Should The [Women] Pros Be Reaching Par Fives in Two?

[Tom_Doak]

I'll admit it, I went to the clickbait headline on golf.com, where Brandel Chamblee complained that the LPGA is robbing its tournaments of excitement by not moving the tees up on par-5 holes.  Read about it here:


https://golf.com/news/why-brandel-chamblee-robbing-lpga-excitement/




I can't disagree with the premise that making the par-5 holes shorter would make the tournament seem more exciting, and simultaneously make these talented golfers seem "better" to the casual television viewer.


However, is that better for tournaments?  Is that better for golf?  I don't know. 


One of the main appeals of elite women's golf is that they are better role models for the average male player.  They play the course mostly from the same tees we'd play; they hit their drives similar distances to the average 10-handicap male.  They just do it all way, way more consistently.


But there's not much bombing and gouging on the LPGA Tour, just like there's not much bombing and gouging going on in my infrequent rounds.  The ten-handicap male is not routinely going for par-5 holes in two.  it's a rare accomplishment.  I think that's why par is still five for these holes, even though on the men's tour it's really four point seven.


The article quotes Mel Reid, one of the longer hitters on Tour, who complains that as a long hitter, she's not being rewarded for her particular skill set.  [Every good player on earth talks their book, male or female.] 


But, is that really correct?  Isn't it a great advantage to be a longer hitter when courses are set up long . . . to getting within 30 yards of the green on a par-5, instead of being 60 or 80 yards back?  Or is there some magic yardage at which the equation changes, and the golfers who can reach in two have a bigger advantage than if the par-5 was even longer?

[Kyle Harris]

You beat me to the punch on starting a thread but I had a different premise.


More suggesting about the ball for the men’s game than it is about setup for the women’s game.


Not sure your comparison in distances to an average 10-handicap is supported by the data. In fact, I know it isn’t. The women are much, much, much better than that. Your point about the consistency is, of course, valid.


Why the obsession over Par 5s? Surely there is an equally counter idea that variety in Par 4 distances also allows longer hitters to press their advantage.


A Par 3 requiring a Driver would also do the same.

[Peter Sayegh]

"One of the main appeals of elite women's golf is that they are better role models for the average male player.  They play the course mostly from the same tees we'd play; they hit their drives similar distances to the average 10-handicap male."


Lot of assumptions in this statement.


As to OP, I have no problem with the pros reaching a par five in two. It's a competition.

[Thomas Dai]

Par 5 = 3 shots to reach the green + two putts.
If there ain’t enough space rollback the bloody ball.
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

I’ve enjoyed watching the women play the 18th as a 3 shot hole.






I wish it was possible for the men to be required to play it as such as well.

[Jeff Schley]

I don't agree with Mel Reid, a long hitter who agrees with Brandel. Just because you have length doesn't mean it should be rewarded, specifically reaching par 5's in two.

• As opposed to focusing on # of players reaching par 5's in two, what is the average score for Par 5's? How you got there to score is not material. As Donald Ross said, there is the hole, play anyway you want.
• Specifically for the US Open, why should there be 2 or 3 part 5's that can be reached?  Where is that the rule in a major? They are trying to change the status quo to reward distance, ugh don't we have enough of that already?
• If the distances are shortened on par 5's, the committee would do so to entice players to go for it distance wise, while also having a penal hazard if missed. Or at least in theory they would.

I don't agree with Brandel on some things, but he does bring up the discussion, although his stats are too cherry picked to make an argument to me.

[Kyle Harris]

Par 5 = 3 shots to reach the green + two putts.
If there ain’t enough space rollback the bloody ball.
Atb

For the expert, yes. That’s the wording of the definition to which you are alluding.


I suggest that YOU do this with some frequency. I do it with some frequency, as well.


I would not suggest that “expertise” is the ceiling for mastery of our dear sport, though. The very upper echelons should be above mere expertise.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Par 5 = 3 shots to reach the green + two putts.
If there ain’t enough space rollback the bloody ball.
Atb

For the expert, yes. That’s the wording of the definition to which you are alluding.


I suggest that YOU do this with some frequency. I do it with some frequency, as well.


I would not suggest that “expertise” is the ceiling for mastery of our dear sport, though. The very upper echelons should be above mere expertise.

Would you be more comfortable calling it a bogey 6 for all non experts?

[Kyle Harris]

Par 5 = 3 shots to reach the green + two putts.
If there ain’t enough space rollback the bloody ball.
Atb

For the expert, yes. That’s the wording of the definition to which you are alluding.


I suggest that YOU do this with some frequency. I do it with some frequency, as well.


I would not suggest that “expertise” is the ceiling for mastery of our dear sport, though. The very upper echelons should be above mere expertise.

Would you be more comfortable calling it a bogey 6 for all non experts?

I don’t follow.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think it depends on the audience. In the writers defense, we’ve trained up entire generations of people to expect eagle putts.


I often wonder who the men’s pro golf fans are… who regularly watches Saturdays and Sundays. I presume the point is to capture that audience. I’ve rarely found it interesting exactly because the game they’re playing is alien to me. I find watching the ladies more interesting, but I’m definitely not the target demo.

[Tom_Doak]

I’ve enjoyed watching the women play the 18th as a 3 shot hole.

Until the mid-90s, nobody [man or woman] ever really went for the 18th green at Pebble in two.  The length wasn't impossible, but it was considered way too risky, and the green wouldn't really hold a shot from that range. I was astonished the first time I saw someone do it in the Crosby.


It didn't help the discussion that this article takes a conversation about the LPGA Tour, generally, and promotes it during the US Women's Open, specifically.  The USGA is more focused on "identifying the best golfer" than on "adding excitement" to the event.  Then again, I would assume this is the biggest TV audience those players will have all year, so creating excitement is probably important to them.


Also, FWIW, the most exciting shot I saw at the Curtis Cup at Pacific Dunes was a long running approach to reach the 15th green in two shots . . . by Mel Reid, who was on the GB & I team.  It was too little, too late by then for the team result, though.

[Mike_Clayton]

Given statistically there are a handful of LPGA players longer now than Greg Norman was in the mid-80s Brandel's oft-repeated take the LPGA play courses too long is ridiculous.
I've caddied a few LPGA events and the courses I've seen are hardly too long - and Tommy Watson (caddies for So Yeon Ryu for years and again this year at Pebble) calls the LPGA the "Lob wedge,Pitching wedge,Gap wedge, All day Tour'

[James Brown]

Longest driving average on the LPGA right now is 280 and shortest is 235.  Median is about 260.


https://www.lpga.com/statistics/driving/average-driving-distance


Average 10 handicap male is about 220.


https://golf.com/instruction/driving/driving-distance-average-golfers-new-report/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

One of the main appeals of elite women's golf is that they are better role models for the average male player.

While that's (mostly) true… and has been true as long as I've been in golf, they don't seem to care and don't learn or pay much attention.

But, is that really correct?  Isn't it a great advantage to be a longer hitter when courses are set up long . . . to getting within 30 yards of the green on a par-5, instead of being 60 or 80 yards back?  Or is there some magic yardage at which the equation changes, and the golfers who can reach in two have a bigger advantage than if the par-5 was even longer?

Yes, it's true, what you say, but being ON the green is better than being 50 yards back of the green MORE SO than being 30 and 80 yards away.

[Tom_Doak]

But, is that really correct?  Isn't it a great advantage to be a longer hitter when courses are set up long . . . to getting within 30 yards of the green on a par-5, instead of being 60 or 80 yards back?  Or is there some magic yardage at which the equation changes, and the golfers who can reach in two have a bigger advantage than if the par-5 was even longer?

Yes, it's true, what you say, but being ON the green is better than being 50 yards back of the green MORE SO than being 30 and 80 yards away.

How much more?


Many architects (including Mr. Dye) concentrated their golf holes around certain yardages because of what par was and what they thought it took to challenge elite players; at the same time, that tends to favor players who hit the ball a certain length.  I've come to think it's better to spread out the yardages so that players at one point on the spectrum do not gain a great advantage through the design of the course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How much more?

On the green is about 2. Throw in some shots from just off the green and it's around 2.2 shots for getting "pin high." Heck, make it 2.3 if you want.
50 yards back is about 2.65. So a difference of 0.45 or 0.35 if you want.

30 yards is about 2.5.
80 yards is about 2.75.

So the difference between being on the green and being 50 yards back is 0.45 (or 0.35), which is > than the difference between being 30 and 80 yards at 0.25.

Many architects (including Mr. Dye) concentrated their golf holes around certain yardages because of what par was and what they thought it took to challenge elite players; at the same time, that tends to favor players who hit the ball a certain length.  I've come to think it's better to spread out the yardages so that players at one point on the spectrum do not gain a great advantage through the design of the course.

I'd tend to agree.

[Ken Moum]

Tom, the other thing about spreading out the yardages is how it affects matches between golfers with similar handicaps but different lengths.


Two ~375-yard par fours vs. 300 and 450...as a short hitter I'll take the later.


K

[Michael Tamburrini]

I think pro golf is a lot poorer with the modern assumption that a par 5 isn’t entertaining unless you can reach it in two.


To use an example: The 6th at Cruden Bay is one of the finest par 5s a mere pleb like myself could ever hope to play. But I could never reach it in two. It’s not just the distance (530ish yards is a stretch, but you do get the occasional 40 mph wind at your back), but the second shot is blind, uphill to an elevated green, and there’s a burn that meanders directly in front of the green. Plus, there’s dunes all over the place. I’d imagine 99% of the golfing world wouldn’t even entertain getting on in two.


But the second shot is one of the most interesting shots I’ve ever hit. The ideal spot to lay up is about 100 yards short of the green. Two evil little bunkers stand on the outside of the dogleg at this point though, teasing you. If you lay up shorter, your third will be blind, over the dunes (and the burn). If you go past the bunkers, the fairway runs downhill towards the burn. Left is rough and dunes.


Your other option is to try and fly over the burn to the right of the green. This will leave you a nice little pitch up the hill with your third shot but, obviously, there’s a lot of danger in this.


It’s a great hole and, if the Women’s British Open is ever held there, it would not benefit from playing at 450 yards. It’s already interesting enough. Sometimes, it’s okay for a par 5 to be a par 5.

[jeffwarne]

Lots to unpack in this premise


Would love to see the set of average 10 handicaps that AVERAGE the same driving distance as LPGA pros.


Being ABLE to hit it 235 (about the distance a ball goes when struck by someone who tells you they hit it 270)
does not sniff that being your AVERAGE yardage .
Tops, skies,low snap hooks short flares and toe shanks go into the average too.


So Brandel thinks that because the men's pro game is completely out of scale that the women's game should be as well?
Seeing them play a classic course is still watchable.
The scale of the men's game requires playing majors on modern monstrosities or tricked up, manipulated bastardizations of classic courses


Most long hitting LPGA players I've spoken to want longer courses, not shorter.

[Sean_A]

My take is simple. If ladies are long enough to reach par 5s in two then yes, they should be able to reach par 5s in two. What's the problem with that? I don't buy into philosophy of par 5s anyway. Most are dull and duller still if not reachable in two. We want golf to be more sustainable? Eliminate most par 5s.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

My take is simple. If ladies are long enough to reach par 5s in two then yes, they should be able to reach par 5s in two. What's the problem with that? I don't buy into philosophy of par 5s anyway. Most are dull and duller still if not reachable in two. We want golf to be more sustainable? Eliminate most par 5s.

Sean:


I generally dislike par-5 holes.  There are not many of them I would consider great holes, whereas there are hundreds of two-shot holes I would label "great".


For Sedge Valley I've finally had a client let me eliminate the par-5 holes.  [Well, we did build one par-5, and five par-3's.]


I fully expect to get a lot of flak for that.  Scratch players value the chance to reach a par-five in two and show how much better they are than everyone else; ten-handicaps value the chance of making an easy birdie.  It's worth noting that neither group really cares if the par-5 is a good hole or not.

[Sean_A]

My take is simple. If ladies are long enough to reach par 5s in two then yes, they should be able to reach par 5s in two. What's the problem with that? I don't buy into philosophy of par 5s anyway. Most are dull and duller still if not reachable in two. We want golf to be more sustainable? Eliminate most par 5s.

Sean:


I generally dislike par-5 holes.  There are not many of them I would consider great holes, whereas there are hundreds of two-shot holes I would label "great".


For Sedge Valley I've finally had a client let me eliminate the par-5 holes.  [Well, we did build one par-5, and five par-3's.]


I fully expect to get a lot of flak for that.  Scratch players value the chance to reach a par-five in two and show how much better they are than everyone else; ten-handicaps value the chance of making an easy birdie.  It's worth noting that neither group really cares if the par-5 is a good hole or not.

One or two 5s are ok if the routing facilitates good ones. It then allows more opportunities for holes in the 220ish to 275ish and 440 to 475ish ranges. Maybe even the 100ish to 125ish range.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

My take is simple. If ladies are long enough to reach par 5s in two then yes, they should be able to reach par 5s in two. What's the problem with that? I don't buy into philosophy of par 5s anyway. Most are dull and duller still if not reachable in two. We want golf to be more sustainable? Eliminate most par 5s.

Sean:


I generally dislike par-5 holes.  There are not many of them I would consider great holes, whereas there are hundreds of two-shot holes I would label "great".


For Sedge Valley I've finally had a client let me eliminate the par-5 holes.  [Well, we did build one par-5, and five par-3's.]


I fully expect to get a lot of flak for that.  Scratch players value the chance to reach a par-five in two and show how much better they are than everyone else; ten-handicaps value the chance of making an easy birdie.  It's worth noting that neither group really cares if the par-5 is a good hole or not.

I like playing courses (Elie, Swinley Forest come to mind) without the “conventional quota” of Par 5s. And I could see why architects would not want have to meet that quota if the land does not work. But I think as a percentage, there are close to as many great Par 5s as the percentage of great Par 4s.


Ira

[Ronald Montesano]

Regarding Pebble Beach this year, for the Women's Open:

-The female golfers have a similar opportunity to play Pebble Beach twice under tournament conditions each year: the Taylor Made Pebble Beach Invitational (https://www.pebblebeach.com/content/uploads/2022-PBI-Results.pdf) Interesting that Bailey Tardy finished 29th last November. Knowing that the US Open would be held at PB this year, I wonder how many more registered to play last November.

-Take the average 10 to 5 male golfer, and place him on the fairway of the 6th hole at Pebble Beach. My suspicion is that he will suffer a bout of indigestion and smother/pull/push something to the left, to avoid watery death at all costs. We've not seen that this week with the competitors, although some have ended up over there. The approach is better played (it seems) from right center, and this is why the flirt with that edge. HOW is this germane to topic? The 10 to 5 handicap golfer might have the physical ability of better, but it is the weak mind/lack of strategic thought/emotional frailty, that dooms him to much worse under pressure. Keep in mind that the handicap favors the golfer. Show me the male golfer's TOURNAMENT handicap index, and I'll pay more attention;

-Of the par-five holes at Pebble (two, six, fourteen, eighteen), only 14 is not regularly reachable at the AT&T Pro-Am for the professional competitors, with wind at a standstill. Those other three holes see competitors coming in with long-iron to mid-iron in many cases. Hybrids and fairway metals have been the club of choice for competitors this week, going for two and six in two. 14 and, for the most part, 18, have been out of consideration. Big difference between those two club opportunities. THIS POINT brings me to a trans-generational posit. Professional male competitors would go for par-five greens half the time in the 1980s, using 1980s equipment. In terms of opportunity, I believe that there is a connection between that era for the men, and this era, for the women. I may be bonkers.

-I don't much care about the how and why. I want to see great planning and great execution.

[A.G._Crockett]

Unless I missed it, which is always possible, there hasn’t been any real discussion of the risk-reward element that can make the second shot on par 5’s so interesting.  If there’s no decision, doesn’t the interest level decline accordingly? 




I don’t think that watching EVERY player hit a wedge into EVERY par 5 adds anything, regardless of what Tour you’re talking about.  That doesn’t mean that EVERY player should be able to reach EVERY par 5 in two, but there is a golden mean in here somewhere.




And if you don’t think a player that hits it long and straight doesn’t deserve to be rewarded for developing that skill set, well…