Doing away with par 5's

[Niall C]

On Peter Pallota's thread re great courses from the golden age there is some discussion about ever lengthening courses and how to avoid ending up with 8,000 yard courses. I recall reading an idea from Colt where he suggests reducing the number of par 5's on a course, indeed he even might have mentioned doing away with them all together and building more par 3's, I can't recall exactly but the more I think about it the more the genral idea of limiting or doing away with par 5's appeals to me.

Very often par 5's that require two full out shots plus another shot to the green are just a slog. I'm struggling to think of a hole like that that has any real interest. The really great par 5's seem to be the ones reachable in two but with an element of risk reward. Would courses be more interesting if instead of the standard four 5's and four 3's, you had say two 5's and six 3's with the 5's being the reachable in two kind and the 3's having a couple of holes being just within reach or even slightly out of reach for the average golfer. I've got to think that would be more interesting than blandly hitting a 3 wood up the fairway for your second shot.

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Jud_T]

6300 yard par 68.  I like it.  Probably where we're headed if technology and the economy continue to conspire against the traditional 10, 4, 4.

[Adrian_Stiff]

We used to call all of our holes up to 499 yards par 4 holes, we now call the ones over 490 yards par 5 holes. Calling them 5s is hugely more popular with 95% of golfers. If we have pro tournaments they play them as 4s and a par 70. It does not really matter but people are happier if they make pars and birdies.

[Niall C]

Adrian,

I think thats fair enough. I tend to think of my game as a bit of a yardstick for the average golfer and would suggest that anything over 460 yds in normal conditions is likely to be a 3 shotter for me.  By that reasoning and going with the concept of doing away with 3 shotters (due to length) I would have that as the normal tee and added allowance for "championship" tees. Not against anyone taking 3 shots to reach a green but I just like the idea that they aren't forced to do so because they simply can't reach in two. Whether the hole is tagged a par 4 or a par 5 is perhaps a different matter although I think it does affect the golfers attitude (rightly or wrongly) when he plays the hole. Likewise, I like the idea that a golfer might think twice about going for the green on a par 3.

Niall

[Scott Stearns]

5th, 11th and for some the 15th at muirfield village are great three shot par 5s for good players. 

[JESII]

Niall,

I think the idea has merit...and it would solve alot of the increasing real estate issues people frequently cite in the cost of the game debates. The greatest obstacle I see is the par 70 barrier. I think people see par 68 or 69 as inherently inferior without due supporting evidence.

[Tom_Doak]

I have played several great courses that have one or zero par-5's ... Rye and Swinley Forest are the first two that come to mind.  Some have suggested Royal Melbourne (West) is very close to this, too, because even though it has four par-5 holes, none of them are more than 510 yards.  All of those are GREAT courses for someone like me, and probably for nearly everyone who's reading this comment.

However, I don't think those same courses are great for the professionals, if they never have to hit more than an 7-iron out of the fairway.  Yes, you can build some extra long par-3's and some very cool short par-4's and make the course INTERESTING for them, but not TESTING for them.  To make it TESTING for them, I think you need to have some holes in between 540 and 600 yards, where they would be really challenged to go for the green with a long second shot.  Those are really still par-4 holes for the Tour player, but for the benefit of mortals, you have to call them par-5's.

[Andy Troeger]

I think there have been a lot of good comments on the positive side of the debate. I have to admit that I can't think of that many really interesting three-shot holes that aren't at least potentially reachable for the long hitter. The two at Pine Valley are not reachable for the vast majority of us, and they are probably the best I've seen.

I think Pete Dye's courses show why this isn't a good idea--he's the rare designer whose par fives might be the best holes on his courses. Pete Dye GC's 5th and 8th are both excellent, as are Blackwolf River's 8th, 11th, and 16th. I think #11 and #16 at TPC Sawgrass might be the best holes on that course too. Many of those are reachable for long hitters, but if you take them out I think his courses suffer.

I also think its easier to create variety in interesting reachable par fives than in interesting drivable par fours--both of which tend to be interesting for most golfers. I like the idea of having to hit two good shots to have an eagle putt better than one as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Add in the fact that the middle shot on a par 5 is typically and inherently the least interesting shot in golf (can be exciting if properly designed, but usually isn't) I think reducing par 5's to two for par 70 makes loads of sense.  The biggest thrill is going for it in two, but you can replicate that twice with short par 4 holes, as well.

[Sven Nilsen]

From the sounds of it, I may be in the minority, but I love par 5's. 

Things I like:

Overcoming the temptation to over-swing on the drive in an attempt to shorten the hole.
Hearing someone say "no problem, its a par 5" after a bad drive and then managing to get there in three.
Playing for position on the second.  I get just as much reward from seeing a layup land where I want it to as I do in hitting a green on a par 4.
Sometimes being in range to go in 2.
The thought that birdie is a strong possibility, but only if my execution is strong on the first two shots.
Playing a short par 5 and a long par 4 in succession and being happy if I walk away with 9 for both.

There's something about the challenge of the longer holes that appeals to me.  Having to execute at least two strong shots to get to the hole, as opposed to just one for par 3's, seems like a better test.  Doing away with par 5's would be a disservice to providing a complete challenge to the player.
 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Would courses be more interesting if instead of the standard four 5's and four 3's, you had say two 5's and six 3's with the 5's being the reachable in two kind and the 3's having a couple of holes being just within reach or even slightly out of reach for the average golfer.

You've just described Reddish Vale.

That MacKenzie bloke was clearly onto something!

 

[Bill McKinley]

I agree with most of you about the middle shot on a 3 shot par 5 being very bland.  There should never be any wasted shots or whatnot after you hit a good drive.  The 2nd nine par 5's at Canterbury GC are two of the best examples of "no wasted shots" on par 5's.  #13 is a short one that has a with a beatiful downhill approach to a small green.  #16 is a 616 yard beast with a blind uphill 2nd shot where if you don't hit a solid 2nd you will have a blind 3rd from around 190 yards.  Or if you hit a good 2nd, you'll have about 140 from the top of the hill, or it can roll all the way down to the bottom, that will give you a semi blind pitch from 50 yards.

Also, the 13th at Oak Hill East is another good example of a great 3 shot par 5.

But to your point, I love par 5's but don't care for those that don't really provide challenge on all shots, whether it's a long 2nd or you need to hit 3 good shots to have a good chance at birdie.

[Tom_Doak]

Add in the fact that the middle shot on a par 5 is typically and inherently the least interesting shot in golf (can be exciting if properly designed, but usually isn't) I think reducing par 5's to two for par 70 makes loads of sense.  The biggest thrill is going for it in two, but you can replicate that twice with short par 4 holes, as well.

Jeff:

The hole that taught me not to believe your argument is the 16th at Crystal Downs -- the long par 5 back toward home.

The second shot up and over the crest is unquestionably the most boring-looking shot on the golf course, and many of my guests over the years have questioned why the architects didn't make it more interesting by adding bunkers up the hill, or a bunker in the middle of the fairway, or SOMETHING.

Yet my observation is that the second shot on #16 (and indeed the tee shot on the same hole) is one of the more VALUABLE shots on the course.  If you hit a good, solid shot up the fairway, you give yourself a reasonable distance to attack the flag with your third shot; if you don't, you are flailing away from long range with your third, and possibly opening yourself to making 7.  And if you fall asleep on the shot and yank it into the deep rough on the left or spray it to the right, you're DEFINITELY making 6 or 7.  So, in fact, there is an important decision to make on that second shot -- whether to back off to ensure getting it in the fairway, or whether you're good enough to hit a fairway wood further up the hole.

Top players had to make the same decisions on par-5 holes 50 years ago, but they almost never have to do so anymore.  I'm not surprised that most of them would prefer not to ... and that's exactly the reason why I'd like to make them!

[Ben Sims]

I really need to see #16 at Crystal again.  When I last saw it, the idea seemed to me--and our host pointed it out--that it required three precise shots for a birdie or par.  I'm not sure if I embrace that concept.  I don't like the idea of asking the 5-15 'cap golfer to hit two really good long shots just to get in position to hit the green with a 100-150 yd shot.  I don't know many golfers that enjoy that type of pressure on their game and it seems like a low percentage of your players are going to enjoy the hole.  And looking back on that hole at Crystal Downs, I'm reminded of #12 at Oakmont. 

I think about true three-shot par 5's as the hardest holes to design in golf.  #8 at Crystal and #7 at PV being the best examples of an extremely skinny list of great holes.

[Tom_Doak]

I really need to see #16 at Crystal again.  When I last saw it, the idea seemed to me--and our host pointed it out--that it required three precise shots for a birdie or par.  I'm not sure if I embrace that concept.

Ben:

Yes, that's most people's objection ... and I don't get it. 

Are you okay with a par-3 hole which requires one precise shot for a birdie or par? 

Are you okay with a par-4 hole that requires two precise shots for a birdie or par?

Do you see where I'm going with this? 

[Andy Troeger]

I think Ben's point is a reason that long holes should have some kind of role. I wouldn't want to play 18 of them, but once or twice a round its not unreasonable to ask a golfer to put together 3 shots to have a reasonable birdie opportunity. The challenge is to be able to make all three shots interesting.

I find its a nice balance for the par threes where it only takes one good shot.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Par 3s can only hold one group, so having six of them would slow down play.

Ulrich

[Carl Rogers]

This thread may encapsulate one of the conundrums of modern golf design.
Too many par 5's are:
- too easy for the really good golfer
- and way too much of a long hard slog for the majority

The 700 yard hole for the plus golfer needs to be 200 shorter for the rest of us.

[Ben Sims]

I really need to see #16 at Crystal again.  When I last saw it, the idea seemed to me--and our host pointed it out--that it required three precise shots for a birdie or par.  I'm not sure if I embrace that concept.

Ben:

Yes, that's most people's objection ... and I don't get it. 

Are you okay with a par-3 hole which requires one precise shot for a birdie or par? 

Are you okay with a par-4 hole that requires two precise shots for a birdie or par?

Do you see where I'm going with this? 

Tom,

Life's full of conflicting gray areas, and this is one of mine.  I agree completely with what you're saying in theory, but then I think about the odds of a mid-cap golfer stringing together the required shots for a hole like 12 at Oakmont, 15 at Pine Valley or 16 at Crystal.  The odds are the same on each individual shot, just like the odds never change on individual rolls in craps.  But what are the odds of rolling three sevens in a row? 

The only hole at Crystal that felt like it was more designed for medal play was #16.  If that helps in describing what I didn't like about it.

Like I said earlier, designing long par 5's may be the hardest thing in golf architecture.  I certainly can't think of any that are considered the crescendo on their respective golf course.   And even the greatest long par 5's aren't the best holes at their respective course either. 

I'm not saying I hate long par 5's, but they're so hard to do well.  And they create so little excitement from all but the top 5% of golfers.

[Ian Andrew]

Plymouth Country Club is par 69.

The only five is the 16th - which is barely 500 yards.
It has five excellent long fours that are the strength of the round and turning any into a five would lessen the course.
When the holes are great, you don't miss the fives.

[Bill_McBride]

Played Rye today.  Didn't think about no par 5's, too busy trying to survive some of the toughest par 4's on the planet. 

Elie hasn't been mentioned, it's another 5-less course where it makes no difference at all. 

[Michael George]

Sven:

I am in 100% agreement with you.  Par 3's. 4's and 5's each bring a strategic element to a golf course.  I think if you get rid of par 5's you are likely to eliminate some really fun and challenging shots.  Plus, there is usually more thinking on a par 5 then on par 3's and 4's.  If a course needs to go to 2 par 5's due to length issues, I am all for it.   However, all things being equal, I enjoy playing at least 2 par 5's during an 18 hole round. 

In my opinion, I agree with most on this string, the second shot usually identifies whether a par 5 is great or not. 

An example of a great 2nd shot par 5 is #3 at Pacific Dunes.  First time I played it, I was on the right side of the fairway to a right back pin, hit it 5 yards too long (because the short bunker is death) and it rolled to the left of the hump and ended in a deep swale (only to hit across the green into that same front bunker) on my way to a double.  Second time, I hit it in the left fairway and had a comfortable approach to the same pin and made birdie.  (Re: another par 5 at Bandon - it will be interesting when Old Macdonald grows in a little re: #6.  Right now, I hit way left as the fescue was not that penal over there (thereby avoiding the Hell Bunker).  When the grass over there is higher and thicker, it will be a much scarier shot and another great 2nd shot on a par 5.

Another hole that I think has a great 2nd shot for a par 5 is #5 at Pete Dye GC.  It is a blind second shot with a large ridge in front of you.  Your only aiming point are smoke stacks in the distance and if you don't have a straight shot into the green, you can forget it as the green is the most narrow one that I have ever played.  Just a really neat 2nd shot on a par 5.

   

[Adam Clayman]

Not lowering the absolute value of par, for the pros, is the biggest mistake the powers that be are currently making. Its insulting to be associated with such a great and complex sport onlyu to have it ruled by egotists.

[Chris DeNigris]

For me (and probably some others) golf is about variety..in almost every facet of the game. Doing something to diminish the variety in any way would be a negative.

Speaking as a mid-handicapper, I love par 5s...long ones, short ones, medium ones...for guys like most of us that have so much variance in our shot quality there is often no such thing as too short a par 5...at least not consistently. It's not like we're always perfectly placing a 280 yd drive and "only" having 210 left for a gimme eagle...

Most 5s for all but the very best strikers are true 3 shotters...granted the 3rd might be a short pitch or a recovery shot from a typically mis-routed long 2nd. And while they often provide the best chance for an ugly number (I think most of us tend to take more ill-advise risks on 5s) they are also where golfers like me make a vast majority of their birdies....and that's a big plus on the fun meter.

I've played a few courses recently with 5 3s and 5s and as long as they are different enough in character I like it. But I wouldn't want every course to be like that, just like I wouldn't want them all to be the other way around. Variety always good.

[Scott Stearns]

going back to Tom's comment, it seems that #6 at Old Mac Donald is a tough second shot.  also like the idea of forcing players to choose a layup that is NOT 100 yards.