If it was a par 4, most would go for it no matter what. As a 5, they will only go for it if they hit the perfect drive. To me, that is not exciting.
Who wants to watch Goosen lay up on #13 at Augusta? Boring. Make that a par 4 and he won't lay up either.
Jim, I have never understood the logic of statements like this or the fascination with par in major championships, whether it is 70, 71, 72, or 73.
On 2- or 3-shot holes the best players in the world are trying to make 2s, 3s, and 4s, and trying to take 5, 6, 7, and more out of play when they must or can. They are concerned about "dropping shots" vs. the field. If everyone in the field makes 5 on a certain hole, they "drop a shot" only when their score is worse than the field, or I suppose, relative to the score they thought they should be making on the hole.
If the lovely Ms. Gulbis is standing on the 17th tee on Sunday with 272 accumulated strokes and Ms. Creamer is already cooling her fetching self in the clubhouse at 280, Ms. Gulbis only knows that she must take no more than 8 to tie, 7 to win on the last two holes. What difference does it make what the card says
It's going to be exciting to watch, and not just because of Natalie's outfit!
If she plays conservatively on 17 and makes 5, then she needs 3 to tie on 18. If she plays aggressively on 17 and makes 3 or 4, she has given herself more ways to win and fewer to lose on 18. Of course, she could also make 6 or more in a hurry at 17 with aggressive plays that go wrong.
This simple risk-reward calculation doesn't change when the committee puts a 5 on the scorecard at 17. A 5 on the card doesn't change the fundamental puzzle that is the Road Hole. If Reteif elects to lay up on 13 at Augusta and loses by a shot because of that choice, then he failed to make the right decision. The Committee had nothing to do with it.
Kalen's questions are the right ones to be asking. Alas, I haven't played the course, so I can't comment on those.