Par 5 - always reachable in two or not?

[Brian Phillips]

I have just completed a Golf course design workshop and one of the exercises was to put in strategy on a finished routing plan designed by the instructors.

On the third or fourth hole a Par 5 was drawn in.  It was a pretty short hole reasonably reached in two good hits.  

However, as this was so early in the round I decided to bunker the hole strongly around and in front of the hole.  I also made the green small and tilted at an angle so that the only thing that would hole was a pitch and run over the front bunkering or a pitch right at the flag if you dared.

What I was saying to the player (with the design) was if you go for the green in two (which I don't want him/her to) is that the shot called for a really high 3/5 wood cut shot that really required skill.

But if you played the hole with a bit of strategy and laid up and then played the pitch and run or stiffed the pitch then you still had a chance for a birdie.  I didn't want the hole to yield any eagles at all.

I was critisised for the design and was told by one of the instructors that he always liked to give the played a chance to reach a Par 5 green in two.

Why

Later in the round there is another Par 5 with a stream running just parallel to the green which I designed to allow the hole to be reached it two but also the possiblity to lay up as well.

Should all Par 5's be reachable in two?

[Paul Richards]

Brian:

Absolutely not!

Remember the thrill of John Daly finally reaching the
"unreachable" par 5 17th at Baltusrol?

That drive and his rip at the 1-iron will stay sketched in my
mind for a long time.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

This is a good question on your part and one that may not have been asked here before but should have been. If a designer doesn't want a hole to be reached in two shots, and some like Crump did not, the way to do it is with length period, in my opinion!

Par 5s that are reachable distance-wise and are designed in such a way that the two shot option is absolutely NOT doable, almost in all cases will probably be doomed to criticism and unpopularity. And maybe they should be.

Generally, the designer should increase doable options and just design things in such a way as to leave the options in the realm of some interesting temptations with the prerequisite risks and rewards. Not a good idea to purposely shut down options in the design phase like you say your hole is reachable in two but you don't want anyone to try to make an eagle. Why shut an eagle option down when you could offer it but at a real price for a miscue if someone goes for the temptation?

Our #7 hole at Gulph Mills was a short par 5 Perry Maxwell redesigned that was very reachable but the green-end made it insane to try and the hole was never accepted and devolved into something even worse! As good as Maxwell was I feel he really blew the green-end design by making the "go" option way too hard or way to risky and all he did is shut down a perfectly good option and the hole ultimately suffered because noone was willing to try it--he shut the temptation down totally.

Don't forget a designed option that doesn't function well and isn't used is as bad as a hole that should have an option and doesn't!

Coore and Crenshaw have been fascinated by the reachable par 5 that has something that confuses the golfer psychologically but still offers him the go option and they pulled if off uniquely and beautifully on Easthampton's #17.

Maybe your cut 3/5 wood would work even if they have to hit a real great shot to do it for an eagle. Your job as a designer, in my opinion though, is to give them something that will tempt them, not shut the option down completely!

[redanman (Guest)]

I once got within a 7-iron for my 3rd at PVGC #15.  I personally think that's OK.

[Tim_Weiman]

No.

Why have such a rule?

Is your instructor opposed to variety?

[Tyler Kearns]

Brian,
        i concur with the comments above, a par five does not have to be reachable in two shots. reachable par fives do make the player think about the risk/reward balance when deciding to go for the green on the second shot. however, to offer an unreachable par five does not eliminate that decision-making process. the hole could accomodate two distinct layup areas, one demanding precision and distance control for the reward of a good angle and full-club approach, while the other may afford much less accurate ball-striking at the expense of a tougher and longer third shot.
         both types of par five, the reachable and the unreachable have their place on a golf course, both yielding a distinct concept of golf hole design. when did our conception of par fives change? why the desire to make them play as long par fours?

[Paul Richards]

There is no script.

The best courses have a mix of holes - reachable par fives
are always fun, and, yet, the "unreachable" ones can be
fun as well.

[TEPaul]

Shivas, could you go over that 540yd par 5 in a bit more detail please? Are you saying that the most a strong player or long hitter could do off the tee ball is a forced layup at 230? And for that removal of length advantage from him you're going to give what advantage to someone else where?

Not to appear in the slightest impolite in my question, particularly in this new atmosphere of love and accomodation on here, but I'm afraid I don't get that concept at all, unless I'm misreading it somehow! And you recommend such a par 5  on every course, no less??

I really can't think of any good par 5s that handcuff a good player like that! If you want to take some advantage from a good player then just tempt him to use his length advantage by giving him some additional risk with it! Don't shut him down completely! I've seen holes that do play something like that either because they were designed poorly or they have devolved into it for some odd reason.  

[JakaB]

Every par five in all circumstances must allow any hitter no matter how long the right to hit a driver off of the tee if he so chooses.  The rarity of the par five must be respected...with only three or four on any one course the player must be given the right to make a mistake....the right to dream of two perfect shots...don't take away our dreams if you want to someday be the creator of memories.

[Paul Richards]

JakaB:

I'm sure you didn't mean to use the word "always."

You probably meant to say "mostly"?

[JakaB]

Paul,

I would say always have the right to hit driver...it is my choice not to hit driver on number 3 and 15 on the little course in Indiana I like to play but that is my choice because I am not good enough to reach the green in two 95% of the time.  Now players of higher caliber than me have in fact reached those greens in two and I am happy they are that good.   I have probably won more bets on those holes from my guests because they don't understand the risk/reward but thats what initiation fees are for.  I seemed to have lost the ability to construct a good sentance...so I'm gone.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As a "wee Lad" in Chicago, about 1967-8, my love of architecture was insired by two Golf Digest articles, one by HWWind, and the other by Gary Player.

The Wind article was superior, and I remember lots of it even though I have lost the copy of it I had.  The Player article had some quirk about it, including the assertion that the fairway should widen out at 250-300 yards (probably 300-350 today) since the long player who hits 5% off line goes farther astray than the short player who hits 5% off line.  I saw in GW that Mickelson believes fairways can stay the same width throughout the hole, but Player is still the only one advocating widening them for the better player that I can recall.

Another thing he said, was that he liked one "giveaway" par 5, reachable by just about all good competitors, one true 3 shot par 3, and two "tweaners" that had special demands.  That always stuck with me.

It was "refined in my mind" by Larry Nelson, one of the tours shorter hitters, but "sneaky long" nonetheless, who favored one of the tweaners with a forced carry, like Augusta 15, but the other with a narrow "run up ramp" of some kind, or possibly an offset green allowing either a direct carry or creative "bank shot."  He felt this gave the shorter fellow with some shotmaking ability a way to compete with the longer hitters who could lace a 1 iron to a target and make it stick.

Thus, a design formula was born,   and it's one I usually hold to pretty closely whenever possible.  However, after seeing the 642 yard par 5 at Southern Hills hit repeatedly in two shots last year - sometimes with long irons - I have to sort of ignore reality in thinking that my 600 yard par 5 holes represent true 3 shot holes if the pros ever show up.  

At a place where very good amateurs will show up - Colbert Hills - three of the four par 5 holes exceed 600 yards.  I believe all have been reached in two in the courses two year existence.  They are considering lengthening 16 - at only 545 up a hill.  At one time, Mr. Colbert thought it would be his equivalent of 15 at Muirfield Village, the "giveaway par 5" at a great place in the round.  New conventional wisdom is.....too easy!

As a designer of primarily public courses, I usually favor making the true 3 shot hole the first one on each nine, and the reachable one the latter, or possibly even emulate Augusta, where the reachers are both on the back nine, as a practical consideration to speed of play.  Waiting for a bunch of duffers in front of you who have a 2% chance of actully getting there only to see them duff the shot is frustrating for the golfer, and tough on the owner's bottom line.

[TEPaul]

Barney:

Now that's one of your all time bests! That's printoutable! Thanks, you old philosopher!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

A bit of advice from none other than Pete Dye -Don't aploogize for nothing!  Even to an instructor who quite possibly holds your destiny in his hands - or grading pencil!

[TEPaul]

PaulR:

It's definitely futile and quite possibly dangerous to assume what akaB really means! Mostly I just read it and smile or go Hmmmm!

[John_McMillan]

I assume the instructor was not AW Tillinghast - whose design philosophy was that all par-5's play as 3-shot holes.  I also assume your instructor has never played the 16'th at Crystal Downs (or if he did, he made his own tee about 100 yards down the fairway).

Par-5 philosophy is one of the big differentiators between architects, so I'm surprised your instructor seemed to imply there was an orthodoxy you were not in compliance with.

Refer him to the DG, and we'll lash him with a wet noodle  

[Paul Richards]

TEPaul:

Fair point about trying to figure out what JakaB really means!

[Brian Phillips]

TEPaul,

You woke me up there Tom.  Maybe you are right and a designer should not lock up the hole.  However do you agree that if there is one and only one shot like the cut shot I mentioned that it should be allowed?

If the site is tight and you as a designer have been asked to put in a certain number of Par 5's and one of them does happen to be short would you not try to protect it or would you leave it open for an easy 5 wood from the big boys?

Another thought is that of the ego blasting long player.  I as the designer have tried to warn the player not to go for the green.  I have put signs (the bunkers) to warn him or her to please don't go for it.  Lay up on one side of the hole to find the best place to place the appraoch to get the easy putt to the hole.

So what I have done is put the short straight player on level a playing park for just one hole on the golf course with the long player.  Just once.....

[BCrosby]

John -

I did not know Tillie thought all par 5's should be three shotters[sp?].  Interesting.

Ross had a different view.  In Golf Never Fails Me he says a couple of times that he dislikes unreachable par 5's because the lay-up shot tended to be dull.

I've often wondered if he really meant that.  First, Ross built a lot of unreachable par 5's, many with very interesting lay-up options.

Second, I don't understand why Ross thought the lay-up had to be a "throw-away" shot anyway.  It's a placement shot setting up an approach not different in concept from a drive.  Certainly Ross had no trouble designing interesting driving options.  So I don't understand why he felt it was more difficult to design similar options for lay-ups on par 5's.

In any event, a strange thing to say.  

It is clear, however, that there was/is a wide range of opinions about reachable/unreachable par 5's.

Seems to me the only incorrect position is to be dogmatic about it.  

Like, say, Brian's teacher.