What makes a good par-5?

[Benjamin Litman]

Apologies if this subject has already been covered here, but watching Bay Hill last weekend got me thinking about what makes a good par-5. I came away thinking that par-5s should be one of two things:

(1) short enough to allow everyone a chance--or at least tempt everyone to try to--reach the green in two shots (i.e., "a long par-4"); or

(2) a genuine three-shot hole, but only if the second/layup shot is interesting (i.e., something more than just advancing the ball down a straight fairway to get closer to the hole).

To stick with Bay Hill for a moment, the par-5 6th fits the criteria of category 2 (I know many pros were going for it in two, but for amateurs, I imagine it is a genuine three-shot hole and the second shot, by having to contend with the water on the left, retains the golfer's interest and attention), while the par-5 16th fits the criteria of category 1 (I know Arnie is planning changes, but it's in some ways one of the best par-5s on the PGATour).

Beyond Bay Hill (which I'm using only as a starting point, not an end point, for this discussion), Yale's 18th is, to me, the prototypical category-2 par-5, with Bethpage Black's 4th a close second (of courses I've played).

Thoughts?

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben:

Not to hijack the thread, but the 18th at Yale seems to me to be in its own category entirely.

As for the 4th at Bethpage, I agree with your assessment. The second shot is interesting and amongst the best I can think of on a Par 5.

All else aside, I'd probably enjoy the variety of two of each of your categories in a round of golf.

[Jason Topp]

The second shot provides a good indicator of the quality of a par five. Is it interesting or are you simply advancing the ball?

[Tom_Doak]

Benjamin:

When I was a senior in college, my first feature article for GOLF Magazine was about all the par-5 holes in America that had never been hit in two shots.  [It was titled "The Untouchables."  Amazingly, the guy who co-wrote Elliot Ness's biography, Oscar Fraley, was a contributing editor to GOLF at the time, so there was no trouble using that title.]

At the time, true three-shot holes were a terribly unpopular type.  The par-5's at Augusta were the ideal for pretty much everyone; it was hard to find a couple of architects who supported the idea of a hole that couldn't be hit in two, even after polling the ASGCA for responses.

Of course, nowadays most of the holes we listed HAVE been hit in two [the sixth at Bay Hill was one of them, and tons of guys are going for it now, even in the rounds where it counts].  Anything under 600 yards is reachable on a regular basis on the Tour!  For the pros, making a second shot meaningful on that sort of hole is pretty difficult to do.

Disregarding the Tour players, I still do like the concept of a real three-shot hole, though.  Crystal Downs has only two par-5's, and both of them are out of reach for the 99.9%.  The irony is that those holes do not reward power much at all; they reward the player who can hit it in the fairway on both the tee shot and the second shot, and they each have enough undulation that such an assignment is a bit more complicated than it sounds.  But it is rare to see two such holes on a single course; generally, you'll see only one par-5 out of three or four that's a three-shotter.

[Paul Carey]

Tom,

I assume creating an interesting (not just difficult) second shot on an unreachable par 5 has to be a great challenge.  Too many times I find the second shots either ridiculously difficult or quite boring.  True?

[Carl Rogers]

Second Shot Options, see Carl Rogers winning Armchair Architect submission in Golf Magazine January 2006

http://business.highbeam.com/437043/article-1G1-141725628/design-and-conquer-and-winner-our-armchair-architect

(I am trying to find a way to inset some pdf's into the reply)

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,20849.0.html

this was the thread on GCA at the time .... lots of sour grapes and gripes

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - I've written this before, but since you are relatively new here I thought I'd toss it out again. The Par 5 8th at Crystal Downs is not only one of the few Par 5s I've ever really liked, but definitely the only one I've ever loved.  I find it hard to extrapolate its qualities into general principles about 'what makes a good Par 5' -- and I think that in-and-of-itself is part of its charm, i.e. it doesn't fall neatly into any rule/category.

I knew I couldn't reach it in 2 shots (and as Tom notes, few are able to do so), but that didn't even occur to me while I was playing; there was so much interest and challenge and charm on each and every shot that the old canards about Par 5s needing to have options and risk-rewards seemed superfluous. I fact, I'm sure that the reason the greens/green surrounds on the 8th are so excellent is precisely because Mackenzie-Maxwell knew that very few would be trying to hit the green in two.

I'm an average golfer, so I can't tell you the pleasure I got from hitting a good tee shot there, and how much more pleasure I got after, finding my ball in the middle of that rumpled heaving fairway but in an awkward place, I managed to hit a very good second to about a hundred yards out. (Again, I think all the 'theoretical' stuff about Par 5 options goes out the window when you are actually faced with a challenging but do-able tee shot, and then a differently-challenging second; unless we're really into Coles Notes and want ready-made and second-hand 'answers', we read a book one page at a time and discover the characters and meanings and themes.)

And it's then that the 8th really shows its charms, because after two wonderful (for me) golf shots, I had a wedge in my hand and staring at (what looked like) a small and contoured green with sand and vegetation around it, and I experienced two equal but very different thoughts at the same time: 1) Hit a decent shot Peter and you'll have a chance to birdie the 8th at Crystal Downs, and 2) Ah geez, Peter, don't pull this shot or you'll be in the junk and lucky to get out with bogey.  

What happened: I pulled it and got into the junk and hacked it out and then two putted for bogey -- all with a wedge in my hand and from the centre of the fairway, and after two (for me) excellent golf shots. But I was fully engaged for every single moment from stepping onto the tee to walking off the green -- with at no point feeling that the hole was too much for me but at every moment feeling that I needed to hit the golf ball as well as I possible could.

In short, a wonderful Par 5 and the only one I've ever loved. But as I say, I don't know how to extrapolate that into a 'principle' to apply elsewhere.

Peter

[Peter Pallotta]

Actually, Ben, here's a 'principle' I might throw out there for consideration:

For an architect to be able to gain the option of having golfers go at a green to two, he has to lose some interest and challenge both on the first and second shots, as well as on the green.

And in my limited experience (and I have played very few great golf courses), that trade off is hardly ever worth it -- no matter how many golfers (and architects too) praise the supposedly wonderful quality of having to make a 'choice' on the second shot.

Peter

[Bill Brightly]

For me, a great par 5 starts with a great green. I love multi-sectioned greens that are designed to be approached with a wedge, and are surrounded by significant trouble if you go for the green in two and miss. At that point, birdie may be off the table and the player will have to play well to make par, and will be annoyed that he did not lay back and play the hole in three shots as designed. I love this kind of hole because it effects the decision-making process on the tee and the second shot.

Tillinghast did this fabulously well at Ridgewood with four of the best par 5's I have played. Especially 3 East where the three-sectioned green angles left to right away from the player. Hitting the proper section is critical to making par or birdie, so the bomb and gouge guys often walk away with bogey even if their second shot was near the green.

[Benjamin Litman]

Thanks for all the insightful responses; a sure way to warm a cold Saturday in Manhattan.

Tim: Yale's 18th is certainly in a category unto itself, but it also fits well into the type of three-shot par-5 hole I like--i.e., one where the second shot provides options (more than most, to be sure) and demands your full attention and thinking. Bethpage's 4th, as you note, does the same, but with fewer options.

Jason: Precisely, although I have to admit that when I was making that point in my post, I did consider perhaps the lone merit of the boring layup--it's so seemingly straightforward, just advancing the ball down the fairway to set up the third, that it engenders laziness and makes it among the harder shots to execute.

Tom: Any Ithaca-based story brings a smile to my face (my father also went to Cornell), but yours takes the cake. Thanks for sharing. I share your and Tim's preference for a nice variety of par-5s, and I like the words you chose to describe what I called "category 2"--i.e., a genuine three-shotter where the second-shot "assignment is a bit more complicated than it sounds." Many things can add complication and interest to the second shot, which is why I imagine (or at least hope) that most architects find it among the more demanding shots to design for. I think that is essentially Paul's question.

Carl: That is quite the thread; thanks for linking to it. I'll explore it later today and chime back in with further comments.

Peter: Thank you for such a delightful, informative, personal description of the 8th at Crystal Downs. Even before I read your follow-up post, "engagement" jumped out at me as the principle to glean from your first. That's a great way to describe all great golf holes, not just par-5s. Like complication and interest (see my response to Tom above), engagement can come in many forms, but as long as it exists (i.e., as long as the architect doesn't get lazy, like a golfer might, on the second shot on a par-5), the game provides a deep sense of satisfaction. With that said, the principle you threw out in your follow-up post caught me by surprise, but it's a fascinating one to consider. I do often wonder whether a short par-5 (with a long second shot) "must" have a bland green complex while a long par-5 (with a short third shot) "must" have an intriguing one. Your principle gets at why formulas needn't/shouldn't be so formulaic. (And just as I was about to post this response, I see Bill's post, which further proves this point. Ridgewood is high on my list of courses to play.)

[Bill_McBride]

For me, a great par 5 starts with a great green. I love multi-sectioned greens that are designed to be approached with a wedge, and are surrounded by significant trouble if you go for the green in two and miss. At that point, birdie may be off the table and the player will have to play well to make par, and will be annoyed that he did not lay back and play the hole in three shots as designed. I love this kind of hole because it effects the decision-making process on the tee and the second shot.

Tillinghast did this fabulously well at Ridgewood with four of the best par 5's I have played. Especially 3 East where the three-sectioned green angles left to right away from the player. Hitting the proper section is critical to making par or birdie, so the bomb and gouge guys often walk away with bogey even if their second shot was near the green.

The 15th at the Valley Club of Montecito is a great example of what you describe.  The hole is uphill all the way to the clubhouse, ending near the first tee, and there are "spectacles" bunkers about 130 yards from the green.  The decision on the second shot is carrying the bunkers or laying up in front of them.  The green itself is very challenging, two levels with a serious false front, with the green benched into the clubhouse hill.  There are deep bunkers on the side and "scare" bunkers on the hill behind.  Putting down the green from top level to front level is scary as you can catch the false front and wind up 40 yards down the fairway!

On the card it looks like a birdie opportunity, easy par but it can ruin a round. 

[Thomas Dai]

16th at Dunfanaghy

See Reply 10 on this link - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58893.0.html

Terrific hole. Pretty terrific, in a wonderfully lowkey way, course too.

atb

PS - there are a few other pretty nice examples on the above mentioned thread as well.

[Carl Rogers]

today in SE Virginia it is way too cold to get outside.  i will take some pics of the 14th hole at Riverfront in the next few days. excellent par 5

[David Davis]

I think my favorite ones are the risk reward possible to reach or get real close in two. I know we always say it's not about the score but still there is something special about having the opportunity to putt for eagle. My home course has 3 - 3 shot par 5's and I think it's a shame that this is the case. From the back tees 3 of them are well over 500 meters with #2 being 600 yds. It's never been reached in two to my knowledge, the ground is anything but flat and the second shot would have to be played blind up over a dune to a green that is not attackable with a long iron or wood for the most part. It's too small with too much danger. (That being said, today from the women's tees in a 4 club - 6 man match from the women's tees we managed an eagle with driver, driver that perfectly hit in the upslope and stopped 15 ft from the pin and we sank the double breaking putt)

Bethpage Black #4, are you guys saying it's a 3 shot hole? I guess so. I was told in October from the men's back tee (not pro tee but one up) that it was easily reachable. I played it as a 3 shot hole but left myself with a really easy little pitch from right of the green. After looking at the green I'm not sure how easy it would be to attack this green with the way it slopes with a low iron/hybrid or wood. I imagine a really good and long player could do it. I like the hole as a 3 shot hole though the second shot is tricky and if you stay in front of the green it leaves a really delicate little approach over the bunker. As a 3 shot hole it may well be better if played from the pro tee IMO.

I should add some par 5's I really like but am drawing a blank at the moment. Maybe it will come.

[Benjamin Litman]

David: As I read your comments about BPB's 4th, I started thinking that it's really a perfect par-5, functioning as both a "category 1" and a "category 2" (to use my initial nomenclature) depending on the tee. From the back, elevated tees, it's a three-shot hole for most people, and the second shot, over the massive glacier bunker to a blind fairway snaking right, is no easy task. (In the final round of the 2002 U.S. Open, recall that Tiger hit a bomb off the tee, almost to the end of the fairway. Obviously, Tiger was a bomber's bomber back then, but even from that spot, he didn't hit the green; knowing that it would be hard to hold the green downwind, he left it short in the front bunker, and ended up making five.) From the front, below-fairway-grade tees, the hole is reachable for many more players, but most will still layup. I like that they added the collection area behind the green in recent years, as it ensures that players going for the green in two will have a third shot. In the past, if you got it near the green, it would carry straight over the back and down the hill into junk.

[Bill Brightly]

For me, a great par 5 starts with a great green. I love multi-sectioned greens that are designed to be approached with a wedge, and are surrounded by significant trouble if you go for the green in two and miss. At that point, birdie may be off the table and the player will have to play well to make par, and will be annoyed that he did not lay back and play the hole in three shots as designed. I love this kind of hole because it effects the decision-making process on the tee and the second shot.

Tillinghast did this fabulously well at Ridgewood with four of the best par 5's I have played. Especially 3 East where the three-sectioned green angles left to right away from the player. Hitting the proper section is critical to making par or birdie, so the bomb and gouge guys often walk away with bogey even if their second shot was near the green.

The 15th at the Valley Club of Montecito is a great example of what you describe.  The hole is uphill all the way to the clubhouse, ending near the first tee, and there are "spectacles" bunkers about 130 yards from the green.  The decision on the second shot is carrying the bunkers or laying up in front of them.  The green itself is very challenging, two levels with a serious false front, with the green benched into the clubhouse hill.  There are deep bunkers on the side and "scare" bunkers on the hill behind.  Putting down the green from top level to front level is scary as you can catch the false front and wind up 40 yards down the fairway!

On the card it looks like a birdie opportunity, easy par but it can ruin a round. 

Never played the Valley Club, but the hole sounds exactly like what I am trying to describe. A green that is severe enough so that you know that it must be approached from the fairway. A feature like spectacle bunkers then work great because it makes the layup even more thought provoking.

There is a photo of the 15th in the Courses by Country section:
http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/valleyclubatmontecito

[Sean_A]

I am not really a fan of the true three-shot par 5.  The architect has to get a load right to make it good and nearly pull off a miracle to make it memorable.  I guess this squares up with my belief that rarely will more yards doesn't make a hole more interesting.  I would much rather see an archie concentrate on providing two or three shortish par 5s (par 4s for flat bellies) and instead of worrying about increased length...make a few 450-470 par 4s (a range of yardage which is traditionally rare).  Basically, I am saying I want the yardage of holes to range from 100ish to 500ish.  Im my experience, nearly all the yards above 500 are pointless for the club golfer.  For a club 3 shotter I think the Cruden Bay's 6th is about as good as it gets.  Its not the length which is he problem, but the terrain and features of the hole which throttle the long ball. 

Ciao

[Matt MacIver]

12 and 15 at Augusta are still first class for me given these definitions.  IF I hit a good drive, both in terms of length and position, I can go for the green. If not (likely for me 80% of the time) the second shot will be a challenge, either from the fairway or the pine straw.

The green at 12 is famously undulated while the 15th is less so but materially slopes back to front towards the pond.  

Switching Pinehurst #2's fifth hole to a par 5 did little for me interest-wise on the second shot.  I need to go back and look to see what the stroke averages were there, and on the changed fourth hole.

Agree with others that par 4.5s are generally easier to make interesting, better for maintenance costs, pace of play, etc. than par 5.5s for the golfing public.

Edit: Mens scoring average on #4 was 4.206 and on #5 was 4.80, so combined two hole average was 9.006 vs par 9. Changing par didn't change the scores but would have made the scores relative to par dramatically different. Doubtful a player played the hole different because of the par?

Women's: scoring averages were 4.37 and 4.90 on 4 & 5, respectively, or 9.27 combined vs. par of 9.  Did they really need to add the back tee box to #5 to make the hole better or just needed length somewhere on the course and had that space?

[BCrosby]

I think you mean the 13th and 15th at ANGC.

Bob

[ChipOat]

The 15th at Pine Valley is, unquestionably, the finest par 5 I have ever played.  Three very good shots are required for mortals and two superb shots for those few who can get there in that many.  As I recall, it was an "untouchable" in TD's article.

Not only are such holes more difficult to conceive, but the architect must also have especially good fortune re: available land + realistic routing.

A "par 4 1/2" is a different animal and doesn't require the same combination of luck and skill (IMO).

I've missed many candidates for "the finest" - especially the new courses, but I've been privileged to play many of the classics and I do have a decent data base from which to choose.

For mortals, I would put #'s 2 & 4 at Merion in the category of "good second shot required".

I may have to do a thread on par 5's where an excellent drive is required or it becomes, by definition, a par 6.  #7 at Pine Valley would be the inspiration for that one.

[Wade Whitehead]

Tom Doak:

Do you recall a few of the Untouchables?

WW

[Bill Brightly]

Here is the approach to Ridgewood's 3 East if you have hit two excellent shots to reach this position. I hope you can see the three distinct tiers.



This photo was taken two years ago, just after they started reclaiming lost putting surface, restoration led by Gil Hanse.




And while the bombers can have a go at the green in two, you can see how much trouble there is around the green. Miss in the wrong spot and you will be lucky to make a par.





Tillinghast was so gifted. Here he used a very modest elevation change to partially obscure the landing area on your second shot:

[Bill Brightly]

Here is another example of Tillinghast's genius. At Ridgewood's 8 West he uses a simple yet superb green to set up a GREAT par 5, one of the best I've ever played.

Nothing dramatic, but there is a significant right to left slant. The green actually plays as a two-sectioned green, high right and low left.



This photo shows the slope of the green:






If you've hit an average drive, you are left with this awkward look. I'm normally not a fan of trees used as obstacles, but the big oak on the right is the best exception.



This tree dominates the hole if you play you tee shot safely down the middle or to the right. You need a long draw off the tee to really challenge the hole, but you bring trouble in to play with this line.



A look back at "the tree" from the green. (You may recall Sergio, blocked by this tree, requesting and receiving a drop from a mole hole in the Barclays!)

[Bill Brightly]

  The architect has to get a load right to make it good and nearly pull off a miracle to make it memorable. 

Sean, I agree with the first part of this sentence, but not the last. I think it might be as simple as the architect "saving" some of the more interesting parts of the property for his par fives, rather than using all the most dramatic pieces for par threes and par fours.

I've tried to show how well Tillinghast did this at Ridgewood (4 of his 5 par fives over 27 holes are superb golf holes) and he did the same on 17 and 18 at Baltustrol Lower. (Although the two preceeding par fives at Baltustrol are just average, IMO.)

I do think it is much harder to build really good par fives, so perhaps analyzing par fives is a great way to measure the overall quality of the architect's work.

[Kevin Pallier]

Options