Should a reachable par 5 be reachable for all good players?

[Michael Wolf]

I feel pretty strongly that my home course, Shoal Creek, has a great set of par 5's. That's because, depending on daily course setup, at least 2 of Shoal's 4 p5's will give me real pause on what to do with my second shot during any given round. This despite having played them hundreds of times. As a 9 handicap I'll usually be able to position myself for a really good look at birdie on at least one of the p5's per round, and maybe 1 decent eagle try a month, which is always a thrill. On the flip side, I make a maddening number of 7's on Shoal's 5's. That variety of challenges day to day, and wide distribution in outcomes depending on execution, is why they're my favorite holes.


But my wife feels the opposite - she thinks the par 5's are the 4 most boring holes on the course, because her smartest route stays unchanged 95% of the time she plays them. So her score distribution is much narrower than mine, even as a 22 handicap. She usually makes pars if she plays the hole according to plan, bogey if not.


This is all leading to my question for the group: Are all categories of similarly skilled golfers "owed" the same decision making puzzles on par 5's, regardless of their age or physical abilities? Should course design and setup provide the same opportunities for occasional eagle putts (and double bogies) for lady golfers? how about for seniors? or juniors? 


Let's use a risk/reward p5 we're all familiar with from TV - Augusta's 13th - as an example. If this hole was on a course you had designed or were in charge of setting up, would your goal be to position the forward tees far enough up so that a good, but shorter, hitter would face roughly the same questions after a good drive as a scratch player faces after hitting a good drive from the medal tees? Or would moving the tees up that far create unwanted consequences for the tee shots?


Or put more bluntly - does every category of player even "deserve" these types of decisions? Is it realistic to achieve without building 7 sets of tee boxes on every par 5?


Thanks,
Michael

[Ronald Montesano]

This is a brilliant consideration. My sense of fairness demands that it be so. All for one and one for all. However, is the 13th at Augusta a reachable par 5 for <1% of the golfing population? 5%? 20%? 60%? I think that a baseline should be established, and if one can faithfully say that a hole is reachable for that percentage, then it should have opportunities to be reachable for all.

[Tom_Doak]

The average woman golfer can't reach many par-4's in two, much less a par-5.


But I do think it's fun to have one pretty short par-5 on courses.  Most architects now won't build one that's less than 500 yards, or even 530.  The 13th at Augusta has been well short of that forever - until they succumbed, anyway.

[Mark Pritchett]

They should be reachable when you hit two really solid shots. 


I agree the 5 pars at Shoal Creek are really good.

[Mark_Fine]

Driving distance figures from the R&A and USGA's most recent Distance Report show that the average hit by an amateur male club golfer is 215 yards. Five handicaps and below average 240 yards, 6-12 handicaps average 220 yards, 13-20 handicaps average 204 yards and 21 and overs average 187 yards.

Given this data, how short do you need to make your par five so it is reachable in two shots?  The answer is very short 😉

[Michael Wolf]

The average woman golfer can't reach many par-4's in two, much less a par-5.


But I do think it's fun to have one pretty short par-5 on courses.  Most architects now won't build one that's less than 500 yards, or even 530.  The 13th at Augusta has been well short of that forever - until they succumbed, anyway.

On a P5 that's 490yds from the medal tees, should the forward tee be 375? That's probably about what it would take for my wife to be left with real decisions to make after she'd hit a good drive. A 220yd drive would leave her with 155, which is a 4 hybrid for her. That would give her roughly the same decision to make as I'd have with a 5i in my hand back at 195.


I just wonder if it's practical to design many holes that can be equally interesting from such different starting spots.


And it's funny how one's mind works sometimes - I'd never given it a moments thought that my 75 year old father is in roughly the same spot now as my wife. For some reason, my brain is less sympathetic to seniors on this issue than I am to females or kids. That can't be right.


Michael

[Carl Rogers]

Has the definition of a "good" player been agreed upon?


To design such holes, don't you have determine the various landing areas and work back to the tees?

[Peter Pallotta]

I was looking last night at the online scorecards for various courses near my new home. On one of them, I noted with surprise that the 1st hole was, from the very back tees, about 460 yards -- and I thought, 'man, that's one heck of a tough start'. Even from the member's/white tees it was 430 yards, which is about as long a Par 4 as I can (and would want) to handle, especially in an opening hole. But then, with even more surprise, I noted that it wasn't in fact a Par 4 but a Par 5: a 430 yard gentle handshake of a Par 5. And with this thread, it made me think: 'I guess there are a lot of ways to keep up with the Joneses', and the [not] very reachable Par 5 is one of them, ie there's not a single famous or great or busy professional architect working today who would dare to design a 430 yard Par 5 -- even if he had the even rarer client who would let him do it. Such a golf hole smacks of amateurism and a kind of, let's call it 'modest populism', that is too far beyond the pale of our particular brand of modern tastes and sensibilities.

[Duncan Cheslett]

In the UK most courses have examples of sub 500 yard par 5s. Indeed when most courses were built 100+ years ago a hole of over 500 yards was a rare thing - particularly away from the great links courses.


Take Ganton, one of the world's finest inland courses;


Ganton Card by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr

From the daily yellow tees (the ones visitors play from) the three par 5s measure 499, 497, and 438 yards respectively. Even from the Championship tees only one hole measures appreciably more than 500 yards. The shortest par 5 becomes a par 4 from the tips.

On paper, the par 5s at Ganton look a pushover.

However, it's not all about length - no par 5 is reachable from the bottom of a 6ft deep pot bunker!

Similarly, the green on the only par 5 at Cavendish is "reachable" at 490 yards but is rarely hit and held from 200 yards out. Into the prevailing wind to a dramatically raised green with a massive false front it takes a wonder shot even from 150 yards!

[Sean_A]

Once tees are separated by the distance of a par 3 l think there are bigger questions in play. I am starting to think a rollback would be good just to stop the proliferation of teeing areas stretching for sometimes up to 200 yards or more in an effort to make things fair. All that forward walking so far from the previous green would drive me bonkers. I think its time much, much shorter courses are built and longer hitters have to figure out ways to fit in. If the course is well designed better golfers will come. I think the golf world is starting to wake up to this truth.

Duncan

The Ganton card doesn't make sense to me. The par should be switched for 6 and 17. The daily tees on those two holes should be the medal tees and medal tees should be the daily tees. I never understood why clubs set the course par the way Ganton does. It's an easy solution to make the medal tees play more difficult to a handicap by reducing a few shots of par but only reduce the length of the course a bit.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Ganton, for once, is not a good example here.  From the yellow tees the 6th isn't a par 5, whatever it says on the card.

[Mark Pearce]

Driving distance figures from the R&A and USGA's most recent Distance Report show that the average hit by an amateur male club golfer is 215 yards. Five handicaps and below average 240 yards, 6-12 handicaps average 220 yards, 13-20 handicaps average 204 yards and 21 and overs average 187 yards.

Given this data, how short do you need to make your par five so it is reachable in two shots?  The answer is very short 😉

Average numbers like this are of very little help, though, are they.  One of my twins plays off 15, the other 25.  Last time they played our home course they both drove the 340 yard 1st.  And not one of the low single figure golfers I have played with this year has driven it less than 240, so I'd love to hear where all the good but short golfers are hiding.

[Thomas Dai]

Wasn't the original basis behind a par-5 is that it's a hole which takes an expert, ie elite, player 3 shots to get to the green and 2 putts to hole out?
If it takes an expert/elite player only 2 shots to get to the green it isn't a par-5 it's a par-4 and a '2 shots and 2 putts birdie-4' is an ego trip not a legitimate under-par score.
atb

[Ben Stephens]

Ganton, for once, is not a good example here.  From the yellow tees the 6th isn't a par 5, whatever it says on the card.

6th is a bloody difficult bogey 5!

[Ben Stephens]

In the UK most courses have examples of sub 500 yard par 5s. Indeed when most courses were built 100+ years ago a hole of over 500 yards was a rare thing - particularly away from the great links courses.


Take Ganton, one of the world's finest inland courses;


Ganton Card by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr

From the daily yellow tees (the ones visitors play from) the three par 5s measure 499, 497, and 438 yards respectively. Even from the Championship tees only one hole measures appreciably more than 500 yards. The shortest par 5 becomes a par 4 from the tips.

On paper, the par 5s at Ganton look a pushover.

However, it's not all about length - no par 5 is reachable from the bottom of a 6ft deep pot bunker!

Similarly, the green on the only par 5 at Cavendish is "reachable" at 490 yards but is rarely hit and held from 200 yards out. Into the prevailing wind to a dramatically raised green with a massive false front it takes a wonder shot even from 150 yards!

Brancaster doesn't have holes above 500 yards however their par 5s are not easy or straightforward

[Duncan Cheslett]

Ganton, for once, is not a good example here.  From the yellow tees the 6th isn't a par 5, whatever it says on the card.

6th is a bloody difficult bogey 5!

I'm not convinced of the importance of par as a concept anyway, but as long as Stableford forms a major part of most golfers' play I suppose we're stuck with it. Par has no relevance whatsoever in medal or matchplay, other than bragging rights when one bags a "birdie".


What has always puzzled me however, is why length is the sole arbiter of the par of a hole. A particularly difficult 450 yard hole with a small well defended green is likely going to involve more shots on average for even the expert player than a benign 500 yard hole with an expansive receptive green.

Why is the former a par 4 and the latter a par 5?  The old bogey system at least allowed for a degree of latitude.

I would give clubs the option of calling any hole over say 430 yards a par 5.   More pars, more birdies and more eagles - even the occasional albatross - would make for happier golfers. We're in the entertainment business, after all!

Medal competitions, matchplay games and handicaps would not be affected one iota.

[Tom_Doak]

There are two reasons more UK courses don't have long par-5's:


1.  They're old and haven't changed much in the past 30 years, and
2.  Playing a 550-yard hole into a strong wind is a four-shotter for most people.


So, the designers of those days were comfortable in having a couple of 500-yard holes that would be par-5's when the wind wasn't helping, plus a couple of par-4's that would play like par-5's when the wind was against them.


I guess their designers just weren't smart enough to figure out that if they would put in ten sets of tees, they could blame the greenkeeper if the hole didn't work out for everybody!

[Michael Felton]

There are two reasons more UK courses don't have long par-5's:


1.  They're old and haven't changed much in the past 30 years, and
2.  Playing a 550-yard hole into a strong wind is a four-shotter for most people.


So, the designers of those days were comfortable in having a couple of 500-yard holes that would be par-5's when the wind wasn't helping, plus a couple of par-4's that would play like par-5's when the wind was against them.


I guess their designers just weren't smart enough to figure out that if they would put in ten sets of tees, they could blame the greenkeeper if the hole didn't work out for everybody!

On the New Course at Walton Heath, the 12th and 13th holes run parallel to each other down and back. From the purple tees, the 12th is a 485 yard par 4. The 13th is a 510 yard par 5. 12 is downhill and 13 is uphill (a little). If the wind is into on the 12th, then the goal is to go 5, 4. If not, then it's 4, 5, regardless of what it says on the card (if you want to get through them at par - obviously nice to go 4, 4, but that's hard).


With respect to the original post, there just isn't a way to give two disparate players the same questions on the same hole. You can shift the tees around and give the same question posed by the tee shot (can I make the carry over the bunker to cheat the corner?), but then they'll both be playing their second shot from the same place. If you make a par 5 reachable in two from the front tees for someone who can only hit it 200 yards off their tee shot, then they necessarily have to be playing an entirely different tee shot.


For the 13th at Augusta, you can't give someone short the challenge of turning one around the corner to get into position to go for it and then to go for it. It's one or the other. If the green was closer to the bend, then you take away that challenge from the long player since he'd be able to just lay it up and play their second to the green from there. Less benefit to taking on the tee shot.

[Duncan Cheslett]

There are two reasons more UK courses don't have long par-5's:


1.  They're old and haven't changed much in the past 30 years, and
2.  Playing a 550-yard hole into a strong wind is a four-shotter for most people.

I can think of another reason.


3. Nobody Hardly anyone likes them!






To return to the original question however, if the definition of a par 5 is a hole that should normally be played in 5 shots by an expert golfer, surely NO par 5 should be reachable by all good players.

[Tom_Doak]

There are two reasons more UK courses don't have long par-5's:


1.  They're old and haven't changed much in the past 30 years, and
2.  Playing a 550-yard hole into a strong wind is a four-shotter for most people.

I can think of another reason.


3. Nobody Hardly anyone likes them!

Yes but I don't think James Braid or John Low cared whether other golfers liked things -- they must not have liked that kind of hole themselves!

[Duncan Cheslett]

Yes but I don't think James Braid or John Low cared whether other golfers liked things -- they must not have liked that kind of hole themselves!

Maybe, but they were designing courses for clubs comprising largely of middle-aged professional gentlemen - not elite golfers or athletes.


They were also generally given fairly small plots of land to work with. I imagine that it's difficult enough to fit 18 holes on 90 acres without indulging in 550 yard holes.

[Steve Wilson]

No.


I thought about leaving at that because somethings ought to be self evident, in my opinion [size=78%].[/size]


But I shall tender the following justification for my opinion. Not all good players are equally long.  Good players are often good players because they are "good" at different aspects of the game.   

[Thomas Dai]

If you can reach a hole in 2 shots but take a 5 that's a bogey not a par.
If you can reach a hole in 1 shot but take 4 that's a bogey not a par.

Equate this to elite player tournaments and the scores achieved relative to quoted scorecard par don't look so good.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

Yes but I don't think James Braid or John Low cared whether other golfers liked things -- they must not have liked that kind of hole themselves!

Maybe, but they were designing courses for clubs comprising largely of middle-aged professional gentlemen - not elite golfers or athletes.


They were also generally given fairly small plots of land to work with. I imagine that it's difficult enough to fit 18 holes on 90 acres without indulging in 550 yard holes.

This.
Also when you have crafty bunkering, you can't just go for broke with impunity. As you could be looking at a 1 shot penalty going sideways from a fairway bunker.

[Kyle Harris]

Using "they're a good player" as justification for anything is putting the cart before the horse.

They're good players because they can reach Par-5's in two and take advantage of any situation on a golf course.

The term should does not belong in golf for anything other than "the hole should be cut to a diameter of 4.25 inches."