[Phil Benedict]

While watching the Doral yesterday I noticed a pattern in the scoring:  most of the leaders were around par on the par 3's and 4's and way under par on the par 5's.  Not that par is that sacred but it got me thinking about whether par 5's add that much to the game:

1.  At the elite player level they give a disproportional advantage to distance.
2.  For recreational players, par 5's frequently add one more shot to play and not much else.

Obviously there are some great par 5's (most of which are classic half par holes), but it's hard to design interest into a true 3-shot hole, which at the elite player level needs to be 600-yards plus these days.

What's the point of par 5's aside from rewarding raw power?

[David Stamm]

While watching the Doral yesterday I noticed a pattern in the scoring:  most of the leaders were around par on the par 3's and 4's and way under par on the par 5's.  Not that par is that sacred but it got me thinking about whether par 5's add that much to the game:

1.  At the elite player level they give a disproportional advantage to distance.
2.  For recreational players, par 5's frequently add one more shot to play and not much else.

Obviously there are some great par 5's (most of which are classic half par holes), but it's hard to design interest into a true 3-shot hole, which at the elite player level needs to be 600-yards plus these days.

What's the point of par 5's aside from rewarding raw power?

Sounds like a question for James Braid, if he were alive today.

[cary lichtenstein]

I love par 5's, can't hit any of em in 2 anymore, but they reward intelligent good play and allow you to score. Well designed ones offer excellent strategery (Bush).

[Mark Smolens]

If a par 3 is 250 yards long, doesn't that give a "disproportional advantage" to the powerful player?

As for your assessment that par-5s merely add one more shot for the recreational player, I would assert that the par-5 gives the recreational player at least an opportunity to make a birdie, something he is far less likely to do on a par-4, particularly a long par-4.

Doesn't this go back to the whole argument about par simply being a number?  Do Bay Hill or Torrey Pines change as  golf courses simply because certain holes are designated as par-5s instead of par-4s??

[HamiltonBHearst]

I don't like holes that can't be reached in regulation by my typical white grandmother (obama).

[Phil Benedict]

If a par 3 is 250 yards long, doesn't that give a "disproportional advantage" to the powerful player?

As for your assessment that par-5s merely add one more shot for the recreational player, I would assert that the par-5 gives the recreational player at least an opportunity to make a birdie, something he is far less likely to do on a par-4, particularly a long par-4.

Doesn't this go back to the whole argument about par simply being a number?  Do Bay Hill or Torrey Pines change as  golf courses simply because certain holes are designated as par-5s instead of par-4s??

Mark,

Not to be a twit but aren't paragraph's 2 and 3 contradictory?  On the one hand, par 5's are nice because they are easier to birdie (para 2), on the other hand, par shouldn't matter (para 3).

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
The best chance that the average player has for birdie is a short, then a  medium, length par 3, i.e., ball on a tee, level lie.

5's give the best chance of slapping it around and still walking away with a
par. I'm not saying this will happen regularly, only that the odds are on the player's side, especially if they remember that most of the par 5's they play are 475 to 550 and that's three shots of 175 yds. for the former and three shots of 183 yds. for the latter.



  

[Greg Krueger]

Golf would get kind of boring without par 5's. If all you had were 3's & 4's it gets to be a slog. 5's give you variety, strategy and drama. I get excited when the leaders get to 13 & 15 during the Masters, you might see a 2 or 8, great fun!

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Forgive me for stating this -- but when you or others bemoan "raw power" it's likely you either don't have that aspect in your game or you figure such an "advantage" should not happen.

Frankly, if you noticed some of the more recent tournaments you will find that the category leaders on par-5 holes often are not the presumer bomb and gouge player.

Take Doral this week -- if I'm not mistaken but Jim Furyk was the leader in scoring for the week on these holes. One would hardly ascribe Furyk's game as power oriented.

At last year's Masters Zach Johnson demonstrated his skills with wedge play on such holes as #13 & #15, to name just two.

Phil, great par-5 holes can be added into the mixture. The ones at Doral are not really unique or special -- save for the par-5 8th which I see as the best of the four there.

Par-5 holes are part and parcel of the game. If risk / reward type holes are designed with that mind there's plenty of options involved so that sound execution is then needed to gain the reward.

[Phil Benedict]

Matt,

Of course there are examples of players like Furyk this week and especially Zach Johnson at Augusta dominating the par 5's with great wedge play.  But they are the exception rather than the rule; Doral has been a great venue for Tiger in part because it's par 72  and par 5 dominence at ANGC is usually associated with power players like Norman (lot of good it did him), Jack or Tiger.  One of the things that distinquishes Augusta among modern courses with 4 par 5's is how short they are: they are all potentially two shot holes for the long hitters and 13 and 15 are two-shot holes for everybody.

Personally, my ideal par is 70 with two par 5's.  Provides some variety without giving too much of an edge to long hitters.  It doesn't work out this way every week on Tour but I think 16 par 5's in tournament golf is too much of an edge for long hitters.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Check the stats since #13 and #15 have been dramatically altered at Augusta. The amt of eagles and birdies is down considerably because of the so-called "improvements" carried out.

You need to check out the stroke average on all the par-5 holes since Hootie and the gang made their improvements. Guys who are mid-length hitters need to step to the maximum to get home in two. As a result, you have a more boring event as players routinely lay-up without ever giving it a moment's thought on going for the target in two blows.

Phil, scoring on par-5 holes can be achieved by a range of different strategies. You think the Furyk and Johnson situations are aberations -- I don't see it that way. Watch a telecast and analyze how many times the big hitter ACTUALLY hits the green with their second shot on such holes. It's likely less than 50% in most situations. You see a certain situation with Doral and then decide to throw the baby out with the bath oil. Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa partner !

Phil, when you say no more than two par-5's -- keep in mind something OK. The long par-4's offer the same "edge" you bemoan with the par-5 holes. In fact, such holes offer an even greater edge because of the shorter second shots such players will likely play time after time. Shall we get rid of them too. While we're on the subject how bout we ditch long par-3 holes like the two you find at Doral ?

The more likely vexation you have is with power in the modern game. Candidly, power has been part and parcel of golf since the day they started slapping some sort of ball around.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

I don't really think most people have an issue with the power compenent as an individual piece to being a successful golfer.  And yes shorter hitters are likely a bit jealous.

But the point is, when power is the overwhelming most important portion of being a top player then this is where the balance gets out of whack. Look at the top 20 players in the world as of today.

At least 15 of these guys are either power players or power is a massive component of thier game.

 Tiger Woods,  USA 
 Phil Mickelson,  USA 
 Ernie Els,  Zaf 
 Steve Stricker,  USA 
 Jim Furyk,  USA 
 Adam Scott,  Aus 
 K.J. Choi,  Kor 
 Vijay Singh,  Fji 
 Justin Rose,  Eng 
 Geoff Ogilvy,  Aus 
 Rory Sabbatini,  Zaf 
 Padraig Harrington,  Irl 
 Henrik Stenson,  Swe 
 Sergio Garcia,  Esp 
 Stewart Cink,  USA 
 Luke Donald,  Eng 
 Angel Cabrera,  Arg 
 Aaron Baddeley,  Aus 
 Zach Johnson,  USA 
 Lee Westwood,  Eng 

[Phil Benedict]

Matt,

The lengthening of the par 5's at Augusta has maintained the edge longer hitters have at the course.  In last year's third round Tiger was one of the few guys to reach 15 in two on Saturday, when it was freezing and windy.  He plays 13 with a 3-wood and a mid-iron.

I think Tiger (and a handful of others) have a bigger edge versus the field on a 550-575 yard par 5 than on a 500-yard par 4, which is reachable in regulation by most everybody in a Tour field.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The guys with the best stats for scoring on par 5s last season were:

Mickelson - 4.45
Woods     - 4.48
Jas. Bohn - 4.55
Bill Haas   - 4.56
Singh       -   "
Baddeley  -  "
Byrd          -  "
Calc          - 4.57
Cejka        -  "
B. Watson - 4.58

Out of the 196 players in this category for 2007, NO ONE was worse than 4.88

In 1983 NO ONE did better than 4.63/ worst was 5.03
(38 guys did 4.63 or better in 2007)
  
In 1993 NO ONE did better than 4.59/ worst was 4.95

[Bill_McBride]

Phil, if you think you'd like a course with no par 5s, you'll LOVE Elie just south of St Andrews!



Day 2, rounds 3 and 4 of the Buda Cup, will be played there in June.  A full report will no doubt be posted!

[Mark Smolens]

Phil,
Sorry my post wasn't clear.  The second paragraph re long par 3s was designed to comment on you point about "undue advantage" for the power player.  If that is your complaint with the par-5, then isn't that equally true for the lengthy par-3 as well?

As for your and Jim K's comments about the relative ease of the par-5 for the recreational player, I would submit that my view of the par-5 is perhaps affected by my experience as a decent player who can generally hit the ball fairly straight.  My chances of getting the ball inside of 100 yards on a par-5 are pretty good, and I think that if most players thought about playing par-5s that way, they could do it as well (all it takes, for the most part, are 2 225 yard shots to get yourself in range of one of your wedges).  There aren't many par-3s that I've played that are ever that short.  Even the postage stamp was 107 to the pin the day I played it. . .

I just do not believe that your characterization of par-5 holes as necessarily being destroyed by raw power is always the case, and is an over-simplification.  Were that the case, Bubba and JB would make birdies and eagles all of the time, and that simply isn't the case.

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

The relationship between greatness in golf and its ties to power is really joined at the hip.

Phil:

It's so E-Z for people to look at Tiger and then extrapolate what he (and often he alone does well) does and then make some braoder point when such a wherewithal to broaden the point doesn't really exist.

Tiger operates in his own world -- just like Jack did before him.

I take issue with you in terms of long par-4 holes. Watch the best players play them when conditions get tough and you see a major separation and much of that is tied to the power that the better / longer players have in reserve. It's the old adage that the good big man when he's on his game will always beat the good little man (shorter) nearly all the time save for a Herculean chipping and putting week (see Mike Weir's win at Augusta as a example).

In regards to Augusta the lengthening of the holes has reduced the overall drama -- for the longest of players and for all the rest. The point of the par-5 holes was to include MORE options not LESS as Hootie and the gang have now created. Check out the total amt of birds and eagles prior to and after the fact.

[Jim Thompson]

Can you really judge a design by how the big boys play it?  I think golf would be better if we had real par fives that took three good shots to get to the putting surface and perhaps, at times, maybe twice a round, two PERFECT shots could get the player to the green in two.  There probably aren't more than a couple par fives for the tour boys on the entire season and are there any for the tour power players?  You'd need 650+ just o get in the ballpark and the cost of all that space doesn't make sense for the other 51 weeks of the year.  Further, you can't put in an old fashioned short par five green anymore without folks going nuts and calling the design "over the top" or some other such nonsense.  You can't even use cross bunkering without having your skills called into question as some player will get upset for hitting their best shot of the day into a hazard.  How can someone's best shot end up in a hazard or other difficulty.  Maybe we've lsot track of what a good shot is?  Sucks when you have to realize you've lowered your standards.  Is modern golf a victim of the "last call" syndrome?  You know what I mean, have we come to the point where the player doesn't care about quality or challenge as long as he gets to score and bang away without getting into trouble???

[C. Squier]

Matt,

Doral has been a great venue for Tiger in part because it's par 72

No, its because Tiger is Tiger and Doral is a golf course.  "Horses for courses" doesn't apply to him.  He's king horse.

Matt,


 Tiger Woods,  USA
 Phil Mickelson,  USA
 Ernie Els,  Zaf
 Steve Stricker,  USA
 Jim Furyk,  USA
 Adam Scott,  Aus
 K.J. Choi,  Kor
 Vijay Singh,  Fji
 Justin Rose,  Eng
 Geoff Ogilvy,  Aus
 Rory Sabbatini,  Zaf
 Padraig Harrington,  Irl
 Henrik Stenson,  Swe
 Sergio Garcia,  Esp
 Stewart Cink,  USA
 Luke Donald,  Eng
 Angel Cabrera,  Arg
 Aaron Baddeley,  Aus
 Zach Johnson,  USA
 Lee Westwood,  Eng

You could also say that 15 out of them are ridiculously good putters too.  In fact, more on that list are above average putters than they are drivers. 


Why its unfair for a person who has conditioned themselves to hit the ball far and its very accepted for someone to be a wily short game wizard is beyond me. 

[Sean_A]

No, I don't think the game would be better with no par 5s.  I do think the game would generally be better with one or two more par 3s substituting for par 5s unless those par 5s are sure fire winners.  Usually, most courses have one or two par 5s which are filler.  I spose its not surprising as par 5s as generally the hardest to make good un's.

Ciao

[Mark_F]

I spose its not surprising as par 5s as generally the hardest to make good un's.

Sean,

Consider a brief list of very good and interesting flattish par fives that could reasonably be constructed anywhere;

Carnoustie 6
Kingston Heath 12
Woodlands 15
Muirfield 9
Commonwealth 2
Royal Melbourne East 10
Maybe even 10 Woodhall Spa and 13 Cruden Bay.  I realise you won't be familiar with the Melbourne holes, but they are pretty good.

Maybe there are a lack of great par fives because architects are uninterested in building them?

[David_Elvins]

Phil,

Aren't long holes needed to test the long iron and fairway wood play of the best players?  With these clubs harder to hit than short irons, aren't long holes vital for seperating the best players (who can hit these clubs well) from the not as good?

[Doug Siebert]

Par 5s have been around for a long time.  Maybe you should look for something more recent that is to blame, such as the equipment changes over the past decade?

[Will Wittman]

Phil,

Aren't long holes needed to test the long iron and fairway wood play of the best players?  With these clubs harder to hit than short irons, aren't long holes vital for seperating the best players (who can hit these clubs well) from the not as good?

I agree with you but to play devils advocate i would say that if you replaced Par 5's with long par 4's like the road hole you force the player to be more agressive.  With par 5's you can lay up and still make birdie where as with a long tough par 4 if you want to score you have to hit the long iron. 

That being said to take par 5's out of golf would be a big mistake. It deprives players like myself, a long hitter with a terrible short game, to get our birdies.  Also with any good golf hole you can design par 5's with high amounts of risk reward situations. The 18th at Kapalua is my favorite hole in golf. In my opinion the problem with par 5's is that the require more imagination than any other hole.

 

[John Moore II]

I certainly think that par 5's are great. And in no way would the game be better without them. Many times par 5's are overlooked because they may be the laziest holes on the given course. Most times, the holes simply lack imagination. While, par 4's tend to be in the middle and par 3's being generally the best designed. When done right, par 5's add a great deal to the course and are valueable.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()