[Mark_Rowlinson]

As configured for the Open Championship, Royal Birkdale has par 5s only at numbers 15 and 17.  

West Sussex only has a single par 5, the 1st.

Royal Lytham doesn't have a par 5 after the 11th and, although there are two short par 4s still to come, few players come home in under par from there under championship conditions.

For next year's Open, Royal Liverpool will start at the members' 17th, so the Open course will finish with par 5s at 16 and 18.

Turnberry (again as configured for the Open) only has par 5s at the 7th and 17th, both short of their kind (529 and 497 yards respectively) and easy prey for today's strong men.  However, a number of lady professionals came to grief on the 17th (including Laura Davies) in the most recent Ladies' British Open played there.  Unless you could incorporate holes from the Kintyre course, would you perhaps make the 7th and 17th par 4s for any future Open held there?  That would make par 68.

Saunton East is another course with only two par 5s, both of which are very short of their kind, the 2nd and 15th - 476 and 478 yards respectively.

Royal Waterloo's La Marache course was a frequent host to the Belgian Open on the European Tour some years back.  It ended with three par 5s, 476, 527 and 486 yards respectively.  I can imagine the tour players standing on the 16th tee envisaging taking no more than 9 strokes to finish from there.  I've have been there.  I didn't think it was anything to write home about in comparison with some of the other Belgian courses about which I have enthused on GCA before now.

Penina, Henry Cotton's influential course on the Algarve, has five par 5s in total, four of them on the back nine at 10,11,17 and 18.  

Cascades ends unusually with 3,5,5,3.  Is that a good routing for the course (genuine question)?

Royal Melbourne composite, as played in some recent events, didn't have a par 5 after the 10th - and that was only 483 yards.

Pinehurst #2 as played in the last US Open also had no par 5 after the 610-yard 10th, but I suspect I'd have been hard pressed to have reached any of the par 4s in two shots, save perhaps the 13th, and I certainly would not have had the skills required to hit and hold those greens.

Cypress doesn't have a par 5 after the 10th, either.

Of the 83 courses in Cheshire in 1993 (there are over 100 now) only two ended with consecutive par 5s, Heyrose and Warrington, and neither sets the world alight.

[Jason Topp]

The back nine at Town and Country in St. Paul, MN features the following sequence: 4/3/5/4/3/5/5/5/3.  I have played several member guests there and it is really a fun nine - opportunities for birdies and big numbers without water really coming into play.  

[RE Blanks]

Holston Hills #17 & #18.  

[Kirk Gill]

There's the 17th at Castle Pines - a half-par hole where the pros expect birdie or better.

[RE Blanks]

Also, Gulph Mills has a par 5 finisher that is, I think, in the 430 - 440 range.  The approach is straight uphill to a fantastic green with a nice bunker in the middle.  You might look at the scorecard and think birdie at the last, but this one can be tough.  

[Steve_Lovett]

The Golfers Club at The Dunes at Seville in Florida finishes with 5's at 17 and 18...  Completely different holes - an excellent finish...!

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom

Psychologically,the finish at Yarra Yarra - 16 and 18 are short five's with a short 4 at 17 - was very comforting in a tournament because you always knew you could recover mistakes at the end - kind of the opposite of Carnoustie where you know you had better get to the 15th tee in decent shape.(I never did)

Victoria was never as easy as Yarra because 16 is a really dificult par three and 17 is a three shotter for almost everybody.
18 was a drive and a mid-iron at best in the 2001 Australian Open and all expected to make four.
They should have just called it a par four and let the players deal with the different - and non sensical - alteration of psychology.

8 is really a par four now and a stark contrast to the 600 yard 9th.

[mike_malone]

 I appreciate these comments, because some people think the finish at Rolling Green is "weakish" because the last two holes are not "hard pars". But, I think they are holes where one feels pressure to do well and being that we are  mortal, we screw up.  

    I like all kinds of golf holes, but I don't think a hole needs to be "hard" to be good.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Why not just call the 18th hole a par 3?  It's now the toughest hole in America.  Shortening a hole by 10 yards and "calling" it a par 4 doesn't make it harder; it makes it easier  ... by 10 yards.

[mike_malone]

  Great idea Jim----the longest toughest par 3 in America. That ought to get us some recognition.

[wsmorrison]

RE Blanks

I think the finishing hole at Gulph Mills is 421 yards.  In November 1916 the hole was referred to as a Bogie 5 and a Par 4.  The bunker fronting the green is new from the mind of Gil Hanse.  I like it, how about you?

The first time I played this hole, about 20 years ago, I thought it was a par 4.  I tried a bit too hard off the tee to give myself a shorter approach and proceeded to get a 6.  I honestly think if I knew it was a par 5 I would have played the hole differently.  More boringly for sure.

Jim Coleman and Mike Malone,

Again, par is not an abstract concept.  It is the expected score of a scratch golfer.  Scratch golfers have changed over the years, due to increased athleticism and technology.  Why shouldn't the par associated with a particular hole change as well?  18 at RGGC happens to be one that should change.  Half the hole is downhill, the other uphill.  Most scratch golfers have, in my experience playing with them, less than 200 yards to an uphill green that is wide open in the front.  Is this a par 5 to them?  In fact, it does not seem to be at all and should be a par 4.  

What does today's scratch player expect to shoot on 18 at RGGC?  A 5?  I hardly think so.  We should take a look at the statistics after the super-regional qualifying for the US Amateur and then have empirical evidence.

By the way, Mike who said anything about the relationship between hard and good?    

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
    The problem of "par" is when the scratch golfer will score an average between 4 and 5 on several playings of the hole. It seems to be a 4+ or a 5-. We don't argue about #9 RG as a par 5 (Although into the wind with wet turf , it could be "argued" that it is a 6).

     So, in that sense it is all in your head. You said it yourself. You would play #18 GMGC differently once you know the par. Sounds wierd to me.

   Wayne,

    The "hard" and "good" talk has been on this site in the past and I hear it at RG as well.  It seems that many people get wacked out by tweener par holes.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Call it whatever you want.  Who cares.  Just don't shorten it.  Shortening it makes it easier to shoot a lower score.  I see no reason to make the course easier.  And I don't see how making it shorter makes it better.

[mike_malone]

 There are many holes that do not fit the "round" number very well. Take #18 RG ,for example. If it is wet and cold, which it is for a good bit of the year, or it is dry and hard, which it is also for a good bit of the year then the hole plays very differently.

       The issue is that for alot of the time even the scratch player has trouble getting beyond that right to left slope to an easy lie in the fairway.

   I think a steady diet of this sidehill shot with a long iron makes for a "poor" par four.  To go back to your psychological frame of mind, players would despair at the thought that they "must" get home in two. What is now a challenge for the best players becomes a "pain-in-the-rear".

[mike_malone]

 Jim,
   
    I think the "shortening" can take away this feature that makes the hole fun. I agree-- That is why I like the new tee. Do what we can to keep the fun in the holes.

[Mike_Cirba]

If par is what a scratch player is expected to score, then there are quite a number of courses I can think of where overall par should be revised to 68, 69, etc., including many of our favorites.

Tom Paul has talked about reducing par at NGLA for tournaments to 70 or so.  

If we're looking to defend par, then this is the only realistic way to do it against the best players.

If we're looking at the rest of the golfing world, then please don't give us a steady diet of killer par fours that used to be fives.  

[wsmorrison]

"Call it whatever you want.  Who cares.  Just don't shorten it.  Shortening it makes it easier to shoot a lower score.  I see no reason to make the course easier.  And I don't see how making it shorter makes it better."

You seem overly concerned with length, Jim.  Even more than that, you seem overly concerned with scoring.  You epitomize the USGA mentality.  Any course can be made difficult.  You like trees as part of that equation.  Why not take it further and make all fairways 15 yards wide, grow deep rough, don't rake bunkers (I like this idea by the way), keep everything rock hard (I believe in appropriate maintenance meld specific to each course) and cut and roll the greens throughout the day?  Anything can be taken to an extreme.  But this compromises the architecture if taken beyond extreme and that is often the USGA failure in course set ups.

Of course you wouldn't do all of these things, however some are appropriate to a degree as long as it isn't the nth.  There is great ground for golf at Rolling Green and it should realize its fullest potential.  But length for length's sake doesn't matter.

I'm talking about the scratch player regarding 18--let him play from the entire current white tee and make it a par 4.  It will affect their decision making and make the course play to its fullest advantage.  Most of the challenge is on the ground but a certain portion of the challenge is in the mind.  I think many fail to realize this.

Let the average player play from the former blue tee and play it as a par 5.  This fits with the modern realities while still allowing some decision making.

The new back tee is stupid.  It removes decision making and creates a singular way to play the hole.  Besides that, it is agronomically suspect in its position literally at the north base of a large tree.


Mike,

It makes no sense to discuss weather extremes.  All holes are affected and 18 no more than many other holes on the course (2,7,8,9,19,12,14 and 17 in much the same way).

No single hole fits a round number.  What if the average score for scratch players in the regional qualifying is 4.2.  Do you see that as being different enough from 4.8  so that the par is more like 4 than 5?  I'm open minded.  Let's see what they do.  If anything the scoring will be skewed higher because it is the last chance to qualify and players don't care if they miss by 2 or 3 shots, they're trying to qualify so the scoring spectrum will be wider than handicap players playing it as a typical round.

"The issue is that for alot of the time even the scratch player has trouble getting beyond that left to right slope to an easy lie in the fairway."

Your bias towards easy lies is exposed.  Who says that the landing area has to be where there is an easy lie?  If that is the case, Huntingdon Valley would not have any at all.


"I think a steady diet of this sidehill shot with a long iron makes for a "poor" par four.  To go back to your psychological frame of mind, players would despair at the thought that they "must" get home in two. What is now a challenge for the best players becomes a "pain-in-the-rear"."

This is utter nonsense.  I will not while away the day trying to convince you of anything.  I state my opinion and offer support.  I suggest you ask a number of scratch players their views and see what they say.

[mike_malone]

 Mike
     Yes and this  is the par for the whole course. This almost makes sense because one can make fours and fives on a few of the tweener holes.
   When we get the "par" for one hole it gets silly sometimes. The convention that it must be a 4 or a 5 creates the problem. Is this sratch golfer only playing the hole once? Is it into  the wind? Is it in the spring? Hell, I hit driver , wedge to #18 RG  in FEBRUARY!!!

[wsmorrison]

"If we're looking at the rest of the golfing world, then please don't give us a steady diet of killer par fours that used to be fives."

My point is that there is a difference between classes of players and par should reflect that; by definition anyway.  My idea about par 4 for 18 at Rolling Green is not for everybody, me included.  It is for scratch and tournament players.  

If I had to compromise, let blues and whites hit from the same tee on the current whites and let it be a par 4 for some and par 5 for others.  Do you think it would be approached differently?

My perspective on this topic is considering the best players.  In this regard, I agree with Tom P (sorry Pat).

[wsmorrison]

Hell, I hit driver , wedge to #18 RG  in FEBRUARY!!!

I doubt it.  But if you do, you're short of the green or skulling your irons  

I'm going to play golf.  Enough of the bantering Bickersons.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

     I just think "the great ground for golf at Rolling Green" dictates that this hole works best as a three-shotter.


  BTW it was frozen solid that Feb. The drive rolled to 175 from the green. The wedge went 120ish and bounced the rest of the way.


  BTW  TEPaul's ideas for #18 RG are goofy.

[wsmorrison]

By the way, Jim.  I am an advocate for length at Rolling Green.  I am not at all fond of it on 18 however.  Without reality constraints, I would like to see the 1st tee lowered and lengthened, back tees added on 7 (+15), 8 (+25), 9 (+20), 10 (+17), 11 (+20, lowering foward tees), 14 (+15 but higher elevation).  17 tee should have been built on grade to the left of current tee along the line of play.  I guess removing the 30 or so trees was cost-prohibitive.  It would've helped 16 green though.

[wsmorrison]

"I just think "the great ground for golf at Rolling Green" dictates that this hole works best as a three-shotter."

Well, that is a convincing argument Now, I'm off to play another Delaware County favorite.  Adios.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()