[Tommy Williamsen]

It obviously is not universally true, however, the second shot on many par fives requires little thought for the average player.  More often than not there is little risk/reward and we just bust a three wood or hibrid toward the green. Most of us have little chance to reach par fives in two shots.  I used to do it, but age has caused my ball to land sooner than it used to land. Better plays will lay up to there favorite distance, but even that is at best boring.
So my question is, "how difficult or interesting should the second shot on a par five be?"

[Jon Cavalier]

I do agree. But I also think that the most well designed par 5s address this problem in a way that creates strategic options. While I'm not typically in favor of a standard cross bunker or carry hazard on the second shot, many of my favorite par 5s have a bottle effect that creates additional risk the more aggressive you are with the second shot.

And on those boring holes where there is no such risk - I just bust a three wood. While I used to try to lay up to a yardage, my own experience told me max distance was usually the better play, and it seems like Broadie's research affirms that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not surprisingly, I don't agree.

The 2nd shot is all about positioning yourself in the optimal LZ for your 3rd shot.

Granted, the wedge, sand wedge and lob wedge are often the implement of choice for the third shot, somewhat muting the significance of the second shot, but, on manly par 5's position is important.

And, if you've ever played # 7 and # 15 at Pine Valley you know how critical that second shot is.

[Ken Moum]

I'd probably say it's the second shot on an unreachable par four.

Today I attempted to score for three college players at Prairie Dunes where they have #11 playing at a ludicrous 535 yards. Two of them had no chance to get home given sloppy wet fairway and a light headwind.  They barely paid any attention to those
shots. 

FWIW, I say attempted to score because we only got in three holes on an 8:40 tee time.  This is one NCAA Championship that is going to be a challenge to complete.

P.S. got to meet Chris Cupit today for the first time.

K

[Tommy Williamsen]

Not surprisingly, I don't agree.

The 2nd shot is all about positioning yourself in the optimal LZ for your 3rd shot.

Granted, the wedge, sand wedge and lob wedge are often the implement of choice for the third shot, somewhat muting the significance of the second shot, but, on manly par 5's position is important.

And, if you've ever played # 7 and # 15 at Pine Valley you know how critical that second shot is.

I agree that the second shot is about positioning, however, there seems to little incentive not to just hit three wood as far as possible, especially for the higher handicapper.  I have played PV about a dozen times.   Unless you hit it into a bad lie, number seven is just a drive three wood an short iron for me.  I cannot reach the bunker fronting the green.  I realize that Hell's half acre looks fearsome, but just forget it is there and hit a normal shot.  Number 15 is a different story.  It gets narrower and narrower.  The second shot is the scariest shot on the hole.  Depending on how I am hitting the ball I will hit anything from a three wood to a five iron. 

[Kevin Lynch]

I'd agree that it certainly can be, especially on a poorly designed course.  But on the same poorly designed course, isn't the tee shot almost as boring?

I grew up playing several courses which fit the mold, with no thought besides "get as close as I can."  But one extended weekend in Kohler really opened my eyes to how much interest could be built into that 2nd shot.  Diagonal landing zones, severe green slopes rewarding specific approach angles, crossing hazards, etc were all utilized to keep the layup from becoming a perfunctory task.

Look at Ballyhack's 2nd hole.  I discovered the hard way that the "just get as close as you can" strategy was dead wrong, especially when the pin is on the left side.  If you're approaching from the right side of the fairway, there is always plenty if thought needed to avoid going through the landing zone. 

I'm sure I could name many other thought-provoking layup shots (Bethpage #4, WW PB #4 to name just a couple off the top of my head).

Are you really saying that it is the most often overlooked shot in designs (which leads to the seeming boredom)?  I may be remembering it wrong, but hasn't there been a thread on the difficulty in designing great 3 shot par fives. Wasn't this due to the challenge of keeping the second shot interesting for players with wide ranges of distance?

[Cristian]

It obviously is not universally true, however, the second shot on many par fives requires little thought for the average player.  More often than not there is little risk/reward and we just bust a three wood or hibrid toward the green.

If this is the case, aren't we just talking about a bad par 5 hole? Or worse: Most par 5's are not very good holes....

[Bill_McBride]

This second shot challenge was the gist of the discussion in the 6-6-6 thread about Cabot Cliffs.   It will pose a challenge to C&C to design six interesting par 5s. 

[Frank Giordano]

Imagine teeing off on a par three, pitching an approach on any hole, chipping from  the fringe, blasting from a bunker, or completing a first putt.  Then imagine every one of those shots leaving you, say, from the lip of the cup back to about four inches.  Is there any shot in golf that requires less thought, less courage, less self-control than that tap-in? 

The emotional experience, however, may be far from boredom or ennui, especially if the short shot has a number with a 0 at the end of it ( e.g. 70, instead of the 69 another inch or two would have earned;  80, instead of the breakthrough round you've been practicing for months to achieve; 100, instead of your losing your virginity and becoming a real golfer).

Is there any truly boring shot for a true golfer?

[Ken Fry]

Is there any truly boring shot for a true golfer?

For anyone who's played with me, I offer the most boring shot in golf:  the punch out after an errant drive.

Ken

[jeffwarne]

Amazing how we all drool over drivable par 4s we can't drive, but find a fairway shot from 350-225 boring.
a well designed course should alleviate such issues.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

Your conclusion assumes that one's drive is in the desired DZ.

For example, a miss hit drive on # 7 at PV leaves the golfer with a dilemma of huge proportions.

To lay up or go for it with the second shot, understanding that a second shot that doesn't clear HHA is likely to produce a double or worse.

I think the second shot on # 15 is one of the most frightening shots on the entire course.
You're usually hitting from a sidehill or sidehill/downhill lie to a narrowing, steeply sloping LZ with disaster lurking everywhere.

I think that those in the New York area are fortunate because there are so many AWT courses in the area and his par fives have to be amongst the best, most demanding of any architects.

The second shots on AWT par fives are anything but boring

[Brent Hutto]

Amazing how we all drool over drivable par 4s we can't drive, but find a fairway shot from 350-225 boring.
a well designed course should alleviate such issues.

Exactly.

If second shots on Par 5's were boring then I'd be facing a lot of boring shots on holes I can't reach. Whether because it's a "driveable" 300-yard Par 4 (which for me is driver and a gap or pitching wedge) or a 400-yard uphill Par 4 (which is often driver, 5-iron and a sand wedge) or even a modest length two-shotter after badly mishitting my tee shot.

Such shots are only boring (possibly)  if they're dead straight, level with clear, straight demarcation lines between "fairway" and "rough". Put a bit of a curve to the hole or pinch it in with rough or fairway bunkers (or really live the dream and put in a cross-hazard) and such 200-yard layups can be quite "interesting".

Then there's the dimension of adding interest by orienting the green contours where Position A for that layup shot isn't just any old spot in the fairway but rather a very specific angle and distance for best chance of getting close to the hole.

[Paul Gray]

Amazing how we all drool over drivable par 4s we can't drive, but find a fairway shot from 350-225 boring.
a well designed course should alleviate such issues.

Well said.

Certainly for me the wide open short par 4 which is just out of range is really a nothing shot. Nail it 280 and I'm still short, sky it 200 yards and it's still only a wedge, anything left or right is still just a flick. Basically,  it's far less of a shot than a three wood off of a skinny lie on a three shot par 5.

[Peter Pallotta]

I must be spending too much time here, because I'm starting to think of much that hold dear as mud - options and strategies and risk rewards and short 4s and gentle handshakes...all mud, especially in reference to Par 5s.

Instead, give me a hell of a hard Par 5, with a very demanding 2nd shot.

In short, give me the 8th hole at Crystal Down, or give me a Par 68 course.

[Garland Bayley]

Amazing how we all drool over drivable par 4s we can't drive, but find a fairway shot from 350-225 boring.
a well designed course should alleviate such issues.

The most boring shot in golf is the drive on a par 5. All you have to do is get the ball in a position where you will have a decent stance and lie to hit the positioning second shot. Designing a good par 5 means making the tee shot a meaningful one. Or, so it seems to me.

[Jeff Tang]

It's interesting that the second shot on a par 5 can be one extreme or the next.  It can be one of the game's most exciting and heroic shots by going for a par 5 in two or it can just be a mundane lay up.  I think the architecture has a lot to do with this and would agree with others who have posted that a boring second on a par 5 in a lot of cases may mean the hole isn't one of the better par 5's you will play.  On a true three shot hole the second can be very interesting and challenging and about getting in position and proper execution, far from boring.  For me Blackwolf Run River #11 comes to mind.  It's a hole that bends constantly around water to right all the way to the green.  I say for me because it's not reachable in two for me.  That means the second shot becomes very important and about position.  You can get more aggressive and play further up the fairway leaving an easier third or play safer but be further back from the green for your third.  Either way I find it a very difficult second shot where you need to execute but are given choices about what strategy you want to take that will dictate how the rest of the hole plays.

[jeffwarne]

Amazing how we all drool over drivable par 4s we can't drive, but find a fairway shot from 350-225 boring.
a well designed course should alleviate such issues.

The most boring shot in golf is the drive on a par 5. All you have to do is get the ball in a position where you will have a decent stance and lie to hit the positioning second shot. Designing a good par 5 means making the tee shot a meaningful one. Or, so it seems to me.

excellent point

[Thomas Dai]

Positional tee shot, yip, positional second shot, yip........for us amateurs etc that is. The guys we watch on TV hardly ever play par-5's any more.

atb

[Paul Gray]

I must be spending too much time here, because I'm starting to think of much that hold dear as mud - options and strategies and risk rewards and short 4s and gentle handshakes...all mud, especially in reference to Par 5s.

Instead, give me a hell of a hard Par 5, with a very demanding 2nd shot.

In short, give me the 8th hole at Crystal Down, or give me a Par 68 course.

I love short par 4s but not the sort that just fill in a straight bit of land with no thought given. If it doglegs, has cross bunkers, has a little green, whatever, it'll possibly be my favourite hole on the course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I do find an exciting second shot on a par five it is exhilarating.  I think a players ability and length play an important role in how it is approached.  I have yet to find Hell's Hall Acre at PV but I play with a friend who has yet to clear it.  Number 17 at Baltusrol is similar.  The barn hole at Baltimore CC is thrilling if you are a long hitter.  There are many great second shot par fives on great courses. Yet, most average clubs have par fives that protect par by length.  I played with a fellow a while ago who said, "Wait til you get to 17.  It is 620 yards long.  It is the best hole on the course." All it was, was a long marrow corridor with a green at the end. 

[Chris DeNigris]

Amazing how we all drool over drivable par 4s we can't drive, but find a fairway shot from 350-225 boring.
a well designed course should alleviate such issues.

The most boring shot in golf is the drive on a par 5. All you have to do is get the ball in a position where you will have a decent stance and lie to hit the positioning second shot. Designing a good par 5 means making the tee shot a meaningful one. Or, so it seems to me.

excellent point

Or you could say that it's one of the most interesting- if a great drive can put you in position to go for it on your 2nd. The opportunity to get home in 2 and a chance for an eagle is one of the funnest things for me in golf. Even though that allure usually gets me into significantly more trouble than playing it "safe".  That's what makes many par 5s some of my favorite holes.  Of course, so much of this discussion depends on how far you can hit it and what tees you decide to play.

[Michael Moore]

This is always an interesting topic.

My understanding is that with newer courses, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. That is to say, a great many par fives have a large bunker eating into the fairway about 130 yards away from the green, or a pond by the side of the fairway at that distance, or a tiny fairway starting at that distance, or otherwise something that really dictates whether you are going to be hitting your third from 160 yards or 90 yards.

I believe that the average golfer is hamstrung on this shot and I think the use of slopes, or hazards a bit closer to the green, is perhaps preferable.

[Dave McCollum]

I think a players ability and length play an important role in how it is approached. 

This was my initial thought when I read your opening post.  I'm a hack and play with hacks.  I'm sort of middling hack, so I also play with better players.  There are plenty of exceptions, but it seems to me what separates decent players from high cappers is the ability to hit the 200+ yard shot.  Those that can't or are intimidated by such a shot can't score, even when playing a relatively short course.  I'm also a geezer, so I've seen what happens to friends who lose distance and the ability to hit this shot.  Unless they have stellar short games, it isn't pretty.     

[Carl Rogers]

Look at Ballyhack's 2nd hole.  I discovered the hard way that the "just get as close as you can" strategy was dead wrong, especially when the pin is on the left side.  If you're approaching from the right side of the fairway, there is always plenty if thought needed to avoid going through the landing zone.  

For me, on this hole, if the pin is back,I want to get as close as possible (the green is wide and deep, deep intimidating bunker guarding front middle).  If the pin is front, then lay back as some kind of full shot for the third is best.

Another plug for Riverfront, the second shot on 14 (longest par 5) is a very challenging shot tactically and stregatically, bunkers at the inside of the fishook turn usually off a hanging lie.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()