Par-5 green sizes

[Thomas Dai]

Once upon a time, a very, very, very long time ago, back in the ancient mists of time when dragons roamed the land and knights rescued fair maidens from tall towers, par-5's used to be holes that required a driver followed by a fairway wood followed by a full shot with a mid-short iron and greens on par-5's seemed to be sized to accommodate a shot played with a mid-short iron.


Oh for such days to return, dragons etc apart, but that's another debate.


My question is, now that par-5's are in many, maybe even most, instances, just glorified longer par-4's, ie two shot holes, has the size of the green become larger in order to make it easier for second shots on "par-5's" to hit and stay on the green?


Atb

[Joe Hancock]

Thomas,

Sometimes, I think all of us here need to go to the local public track and just watch who the average golfer is. I think for most, the par 5 is not a glorified longer par 4, but a difficult, long par 6 or 7.

In that context, I wouldn't ever want to create a formula for green size based on, well, anything other than site, and whims of the architect.

[jeffwarne]

Thomas,


In that context, I wouldn't ever want to create a formula for green size based on, well, anything other than site, and whims of the architect.

+1 and I certainly wouldn't want to add the constraint of needing to make green larger to contain a shot striking a green in one UNDER regulation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Honestly, while I agree green size ought to be generally at the whim or discretion of the architect, if form follows function, whimsy in design ought not be the driving factor.....

It's a good question, though. 

Yes, statistically, the par 5 has a short shot which old timers suggested meant a small green.  Just because a few can bomb it home in one less than regulation doesn't IMHO mean you should enlarge the size.  It should be harder than a long par 4 to reach, i.e, give a reward for a better than expected shot, not be figured as their right to reach a green just on distance....

There is also the "spreading out" factor Joe mentions.  Taking the 99% of players who will play every day, you can expected approach shots to be from 20 to 200 yards on par 5 holes, so its much harder to design by any formula that way for every day play.

And, there is the maintenance end, where the supposedly larger percentage of short iron shots make more divots, if true, and the green should be larger.  As with any short shot, sometimes a large, subdivided green makes some sense.

As with all greens, the micro climate has to figure in as well, with shady greens and lack of air movement suggesting a bigger green (or some tree clearing, if possible).

I vary my par 5 green sizes among small, medium and large on any course to try to create some noticeable variety, using all the parameters to select and design the size as best fits the site........

[Jud_T]

In that context, I wouldn't ever want to create a formula for green size based on, well, anything other than site, and whims of the architect.

+1.  There's far too much criticism of otherwise very good to great holes, even in these hallowed halls, relating to greens that aren't "fair" or "appropriate" for a given length hole IMHO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Well, in that light, I wonder how many golfers critique a par 5 based on where the pin is the day they play?  Even if you have a medium size green, or even large, if for some big event you want to make it challenging, just put the pin near the edge and a hazard somewhere, right?

For that matter, even if a green is 10,000 SF, the 240 yard approach is less likely than a 100 yard approach to settle close to the pin, guarded or not.  To make the Eagle, a golfer must get to within about 6 feet for a 50-50 chancer (yes, the best putting tour pros maybe 12 feet)  At the same time, saves from bunkers, etc. average 47% on tour and overall scrambling 57%, so even missing the green gives a similar chance of recovering for birdie.

In the end, green size may not matter all that much.....obviously eagle chances go up when you reach the green, but birdie chances probably don't.

[Thomas Dai]

I was actually asking above if par-5 greens have got bigger over the years.

However, to take things a bit further, par-3's (and very short par-4's) usually have the most heavily defended greens.

What about if some par-5's, not all, just some, had greens more like the kind of greens that par-3's (or very short par-4's) usually come with?

Even, on an occasional basis, and I appreciate the maintenance etc aspects, have par-5's with green's akin to those on holes such as - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62459.0.html or -
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62444.0.html - ?

Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

As I mentioned,  in theory,  if you are looking at all players, and par 5 holes where play spreads out, logic agues against it.  On the other hand, nothing wrong with one green of any type on any particular course.  Seems like it would be fun!

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks Jeff.
'Fun', as a reason to do something related to what is essentially a leisure activity, would seem to have a great deal of merit.
Atb

[Doug Siebert]

I hope not, because why should the design of a hole take into account someone who is trying to do better than par? Should we make the hole bigger so more birdie putts go in?

The bigger the green, the less important angles are and my favorite strategic feature on par 5s is use of angles - so if you are going for the green in two you have a bad angle at the green. i.e. a mound you have to carry that hides the green and forces you to carry it all the way there, the angle presenting a very shallow target so you have to be very precise with your distance, etc. That area course I love to mention here, Saddleback Ridge, makes as good of use of angles on par 5s as any course I've ever seen. The three very reachable par 5s all use angles in a very clever manner to put extra demand on the second shot when you are going for it in two. A shorter hitter going for the green (in three, obviously) with the same club a longer hitter is using to go for it in two will have a much better angle and much easier shot overall.

The 15th is a 542 yarder with a slight dogleg left but it plays off the ridge some 80' above the fairway and with the prevailing wind, so it is reachable with a 7 or 8 iron on a regular basis. But it is not an easy shot, despite being pretty level since the green is in a slight swale and you are approaching it at such an angle that the green is less than 40 feet deep. Combined with the following wind and a lofted club, it is not easy to judge the shot correctly so just because you have a short iron in your hand doesn't mean you will be rewarded with an eagle putt. The green is probably 35 yards wide but that doesn't help much on a short iron approach - unless you are hitting your third after laying up in position A on the right side of the fairway where it plays much deeper. If this hole had a big round green, it would be far less interesting, strategic, and challenging.

[Kerry Gray]

I not sure size is the most important issue, although it seems to me that longer par 5's, the true three shot hole should have smaller greens. But two of my favorites have shapes that create a challenge. The first, a dogleg has a very contoured landing area for the drive, so only if you land in the flatter areas would you try to go for the green in two. For me about 210-225 yards. But that green is very narrow, maybe only 30ft wide and sloped heavily back to front. Trouble on both side of the green so missing it creates all kinds of trouble. It really makes you think if you are up for it as even going past the pin can create significant issues with putting. Herbert Strong course.
The second example is a reachable par 5 with a narrower fairway edging the property. The green is very shallow with an open front but 3ft high weeds behind it. The green is only slight sloped to receive a shot. It requires precision or you risk losing you ball in the weeds behind. Again it often made me think, can I get this 3 iron to stop if I land on the green?
My issue with Par 5's on too many courses are the lay up zones. Far too many three shot 5's do not have an interesting lay up zone. No angles, no bunkering, no thought. Same with very long par 4's, many players are going to lay up, make it interesting.

[Doug Siebert]

My issue with Par 5's on too many courses are the lay up zones. Far too many three shot 5's do not have an interesting lay up zone. No angles, no bunkering, no thought. Same with very long par 4's, many players are going to lay up, make it interesting.

I think par 5s on too many courses have 'overly interesting' lay up zones. Trouble on one side is fine, trouble on both sides (like say water on the left and trees and/or native on the right) only work with a pretty wide fairway. The layup to position A on a par 5 is really the same problem you have with the approach to a medium distance par 4 - it might be a mid or short iron for a longer hitter but a fairway wood for a shorter hitter. If you make it challenging for one guy it is either too easy or nearly impossible for the other.

[Kalen Braley]

Doug,

Pete Dye agrees with you...

[Kerry Gray]

Doug,
I agree with you on the lay up zone not being overly burdened with hazards but make the player think about where he needs to position his shot. It not just knocking it up there to my favorite wedge distance.
I understand what you are saying about distances and it's a challenge for designers I am sure.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug,

Pete Dye agrees with you...


[/quote


Ugh, I guess this one wasn't run past Alice Dye. Where are women supposed to lay up on this hole? The only wide spot in the fairway leaves them a shot over a tree with water to the right.