Beginning and Ending With Par Fives

[JJShanley]

Two more very fine courses in the Philadelphia area - Scotland Run and Wyncote. I really enjoy both starting and finishing on par 5s.

Each Wyncote nine begins and ends with a par 5 if memory serves.

[Joe Bausch]

Two more very fine courses in the Philadelphia area - Scotland Run and Wyncote. I really enjoy both starting and finishing on par 5s.

Each Wyncote nine begins and ends with a par 5 if memory serves.

Correct.  And there was a re-sequencing of the holes since it opened, and the original also started and ended with par 5s.

[Pete Lavallee]

Can’t believe no one has mentioned Capilano yet. The 18th is a truly unique hole in the world of golf, best approached from left of the green than head on.

[Pete_Pittock]

It is tough to keep the first tee "on time" with a par 5 opener if the hole is 'reachable'.  The only course in Oregon that fits is The Reserve Vineyards - North, a faux links style with a lot of water. Definitely not in the great category, but hey, it's one of my home courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

On the other hand, Pete, if an opening Par 5 is not reachable (ie is not essentially a long Par 4), it is no great friend of the average golfer, from what I can tell. Neither is a closing Par 5, unless it too is a very short one. I think that '2nd/lay up' shot on most Par 5s gives more trouble to more average golfers than just about any other shot in the game. And depending on the course/site, it can lead to a double or triple bogey in a heartbeat -- definitely not the way any golfer, including average ones, wants to start or finish a round.
But this comes from someone who has rarely played a Par 5 that I've liked or thought particularly good. It's hard to design great ones, and average ones are never better than the Par 4 that might've been -- and always give a significant (and relatively greater, compared to other 'pars') advantage to the better player over the average one.
For me the less Par 5s it has the better the course; I think architects/owners use & want them mostly to chew up crappy ground and to add yardage to the card, so it can reach 6,000 and 6,500 and 7,000 from various tees.
Peter

[Dean DiBerardino]

Boulder Creek GC in Streetsboro, OH

[Tim Martin]

On the other hand, Pete, if an opening Par 5 is not reachable (ie is not essentially a long Par 4), it is no great friend of the average golfer, from what I can tell. Neither is a closing Par 5, unless it too is a very short one. I think that '2nd/lay up' shot on most Par 5s gives more trouble to more average golfers than just about any other shot in the game. And depending on the course/site, it can lead to a double or triple bogey in a heartbeat -- definitely not the way any golfer, including average ones, wants to start or finish a round.
But this comes from someone who has rarely played a Par 5 that I've liked or thought particularly good. It's hard to design great ones, and average ones are never better than the Par 4 that might've been -- and always give a significant (and relatively greater, compared to other 'pars') advantage to the better player over the average one.
For me the less Par 5s it has the better the course; I think architects/owners use & want them mostly to chew up crappy ground and to add yardage to the card, so it can reach 6,000 and 6,500 and 7,000 from various tees.
Peter

Peter-Yale 18 comes to mind after reading your post and to quote you “is no great friend of the average golfer”. I’ve always been a fan of the hole but understand the opposing viewpoint. The second shot leaves a myriad of options to both the upper and lower fairway and depending on the choice or execution may result in a blind third. It is a hole that many/most would be happy to take six if offered before the round as it is always a potential card wrecker. That said a chance at four or five is one to relish every play.

[David Harshbarger]

Peter-Yale 18 comes to mind after reading your post and to quote you “is no great friend of the average golfer”. I’ve always been a fan of the hole but understand the opposing viewpoint. The second shot leaves a myriad of options to both the upper and lower fairway and depending on the choice or execution may result in a blind third. It is a hole that many/most would be happy to take six if offered before the round as it is always a potential card wrecker. That said a chance at four or five is one to relish every play.

Yale 18 is no average par 5! 


Deep into this very fine essay on Joshua Crane and Max Behr in the IMO section of the site is the articulation of the Behr-ian philosophy that the essence of golf is man v. nature: the wild and challenging adventure into the unknown. 

Yale 18 (and really Yale as a whole) could not exemplify this perspective better.  It is such an adventure of a hole, that regardless of the outcome it is exhilarating to play.  A good score is icing.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim, David -
I've read a lot about Yale on here over the years, from Tim and others. As David says, the 18th there is no average Par 5 -- it would likely be one of the few par 5s I really liked, and it and the course as a whole I'd probably describe as 'magnificent': you know, in a big, sprawling, dramatic King Lear sort of way. But as Tim points out, I think the better the golfer the better he/she can meaningfully engage with a closing Par 5 hole like the one at Yale. I don't mean that as a criticism in any way; as per my first post, I just meant to share my impression that, in general, the usual 4 par 5s on a Par 72 course has become so much the standard that few (even architects who aim to make their courses accessible to beginning/average golfers) seem to recognize how much easier they are to play (and score well on) for low handicappers than they are for high handicappers.   
Peter

[Lov Goel]

East Lake as currently played in the Tour Championship starts with a Par 5 for the members and ends with a par 5 for everyone.  I believe this is also the current direction the course is played now?  Does anyone know?