[Chris Burgard]

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???

[Michael Dugger]

Definetely good.

G.C. Thomas thought TWO of them to start was ideal.

Get the golfers away, and when it comes to increasing the pace of play, I am all for that.

[Padraig Dooley]

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?

[Tom Huckaby]

My favorite course on this planet starts with a great par 5, so I can't be too much against the concept.  Sand Hills.

BUT... I'm not sure in general having a par 5 opener HELPS pace of play.  If it's at all reachable in two, you're going to have a lot of waiting.  Of course that's not an issue at Sand Hills just because it gets such limited play, but at a crowded public course... I'm not sure I'd want a par 5 opener.  Or if it has to be a par 5, make it a really long one that no one or very few will wait to try and reach in two.

TH

[Scott Witter]

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.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Triva Question (true at least 5 years ago, and I don't think its changed)--

The two most difficult par 5 holes opening holes, as established by the USGA rating system (as determined by USGA rating teams) are both in the same state and designed by the same architect--

Courses and designer?

[Tom Huckaby]

CA - Spyglass Hill - RTJ.

Can't think of the other one though.

But am I right about this one?

[Evan_Green]

For whatever it is worth many of the best courses in CA begin with a par 5.


Off the top of my head:

LACC North
Valley Club of Montecito
Bel Air
Riviera
Olympic Lake
San Francisco
Spyglass
Monterey Peninsula Shore
Stanford
Spanish Bay
Tradition
Barona Creek
California GC
Meadow Club

 I guess architects who design in the Golden State like to start with par 5's  

[Tom Huckaby]

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_Green]

Yes Tom pretty much all of those on my list above are relatively easy holes with the glaring exception of Spyglass - the answer must be in another state...

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

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

[Mike Benham]

CA - Spyglass Hill - RTJ.

Can't think of the other one though.

But am I right about this one?

I'm not sure if California is the right state but if Huck has the first part right than I will nominate the 1st hole at Coto de Caza on the North Course ...

[Doug Ralston]

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

[Mike Benham]

I have no preference for the 1st hole and think that the lay of the land should dictate the par.

I do think that a par-5 first hole is always slow ...

[Matt_Ward]

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 !!!

[Bill_McBride]

Many if not most MacKenzie courses start with par 5s.  Pasatiempo started with two which are now recalibrated as par 4s of sturdy length.  Valley Club starts with two.  Neither of these great old courses had a driving range until relatively recently, so the par 5s gave you an opportunity to get warmed up before the tougher holes ensued.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Bill Gayne]

I really like the first at Doonbeg which is a par 5.

[Tom_Doak]

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 Thompson]

The argument of the easy warm-up is drivel in my book.  If you need to warm up, get there early and hit the range.  When the first ball gets teed up, it should be game on and that includes the game between player and architect.  That said, the first hole should be the best it can be for the routing and land available.

I believe the reason many consider a first hole par five to be a benefit to pace of play issues is that it removes one of the 6-12 design caused waits from the course of around.  Granted many players think they just played such course in ten minutes less that another however they just spent that ten minutes on the first tee before putting a peg in the ground and don't consider it in their time calculation.  Pace of play is more a factor of proper spacing and elasticity of design rather than ease of openers.  The ideal first hole would be a fairly tough long par 3 to ensure proper and proportional spacing between groups throughout the early stages of the round, aiding in the probabilty of having good spacing throughout the round resulting in good pace.

Cheers!

JT

[Bill_McBride]

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.  

[Bill_Yates]

From an architectural point of view, when the land is begging the designer to use the high ground at the clubhouse and a long sinuous valley that makes its way down and away to a perfect greensite, I say without question, open with a par 5.  The land simply demands it.  In almost all other circumstances I recommend starting with a 400+ yard par 4.

When considering the legacy of designing a course upon which the play must be managed day-in and day-out for eternity, an opening par 5 presents the greatest management challenge.  Playing groups must be carefully started, for without such constant attention, the length of the hole "pulls" more groups on to the course than subsequent holes can handle.  As a result, the course easily becomes overcrowded,delays develop and the pace of play and the value of the playing experience suffer.  

On the other hand, a 400+ yard par 4 opening hole (particularly when followed by a few more par 4's like TOC), will comfortably hold only two playing groups, therefore setting a pattern and spacing of play that can be easily accomodated by the holes that follow.  The subtle and not so subtle overcrowding of golf courses has a dramatic impact on the pace of play and the course's ability to consistently deliver a high quality product, so why increase the probability for slow play.

[Tim Bert]

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.

[Kevin_Reilly]

For whatever it is worth many of the best courses in CA begin with a par 5.


Off the top of my head:

LACC North
Valley Club of Montecito
Bel Air
Riviera
Olympic Lake
San Francisco
Spyglass
Monterey Peninsula Shore
Stanford
Spanish Bay
Tradition
Barona Creek
California GC
Meadow Club

 I guess architects who design in the Golden State like to start with par 5's  

Olympic Ocean as well.

[Jim Nugent]

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.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()