Jump to content
IGNORED

Who would be in favor of a par 5 course?


9wood
Note: This thread is 2886 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Par 5 Course  

93 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you be in favor of a par 5 course (par 90)?



Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, 9wood said:
30 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I think that would just piss off golfers who need to run up to the green, but it still won't change the CR. :-D

If people want their golf to be easy then maybe putt putt was designed specifically for them.

I was thinking most bogey to high handicap golfers whom are probably a good 40-50% of the daily revenue of any golf course.

For the better mid-cappers to low handicaps putting water in front of the green doesn't really do that much except make them wait longer before putting. So, in that manner, it might piss them off too. :-D

Water right in front of the green is a terrible idea, and there are courses that have them in our area. Los Serranos is one of them, and as a result not many people like to play the South course.

On a 400 yard par 4 with water in front of the green, I would pretty much just think to myself which club am I not going to mishit today to get over 140 to 150 yards? Nothing more really goes into that decision. If I knew that hitting the green was going to give me an eagle putt that might make me a little more happy, but in the end I would be thinking to myself it's really only a par 4. I kind of feel this way on our 449 yard par 5 on my shorter home course, but I figure it makes up for the 548 yard narrow OB both ways par 5 on the 11th and end up feeling that I deserve that tap in birdie. :-P

A par 5 only course would not do very well revenue wise because very few people would play it. You'd basically have better players birdie many holes and the shorter hitters struggling to get to the greens.

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It should be easier to make pars, since the approach shot is usually a short iron or wedge.

But... it would be pretty monotonous, and the extra length might really tire out the average golfer.

Focus, connect and follow through!

  • Completed KBS Education Seminar (online, 2015)
  • GolfWorks Clubmaking AcademyFitting, Assembly & Repair School (2012)

Driver:  :touredge: EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  :callaway: Rogue 4W + 7W
Hybrid:  :callaway: Big Bertha OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  :callaway: Mavrik MAX 5i-PW
Wedges:  :callaway: MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter:image.png.b6c3447dddf0df25e482bf21abf775ae.pngInertial NM SL-583F, 34"  
Ball:  image.png.f0ca9194546a61407ba38502672e5ecf.png QStar Tour - Divide  ||  Bag: :sunmountain: Three 5 stand bag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

If I wanted to play an all par 5 course, I'd just go to an executive course and play my normal craptacular double-bogey game.

Seriously @9wood, a 72 stroke course is tough enough for most of us. I'm not crazy about changing golf (or any sport for that matter) unless there's a good reason. I prefer the tradition, and approaching the challenge just as players have been doing for generations.

Edited by JonMA1

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, 9wood said:

If people want their golf to be easy then maybe putt putt was designed specifically for them.

Actually, if a course has to be tricked up with gimmicky holes, then to me that's an indication of a poor design.  A well designed course has holes of varying length and ones that present different issues to the player.  It should require most players to use every club in their bag at some point.  

I don't have any issue with holes that have a required layup, as long as it doesn't feel like it's out of character for the course, or that the technique is overused.  A well designed course has continuity.  It has a balance of risk and reward, and offers occasional breathing space so a player can recharge for the next challenge.

My home course has a forced layup on the shortest par 4 (340 yards) on the course.  It only requires a 200-220 yard tee shot, although if you are accurate enough you can get away with 250 down a narrow neck on the right.  I only use my driver on 4 holes at most (sometimes only 3 holes) on the front 9, but on 7 holes on the back.  The course sets up best for me that way, but some players use driver on all but that one layup hole.  I generally use all of my clubs over an 18 hole round, although not always in the same place or on the same holes each time.  

Even though it's an underrated muni type course, my home course of Foothills was pretty well designed to be suited to the recreational golfer, yet can challenge a single digit handicapper too - just pick the most suitable of 4 tees.  The four par 5 holes are all good holes, all different, but I still wouldn't want a full course of them.

  • Upvote 1

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Putting aside all the practical reasons on why this course couldn't exist, I think I would enjoy playing such a course. A few more on course reps with the long irons and fairways could pay dividends.

:callaway: Big Bertha Alpha 815 DBD  :bridgestone: TD-03 Putter   
:tmade: 300 Tour 3W                 :true_linkswear: Motion Shoes
:titleist: 585H Hybrid                       
:tmade: TP MC irons                 
:ping: Glide 54             
:ping: Glide 58
:cleveland: 588 RTX 62

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'd probably play it for the novelty, but I don't think I'd play it a second time.  I really like the variety of hole lengths and pars on a "standard" course.

- John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Actually, if a course has to be tricked up with gimmicky holes, then to me that's an indication of a poor design.  

For myself such design would make for a challenging course. Something different from the norm. I think different and challenging can be exciting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

7 minutes ago, 9wood said:

For myself such design would make for a challenging course. Something different from the norm. I think different and challenging can be exciting

I think it'd be less challenging, actually. I bet that for most people, their scoring average relative to par is lower for par-5's than it is for par-4's. 

As for "different", I see your point...I've certainly had fun playing par-3 courses. I guess my fear is that on most par-5 holes, for my game, most tee shots would be very similar. 

- John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, 9wood said:

For myself such design would make for a challenging course. Something different from the norm. I think different and challenging can be exciting

Then maybe you ought to seek out a putt putt course.  Gimmicky is the very definition of miniature golf.  No normal golfer wants every hole to be torture.  That isn't golf.  Golf is about variety, and that means that not every hole needs to be a threat.  Certainly, those courses you have posted about are far from the most difficult courses I've seen or played, so maybe you don't have a great perspective on it.  

There is a course I've played here where water is in play on 15 of 18 holes.  Maybe that's more your style, but I can't afford to throw away balls at that rate when I'm having a bad day.  Most of the courses I play are at least a bit more player friendly than that.  I like to have a chance to recover from at least some of my weaker shots.  I deal better with challenges like playing from bad lies, negotiating my way under and around trees and bushes.  At least I get to keep playing the same ball, even if the only shot I have is a pitch out of trouble.

In the tournament last weekend I twice played my driver out of the rough because I had to punch the ball from under tree branches after an errant drive.  In both cases I saved pars.  I find that sort of situation to be the type of challenge that I love about golf.  If I didn't have that shot in my bag, the odds would have been against me making better than bogey.  Certainly if I'd had to drop from a hazard or other unplayable lie, then par is out the window.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)
8 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Then maybe you ought to seek out a putt putt course.  Gimmicky is the very definition of miniature golf.  No normal golfer wants every hole to be torture.  That isn't golf.  Golf is about variety, and that means that not every hole needs to be a threat.  Certainly, those courses you have posted about are far from the most difficult courses I've seen or played, so maybe you don't have a great perspective on it.  

There is a course I've played here where water is in play on 15 of 18 holes.  Maybe that's more your style, but I can't afford to throw away balls at that rate when I'm having a bad day.  Most of the courses I play are at least a bit more player friendly than that.  I like to have a chance to recover from at least some of my weaker shots.  I deal better with challenges like playing from bad lies, negotiating my way under and around trees and bushes.  At least I get to keep playing the same ball, even if the only shot I have is a pitch out of trouble.

In the tournament last weekend I twice played my driver out of the rough because I had to punch the ball from under tree branches after an errant drive.  In both cases I saved pars.  I find that sort of situation to be the type of challenge that I love about golf.  If I didn't have that shot in my bag, the odds would have been against me making better than bogey.  Certainly if I'd had to drop from a hazard or other unplayable lie, then par is out the window.

What does challenging have to do with putt-putt? 

Seems as though you desire player-friendly courses, and that's fine. For me personally the words, "player friendly" conjure up something which is boring. But hey, each to their own.

My idea of a challenge would be like a 390 yard par 4 hole where the green is surrounded by water. On such a hole I get off a 220 yd drive which still leaves me 170 yds to go to the green. Now do I play a safe lay-up 2nd shot or do I try to put one on the green and see if it will stick? For me the answer is always, go for the green. BTW, I realize that some of you big hitters will get off a better drive on such a hole and your 2nd shot will be easier, but for someone like me who is not a big hitter, this sort of hole is what I call challenging.

BTW, one of the courses that I play has a couple of holes that fit that description. And yes, I sometimes drown a ball, but I make sure they aren't one of my costlier balls. Nevertheless I like the risk factor rather than player-friendly.

:adams::cobra:

Edited by 9wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

40 minutes ago, 9wood said:

What does challenging have to do with putt-putt? 

Seems as though you desire player-friendly courses, and that's fine. For me personally the words, "player friendly" conjure up something which is boring. But hey, each to their own.

My idea of a challenge would be like a 390 yard par 4 hole where the green is surrounded by water. On such a hole I get off a 220 yd drive which still leaves me 170 yds to go to the green. Now do I play a safe lay-up 2nd shot or do I try to put one on the green and see if it will stick? For me the answer is always, go for the green. BTW, I realize that some of you big hitters will get off a better drive on such a hole and your 2nd shot will be easier, but for someone like me who is not a big hitter, this sort of hole is what I call challenging.

BTW, one of the courses that I play has a couple of holes that fit that description. And yes, I sometimes drown a ball, but I make sure they aren't one of my costlier balls. Nevertheless I like the risk factor rather than player-friendly.

:adams::cobra:

Even for good players, facing forced carries on every hole is physically and mentally exhausting. Taking over 100 strokes in a round of golf is exhausting. All golfers are masochists to a certain extent, but for 99 percent of us, this game is meant to be fun. Even marathon runners have easy days.

In my UnderArmour Links stand bag...

Driver: '07 Burner 9.5° (stiff graphite shaft)
Woods: SasQuatch 17° 4-Wood (stiff graphite shaft)
Hybrid: 4DX Ironwood 20° (stiff graphite shaft)Irons/Wedges: Apex Edge 3-PW, GW, SW (stiff shaft); Carnoustie 60° LWPutter: Rossa AGSI+ Corzina...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


(edited)
17 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Even for good players, facing forced carries on every hole is physically and mentally exhausting. Taking over 100 strokes in a round of golf is exhausting. All golfers are masochists to a certain extent, but for 99 percent of us, this game is meant to be fun. Even marathon runners have easy days.

I wasn't talking about forced carries on EVERY hole. For me, I would enjoy at least 2 for every 9 holes to spice it up and make it interesting. I don't get the physically and mentally exhausting part. I'm 67, and for me forced carry holes only serve to rejuvenate my old dying carcass.

Edited by 9wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, 9wood said:

What does challenging have to do with putt-putt? 

Seems as though you desire player-friendly courses, and that's fine. For me personally the words, "player friendly" conjure up something which is boring. But hey, each to their own.

My idea of a challenge would be like a 390 yard par 4 hole where the green is surrounded by water. On such a hole I get off a 220 yd drive which still leaves me 170 yds to go to the green. Now do I play a safe lay-up 2nd shot or do I try to put one on the green and see if it will stick? For me the answer is always, go for the green. BTW, I realize that some of you big hitters will get off a better drive on such a hole and your 2nd shot will be easier, but for someone like me who is not a big hitter, this sort of hole is what I call challenging.

BTW, one of the courses that I play has a couple of holes that fit that description. And yes, I sometimes drown a ball, but I make sure they aren't one of my costlier balls. Nevertheless I like the risk factor rather than player-friendly.

:adams::cobra:

I find a hole such as you describe the product of an architect who lacks any creativity.  If the terrain that he had to work with set up for that naturally, then I'm okay with the design, but if he dug a hole and filled it with water just so he could torture golfers, then he's lost a lot of respect from me - anyone can dig a hole.  The best architects look at a piece of land and "see" a golf course in the natural contours.  They move the minimum amount of dirt when creating that vision.  

Strategically placed bunkering, mounding, trees, and areas of rough are usually more natural looking and more playable.  For par 5 holes, a combination of these along with length and shape can make the difference between a good hole and a boring one.  But even then, there is only so much that can be done with a 3 shot hole to make it interesting without repetition.  Usually 4 such holes per 18 is enough to give the players a break from the typical 10 par 4 holes.  Many courses only include 2 or 3 par 5's.  The same design theory works for par 4 holes too.  

Water is not the only way to make a challenging hole.  If it was, the British Open would have died from boredom.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

My old home course use to have 619 yard, slight dog leg right, par 5.  On the right was a drainage ditch. On the left was trailer park. Fairway was probably 60 yards wide, leading to a smallish green. The challenge for most of us was to just get on the green in 3. Yes, there were closer tees that might have saved 50-70 yards, but it was more fun to play from the tips on this one hole.

For me, pIaying an all par 5 course would be a break from the norm. I love playing new to me courses. The unexpected in what ever a course provides has always been the biggest draw for me. The unexpected on a new coursealways showed me what kind of game I really had. My current home course,  I can always play well because it's very familiar to me. Lucky for me I'm not easily bored when golfing. 

Edited by Patch
  • Upvote 1

In My Bag:
A whole bunch of Tour Edge golf stuff...... :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Strategically placed bunkering, mounding, trees, and areas of rough are usually more natural looking and more playable.  For par 5 holes, a combination of these along with length and shape can make the difference between a good hole and a boring one.  But even then, there is only so much that can be done with a 3 shot hole to make it interesting without repetition.  Usually 4 such holes per 18 is enough to give the players a break from the usual 10 par 4 holes.  Many courses only include 2 or 3 par 5's.  The same design theory works for par 4 holes too.

There are two types of great par fives: those that reward the brave and punish the foolish who go for the green in two, and those that require three great shots to reach the putting surface. There aren't many 550-yard holes on "world's best" lists.

Even on great courses, par fives are more often than not are just afterthoughts, ways to connect two holes on opposite sides of the property.

In my UnderArmour Links stand bag...

Driver: '07 Burner 9.5° (stiff graphite shaft)
Woods: SasQuatch 17° 4-Wood (stiff graphite shaft)
Hybrid: 4DX Ironwood 20° (stiff graphite shaft)Irons/Wedges: Apex Edge 3-PW, GW, SW (stiff shaft); Carnoustie 60° LWPutter: Rossa AGSI+ Corzina...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


(edited)
29 minutes ago, Patch said:

I love playing new to me courses. The unexpected in what ever a course provides has always been the biggest draw for me. 

I agree

:adams:  :cobra:

Edited by 9wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)
31 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I find a hole such as you describe the product of an architect who lacks any creativity.  If the terrain that he had to work with set up for that naturally, then I'm okay with the design

All the holes which I describe that I have seen or played all use the natural terrain. For instance, this one course I play has a par 4 green with water flowing all around it produced by a creek that has always been there. In the middle on this creek is a sandbar which stuck out of the water. All the course designers did was to make the sandbar into a green and added a bridge to the green. It's beautiful as well as exciting to play. For me this hole involves a forced carry over the water on my second shot. I would love to see and play more holes like it.

:adams: :cobra:

Edited by 9wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 minutes ago, 9wood said:

All the holes which I describe that I have seen or played all use the natural terrain. For instance, this one course I play has a par 4 green with water flowing all around it produced by a creek that has always been there. In the middle on this creek is a sandbar which stuck out of the water. All the course designers did was to make the sandbar into a green and added a bridge to the green. It's beautiful as well as exciting to play. For me this hole involves a forced carry over the water on my second shot. I would love to see and play more holes like it.

:adams: :cobra:

Relating back to the main topic: I can't think of a course on Earth which has more than two outstanding three-shot holes. Even on the best parcels of land for golf ever found, designers are rarely able to route more than two great par fives, even if a typical par 72 course has four of them. If over half of the par fives in existence present no challenge to the scratch player, or (often simultaneously) too much distance for the bogey player to handle, how do you build a par-90 course that isn't mostly garbage?

I respect your opinion, but it isn't one that is shared by the majority of golfers.

In my UnderArmour Links stand bag...

Driver: '07 Burner 9.5° (stiff graphite shaft)
Woods: SasQuatch 17° 4-Wood (stiff graphite shaft)
Hybrid: 4DX Ironwood 20° (stiff graphite shaft)Irons/Wedges: Apex Edge 3-PW, GW, SW (stiff shaft); Carnoustie 60° LWPutter: Rossa AGSI+ Corzina...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 2886 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...