[Garland Bayley]

Isn't every shot interesting for someone who can only hit their driver 140 yds.

Somehow these people find golf interesting. When I play with them, they hit it 140 yards to near the center of the fairway, again, and again, and again. That means they match me after every two shots, smash, chip, smash, chip, smash, chip, etc.
I often envy their boring game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I think you have to look at the design and play of par 5's in the context their original dates.

Years ago, I think the narrower disparity between the best, good and the average player permited designing par 5's that appealed to, and challenged each level of player.  There was an effective compression of the levels of play.

Today, I would think that it would be very difficult, if not impossile, to accomodate that widened range of play.

What would it take to design a genuine three shot par 5, absent the element of wind, unique topography and features, that would test the game of a PGA Tour player ?

I would imagine that in terms of yardage you're talking about something in the 650 to 800 yard range.

Now, assuming you built such a hole, how can your present interaction with the architectural features to every level of player ?  

One could argue, that on the drive, multiple tees could bring everyone to the same LZ, but, what happens after that ?

The answer would seem to be designing a hole laced with numerous bunkers/features such that every shot by every player will encounter one of them.

But, would that be overly punitive to the higher handicap ?

[A.G._Crockett]

Warning:  A Rare Rant.

I'm sick and tired of everyone denigrating the par-five and the sentiment that it needs to exceed 550 yards to be unreachable.  

Let's take the second at Cuscowilla.  533 yards from the tips.  Downhill tee shot to boot.  Let's say 40 participants at Dixie Cup each played it twice.  Of 80 tries, how many times was this hole reached in two?  

I'm betting you can count them on one hand, but here's your chance to brag boys.

Mike

Amen.

[Wayne_Kozun]

It is interesting that you conjecture that par 5s are the design weak point of golf courses. Many claim that memorability is one of the aspects that count towards great golf holes. I find that when I think back on the courses I have played, it is the par threes and the par fives that I find memorable. Most of the par fours seem to disappear in a haze of sameness.

This is why I questioned, in a post a few months ago, why do most courses have 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s and 10 par 4s?  Why not 6 of each as playing 395 yd par 4s gets boring after a while.

[TEPaul]

"But, can only exceptional architects design a good to great par 5?"

I'm sure most would not agree what it is that makes for a good to great par 5.

And we sure can't help but admit that what some used to consider to be an interesting or acceptable concept for a real par 5 (the true three shotter) no longer exists in golf.

Look at what Crump wanted to accomplish with his two par 5s at PVGC. He did not want either of them to be hit in two shots---EVER!

On the 7th, in his day, the strategic requirement was to HAVE to hit a very good drive followed by a very good 3 wood just to put yourself in position to REACH the green in THREE shots and rather unbelievably it seems the concept on #15 (which he apparently wasn't very comfortable with before he died) was to string together THREE of your best AND LONGEST shots just to be able to reach the green in three. When you consider Crump felt he was designing that course pretty much JUST for good players, that concept is pretty strong, pretty severe, and virtually non-existent today for the good player.

[ed_getka]

Tom H,
   I think you are on track regarding how much a second shot gives you to think about. I would say as a rough guess, off the top of my head before GCA that 75% of the time I could see no reason on par 5's not to hit it as far as possible on the second shot. That % has dropped significantly in recent years as I primarily play courses recommended by the guys here, where there is a price to pay typically for just blasting away (at least for someone with my handicap )

[Tony_Chapman]

What would it take to design a genuine three shot par 5, absent the element of wind, unique topography and features, that would test the game of a PGA Tour player ?

Patrick - Do you think the 1st and 16th at Sand Hills would challenge the PGA player on a calm day, or am I breaking rules of topography and features?

If this breaks the rules, then yes, it would have to be at least 650 with probably at least one set of cross hazards to carry.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I don't think your premise that the dispersion of abilities was narrower when these holes were built than it is today.  Why do you think it is true and the basis for your conclusions?  That makes no sense to me at all.

Given agronomic conditions and lack of watering, the distance dispersion wasn't as great as exists today where high swing speeds garner exponential results.  

Given that the playing instruments were hickories and blades, the dispersion of ball striking shouldn't be assumed to have been less than exists today.

Now as to the distance question of what the relative yardage is today, that is where there is merit to your argument.  But what do you think the average length of a par 5 was in the classic era?  My guess is that it was somewhere around 470 yards.  Crump and Wilson were demanding more with their really long par 5s that required three outstanding shots to reach the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Chapman,

I don't think that # 1 and # 16 would present any difficulty to the PGA Tour Pros.  I think both holes would play as par 4's for them.

Not to divert the thread, but which hole do you think is the better par 5 for amateurs, and why ?

Wayne,

Dispersion equates to the differential in linear distance, yardage.

If you took the Tour Pros in the 40's and 50's and compared their distances with good amateurs the disparity wasn't staggering.  If  you took the driving distances of good amateurs versus high single digit and low double digit players the disparity wasn't staggering, and if you compared the Tour pros distance to the high single digit and low double digit players it wasn't staggering.  There was a greater compression in the range of play years ago.

Today, those differentials are staggering.

You're also laboring under a false impression.
Golf courses were irrigated 50 years ago and fairways were usually mowed to higher heights then today, preventing roll.

In addition, Mother Nature is no slouch when it comes to irrigating golf courses.   You and others seem to feel that golf courses were browned out, baked out, rock hard surfaces, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I've played Newport when it was greener and lusher and slower than any golf course I've played in the last 50 years.
Mother Nature and typical spring and summer weather patterns produced lush, green conditions in our necks of the woods.

As to the length of par 5's let's just take holes # 5, # 7 and
# 18 at NGLA.   All are at the 500 mark or lower.  AND, they still are.

However, # 5 and # 18 enjoy some unique features that tend to thwart some of the increases in distance.  # 7 however, has had its driving and second shot strategies and features rendered useless by distance.

I think there's a good lesson to be learned by studying the par 5's at NLGA and the configuration of the features that tend to inhibit unbridled length.

[wsmorrison]

"You're also laboring under a false impression.
Golf courses were irrigated 50 years ago and fairways were usually mowed to higher heights then today, preventing roll."

Going back to the time the holes were built you'd have to go back beyond 50 years; more like 75-90 years.  I still think the distance dispersion is relatively the same today versus yesteryear.

"In addition, Mother Nature is no slouch when it comes to irrigating golf courses.  You and others seem to feel that golf courses were browned out, baked out, rock hard surfaces, when nothing could be further from the truth."

I think they were brown and baked as much as nature would allow and that was quite a lot.  Have you checked out Huntingdon Valley CC over the past 20 years?  I have and Scott probably uses far less water there than any other course with an irrigation system. I've only seen Newport once but it was brown and firm.  The photos Donnie has posted of Fishers Island sure look brown.  What is closer to the truth, as you see it, as it relates to conditions on courses in the 1920s?

I've only been to NGLA a few times and your regard for the course is well-founded and well-known.  But the par 5s there are not par 5s for top amateurs and professionals.  If par is the expected score of a scratch player, then NGLA should not be a par 73 but would be,as Tom Paul has advocated, better suited as a par 70 for championship play.  

You say that the par 5s there enjoy some unique features that tend to thwart some of the increases in distance.  I don't know the course well enough, but I don't see it.  You yourself wanted to move the 18th tee behind the current gates.  Why is that if the strategies and designs are so strong?

[Tom_Doak]

I think I agree with John on this.  I think it's a matter of golfer perception.

What golfers like most about par-3's is not strategic but compositional.  The designer has had the chance to arrange the picture from the tee just so, and the player can appreciate the beauty of that picture.

On a par 4, this is less the case, but there is a reasonable chance of understanding from where golfers will be playing their approaches, and there is often a nice overall view of the hole from the tee.

On a par 5, there is no chance for the golfer to see all of the hole at the same time, and no real control over what spot he will be looking at the green from.  The "second shot" on a par five is usually perceived as boring not just because there is nothing specific to accomplish, but because the green target is still not clearly in view and we are no longer able to control the perspective from the tee.

It's all in your head.  On the ground, a lot of par 5's are very interesting, and a lot of wild things can happen.

[Tony_Chapman]

Tony Chapman,

I don't think that # 1 and # 16 would present any difficulty to the PGA Tour Pros.  I think both holes would play as par 4's for them.

Not to divert the thread, but which hole do you think is the better par 5 for amateurs, and why ?

I think they are both wonderful holes, but for amateurs the best par-5 at SH is 14. It's that one fun hole where the player can let loose before the difficult finish.

As far as #1 and #16 go, I would lean toward saying that #16 is the better hole for amateurs at SH despite its length. Basically, there is a small decision on the tee shot about how close you want to be to that bunker on the left. I think the first, presents a very difficult drive and and an ever more difficult approach, especially on the first hole.

[Mark Brown]

Jeff,

I diagree about par 5s. The good ones combine the best of strategic and heroic design. If they're well designed there are a number of ways you can play them. It's an opportunity for a small green if it's a 3-shotter and a large boldly contoursed green if it's a two shotter.

If it's a two shotter then everyon ought to have a chance if they hit two strong shots. The tees should be moved up more so the average golfer has a chance to reach them not just the scratch players

It also gives high-handicappers a chance for a par when he cant reach some of the par 4s in two.

[Scott Cannon]

How about the 8th at LACC? Even if you have a distance to the green you can handle, the shot requires a draw and you are standing on a left to right slope. Right is dead..oh yea, left is dead as well.
There is a story of Fred Couples strarting his second shot left of the trees that guard the left side of the hole and trying to cut it back to the hole. Crazy!

[Doug Siebert]

Central hazards!

That's one thing I've noticed that a lot of great par 5s (reachable or not) have in common, and something that's sorely missing in much of today's architecture.  Where are the Hell Bunkers?  Hell, where are the ordinary bunkers placed in the fairway?  Or maybe a mini-ravine that runs in the direction of play so it can be play around instead of over?

For some reason golfers today seem to find hazards in the fairway unfair, but don't think its unfair to have water, trees, ravines or OB running on one or both sides of a par 5, or a large body of water or ravine to carry off the tee, from the fairway, or both!  When did that crazy situation happen and how do we fix it?

I have played one too many poorly designed par 5s where I'm laying up with a PW, because even if I hit a great drive the forced carry to make the green is a bit too much, but I hit it far enough that PW is all I can hit to stay short of the hazard.  Now that's some awful design, let me tell you!


Bogey,

I wasn't at the Dixie Cup so I have no idea how many reached that 533 yarder, but the question isn't how many were on the putting surface in two, it is how many were able to reach it after their drive.  If you are trying to determine whether a 350 yard hole is reachable in two shots and I'm one of the golfers being tracked to determine success rate, I guess I count as a failure if I hit a 300 yard drive and then chunk my LW into the front bunker?  Its not easy to hit a green from 200+ yards even for good players, so not actually ending up on the putting surface should not be the only measureable of "reachableness".

But I agree with your point that unreachability is perhaps overrated in this thread.  I think the games played to try to make a hole unreachable without making it super-long are worse than just letting players have a go at it in two.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()