lot less than if you started with a shortish par 4.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

It's likely a personal pet peeve.  Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card.  Occasionally, at Black Forest or Stonewall, I would yank my third shot and miss the green and fail to get up and down, and there went my day right there!

[Michael George]

Tom:

Funny story that I think you may enjoy.  I grew up playing with my grandfather.  Around his death, he was in the planning stages of building a golf course.  However, he wanted to build a 21 hole golf course, of which only the last 18 counted, because he said it always took him and his friends 3 holes to warm up.

Maybe that warm-up par 5 is not a bad thing for the average golfer  .

[Matt Kardash]

Matt:

It's likely a personal pet peeve.  Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card.  Occasionally, at Black Forest or Stonewall, I would yank my third shot and miss the green and fail to get up and down, and there went my day right there!

Well, now you aren't good anymore so that problem is solved! 

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Tom, does your opinion or preference change depending on the client?

[Alex Miller]

I've liked a number of opening par 5s that I've played, and I'm guessing the detraction is due to pace of play issues.

If that is not a problem, I think a par 5 that plays in the 520-540 range (from the back tees) is a great opening to the round. My favorites: LACC, Riviera, and Rustic are all gradually downhill with very generous landing areas. More importantly I think they have generous lay up areas as well so that if one does not execute on the first tee shot of the day then they don't get punished too harshly too quickly.

It's also important that if #1 is a par 5 that there are still sufficient birdie chances out on the course so that is does not feel like a waste if one does not take advantage of the first hole.

[Carl Johnson]

My home course opens with a par 5, a severe dogleg left.  The hole was added to the course in a renovation four years ago.  At first I did not think it would be a good opener, but now I've changed my mind.  It is one of the easiest holes on the course in relation to par.  For shorter hitters (my type), it is a three shot hole.  Action moves quickly off the tee because after the group ahead hits their second shots, they immediately disappear around the dogleg and the next group can tee off.  For my usual group, we can start with birdies to 7s (usually as a result of finding a bunker).  In a four-ball, which is what we normally play, a birdie (or sometimes par) will usually win or tie the hole, so 6s, 7s and 8's are immaterial to the match.  I think it is a particularly good opening hole for match play.

What I cannot say is how players whose focus is on their medal scores like it, or how the longer hitters like it.  On the other hand, I don't hear complaints.

The course is Carolina GC, on Old Steele Creek Rd.  in Charlotte.  If you're interested, you can take a look at the hole on Google maps.  For reference, the opening shot on the hold parallels the practice tee area, and the second shot is directly away from the range.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Matt:

It's likely a personal pet peeve.  Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card. 

Maybe this is gong to turn into the "remove par from the score card thread" but as an 11 handicap my goal is to keep double bogeys off the scorecard.   I really feel no worse making a 6 on a par 5 than making a 5 on a par 4.

I kind of like courses that mix up the "standard" of two par 3s and two par 5s per nine, and I wish more courses would have fewer par 4s and more par 5s and par 3s.  Cabot Links goes a little in this direction with a 37-33 split on the scorecard and four par 3s on the back.

[Michael Robin]

I grew up at Riviera, so I've always loved the softer starting Par 5 as a getaway hole. This is how I learned to play the game. It's a softer start, but there are things that still make it very dynamic - The great elevated tee shot with everyone watching, OB left. Palmer said it was the "Best starting hole in the game" where you could begin with a 3 or a 7. I've been thrilled with my start and horrified if I made a bogey or double, because of the very difficult next batch of holes. That next batch of holes actually puts pressure on how you play the first, since it's the only realistic birdie hole on the front side, so you better take advantage or you feel like you are working against the grain all day. I really like taking a big full swing to a wide fairway to start. Some other courses that used to start with a par 5, and I believe that was their original design are The Valley Club of Montecito and Pasatiempo.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, does your opinion or preference change depending on the client?

Doug:

The client will always have something to say about the routing, if he wants to.  But, that opinion doesn't necessarily change what I will present as the best final routing.  Sometimes you have two options that are pretty equal, and then it's easy to go with the one the client prefers; but other times, the client's preference would lead to an inferior routing, and it's my job to explain why.

Dismal is a good example.  Chris and I went back and forth over #1 a few times, because:

(a)  The green site was more interesting as a par five than a par four, and
(b)  We only had three par fives on the course, including #8 which was also potentially better as a par four, so if we shortened #1 we locked ourselves into #8 and a par-70 layout.

But,

(c)  The transition from #1 green to #2 regular tees is much worse when #1 is a par five, and
(d)  The first hole will play pretty long into the wind (and into the sun in the morning).

In the end, we let the best hole win out, but only after exhausting other possibilities [i.e. turning the hole up the valley to the right instead, or having a different hole follow #1].

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

It's likely a personal pet peeve.  Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card. 

Maybe this is gong to turn into the "remove par from the score card thread" but as an 11 handicap my goal is to keep double bogeys off the scorecard.   I really feel no worse making a 6 on a par 5 than making a 5 on a par 4.

I kind of like courses that mix up the "standard" of two par 3s and two par 5s per nine, and I wish more courses would have fewer par 4s and more par 5s and par 3s.  Cabot Links goes a little in this direction with a 37-33 split on the scorecard and four par 3s on the back.

Does Cabot Links really have four par-3 holes on the back nine?  I can't believe they ripped off Pacific Dunes.  I should have trademarked that finish -- because there was no other top-100 course that could say the same.

Personally, I love par fours more than other holes, and I think they provide for the greatest variety of design, so I'll have to disagree with your statement above.  Maybe you would like Jim Engh courses -- I saw another one the other day and he seems to have five 3's and five 5's on nearly every course he builds.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Thanks, Tom.  I haven't seen Dismal, but what I didn't articulate well enough is, say, public or private course.  My experience is, on public courses with a par 5 opener (or even a long 4, such as Bethpage Red, that often plays like a par 5), players may be in trouble off the tee, or just out of range to hit the green with a second shot, and still insist on waiting for the green to clear in order to hit a second shot, even though it's likely outside of their abilities.  Then it turns into a jam.  

Do you have any preference given this, or is it more dictated by the land and the other considerations you provided?  

Thank you

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I like opening par fives as they give you a chance to ease into the round.

AWT often opened with a par 5 or a relatively benign par 4.

Quaker Ridge, Baltusrol Upper, Baltusrol Lower, Fenway, Ridgewood, Shackamaxon and Alpine are a few examples in the NY Met area.
Probably because most of those courses didn't have an adequate practice facility/range.

The 1927 Tucker course I've been playing for 60 years had both the 1st and the 10th as par 5's.

I see it in a neutral perspective.

I don't think it detracts from the course in any manner.

Quality Par 5's aren't the easiest holes to design and if the land gives you a chance to construct one, albeit on the first hole, why wouldn't you do it ?

[Phil McDade]

Tom:

To me, the par of the hole matters less than the demands of the hole. It's maybe a cliche, but I've always liked Ross' notion of a "friendly handshake," and I usually enjoy those courses that open with a hole that doesn't thump you over the head with its demands.

That's not to say the opener can't be challenging. One of my favorite opening holes is at Langford/Moreau's Spring Valley CC, which plays as a par 4 at 452 from the tips (426 white tees). It's a blind tee shot out of the gate, as you can't see where your ball will land, but the fairway corridor is quite wide, and the approach shot is to a green open at front. It's the #5 handicap hole there, but its demand is primarily one of length right out of the gate. I've always found it a good way to loosen the shoulders early in the round.

[Greg Tallman]

Why on earth would you ever sacrifice the chance to have a great hole? The statement seems rather silly to be honest.

The GOLF COURSE is better because the first hole is not as great as it could have been? Count me as one who wants to see the hole you envision as the best hole on that piece of land regardless of other, largely artifical and irrelevant, factors.

[Jud_T]

Tom,

While I generally espouse the "ease 'em into the round" concept,  I certainly wouldn't shy away from making the best hole possible in the service of an easier opener.  The first at Kingsley isn't my favorite hole on the course, it's basically a par 6 for many which favors the big hitter and a very difficult opener, but it's a very strong hole and I certainly wouldn't prefer if Mike had made it easier, for instance by reducing the natural crest of the opening hill or it's bunkering.

[Bill_McBride]

I remember the first time I played the first at Olympic I thought it was too easy. Funny how the highest ranked three players in the world proved me wrong.

Was that because it was re-labeled a par 4 in the U.S. Open?   It was a brutal par 4.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Does Cabot Links really have four par-3 holes on the back nine?  I can't believe they ripped off Pacific Dunes.  I should have trademarked that finish -- because there was no other top-100 course that could say the same.

Cabot Links has 10,12,14 & 17 as par 3s.

Personally, I love par fours more than other holes, and I think they provide for the greatest variety of design, so I'll have to disagree with your statement above.  Maybe you would like Jim Engh courses -- I saw another one the other day and he seems to have five 3's and five 5's on nearly every course he builds.

I like par 4s a lot as well - but most courses have ten par 4s, and four par 3s and 5s and at times the par4s can get somewhat repetitive espcially if, due to the fetish of length, there are no short par 4s.