The evolution and design of par 5s?

[James Boon]

If I'm understanding most peoples perceptions on here correctly, the par 5 is often a misunderstood and unloved part of the game? If its not a wonderful short par 5, reachable in two, risk / reward type affair, then unless the designer has a stroke of genius, they seem to be considered a long slog? Okay, I'm generalising here, but I think you see where I'm coming from.

Anyway, on Sean's thread regarding Notts GC he mentions how he likes the par 5s at the course of which there are three. One (the 3rd)  was a totally new affair by Tom Williamson, but the other two (the 6th and 17th), in Willie Park's original layout were both a par 4 followed by a par 3. These were then converted to par 5s by Williamson. Now I'm not putting forward Williamson as a genius at par 5 design, though he may well be  , its more a question of the evolution of the holes.

Perhaps they are considered better due to what is now the layup second shot, originally being conceived as an approach to a green?

I'd be interested in peoples thoughts, not necessarily in relation to the par 5s at Notts, but more the designers thinking when designing a par 5? Are they looking for an interesting area for a layup, in the way you would look for an interesting greensite? Or are they looking for a place that will provide a good angle at the greensite further ahead that has been found? Perhaps a little of both?

Cheers,

James

[Scott Warren]

James,

This is one thing my two tastes of Bill Coore (Barnbougle Lost Farm and Friar's Head) have caused me to really like about his design style.

For someone brawny enough, most of the par five holes at both courses are interesting two-shot holes, but for the rest of us they are great as three-shotters, with choice and execution important on all three shots.

I don't imagine that's an easy thing to achieve.

As for length of holes, I love a par five in the vein of 16 at Deal or 12 at Worplesdon that is reachable for the masses, but I also love a hole that asks for quality decision-making and execution on three consecutive shots.

The long par five is a fantastic thing when done well.

[Melvyn Morrow]

James

I wonder if we can say that there has been much evolution?

From memory many an old 19th Century course presented at least one if not a couple of these long Holes. Yet I believe you are not actually referring to these older Holes but the modern definition of current Par 5’s which are a IMHO a completely different animal.

Alas the modern skilled game has more or less made many a fairway redundant, the aerial game reigns supreme, nevertheless we see many a modern younger player in a shambles and struggling for their game when the weather closes in and the wind takes over – examples the dominance of Norman and later Watson in the recent Opens, yet once the weather improved the younger player resorted to their ever faithful aerial game.

Sooner than later we must get back to the skill game that today is defined by the equipment and IMHO no longer the player, however a few well-placed fairway bunkers and the removal of some of the Green rear shallow bunkers may force the modern golfer to play the course than his normal game. Perhaps the lack of links courses have increased many a player focus to the aerial game, however I do believe that quality designers (those who know their business) are more than able to confront the aerial game, if only allowed. 

Alas as I read and see the many younger players in the game today, I sincerely question their real skill level. It’s more full of testosterone than the readability of the design and the ability to navigate a course. The Mind or thinking game has diminished through the reliance on equipment, plus add that to the use of aids slows the brains ability to think and process data quickly leaving the poor player with only one weapon in his arsenal, that of brute force. So I do believe the game is losing its magic and by the constant use of the aerial game. Many a Hole and Course are effectively suffering a vasectomy, result being long safe easy golf but not much control or skill required.

So yes the Par 5’s are great but diminished if the aerial game is allowed to rule the Hole. What’s the answer, the designers have it if only allowed to include some serious hazards in the appropriate places.   
 
Or am I looking deeper than you originally intended to go? Whatever, I feel you may have picked a real good starting point for a great debate, but will others agree.

Melvyn 

[Tom ORourke]

It is interesting to play some of the old Donald Ross courses, like Southern Pines. There are par 5s of 486 and 476 yards. Pinehurst #1 has 466 and 426 yard par 5s. #3 has two under 495. Obviously this was a function of the length of drives back then, but it is very jarring to play these courses and find par 5s that a 10 handicap can play like a pro. Even #2 is short from the whites with 471 and 455. Now #2 has a 503 yard par 4, and the par 5s are 570 and 620. There are still some very nice 5s that employ both strategy or distance. Pine Tree has a really good 5 on the front nine that is a bit of a double dogleg. Of course they also have one that plays a dead straight 660 from the back tees, and you can guess which one I like better. I have played some 5s by Arthur Hills that I like. He tends to give you room off the tee and brings in the hazards on the second shot, forcing you to make decisions on where to lay up, maybe go for it. Thee are always discussions on here about length, and 600 yard par 5s are useful for maybe 1% of today's players. I do not see much evolution other than to add 100 yards and some fairway bunkers further out. How many new courses have double doglegs? I think holes that force you to move it left and right are a great test, and if you can hit it long AND shape it, great. You should be rewarded with a fairly easy birdie.