[Tim_Weiman]

On the same note, as I think you are implying, many of the best par fives require three (not two) well executed shots to reach the green.  Would that make them better than par fours which only require two?

I think for the average golfer, the reason they love par 5s is because it DOESN'T require three good shots to reach the green in regulation. On a par 3, a bad tee shot puts a double in play. On a par 4, a bad tee shot will likely lead to a bogey. On a par 5, a bad tee shot into a bunker or trees can usually be followed by a relatively straightforward recovery to set up a wedge for a third, and par or even birdie is still in play. For the average golfer, a par 5 is a breather, a chance to relax. Could be the opposite for a scratch golfer, who puts pressure on himself to birdie the par 5s, and anything less than that seems like a missed opportunity.

Dan,


I think you underestimate the challenge of Par 5s for average players. Second shots aren’t always relatively straightforward after a poor drive. Then too, for the mid handicap player 7 on the scorecard looms and it is not good if you are trying to break 90.


Tim

[Michael Felton]

On the same note, as I think you are implying, many of the best par fives require three (not two) well executed shots to reach the green.  Would that make them better than par fours which only require two?

I think for the average golfer, the reason they love par 5s is because it DOESN'T require three good shots to reach the green in regulation. On a par 3, a bad tee shot puts a double in play. On a par 4, a bad tee shot will likely lead to a bogey. On a par 5, a bad tee shot into a bunker or trees can usually be followed by a relatively straightforward recovery to set up a wedge for a third, and par or even birdie is still in play. For the average golfer, a par 5 is a breather, a chance to relax. Could be the opposite for a scratch golfer, who puts pressure on himself to birdie the par 5s, and anything less than that seems like a missed opportunity.

Dan,


I think you underestimate the challenge of Par 5s for average players. Second shots aren’t always relatively straightforward after a poor drive. Then too, for the mid handicap player 7 on the scorecard looms and it is not good if you are trying to break 90.


Tim

Agreed - the longer the hole is, the more opportunity there is to make a mess of things. Worse players are better at making a mess of things, so, generally speaking, the longer a hole is the more differentiation there should be between a good and a bad player. So while if you look at PGA Tour numbers, the par 5s are the ones most under par (and therefore "easiest"), for average Joes, the par 5s tend to be played the most over par. Separately that's also why par 5s tend to have low stroke index vs par 3s.

[Dan_Callahan]

Agreed - the longer the hole is, the more opportunity there is to make a mess of things. Worse players are better at making a mess of things, so, generally speaking, the longer a hole is the more differentiation there should be between a good and a bad player. So while if you look at PGA Tour numbers, the par 5s are the ones most under par (and therefore "easiest"), for average Joes, the par 5s tend to be played the most over par. Separately that's also why par 5s tend to have low stroke index vs par 3s.

Huh. That makes sense I guess, but very different from how my friends view it. A bad tee shot on a par 5 invariably leads to the "no worries ... it's a par 5" reassurance. I wonder if my idea of an "average" golfer is different from what you envision.

[Michael Felton]

Agreed - the longer the hole is, the more opportunity there is to make a mess of things. Worse players are better at making a mess of things, so, generally speaking, the longer a hole is the more differentiation there should be between a good and a bad player. So while if you look at PGA Tour numbers, the par 5s are the ones most under par (and therefore "easiest"), for average Joes, the par 5s tend to be played the most over par. Separately that's also why par 5s tend to have low stroke index vs par 3s.

Huh. That makes sense I guess, but very different from how my friends view it. A bad tee shot on a par 5 invariably leads to the "no worries ... it's a par 5" reassurance. I wonder if my idea of an "average" golfer is different from what you envision.

I was thinking of bogey golfers, so mid-high teens index. For better players, par 5s give you more opportunity to recover. If you hit a bad shot on a par 3, you're struggling. If you hit a bad shot on a par 5, you have the opportunity to hit one or two good shots to get back in it. For bogey golfers though, I think that's more likely to be more opportunities to compound mistakes.

[Charlie Goerges]

Agreed - the longer the hole is, the more opportunity there is to make a mess of things. Worse players are better at making a mess of things, so, generally speaking, the longer a hole is the more differentiation there should be between a good and a bad player. So while if you look at PGA Tour numbers, the par 5s are the ones most under par (and therefore "easiest"), for average Joes, the par 5s tend to be played the most over par. Separately that's also why par 5s tend to have low stroke index vs par 3s.

Huh. That makes sense I guess, but very different from how my friends view it. A bad tee shot on a par 5 invariably leads to the "no worries ... it's a par 5" reassurance. I wonder if my idea of an "average" golfer is different from what you envision.

I was thinking of bogey golfers, so mid-high teens index. For better players, par 5s give you more opportunity to recover. If you hit a bad shot on a par 3, you're struggling. If you hit a bad shot on a par 5, you have the opportunity to hit one or two good shots to get back in it. For bogey golfers though, I think that's more likely to be more opportunities to compound mistakes.

Even if the extra distance doesn't increase the difficulty as much for better players, the extra shot(s) can render any designed-in strategy moot because of the compounding effect of each shot. Especially if the strategy was fairly simplistic to begin with.

[Kalen Braley]

As one who has spent most of my golfing life in that 15-18 range, I would agree with Dan on this one.

Par 5's are typically the holes you look forward to because you can make a mistake and still recover unlike mid length to long par 4s, and par 3s.  And especially so when you consider most of us aren't playing the tips with 560+ yard par 5s, many are played at 500 and less, and a poorly struck drive that only goes 140-150 can still be made up with a decently played 2nd shot.

As an experiment, one year I tracked all of my hole by hole stats (~30 rounds) and found that not only did I have the best scoring average relative to par on the 5s, but I made roughly the same amount of pars on 5s vs 4s, despite the fact that most courses only have 4 5's vs 10 4's.

I also divided my par 4s into two categories, long and everything else, (the cutoff for long was greater than 380 yards). This was easily my winner for worst scoring average relative to par.

P.S.  Bringing this back to the topic, perhaps there are multiple valid answers to this thread. I can understand why course designers would think par 4s to be "better" in terms of being able to implement their vision and create interesting holes without dictating too much like a par 3.  And perhaps average golfers like myself find par 5s to be "better" if we're looking for scarce scoring opportunities and more options/flexibility tee to green.

[Mark_Fine]

Golfing ability definitely plays a big role in a golfer’s perception of par five holes.  I think the better the golfer, the more they like them because they are scoring opportunities.  The weakest golfers can view them as cruel and unusual punishment 


Regarding no strategy on par threes; I completely understand that these holes are generally much more one dimensional than par fours and par fives, but I will argue some of the best par threes have more strategy than given credit for.  Take #12 at Augusta, ask any pro who has played there if the hole offers any options/strategy that they have to think about when standing on that tee.  What about #6 at Riviera?  How you play that hole (especially if you are a capable golfer) has a lot to do with hole location (which is part of the design and strategy built into the golf hole).  Also we forget that many not all but many great par threes have strategy designed into them based on internal green contours and roll offs, bailout areas, overall hazard placement, and so on. 


We talk about par fours and the need to play a proper shot off the tee to position ourselves for the next shot.  But what if the green was simply a flat round surface with nothing around it, it probably wouldn’t matter where we hit the tee shot as long as we had a clear path to the green (angles etc wouldn’t matter as much nor would the location of the pin).  At our 3rd hole at Lehigh, a long par three, the “hazard value” of the surrounding bunkers dramatically changes depending on hole location and this very much impacts strategy on the tee shot.  It is an exceptionally well designed golf hole and Flynn would definitely take exception if someone told him the hole has no strategy 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tom,

I mean, I don't know your history or anything, Mark, but… this seemed like a pretty reasonable question given what you said just before:

Par fives in general are the hardest holes to design to a high standard.  Par threes probability follow.

Does that not mean logically that par four holes are easier to design because they are inherently better?

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
Well an architect gets a lot more chances to design par fours vs other holes so they probably should be better at it    so you tell me.

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


Have you ever designed a course such that you would know the answer to your response from personal professional experience?


What holes are you best at designing? Examples are most welcome.


And, yes, all of us get that you are a very good player and that you have played a lot of the highest ranked courses. You make both points repeatedly.


The simple fact is that you chose to pretend to misunderstand a very good OP question to cherry pick in order to tell us how privileged you are to play some great Par 5s and Par 3s.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I have done many renovations where outside of re-routing holes we had mostly free rein.  I found that, for example at Mira Vista CC (now called Berkeley CC in CA) where we converted a par three hole to a par four, we had the land and flexibility to be creative.  It is hole #7 if you want to look at what we did on Google Earth.  At Hanover CC in PA, we did modifications to par three green sites that both changed as well as added strategy/challenge as well as bailout areas to the holes.  Again you can Google Earth some of the holes like #2 and #11. Also at that course we are converting a par five to a par four.  This is a hole that Gil Hanse had re-designed years ago but as a par five it had an "internal aerial out of bounds" which I did not like at all and two forced carries so we are getting rid of it by re-designing the hole to a par four.  Another example would be a re-design I did of one of the oldest par three island greens in the country at Waynesborough CC also in PA, hole #17.  We totally changed the green contours as the entire green had been lost in a flood.  We added more interesting hole locations on what was originally a relatively benign green surface.  In all these examples, I would be hard pressed to tell you what was easier to design but if I had to take a stand I would say the par threes were the easiest as we knew the staring point for all golfers so we could design accordingly.  The par five to a par four conversion was maybe a good example of why par fives are hard to design well as Gil did the hole years before me, he had limited options where he could site the green to make the routing work.  It resulted in a not so great golf hole.  The new par four we proposed was very well received by the club and was not a hard fix (once we convinced the membership that losing a weak par five hole to a much better par four hole was OK   


We recently completely renovated Bethlehem GC in PA if you want to Google Earth that one where we changed every bunker and modified and/or altered/expanded every green.  I don't think there is an easy answer to the question that was posed but I know most architects will tell you, par fives (good ones) are the hardest holes to design. 


Hope that helps.


By the way, while I might get to play and refer to often many of the highly ranked courses, I mostly work on courses that not many of this site have heard of or played and aren't on any Top 100 lists.  I could name many of them but then you would tell me I am bragging     What I try my best to do is make them more interesting, more thought provoking and more fun to play for ALL levels of golfers.  I lean on my experiences and study of many of the greatest courses to try and bring some of that interest and creativity to these lesser name designs so others who don't get to play them can enjoy.  If nothing else, maybe they have a better golf course when all said and done.  Taking a course from say a 3 rating to a 5 can be a huge difference for those who play there.  My latest efforts are the encouragement of more forward tees but you have heard enough about that from me already on other threads. 

[Thomas Dai]

Any love for 6x3’s, 6x4’s and 6x5’s?
Atb


PS or 3x3’s, 3x4’s and 3x5’s?

[Michael Felton]

Any love for 6x3’s, 6x4’s and 6x5’s?
Atb


PS or 3x3’s, 3x4’s and 3x5’s?

The Berkshire Red has entered the chat...that's the only one I know of, so apparently not a lot.

[Craig Sweet]

I play golf with mostly guys shooting 85-90....For them par on a par 5 hole is a rare experience. On a par 4 their short game can lead to a par....same on a par 3. Up and down from 5-10 yards off the green is very possible. But on a par 5 they might have a 50-100 yard 4th shot to the green and bogey or double is very real.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik and Ira,
A fellow poster here dug this quote up from our good friend Tom Doak     Tom made this statement to Mark Chalfont in a thread last year about par five holes and of course Tom didn't bother to mention it here.  He didn't want to have to agree with me that good par fives are hard to build.


"I think the real answer to Mark's question is that par-5 holes are hard to build and nobody is especially great at them, although I have admired a lot of par-5 holes that Coore and Crenshaw have come up with, and I believe MacKenzie was very good at the short par-5."

[Craig Sweet]

Good par 5's might very well be more difficult to design, but that doesn't mean they are inherently better than a good par four.

[Tim_Weiman]

As one who has spent most of my golfing life in that 15-18 range, I would agree with Dan on this one.

Par 5's are typically the holes you look forward to because you can make a mistake and still recover unlike mid length to long par 4s, and par 3s.  And especially so when you consider most of us aren't playing the tips with 560+ yard par 5s, many are played at 500 and less, and a poorly struck drive that only goes 140-150 can still be made up with a decently played 2nd shot.

As an experiment, one year I tracked all of my hole by hole stats (~30 rounds) and found that not only did I have the best scoring average relative to par on the 5s, but I made roughly the same amount of pars on 5s vs 4s, despite the fact that most courses only have 4 5's vs 10 4's.

I also divided my par 4s into two categories, long and everything else, (the cutoff for long was greater than 380 yards). This was easily my winner for worst scoring average relative to par.

P.S.  Bringing this back to the topic, perhaps there are multiple valid answers to this thread. I can understand why course designers would think par 4s to be "better" in terms of being able to implement their vision and create interesting holes without dictating too much like a par 3.  And perhaps average golfers like myself find par 5s to be "better" if we're looking for scarce scoring opportunities and more options/flexibility tee to green.

Kalen,


I suspect that for the guy who hits a 140-150 tee shot playing a decent second shot is far from guaranteed. Indeed, in my experience it is unlikely.


Just yesterday I played nine holes at a local muni. All four in our group hit bad tee shots on a Par 5 with trouble off the tee. Essentially we all put ourselves in jail off the tee. Two were lost balls. Two of us had to punch out. Nobody made better than double.


I’d say Par 5s might be a breather for golfers with a 10 HCP or better, but this is a small part of the golfing population.


Tim

[Mark_Fine]

Craig,
Is anyone saying that? Like most topics on this site, there is no right answer, only opinions from different perspectives.  How can anyone answer definitively that one hole is inherently better than another.  Maybe sometimes the answer is obvious but on the whole, who knows?  A hole that may be your favorite and that you think is outstanding, might be some other golfer's nightmare. 


It is hard to define "inherently better". Even the question of what is harder to design is very subjective.  There may or may not be a consensus that par five holes are the hardest to design.  In my experience in remodeling golf courses, I think the easiest (in some cases but not all) are the par threes and I explained why.  It is because you know where golfers will be playing their approach shots from.  For par fours and par fives, we like to think we know where most shots will be played from but frankly that is often not the case unless we are designing for professional level golfers.  We watch on TV the shot distribution profiles for pros and they are very consistent.  Take a look at one for everyday players and it resembles nothing like that.  I often look at where divots are in the fairways and shake my head at how they can literally be all over the place.  And even on par threes; although we know where golfers are starting from, we really don't know what clubs they will be using.  For example I played the other day in a match and on the one par three, one golfer hit a 4 hybrid, another hit a 6I, another hit a 7I and the fourth golfer hit an 8I.  All four golfers were playing from the same tees and were similar level handicaps.  How does an architect design for an approach shot with that much variety from the same tee?  The guy who hit the 4 hybrid hit a low trajectory shot and the guy who hit the 8I hit this towering moon ball! 


Getting back to what is inherently better - who knows?  I go back to what I said early on, I personally happen to have some favorite holes that are par threes and par fives. There are a lot of par fours I love as well.  I will leave it at that.

[Kalen Braley]

As one who has spent most of my golfing life in that 15-18 range, I would agree with Dan on this one.

Par 5's are typically the holes you look forward to because you can make a mistake and still recover unlike mid length to long par 4s, and par 3s.  And especially so when you consider most of us aren't playing the tips with 560+ yard par 5s, many are played at 500 and less, and a poorly struck drive that only goes 140-150 can still be made up with a decently played 2nd shot.

As an experiment, one year I tracked all of my hole by hole stats (~30 rounds) and found that not only did I have the best scoring average relative to par on the 5s, but I made roughly the same amount of pars on 5s vs 4s, despite the fact that most courses only have 4 5's vs 10 4's.

I also divided my par 4s into two categories, long and everything else, (the cutoff for long was greater than 380 yards). This was easily my winner for worst scoring average relative to par.

P.S.  Bringing this back to the topic, perhaps there are multiple valid answers to this thread. I can understand why course designers would think par 4s to be "better" in terms of being able to implement their vision and create interesting holes without dictating too much like a par 3.  And perhaps average golfers like myself find par 5s to be "better" if we're looking for scarce scoring opportunities and more options/flexibility tee to green.

Kalen,

I suspect that for the guy who hits a 140-150 tee shot playing a decent second shot is far from guaranteed. Indeed, in my experience it is unlikely.

Just yesterday I played nine holes at a local muni. All four in our group hit bad tee shots on a Par 5 with trouble off the tee. Essentially we all put ourselves in jail off the tee. Two were lost balls. Two of us had to punch out. Nobody made better than double.

I’d say Par 5s might be a breather for golfers with a 10 HCP or better, but this is a small part of the golfing population.

Tim

I certainly understand its not guaranteed, but the player is still in fact presented with a 2nd chance, unlike the par 3 or 4. I do understand the stats in the aggregate indicate par 5s are not kind to high cappers, but perhaps I was just not the norm relative to my peers. 

I fortunately realized early on that getting home (or near the green) in two on par 5s would be an extremely rare occurrence for me, so in most cases I never tried.  I realized I could hit 3 wood off the tee and then again on the 2nd shot and in most cases it was often just a short iron or wedge approach, which I will take those odds everyday and twice on Sunday.  Trying to hit a 190-200 yard shot to a well protected green is a big ask for most, but hitting same to a 40-50 yard wide fairway is very doable.

But I understand most either can't resist the temptation or ego gets in the way of deliberately using less than driver and/or getting overly aggressive to reach in 2 and find more trouble.

[Tom_Doak]

Erik and Ira,
A fellow poster here dug this quote up from our good friend Tom Doak     Tom made this statement to Mark Chalfont in a thread last year about par five holes and of course Tom didn't bother to mention it here.  He didn't want to have to agree with me that good par fives are hard to build.


"I think the real answer to Mark's question is that par-5 holes are hard to build and nobody is especially great at them, although I have admired a lot of par-5 holes that Coore and Crenshaw have come up with, and I believe MacKenzie was very good at the short par-5."

Hi Mark:


Do you have a problem with reading comprehension and/or logic?


The title of this thread is "Are par fours inherently better?"  I believe they are, and that the fact they are easier to design proves that in general, it is a better form of golf hole.


Good par-5's ARE hard to build.  I did not agree with you, because by simple logic that makes the average par-5 inherently worse, and I thought that was the topic of this thread.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You gave me grief because I said some of my favorite holes are par fives and par threes???  What is wrong with that?  I don’t really know what inherently better means and I asked the question “for who”?  The architect?  Good golfers?  Bad golfers?  Pros?  Everyone?  You tell me, why are they inherently better and for who?  Are we talking all par fours are inherently better or just most par fours?


I agree we digressed into what is harder or easier to build and strategy or lack there of on different kinds of holes but you tend to get nasty about different opinions than yours? 


All I am trying to do is spark conversation and some friendly debate.  If the answer is obvious why ask the question?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Mark, I don't know what you're reading… or reading "into" what's written, or what you're doing, exactly. And I'm not sure you do, either?

And to be clear, the answer to this is… no, basically, right?

Have you ever designed a course such that you would know the answer to your response from personal professional experience?

[Mike_Clayton]

I've caddied quite a bit for Elvis Smylie who is 21 and one of the best young pros in Australia.
I asked him at a tournament last year what the hardest holes on the course were.
Predictably he picked the two or three 'toughest' par 4s - which were barely more than drives and short (8,9) irons.


By far the most difficult holes for good players now are the par 5s - because to make a par is to drop a shot to the field. Certainly if your'e considering winning the tournament.
It doesn't apply to true three shooters (of which there are fewer than a handful in Australia) but they are the only holes you have to hit a good drive and a great, longish (200Y plus) second shot. They are the holes where a good players can seperate themselves from the field.


Of course, the higher the handicap the harder they become because they stretch out interminably.


And the only purpose of the 5th at Royal Melbourne and the 15th at Kingston Heath (most people's picks as the two best par 3s in Australia) is to connect the great long holes coming before and after both.


Maybe that's why there are only two par 3s on The Old Course?

[Niall C]

Mike


I suspect the reason for only two par 3's on TOC is that they stopped buggering about with the routing to any great extent before the concept of par was even thought of. Then decades latter you had the discussion and debates on what made an ideal course. By that time the routing of TOC was largely set in stone.


Personally I see its unconventionality as a great part of its attraction.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
How many here who are chiming in on this thread have ever designed a golf course? 

You can consider it what you want but I have redesigned many golf courses.  Maybe in your mind that doesn’t count. If not, so be it. 

Mike,
How would you answer this question of par fours being inherently better?  You don’t seem to care for par threes.  By the way I agree, many par threes are transition/connector holes.  #15 and even #16 at CP for example serve that purpose. 


If we are defining inherently better as architecturally inherently better, maybe par fours are.  As an exercise think about ten courses (any courses you want) and if you could only play one hole on each of those courses which one would it be.?  If the holes you choose are all par fours, then you have your answer. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()