[Jeff_Brauer]

A nice illustration of the "staggered bunker" concept, and of TD's idea to put second shot LZ bunkers just short of the green, where you can carry them and still have a bit of room for runout.  I don't think they are a full 50 yards in front, though.


I also doubt Ross figured the bunkers at 350 would someday require distance control for the longest hitters, i.e., carry 276 over the first bunker on the right, but not so far you roll into the next one.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have mentioned this hole many times and unfortunately, it is NLE. The old nine at Westward Ho! was brilliant. Neither of the first two shots had much danger in them. The fairway off the tee was miles wide and the rest of the fairway was miles wide as well. It was the green and fronting bunker that created the dilemma. Even for long hitters holding the green was difficult in two. There was gunch behind the green and the green was shallow, sloped from front to back and had a lion's mouth type bunker in the front middle of the green. Depending on the pin you had to hit your second shot with the best chance of getting the third shot close. It was one of my favorite par fives in the world.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The second shot for a long hitter on any par-5 now is aiming at the green.  So you've got to design the green to accept a very long approach.

Why?


Surely a par 5 should be intended to be a three shotter. If Bertie Big Bollocks wants to go for the green from 250 yards he’s welcome to - but why make it easier for him?


Design the green to repel very long shots and be accessible from 100-150 yards.


I don’t see why we should pander to these guys and reward distance over finesse.


I like to see a distinct difference between a long par 4 and a par 5.


I agree about the idea of the bunkers 50 yards short...

[Kalen Braley]

From personal high-capper experience, those bunkers 50 yards short of the green come into play quite a bit for 90+ shooters too.

For a typical 525 yard par 5 hole its pretty easy to hit two mediocre shots and now you're faced with 190 left for your 3rd with 3 iron or 5 wood in hand, and hopes to still save par. Hit that next shot thin or don't catch it well and you're easily into it.  But basically every bunker on the course is in play for us chops, so there's that too. 

Whereas the mid-capper, (6-13) wasn't likely going for it in two anyways, and will be sitting 100-120 out for their 3rd and its entirely out of play.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The best par 5 I know is the 13th at Silloth. The drive is pretty ordinary to a big wide flat fairway. Everything revolves around the second shot through a narrow saddle in the dunes up onto a second fairway on a higher level. The green at the end of it is an upturned basin that is almost impossible to hold from more than 150 yards.


Oh, and it plays into the prevailing wind - seldom less than 20mph!


I have seen the green made in two, but it is a rare occurrence - even at only 500 yards.


There are no bunkers.

[Duncan Cheslett]

From personal high-capper experience, those bunkers 50 yards short of the green come into play quite a bit for 90+ shooters too.

For a typical 525 yard par 5 hole its pretty easy to hit two mediocre shots and now you're faced with 190 left for your 3rd with 3 iron or 5 wood in hand, and hopes to still save par. Hit that next shot thin or don't catch it well and you're easily into it.  But basically every bunker on the course is in play for us chops, so there's that too. 

Whereas the mid-capper, (6-13) wasn't likely going for it in two anyways, and will be sitting 100-120 out for their 3rd and its entirely out of play.

Surely a high handicapper has no real expectation to “save par” after hitting two mediocre shots on a 525 yard hole?


A bogey is a par to an 18 handicapper!

[Thomas Dai]

I have mentioned this hole many times and unfortunately, it is NLE. The old nine at Westward Ho! was brilliant. Neither of the first two shots had much danger in them. The fairway off the tee was miles wide and the rest of the fairway was miles wide as well. It was the green and fronting bunker that created the dilemma. Even for long hitters holding the green was difficult in two. There was gunch behind the green and the green was shallow, sloped from front to back and had a lion's mouth type bunker in the front middle of the green. Depending on the pin you had to hit your second shot with the best chance of getting the third shot close. It was one of my favorite par fives in the world.

Tommy,
Great call. The 9th greensite would make a terrific par-3 on it's own. The 13th too. Isn't there a quote from some architect way back in time along the lines of "A par-5 is really just a par-3 but one where it takes a good player two decent shots to reach the tee."?
And sometimes less is more especially with relatively level terrain ... "Where do I aim" confusion.
Duncan,
Spot on. A bogey on a par-5 is indeed a 'par' to an 18-hcp. And realistically how often can average amateurs, none of us of posting herein of course, lurkers and the like (!), hit 1-2-3-4-5-6 decent shots in a row and position them in the best place for their next shot? Pitches and chips and putts too. Not as often as they'd like I venture. Expectations, temptation, ego etc. A hole that seems innocent and ripe for the picking can often be a place of disaster, and disaster usually effects players for a fair few holes afterwards.
atb

[Sean_A]

Not being a fan of par 5s as a general design concept, I am one to think a few general things

1. Should be reachable for a decent player. This in and of itself is of some interest, even without clever architecture.

2. It must be an extreme case to build proper three shotters because added length plays into the hands of long hitters, uses more land and costs more to maintain. Its a rarity that really good proper three shotters are built.

3. All the shots should be of interest. If not, try to find a way to build a good par 4 instead.

4. Generally speaking, par 5s need at least one cool, standout feature.

5. Despite the above, for the sake of variety one or two par 5s are generally helpful.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

1. Should be reachable for a decent player. This in and of itself is of some interest, even without clever architecture.

Reachable, yes.


Receptive to a very long approach? I don’t necessarily think so.

[Thomas Dai]

1. Should be reachable for a decent player. This in and of itself is of some interest, even without clever architecture.

Reachable, yes.
Receptive to a very long approach? I don’t necessarily think so.

If a par-5 is reachable in two it’s not a true par-5 and a birdie made in such a manner isn’t a true birdie it’s an ego-birdie.
Atb

[Sean_A]

1. Should be reachable for a decent player. This in and of itself is of some interest, even without clever architecture.

Reachable, yes.

Receptive to a very long approach? I don’t necessarily think so.

Thats right, an exceptional shot should be required to hit and hold the green. However, that doesn't mean luck should be eliminated.

Thomas

Once you go down the route of "true par 5s", we are talking 600 yarders.  I can't think of many more things golf doesn't need.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

The second shot for a long hitter on any par-5 now is aiming at the green.  So you've got to design the green to accept a very long approach.

Why?

Surely a par 5 should be intended to be a three shotter. If Bertie Big Bollocks wants to go for the green from 250 yards he’s welcome to - but why make it easier for him?

Duncan:


I am not pandering to the guys who can reach the green in two.  I am trying to accommodate the majority of golfers who can barely reach the green in three.


The big guys are perfectly happy to get it up there somewhere around the green [whether they hold it or not], and take their four.



I understand your point of view, but mine has been fairly successful, so I'll stick with it -- with the occasional exception, of course.

[Tim Martin]

Tillinghast’s “Great Hazard” routinely put emphasis on the second shot.

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, what does it mean to "design the green to accept a very long approach"?


I don't think of holes like 3 and 15 at Pac Dunes or 3 at CommonGround as being especially receptive to long approaches. 8 at Dismal Red takes a pretty deftly played ball from 200+ yards to hold, if I remember correctly. Same with 16 at Ballyneal - which may be your only par 5 that I've actually reached in under regulation!


I'm interested by that comment, but it makes sense to me given the reality of the median player likely approaching those holes from 150+ yards most of the time, which is likely a mid-iron or more. I think there's a difference between "accepting a long approach" and "coddling an undisciplined play from someone with a lot of swing speed."


In all the cases above, there's trouble lurking for poorly played shots and angles available that a person reaching in 3 can take advantage of to help mitigate some of that trouble. I sorta look at them as holes that "defend par (or birdie, for the strong player) on/around the green," rather than defending par from 150 yards further back where the average player will always get punished more frequently than the guy whose ball flies 100 ft above the trouble. The player tacking his way up Dismal Red's 8th can attempt to play well left on their second shot to take some of the risk of the third out of play. Maybe that shot's boring to some players as the ideal approach position isn't explicitly defended, but it's also not explicitly defined. It's the guy who stays mentally engaged who gets a chance to create an easier third.


I'm thinking of it as similar to how a par 4 can be interesting even without a bunch of fairway bunkers - potentially even moreso if it instead leans on a player understanding the final 50 yards of the hole to dictate how they play an otherwise "unchallenged" tee shot.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, what does it mean to "design the green to accept a very long approach"?


I don't think of holes like 3 and 15 at Pac Dunes or 3 at CommonGround as being especially receptive to long approaches. 8 at Dismal Red takes a pretty deftly played ball from 200+ yards to hold, if I remember correctly. Same with 16 at Ballyneal - which may be your only par 5 that I've actually reached in under regulation!


I'm interested by that comment, but it makes sense to me given the reality of the median player likely approaching those holes from 150+ yards most of the time, which is likely a mid-iron or more. I think there's a difference between "accepting a long approach" and "coddling an undisciplined play from someone with a lot of swing speed."


In all the cases above, there's trouble lurking for poorly played shots and angles available that a person reaching in 3 can take advantage of to help mitigate some of that trouble. I sorta look at them as holes that "defend par (or birdie, for the strong player) on/around the green," rather than defending par from 150 yards further back where the average player will always get punished more frequently than the guy whose ball flies 100 ft above the trouble. The player tacking his way up Dismal Red's 8th can attempt to play well left on their second shot to take some of the risk of the third out of play. Maybe that shot's boring to some players as the ideal approach position isn't explicitly defended, but it's also not explicitly defined. It's the guy who stays mentally engaged who gets a chance to create an easier third.


I'm thinking of it as similar to how a par 4 can be interesting even without a bunch of fairway bunkers - potentially even moreso if it instead leans on a player understanding the final 50 yards of the hole to dictate how they play an otherwise "unchallenged" tee shot.

Jason:


Those holes are all good examples of my philosophy.  None of them are easy to fly it on and hold -- the greens are some of the smaller ones on those courses.  But all of them give you at least half the green to run the ball on, even if it's nothing like the "ramp" that Jim Colbert asked Jeff Brauer for.  On most of them you are better off bouncing it on with a 4-wood [which will land on a low trajectory and roll up a slope] than with a 9-iron.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()