[TEPaul]

While reviewing a part of George Thomas's edifying "Golf Architecture in America" I came across an interesting observation on his part which sort of confirms a suspicion of mine.

Thomas mentioned that the "old" concept of a par 5, what they referred to as a "three shotter", should be a hole where noone reached the green in two and that less than THREE perfect shots should not either. Thomas had something to say about the added distanace of the Haskell ball in this evolution away from this concept as he did say 'it seems to have become more or less accepted that only one of the par 5s should be this way'.

It seems to me that the concept of the "unreachable in two par 5" certainly was a concept very much believed in by some of the significant early architects.

There's no question Crump believed in that theory as apparently Hugh Wilson did too. William Flynn believed in it for a time and actually once wrote that a par 5 should NEVER be reached in two shots. Tillinghast went into more detail about how he (although maybe only at one time) believed that a par 5 should NEVER be reached in two shots and actually gave a few architectural reasons why it shouldn't.

Thomas wrote his book in 1927 and it seems, according to that book the par 5 concept was changing slightly to architecturally include a shorter par 5 that long players had a shot at at least coming near in two shots.

How times have changed. Now all these long players can hardly find a par 5 they can't reach in two somehow.

Thomas gave a few reasons for the evolutionary change. 1/ Real "three shotters" were too much of a "slog" and, 2/ They took up too much valuable real estate, adding to cost!

Interesting evolution, though, and we should recognize the interesting thinking of those early fellows such as Crump, Wilson, Tillinghast and Flynn regarding this concept.

As much as distance increase has changed the strategies of say PVGC, it's still true that almost noone today can reach Crump's two par 5s. One is still pretty much about raw distance and uphill but the other one is only about architecture--eg Hell's Half Acre, which Tillinghast advocated in architecture simply to prevent a long player reaching a par 5 in two shots.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
On occasion, shrink the target and protect it with various troubles that require the second shot, for those who are willing to try it, to be better than "perfect".
 

[wsmorrison]

Eugene Grace believed strongly in par 5s being three-shotters.  I was told (perhaps by David Gordon-though I can't remember) that he resigned from ANGC at least partly because he could not abide the reachable par 5s.  One of his dictates during the construction of Saucon Valley was that none of the par 5s could be reached in two.  I don't have the relevant facts to back this up.  Were the par 5s at Saucon Valley true three-shotters back in Mr. Grace's day?

[TEPaul]

Man alive, that old Eugene Grace had some pretty odd ideas, didn't he? I guess somewhere in this world there may be a valid reason to actually resign from ANGC but I can guarantee you if I was a member I wouldn't resign because their par 5s were reachable in two!

[Bob_Huntley]

Has the reachable par 5 been responsible for a great deal of today's slow play?

[Eric Pevoto]

I just ran by a quote from Tillinghast in Shackelford's The Art of Golf Design.  In describing Hell's Half Acre concept, he states, "In my humble opinion the green to the three-shot hole must be beyond the range of any player who misses either his drive or second stroke."  He goes on to say that this can be achieved through dog-legging but is better accomplished through "the location of a truly formidable hazard across the fairway."  

[FREEMAHC]

Iagree wth that tillinghast quote, but it's also apparent that if you're designing a course, it is very hard to make a par 5 both par-able for the average golfer, and impossible for the tour player to get on in 2.

[TEPaul]

FREEMAHC:

Not really and the best way to do it is with Tillinghast's Hell's Half Acre concept as he explains in the book Eric Pevoto just cited. Tillinghast explained that this type of cross bunker concept should be at least 100 yards long.

The average player can manage to get over the enormous bunker in two with two good shots but the tour pro of today may need to slow down off the tee not to go in it in one but then that leaves him too far back to go for the green in two. There couldn't be a better example of how this concept works than PVGC's #7. Virtually noone has much of a shot at that green in two but again, average players with three good shots can get on that green in three!

[A_Clay_Man]

A year or so back there was an article in T&L Golf about this very subject, with JN as the sounding board. He showed deference to Tillie and the lads for the notion of providing a penal nature to the decision to go for the green in two.

[Jeff Goldman]

This appears to be one area where strategic considerations may have changed, possibly for the better.  Isn't today's general consensus that the best par-5s are those that present a big risk/reward for trying to reach in 2?  See 13 and 15 at Augusta, 8, 11, and 16 at Blackwolf Run, and a bunch of others.  Or is this an area where classic architects may have disagreed somewhat, as Ross and MacK. tended (only tended, see Beverly and others) to design possibly reachable par-5s with big risks.  

Jeff Goldman

[Dunnyboy]

TEPaul,
Why is the strategy of taking the driver out of the longer players hands considered good? That wouldn't seem to be the strategy for this hole in the era that it was built, was it? I looked at the profile of the course and saw the distance to the bunker, 285 yds. and another 100 to get over it. There isn't a good player today who would have a lick of worry about these distances, only a care that driver is no longer an option.
I can't see the merits of this concept.

[TEPaul]

Dunnyboy:

I think you're absolutely right that a strategy of taking the driver out of a good long players hand on a hole of this Tillinghast HHA concept is not good, and no that was not the way that concept, well evidenced by PVGC's #7 was originally conceived. Because of incresed distances of players today PVGC's #7 did need to add tee length and they just did that so the distance to reach HHA from the tips today would probably be something like 320 yds. That's probably acceptable for most long hitters today.

But the fact remains that the beginning of HHA is still too far from the green for almost any player to reach the green in two shots. That's the way the hole was meant to be and the way it was conceived.

However, the meat of a concept like this was probably never for the longest hitter but for the more average distance player. The strategy was somewhat different and not exactly something everyone on here may agree with in an ideal strategic hole. For the more average distance player the strategy was simply one of distance demand where the average distance player was expected to put together his two best and two longest shots to clear HHA in two and have a decent shot at the green in THREE!

Some may not like this but there's little question THIS was the concept of the old fashioned par 5 concept with a hole like this--eg with an approximtely 100 yard long HHA bunker concept (sometimes Tillinghast used mounds in place of the HHA bunker)---the idea was a regular golfer needed to put together his THREE best shots or he was not likely to reach the green in THREE.

There's no question that both Crump's PVGC par 5s were of this basic distance strategy. PVGC was designed in 1913-1918 and my point on this thread is that in 1927 George Thomas mentioned that architecture was beginning to get away from this very long par 5 concept (the real "three shotter") to offer possibly only one such hole on a golf course. Thomas mentioned that the other par 5 (he apparently advised only two par 5s generally) was to be shorter---in the area of 500 yards or slightly shorter to give the long player a chance of getting near the green in two or perhaps on it.

[TEPaul]

George Thomas was a Philadelphian and it's probably not a coincidence that the Philadelphia region's two finest courses, Pine Valley and Merion East, both of which are very old---PVGC (1913-1918) and Merion (1913) have only two par 5s each and all of them are of this "three shotter" variety.

I marshalled for the week of the 1981 US Open and only 2-3 players all week reached #2 in two shots and noone reached #4 in two shots!

There're a number of other very old par 5s in this town that are very long--some originally around 600 yards!

[wsmorrison]

redanman,

That would be PVGC #15.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  Tillinghast talked about a hole like #7 at Pine Valley as a "three shot hole," which we translate to "par five."  He believed there should be one or two of these in every course, and built a great many "Sahara" holes in imitation of 7 at PV (14 at Five Farms, 17 Baltusrol Lower, etc.).  (Of course, Tillie claimed he gave Crump the idea for 7 at Pine Valley, also.)

However, Tillinghast also built a lot of short par fives in his day.  There are two at Baltusrol and two at Winged Foot which they simply convert to par fours for big events.  In fact, years ago, Frank Hannigan suggested that Tillinghast's weakness was in not building more real par-5 holes.

[SPDB]

Tillie's model "Three Shotter" (Left), and his "double dog-leg" sketch (right)

                                             

It seems evident from both these non site-specific drawings that Tillie did concern himself with creating true three shotters

[T_MacWood]

Why is it that a full three-shotter eliminates strategy...couldn't it be argued that a well designed full three-shotter actually increases strategy...you are required to make choices on the tee, on the second and on the approach (and perhaps the 4th)? The 14th at The Golf Club is one of the most strategic par-5's I have encountered....it is unreachable in two.

I would agree that most of the better architects who advocated the full 3-shot hole, also advocated the 4.5 concept...variety being key.

Another lost concept is the unreachable par-3 or nearly unreachable par-3....what would be our equivalent to the 240-250 yard par-3 of the 1920's?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Flynn designed the 260 yard slightly uphill 10th at Rolling Green (follows the uphill 614 yard par 5 9th).  It was always a par 3 on the scorecard.  I'm certain that under firm and fast conditions, a low running draw made the green reachable for the better class of players in the mid-1920s.  Clearly Flynn was requiring a very specific and high-demand shot to get a 3, however he probably wasn't considering par in of itself very much but creating a hole that made for interesting match play options where executing a high demand shot really rewarded the player who takes on the risk.  If that is what was being designed in the 1920s, are there any modern designs of 300 yard par 3s?  That would seem to be about the ballpark equivalent of 260 yard par 3s back in the olden days.

Flynn's desire for variety influenced him to design short, medium, and long par 3s, 4s, and 5s.  Without taking topography into account, on the long side, Flynn designed par 3s between 240-260 yards, Par 4s between 430 and 460, and Par 5s between 570 and 620 yards.  On the short side, Flynn designed 110 yard par 3s, 280 yard par 4s, and 460 yard par 5s.  Flynn was surely influenced by, if not directly involved in Merion's nice blend of long and short par 4s.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()