Who should reach a reachable par 5?

[RJ_Daley]

What about a computer program something like entering your score for handicap?

You go to your course specific program, just like handicap entry, and you enter your age, sex, handicap (it already knows this) and you enter your longest approximate drive yardage (for a senior woman-say 160) and then based on your course yardages, spits out a printed card like your handicap card, with the adjusted par and degree of difficulty for handicap for each hole.  Then, you don't have to change tee blocks, but you may have disparate pars from 3-6 or even 7 for 500 yarders for the senior ladies.  Your par may be 78, mine 82, and a senior lady, 92.

[Jason Thurman]

This is always a perplexing question.  Par only matters if one chooses to let it matter.  There is no inherent importance to the concept either in labelling a hole a certain par or achieving a par. This is why I think it is great when folks mess with the concept by sometimes having 240 yard par 4s and 250 yard par 3s or 470 yard par 4s and 460 yard par 5s.  It is precisely this sort of tom foolery which exposes par for what it is, a method to keep score for expert players.  The idea of calling a hole a certain par based on yardage is as misguided as is lining fairways with trees and rough. The satisfaction of earning a 4 on a tough hole is the idea that you have gained a shot on the field or won the hole etc.  What we label these good scores is only a method to celebrate this fact.

Ciao

Agree 100%. The fact that par doesn't really matter except for in the heads of players is exactly why a 300 yard par 5 from the forward tees is just fine. It'll make a few people happy, and those of us who think the notion of par is an unimportant concept lose nothing in the process, and maybe get a bit of vindication.

For the record, I also enjoy when the USGA sets up a 530 yard "par 4" and a 505 yard "par 5" on the same course. Even though it shouldn't, you can see it getting into the heads of players. If 13 at Augusta were listed as a "par 4," would Zach Johnson have been disciplined enough to follow his lay-up strategy a few years back? I doubt it, personally.

[Ken Moum]

Because of a number of factors, including Tee it Forward, an aunt who has been beating the drum for courses well under 5,00 yards, and the fact my wife has recently gotten very into the concepts Alice Dye has been preaching for years, I have thought a lot about the pros and cons of shortening the course.

I don't know who made the point here, but the simplest argument for moving up a couple of tees, or creating at least one more set that's under 5,000 yards is this:

Everyone understands that the most boring shot on most golf courses is the second shot on an unreachable par five. It's simply a matter of advancing the ball until you get close enough to hit an approach shot. Unless the fairway is strewn with obstacles, there's no strategy, no intrigue, just a slog

For most women there are several holes that involve 3 to 4, or more, of these shots in succession.

As a male who can hit it 230 yards off the deck, imagine how much fun playing a series of holes from 700 to 1,000 yards long.

That's life for many of the women who play golf.

K

[Bill_McBride]

Because of a number of factors, including Tee it Forward, an aunt who has been beating the drum for courses well under 5,00 yards, and the fact my wife has recently gotten very into the concepts Alice Dye has been preaching for years, I have thought a lot about the pros and cons of shortening the course.

I don't know who made the point here, but the simplest argument for moving up a couple of tees, or creating at least one more set that's under 5,000 yards is this:

Everyone understands that the most boring shot on most golf courses is the second shot on an unreachable par five. It's simply a matter of advancing the ball until you get close enough to hit an approach shot. Unless the fairway is strewn with obstacles, there's no strategy, no intrigue, just a slog

For most women there are several holes that involve 3 to 4, or more, of these shots in succession.

As a male who can hit it 230 yards off the deck, imagine how much fun playing a series of holes from 700 to 1,000 yards long.

That's life for many of the women who play golf.

K

My wife is one of those relatively short hitting senior players, and she's happy to get on our par 5's in four.   What I admire about women golfers is their lack of ego.   They just play to get the ball in the hole as quickly as possible.

[Matt MacIver]

I've always thought that for day to day play, a great course would have the ability/flexibility to set the course up to have six easy holes, six average holes and six hard holes.  You could substitute birdie/par/bogey if you wanted.  Difficulty would be assessed by length, pin position, width, rough, wind, etc etc.  All this in mind for the scratch player, so even a duff like me could luck in a few pars and maybe one better a round.  Sounds reasonable, and fun, to me.

[Niall C]

Can't speak for the women but..

I've been playing 12 years and (until last week had!) reached the dizzy heights of a 12 h'cap.  I am but a little longer than the truly average golfer.

I've had one eagle putt this year and going by averages that wil probably be it, but I live in hope.  I have had 3 eagles. One a pitch from 120 yards (for 2), one a chip in (3) and one a putt for a 3.  I have all three balls.

When I think of reachable, I'm thinking for the "Category 1" player who is long, maybe 50% of the time.


For me when all the stars align. Firm gound, downhill, wind helping and my best swing.  I don't mind they're rare, in fact I trasure them all the more for it.

Tony

Sounds like you're about to get cut again, about time too.

I've had the pleasure of playing with you a few times now and surprised that you have only had one eagle putt this year (which I witnessed) and you've only had 3 eagles in total. I'd say you're easily long enough to get up in two for a lot of par 5's, particulalrly as you say when the conditions are in alignment and thats more likely to happen on a links.

This conversation is focused on length, which is basically what the question asked about, but I think the other critical factor is green design. Is it worth going for or should you lay up. Just because you're long enough shouldn't mean automatically you should go for it. Bring that into the equation and length becomes less of a deciding factor.

As an example, I'm playing Silloth in September at the BUDA and if conditions are right I would expect at some point to be within range of the par 5 5th with its relatively new Tom MacKenzie designed green, however I'm not sure I'm going to go for it. Where the previous green was a half shot penalty if you missed it, the new one sits right beside the OB which might be enough to make me baulk at having a go.

Niall