Who would be in favor of a par 5 course?

[9wood]

How many of you would be in favor of a par 5 course where 90 is par? And do you think par would be easier to obtain on this sort of course?

[Mop Bucket]

I feel I would score much better in relation to par on a par 5 only course. Statistically speaking, par 5's are usually where I gain most of my strokes. Par 5's give golfers the chance to be on the putting green under regulation with relatively low consequences. To two-putt for a birdie is a rare feat on a par 4 and impossible on a par 3.

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, 9wood said:

How many of you would be in favor of a par 5 course where 90 is par? And do you think par would be easier to obtain on this sort of course?

Par 5s are the easiest holes.

But good luck finding the land for this monstrosity. Plus, it'd get pretty boring hitting driver and then a long club for your second time and time again, and lots of wedges or chip shots for your third all day.

So no, I wouldn't play it even if it did exist somewhere.

[saevel25]

I voted No. 

[Lihu]

30 minutes ago, 9wood said:

How many of you would be in favor of a par 5 course where 90 is par? And do you think par would be easier to obtain on this sort of course?

The shortest possible par 5 course would be 8550 yards. Not sure anyone could really afford the real estate for such a course. Plus, at 475 the course would be reachable in 2 by over 60% (according to USGA stats for the number of mid handicap golfers) of the golfers in 2 shots.

I doubt such a course would make any sense? The CR would probably still be under 80.

So, I voted "WTF?"

[Jeremie Boop]

I'd probably play it once, just for giggles. I can't imagine that it would be cost effective though, with the amount of land it would take along with the logistics of maintenance as well.

[Mop Bucket]

I saw this as more of a hypothetical thread

[DaveP043]

I voted no, I think it would get boring, just like @iacas said.  I know you could vary yardages, doglegs, traps and hazards, but its still at least two long shots in a row, or a long plus two short if you need to lay up.

[RandallT]

My vote was like the recent Meghan Traynor song my daughter makes me listen to:

Variety in hole lengths is way more fun. I kinda get a bit bored on Par 3 courses too. Interesting thought though.

[Dave2512]

If half the holes were gettable in 2 then it could be fun. I love par 5's I call them the breathe easy holes.

[Grumpter]

Nah, I would rather see that land used to make a decent course with 3 set's of 9 holes (par 3, 4 and 5). What I am in favor of is courses that offer 5 par 5's for an 18 hole course. I like that setup best and mostly loathe courses with only 2 par 5's.

[nevets88]

I can see the names now. Costco GC. Big Box GC. The Monster is already taken.

[Coronagolfman]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

Par 5s are the easiest holes.

But good luck finding the land for this monstrosity. Plus, it'd get pretty boring hitting driver and then a long club for your second time and time again, and lots of wedges or chip shots for your third all day.

So no, I wouldn't play it even if it did exist somewhere.

At a time in this country when many areas in the Western states are fighting drought conditions on a yearly basis, building a course that might go out to 9,000 or more yards would probably not work too well.

If you want to try something akin to that type of course, go play Los Serranos in Chino, CA - the South course is par 74 with 6 par 5's, 6 par 4's (of which half are 450ish in yardage) and 6 par 3's.

[Chilli Dipper]

Par-3 and executive courses exist for three not-unrelated reasons. They cost less to maintain, it takes less time to play a round on them, and they are less difficult venues for new players to pick up the game. The demand and the economics of the product are self-evident. I don't see any niche in the golf market for a course that is exceedingly difficult for all but scratch golfers, costs well over $100 to play a round, and takes six hours to complete eighteen holes. That is, outside of the 7500-yard major championship behemoths that are already open to the public.

I vote no.

[70sSanO]

As long as the current distances were the same (150 yard par 5, 425 par 5, etc.) and I just got and extra strokes to make par, I'd play a Par 90 course.

John

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Par 5s are the easiest holes.

But good luck finding the land for this monstrosity. Plus, it'd get pretty boring hitting driver and then a long club for your second time and time again, and lots of wedges or chip shots for your third all day.

So no, I wouldn't play it even if it did exist somewhere.

I agree with this.  The fun of golf is the almost infinite variety.  All par 5 holes would chop more than half of that variety out of the game.

So no, I wouldn't like it, nor would I be inclined to play such a course.

[Chilli Dipper]

18 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I agree with this.  The fun of golf is the almost infinite variety.  All par 5 holes would chop more than half of that variety out of the game.

So no, I wouldn't like it, nor would I be inclined to play such a course.

I don't know where I first heard this, but it applies to this topic: "Every great par three in the world is great for its own reason, but every great par five in the world is great for the same reason."

[Ernest Jones]

Another vote for WTF.