[Patrick_Mucci]

But, can only exceptional architects design a good to great par 5 ?

Why do par 5's seem to be the weak point for many golf courses ?

[wsmorrison]

In your opinion, Pat, were they always weak or has technology affected them more than par 3s and more than most par 4s?

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne asks a great question, especially given that true par fives don't much exist any more on Tour.

But they do continue to exist for us yokels.

And it is interesting how on so many courses they are the weakest, least interesting holes.

My guess at an explanation for this is just that it's just plain HARDER to design a three-shotter - there's more that needs to be figured, there's more that can go wrong.  For example, how rare is the true three-shot hole that has great interest in the second shot?  And if you make it shorter and more reachable, then aren't you really just doing a long par four for too many golfers?  It is a quandary.

And thus yes, this is where the architects really show their skill.

Because I do believe that give me the right piece of land and even I could design a very enjoyable par three.

But I couldn't design a great par five to save my life.

That's why I absolutely defer to those in the business when contemplating these matters.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

It is interesting that you conjecture that par 5s are the design weak point of golf courses. Many claim that memorability is one of the aspects that count towards great golf holes. I find that when I think back on the courses I have played, it is the par threes and the par fives that I find memorable. Most of the par fours seem to disappear in a haze of sameness.

[Andy Hughes]

I would imagine that designing a really good par 5 would be incredibly tough, especially if it needs to be fun for a good player, AND his mom.
First, the tee shot should be interesting, both for a player who drives it 280 as well as someone who hits it 140.  if you've somehow cleared that hurdle, now, you have two players in very different spots, and the second shot should be interesting for both--tough!!
And then, after somehow making the second shot interesting, the two golfers could easily be hundreds of yards apart.  How on earth do you create interest for both at that point??
My hat is off to the architect that can pull off this trick.

[John Kavanaugh]

Isn't every shot interesting for someone who can only hit their driver 140 yds.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frankly, it might be because par 5's as a concept are inherently weaker.  Are true three shot par 5's really interesting? It seems that the par 5 has slowly morphed into "go for it" hole to pick up a birdie and that is what we consider exciting.  

If you want to establish a strategic relationship between shots, a par 4 does that in the very efficient minimum of two shots.  Adding another shot to the mix simply doesn't add that much to the hole.  For that matter, theoretically, par 3 holes shouldn't be as strong as par 4's, but they typically get placed in spectacular locations, often look great, offer a breather, and can be concept holes - ie a Redan shot.  

If par 5 and par 3 holes were equal or better than par 4 holes, then I suspect that golf courses would have more of them, and fewer par 4's.

I suspect that somewhere along the line, 3 and 5 par holes got introduced because they fit the land, but later, someone thought that overall, having about half the holes being something other than a standard par 4 would make for variety.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff - very well-assessed.  I just have to question one part though:

Are true three shot par 5's really interesting?

The BEST ones are.  They are exceedingly rare.  Create one and you really show your skill.

But in the end, your main point is well-taken:  par fours remain the meat of any golf course, and should be.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

Name a three shotter that is not interesting...I was going to say the 700 yder at Purgatory..but hell, I played it three or four years ago and still remember each shot so how bad could it be.

I just don't see you getting bored when you are 300yds out on a par 5.  How about that long one on the back nine at Cuscowilla...that was interesting...how bout at Olympic...interesting...how bout Beverly..interesting...name one that's not..

[John Kavanaugh]

I'll make it easier...Name an architect known for his weak par fives and give an example why or where.  I think this is all in your head.

[John_Cullum]

I believe my scoring average on par 3's is more over par than my average on par 5's, even though I am called upon to only make 1 swing on a par 3 but I am supposed to make 3 swings on a par 5. By their nature par 5s allow more room for error, that is, most of the time I can make up for a bad swing or 2 with 1 good one.

I think that we are discussing apples and oranges here.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

Me?  I think about screwing up any shot, so I am never bored.  But that's not what this is about.

If I am 300 yards out on a par 5 and there is no reason to do anything but just smack away as far as possible, that isn't very interesting.  I'd say most long par fives do work out that way for me.  I could name many, but they'd likely be at courses you've never been to.  The ones we have in common would likely be great courses, featuring great par fives - like the ones you mentioned (although I've never been to Beverly).

In any case, my argument here isn't that all par fives are boring - far from it.  My take is that the best ones really do give one a LOT to think about on the second shot, whether that means reaching the green or not.  And I do believe that only the really best holes do accomplish this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In your opinion, Pat, were they always weak or has technology affected them more than par 3s and more than most par 4s?

Wayne,

I'd say that technology has made them weaker.

However, view the question in the context of the "game" of golf at the time the holes were designed and built.

Tom Doak reiterated a point that I've made for the last few years, and that is that the disparity in the play of the game today, is so wide, that it's difficult, if not impossible, to design a golf course that can present a suitable challenge to all levels of golfers.

[Mike Hendren]

Warning:  A Rare Rant.

I'm sick and tired of everyone denigrating the par-five and the sentiment that it needs to exceed 550 yards to be unreachable.  

Let's take the second at Cuscowilla.  533 yards from the tips.  Downhill tee shot to boot.  Let's say 40 participants at Dixie Cup each played it twice.  Of 80 tries, how many times was this hole reached in two?  

I'm betting you can count them on one hand, but here's your chance to brag boys.

Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

I'd much rather play a nine hole course made up of par 5's than a nine hole par 3 course...

[John Kavanaugh]

JK:

Me?  I think about screwing up any shot, so I am never bored.  But that's not what this is about.

If I am 300 yards out on a par 5 and there is no reason to do anything but just smack away as far as possible, that isn't very interesting.  I'd say most long par fives do work out that way for me.  I could name many, but they'd likely be at courses you've never been to.  The ones we have in common would likely be great courses, featuring great par fives - like the ones you mentioned (although I've never been to Beverly).

In any case, my argument here isn't that all par fives are boring - far from it.  My take is that the best ones really do give one a LOT to think about on the second shot, whether that means reaching the green or not.  And I do believe that only the really best holes do accomplish this.

Huck,

Please name me a par 5 that is not interesting if you think I have heard of it or not...I will do the research and then tell you why you are wrong.  How bout the 13th at Torrey Pines...is that not interesting to you.

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

What if we stuck a flag in the ground 1000yds away from us on the Bonneville Salt flats...would that be uninteresting.  I am saying it is impossible to build an uninteresting par 5 because there are just too many variables in striking the ball.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

You're missing my point.   I never said any par five is uninteresting or boring; rather, I said the best ones just did give one more to think about.  13 Torrey?  Hell yes, I'm scared to get in one of those bunkers - that means bogey for sure for a guy like me - lots to think about there.

My point here remains that on par fives, the very best ones give me a lot to think about on the second shot; that is, make me weigh very real options that will give very real benefits and/or penalties for failure.  There are quite a few where this is not the case; where there's really not much to do other than bash away, or if one cares more, try to play to a distance he likes for the third.

But of course on EVERY par five there's going at least this to think about - so it is never boring or uninteresting.  I just never said it was.  What I said is that the best ones are more interesting.

And they are.  They are also pretty darn rare.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck,

What if we stuck a flag in the ground 1000yds away from us on the Bonneville Salt flats...would that be uninteresting.  I am saying it is impossible to build an uninteresting par 5 because there are just too many variables in striking the ball.

I agree.
I never said the hole would be uninteresting.
I just said the best ones are MORE interesting.

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

Are you saying Torrey 13 is one of the rare ones..

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

Sure - I love the hole.  But remember my context is also a lot of very crappy golf courses.  I'm not sure I'd say 13 Torrey is in the absolute pantheon of the world's great par fives, but it surely does give the amateur plenty to think about for all three shots... the pro as well, if he messes up the drive.

TH

[MikeJones]

High handicapers find par 5's frustrating and often the most difficult holes on a course, regardless of the design, simply because they find it difficult to string a succession of good shots together.

Par 3's on the other hand usually give almost everyone an opportunity to do great things (even if it is a fluke) and so for high handicapers, par 3's are often more enjoyable. I've played pro am's with people who's one good shot in the whole round was off the tee on a par 3 and sure enough that's the thing they like to talk about in the clubhouse afterwards. The design of the par 3 may or may not have been a work of genius but it will most likely stick in the mind of that amateur long after the par 5's have faded from his memory.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff - very well-assessed.  I just have to question one part though:

Are true three shot par 5's really interesting?

The BEST ones are.  They are exceedingly rare.  Create one and you really show your skill.

But in the end, your main point is well-taken:  par fours remain the meat of any golf course, and should be.

TH

Tom,

I agree.  And, as Pat and others allude to, with a variety of players, I feel like designing a really interesting sequence of shots puts those who don't, or can't make the shots at such a disadvantage that designers are afraid to take that chance.

WitnessTillie's Hell's Half Acre.  Danny Maples did a neat sharp horseshoe par 5 at Longleaf where you had to get around a corner, but I think those who didn't couldn't get there in three, much less two shots.  Being willing to take that kind of design chance probably would lead to a love it or hate it kind of hole.  Most would opt for something more conventional.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff - right on!  That's what makes this so tough... an interesting challenging second for a good player could be a frustrating impossible slog for the lesser.

So the temptation must be HUGE to go for the conventional...

That's why I feel for you guys, man.  You must really feel damned if you do, damned if you don't damn near always.

 

[wsmorrison]

Good point, Pat.  I'll think of your question in terms of the holes at the time of construction.  Since I know Flynn best and classic courses better than modern ones, I'll stick to my area of relative expertise.

There seemed to be two schools of thought in designing par 5 holes, either unreachable in two or reachable.  Crump and Hugh Wilson liked their par 5s as unreachable in two and only had two at par 5 holes at Merion and Pine Valley (Flynn only had 2 at Lehigh).  Crump's 7th and 15th holes at Pine Valley and Wilson's 2nd and 4th holes at Merion were very long in their day and remain so today.  The 2nd at Merion was lengthened by Flynn prior to the 1934 US Open to keep it a genuine 3-shotter.  Unlike the others mentioned, it is not a 3-shotter for everyone but remains so for nearly everyone.

Flynn made some sure 3-shot holes such as the 9th at Rolling Green (which I doubt anyone can reach even today in two shots at 625 yards from the tipsbecause of slope and elevation change), 16th at Shinnecock Hills, 17th at Boca Raton South, 9th at Boca Raton North, 5th at Cascades, 6th at Mill Road Farm, 3rd at Philadelphia Country etc. but he also designed par 5s reachable in two such as the 7th and 17th at Rolling Green, the 6th at Philadelphia Country Club, 18th at Kittansett, 2nd at TCC-Pepper Pike, 8th and 14th at Mill Road Farm (later changed to par 4s).

I think Flynn built wonderful par 5s, long and short.  It is probably hardest to design a great long par 5.  The 9th at Rolling Green is an excellent example of a great really long par 5.  I don't think there are many, but the Merion and Pine Valley par 5s are definitely included in a list of great long par 5s.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()