Are par fives the greatest place for architects to show their genius?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have a few favorite kind of holes. I love a good short par four that gives the player a number of options.  I like a long par three that requires accuracy and distance control. And I love par fives of every ilk. I like a shortish par five I can reach in two. I enjoy a long par five that requires the player to hit every shot well to be putting for birdie. 17&18 at Baltusrol are good examples of a good three shot hole and reachable par five.  Some of the holes I remember the best are par fives. Is this the greatest place for architects to strut their stuff?

[Thomas Dai]

I think there is a further part to the question - Par-5's for amateurs or par-5's for the Pro's we see on TV, although I'm not sure the guys on TV actually play many genuine par-5's any more.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

I really don't think one type of hole is more relevant than another; it's just a personal bias to choose one.

Par-5 holes are generally the hardest to find on a site.  In fact, some sites almost preclude having a really good one.  But often the choice of a "great" par-5 is really an uncompromising hole for the retail golfer.  The 17th at Baltusrol [like all of Tillie's "Sahara" par-5's] is really a four-shot hole for many players, and not many courses really need a hole that testing. 

I've tended to shy away from such holes in deference to my clients' customers, but have occasionally made an exception, such as the 17th at Streamsong.  Strutting one's stuff is not always the best course of action.

[Tommy Williamsen]

 "Strutting one's stuff is not always the best course of action."  Tom Doak

Par fives have enormous potential because, for most of us, they require three shots, which gives the architect one more shot to challenge the golfer.  Should one shot be relatively benign? If so does it make a difference which shot it is? It seems to me that given the right terrain and space,  a good oar five would be a fun hole to design.

[Peter Pallotta]

I found that line very interesting as well. 

Obviously, few know better what makes for a terrific Par 5 than a top flight architect, and no one knows better what a given siite might yield than the top-flight architect working/designing on that site.

The line suggests to me that the one who knows best might sometimes choose not to do what, in his mind, is indeed the best, for a whole host of reasons -- not least of which is an instinct for what most golfers will accept/enjoy/appreciate most of the time.

And it is those choices that, over time, will separate architects/their careers one from the other. Get them right, and you'll prosper; get them wrong too often and you won't have a career for long. 

Peter

PS - Tom may know that the 8th at Crystal Downs is one of the few par 5s I've ever played that I even like, and certainly the only one I've ever loved. So my perspective on this may be way out of whack.

[Ian Andrew]

No, but ....

I think the grand failing of many par fives is the lack of an interesting decision on the second shot.
I think the holes that compel or push you to make a conscious choice are far more interesting than those that simply let you advance.
I happen to think it was a strength of Tilly.

I'll gladly take on his Sahara than have nothing in the second landing area.
So I guess I'll respectfully disagree with Tom.

[Sean_A]

In nearly all cases, the best way for archies to show off their par 5 genius is to restrain themselves from building par 5s.  Stick to a few in a design and either the 5s will be good or so few as to be tolerable.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


Probably the most challenging in terms of strategy. You want  the big hitter to bite off more than they should in hopes of an easy birdie. Yet you have to create lay up areas to challenge the masses. Lots of fun figuring it out!

[Tom_Doak]

I'll gladly take on his Sahara than have nothing in the second landing area.
So I guess I'll respectfully disagree with Tom.

I understand your sentiment here; they are good holes but I don't think it qualifies as "genius" to install a yawning cross-bunker on the second shot to a par-5.  I much prefer something like Peter's favorite hole, where the ideal target area for the second shot is much less obvious and requires precision rather than carry distance.  But, such holes are so rare I can barely think of another example.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The fourth hole at Four Streams is a good example of a medium length par five.  From the tee there is a series of deep bunkers down the right side. If you hit a good drive you have a decision to make because there are cross bunkers that jut out into the fairway.  There is, however, fairway all the way to the green along the left side.  The decision is, "Do I try to carry the bunkers, hit it down the left side into a smallish fairway, or layup to about 125 yards. The green has some good slope right to left.  There is a bunker fronting the left side of the green. If you decide to go for the green from a long distance the ball can be run onto the green by hitting it to the right side, where the slope of the land will funnel the ball onto the green.  There are decisions to be made on all three shots.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I'll gladly take on his Sahara than have nothing in the second landing area.
So I guess I'll respectfully disagree with Tom.

I understand your sentiment here; they are good holes but I don't think it qualifies as "genius" to install a yawning cross-bunker on the second shot to a par-5.  I much prefer something like Peter's favorite hole, where the ideal target area for the second shot is much less obvious and requires precision rather than carry distance.  But, such holes are so rare I can barely think of another example.

Two of the par fives at Diamante fit this requirement and why I like them so much.
Unless you are a really long hitter, the second shots at #14 and 17 require the player to place his second shot into a limited fairway spot, especially at 14 where a tight left pin requires a site specific secong to see the pin.
My only problem with the hole is that the second shpt plays at best partially blind which then makes it perhaps  a tad unfair for such an important shot?

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

   Par 5's are just one part of many.  I think the real genius is shown in selecting the green sites and then finding the routing that connects them in the most interesting way with great rythum.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I hadn't really realized it until your post, but the great virtue/strength of the 8th at CD is that afforded an average golfer like me the opportunity to try a precise second shot, and then provided me the wonderful satisfaction of pulling it off -- while still leaving that do-able but tricky hundred yard shot into a small, well-gaurded green. I pulled my PW left and didn't get up and down for a par, but I well might have -- and that would've been even more satisfying.  The 8th manages the wonderful magic trick of being in actuality a little less challenging than it looks (for an average golfer) and yet still quite daunting (for the good golfer); and now I think that design-wise that magic is produced by/inherent in the 2nd shot.  

Peter

[Michael Felton]

In nearly all cases, the best way for archies to show off their par 5 genius is to restrain themselves from building par 5s.  Stick to a few in a design and either the 5s will be good or so few as to be tolerable.

Ciao

Hi Sean,

What do you think makes a good par 5? The Championship course at Burnham and Berrow has I think 3 par 5s on the card. 4, 8 and 13. 12 and 15 might as well be - I think both are harder to make 4 on than 4 or 8 (possibly 7 as well). What do you think of those holes and why?

I think the 8th is a good example of a second shot on a par 5 (assuming you can't reach) where there's plenty of room down there, but it makes your next shot significantly easier if you put it in the right place. Contrasting that is the 13th where there is anything but a lot of room for your second shot. Both are interesting, but 13 certainly is more stressful.

[Bill Brightly]

As Ian suggested, this was a much unappreciated strength of Tillinghast. I think he built many great green complexes on his par fives, and employed some of his most challenging "tiering" on these putting surfaces to demand accuracy on the approach. This in turn required much thought for the second shot. Lastly, I think he did a great job of making the second shot semi blind to add an element of doubt for the player.

I've posted this before, but I  think 3 East at Ridgewood is a great example of this.

The green angles left to right and has three distinct landing areas, each requiring great accurracy to hit.

 



A ball that comes to rest on the wrong landing area takes birdie out of the equation and makes a three-putt quite likely. This next photo shows the ideal line of attack.



Obviously, you do not want to miss your second shot to the right. But Tillinghast used a very modest change in elevation to obscure the second shot landing area. Somehow the player is tempted to aim at the pin in the distance, but this is definitely the wrong line.




The last design tool that Tilly employed here was the use of mounding at the end of the landing area.From the championship tees, the maximum you can hit your drive is about 290. From the regular tees, I'd say it it is 270.





This is a birdie hole if you play intelligently and are very accurate with your wedges. But if you try to overpower the hole, it is so easy to walk away with a frustrating bogey or worse.

This is a great hole designed on a very ordinary piece of land. For me, this typifies Tinnghast's genius.