[Tommy Williamsen]

      I recently returned from a trip south where I played some very fine courses. The par fours were varied: short, long, dogleg left, dogleg right, well bunkered, and interesting greens. The par threes were excellent. The par fives were, for the most part, forgettable. There may have been a bunker here or there but for the most part it was hit your drive far and then hit your second shot far. They did not require as much thought as the par fours. If you were exceptionally long and going for the green in two, that was a different matter. For us 71-year-old mortals that is no longer an option. The shots into the green were interesting. It is the first two shots that weren’t. In some ways a really good par five might be the most difficult hole to build.
 
I’d like to show you what I consider to be an outstanding par five for people of all abilities. Below is the fourth hole at Four Streams outside DC. The hole is relatively straight but doesn’t feel like it. It almost feels like a double dogleg. The tee shot is a little uphill and if you hit it far enough you can see the green and the landing areas short of the green. Hit it shorter and the second shot is blind. It measures about 531 from the back tee and 507 from the tee I played.
 



      This first diagram shows the teeing areas and the landing area where most of my tee shots ended up. From there I had the choice to hit my second shot to the right and short of the bunkers where I had a better angle in from about 120 yards or hit it closer but with a poorer angle to this smallish green that slopes for right to left. The other two par fives are not nearly as interesting.
 
 



      The second illustration shows where I could get it if I just busted the drive. Then I had to make a choice. I could see all the way to the hole, but where should I hit it. It seemed pointless to waste a good drive and lay up. If I hit it over the left side of the far bunker the slope would funnel the ball toward the green and an easy birdie.
 
What are some of your favorites?
 
 

[jeffwarne]

In this coddled pampered age of multiple tees, short par 4's,tee it forward, and everyone regardless of handicap having an expectation of having an approach short enough to reach a green in regulation...par 5's are the only holes we have left where the player has to string multiple good shots together of adequate length.




I'd say the thought that they are the most difficult to design is a common one that I would disagree with.
My opinion is that players don't like the unique challenge of stringing together three or more good shots and being exposed by another player eclipsing their efforts in two shots.(something happening with increasing frequency with the equipment arms race)
I've played plenty of good par 5's and continue to enjoy a variety of them-our expectations of what we expect out of design have far exceeded our ability to play the shots called for, and we react by calling the hole a "slog" or boring, but really we simply failed to meet a different challenge.
There was a time when many par 4's played this way for most people.


Don't take away the closest thing we have to cross country golf-the par 5 without a ton of "interest" or intricate decision making
1 or 2 "slogs" is OK

[JESII]

Tommy,


Your description certainly makes this sound like a good interesting hole...but what in the world could the annual maintenance budget simply for the bunkers on that hole be?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't think a 20-25 yard fairway for the first 100 yards is playable by all abilities.
It looks like those right side bunkers are meant to minimize slices into the entrance road.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't think a 20-25 yard fairway for the first 100 yards is playable by all abilities.
It looks like those right side bunkers are meant to minimize slices into the entrance road.

The hole is pretty much angled away from the road. My normal partner was a 18 and never hit in the road. The left rough, however, got a lot of action.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,


Your description certainly makes this sound like a good interesting hole...but what in the world could the annual maintenance budget simply for the bunkers on that hole be?

Never thought about the budget. It is a Steve Smyers course. He likes bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

The first thing one has to work out for any hole is visibility, and that's what makes par five holes the hardest to design.  The approach to the green could be coming anywhere from 280 yards in, and it's not going to be considered a great hole if very many of the possibilities are blind. 


With a par 4, it's much more accepted to identify an ideal landing area from which everything is visible, but assign the fault to the golfer if he goes past that landing area, or doesn't reach it.

[V. Kmetz]

If you strip away the assignment of par from the hole, wouldn't the challenges (whatever they may be) be the same ?


Isn't this then just a function of "The Longer the Hole Is the More Difficult to Design" (for a wide class of players)?


cheers  vk

[Ian Andrew]

List the most exceptional holes you have ever played ...
It's really long on threes and fours and limited when it comes to fives.


They are far harder BUT it happens for a reason:


Often the wisest choice is to build two or even three great holes out of a setting that could yield a great five.
So fives are commonly left to what old architects would call "lesser land"
So now you have to create everything in a less than ideal setting.
They are often more challenging to create because often you need to be more creative to get something out of nothing.
Over a larger space, that is a harder task ...
The answer from my perspective and approach, the answer is yes

[Peter Pallotta]

What Ian and Tom said.

But that "middle" shot - what is it? We know a tee shot, and we know an approach shot, but the middle shot -- it's the shot with no name. What's it asking of us? Why is it asking?

That's the trick -- giving that middle shot a name, an identity, a reason to be, Hard enough, I imagine, but harder still if you're afraid of punishing the weaker golfer, i.e. if, god forbid, the shot/hole *isn't* playable for all golfers.

Add that latter objective into the mix and it's as if architects are wearing handcuffs -- self-made and made to measure handcuffs.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Peter, I agree. It is that second shot that seems to present the most challenge. In my diagram Smyers created challenges and rewards. For the shorter hitter it is deciding if angle is better than shorter distance. For the longer hitter it is "how close can I hit it without missing the opportunity for birdie or eagle?" In some ways the second shot can be like the tee shot on a par four. The difference is that the second shot is played from a variety of places. Creating interest has to be difficult. Tillinghast built cross bunkers. Some places use water. Most it seems just give the player an alley to hit as far as possible.

[Garland Bayley]

Actually, it seems to me that par 5s are easy to design for average golfers. Strew a little trouble here and there for them to think about and you are done. Maybe par 5s are hard to challenge good golfers who can actually hit it where they intend to, but there are far more average golfers who have hair raising experiences with any trouble. The green is often the smallest target area on a hole to hit. Average golfers seldom hit the green. That's why Kalen makes so many bogeys. Par 5s allow architects to provide larger target areas than a green for the average golfer to hit on both the 1st and 2nd shots, thereby often making them more fun to play for the average golfer than par 4s and par 3s. Furthermore, par 5s often let the average golfers get closer to the green for their approach shot, thereby allowing them to be more successful on that shot too.
 

[Jim Nugent]

I've seen various lists of the world's best 18 holes.  Usually they split that into a certain number of par 3s, par 4s and par 5s. Sometimes they do it by hole number, i.e. which is the world's best 1st hole, 2nd hole, and so on through 18. 

Suppose we lift the requirement that all pars get a place, and we don't care about hole order either.  What are the best 18 holes in that case?  Do any par 5s make the grade, and if so, which ones? 

If par 5s are heavily underrepresented, that might be a sign of how hard they are to design. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy - my experience with most Par 5s is the same as yours. Now, architects don't owe me explanations or excuses, but if they are going to make an excuse I think 'uninteresting ground' is a poor one. Rare is the architect who won't create a better green site than the one nature provided, or shape a green to provide more interest, or add bunkers to increase challenge and choice/strategy. So why would an architect be hesitant about doing what's necessary to create features and add interest/challenge to the shot-with-no-name, the most middling shot in all of golf? I don't know -- but I think, as I say, that they handcuff themselves in this regard by an excessive concern for the sensibilities of the average/retail golfer.

[Garland Bayley]

Depends on who is picking. I was taking pictures of Chambers Bay from Grandview before it opened, and met a local who had been given given a tour of the course. He thought #8, which is a par 5, was the greatest hole on the property.

[Doug Lionberger]

Interesting question - there are only two courses where a par 5 is my favorite hole on the course.  The first is the fourth hole at Bethpage Black which is my favorite par 5 that I’ve played.  My favorite hole to watch at Augusta National is the 15th.

[V. Kmetz]

Interesting question - there are only two courses where a par 5 is my favorite hole on the course.  The first is the fourth hole at Bethpage Black which is my favorite par 5 that I’ve played.  My favorite hole to watch at Augusta National is the 15th.

BB #4 is an all time hole

[Kevin Neary]

List the most exceptional holes you have ever played ...
It's really long on threes and fours and limited when it comes to fives.

Of those great par fives, how many of those are truly "par fives"? I would have to imagine the majority of those holes are really half par holes, as is the case on 13 and 15 at Augusta, which is why they are so great. The remaining few that are true par fives require three accurately placed shots in order to have any chance at birdie, much less a par, as is the case on 7 at Pine Valley.


The common thread between both types of par fives is the versatility that they offer. While birdies can be had, a double bogey can be carded just as easily. The wide spread of scores and approaches that the hole can be played from are what make them interesting, and "great".


It just so happens that it's really, really difficult to create a hole with so much intrigue when many players fail to find the fairway off the tee, and all else collapses from there. It is because of this idea that I believe par fives are far more interesting to the scratch golfer, yet disconcerting to the average one.

[Paul Carey]

Tommy,


I always liked the fourth hole as well and I have a couple additional comments.


The rolling fairway also adds a couple elements.  If your tee shot is too short the layup shot can be blind because of the peak of the hill by the last of the first set of bunkers.  As many times as I played the hole it was much more difficult to get comfortable with the line when I did not have a good point of reference.  The layup after a longer tee shot was much easier.


If attempting to carry the second set of bunkers the reward to risk ratio was dramatic.  Flying the right side of the second set of bunkers would result in the ball landing on a firm downslope and, if the turf was firm that day, a great roll of the ball towards the green.  However, the aerials can't show how deep the bunkers are which made the third shot quite difficult despite its yardage of under 120 yards. 


Tere was another option on the layup which I unfortunately often attempted.  It is to try to hit it left of the bunkers in the fairway which would result in a fairly simple 90 yard shot over the green side bunkers.  A little tug and you would end up in the rough.  The 90 yard shot from that rough was quite difficult to gauge.


Finally, that road is not in play and hardly noticeable.

[Sean_A]

Based on experiencing so few memorable par 5 relative to 3s and 4s, I can only assume its more difficult to build par 5s which are memorable....especially 5s over about 510 yards in length.  I ask myself if it is worthwhile spending the extra money required to design, build and maintain par 5s.  I spose when the right archies are involved and they are descerning, then yes, it is worthwhile. However, if after a while it is determined that the hole isn't special, why not shorten it and have a quicker to play and cheaper to maintain unspecial hole? 

Once we can break free of 18 holes and scorecards, the possibilities for golf become virtually unlimited.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

With a par 3 everyone is aiming for the green in one shot. With a par 4 most golfers are aiming to get there in 2 shots or at least laying up pretty close to the green.


With a par 5 however, a few golfers will routinely get there in 2 shots no matter how far back their tee is, while the rest are happy to take 3 or 4. With such a variance in the way golfers of differing abilities play the hole, it is no wonder that par 5s are hard to get right for everyone.


For me, a par 5 should have defences which do not reward simply a big second shot. Only a perfect big second shot should find and hold the green. Anything less than perfect should be punished and the reward reserved for the guy with the sense to play within himself and lay up to 120 yards or so and knock it on for 3.


Done this way a par 5 doesn't even have to be that long. 470 yards is enough so long as the shot from 190 is a brute while the one from 100 is relatively benign.

[Garland Bayley]

With a par 3 everyone is aiming for the green in one shot. With a par 4 most golfers are aiming to get there in 2 shots or at least laying up pretty close to the green.


With a par 5 however, a few golfers will routinely get there in 2 shots no matter how far back their tee is, while the rest are happy to take 3 or 4. With such a variance in the way golfers of differing abilities play the hole, it is no wonder that par 5s are hard to get right for everyone.


For me, a par 5 should have defences which do not reward simply a big second shot. Only a perfect big second shot should find and hold the green. Anything less than perfect should be punished and the reward reserved for the guy with the sense to play within himself and lay up to 120 yards or so and knock it on for 3.


Done this way a par 5 doesn't even have to be that long. 470 yards is enough so long as the shot from 190 is a brute while the one from 100 is relatively benign.

So you are advocating hit it 280, then hit it 90, and finally hit it 100 on a 470 yard hole?

[Edward Glidewell]

So you are advocating hit it 280, then hit it 90, and finally hit it 100 on a 470 yard hole?

It's slightly off-topic, but I remember reading a study (wish I could find it) that the idea of laying back to 120 yards or 100 yards or wherever for your approach shot is actually a bad strategy for the vast majority of amateur players. People consistently talk about laying up to a yardage for a full wedge of some sort, but that's really only the right play for professionals or highly skilled amateurs. Amateurs are generally better served hitting the ball as far as possible.


Most amateurs score better the closer they are to the green. If a random amateur has a chance to have a 100 yard shot from the fairway or a 40 yard shot from the fairway, they will, on average, make a lower score from the 40 yard position. Absent hazards or something else specific to an individual hole, amateur players should generally attempt to get the ball as close to the green as possible.

[Duncan Cheslett]

So you are advocating hit it 280, then hit it 90, and finally hit it 100 on a 470 yard hole?

First of all, most golfers hit the ball 280 yards only in their dreams.


Secondly, I'm not advocating how anyone should play a golf hole. There should be options, depending on how much risk a golfer is prepared to take, and the skill required.  Why should the ability merely to hit the ball a long way be rewarded over precision and course management? Big hitters should also be asked to be precise hitters.


Greens should not necessarily be tricked up to receive balls from 180 - 230 yards. Bouncing through the back should always be a possibility for anything other than a perfectly executed shot.


By the same token a running approach shot should be an option where the topography allows - but not necessarily from 200+ yards. Angle the green to receive a chip and run from 80 yards but make it necessary to carry bunkers  from 200 onto an unreceptive green.


Where a natural hazard protects the green, be it a lake, creek, or dune, the long approach should generally carry more risk than a lay-up and short pitch.

A straight ahead 530 yard par 5 which requires only two straightish big hits is dull fare indeed.


Golfers - even very good golfers - should be given a bit more to think about.

[Garland Bayley]

So you are advocating hit it 280, then hit it 90, and finally hit it 100 on a 470 yard hole?

First of all, most golfers hit the ball 280 yards only in their dreams.

...

I simply did the math on your comparison of a 190 yard approach (which would require a 280 yard drive) and the 100 yard approach. That would suggest that a 280 yard drive was not only possible, but likely.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()