[mike_malone]

In the Lulu thread mention was made of Manufactuers across the street . As I think of Mannies I agree that the par threes are strong but the fives are uninspiring. In fact I think par fives may be Flynn's Achilles heel . I can't think of many par fives on his courses that I have played which are outstanding

[Nigel Islam]

Never played it but 16 at Shinecock isn't too shabby.

[mike_malone]

One would hope that there is at least one great 5 on his masterpiece

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Michael,

  I think a strong case against your question could be made for your 9th hole, which, to me, provides a test of length and accuracy.  The hole is long-and seemingly uphill forever.  You have a sidehill and uphill or downhill lie on your 2nd shot with a good drive (see our round there last September).  I forget the demand on the third shot, but it may have been sidehill lie to a green above the player.  It's certainly not a hole where one can "waste" a shot and still have a chance to make birdie or par as one can on some par fives (e.g. poor drive, good second and third).

Some examples:
 
I don't like the hole, but 11th at Lehigh tests three shots-get out of position with one and it's hard to make par, much less birdie.
Been a few years, but maybe Lehigh 5 6 is a little indifferent.    
7 HVCC may be a little indifferent on the second shot, but that hole, the entire T/F 18 sets up very well for me, so I don't complain.    
15 HV is a test of a drive with bunkering in the landing area to the right, exactly where many players will try to go, and bunkering again to the right, on a L>R sloping fairway, to challenge the second shot.
16 SHGC is all world. More impressive in person than in photos.  
No examples at Philmont because IT'S NOT A FLYNN
Haven't been to Green Valley, Woodcrest  
3 at Philadelphia CC is very, very good, 2 good shots required in order to get in position.
6 at Atlantic City is good, although I don't know how much of that is Flynn and how much is Doak.  13 is a little blah for me, although thought provoking, given the accuracy demands.
3 Indian Creek I felt was again requiring good shots.  18 was more of a par 4.5 similar to your 17th.  

**I was informed through a PM that some of those out there take issue with my thoughts on 7 at HV. It's been about 5 yrs since I've played it.  I forgot about the bunkering short of the green.  Maybe I should just ask for access like many here more often.  

[Scott Warren]

Mayday,

I thought 7, 9 and 17 at Rolling Green were really interesting holes.

7 at Lancaster is brilliant in the way it uses the river and has a smart green, also.

Sadly, that is the extent of my Flynn exposure to date, but on the strength of that I'd not say the fives were his weakness.

If anything, the thing those two courses lack are a really outstanding short four. A few really good drive and pitch holes (12 RG, 4L, 5L, 16L), but no great driveable par four.

[Dan Herrmann]

Scott - amen to Lancaster #7.   Simply a brilliant hole - the way Flynn used the Conestoga River is a triumph.

[mike_malone]

How often is the weakest hole on a Flynn course a 5 ?

[JNagle]

Mayday -

Very good thread.  I would agree that Flynn did not truly focus on the 5 par's.  In fact I may go out on a limb and say ODG's put more focus on par 3's and solid par 4's with a variety of strategies and lengths.  Flynn was a master at the long par 4 and his par 3's when reviewed as a whole for a course often surpass those of other architect's.  

As for the 7th at Lancaster, the hole originally played as a straight hole and did not play diagonally over the Conestoga.

[Jonathan Mallard]

#5 at The Cascades is a solid hole. With the fairway ending and a long carry, it might get downgraded by some, but I thought it was well done.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/cascades/

[John Percival]

16 at Shinny is one of the game's great 5 pars, especially when factoring the wind. Somehow, the angles are just right. If you're out of position, you're in big trouble.
7 at Lancaster is also outstanding.
Interesting that the two holes have very different characteristics, yet each work so well.
Both utilize the terrain beautifully.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Scott - amen to Lancaster #7.   Simply a brilliant hole - the way Flynn used the Conestoga River is a triumph.

Dan, I love you-but I'm calling bulls**t.  It's nothing special.  This same type of hole is found elsewhere, and more photographed.  See 18 at Bay Hill.  Or 6 at Congressional Blue, whichever your preference.    
I really don't see anything that special here.  It's an ok, but not great, use of angles.  I am not sure if there are issues due to the Conestoga River and the trees up the right being necessary.  I wonder if there was more of an opportunity to use different angles on the drive compounded with the go/no go of the second shot.  Yes, the conditioning is amazing.  I would say that #13 at LCC is much stronger on the drive and very strong on the second shot, a much better use of angles.    

[Ed Brzezowski]

Good thread Mike, I think Doug has a point that nine at RG is a very good hole.Flynn did a nice par five at Concord but it was lost when Cornish did the re route. Hopefully we can bring it back to life in a year or so. Great use of a giant waste area.

[Jim_Coleman]

    I would suggest that every architect's Achilles heal is his par 5's.  Flynn's are no weaker than anyone else's.  There are always a few good ones and a few more ok ones.  Is Merion's 2nd that great?  Augusta's 2nd and 8th?  Bethpage's 7th and 13th?  Philly Cricket's 4,7 or 12?  Teeth of the Dog's 9 and 11?  Manny's 9th and 18th?  Bel Air's 1st or 8th?  Yes, Pine Valley's are both strong.  That's one reason it's Pine Valley.
  These are the courses with which I am  most familiar.

[Scott Warren]

Jim,

I would suggest that every architect's Achilles heal is his par 5's.

The exception, for mine, is Coore & Crenshaw.

1, 14, 16 at Sand Hills all great holes.
1, 8, 12 at Barnbougle Lost Farm are all standouts.
Friar's Head has a sublime set.

[Jim_Coleman]

     Hidden Creek  ...  not so much.  Only one I've played.

[Bill Brightly]

I am no expert on Tillinghast, but I think his par fives are excellent and his par threes are just average. That is certainly true at Ridgewood where 4 of the par fives are really great holes. I also would add Baltustrol Lower's 17 and 18.

[Mark McKeever]

I think that 7 and 12 at Lehigh are pretty solid holes, no?  (I give the nod to 7 if I have to compare them)

Mark

[mike_malone]

Mark,  It has been awhile since I have been to Lehigh but the par 5 which drops down to a green across a creek is an example of the weakness I am thinking of . It forces all approaches to a single place

[Tom_Doak]

I am no expert on Tillinghast, but I think his par fives are excellent and his par threes are just average. That is certainly true at Ridgewood where 4 of the par fives are really great holes. I also would add Baltustrol Lower's 17 and 18.

You are no expert on Tillinghast.  Frank Hannigan wrote precisely the opposite in his original piece on Tillie 40 years ago.  And Tillinghast himself said that he concentrated on the par-3's first as the standout holes of the course.

[Mark McKeever]

Mark,  It has been awhile since I have been to Lehigh but the par 5 which drops down to a green across a creek is an example of the weakness I am thinking of . It forces all approaches to a single place

Mayday, the second shots aren't all forced to the same area.  You can go for the green in two if you hit a good tee shot.  If not, then you bunt one to the layup area and try to hit a good shot in for a bird.  I don't know of many Flynn par 5's that have multiple layup areas..

Mark

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Mark,  It has been awhile since I have been to Lehigh but the par 5 which drops down to a green across a creek is an example of the weakness I am thinking of . It forces all approaches to a single place

Mayday, the second shots aren't all forced to the same area.  You can go for the green in two if you hit a good tee shot.  If not, then you bunt one to the layup area and try to hit a good shot in for a bird.  I don't know of many Flynn par 5's that have multiple layup areas..

Mark

Mark, I think Mike and I need to ask for some access so we can be properly informed  

"...Treehouse, Mike Malone and I are visiting Allentown and we're on Cedar Crest Blvd, any good suggestions on where to play?..."

[Mark McKeever]

No problem!  Paging the un-named guest.

If you're on Cedar Crest, Allentown Muni is nearby too!

Mark

[Bill Brightly]

I am no expert on Tillinghast, but I think his par fives are excellent and his par threes are just average. That is certainly true at Ridgewood where 4 of the par fives are really great holes. I also would add Baltustrol Lower's 17 and 18.

You are no expert on Tillinghast.  Frank Hannigan wrote precisely the opposite in his original piece on Tillie 40 years ago.  And Tillinghast himself said that he concentrated on the par-3's first as the standout holes of the course.

Well, then you really do need to go see Ridgewood and look closely at the par 5's. They are excellent examples of subtle deception mixed with a variety of very unique and challenging green complexes. While the par threes at Ridgewood are fine holes, they are by no means the best holes. If I were to rank the 27 holes, I would list four par fives and six par fours before I would consider one of the par threes.

[Steve Sayre]

The 7th at Kittansett, now with newly restored bunkers (Hanse from the Flynn plans), and the 15th, with crossing bunkers challenging the second, are both nice par 5's. The greens have a lot of interest and demand a thoughtful approach. Wind, always a major factor at Kittansett, enables the big hitters to have a go, at least on 7.

[Bill Brightly]

I am no expert on Tillinghast, but I think his par fives are excellent and his par threes are just average. That is certainly true at Ridgewood where 4 of the par fives are really great holes. I also would add Baltustrol Lower's 17 and 18.

You are no expert on Tillinghast.  Frank Hannigan wrote precisely the opposite in his original piece on Tillie 40 years ago.  And Tillinghast himself said that he concentrated on the par-3's first as the standout holes of the course.

When a poster starts his comment by saying "I am no expert on Tillinghast," why do you find it necessary to begin your response with a snarky comment such as "you are no expert on Tillinghast?"  

While I am no expert, I certainly am a fan of Tillinghast and I think he did a great job with his par fives. I know, for example, that he believed in designing his holes from the green backwards, and took great care to plan an interesting and demanding third shot. He often used multi-tiered greens that were best approached from a very specific spot in the fairway. And he made reaching that spot a challenge, rather than any two long and boring shots. He used mounds and doglegs to increase the difficulty of the first and second shots.

I also know that Tillinghast placed a great deal of importance on his one-shotters, but perhaps his three-shotters are under-valued?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()