I have to agree that 5 is an excellent golf hole. Yes, the green is not terribly receptive off the tee. However, 5 is a short par three, and you will likely be coming in with no more than a 6-iron. The green should be plenty big enough to hold that type of shot. Moreover, there is PLENTY of room short to the left and right of the bunker. The short miss that avoids the bunker leaves a straightforward uphill pitch, and, unless the golfer gets silly or executes poorly, he should make no worse than a four from short of the green.
And yes, this a cool golf hole, with a green and lone bunker carved from a natural landscape. The other 17 greens are extremely receptive at Dismal, so why can't one repel shots?
How much more difficult is Dismal's 5th than, say, the 11th at Shinnecock Hills? Or any other uphill par three?
I thought the review and ratings were pretty good (although the Overall rating seems a bit low relative to the individual rankings: 6.6 versus a 7.2 average for the ten categories). I really didn't get the par threes being rated 5 out of ten. Yes, the yardages are close together, but these are four very different par threes here. 3 is a pitch over a sand pit to a huge, multi-sectioned green. 5 is a short, uphill affair to a skyline green. 10 can either be a short iron to a front pin or a long iron to a semi-blind back hole location. 15 is a mid-iron over a dramatic blowout to a redan-style green. All are sited beautifully, all dramatic, and all present multiple options--something very rare in a set of par threes. The set of threes at Dismal is my favorite of the year.