Designing Par 5s

[Ira Fishman]

In the thread about Breaking the Rules, Tom Doak notes that he is best at designing Par 4s. We just played in the past week four Ross courses scattered across North Carolina, and as great as I think he is as an architect, only two Par 5s struck me as particularly noteworthy—Number 5 at Mid Pines and Number 10 at Pine Needles (which had one of the least interesting green complexes on the course).


Was Ross not great at Par 5s? Is my sample size too small? Were/are any architects particularly good at Par 5s?


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Some of Ross's best par-5 holes have been converted to par-4's by the USGA's inaction on equipment rules.


It has always been hard to design par-5's to account for all players, but it is getting REALLY hard to do as the gap between club players and professionals widens.  To design a hole where the best players need a long second shot to get home, you're building something that the 65-year-old member may not even be able to reach in three full shots.


The scale of the game has been stretched to the breaking point.  I'm glad I get to build a course where I don't have to worry about par-5 holes.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira -
I'm not saying anything new or interesting when I say that the Par 5 8th at Crystal Downs is the only great par 5 I've ever played, and the only Par 5 I've ever loved. That's neither a new/interesting comment because the 8th at CD is almost universally recognized as a great Par 5 -- but "almost" is the operative word, i.e. the only criticism I've ever read about it is that it's "too hard", too difficult.  And *that* says it all for me.
I've not played courses by many of the top-flight modern architects (though I've played a few), but besides the almost inherent banality of the '2nd shot' I think the main problem is that architects know they simply must avoid making a Par 5 "too hard", lest they risk immediate criticism from clients and golfers both.
PS - for the most part, the 8th at CD has not been subjected to criticism, but that's because it is so beautifully conceived and designed (and why it's great): the good golfer and the average one can both 'get there', in different ways/# of shots; it challenges both golfers on the *way* there (though for neither golfer with sheer/excessive length); and *then* there's that green and its surrounds! I played it just about as well as I could, and walked away with bogey -- to this day still the most thrilling and satisfying bogey of my golfing life.
About how many other Par 5s can others say the same?
Peter     

[Dwight Phelps]

Were/are any architects particularly good at Par 5s?

I don't think this is a terribly novel name to throw out, but I'll do so - Allister MacKenzie.


I say so based not on playing his par 5's or even necessarily his designs, but rather based on a pair of his drawings.


His breakdown of the Long hole at TOC was one of the things that first really got my brain firing about GCA.  Seeing his drawing of the Lido contest hole did the same thing (that hole looked wild!).


I've only played Pasatiempo of his still existing courses and I didn't think the par 5's there were the most impressive thing about the course (not to say I didn't like them - just liked the 4s and 3s more), but I can never forget seeing those drawings and how that got me thinking about more on a golf course than just hitting my next shot (or lamenting my last).

[Duncan Cheslett]

It has always been hard to design par-5's to account for all players, but it is getting REALLY hard to do as the gap between club players and professionals widens.  To design a hole where the best players need a long second shot to get home, you're building something that the 65-year-old member may not even be able to reach in three full shots.

Surely that depends on how the green is orientated and protected.


My favourite par 5's are fairly straightforward with a short iron approach from a well placed second shot, but demand a perfectly executed long iron over hazards from 200-250 yards.


A very small fall-away green with back bunkers might help too! 

[Sean_A]

Its rare for me to play a par 5 which I think can compare to the best par 4s.  If I come across a course with interesting and good 5s I will always give it a rating boost. On the other hand, especially if there are four 5s, I will knock a course down for average 5s.  Dropping ~2000 yards is simply too much land to use while not fully engaging the golfer.   

It wasn't all that long ago, that in theory anyway, the forward tee could be the medal tee at 475ish and called a par 4, while the back tee could be a par 5 of 490 yards...the daily tee.  Hell, if its a case of average holes, why spend money on lengthening?  Its like adding salt and pepper to a bad steak to get it down.  However, even this tactic is problematic for tour level players and top ams.  There are also some short par 4s which could play as terrific and tough par 3s...again...medal tee forward, daily tee back.  For clubs short on yardage its still a solution which would aleviate the (rather dubious) need to add yards.

Ciao   

[Bill Brightly]

I've come to believe that Tillinghast built the best par fives because he frequently used mild elevation changes to partially obscure second shot landing areas. He also often coupled this feature with a multi-sectioned green surrounded by significantly sloped areas. So that means long hitters may not gain an advantage if their second shot ends up in a greenside bunker, or the rough/slope around the green. They may not be able to attack the pin from these lies, while the more cautious player laying back to 100 yards in the fairway now has the advantage.


If you watched the Northern Trust at Ridgewood, this was evident on Hole 17 (normally 8 West) but Hole 3 (normally 3 East) is one of the best par fives I've ever played. For starters, he placed mounds at the end of the driver landing area, which now negates the ridiculous length of some bombers. The three-sectioned green is angled so you really MUST play your third shot from the fairway to have a realistic chance of controlling you ball to stay on the proper section. However, the elevation change on the second shot partially obscures the landing area. You can see the slope falls right-to-left but you can't quite make out where the fairway ends and rough start. You are tempted to aim to the right, a direct line to the pin, but very often this leaves you in the rough and with the complete wrong angle to approach the green. Play the second shot too far left and you'll have the proper angle but still be in the rough.Hit the green but be on the wrong section, and three putt is quite likely.


Combining all of the features results in what I believe is the key to a really good par 5: the player has to really think on the second shot; bomb and gouge does not work.

[Thomas Dai]

Short par-5’s can have a nice mind games effect on better players and longer hitters.
They frequently expect to birdie them.... and when they don’t the steam can come out of their ears, the toys can get tossed from their prams and their scores for the rest of that round can go through the roof!
There’s lots more to golf, especially competitive golf, than merely hitting a little ball.
Atb

[mike_malone]

Awkwardness seems to be a feature of many older short three shotters. Modern golfers hate this. But I love it. Sharp doglegs on the second shot is an example. This creates 50 yards or more of approach shot difference and may mean the difference between fairway or some hazard.


I’m a sucker for angles and turns versus distance and pinching hazards set parallel to the line of play.

[Niall C]

Awkwardness seems to be a feature of many older short three shotters. Modern golfers hate this. But I love it. Sharp doglegs on the second shot is an example. This creates 50 yards or more of approach shot difference and may mean the difference between fairway or some hazard.


I’m a sucker for angles and turns versus distance and pinching hazards set parallel to the line of play.

+1

Also, I sometimes think  a lot of old holes are interesting because the green complex wasn't built to suit modern day approach distances ie. back in the day the green might have been built for a short iron approach whereas today a lot of golfers might be able to reach in two. Of course many might say that's just a glorified par 4 but it will still be a three shotter for someone.

The converse of that is a long par 4 that is reachable only by the really long hitters most of the time where the green has been designed/built for them. For the rest of us hitting a short iron or half wedge into that type of green, the hole is pretty dull.

Niall

[Mark_Fine]

The easiest holes to design/build are par threes and the hardest are par fives (don't think I need to explain why).  I can't think of a single architect who would brag about their par fives.  RTJones Senior designed some interesting ones but if you don't like water you would beg to differ. 

[Thomas Dai]

Didn't someone way back write something like "A good par-5 is a good par-3 with two long shots needed to reach the tee"?.
atb

[archie_struthers]

 


We only have two par fives at my home course Greate Bay , a Willie Park beauty built in the mid 1920's . Both present interesting options and challenges while playing at roughly 550 yards on a daily basis.


Some of our younger bombers can regularly reach them in two , but unless they hit really good second shots their advantage is limited . A wayward second pin high is often harder than the 100 yard lay-up most mere mortals have after the second shot. You see this so clearly on #15 , where the small false front and flattish green that cants front to back makes it really challenging to hit a chip or pitch except from straight on . Don't short side the second either , or figure you get a 10-20 footer

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I might swim against the current here but I can name a number of par fives that I find interesting. Maybe I'm playing the appropriate tees, or something, but I can think of a few par fives near where I live where you're challenged to hit a good tee shot, you're challenged when you go for it in two, and you're challenged but not out of the hole if you get out of position with either the tee shot or the second shot with what many agree is the most interesting shot in golf: the recovery shot.

A good par four is interesting for the first two shots, typically. A good par five can be very interesting for two or three shots.

[Mark_Fine]

The USGA’s definition of a “par five” is tied to the effective yardage that a hole plays but it is all relative.  When the pros have 8I’s for their second shots you can call the hole whatever par you want but does calling it a par five really make sense?  As Tom said, some of Ross’s par fives have turned into really solid par fours.  The par five remains a difficult hole to design well.  Even the great George Thomas known for his strategic golf holes struggled with designing great par fives. 

[Kyle Harris]

William Flynn had the good sense to never turn a perfectly good Par 4 into a Par 5.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why does the obsession with 0.1% of golfers seem to creep into every discussion? It wasn't in the OP, as far as I can tell, unless it's simply always assumed.

[Ira Fishman]

Erik,

The OP was not intended to cover the 0.1%, but then again unlike you, I do not know what it feels like to even get a whiff of that level of play.  I am curious given the quality of your game, what are the specific aspects of Par 5s that make them interesting to you? Why would those aspects be interesting to the average player on those same holes?


Ira

[Ben Hollerbach]

I might swim against the current here but I can name a number of par fives that I find interesting. Maybe I'm playing the appropriate tees, or something, but I can think of a few par fives near where I live where you're challenged to hit a good tee shot, you're challenged when you go for it in two, and you're challenged but not out of the hole if you get out of position with either the tee shot or the second shot with what many agree is the most interesting shot in golf: the recovery shot.

A good par four is interesting for the first two shots, typically. A good par five can be very interesting for two or three shots.

Erik,
Please name them. Why do you find them interesting?

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
It is a shame that the 0.1% has such a big influence on the game but sadly they do.  Egos play a big role.  You wouldn't believe how many clubs I visit that are obsessed with adding back tees to satisfy the two foursomes who will play back there or "just in case" the pros want to swing by     They don't want their courses reduced to chip and putt.  Unfortunately that train has left the station for most golf courses out there. Look at the average driving distance on the Web.com tour.  It is crazy!!! They average almost 10 yards longer than on the PGA tour with the longest driver AVERAGING over 342 yards     A 520 yard hole is driver/wedge!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Please name them. Why do you find them interesting?

The OP was not intended to cover the 0.1%, but then again unlike you, I do not know what it feels like to even get a whiff of that level of play.  I am curious given the quality of your game, what are the specific aspects of Par 5s that make them interesting to you? Why would those aspects be interesting to the average player on those same holes?

I'm honestly puzzled at the push-back here (light as it is).

For example, the third hole at Whispering Woods is about 520 from the back tees. The fairways are often soft. The right side slopes up to OB, and left is down the hill and into some trees and a neighboring green (nobody actually gets to the green - that's a big miss way left, and pretty far, too). You can miss right and have your ball kick down the hill, but missing left is bad. The fairway is about 30 yards wide in the landing area, with another 10-15 yards right.

The slope on the right gets more gentle toward the green, which has a bunker front/left, and the slope to the left turns into a hazard near and behind the green. The green slopes front to back with a valley ("V") running down the right third, front to back.

I find this hole interesting for the reasons stated above: that you're asked to hit a good shot two or three times. Off the tee, do you risk hitting driver (most do), with the possibility of being able to reach the green in two, or do you hit a 3W or hybrid to play it in three shots? If you hit driver, and you hit it well, do you have the skill to find the front-right corner of the green so the ball releases back to the hole, or do you miss and leave yourself an awkward bunker shot or a delicate pitch? Or maybe you chicken out and blow it way right? If you find the right-hand side, playing from a lie where the ball is a foot or two above your heels, how aggressive do you get? There's a hazard line (trees, and a creek down below) to the left. Do you still hit a hybrid up just short of the green? Do you pitch out sideways with a 7-iron and leave 100+ yards in to the green? There's a valley at 150 and the fairway narrows.

The hole asks you to make three good decisions and three good shots. If you're just off, you're put in the position of having to make a great recovery shot if you'd still like to have a reasonable chance at birdie. Or you can play it somewhat safely, but you're still having to hit some quality shots to get a par.

I've seen great players make everything from a three to an eight here. It presents a challenge, and asks you a question on both the tee shot and the second shot. Even the third shot requires skill, as the front-to-back green is different than most people are used to.

I like it. I'm not saying it's an awesome example of a par five hole, but I find it at least as interesting as a lot of par fours, where only two shots have strategy (and often the second shot is weak strategically - hit the green). This hole offers strategy decisions for two or three shots, and if two, they're not the "just hit the green" variety.

Mark, I don't really care about the 0.1%, and I think they're given far too much weight in conversations here.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In short, par fives where there's a choice to be made on the second shot about whether to go for it or where to position your ball - a decision that often influences what you hit off the tee to begin with - and which offers a chance to pull off a great recovery shot to get back into the hole, are why I enjoy par fives.

Maybe I'm often playing the right tees. I agree that three-shot par fives are often somewhat boring, just as I'd agree that a hole which plays driver-7-iron but which calls itself a par five probably isn't all that exciting… but, I'd wonder whether people were playing the proper tees if they have too many of either of those situations. (Still not talking about the 0.1%.)

[Ira Fishman]

Erik,


I appreciate you investing the time to provide specifics, but the gap between your game and the average player is vast. I have been flailing away for over 45 years and even when young, played to high single digit, and could hit a Power Bilt laminate and Maxfi ball 240 or so, the number of Par 5s where the decision about going for the green in two dictated strategy was but a handful.  Now, it is zero. Your proper response is to play the right tees then and now, but given the posts by some of the architects, I do not think it would interesting Par 5s more prevalent.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I appreciate you investing the time to provide specifics, but the gap between your game and the average player is vast.

I don't understand the relevance. They often play from shorter tees, and thus face some similar challenges. (You noted that I would say this, and yes, I did… and I realize that not everyone can play from tees where they have a chance to reach even one or two par fives in two per round, but some do.)

Besides, the topic is about how par fives are "worse" (or whatever word you wish to use) than par fours, but aren't most of these "average players" really failing at some of the options on their par fours, too? Like being able to choose the proper half of the fairway with their tee shot, or being able to control the flight and spin of their approach shots? So in that sense, isn't all of the design decreased as it relates to a higher handicapper or average player? Doesn't the ability to execute that strategy mean something when discussing the actual strategy?

(It may sound like I'd extrapolate that out to say only PGA Tour players can thus execute well enough to consider strategy, but there's a point of limiting returns, and "good enough" - and the fact that 0.1% << 5% or whatever.)

[Michael Felton]

So to follow on from this, one of the courses I get to play pretty frequently has three par fives on it. Curious if anyone can guess where I'm talking about.


The first is reachable, but the approach shot is uphill with a green that slopes away from you. It's extremely hard to hit it and hold it in two. There is a second portion of fairway above the first that gives a blind lay up if you aren't going for it. If you miss the fairway from the tee, you have to take a risk going for the second fairway because there is an enormous bunker between the two. Often the best way to play the hole is to play out to the right for a good look up the green. I've hit this green from the fairway once that I remember. I made a 5 on the hole and I had lost my first tee shot - that was kind of fun.


The second is also reachable if you hit a really good drive. It doglegs to the right. Fairway is all carry from the tee over a big bunker. If you wind up in the bunker, 5 is a very good score because there are trees on the corner of the dogleg that block you from advancing very far unless you're well back. If you do make the carry and you weren't too conservative with your line, the green will accept a running shot between fronting bunkers. If you are conservative from the tee, getting to the green isn't really possible, but you can try to get as close as you can. This hole is quite special to me, because I made a 2 on it earlier this year


The third is one that vexes me greatly. From the back tees, I don't have a hope of getting there. There is a bunker left of the fairway at a good drive distance. There are trees and basically death to the right. If you hit a good drive, that's where the fun starts. There is another bunker up ahead around 120 yards from the green. Right of that bunker is about a 15 yards wide fairway. Short of it is fairway, but it is severely sloped down and to the left. Laying up short of the slope leaves you about 180+ to the green. It almost always winds up being about 220 carry to clear the bunker. 220 for me is a buttoned three wood, so I can make it, but if I slip up a bit or the wind is into I'm in the bunker. Clear the bunker and you have 100 yards or so to a generous green with a fronting bunker that is about 15-20 yards short of the green itself. Very deceptive. You have to be really on your game to make 5 here. No real room for slouching around and if you miss any of the shots, you're really struggling. None of the bunkers are a picnic. I think it's a great hole.


Any guesses on venue?