In thinking about the two Tom Doak courses that I have played (Apache Stronghold and Black Forest) for my recent threads, it occurred to me that both open with reasonably long (for me anyway) par 5s. In the courses that I have played this is a bit of a rarity.

I like the idea of true three-shot openers with generous width. They give you a couple of swings to get the kinks out while allowing you a reasonable chance at an opening par or birdie.

If long enough, groups shouldn't get bunched up and should provide a reasonable start to the pace of play.

HOWEVER...the counter-point is that par 5s are your potential "scoring" holes and you might prefer them later in the round.

Your thoughts???

Enniscrone in Ireland used to have 3 par 5's in the first 4 holes, 1,2 and 4. I don't ever recall having to wait for a shot early in the round.

It must be a good idea to have a generous opening hole, just for pace of play issues alone.

Are par 5s scoring holes for better players only? If an average player has to play 3 or more shots to reach the green, is he more likely to mess up 1 of the 3? Do par 3s and 4s offer less chances to mess up?

Chris:

I like them for many of the reasons you and others note, but first there must be a reason for them with respect to the best routing of the golf course.  And if a second one should happen on the very next hole so be it if it is the best use of the land and the features it has to offer.

I am with Huck a bit on this one as I too am not convinced that the pace of play is all that much better at least not as much as we intutively are led to think.  I do think that it must be  three shotter as much waiting on the first hole will quickly kill the round and ones patience.

CA - Spyglass Hill - RTJ.

Can't think of the other one though.

But am I right about this one?

Evan - that is indeed very curious.  Our state does have a lot of par 5 openers on the greats... I never noticed that....

But darn it, I think it's gonna prove my answer to Dennis' question wrong.  None of the others besides Spyglass are all that tough, nor are they RTJ designs.  Darn.

TH

Evan that is cool. I had not noted that many of the high profile courses starting with 5's before.

Not only is a starting par-5 a great idea, give me 3/9. I think a course is best with 6 par-5s, 6 par-4s, and 6 par-3s. Just preferences though...... let the artist create his own art....with as little prescripting as possible.

Doug

Chris:

It's a great idea when done well -- best examples that come quickly to mind:

1st at Kingley (MI)

1st at Greywalls (Marquette GC)

Mike DeVries hit a home run with both efforts.

When people speak about the 1st at Spyglass they need to play the above two -- miles ahead in my mind.

P.S. For visual imager -- the 1st at Sanctuary (Sedalia, CO) also needs to be mentioned -- you could get vertigo just looking down !!!

Chris:

Actually quite a lot of my courses begin with par-5 holes:  Stonewall Old, Barnbougle Dunes, and St. Andrews Beach all start with a par five, in addition to the courses you named.  

But the funny thing is, I am not really that big a fan of par five opening holes.  As a player one of my goals was always to try and keep a six off my card, and when you put a par five as the first hole, you tempt fate early.  You don't want to make it too short because that will slow down play off the first tee [George Thomas apparently never anticipated that his courses would have eight-minute tee times].  But you don't want to make it too tough and get a six on the card right out of the blocks, either.  The first at Black Forest would be a great hole later in the round, but as the first, I have found it VERY frustrating.

I prefer a par four to start, and I think that my best opening holes so far fall into that category.  I wouldn't even mind a par-three opener -- I've seen a few good ones -- but I've never had a client that would even consider it.  But the fact that I've built so many par five openers should tell you that I really do let the land have a lot to say about the routings of my courses.


Bill M:  Yes, there are a few MacKenzie courses that start with par fives, but you named a high percentage of them right there.    I certainly don't think he favored par fives, if you include Augusta and Cypress Point and Royal Melbourne and Crystal Downs in your thinking, all of those start with strong par fours.  Coincidentally, though, on all but the last the second hole IS a par five.

It's interesting to note from Evan Green's list of California opening holes, how easy it is for some things in golf course design to become regional trends.

For example, I was shocked when I went to Minneapolis the first time and discovered that three or four of their best courses (Interlochen, Golden Valley, and one or two others I've forgotten about) had FIVE par 5 holes in the routing.  You rarely see that on other courses, maybe one in fifty or one in a hundred.

The thing is, once a good course breaks a normal convention and it goes over well, everybody else in town thinks, why not?  Minds open to new possibilities -- and sometimes close to others!

Another example:  I think I got away with having five par-3's on the original course at Stonewall because I could point to all of the Flynn courses in Philly [Rolling Green, Manufacturers, Hungtingdon Valley] which also had five short holes.

Jim, when I mentioned MacKenzie's par 5 openers as a warm up, I noted that there was no driving range on those courses when they opened.  I have started many a round at both Valley Club and Pasa by swinging two clubs briskly and chipping for a few minutes!  This was 30-40 years ago.  Today there are driving ranges on both, although very inconveniently located and quite awkward.  At the Valley Club you have to hit yellow range balls (Cayman style) with the driver because of houses too close long right.  Given the real estate values in Montecito, there isn't much extra land!

A neighboring course, Birnam Woods, actually sold off half of its driving range for another building lot.  Now all you can hit on their practice tee is irons.  

Having recently played Sand Hills, it is hard to criticize the concept.  What an awesome starter!

The public course I frequented for years in the Hartford area also started with a par 5.  I like it because it was a good scoring opportunity, and there's something to be said for starting your round with a good chance at birdie.  I can also see Tom Doak's point about starting with a 6.  It didn't take much more than a missed short putt to turn a decent hole into a 6, which wasn't a good mental mindset for the round.  Of course, I've played more than my share of par 4s where I was just as likely to start the round with a 6 or worse.

Are par 5s scoring holes for better players only? If an average player has to play 3 or more shots to reach the green, is he more likely to mess up 1 of the 3? Do par 3s and 4s offer less chances to mess up?

Handicap ratings help measure that.  From what I learned recently here on GCA.com, holes with the low ratings, e.g. one through four, are the ones where average or higher-handicap players need the most strokes against low handicap players.  Aren't those often the par 5's?  If so, then yes, good players score better, relatively speaking, than average players on part 5's.