Who should reach a reachable par 5?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'd like to hear treehouse opinions.
Especially Dan King's and David Ober's.

I'd like to build a reachable par 5 for the average senior woman.
That may mean a hole 350 yards long.
What is its par?
According to the USGA it is a par 4.
The Old Course has 2 par 5s for the women, 343 & 366 yards on the front nine.
It is a par 76 for the women.

Idealistically I'd like for everyone to play from the same tees - or at most 2 sets of tees - Chicago Golf Club has 2 1/2+ sets of tees.
But that doesn't leave room for a senior woman to have a reachable par 5.

Completely ignoring par, ratings, tournaments, I laid out 3 par 5 ideal locations for women at Wolf Point Club at 359, 362 & 395 yards.
The course total is 4,350 yds

Cheers

[Dan King]

I'm not sure why you would want my opinion. I don't think much of the whole concept of par.

If it were up to me and golfers felt the need to have a par, there would be one par -- it would be the expected result for finalists at the U.S. Amateur. That is all it would mean. There wouldn't be women's par or senior par, or children's par, just par.  We would all better understand it is a number that only really has a meaning for the elite in golf and not really a meaningful number for most golfers.

So I'm not to sure how to answer your question.

Cheers,
Dan King

Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker.
 --Willie Nelson

[Mike Nuzzo]

Good answer Dan
Thank you

If you and your wife were to play a round of golf, would you start from the same spot?

Cheers

[jeffwarne]

I'd like to hear treehouse opinions.
Especially Dan King's and David Ober's.

I'd like to build a reachable par 5 for the average senior woman.
That may mean a hole 350 yards long.
What is its par?

Cheers

I'd like to meet the "average senior woman" who  reaches 350 yards in 2 shots.
I'm confident there are plenty, but they're hardly "average"
If you're playing from one set of tees or two(which I really like), it seems the easy solution is simply different pars for different people.(if you/they even care about par)
Simply too much disparity of length amongst women, and the average has to include the 100 yard driver.

Recently, to improve our routing, we recently made a medum par 4 into a shorter, perhaps driveable par 4 with a multitude of attractive options, and four separate tees. (300-222- uphill the most from the back tee angle))
Interestingly, although the better players really like it, we've gotten our most enthusiastic positive feedback from seniors and women, who now have a chance to reach it in two, despite all the obstacles they have to negotiate! (for them it)'s a risk reward reachable par 5!

[Jason Thurman]

We can idealize the notion that par shouldn't exist all we want. The fact of the matter is that it does, and it isn't going anywhere. Weekend players like making pars, they love making birdies, and they feel fantastic when they make an eagle, even if it comes on a 200 yard "par 4" on an executive course.

My mother is 51 and hits the ball long for a woman her age. She'd be able to reach a 350 yard par 5, but not with a lot of room to spare. She'd need her full 200 yard drive and then a well struck 5w or 3w. She rarely gets a chance to take a real run at a par 5 in two, but it's fun for her when she does. It'd be a lot more fun if she got an eagle putt (I don't think I've ever seen her miss one, and I'm sure I haven't seen her convert).

If you want it reachable for everyone, you need to think closer to 300 yards I'd guess. But it's worth doing. Very few recreational senior women golfers have ever had a chance at eagle or even birdie, and on the rare occassion that they make one, they'll be thrilled and remember it as one of their great golfing moments. If a hole that guarantees a Personal Top 10 moment for 2-5% of the people that play it isn't design worth pursuing, I don't know what is.

[jeffwarne]

Jason,
51 does not qualify for the phrase "a woman her age"

[Tony_Muldoon]

Can't speak for the women but..

I've been playing 12 years and (until last week had!) reached the dizzy heights of a 12 h'cap.  I am but a little longer than the truly average golfer.

I've had one eagle putt this year and going by averages that wil probably be it, but I live in hope.  I have had 3 eagles. One a pitch from 120 yards (for 2), one a chip in (3) and one a putt for a 3.  I have all three balls.

When I think of reachable, I'm thinking for the "Category 1" player who is long, maybe 50% of the time.


For me when all the stars align. Firm gound, downhill, wind helping and my best swing.  I don't mind they're rare, in fact I trasure them all the more for it.

[Dan King]

Mike Nuzzo writes:
If you and your wife were to play a round of golf, would you start from the same spot?

I guess the first step would be to pick me up one of those wife things.

Ideally we would play from the same spot. I would want to play from a tee that didn't have any carries that I might not be able to clear. I would assume this fictional wife I have would feel the same way. Since I'm not trying to compete in the U.S. amateur it is crazy to think I should compete against this person when out playing a round. I'd rather go up against Colonel Bogey than a U.S. Amateur finalist.

Cheers,
Dan King

Hush hush hush, here comes the bogey man
Don't let him come too close to you, he'll catch you if he can
Just pretend that you're a crocodile
and you will find the bogey man will run away a mile
 --Henry Hall

[Jason Thurman]

Tony, I agree. The rarity of eagles makes them very exciting. I don't think we need 170 yard par 5s for women, but I'd love to see a 300 yarder here and there that gives them a chance to reach. I still have fun playing 450 yarders, and I'm similar to you: a fairly long hitter but not straight enough or a good enough putter to make eagle more than once a year or so.

And Jeff, I should probably apologize, but I only wanted to make the point that she's NOT that old and long "for a woman her age" is much longer than for a true "senior" woman. Basically, I was calling her young...

50 is the new 30, and conversely, sometimes 300 should be the new 500 (yardagewise).

[Mark Saltzman]

Mike,

As a pea-shooter I am sensitive to yardages and what 'should-be' reachable in two/driveable.

I have played many a 'driveable' par-4 that plays in the 270-280 yard range for the 6,500 yard set of tees.  Yes, a lot of us who play those tees could probably reach the front of the green with a good drive, but to me that is not really driveable.  I think those holes that are truly meant to be driveable and have risk/reward decisions that are well-weighted could play much shorter.  So-be-it if the longer hitters can get there with hybrids/fairway woods; if the hole is meant to play as a driveable par-4, then give the majority of players a chance to actually drive it.

- A Pea-Shooter.

[Lester George]

Mike,

I guess reachable is totally relative to the player.  I think you are on target though. 

The four par 5's at Country Club of Florida are 344, 351, 394, 387 from the forwards.  They have a very good womens comntingent and they have been very pleased with the par 5's since they were put in in 2007.  They are certainly reachable for a large enough group that they are complimentary with their comments. 

Lester 

[Dan King]

Jason Thurman writes:
50 is the new 30, and conversely, sometimes 300 should be the new 500 (yardagewise).

Fraid not. 50 is still 50, 30 is still 30 and 500 is still 500.  These numbers have absolute values and can not be changed just by wishing they signified something different.

Cheers,
Dan King

It is the quality of the moment, not the number of days, or events, or of actors, that imports.
 --Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Matthew Petersen]

Mike,

As a pea-shooter I am sensite to yardages and what 'should-be' reachable in two/driveable.

I have played many a 'driveable' par-4 that plays in the 270-280 yard range for the 6,500 yard set of tees.  Yes, a lot of us who play those tees could probably reach the front of the green with a good drive, but to me that is not really driveable.  I think those holes that are truly meant to be driveable and have risk/reward decisions that are well-weighted could play much shorter.  So-be-it if the longer hitters can get there with hybrids/fairway woods; if the hole is meant to play as a driveable par-4, then give the majority of players a chance to actually drive it.

- A Pea-Shooter.

Even as a longer hitter, I completely agree. Most "reachable" par 4s have a significant amount of trouble of some sort around the green to make the risk-reward significant.

If a longer hitter is, for whatever reason, playing up a set or two and can reach the green with a hybrid who cares? It's still going to be a challenging shot and the idea is you want the guy who always plays that tee, who can only bang it 240 to at least give the risky try a thought.

[RJ_Daley]

I'd like to build a reachable par 5 for the average senior woman.

hmmmm I think I see where you are going wrong.  You don't know enough senior women yet. 

Frankly, I can't think of any senior women I know that want to be thought of as 'average'.  So, build your reachable par 5s for senior women who are 'marvelous'.   

[Mike Nuzzo]

Sorry for the assumption Dan
It is hard to pick out who is who among all those Hawaiian shirts. 

I am not building a new short par 5 (this month) I'm working on changing the yardage for a women's par 5 from 401 to something lower.
It is a municipal course, they have mixed outings.
The 401 yard tee will stay, but at least they'll have an option once in a while.

[Jason Thurman]

Here's a wonderful short par 4 from our own Jeff Brauer. It's at Woodland Hills near Lincoln, NE, where I played a few weeks ago on a business trip.



From the tees I played, I think it was about 254. Straight downwind, I hit a 2 iron that landed about a foot short and bounded over. I had a VERY tough up-and-down from back there (but made birdie). I played again the next day with virtually no wind and hit 3w into the left bunker, facing a much easier up-and-down for anyone competent from bunkers (which I'm not, so I made par).

It's a hole that can work for everyone. Most players from the correct tees will have a chance to drive it. The stronger player who misses long gets left with an extremely tough pitch. There's plenty of risk for everyone making layups an option for all players.

I enjoyed the hole and thought it gave a good opportunity for a memorably low number without being a pushover. The same concept could easily work on a short par 5. Make the miss long treacherous for the stronger player who might get there and leave plenty of risk intact to make it exacting enough to be a challenge.

And Dan, dollars are absolute values too. $300 is $300, but it sure counted for a lot more in 1930 or in Nairobi than it does in Manhattan today. A 50 year old in 1645 and a 50 year old in 2012 are the same age, but one of them feels a lot more confident about waking up in the morning...

[Ken Moum]

I'd like to build a reachable par 5 for the average senior woman.
That may mean a hole 350 yards long.
What is its par?
According to the USGA it is a par 4.

My wife and I are both going to qualifiy for Medicare later this year, and we have both lately carried indexes in the 10-12 range.

That puts her in the top 5 percent of ALL women who carry handicaps, so she's WAY above average for Sr. Women.

And the chances of her reaching a 350-yard par five in two is approximately ZERO.  Last year our GM put in some new tees to get the shortest set down to about 4700 yards, which ended up with a couple of par fives barely in the 325-yard range, and AFAIK she never got close to reaching either of them in two.

The current management (new owners) have eliminated those tees, and she's in the process of organizing a mutiny of the women to try to get them back. She's even willing to go out and mark the tees with turf paint so they don't have to do anything, and she's still getting resistance.

The "average" Sr. woman drives it about 130 yards and hits it about 100 with her longest fairway club.  Reachable par fives a pipe dream for them.

Still, a set of "Alice Dye" tees at about 4800 yards is something that makes the game reasonable for about 90 percent of the women golfers i know.

K

[David_Elvins]

I'd like to build a reachable par 5 for the average senior woman.

Mike,

As far as I am aware, hole descriptions such as "reachable Par 5s", " long two shot hole" and "Drive and pitch hole" were traditionally described with reference to the scratch golfer.  They were descriptive terms used to give an idea of the length of hole and how the scratch golfer would play it. 

i believe one of the failings of modern golfers is idea that the above descriptions should apply to all levels of golfers.  It is prescriptive architecture and completely uninteresting, as a hole cannot be the same thing to all golfers.  You can fiddle with multiple tees to a degree but it is a solution with as many problems as solutions.  The real answer in my opinion is to design a golf course with as wide a variety of holes (and hole lengths) as possible and in this way, there is something for everyone. 

Stroking the average golfers egos by giving them chances to make birdies or eagles is a far inferior substitute for giving golfers the opportunity to get pleasure from doing their personal best. 

As for women, when it comes to shot values, they are way out of kilter with male golf and it would need a revolution to get average women to play courses with the same shot values that average men play them. Revolutions do not work well in golf. 

[Sean_A]

Okay, I am a 9 capper who hits the ball about 230-240 in normal conditions and I figure my normal max for two shots is ~480.  Unless I hit two crackers I don't think I should be able to reach a par 5 unless there are circumstances such as downhill, downwind and/or firm conditions aiding me. That said, I think the same should apply for me for one or two par 4s.  I leave it to others to decide which of these (ideally 4-5) 475 to 510ish yard holes should be called 4s or 5s.  It doesn't much matter to me unless there is a trick to be played with a known prevailing wind. I am not keen on making holes longer than this unless the archie has a great opportunity to create something cool.  Otherwise, most will just view the hole as a slog.  While I applaud the idea of trying to trick people into having more fun, at the end of the day, it is just smoke and mirrors.  

I much prefer Dan's approach with the exception that there are times when a great distance between tees will make for a better course for more people.  It would be an interesting concept to have handicaps based off of only two sets (and probably a mix n' match) of tees.  I have never been a fan of 4, 5 and 6 sets because I think it gives archies an excuse to be lazy in their design.

David E

I think there are times when a cool hole of say 275 should be a par 4 rather than a par 3 of 260 yards.  There is nothing wrong with stroking egos once in a while.  

Ciao  

[Rich Goodale]

I'm not sure why you would want my opinion. I don't think much of the whole concept of par.

If it were up to me and golfers felt the need to have a par, there would be one par -- it would be the expected result for finalists at the U.S. Amateur. That is all it would mean. There wouldn't be women's par or senior par, or children's par, just par.  We would all better understand it is a number that only really has a meaning for the elite in golf and not really a meaningful number for most golfers.

So I'm not to sure how to answer your question.

Cheers,
Dan King

Par is whatever I say it is. I've got one hole that's a par 23 and yesterday I damn near birdied the sucker.
 --Willie Nelson

As is almost always true, Dan is right.  Having a "Woman's Par" is like having a "Woman's 100M Olympic Final" run from separate blocks 85m from the finish line.  Why not a Toddlers par (under 3) or Dribblers par (over 80)  or Cheaters par (whatever you put on the scorecard).  "Par" and "Handicaps" are the achilles heels of golf.

[Jason Thurman]

As is almost always true, Dan is right.  Having a "Woman's Par" is like having a "Woman's 100M Olympic Final" run from separate blocks 85m from the finish line.  Why not a Toddlers par (under 3) or Dribblers par (over 80)  or Cheaters par (whatever you put on the scorecard).  "Par" and "Handicaps" are the achilles heels of golf.

This all sounds good in theory, and I agree with it in principle. But the fact is that par matters to almost everyone who walks onto a golf course. If your knees don't get just a bit weaker standing over a 4-footer for a round of -1 than for a round of +2, you're a true purist. You're also in the minority, and probably not the primary consituency for a 4300 yard course.

There's an easy solution though. According to your idea that having a separate women's par is stupid, it must also stand to reason that having a separate men's par is stupid. What's the problem, then, with having a 300 yard hole with one set of tees and listing it as a par 5 for everyone? If we all agree that par doesn't matter, then it also doesn't matter if a big hitter makes "albatross" since "albatross" is just a rooster illusion that doesn't exist. The upside is that a few people a day will walk off the hole really happy, even if the source of their joy is the Achilles heel of golf.

I would argue that lack of fun is the Achilles heel of golf. I would also argue that eagle putts are fun, at least for me.

[BCrosby]

The simple fact is that, however glibly we dismiss the idea of 'par', no one actually fabricates his own. The great golfing sage Willie Nelson notwithstanding. That ought to be seen as an interesting factoid about the game.

I would humbly suggest that the notion of 'par' is loaded with significance. Like it or not.

Bob

[Mark Pearce]

I hit the ball a similar distance to Sean.  A handful of times a year I "reach" a par 5.  I have to live with just not being long enough to regularly hit the ball 480 yards in two blows without wind or gravitational assistance.  It strikes me that an average senior lady should also learn to live with the fact that "reaching" par 5s is something better, longer golfers do.  After all, the satisfaction of "reaching" a 350 yard par 5 should, in any reasonable golfer's mind, be mitigated by the fact that it is, actually, a mid-length par 4.

[Sean_A]

This is always a perplexing question.  Par only matters if one chooses to let it matter.  There is no inherent importance to the concept either in labelling a hole a certain par or achieving a par. This is why I think it is great when folks mess with the concept by sometimes having 240 yard par 4s and 250 yard par 3s or 470 yard par 4s and 460 yard par 5s.  It is precisely this sort of tom foolery which exposes par for what it is, a method to keep score for expert players.  The idea of calling a hole a certain par based on yardage is as misguided as is lining fairways with trees and rough. The satisfaction of earning a 4 on a tough hole is the idea that you have gained a shot on the field or won the hole etc.  What we label these good scores is only a method to celebrate this fact.

Ciao

[RJ_Daley]

What does 'Grandpa Joe' say about senior women?  He probably knows more of them than both of us put together. 

He should post more often.