Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on July 08, 2012, 10:31:47 AM
-
Our discussion of the new routing at Dismal River got a bit off track when we started talking about the first hole. A lot of people thought it was the least exciting hole there, and I couldn't really argue with this because I've purposely held it back a little bit -- it will play into the wind sometimes and it has a fairly difficult green out of necessity, so I've been afraid to bunker it too much for fear of people making 7 out of the blocks.
John Kavanaugh quickly pointed out that our neighbor, Sand Hills, has a par-5 opener that is by acclamation a great hole; and Peter Pallotta has offered good defense of the par-5 opener, which I hope he will re-post here.
What say others? I've built a lot of par-5 openers over the years -- in my early designs because I was convinced by George Thomas' fondness for them as good 19th holes for match play. But I've grown to dislike them based on stroke play mentality, and the likelihood that some people will start with a 6 or a 7. They do make it hard to get players off the first tee, too, but that is less of an issue for some courses than for others, and not really much of an issue at all in a remote spot like the sand hills of Nebraska.
One other hole worth discussing here is the first at Kingsley, which I know will come up because someone expressed love for it just the other day. For me, the decision on that tee shot is not so welcome for the first swing of the day ... kind of like a coffee drinker's mood before that first cup of coffee in the morning.
-
Tom - to repeat/rephrase and add a little:
I'm not a a big fan of Par 5s in general, but I've never met a golfer who doesn't like a gentle opening hole, and who doesn't like even more a gentle Par 5 opener. It gives us a chance; and if we make a hash of it we've got no one to blame but ourselves. Now, that kind of opener usually won't make for a 'great' golf hole, but it can play a good and useful part in the making a great golf course, the first step in the journey and first link in the chain.
One of the good points of a gentle Par 5 opener is that it offers a decision-making opportunity right away. Even for me (an average golfer), if it is gentle enough I get to my tee shot and right away have to decide whether to go for the green in two or not -- in other words, I have to feel/sense whether or not "I have it" on this particular day, whether my body/mind will cooperate. The fact that it usually doesn't and that i usually make the wrong decision doesn't alter the mini-thrill of having to make that choice right off the bat. (And if, upon making the wrong choice, the golf hole still allows me to make a bogie at worst, that's a nice bonus -- and a kind of promise that, while I will have to prepare myself for justice and judgement, I can also expect a little mercy and grace.)
The opening hole, it seems to me, is its own "species", different from any other hole in the course. (The 2nd hole can be 'exchanged' for the 12th, for example, and the 5th for the 9th etc etc -- but there can only be one and one kind of opening hole). I think opening holes have to be judged differently. As I may have mentioned to you, the 8th at Crystal Downs is one of the few Par 5s I've ever even liked, let alone loved. But in my opinion, and for my skill level, it would be a terrible opening hole.
(Conversely, for my tastes and temperament, a Par 5 anywhere else on the course should be challenging, like the 8th a CD; otherwise I find them bland and uninteresting, but mostly I feel like the rabbit to whom the architect is non-to-subtly throwing a bit of lettuce.)
Peter
-
I actually like the par 5 as an opening hole. It usually allows me to hit my driver off the first tee and then a utility or longer iron for my second shot and a wedge for my third. As a result, I kind of think it is the ultimate warm-up hole because it lets you hit different clubs.
I fully agree with Tom that it should never be too difficult. However, I also don't think it should be too easy - as the golfer will be upset from the start if he/she does not make a birdie. My favorite par 5 openers have been ones where the placement of the second shot is key. Hit the second shot to the correct side of the fairway and you are left with an open, inviting approach to the green. Hit it to the incorrect side of the fairway, you either have a blind shot or difficult shot where birdie is taken out of the golfers hand, but par is still achievable with a 2 putt.
Based on Tom's courses that I think would make good par 5 openers - #12 at Pacific Dunes would be a great example. Very picturesque hole. Very wide fairway to hit your drive and pretty easy second shot that you can hit utility or long iron. The approach is with a wedge or short iron, but the approach from the right side of the fairway is a lot easier than the approach from the left side of the fairway. Thus, par is protected, but it still is not too difficult to make par.
-
I remember the first time I played the first at Olympic I thought it was too easy. Funny how the highest ranked three players in the world proved me wrong.
-
I don't mind an opening par 5 but I am used to it as my club Scarboro (a Tillinghast redesign) starts with a par 5. With a par 5 you can still have a chance at making par even if you hit somewhat poor shots as your first or second and still have a chance at making par if you hit a good third shot. And it does give you a bit more chance to warm up if you are not the sort of person that spends a few minutes at the range before your rounds, which is generally less of a issue at new courses vs classic era courses.
-
You might even say that an opening par 5 works well on a travel day. Two off the first tee is less likely to give an opponent a distinct advantage.
-
I don't disagree with anything that's been said so far, in theory ... but I still wonder if deliberately sacrificing the chance to have a great hole for the first hole is the best choice if you're trying to build a great course.
When in doubt, I go back and analyze. So, I went to the list of the top 50 courses in the world, and I was surprised to find that EIGHT of them start with a par-5. In addition to Sand Hills, Riviera, and Olympic [already mentioned], here are the others:
Royal County Down
San Francisco Golf Club
Sunningdale (Old)
Los Angeles CC (North)
Barnbougle Dunes :)
None of these is a very dramatic opener -- Barnbougle's is probably the hardest, but only because it plays into the prevailing wind. But these par-5 openers didn't hold back the courses too much. So maybe I'm wrong to dislike some of my own courses for starting with par 5's ?
-
Tom, maybe you are thiking about this too hard? Sure, I see the appeal of easing a golfer into a round, but I don't see how starting with a par 5 could seriously make somoene like a course a whole lot less than if you started with a shortish par 4.
-
Matt:
It's likely a personal pet peeve. Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card. Occasionally, at Black Forest or Stonewall, I would yank my third shot and miss the green and fail to get up and down, and there went my day right there!
-
Tom:
Funny story that I think you may enjoy. I grew up playing with my grandfather. Around his death, he was in the planning stages of building a golf course. However, he wanted to build a 21 hole golf course, of which only the last 18 counted, because he said it always took him and his friends 3 holes to warm up.
Maybe that warm-up par 5 is not a bad thing for the average golfer ;).
-
Matt:
It's likely a personal pet peeve. Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card. Occasionally, at Black Forest or Stonewall, I would yank my third shot and miss the green and fail to get up and down, and there went my day right there!
Well, now you aren't good anymore so that problem is solved! ;)
-
Tom, does your opinion or preference change depending on the client?
-
I've liked a number of opening par 5s that I've played, and I'm guessing the detraction is due to pace of play issues.
If that is not a problem, I think a par 5 that plays in the 520-540 range (from the back tees) is a great opening to the round. My favorites: LACC, Riviera, and Rustic are all gradually downhill with very generous landing areas. More importantly I think they have generous lay up areas as well so that if one does not execute on the first tee shot of the day then they don't get punished too harshly too quickly.
It's also important that if #1 is a par 5 that there are still sufficient birdie chances out on the course so that is does not feel like a waste if one does not take advantage of the first hole.
-
My home course opens with a par 5, a severe dogleg left. The hole was added to the course in a renovation four years ago. At first I did not think it would be a good opener, but now I've changed my mind. It is one of the easiest holes on the course in relation to par. For shorter hitters (my type), it is a three shot hole. Action moves quickly off the tee because after the group ahead hits their second shots, they immediately disappear around the dogleg and the next group can tee off. For my usual group, we can start with birdies to 7s (usually as a result of finding a bunker). In a four-ball, which is what we normally play, a birdie (or sometimes par) will usually win or tie the hole, so 6s, 7s and 8's are immaterial to the match. I think it is a particularly good opening hole for match play.
What I cannot say is how players whose focus is on their medal scores like it, or how the longer hitters like it. On the other hand, I don't hear complaints.
The course is Carolina GC, on Old Steele Creek Rd. in Charlotte. If you're interested, you can take a look at the hole on Google maps. For reference, the opening shot on the hold parallels the practice tee area, and the second shot is directly away from the range.
-
Matt:
It's likely a personal pet peeve. Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card.
Maybe this is gong to turn into the "remove par from the score card thread" but as an 11 handicap my goal is to keep double bogeys off the scorecard. I really feel no worse making a 6 on a par 5 than making a 5 on a par 4.
I kind of like courses that mix up the "standard" of two par 3s and two par 5s per nine, and I wish more courses would have fewer par 4s and more par 5s and par 3s. Cabot Links goes a little in this direction with a 37-33 split on the scorecard and four par 3s on the back.
-
I grew up at Riviera, so I've always loved the softer starting Par 5 as a getaway hole. This is how I learned to play the game. It's a softer start, but there are things that still make it very dynamic - The great elevated tee shot with everyone watching, OB left. Palmer said it was the "Best starting hole in the game" where you could begin with a 3 or a 7. I've been thrilled with my start and horrified if I made a bogey or double, because of the very difficult next batch of holes. That next batch of holes actually puts pressure on how you play the first, since it's the only realistic birdie hole on the front side, so you better take advantage or you feel like you are working against the grain all day. I really like taking a big full swing to a wide fairway to start. Some other courses that used to start with a par 5, and I believe that was their original design are The Valley Club of Montecito and Pasatiempo.
-
Tom, does your opinion or preference change depending on the client?
Doug:
The client will always have something to say about the routing, if he wants to. But, that opinion doesn't necessarily change what I will present as the best final routing. Sometimes you have two options that are pretty equal, and then it's easy to go with the one the client prefers; but other times, the client's preference would lead to an inferior routing, and it's my job to explain why.
Dismal is a good example. Chris and I went back and forth over #1 a few times, because:
(a) The green site was more interesting as a par five than a par four, and
(b) We only had three par fives on the course, including #8 which was also potentially better as a par four, so if we shortened #1 we locked ourselves into #8 and a par-70 layout.
But,
(c) The transition from #1 green to #2 regular tees is much worse when #1 is a par five, and
(d) The first hole will play pretty long into the wind (and into the sun in the morning).
In the end, we let the best hole win out, but only after exhausting other possibilities [i.e. turning the hole up the valley to the right instead, or having a different hole follow #1].
-
Matt:
It's likely a personal pet peeve. Before my golf game started to decline, one of my main goals at the start of a round was to keep 6's off the card.
Maybe this is gong to turn into the "remove par from the score card thread" but as an 11 handicap my goal is to keep double bogeys off the scorecard. I really feel no worse making a 6 on a par 5 than making a 5 on a par 4.
I kind of like courses that mix up the "standard" of two par 3s and two par 5s per nine, and I wish more courses would have fewer par 4s and more par 5s and par 3s. Cabot Links goes a little in this direction with a 37-33 split on the scorecard and four par 3s on the back.
Does Cabot Links really have four par-3 holes on the back nine? I can't believe they ripped off Pacific Dunes. I should have trademarked that finish -- because there was no other top-100 course that could say the same.
Personally, I love par fours more than other holes, and I think they provide for the greatest variety of design, so I'll have to disagree with your statement above. Maybe you would like Jim Engh courses -- I saw another one the other day and he seems to have five 3's and five 5's on nearly every course he builds.
-
Thanks, Tom. I haven't seen Dismal, but what I didn't articulate well enough is, say, public or private course. My experience is, on public courses with a par 5 opener (or even a long 4, such as Bethpage Red, that often plays like a par 5), players may be in trouble off the tee, or just out of range to hit the green with a second shot, and still insist on waiting for the green to clear in order to hit a second shot, even though it's likely outside of their abilities. Then it turns into a jam.
Do you have any preference given this, or is it more dictated by the land and the other considerations you provided?
Thank you
-
Tom Doak,
I like opening par fives as they give you a chance to ease into the round.
AWT often opened with a par 5 or a relatively benign par 4.
Quaker Ridge, Baltusrol Upper, Baltusrol Lower, Fenway, Ridgewood, Shackamaxon and Alpine are a few examples in the NY Met area.
Probably because most of those courses didn't have an adequate practice facility/range.
The 1927 Tucker course I've been playing for 60 years had both the 1st and the 10th as par 5's.
I see it in a neutral perspective.
I don't think it detracts from the course in any manner.
Quality Par 5's aren't the easiest holes to design and if the land gives you a chance to construct one, albeit on the first hole, why wouldn't you do it ?
-
Tom:
To me, the par of the hole matters less than the demands of the hole. It's maybe a cliche, but I've always liked Ross' notion of a "friendly handshake," and I usually enjoy those courses that open with a hole that doesn't thump you over the head with its demands.
That's not to say the opener can't be challenging. One of my favorite opening holes is at Langford/Moreau's Spring Valley CC, which plays as a par 4 at 452 from the tips (426 white tees). It's a blind tee shot out of the gate, as you can't see where your ball will land, but the fairway corridor is quite wide, and the approach shot is to a green open at front. It's the #5 handicap hole there, but its demand is primarily one of length right out of the gate. I've always found it a good way to loosen the shoulders early in the round.
-
Why on earth would you ever sacrifice the chance to have a great hole? The statement seems rather silly to be honest.
The GOLF COURSE is better because the first hole is not as great as it could have been? Count me as one who wants to see the hole you envision as the best hole on that piece of land regardless of other, largely artifical and irrelevant, factors.
-
Tom,
While I generally espouse the "ease 'em into the round" concept, I certainly wouldn't shy away from making the best hole possible in the service of an easier opener. The first at Kingsley isn't my favorite hole on the course, it's basically a par 6 for many which favors the big hitter and a very difficult opener, but it's a very strong hole and I certainly wouldn't prefer if Mike had made it easier, for instance by reducing the natural crest of the opening hill or it's bunkering.
-
I remember the first time I played the first at Olympic I thought it was too easy. Funny how the highest ranked three players in the world proved me wrong.
Was that because it was re-labeled a par 4 in the U.S. Open? It was a brutal par 4.
-
Does Cabot Links really have four par-3 holes on the back nine? I can't believe they ripped off Pacific Dunes. I should have trademarked that finish -- because there was no other top-100 course that could say the same.
Cabot Links has 10,12,14 & 17 as par 3s.
Personally, I love par fours more than other holes, and I think they provide for the greatest variety of design, so I'll have to disagree with your statement above. Maybe you would like Jim Engh courses -- I saw another one the other day and he seems to have five 3's and five 5's on nearly every course he builds.
I like par 4s a lot as well - but most courses have ten par 4s, and four par 3s and 5s and at times the par4s can get somewhat repetitive espcially if, due to the fetish of length, there are no short par 4s.
-
I don't disagree with anything that's been said so far, in theory ... but I still wonder if deliberately sacrificing the chance to have a great hole for the first hole is the best choice if you're trying to build a great course.
When in doubt, I go back and analyze. So, I went to the list of the top 50 courses in the world, and I was surprised to find that EIGHT of them start with a par-5. In addition to Sand Hills, Riviera, and Olympic [already mentioned], here are the others:
Royal County Down
San Francisco Golf Club
Sunningdale (Old)
Los Angeles CC (North)
Barnbougle Dunes :)
None of these is a very dramatic opener -- Barnbougle's is probably the hardest, but only because it plays into the prevailing wind. But these par-5 openers didn't hold back the courses too much. So maybe I'm wrong to dislike some of my own courses for starting with par 5's ?
Not to mention two other I think strong candidates for top 50 world; Rye's opener - a benign par 5 and St Enodoc's, a cracking par 5. Both work though.
My only concern is really about a easing into the game and a par 5 can do that as well as a par 4. I think its tougher with a par 3, but for some reason I like Huntercombe's as a starter.
I must say there is something to be said for testing a player out of the blocks as usually the guy who prepared better for the round gets the advantage, but the issue is not wanting a low index to start because its bad news for a 19th. Then again, I have always been of the opinion that a guy should get so many shots in a game. Once the game goes into extra holes there should be no shots - the allocation has been used.
Ciao
-
Pat's and Greg's thoughts seem to be the right answer intellectually. As such, I am hard pressed to criticize a great par 5, just because it came first in a routing.
However, I do get Tom's point.
When I tee off Kingsley #1, I am thinking of avoiding a big number. This feeling is compounded with the knowledge that #2 lurks immediately beyond. Such is the challenge. :) On the other hand, if you can get beyond the first two holes at par or 1 over, you set yourself up for a strong front 9 score.
-
I have been recently going through much the same thought process. There is so much to consider and much pertains to the lay of the land. Here is my specific example and what transpired this week. I have nine hole course in Cordaba that will open in our upcoming spring, October. The first hole is the most difficult and the first shot off the tee the most demanding shot on the entire course. The other eight set up perfect in my opinion and there was almost nothing of dirt movement in the entire eight holes. Alternative routing where easier first holes were incorporated caused the rest of the routing to suffer greatly and as a result increased dirt movement throughout and losing the natural effect which was my priority. So it depends where you put your priorities. Too make matters worst, the first landing area has a steep slope to it. We had to cut into the mountain to get additional width, create a retaining wall where we cut into the mountain and we ended up adding much more dirt in the landing area than we used for the entire rest of the eight holes. A well struck slightly off centerline drive will trickle it way down to a creek bed and complicate the second shot, an unjust penalty for a well struck drive. I have looked at the landing area from all angles and it scares me because it is the first hole and the first shot, if it was the seventh I would be ok with it. The course has three par fiveīs and two of them, can be played as alternative par fours to mix and match and create variety within the nine holes, two par fours can also be played as Par 3īs.. The holes is 600 yards form the back and can be played also as a par four of 460 but a part of the landing as a par four is blind, not good for a first hole either. At the end of the first landing area, par five is a shelf that drops down about twenty feet and the rest of the hole is at that elevation. From that point the hole is a strong first hole, par four of around 380 yards, all natural like the remaining eight holes. Good golfers that have walked the property love it but are wondering why the first is so tough and the owner has conveyed these general comments to me. So now, what we are considering is eliminating the back tees and the first two hundred and thirty yards and the filled landing area, retention wall ect and making this an easier par four starting hole. The current back tees are situated below the hotel and next to the ninth green and putting green. So we will lose the proximity of these areas and golfers will be required to walk from the ninth green or the putting greens, some 250 yards to get to the first or tenth tee. Not an ideal situation either. Conclusions, if you want to keep it natural, work with the lay of the land, perfection will hardly ever exist, something out of perfect will find it ways into the overall scheme and we will be called on it as a result. What would you do? Obviously the owner is confused and disappointed that we spent so much money on trying to make this particular hole work and I am now considering giving back to him the entire area, for two acres of additional real estate, which he kind of likes. Anyways, I wonīt make a final decision until after opening but just in case we will proceed with the possible zoning change. So any input is welcomed. Donīt want to hijack the thread..maybe it should be a sperate thread???
-
I actually like the par 5 as an opening hole. It usually allows me to hit my driver off the first tee and then a utility or longer iron for my second shot and a wedge for my third. As a result, I kind of think it is the ultimate warm-up hole because it lets you hit different clubs.
+1
-
Tom - as per this quote ("I still wonder if deliberately sacrificing the chance to have a great hole for the first hole is the best choice if you're trying to build a great course") and Greg's post #22:
I think this is a false dichotomy. (I think the course you mentioned suggests the same). There is no relationship between a 'great course' and any one/individual "great hole". The "18 great holes" and (ala PV) "18 postcards" means nothing to me; I can't imagine what that so-called 'perfection' would look like and play like (but as the Navajos know, you've got to weave in one mistake to let the devil out). In other words, I am convinced that no 'sacrifice' is actually required, except for the sacrifice of one's own pre-conceptions and personal preferences.
Peter
-
Tom, if scoring is what is bothering you, I just want to add that if you are a mid-handicapper like me, the most you can card for handicap is 7. So the worst I can post is 7 on a par 5. That is helluva better than posting 7 on a par 4 or worse, a par 3. The par 5 opening hole is just fine as long as it is not followed by a par 3.
-
I used to be a member at a course that had a short par 5 opening hole and I thought it was a good way to open a course due to the amount of options that could still lead to getting on the green in regulation. This is especially the case at a members club were often they will be getting to the tee last minute without the sort of warm up we all know is recommended.
For instance you could:
- Hit a decent drive and have a go in two.
- Hit a poor drive, scramble something out to around 200 yards away and still have a chance of getting a fairway wood on the green.
- Hit a couple of safe fairway woods before your approach.
- Someone who doesnt get his driver working straight away could always hit 3 long irons or something like that.
- Hit a decent drive that doesn't quite catch a good lie, hit a mid iron as a safe lay up and still go at the green with another mid iron
etc etc...
And as I know plenty of people aren't fans of par 5s, why not take the opportunity to incorporate one as the first due to its various unique elements as discussed.
Of course, such variety can mean a slow start which isn't ideal, but if the land fits why not?
Cheers,
James
-
This notion of ruining someone's day is odd. Are we so sensitive that we need to have our egos stroked as well? My best rounds always start out with a poorly played opener. The thrill of recovering from a poorly played hole, shouldn't be the concern of the gca, it should identify the character of the person who is over coming it.
Tom, When did you start to worry more about stroke play ? I inferred relatively recently.
Randy, Your dilema sounds interesting. It sounds almost like Mike Devrie's opener in Marquette at Greywalls. In that, it's a wild roller-coaster of a hole to start the day. Mike successfully used that rugged opener, to turn what's become a rote routing standard, upside down, by finishing with the handshake. For your course, based on my limited understanding, I'd suggest a sign that reads along the lines of Bethpage Black's warning. Except yours is just for the first hole. Let the ego of the player decide. Just be sure they have 15 min tee time intervals ::)
-
I have no problem with it at all. I can hit a bad drive and still make a five most of the time.
-
I think that any 500-525 opening hole is poor routing. All it does is throw most 4-balls out of rhythm and start the negative accordion flow of "hurry up and wait" which plagues most golf courses, regardless of their starting hole.
One of the best opening par-5 holes I know is at Spyglass. It has it all--mystery, a generous landing area for the drive, a turbo boost at 200 to the left which will greatly reward the well struck opening drive, a fantastic view out of the forest and onto the dunes once you get over the hill, a narrowing bottle-neck that allows for a well-defined risk/reward layup, a great green sitting in the dunes which seems reachable in two off a good drive but isn't--all in all a microcosm of the course, now that I think about it.
-
One caveat- if the course has no driving range then I'd lean more towards the easy opener. I assume that's not the case at Dismal.
-
Jud:
I pretty much never go to the driving range, anyway, which is one reason I've always felt like a forgiving opening tee shot is a good idea.
All:
I feel like I am not doing a good job of explaining my biases, and obviously I'm exploring here a bit, so don't take everything I say as an absolute.
I surely would not pass up the chance to build a great par-5 if there was a great one sitting there for my first hole. Design dilemmas are usually about what to do if there isn't a great hole sitting there. For par-5's, that usually means adding more bunkers and creating different lines of play, but that's just the sort of thing I would tend to refrain from on the opening hole.
-
Diamante begins with a par 5 and, in my view, it is a hole where there seemed to be a conscious effort to hold back a bit. It is one of th weaker holes on the course IMO and detracts from it a bit if I am being brutally honest as the site could yield a bit better hole.
Paul can comment/explain more as to the thought process and siting of teh green and strategy on the hole.
Certainly nothing wrong with the hole and being the opener it does create a WTH moment that it miight were the same hole later in the round. Seems like it is exactly what you are describing - "a perfectly fine hole that gets you from clubhouse to the 2nd tee where the golf course really begins"... I would forego the hallway and have the doors open directly to the theatre.
-
Jud:
I pretty much never go to the driving range, anyway, which is one reason I've always felt like a forgiving opening tee shot is a good idea.
All:
I feel like I am not doing a good job of explaining my biases, and obviously I'm exploring here a bit, so don't take everything I say as an absolute.
I surely would not pass up the chance to build a great par-5 if there was a great one sitting there for my first hole. Design dilemmas are usually about what to do if there isn't a great hole sitting there. For par-5's, that usually means adding more bunkers and creating different lines of play, but that's just the sort of thing I would tend to refrain from on the opening hole.
What about sacarafing a weak par five opening hole to preserve eight excellent following holes??
-
Jud:
I pretty much never go to the driving range, anyway, which is one reason I've always felt like a forgiving opening tee shot is a good idea.
All:
I feel like I am not doing a good job of explaining my biases, and obviously I'm exploring here a bit, so don't take everything I say as an absolute.
I surely would not pass up the chance to build a great par-5 if there was a great one sitting there for my first hole. Design dilemmas are usually about what to do if there isn't a great hole sitting there. For par-5's, that usually means adding more bunkers and creating different lines of play, but that's just the sort of thing I would tend to refrain from on the opening hole.
What about sacarafing a weak par five opening hole to preserve eight excellent following holes??
Randy:
Sometimes you have to make exactly that trade-off.
However, the hole you described above doesn't sound weak at all, it sounds too difficult. I think, in your shoes, I would have gone for the par-4, unless it made par = 34 and the client wouldn't go for that. I would only choose to fight the ground for the par-5 if I was sure I was eventually going to win.
-
Mr. Doak,
Your right it not a weak hole, just a difficult hole and what makes it more complex, is the green and the surroundings are one of the best on the course for my liking anyways and the second shot is also strong. I think only one of the stronger approach shots is on the final hole, as it should be. So how i see it now, is the first punch has the power to knock out the best but if you survive, your in for a hell of a ride, is that so bad? Everything has it cost and personally I would prefer that then lose basic design concepts of having one and ten tee near the putting and hotel ect. But the recent judgements have made me doubtful and take a second look. And when it gets this complex, the answers donīt jump out, black and white. Anyways I will post the routing in the near future and hole by hole description with photos. Just waiting for the sheep fescue to mature and grow to give some needed framing.
-
Tom Doak,
Some interesting thoughts RE: Par 5s but I think it is slightly wrong to describe Par 5s as a group. Whilst they don't have the variety of par 4s, they do still have some variety.
For example, I was none too fussed about the Par 5 opener at Barnbougle when it opened but think that the first at St Andrews Beach is almost the perfect opening hole (other than the blindness of the approach holding up the field).
My thoughts would be that a good opening tee shot should allow the player to swing reasonably freely with their driver to ease their way into the round. I can handle an opening bogey but really don't want one bad swing to lead to triple bogey.There should obviously be some reward for a good drive but a bad drive should not be unduly punished. On an opening hole par 5, these characteristics should hold equally true for the second shot, IMO.
At Barnbougle the opening teeshot had a nice wide fairway however, the second shot landing area was quite small and restrictive (although the light rough has been widened over time.) To go for the green or take on the second shot bunker (if in range) was a big risk of a lost ball for a player not warmed up and often the second shot was a defensive layup.
At St Andrews Beach however, the second shot landing area was a minimum of 65 yards wide. There was always a feeling that the player could swing freely on this shot without getting into too much trouble. Two long straight shots are well rewarded with a view of the green with the third shot, and this is a big help if one wants to make par or birdie.
To me it is just a perfectly balanced openning hole in that it required good shots to play it well but average warm up shots still give a good chance of keeping the ball in play and making par or bogey. The player always feels he can swing freely on his opening two shots - two good shots equals a 40-80 yard pitch with a view of the green. Two average shots equals a blind 6 iron-9 iron approach.
In the same vein, whilst I haven't been there, I would imagine that the eighth or second at Augusta would be far better starting holes than the 13th or 15th and I hope the reasons are obvious.
-
Tom,
As someone who voted for the first hole as the least interesting on the course, I can say that that is not necessarily a bad thing and it has very little to do with it being a par 5 and more to do with the fact that that course seems to be filled with great holes. I am only opposed to an opening par 5 for two specific scenerios. 1) if the course is a busy course, thus pace of play prohibits it or 2) it is followed by a par 3. I think Peter said it very well and many others share my same view that I prefer a gentle opening hole. Not so gentle that it is a waste of a hole (this is definitely not the case with 1 at Dismal), but not so challenging that one goes in expecting bogey. In this way a par 5 can be ideal. It allows the player who may not be warmed up and may have some nerves to get a drive in play. I think that #1 at Pacific does this fantastically. The one place where I think that a gentle opening 5 can actually be better than a gentle opening 4 is that it allows the player to hit driver off the bat, and to have the chance to score if the drive is hit well or to not be overly punished if that first shot comes off a bit squirelly.
-
Most of my feelings have been expressed here. I don't hate a par 5 as an opener. I don't love it. If I had to choose, I would probably lean toward having a par 5 opener.
I grew up on a course with a par 5 opener, I was a member at two clubs that have a par 5 opener, my current club has a par 4 opener.
My feelings on a par 5 opener are probably this: It needs to be long enough so that a small percentage of players can go for the green in two. I would like to see it longer than 525 from the back tees. I think guys waiting to go for a par 5 green in two creates a poor experience out of the box for the group on the tee. I'd rather have people not have to wait on the first tee and have them potentially get irritated later.
Just as important, in my opinion, is the hole after a par 5 opener. I'd like to see it be a hole that doesn't have the potential to be a bottleneck from a pace of play perspective.
-
I don't care what the par of a hole is, no one should be allowed to start a round until the first green is clear.
-
Works well at both Flossmoor and Olympia Fields North. New tee box on the 1st at OFCC pushes it back in the 650 range. With the nasty fairway bunkers it is far from an easy opener.
-
On the extreme opposite end of the "friendly handshake" opening, our course starts with the 1st and 3rd handicap holes, a par 4 that is 450/470 (white and blue tees) and then a 420/435 par 4. On the plus side for #1, there is only one bunker on the left about 40 yards from the green, a former fairway bunker on the left at 220-230 from the tee on the left was taken out about 15 years ago. In terms of flow of play, typically at least one person in every group has their tee shot in position to possibly reach the green, so the pace of play on 1 and 2 isn't too bad.
In the past discussions have come up about potentially making changes to #1 to convert it to a short par 5 (I think possibly our 15-20 year old "master plan" from architect Brian Huntley suggested this) but with a new expansion to our cart barn I don't think it's a possibility unless we would move the 9th green, which I don't see happening.
Most of our members simply look at 1 and 2 as an opportunity to get a head start on an excellent round if you can go 4-4. 5-5, or worse, is more the norm.
Can't say I'd be an advocate for converting our #1 to a par 5. They would definitely have to toughen up the approach area to prevent all players from taking a crack at the green.
-
An opening par 5 is wonderful, especially if a "gentle handshake". The 1st at the Doak Course fits this theme but the green will be a challenge, especially back right. Nice to have a birdie chance with a tough second and third lurking.
-
I don't believe there is an "easy opening hole" in golf. I've watched far to many really really good players step up on the first tee and make terrible swings. The general difficulty of a 1st hole is that it's the first hole. It has nothing to do with yards....just the inches between your ears.
Mr. Doak...you mentioned in an early post about liking the idea of a Par 5 as a 19 hole in matches that need extra holes....my eyebrow raised only because par 5's are usually the holes where strokes fall...and nobody like to loose in extra holes to a net anything.
Of my very shallow list of courses (150 or so), I can only come up with 3 that I can remember having par 5 openers....and I like all three courses.
-
We have a gentle par 5 opener at our club
The only thing that is difficult is the green
I like a par 5 opener!
-
The Olympic Club Ocean Course also opens with a par-5. I think it is a tougher hole than #1 on the Lake.
Golspie changed the opening hole from a par-4 to a par-5 a couple of years ago by moving the tee back and shifting the fairway. I think it was a change for the better. Now, when I make a 6 on the first hole, I am only 1-over par for the round! ;)
-
My home club also has a par 5 opener which the green complex is the major defense of the hole.
I am okay by that.
-
Since I've typically arrived at the course about five minutes before I tee off on #1, with a few practice swings being my only warmup, I've never personally been a fan of a really demanding first hole. All I want is for it to not be overly penal, that is, no water or OB or lost ball resulting from a merely bad, rather than terrible, shot. I'd like it to allow a decent opportunity to scratch out a bogey if played with zero good shots (but again, zero terrible shots) Par 5s on the opener bug me only insofar as I feel like I'm probably giving up a birdie opportunity on a par 5 since I won't string together the two good shots right out of the gate that would required to translate the birdie opportunity into an actual birdie.
At a place like Dismal where I'm there for the golf and may actually find my way to a range to hit a dozen or two balls before starting out I've got no issues at all with starting with a par 5. If birdie is starting to look unlikely after two shots I can't blame the hole itself or lack of warmup as the cause, only my having hit one or more crappy shots :)
-
I was always casually against it until having played the opening hole at Boston GC. Its a reachable par 5 with a good drive, but you have to hit a long iron or hybrid off a slightly downhill lie to an essentailly island green. The all or nothing shot gets your blood flowing early, and can jump start the round with a birdie or a possible eagle.
Mark
-
In my mind the key to a good opening par 5 (pace of play-wise) is a good starter. If the group on the tee are good players they should be held back until the group ahead is on the green. If they fire away when the group ahead is just out of range then they may have to wait a long time if they are going for it in two. I understand this is not always possible but waiting on the first hole puts everyone in a black mood.
-
... but waiting on the first hole puts everyone in a black mood.
I would rather wait on the first tee than anywhere else on the course. Just hit a few more putts on the practice green until it is your time to go.
-
... but waiting on the first hole puts everyone in a black mood.
I would rather wait on the first tee than anywhere else on the course. Just hit a few more putts on the practice green until it is your time to go.
I was unclear. Waiting in the fairway on the 1st puts everyone in a black mood. Waiting on the tee is no problem - as you say a few extra putts, a few more swings to loosen up or time to get the days bets in order.
-
A quick count of my new designs shows I use a par 5 about a third of the time. It doesn't really matter to me.
I do care about sequence and speed of play on the opening hole. For that, I think you need a good length hole so that any duffed tee shot gets hit right away, not waiting for the group to clear. Of course, par 5's do this, as do par long par 4's where we leave enough length for a max second of 200, after a dubbed shot of under 100 yards, even from the white tees.
The problem on par 5 holes is you don't want a reachable par 5. Figuring that the 320 yard hitters won't be playing my course very often, we keep them under 600 yards (if just barely, or add a button tee for that 1%) because for the average good player, even 560 is not reachable very often, and keeping it that short and/or further middle tee adjustments, makes it an easier true three shot hole for others.
If its easy or hard, I doubt it would affect many "great courses" attempts. Even the best courses have a few easy holes once in a while.
BTW, I also believe a first hole ought to be visually good, even if easy, and its a bonus if it looks good from the clubhouse, where golfers get to see it not only playing, but in the restaurant, etc. One of my favorite first holes is a gentle dogleg right, with a series of target bunkers facing on the outside/left side of the fw - visually good, and not likely to snare many golfers on the first hole.
-
I agree that the pace of play issue on the opening hole is an important one to consider at most courses. I doubt it's a major consideration at Dismal.
-
I personally like courses that start with a good long par 4. It gives me a chance to get a couple of full swings under my belt and if I make a bogie I'm ok with it since it's a tough hole anyway (lost boll opportunities are a no-no on the first hole in my book - I hate having a round blow up too early). I mostly look at par 5's as a chance to get one back and would rather be into the round to take that chance as opposed to on the first hole and still a little cold.
-
Tom D: What I was going to pose is as follows:
- Who is your client (ie pubic venue or private club)?
Is the client looking for the next tour stop or concerned with pace of play?
If pace of play is a real concern Jeff B hit the nail on the head - the opening hole must be a true 3 shot hole or the course jams up right out of the shoot. With a true 3 shotter, you can have a group on the tee, one in the fairway playing their 2nd/3rd shots and one on the green. A short par 5/ par 4.5 will jam things up as the big hitters will go for the green in 2, spray a shot, look for a lost ball and clog the flow of play.
Add to hole #1 a medium length par 4 as hole #2 and then perhaps either a slightly longer par 4 or a short 3, pace of play should be ok.
If the facility is going to be the next tour stop and private, whate ver works best to make the owners/members content.
-
Certainly in the commercial world you dont want a situation where people wait to play a long shot into a green, miss it right or left then chip and putts. Ideally you want to a sub 400 yarder par 4.
I just looked at my openers from the normal tees:
380 - 295 - 100 - 395 - 565 - 365 - 340 - 380 - 325 - 390 - 400 - 410 - 365
I would say the real ones to avoid are 200-250 yard par 3. Although I have not done a 500 yard par 5, I would and I think largely they would be reasonable as 90% of play wont be getting on in 2.
-
I think it really depends on the practice facilities and the ability to hit a driver at the range. Many courses don't allow drivers at their ranges ( for longer hitters ) and starting on a Par 5 when you haven't had the ability to warm up properly with your Driver is a bummer.
I also think that having an excellent scoring opportunity for better players on the first hole isn't my favorite, especially on difficult golf courses where birdies are scarce. You go out, not quite in rhythm or feel for the day and make a par on an score-able par 5 and you will feel like you left something on the table and now pressure is on for the rest of the day because you left one of the few birdie opportunities slip by.
-
The best opening holes make a statement about the course you are going to play that day. The opening shot at Sand Hills tells you it will be a special day. Of Tom's courses I have played the tee shot at Stoneagle probably does the best job of communicating the experience.
If an opening hole does not communicate something, there should be a good reason for the decision to use the hole.
-
The Trump course in Scotland opens with a par 5. It is "The World's Greatest Golf Course." Enough said.
http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=308640&ssid=196890&vnf=1
-
The Trump course in Scotland opens with a par 5. It is "The World's Greatest Golf Course." Enough said.
http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=308640&ssid=196890&vnf=1
That is awesome!! Great post Mike.
-
If pace of play is a real concern Jeff B hit the nail on the head - the opening hole must be a true 3 shot hole or the course jams up right out of the shoot. With a true 3 shotter, you can have a group on the tee, one in the fairway playing their 2nd/3rd shots and one on the green. A short par 5/ par 4.5 will jam things up as the big hitters will go for the green in 2, spray a shot, look for a lost ball and clog the flow of play.
Memorial Park is the busiest course in Houston.
It has a reachable par 5 opener.
It never backs up.
Cheers
-
My favorite courses all have a common thread. Moderate par 4's as the opener. NGLA, Ballyneal, Wolf Point, Pine Valley, and Oakmont. Add in my next tier of course I love and you see the preference futher develop (Crystal Downs, Pac Dunes, Bandon Trails, Palmetto, Old Mac and Plainfield). Come to think of it, only one of my very favorite courses has a par 5 as an opener (Riviera). I can think of two other courses I like a lot that have par 5's (Kingsley and Colorado GC).
I think the difficulty of a par 5 opener is the same as any par 5: designing the second shot. But that is partially a superficial analysis. I think it goes deeper. So many courses are sited in a way that the clubhouse is on a prominent piece of property. This would mean that eight of the courses I listed above--if they had a par 5 as an opener--would have a downhill tee shot followed by an uphill second. No one likes a blind/uphill second shot with a wood or long iron that early in a round.
It wasn't until recently that I paid a lot of attention to the difficulty of the approach shot on an opening hole. But in walking Friars Head with a couple of friends, they commented on how difficult the approach shot could be and how that took a little bit away from the stellar luster of the course. Interesting observation.
As someone that cares deeply about how DR2 is recieved, I am glad to see that Tom and crew did not go the route of some other par 5 openers and "jazz it up." I think benign to moderate openers are underrated in golf, and based on my lists above, I don't see why more architects don't try to ease players into hitting great shots, rather than require it right off the bat.
-
My favorite courses all have a common thread. Moderate par 4's as the opener. NGLA, Ballyneal, Wolf Point, Pine Valley, and Oakmont. Add in my next tier of course I love and you see the preference futher develop (Crystal Downs, Pac Dunes, Bandon Trails, Palmetto, Old Mac and Plainfield). Come to think of it, only one of my very favorite courses has a par 5 as an opener (Riviera). I can think of two other courses I like a lot that have par 5's (Kingsley and Colorado GC).
I think the difficulty of a par 5 opener is the same as any par 5: designing the second shot. But that is partially a superficial analysis. I think it goes deeper. So many courses are sited in a way that the clubhouse is on a prominent piece of property. This would mean that eight of the courses I listed above--if they had a par 5 as an opener--would have a downhill tee shot followed by an uphill second. No one likes a blind/uphill second shot with a wood or long iron that early in a round.
It wasn't until recently that I paid a lot of attention to the difficulty of the approach shot on an opening hole. But in walking Friars Head with a couple of friends, they commented on how difficult the approach shot could be and how that took a little bit away from the stellar luster of the course. Interesting observation.
As someone that cares deeply about how DR2 is recieved, I am glad to see that Tom and crew did not go the route of some other par 5 openers and "jazz it up." I think benign to moderate openers are underrated in golf, and based on my lists above, I don't see why more architects don't try to ease players into hitting great shots, rather than require it right off the bat.
Ben-You think #1 at Oakmont is a moderate par 4? 482/441/423 # 1 handicap hole with a terrifying approach to a front to back sloping green. Has to be one of the toughest openers on the planet. :o
-
Ben-You think #1 at Oakmont is a moderate par 4? 482/441/423 # 1 handicap hole with a terrifying approach to a front to back sloping green. Has to be one of the toughest openers on the planet. :o
Tim,
I never said my argument was perfect. But of those openers, if the toughest hole is Oakmont, I'm okay with that. Playing it from the correct tees, the hole will play shorter--much shorter in my experience--than the yardage suggests. I think you can get away with a weak approach shot and still make par if you chip and putt well. I also think that part of the difficulty of Oakmont #1 has nothing to do with the golf hole, but the OB in close promimity to the right side of the hole. That's an intimidating first tee shot for a slicer like me.
-
Ben:
You obviously don't remember the opening hole at Crystal Downs very well, either. I have never heard it called "moderate".
-
Ben-You think #1 at Oakmont is a moderate par 4? 482/441/423 # 1 handicap hole with a terrifying approach to a front to back sloping green. Has to be one of the toughest openers on the planet. :o
Tim,
I never said my argument was perfect. But of those openers, if the toughest hole is Oakmont, I'm okay with that. Playing it from the correct tees, the hole will play shorter--much shorter in my experience--than the yardage suggests. I think you can get away with a weak approach shot and still make par if you chip and putt well. I also think that part of the difficulty of Oakmont #1 has nothing to do with the golf hole, but the OB in close promimity to the right side of the hole. That's an intimidating first tee shot for a slicer like me.
Ben- Since when does out of bounds have nothing to do with the golf hole? You know better than that. Additionally the idea of a weak approach being overcome by solid chipping and putting is pretty universal for most golf holes and is a weak argument in the context you are using as far as trying to explain away the difficulty. You have to do better than that or just admit that you were not going to sneak that by us. You can dismiss my comments if you like but see Tom Doak`s subsequent post regarding Crystal Downs for more of the same. Like them as an opener but don`t go any farther trying to sell them as moderate.
-
Tim,
Whoa, insult my analysis, but don't tell me I "know better." I do know better ;D, that's why I mentioned OB. How do we define a hole's difficulty? I hope that when a ball sails out of bounds on #1 at Oakmont, that the score attributed to that OB is attached to the #1 hole at Oakmont. I can't imagine how OB in close proximity to a fairway doesn't affect the hole's difficulty frankly.
In fact, I think Bill Coore illustrates quite well how OB can have a dramatic affect on how a golf hole plays. #2 at TSN is a fantastic example.
A weak, short approach at Oakmont has a very solid chance of bouncing forward to the playing surface. This is a much different concept than a miss on the same course at #2 green. Maybe moderate was a poor choice of words, but I certainly don't look at it as the picture of difficulty.
Tom is correct that I missed part of what makes #1 at Crystal difficult. Then again, no one has ever accused me of having a good mind when it comes to golf. But I remember the hole well enough to know that the drive seemed moderate from the elevated tee, and the appraoch is indeed tough, but not terrifying in my mind. I am not avery good golfer by any means, and neither of those holes are in the top 5 of ones that scare me the most on their respective courses.
I must applaud you though with how well you tore apart my argument. It wasn't my best effort. I should've stopped posting and stayed on vacation longer. However, the fact remains that all 10 of my favorite courses start with a par 4 that I like, and don't find too overly hard. That was really my biggest point.
-
The only par 5 opener I've ever disliked is the first at Bayview north of Toronto. Besides having to worry about hitting the group playing up the 9th fairway to your left, or the row of homes tight against the fairway on the right, it's also the first of two back-to-back par 5s which open the round.
If you don't like a par 5 opener, what do you think of two par 5s to start?
-
Ben-No worries and thanks for the reply. By the way that is a heck of a lineup for opening holes. :)
-
Tom - I think the result of this thread is that it does not matter if the opening hole is a par 4 or 5 :)
-
Tom - I think the result of this thread is that it does not matter if the opening hole is a par 4 or 5 :)
Duly noted.
-
Tom - I think the result of this thread is that it does not matter if the opening hole is a par 4 or 5 :)
In honor of Royal Lytham & St Anne's, would a par 3 opener be acceptable?
-
I am saying nothing new here. I think a par 5 opener is not a good idea due to 1. pace of play out of gates and 2. 3 shot holes much harder for mid to high handicappers
-
We double-tee front and back during the summer so we have two options: the front starts 4-3 and the back 5-3. The front ALWAYS backs up on the second hole while the par 3 on the back clears about half the time.
The first hole is the #18 HC giving good golfers a birdie putt. The par 5 10th is probably the easiest par 5, second shortest with slightly downhill green so theres a turbo boost which provides options, making it a more fun opener where you can assess where your game is at and decide whether a potential blow-up so early is really worth it.
Unfortunately theres nowhere to hide on either of the next par 3s though (water, woods, OOB).
So I dont mind a par 5 opener, but would prefer it to have options and not overly penal but then I say that about all holes. So, full circle?: go ahead and just build the best hole possible, par (and length) be damned?
-
Guys,
We're veering a bit off topic here. We're talking specifically about Dismal II I believe. Therefore:
1. Pace of play, while a serious consideration for all public courses and even some privates, is not an issue at a remote National Membership club. People aren't flying and driving to the sand hills for tee times stacked up every 7 minutes!
2. Par 5- Sounds like this is what the best routing has given Tom on the first, there is no other option (?). Sounds as if it's not the most dramatic part of the property so the real question is how difficult to make it. Seems as if the consensus is that it shouldn't be overly difficult as an opener, but not dumbed down either. Therefore some type of happy medium must be achieved as far as bunkering, interesting but receptive green and bail-out options for the higher handicap.
-
I like par-5's as opening holes. It's nice not having to be very precise with your opening tee shot knowing you can still get it back in play with your 2nd shot if you miss the fairway, hit it into a bunker, etc. And yes, as a 19th hole they are ideal when trying to break a match.
I don't quite understand the pace of play point. That might be an issue on a course that has full tee times every 9 min, but if it's not reachable for 95% of players (500+ yards) it can't make that big of a difference.
-
I like par-5's as opening holes. It's nice not having to be very precise with your opening tee shot knowing you can still get it back in play with your 2nd shot if you miss the fairway, hit it into a bunker, etc. And yes, as a 19th hole they are ideal when trying to break a match.
I don't quite understand the pace of play point. That might be an issue on a course that has full tee times every 9 min, but if it's not reachable for 95% of players (500+ yards) it can't make that big of a difference.
Pat - I agree with you 100%. Be it a 4 or 5, the more "gentle handshake" is my preference. To me, par on the the hole is subordinate to difficulty. It's less fun to get knocked down on #1 and I also hate giving strokes on the opener when I may not yet be in a groove.
A first hole shouldn't be too easy (whatever that is) but shouldn't be over the top difficult.
Out here, pace of play isn't much of an issue as the first tee isn't usually crowded.
-
I generally think that the first and last holes should be near the end of the handicap stroke allotment. The only thing worse than giving a stroke on the first playoff hole, is the higher-handicap player not getting one before the match is over.
-
I generally think that the first and last holes should be near the end of the handicap stroke allotment. The only thing worse than giving a stroke on the first playoff hole, is the higher-handicap player not getting one before the match is over.
Tom,
Stroke indices are something that we are considering reviewing at my home course.
From reading numerous guidelines it would appear that the general consensus is that holes 1, 9, 10 & 18 should have indices 9 thru 12.
You wouldn't believe how contentious people's views on stroke index allotments really are........!!
Neil.
-
For reference, the first hole at Kingsley is the #4 handicap hole, so I'm almost always getting a bump....Of course I'm often getting a double as well....It actually works out fine in match play, particularly that most matches are settled on #9 rather than hiking all the way up to #1 green and back. For the scorecard and pencil set it's a very rough start, but Kingsley generally treats medal play fanatics with disdain....