[Mark_Fine]

Most architects would state that the most difficult holes to design well are par fives.  Over the course of their careers, one could argue Pete was the best at it!

[Steve Lapper]

I would argue that both Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and Coore & Crenshaw were at least equal to, or better, than Dye.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I don't know if that's true or not, but a question to you:
of all the great courses you've played, which one(s) featured a Par 5 that was your favourite hole on that particular course? In other words, who could build -- at least once -- a Par 5 that was better than every other hole on the golf course?
I think maybe that's a good test/guide for which architect built the best Par 5s.
[I'm not well travelled at all, but for me there is only one Par 5 that I've ever thought was the best & my favourite hole on the course, ie the 8th at Crystal Downs. Dr. Mac.]
P

[Thomas Dai]

When I started to play the game a zillion or so years ago a par-5 was a 3 shot and 2 putts hole.
Not so many such holes around these days for some who play the game.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Most architects would state that the most difficult holes to design well are par fives.  Over the course of their careers, one could argue Pete was the best at it!

One reason for that is, per a thread the other day, Mr. Dye built a lot of his courses on relatively flat ground.  A lot of the reason par-5 holes are harder to design is because it's harder to fit them on hilly ground in a way that the target is visible from any point up to 250 yards back.  [I'm not saying that a potential blind shot is a deal-killer for me, but there are plenty of people who dislike them, so it's less likely that such a hole is going to be generally acclaimed as great.]

[Mark_Fine]

We all know "best" is such a subjective word but Pete built a lot of really interesting and thought provoking par fives.  There is no question that many other architects designed/built some great ones as well (Peter you cite one of my all time favorites in #8 at Crystal Downs particularly that rumpled fairway - wow!)


Tom, you might be right about Pete working on a lot of flat terrain which gave him more design flexibility.  But still, you have seen a ton of Dye courses and we both know that they contain a lot of great par fives. 


Peter, I would have to really think hard about the courses I have played where a par five was my favorite hole on the course.  I am sure there are a few.  My point was that overall, Pete's par fives impress me more than most. 


Steve, I might beg to differ about the architects you mentioned though all of them built some fantastic par fives.  But again, over the whole of their courses, I would argue Pete consistently built more great ones.  I think Thomas surprisingly might have built the fewest great ones considering how exceptional he was with strategy. 

[Tom_Doak]

I would argue that both Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and Coore & Crenshaw were at least equal to, or better, than Dye.

Interesting.  When Frank Hannigan wrote his seminal article on Tillinghast for GOLF JOURNAL in 1974, back when few people knew the name, he identified par-5's as the weakness of Tillie's designs.  That was partly because the USGA would convert two of his par-5's to par-4's when the U.S. Open came to Winged Foot or Baltusrol, but Mr. Hannigan knew Tillinghast's work better than most.


Tillinghast himself declared that his par-3 holes were key to his designs, and is one of the few architects I can think of to say that he looked for great par-3 holes first when routing his courses.  Personally, when I find a good par-3 hole, I look immediately to see if it could be stretched into a par-4 or par-5, because I think par-3's are the easiest holes to find.

[Matt Kardash]

Mark isn't wrong,
Here is a list of some of the best holes on Dye courses that are the par 5's

• Kiawah 11
• Whistling Straits 11
• PDGC 5
• Sawgrass 9, 11
• Blackwolf Run 8, 11, 16
• Bulle Rock 2

Blackwolf Run River is definitely a contender for course with best par 5's in the world.

[Peter Pallotta]

Matt - thanks for that.
Tom - and that's interesting too. What else (or much else) is a good Par 3 but a very good green/green site. I'm guessing you've found & stretched more than few potential 3s into 4s and 5s specifically because of an excellent green site. Maybe Mr Tillinghast, on his Par 4s and 5s, put his focus on other things and not so much on the greens, so was more content to save the great greensites for his Par 3s.
The 8th at CD was a 3 shot Par 5 for me (but I'm not a long driver so maybe it isn't for most). And as such, the terrific green there made all the difference for me in making the hole my favourite Par 5 of all time.

[jeffwarne]

Most architects would state that the most difficult holes to design well are par fives.  Over the course of their careers, one could argue Pete was the best at it!

One reason for that is, per a thread the other day, Mr. Dye built a lot of his courses on relatively flat ground.  A lot of the reason par-5 holes are harder to design is because it's harder to fit them on hilly ground in a way that the target is visible from any point up to 250 yards back.  [I'm not saying that a potential blind shot is a deal-killer for me, but there are plenty of people who dislike them, so it's less likely that such a hole is going to be generally acclaimed as great.]

Long Cove is 3/3 on good par 5's-holes that I haven't seen elite players play with modern equipment as it's been 20 years since I played, but I suspect they hold up really well(as interesting holes) even to the bombers-maybe even moreso

[Steve Lapper]

I would argue that both Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and Coore & Crenshaw were at least equal to, or better, than Dye.

Interesting.  When Frank Hannigan wrote his seminal article on Tillinghast for GOLF JOURNAL in 1974, back when few people knew the name, he identified par-5's as the weakness of Tillie's designs.  That was partly because the USGA would convert two of his par-5's to par-4's when the U.S. Open came to Winged Foot or Baltusrol, but Mr. Hannigan knew Tillinghast's work better than most.


Tillinghast himself declared that his par-3 holes were key to his designs, and is one of the few architects I can think of to say that he looked for great par-3 holes first when routing his courses.  Personally, when I find a good par-3 hole, I look immediately to see if it could be stretched into a par-4 or par-5, because I think par-3's are the easiest holes to find.

 I certainly wouldn't dare argue with the opinion that Tilly's par 3's "were key to his designs," however I've always thought a good number of his stellar par 5's vastly more interesting than most anything I've played of Dyes.


 Tilly's creative and strategic use of diagonal bunkering and Hells Half Acre features seem to always be more captivating than the otherwise artificial(and usually H20) hazards found dissecting most of Dyes. The likes of  #'s 4 & 13 at Bethpage Black; #14 at Quaker Ridge and Five Farms; #'s 9 & 12 at Winged Foot West (and his cape-style #4 on the East); SFGC's #9 & 18 all feel unique without significant repetition. Just one man's opinion!


  Mark,  I'd definitely agree with you that Thomas may have built the fewest relative to his talent. Flynn should also be mentioned as many of his are wonderful mastery of strategic thinking.

[Niall C]

Steve


Thanks for articulating why you think Tilly's par 5's are better than PB's. You mention Dye's over use of water. Was that maybe just a function of the nature of the site ? ie. poor drainage and relatively flat making features such as Tilly did, difficult to do ?


Niall

[Steve Lapper]

Steve


Thanks for articulating why you think Tilly's par 5's are better than PB's. You mention Dye's over use of water. Was that maybe just a function of the nature of the site ? ie. poor drainage and relatively flat making features such as Tilly did, difficult to do ?


Niall

Niall,


 Of course, no doubt nature will always remain the prime determinant.


 Pete Dye may well have done the best with the least of anyone.

[Peter Pallotta]

On the other hand, maybe the only kind of golf hole where a flat/poor site becomes a positive instead of a negative is a Par 5. If features and greens and fairways shapes/widths have to be created & built from scratch there is more freedom and greater scope- opportunity for designing the exact 3-shotter you want than if you are trying to find/fit a Par 5 into the existing landscape.   

[Niall C]

Thanks Steve, the really interesting of this discussion it gives me an idea of what both guys were about since I've never knowingly played a course designed by either of them.


Peter


What makes par 5's harder to design, IMO, is that the longer the hole the more stretched out in position different golfers will be after a couple of shots. Therefore how do you create a specific stratagem for the second or third shot when players could be playing from anywhere and with every variety of club ? I'm not sure I explained that well but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, I know what you mean, Niall, and for me that in part explains why I've played so few par 5s that I've ever even liked, let alone loved.
So, based on a comment Tom D made on another thread, I was raising the possibility that maybe it's actually a bit easier to *create* -- on a flat site, with lots of earth-moving -- those specific stratagems and related visibility and recovery options etc than it is *find* them -- in a minimalist sense -- on an otherwise great site.
All of which is to suggest -- very tentatively -- that if Mark F is right in his OP, this might be one reason why.
P

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I sure don't know if I am "right", but it is a strong opinion having seen and played quite a bit.  Pete didn't just use water, he used a combination of all kinds of design features.  If there is one thing that stands out with Pete's par fives vs many other architects is that on a Pete Dye par five, it isn't just one or two shots that matter or that are unique or interesting or thought provoking, it is all of them!  The tee shot, the second shot and the third as well as the putting/recoveries around the greens.  His par fives are the whole package.  It is almost like he paid extra attention to these holes knowing that par fives are the most difficult holes to get right 


Mark

[Ken Fry]

I've always assessed a course's par 5 holes as a group and how they provide unique challenges compared to each other.

In that regard, the Dye courses I've played have provided a strong but mixed bag.  For example, I hold the par 5's at Blackwolf Run in higher regard than Whistling Straits.  That's not to say the Straits course hole #11 is not incredible, but to me the collection falls short because of holes #2 and especially #5.

At Crooked Stick, you have four very different holes on relatively flat ground (part of the discussion on the other Pete Dye thread) that as a group are fantastic.


One of my favorite collections is at Lost Dunes (this is in no way meant to brown nose TD!).  All four holes provide different challenges and opportunities off the tee through to the greens.  Each provides an opportunity to score or be punished with foolish decisions.  Every shot on all four par 5's requires thought and execution.  Too many par 5's have a shot or two that just requires advancing the ball.


Ken

[Tom_Doak]

At Crooked Stick, you have four very different holes on relatively flat ground (part of the discussion on the other Pete Dye thread) that as a group are fantastic.

One of my favorite collections is at Lost Dunes (this is in no way meant to brown nose TD!).  All four holes provide different challenges and opportunities off the tee through to the greens.  Each provides an opportunity to score or be punished with foolish decisions.  Every shot on all four par 5's requires thought and execution.  Too many par 5's have a shot or two that just requires advancing the ball.

Ken, thank you.  I'm not sure that the second shots on #10 and #15 [if you can't go for the green] live up to your post -- although both provide plenty of opportunity to screw up -- but the second shots on #4 and #8 are very important, in very different ways.


Lost Dunes is actually one of the few courses I've built that HAS four par-5 holes. I haven't counted lately but I'd guess that the majority of my courses have only three, because I consider par-5's harder to design, and I'd rather give you another good par-4 instead of a weak par-5.  [That preference also has a lot to do with the courses I saw in the U.K. after college.  I think Muirfield has the best par-5's anywhere, but there are only three.]


As a sample:  I just got back from Australia and of my three courses there, Barnbougle has three par-5's, St. Andrews Beach only two [although maybe I should have counted the 13th as a third], and the Gunnamatta Course at The National has three.  The three at The National are maybe one of my better sets.

[Steven Blake]

Mark isn't wrong,
Here is a list of some of the best holes on Dye courses that are the par 5's

• Kiawah 11
• Whistling Straits 11
• PDGC 5
• Sawgrass 9, 11
• Blackwolf Run 8, 11, 16
• Bulle Rock 2

Blackwolf Run River is definitely a contender for course with best par 5's in the world.

I agree with Blackwolf Run and it’s spectacular par 5s. 16 at the River is my favorite par 5 I’ve ever played. The meadows valley also has some good 5 pars. That being said I think the par 3s are the weakest part of the River course.


Steven Blake

[Ken Fry]

Ken, thank you.  I'm not sure that the second shots on #10 and #15 [if you can't go for the green] live up to your post -- although both provide plenty of opportunity to screw up -- but the second shots on #4 and #8 are very important, in very different ways.


Lost Dunes is actually one of the few courses I've built that HAS four par-5 holes. I haven't counted lately but I'd guess that the majority of my courses have only three, because I consider par-5's harder to design, and I'd rather give you another good par-4 instead of a weak par-5.  [That preference also has a lot to do with the courses I saw in the U.K. after college.  I think Muirfield has the best par-5's anywhere, but there are only three.]

Tom,

I still find the 2nd shots on #10 and #15 unique to each hole because of the choice of distance and angles.

#10 layup requires the decision for left or right side of the fairway for a good angle into the particular pin location but the run out of the fairway is dramatically different.

On #15, the uphill nature of the fairway to green requires the decision of how close to get to the green if not fully going for it in two.  Those little half wedge uphill shots can get demoralizing if you don't pull it off!
Ken

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark isn't wrong,
Here is a list of some of the best holes on Dye courses that are the par 5's

• Kiawah 11
• Whistling Straits 11
• PDGC 5
• Sawgrass 9, 11
• Blackwolf Run 8, 11, 16
• Bulle Rock 2

Blackwolf Run River is definitely a contender for course with best par 5's in the world.

Matt,


I agree with you regarding the Par 5s at Blackwolf Run. They are really cool.

[archie_struthers]

 

I think Pete Dye's par fives at TPC Sawgrass are a great example of how par fives can be the most interesting holes on a golf course. Hard but interesting and requiring a lot of thought based on your abilities. To me that's the best way to design the longer holes.

On a personal note in my one shot at design building the par fives was quite fun. You have to give real serious thought to the tremendous distances some players can hit it these days and how they can overpower a hole. That being said most of us don't reach 575 yard holes in two so its a challenge to design a hole that can be fun and challenging for all.  Pretty cliche, right. But that's the real challenge to doing it well.


So to me the trick is to lay out a hole that tempts the best to overreach, to bring  hazards, rough or angles into playthat the average player doesn't even see as they approach a shot. They are hard pressed to subdue their desire to hit a green in two or pull out driver on every hole so the architect should take advantage of this and tempt them to overplay the shots. At the same time you lay out a more conservative route to par that works for the majority of players. To really make it good you have to make this route interesting by a fairway cant or a bunker that requires some thinking to navigate successfully.


My favorite par fives are reachable in two at times depending on course conditions and wind but have an inherent danger in attempting to hit them on your second shot.

[Kalen Braley]

Archie,

Just from watching on the telly, as I've never been there, I have to agree.  The par 5s at Sawgrass are always compelling.  9 and 11 are brilliant, and even 16 offers some great risk/reward coming down the stretch. 

I particularly like what Tom D pointed out because I couldn't quite put my finger on it... that on many of Pete's par 5s you have to lay back a bit to get the best angle in.  Just superb design and one of the few ways to offset the bomb and gougers.

[Garland Bayley]

...A lot of the reason par-5 holes are harder to design is because it's harder to fit them on hilly ground in a way that the target is visible from any point up to 250 yards back. ...

I'm wondering why this is important. The USGA defines a scratch golfer as someone that can hit an approach shot up to 220 yards. How many people need to see the flag stick 250 yards away? 10%? less?

Some of my favorite holes at courses are par 5s. 2 at Perranporth, 5 at Strandhill, 8 at Donegal (Murvagh), 18 at Golfspie, 7 at Wine Valley. As I recall, none of these allow you to readily see the target from 250 yards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()