Who would be in favor of a par 5 course?

[Osnola]

I have thought about this for a while and really think this would be fun to play.  I think having only 1 set of tees would make it interesting with holes ranging from a short of maybe 450 yds and a long one up to maybe 600 yds or so...

Why not?  People play par 3 courses all the time...

[Chilli Dipper]

10 minutes ago, Osnola said:

I have thought about this for a while and really think this would be fun to play.  I think having only 1 set of tees would make it interesting with holes ranging from a short of maybe 450 yds and a long one up to maybe 600 yds or so...

Why not?  People play par 3 courses all the time...

There are great 100-yard par threes (7th at Pebble), there are great 300-yard par threes (8th at Oakmont), and great par threes of all lengths in between. In contrast, there are great 500-yard par fives and great 600-yard par fives; virtually everything between 525 and 600 (from the back tees) is "driver, iron, pitch, ho-hum" for the good player, and "how the hell do they expect me to make a 5" for the lesser player. Why bother?

[9wood]

1 hour ago, Chilli Dipper said:

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 area I see what I prefer to call mega golf courses. In one area there are something like three 18 hole golf courses that are right next to or across the road from each other. Now if three 18 hole courses can be built along side each other, then what would prevent someone from building one par five course? Or at minimum one 9 hole par 5 course.

 

35 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

There are great 100-yard par threes (7th at Pebble), there are great 300-yard par threes (8th at Oakmont), and great par threes of all lengths in between. In contrast, there are great 500-yard par fives and great 600-yard par fives; virtually everything between 525 and 600 (from the back tees) is "driver, iron, pitch, ho-hum" for the good player, and "how the hell do they expect me to make a 5" for the lesser player. Why bother?

Maybe a par 5 course would attract fewer golfers, but for those who want to avoid the crowds it might be just the ticket

Edited April 30, 2016 by 9wood

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, 9wood said:

 

OT: Please stop adding those to your posts.

[9wood]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

OT: Please stop adding those to your posts.

I didn't know anything was wrong with them. And I still don't understand what's wrong with them since they are one of the options available. Please help me understand what I did wrong.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, 9wood said:

I didn't know anything was wrong with them. And I still don't understand what's wrong with them since they are one of the options available. Please help me understand what I did wrong.

You're adding logos to the middle of your posts for no reasons at all.

If you want them to be part of your signature, add them to your signature: https://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/ .

[Tat14]

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 11:27 AM, RandallT said:

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.

What did we do to deserve this? C'mon now.

[Patch]

One of the challenges of a par 5 course could be breaking 90. Myself I average 4.8 per par 5. It would be interesting to see if I could hold, or better that average. 

Just thought of this. Build an 18 hole, par 5 course, but also build par 3s, par 4s tee boxes on it. Then set a side one day a week, a slow day, and designate that day " Par 5 Only Day". If it is not busy enough, then make it a half day only gig. That would satisfy the masses. 

Edited April 30, 2016 by Patch

[Hardspoon]

2 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

There are great 100-yard par threes (7th at Pebble), there are great 300-yard par threes (8th at Oakmont), and great par threes of all lengths in between. In contrast, there are great 500-yard par fives and great 600-yard par fives; virtually everything between 525 and 600 (from the back tees) is "driver, iron, pitch, ho-hum" for the good player, and "how the hell do they expect me to make a 5" for the lesser player. Why bother?

I don't agree with this - there are good (great) par-5's of all lengths.  It's all about landing zones, hazards, trees, and green design.

I would agree that on your average course, the design of the par-5's seems worse in general than par-3's.

I think you could design a fantastic course made up of only world-class par-5's of all lengths...I just (personally) wouldn't enjoy playing it.

[Rock In Socks]

I would be all over this. I tend to play par 5s better than par 4s. However, I don't know about a complete 18 with only par 5s. Might be too repetitive but 9 would be fun. Better yet just alternate between threes and fives if you wanted an 18 hole course. I would only be scared of slow play issues.

[dave s]

How about a 14 hole, par 70 ALL par-5 course?  That sounds kinda cool to me.

dave

[GolfLug]

I will try anything once. It would be cool to see if I can break 100.

[Chilli Dipper]

3 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

I don't agree with this - there are good (great) par-5's of all lengths.  It's all about landing zones, hazards, trees, and green design.

I would agree that on your average course, the design of the par-5's seems worse in general than par-3's.

I think you could design a fantastic course made up of only world-class par-5's of all lengths...I just (personally) wouldn't enjoy playing it.

Tee shots are important, and approaches are important, but being 250 yards out after the drive on a par five is the least consequential shot in golf. Barring a perfectly-struck fairway wood, the green is just out of reach for most players, so that leaves three options. Old-school instructors say to hit two 9-irons; pros lay up to their comfortable pitch distance; and the Lowest Score Wins approach tells you to just advance the ball as far as you can. You have options, but in the absence of any hazards, it's as much of a throwaway stroke as you can get; even a poor shot will result in a decent chance to reach the green in regulation.

It takes a talented architect to give par fives that aren't half-pars or genuine three-shotters an interesting strategy. The best example I can think of is the 11th at TPC Sawgrass. All three options are in play, but they all take separate angles. Short-right is the safest second shot, but the third still needs to carry the water hazard; medium-left is the most generous target, but it leaves an awkward angle into the green; taking dead aim is an option for the limber, but water, deep-faced bunkers, and mounds await any long approach that misses the putting surface.

Width is the key. The 11th at Sawgrass is three times as wide as a typical golf hole. Pete Dye's inspiration came from the two par fives at St. Andrews, which run parallel to each other, in opposite directions, within the same corridor. In a straight wind, one hole is a green light to go for the green in two, and the other requires three excellent shots for the same result; in a crosswind (or the rare calm day), the width provides a multitude of paths from tee to green.

Again, it comes down to feasibility. A par-90 course would be much costlier to maintain as it is, but a par-90 course with enough width to keep the game interesting would require double the land of what would already require double the land of a normal course in concept. The course would be approaching Sand Hills territory, where the only place where the land would be cheap enough to build it is in the most remote part of the American interior, and only a membership of billionaires could afford the privilege of traveling to play there in their private jets.

[Hardspoon]

4 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

and the Lowest Score Wins approach tells you to just advance the ball as far as you can.

...as far as you can SAFELY.

Agreed on your other points - I just didn't think it was accurate to say that all par-5's of a certain length are mediocre at best.

[InTheRough]

Holy 6 and 1/2 hour round Batman! 

If it takes about 4 hours to get around a 6000 yard course then and adding an additional 3000 yards would make that round a nightmare to play.  I hope you got an early tee time or you wont be able to finish your round.

[SavvySwede]

1 minute ago, InTheRough said:

Holy 6 and 1/2 hour round Batman! 

If it takes about 4 hours to get around a 6000 yard course then and adding an additional 3000 yards would make that round a nightmare to play.  I hope you got an early tee time or you wont be able to finish your round.

Wouldn't feel like a 6.5 hour round with so much more golf to be played. It would be like playing 27 holes of regular golf in the same time period.

[InTheRough]

5 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

Wouldn't feel like a 6.5 hour round with so much more golf to be played. It would be like playing 27 holes of regular golf in the same time period.

This depends on the player.  A player with any length would be spending a lot of time waiting for greens to clear instead of waiting on tee boxes (which they may still have to do anyway).

[SavvySwede]

1 minute ago, InTheRough said:

This depends on the player.  A player with any length would be spending a lot of time waiting for greens to clear instead of waiting on tee boxes (which they may still have to do anyway).

Maybe, but par 5's typically have the best "flow" of the three hole types, I could see it moving more smoothly than par 72 courses because they tend to back up on the par 3's.