News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Please note, each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us and we will be in contact.


mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2008, 10:19:33 AM »
For as much as I play #9 at RG I only recently have been observing the ridge that flows through the fairway at around 150 yards from the green. For the average golfer who hits from the member tees this area kills the ball and keeps it from running on toward about 125 yards.

   I wanted to wait to see if others thought this 5 qualified.

   I believe that the shorter of the member tees should be moved back up the hill closer to the back tee. Why play it from a 1926 distance ?


   Interestingly, during the USAM Qualifying a few years ago the hole was rather drab for those very good players. They laid up to wedges and generally made par. The dispersion of scores was narrow. For all of the crying about our #7 being" too easy" a par 5, the scoring varied quite widely.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 10:41:25 AM by michael_malone »
AKA Mayday

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #51 on: July 31, 2008, 10:55:19 AM »

#15 at Pine Valley is longer than #7.  I do know someone who reached #15 in 2.  That is the best par 5 I've every played.

Chris,

I believe that Gary Groh was the first golfer to hit # 15 in two.

My friend Peter Kapsimalis Jr was probably the second, and, the first amateur to hit it in two.

David Stamm,

I think we get misdirected when we context the play of golf holes by the best golfers in the world, the PGA Tour Pros, who probably represent less than one one thousanth of one percent of all golfers.

Par fives have a specific role in the play of the game, and that's to challenge the golfer to hit three good consecutive shots.

That's a meaningful test as the element of luck diminishes and the need for proper execution increases when the number of consecutive shots required increases.

If one of architecture's functions is to provide a thorough examination of a golfer's game, then par 5's, real par 5's should be an integral part of that examination.

Par 5's where the third shot is akin to a recovery shot don't provide that examination.

The problem is, that presenting that examination for PGA Tour Pros would probably require an 800+ yard par 5.

However, for the bulk of the golfing universe, par 5's of 500 to 650 are more than ample.

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #52 on: July 31, 2008, 11:08:45 AM »
"Par fives have a specific role in the play of the game, and that's to challenge the golfer to hit three good consecutive shots."

Patrick,

I'm not sure if I agree with this characterization on the role of par 5's.  I think par 5's (1) provide the golfer with an opportunity to reach a green in less than regulation by hitting two great shots or (2) recover from a bad shot and still reach the green in regulation. 

Par 5's don't always require 3 consecutive good shots, although some do.  Bad drive, recovery shot followed by an approach to the green is a pretty standard shot sequence on a par 5.

Adam Sherer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2008, 11:26:38 AM »
Did anyone yet mention 8 at Crystal Downs?




I remember Tom Doak saying that nobody has ever reached the par 5s at Crystal Downs in two shots; the 8th because of its elevation change and the 16th because of its length.

TEPaul:  What about the "Long" hole at NGLA (#9). What is the yardage on that one? It's more of a stretch than #18, minus the elevation change.
"Spem successus alit"
 (success nourishes hope)
 
         - Ross clan motto

Dan Boerger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2008, 11:42:02 AM »


JES -- I played it last Friday and actually had a 12 foot birdie putt (but didn't sink it). Driver, fairway wood and 5 iron. Even with that par, my average would probably be over 7.5! A bruiser of a hole to be sure.

I've never been a fan of the 18th there, but do think they improved the green and surrounds this year.
"Man should practice moderation in all things, including moderation."  Mark Twain

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2008, 11:52:03 AM »
Phil,

Your understanding depends upon whether or not you want to view par 5's in their long historical perspective or within the context of a single snapshot based on today's PGA Tour Pro.

Under your definition, you're describing a long, hard par 4.

A genuine three shot hole should be part of every examination.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2008, 12:04:45 PM »
Dan,

Agreed re: #18...still a tough putting challenge, but not unputtable.  Apparently they are going to do something similar on #7.


#4 is brutal for me.

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2008, 12:10:47 PM »
Pat,

My understand doesn't apply to only tour level players.  Anybody with any length at all, including a hack like me, relishes the opportunity to reach a par 5 in two.  Even somebody who drives the ball 220, and thus can't reach par 5's in two can afford to mishit one of his first two shots and still comfortably reach many par 5's in regulation.  A mishit drive under these assumptions puts a longer par 4 out of reach in regulatioh to this category of player.

Par 5's are a break for everybody no matter how far they hit the ball.

TEPaul

Re: Par 5's that stand the test of time
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2008, 01:38:34 PM »
"TEPaul:  What about the "Long" hole at NGLA (#9). What is the yardage on that one? It's more of a stretch than #18, minus the elevation change."


Adam:

I'd have to find an NGLA card around here to tell you what the yardage of #9 is but it's not long at all by today's standards. Some have even seen really strong players drive the ball clear over the cross hazard which is pretty shocking.

I've said it a number of times on here that in my opinion #9  is the one real weak link hole at NGLA, particularly the second half of it. Apparently Macdonald had a design scheme and concept on that second half which wasn't much different from what I think should be done on that second half but for whatever reason he never did it.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back