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

[Ben Sims]

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

Here here.


The best par 5’s are really par 4.5’s anyway. I can’t think of a single course I love where the best hole (or even the best two or three holes) is a par 5. Maybe ANGC. And that’s only cause 13 isn’t a true three-shotter.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


I will be the contrarian again based on a quick Sunday afternoon stroll through my memory. Best? Maybe not. One of top? Yes.


SS Blue 17 (and probably 14).
SS Red 7.
Lahinch 4 (and probably 12).
Ballybunion 16.
Waterville 18.
The Island Club 15.
PH2 5 (perhaps reflecting my short hitter status, but the green complex is brilliant).
Woking 14.
Primland 13.
Pac Dunes 3 and 12 (and probably 18).
Ballyneal 4 (and probably 16).
Pine Needles 10.
Bandon Trails 16.
Cog Hill #4 9.
Yale 18.


Ira

[Ben Sims]

Ben,


I will be the contrarian again based on a quick Sunday afternoon stroll through my memory. Best? Maybe not. One of top? Yes.


SS Blue 17 (and probably 14).
SS Red 7.
Lahinch 4 (and probably 12).
Ballybunion 16.
Waterville 18.
The Island Club 15.
PH2 5 (perhaps reflecting my short hitter status, but the green complex is brilliant).
Woking 14.
Primland 13.
Pac Dunes 3 and 12 (and probably 18).
Ballyneal 4 (and probably 16).
Pine Needles 10.
Bandon Trails 16.
Cog Hill #4 9.
Yale 18.


Ira

Ira,


Contrarian, blasphemy…same same. 😁


Seriously though, if you think Pac Dunes 3 and 12 or Ballyneal 4 and 16 are in the top 3 or so holes at their respective courses, we probably look at golf courses very differently. And that’s okay.


But the point I agree with Sean on still stands. Par 5’s serve a routing purpose but rarely, for me at least, provide the interest and overall value of the best one and two shot holes.

[Paul Rudovsky]

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.


Ron--

IMO you ain't bonkers...you hit the nail on the head.  Why is the men's your 2020's the base, as opposed to the mens tout 1970's-1980's (really mid 1950's-mid/late 80'S).  As I recall there was a guy named Hogan who played some fairly interesting golf in the 50's and 60's and some guy w the initials JWN who did the same in the 60's thru mid 80's hitting it long for then but short for now...and I believe in that time period he never went for Pebble's 8th in two.  Despite what Brandel says, pro golf was pretty damn interesting back then.

In many ways women's golf is more interesting and instructive for most of us...just as women's basketball (played below the rim) is more fun to watch (and more like pro basketball in the 1960's-70's) than today's pro basketball game.

But that may just be the opinion of an old fXXt. 

[Tom_Doak]

Par 5’s serve a routing purpose but rarely, for me at least, provide the interest and overall value of the best one and two shot holes.

Par-5's are the hardest holes to route. 


I have very rarely done a routing and thought, "I really need a par-5 here to get from A to B."  There is almost always somewhere along the way that you could easily break it up, or it's probably not going to be a good hole anyway.


The only reason for par-5 holes in my view is because they are the only holes where you can make the longer-hitting male golfer of today take on a risky long second shot.

[V. Kmetz]

...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.

You're right in everything you say TD, but you're dancing all around it ...the deflating difficulty in designing to a par value (here 5) the intrinsic merit of the hole at size, the ignorant now-banal hubris of "drivable" / "getting on in one less than you're supposed to"... Why not go the further step, be the leader, take the flak, and influence a project client to take par off all 18 of the holes.  My god... the freedom to just lay out 18 fine holes between 80 and 680 with interesting problems, shots, vistas... you can present fine holes at most ANY yardage... 


You and others express some disdain for multiple teeing grounds?  What could be better for that than to present a number of holes in a route in half par yardages, like a 235 yard hole without par that average male players will treat one way and short/senior male players and ladies and juniors quite another....my god the frequent players of that course will have had such a wonderful experience of that hole without regard to that subjective limitation of par by you or or its founders, how their game was charted by how and what they could tackle as they grew into it from rise of the youth...And elsewhere on the course, indeed offer up a few holes with multiple teeing grounds whose terrain and routing position require more equanimity from multiple tees.

[William_G]

yes

[Mark_Fine]

Golf is most exciting when there is risk/reward and temptation.  That is why I am biased about interesting and challenging hazards (even though the word is sadly hardly used these days).  A long hole (for example a par five) usually isn’t too exciting, even if it is “reachable” if all it requires are two long swats with little in the way.  The most interesting holes are ones where that direct line to the hole called the line of instinct is broken up with hazards/temptation,… creating what is called the line of charm.  I love to see both men and women having to deal with this kind of decision making especially on par fives. This is what makes the par fives at Augusta some of the best in the game.  I would locate tees for both players where thought provoking decision making is required.  [l

[Ben Sims]

Par 5’s serve a routing purpose but rarely, for me at least, provide the interest and overall value of the best one and two shot holes.

Par-5's are the hardest holes to route. 


I have very rarely done a routing and thought, "I really need a par-5 here to get from A to B."  There is almost always somewhere along the way that you could easily break it up, or it's probably not going to be a good hole anyway.


The only reason for par-5 holes in my view is because they are the only holes where you can make the longer-hitting male golfer of today take on a risky long second shot.

This is very interesting.


People talk about crossing the plain at Pac Dunes or Bill Coore getting up and down the hill at Friars Head using long holes. Bluntly, that always struck me as a wonderful yet obvious observation about those holes.


The better debate about the general idea of par 5 holes is happening on this thread. I’ve never been able to put my finger on why they never interested me as a golfer but do interest me as a watcher of professional golf. I guess if I had purchased Getting to 18 when I had the chance I would’ve learned why!

[Matt Schoolfield]

Wait, am I the only one here who thinks good par 5 holes are generally the best? They have the most opportunity for both strategy and recovery… which is a recipe for drama.


I honestly think the Old Course’s Long might be the best golf hole in golf.


I really think the desire to narrow par 5’s is what ruins them. They need to be wide. A wide par 5 with an inaccessible center line forces strategic thinking.

[William_G]

why is this even a topic, so dumb

[Sean_A]

Wait, am I the only one here who thinks good par 5 holes are generally the best? They have the most opportunity for both strategy and recovery… which is a recipe for drama.


I honestly think the Old Course’s Long might be the best golf hole in golf.


I really think the desire to narrow par 5’s is what ruins them. They need to be wide. A wide par 5 with an inaccessible center line forces strategic thinking.

I don't think Long is the best hole at TOC 🙈.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

I just think optionally adds depth. The most interesting par 4s to me are the double plateau with principles noses, that allow different ideal angles depending on pin position.


Adding a third shot adds myriad strategies, but only if hitting straight at the target is not an option. The beardies and hell prevent that on Long.


Most par 5s are just hit-it-long-and-straight snooze fests that reward players who excel at their trackman. It’s no surprise people only find them “interesting” by making them de facto long par 4s.

[Sean_A]

I just think optionally adds depth. The most interesting par 4s to me are the double plateau with principles noses, that allow ideal angles depending on pin position.


Adding a third shot adds myriad strategies, but only if hitting straight at the target is not an option. The beardies and hell prevent that on Long.


Most par 5s are just hit-it-long-and-straight snooze fests that reward players who excel at their trackman. It’s no surprise people only find them “interesting” by making them de facto long par 4s.

Long is a highly exceptional case and arguably the best par 5 on the planet. I still find it a bit bewildering because of all the space for the tee shot and lack of a clear view for the second. Last week I tried the left route because I pulled my drive past the Beardies. With the hole front left it isn't a bad route....if you are confident Hell can be carried. I wasn't so Ieft I went. It seems to me that no matter what with a forward hole location it is essential to get the ball past pin high for the third (or second). Such a great hole that progressively tightens it's grip with each shot. Still, I think 17 is a better hole mainly because it is reachable for more people. Temptation is a hell of a thing.

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

Par 5’s serve a routing purpose but rarely, for me at least, provide the interest and overall value of the best one and two shot holes.

Par-5's are the hardest holes to route. 


I have very rarely done a routing and thought, "I really need a par-5 here to get from A to B."  There is almost always somewhere along the way that you could easily break it up, or it's probably not going to be a good hole anyway.


The only reason for par-5 holes in my view is because they are the only holes where you can make the longer-hitting male golfer of today take on a risky long second shot.

Or the only holes you can be sure they might hit more than a 5 iron into a green.

[Rob Marshall]

Didn't want to start a new thread but similar topic. At Pebble did they play the 8th hole from tee at the bottom of the hill or did they shorten it up play it from up on top. When I started watching the were past the 8th.

[Carl Nichols]

I don't have a strong opinion about whether par 5's are generally "worse" holes than par 4's (and par 3's).   But I do really like them for match play for various reasons--including that strokes are often being given (which may put additional pressure on the lower-handicap player to be aggressive) and that more can happen to switch the advantage back and forth.