[Peter Pallotta]

On Pat's "Par 5" thread, it appears that only Joe Z and I shared this sentiment/experience:

That the reason there aren't more exemplary Par 5s is not mainly because architects don't understand risk-reward or 2nd shot options or the value of half-par holes; instead, it's because architects tend to save a site's best ground for Par 4s, and save the difficult/dramatic ground for Par 3s, and then leave the least interesting ground for Par 5s.

In your experience, is this a fair assessment?

The only Par 5 I've thought exceptional (and also really loved) is the famous 8th a Crystal Downs. And I'd suggest that this is because it was designed over an exceptional piece of ground, and not a boring bit.   

Peter

[Kalen Braley]

You should play the par 5s at Sagebrush.  They are excellent!!

[Phil McDade]

Didn't Doak route PacDunes' par 5s over less-dramatic land and use them as "transition" holes to get to the more acclaimed land on that site? http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/pacific-dunes/pacific-dunes-pg-ii/

[Ronald Montesano]

In Orchard Park, NY, there is a Hurdzan/Fry course (designed by neither) called Harvest Hill. It has five great par fives, decent par fours, and shit-poor par threes. You would like this course.


At Bethpage Black, I would say that the 4th might be the best land on the property, and the 13th might be the worst. Funny, huh? The 7th is also pretty flat, but that huge waste area makes the hole quite good.

[Carl Rogers]

Didn't Doak route PacDunes' par 5s over less-dramatic land and use them as "transition" holes to get to the more acclaimed land on that site? http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/pacific-dunes/pacific-dunes-pg-ii/

This reminds me that I need to start a thread and commentary on the 14th hole at Riverfront.  IMO, the best par 5 in 85 mile radius. Haven't played the better Richmond tracks.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,

It then begs the question as to why any architect would bother designing any par 5's into a routing, let alone 4-6 of them. If par 72 is that sacred, design a 20-22 hole course with as many beloved par 4's and par 3's as needed.

I like the idea. Call it an executive course if you like, but it could be done as well as any "Championship" course that has the obligatory 4 par 5's.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - I know that I have some bias against Par 5s, some inherent dislike of them. I haven't played many great/famous courses, but I have played many courses and therefore many, many Par 5s and for the life of me can't remember with fondness more than just a very few.  But that bias notwithstanding, it does seem to me that architects make an unenviable task (i.e. designing a terrific Par 5) even harder by thinking -- if in fact they do, which is why my OP is a genuine question -- that they can create/salvage one out of mediocre ground. To me it would seem far easier to design an excellent Par 4 over such ground than a Par 5 -- but that's not the choice most architects seem to make most of the time. (Again, maybe my impression is flat out wrong on that). I'm not sure if your idea would fly, but it may be unnecessary, i.e. just cutting in half the standard number of Par 5s and cutting also the number of Par 3s and instead having many more Par 4s would do the trick for me just as well.  (One bad result of my bias is that I have little interest in playing any Stanley Thompson course, what with his tendency to have lots of 5s and 3th. I'm sure I'm missing some wonderful golf/golf courses -- but I can't bring myself to thinking about playing six 5s and six 3s, and indeed that kind of design just seems, well, lazy).
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Disagree.  Some of my favorite holes in the world are par fives!  Also some of the best holes in the world are par fives.  I could name dozens and dozens of them!

[Ronald Montesano]

Why is Long (#14) at The Old Course a great hole? It's wonderful and yet the ground on the entire golf course would be considered suspect if offered to someone for a design. And yet, time has carved and molded, compressed and hewn that sandy place into ideal undulations for a flat piece of land. And yet, is #14 a better hole in some way than #5?


I don't think that one can say that par five holes are routed over poorer ground than what is reserved for 4s and 3s. I trust that architects have enough training and experience that they can look at the topography and find balance between the numbers. If a 3, 4, or 5 is required to transition over weaker space, so be it.


Personally, I love 5s and 3s. The 3s give me the instant gratification of one shot for glory. The 5s allow my usual fairway-metal foozle to be forgiven by a stuck, short-iron approach. 4s, on the other hand, have to be stunning achievements for me to count them among my favorites. Different folks for different strokes, it seems.

[Joe Zucker]

I don't want to speak for Peter, but in my view this statement is true on average.  There are obviously many examples of courses with great par 5s on exciting land.  And I don't believe Peter thinks there are no good Par 5s out there.  Rather he is asking if architects adhere to this thinking in general? 


There is no way to conclusively answer this and I bet the answer would vary if you were thinking about the great courses we often talk about on this site vs average courses we play most weekends.  Personally I feel the sentiment is true, but this thought may be biased by my most recent rounds or the types of courses I play regularly.  I'm looking forward to seeing if others think this is true in a general sense (and why if it is), rather than just listing counter examples of good Par 5s on dramatic land.

[Mark_Fine]

Par threes are often used as "connector" holes so there could be times when this statement holds for them.  Par fives might just be harder to design but it has nothing to do with leaving the least interesting ground for the par five holes.  If the architect can't find a way to make "uninteresting" ground for his or her par fives, into a good hole, why could they do any better with a par four or a par three? 

[Joe Hancock]

Par threes are often used as "connector" holes so there could be times when this statement holds for them.  Par fives might just be harder to design but it has nothing to do with leaving the least interesting ground for the par five holes.  If the architect can't find a way to make "uninteresting" ground for his or her par fives, into a good hole, why could they do any better with a par four or a par three?

One simple answer to your question would be that it will be far easier to determine where a golfer hits their approach shot on a par 3....

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
Interesting thought but I would still think the key to the great ones is the second shot option more than anything else.  I still think every routing is a completely different task and it has never entered my mind to save the best ground for par fives.   My only par five restraint is if length and location affect pace of play.   

[jeffwarne]

Not liking par fives is akin to not liking cross country golf.
There are all kinds, and they don't all have to fit neatly into a risk reward par 4 1/2 mold.
Sometimes it's cool to see how far someone can hit a ball twice, three times, or even four.
The ball/club situation has radically changed this equation at the elite level, and ironically on modern courses has exaggerated the difference between the haves and have nots.

[Tom_Doak]

One simple answer to your question would be that it will be far easier to determine where a golfer hits their approach shot on a par 3....

This is the closest statement I've seen to my own feelings on the subject.

When you design a par-3 hole you give everyone essentially the same shot.  I find that pretty boring.

When you design a par-4 you leave a wide range of second shots of different difficulty, depending on where one drives.  To me that's the height of design.

But on a par-5 the approach shot is unpredictable:  as Joe says, the golfer could be almost anywhere in two, so you need to build a hole that has reasonable visibility from 250 yards in, and that makes it harder to build an interesting hole.

It's not that I don't use the best land for par-5's, it's just harder to find a stretch of land that goes back that far and still works well.

Pacific Dunes just happened to have a 500+ yard open space that we had to get across three times, so those are the transition holes; the coolest bits like #2 and 16 didn't have enough room to build anything other than what we did.

[Sean_A]

Just as 3s are often used to transition through awkward spots...so too do many par 5s.  Often the awkwardness is dull land, but sometimes the land is a bit too wild....Enniscrone's new 5s are essentially connector holes through dunes and most don't quite hit the mark. 


I am always surprised that archies build so many 5s when they must know the results aren't terribly satisfying.


Ciao

[BCowan]

Well Willie Park jr often designed 5 par 5's in his routings.  In fact he must have liked them so much the original routing at Sylvania cc included 7 par 5's.  I'll echo Jeff's comments.  People also aren't focusing enough on how important the tee shot is on longer par 5's.  Par 5 greens also have the ability to be bolder in contour.   

[Mark_Fine]

Par threes make good connector or transistion holes because the architect has the most flexibility with these holes.  I don't buy the arguement one bit that par fives often utilize the poorer ground.  The discussion about routings in general is a very involved subject with sooooo many factors impacting it.  It has nothing to do with locating the par fives on the less interesting ground! 

[Peter Pallotta]

I can't be wedded to my theory that architects leave the poor land for their Par 5s (especially since all the architects who have posted have basically said that I'm wrong and that this isn't the case). But the need on the 2nd and 3rd shots for a wide-range of visibility (and angles and challenge and fun) does I think support why it's important to have/use very good land for Par 5s -- at least over the last 250 yards.  If those yards are comprised of rolling or rising or tumbling or canted or rumpled fairways highlighted by natural and/or random features and mounds and blow-outs, a very good Par 5 automatically (in a sense) results; there is almost nothing else of interest to be had except for the land when you have to cover/traverse  250 yards as the "approach".  But if not, i.e. if the last 250 yards are built on the boring bits of land, I think an architect has to get very "busy" with his ideas and options and tricks to spruce things up, and all that I end up seeing is that sprucing. Sure, my intellect can then say "oh, look at the various options the architect has given me"...but somehow, as in other physical pleasures in life, when the experience is "in the head" and not "in the body" it doesn't satisfy as it should.
Peter   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()