Par Fives as Opening Holes

[David_Tepper]

The Olympic Club Ocean Course also opens with a par-5. I think it is a tougher hole than #1 on the Lake.

Golspie changed the opening hole from a par-4 to a par-5 a couple of years ago by moving the tee back and shifting the fairway. I think it was a change for the better. Now, when I make a 6 on the first hole, I am only 1-over par for the round!    

[Bruce Wellmon]

My home club also has a par 5 opener which the green complex is the major defense of the hole.
I am okay by that. 
     

[Doug Siebert]

Since I've typically arrived at the course about five minutes before I tee off on #1, with a few practice swings being my only warmup, I've never personally been a fan of a really demanding first hole.  All I want is for it to not be overly penal, that is, no water or OB or lost ball resulting from a merely bad, rather than terrible, shot.  I'd like it to allow a decent opportunity to scratch out a bogey if played with zero good shots (but again, zero terrible shots) Par 5s on the opener bug me only insofar as I feel like I'm probably giving up a birdie opportunity on a par 5 since I won't string together the two good shots right out of the gate that would required to translate the birdie opportunity into an actual birdie.

At a place like Dismal where I'm there for the golf and may actually find my way to a range to hit a dozen or two balls before starting out I've got no issues at all with starting with a par 5.  If birdie is starting to look unlikely after two shots I can't blame the hole itself or lack of warmup as the cause, only my having hit one or more crappy shots

[Mark McKeever]

I was always casually against it until having played the opening hole at Boston GC.  Its a reachable par 5 with a good drive, but you have to hit a long iron or hybrid off a slightly downhill lie to an essentailly island green.  The all or nothing shot gets your blood flowing early, and can jump start the round with a birdie or a possible eagle.

Mark

[John McCarthy]

In my mind the key to a good opening par 5 (pace of play-wise) is a good starter.  If the group on the tee are good players they should be held back until the group ahead is on the green.  If they fire away when the group ahead is just out of range then they may have to wait a long time if they are going for it in two.  I understand this is not always possible but waiting on the first hole puts everyone in a black mood.

[Wayne_Kozun]

... but waiting on the first hole puts everyone in a black mood.

I would rather wait on the first tee than anywhere else on the course.  Just hit a few more putts on the practice green until it is your time to go.

[John McCarthy]

... but waiting on the first hole puts everyone in a black mood.

I would rather wait on the first tee than anywhere else on the course.  Just hit a few more putts on the practice green until it is your time to go.

I was unclear.  Waiting in the fairway on the 1st puts everyone in a black mood.  Waiting on the tee is no problem - as you say a few extra putts, a few more swings to loosen up or time to get the days bets in order. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

A quick count of my new designs shows I use a par 5 about a third of the time.  It doesn't really matter to me.

I do care about sequence and speed of play on the opening hole.  For that, I think you need a good length hole so that any duffed tee shot gets hit right away, not waiting for the group to clear.  Of course, par 5's do this, as do par long par 4's where we leave enough length for a max second of 200, after a dubbed shot of under 100 yards, even from the white tees.

The problem on par 5 holes is you don't want a reachable par 5.  Figuring that the 320 yard hitters won't be playing my course very often, we keep them under 600 yards (if just barely, or add a button tee for that 1%) because for the average good player, even 560 is not reachable very often, and keeping it that short and/or further middle tee adjustments,  makes it an easier true three shot hole for others.

If its easy or hard, I doubt it would affect many "great courses" attempts.  Even the best courses have a few easy holes once in a while.

BTW, I also believe a first hole ought to be visually good, even if easy, and  its a bonus if it looks good from the clubhouse, where golfers get to see it not only playing, but in the restaurant, etc.  One of my favorite first holes is a gentle dogleg right, with a series of target bunkers facing on the outside/left side of the fw - visually good, and not likely to snare many golfers on the first hole.

[Jud_T]

I agree that the pace of play issue on the opening hole is an important one to consider at most courses.  I doubt it's a major consideration at Dismal.

[Jim Sherma]

I personally like courses that start with a good long par 4. It gives me a chance to get a couple of full swings under my belt and if I make a bogie I'm ok with it since it's a tough hole anyway (lost boll opportunities are a no-no on the first hole in my book - I hate having a round blow up too early). I mostly look at par 5's as a chance to get one back and would rather be into the round to take that chance as opposed to on the first hole and still a little cold.

[Bruce Katona]

Tom D: What I was going to pose is as follows:

• Who is your client (ie pubic venue or private club)?
  

Is the client looking for the next tour stop or concerned with pace of play?

If pace of play is a real concern Jeff B hit the nail on the head - the opening hole must be a true 3 shot hole or the course jams up right out of the shoot. With a true 3 shotter, you can have a group on the tee, one in the fairway playing their 2nd/3rd shots and one on the green.  A short par 5/ par 4.5 will jam things up as the big hitters will go for the green in 2, spray a shot, look for a lost ball and clog the flow of play.

Add to hole #1 a medium length par 4 as hole #2 and then perhaps either a slightly longer par 4 or a short 3, pace of play should be ok.

If the facility is going to be the next tour stop and private, whate ver works best to make the owners/members content.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Certainly in the commercial world you dont want a situation where people wait to play a long shot into a green, miss it right or left then chip and putts. Ideally you want to a sub 400 yarder par 4.

I just looked at my openers from the normal tees:
380 - 295 - 100 - 395 - 565 - 365 - 340 - 380 - 325 - 390 - 400 - 410 - 365

I would say the real ones to avoid are 200-250 yard par 3. Although I have not done a 500 yard par 5, I would and I think largely they would be reasonable as 90% of play wont be getting on in 2.

[David Bartman]

I think it really depends on the practice facilities and the ability to hit a driver at the range.  Many courses don't allow drivers at their ranges ( for longer hitters )  and starting on a Par 5 when you haven't had the ability to warm up properly with your Driver is a bummer. 

I also think that having an excellent scoring opportunity for better players on the first hole isn't my favorite, especially on difficult golf courses where birdies are scarce.  You go out, not quite in rhythm or feel for the day and make a par on an score-able par 5 and you will feel like you left something on the table and now pressure is on for the rest of the day because you left one of the few birdie opportunities slip by. 

[Jason Topp]

The best opening holes make a statement about the course you are going to play that day.  The opening shot at Sand Hills tells you it will be a special day.  Of Tom's courses I have played the tee shot at Stoneagle probably does the best job of communicating the experience.

If an opening hole does not communicate something, there should be a good reason for the decision to use the hole.

[Michael Whitaker]

The Trump course in Scotland opens with a par 5. It is "The World's Greatest Golf Course." Enough said.

http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=308640&ssid=196890&vnf=1

[Michael George]

The Trump course in Scotland opens with a par 5. It is "The World's Greatest Golf Course." Enough said.

http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=308640&ssid=196890&vnf=1

That is awesome!!  Great post Mike.

[Mike Nuzzo]

If pace of play is a real concern Jeff B hit the nail on the head - the opening hole must be a true 3 shot hole or the course jams up right out of the shoot. With a true 3 shotter, you can have a group on the tee, one in the fairway playing their 2nd/3rd shots and one on the green.  A short par 5/ par 4.5 will jam things up as the big hitters will go for the green in 2, spray a shot, look for a lost ball and clog the flow of play.

Memorial Park is the busiest course in Houston.
It has a reachable par 5 opener.
It never backs up.
Cheers

[Ben Sims]

My favorite courses all have a common thread.  Moderate par 4's as the opener.  NGLA, Ballyneal, Wolf Point, Pine Valley, and Oakmont.  Add in my next tier of course I love and you see the preference futher develop (Crystal Downs, Pac Dunes, Bandon Trails, Palmetto, Old Mac and Plainfield).  Come to think of it, only one of my very favorite courses has a par 5 as an opener (Riviera).  I can think of two other courses I like a lot that have par 5's (Kingsley and Colorado GC). 

I think the difficulty of a par 5 opener is the same as any par 5: designing the second shot.  But that is partially a superficial analysis.  I think it goes deeper.  So many courses are sited in a way that the clubhouse is on a prominent piece of property.  This would mean that eight of the courses I listed above--if they had a par 5 as an opener--would have a downhill tee shot followed by an uphill second.  No one likes a blind/uphill second shot with a wood or long iron that early in a round. 

It wasn't until recently that I paid a lot of attention to the difficulty of the approach shot on an opening hole.  But in walking Friars Head with a couple of friends, they commented on how difficult the approach shot could be and how that took a little bit away from the stellar luster of the course.  Interesting observation. 

As someone that cares deeply about how DR2 is recieved, I am glad to see that Tom and crew did not go the route of some other par 5 openers and "jazz it up."  I think benign to moderate openers are underrated in golf, and based on my lists above, I don't see why more architects don't try to ease players into hitting great shots, rather than require it right off the bat.

[Tim Martin]

My favorite courses all have a common thread.  Moderate par 4's as the opener.  NGLA, Ballyneal, Wolf Point, Pine Valley, and Oakmont.  Add in my next tier of course I love and you see the preference futher develop (Crystal Downs, Pac Dunes, Bandon Trails, Palmetto, Old Mac and Plainfield).  Come to think of it, only one of my very favorite courses has a par 5 as an opener (Riviera).  I can think of two other courses I like a lot that have par 5's (Kingsley and Colorado GC).  

I think the difficulty of a par 5 opener is the same as any par 5: designing the second shot.  But that is partially a superficial analysis.  I think it goes deeper.  So many courses are sited in a way that the clubhouse is on a prominent piece of property.  This would mean that eight of the courses I listed above--if they had a par 5 as an opener--would have a downhill tee shot followed by an uphill second.  No one likes a blind/uphill second shot with a wood or long iron that early in a round.  

It wasn't until recently that I paid a lot of attention to the difficulty of the approach shot on an opening hole.  But in walking Friars Head with a couple of friends, they commented on how difficult the approach shot could be and how that took a little bit away from the stellar luster of the course.  Interesting observation.  

As someone that cares deeply about how DR2 is recieved, I am glad to see that Tom and crew did not go the route of some other par 5 openers and "jazz it up."  I think benign to moderate openers are underrated in golf, and based on my lists above, I don't see why more architects don't try to ease players into hitting great shots, rather than require it right off the bat.

Ben-You think #1 at Oakmont is a moderate par 4? 482/441/423 # 1 handicap hole with a terrifying approach to a front to back sloping green. Has to be one of the toughest openers on the planet.

[Ben Sims]

Ben-You think #1 at Oakmont is a moderate par 4? 482/441/423 # 1 handicap hole with a terrifying approach to a front to back sloping green. Has to be one of the toughest openers on the planet.

Tim,

I never said my argument was perfect.  But of those openers, if the toughest hole is Oakmont, I'm okay with that.  Playing it from the correct tees, the hole will play shorter--much shorter in my experience--than the yardage suggests.  I think you can get away with a weak approach shot and still make par if you chip and putt well.  I also think that part of the difficulty of Oakmont #1 has nothing to do with the golf hole, but the OB in close promimity to the right side of the hole.  That's an intimidating first tee shot for a slicer like me. 

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

You obviously don't remember the opening hole at Crystal Downs very well, either.  I have never heard it called "moderate".

[Tim Martin]

Ben-You think #1 at Oakmont is a moderate par 4? 482/441/423 # 1 handicap hole with a terrifying approach to a front to back sloping green. Has to be one of the toughest openers on the planet.

Tim,

I never said my argument was perfect.  But of those openers, if the toughest hole is Oakmont, I'm okay with that.  Playing it from the correct tees, the hole will play shorter--much shorter in my experience--than the yardage suggests.  I think you can get away with a weak approach shot and still make par if you chip and putt well.  I also think that part of the difficulty of Oakmont #1 has nothing to do with the golf hole, but the OB in close promimity to the right side of the hole.  That's an intimidating first tee shot for a slicer like me.  

Ben- Since when does out of bounds have nothing to do with the golf hole? You know better than that. Additionally the idea of a weak approach being overcome by solid chipping and putting is pretty universal for most golf holes and is a weak argument in the context you are using as far as trying to explain away the difficulty. You have to do better than that or just admit that you were not going to sneak that by us. You can dismiss my comments if you like but see Tom Doak`s subsequent post regarding Crystal Downs for more of the same. Like them as an opener but don`t go any farther trying to sell them as moderate.

[Ben Sims]

Tim,

Whoa, insult my analysis, but don't tell me I "know better."  I do know better , that's why I mentioned OB. How do we define a hole's difficulty?  I hope that when a ball sails out of bounds on #1 at Oakmont, that the score attributed to that OB is attached to the #1 hole at Oakmont.  I can't imagine how OB in close proximity to a fairway doesn't affect the hole's difficulty frankly. 

In fact, I think Bill Coore illustrates quite well how OB can have a dramatic affect on how a golf hole plays.  #2 at TSN is a fantastic example.

A weak, short approach at Oakmont has a very solid chance of bouncing forward to the playing surface.  This is a much different concept than a miss on the same course at #2 green.  Maybe moderate was a poor choice of words, but I certainly don't look at it as the picture of difficulty.

Tom is correct that I missed part of what makes #1 at Crystal difficult.  Then again, no one has ever accused me of having a good mind when it comes to golf.  But I remember the hole well enough to know that the drive seemed moderate from the elevated tee, and the appraoch is indeed tough, but not terrifying in my mind.  I am not avery good golfer by any means, and neither of those holes are in the top 5 of ones that scare me the most on their respective courses.

I must applaud you though with how well you tore apart my argument.  It wasn't my best effort.  I should've stopped posting and stayed on vacation longer.  However, the fact remains that all 10 of my favorite courses start with a par 4 that I like, and don't find too overly hard.  That was really my biggest point.

[Frank M]

The only par 5 opener I've ever disliked is the first at Bayview north of Toronto. Besides having to worry about hitting the group playing up the 9th fairway to your left, or the row of homes tight against the fairway on the right, it's also the first of two back-to-back par 5s which open the round.

If you don't like a par 5 opener, what do you think of two par 5s to start?   

[Tim Martin]

Ben-No worries and thanks for the reply. By the way that is a heck of a lineup for opening holes.