Who would be in favor of a par 5 course?

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

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.

For good players, yes. If you have 3 parties on the longer par 5 looking for lost balls because most golfers are continuously hitting their longest shots, the pace of play could be really slowwwww.

[Chilli Dipper]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

For good players, yes. If you have 3 parties on the longer par 5 looking for lost balls because most golfers are continuously hitting their longest shots, the pace of play could be really slowwwww.

Don't forget the "I'm 300 yards from the green, but I'm waiting for the group ahead to clear, because I'm really gonna rip it (cue cold-top)" guys.

[SavvySwede]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

For good players, yes. If you have 3 parties on the longer par 5 looking for lost balls because most golfers are continuously hitting their longest shots, the pace of play could be really slowwwww.

A bunch of players hunting for lost balls will slow down any course. I don't see how that applies to this sort of course in particular.

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

A bunch of players hunting for lost balls will slow down any course. I don't see how that applies to this sort of course in particular.

On par 72 courses at least you have shorter holes where the hope is that most people are not swinging out of their shoes just to get to the greens every single shot as they likely would be on 550+ yard par 5 holes.

I suppose there could be more sets of tees on this type of course, and you get some dubious par 5s running 425 yards or less from the standard tees and even shorter ones from the forward tees.

[InTheRough]

4 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

A bunch of players hunting for lost balls will slow down any course. I don't see how that applies to this sort of course in particular.

more shots= more opportunities to lose a ball.  Also players would be hitting the longer clubs a lot more than they do on a normal course making them more likely to lose a ball

[SavvySwede]

Just now, InTheRough said:

more shots= more opportunities to lose a ball.  Also players would be hitting the longer clubs a lot more than they do on a normal course making them more likely to lose a ball

More shots also means more potential spacing between groups of golfers, it balances out. I never see par 72 courses back up where they have back to back par 5's

[Patch]

Just thinkinking that if the latest LPGA bombshell showed up for a par 5 practice round, there might a few negative opinions reversed....lol

 Who is she this week? Hardin?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, SavvySwede said:

More shots also means more potential spacing between groups of golfers, it balances out. I never see par 72 courses back up where they have back to back par 5's

Vince, not sure what you're talking about here. Par fives tens to back up. Not as much as part threes but much more so than par fours.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, SavvySwede said:

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.

Not in my experience.  I spend more time waiting on the tees of par 5 holes for some dope who thinks he can hit his 3W farther than he hit his driver.  

[Buckeyebowman]

2 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

More shots also means more potential spacing between groups of golfers, it balances out. I never see par 72 courses back up where they have back to back par 5's

I can't tell you the number of courses I have seen that lead off with a par 5, only to follow it up with a par 3! Talk about a log jam on the second tee! Stupid design!

As for the original question, it would depend on what kind of par 5's they were. Most pros look at par 5's as scoring opportunities, as do I as long as they're a reasonable distance. But, at 63, I play any par 4 over 450 as a par 5!

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, Patch said:

Just thinkinking that if the latest LPGA bombshell showed up for a par 5 practice round, there might a few negative opinions reversed....lol

 Who is she this week? Hardin?

I'm partial to third round leader this week, Gerina Piller.  She's a cutie!

[MacDutch]

One or two extra par 5's but still a par 72 course would be nice. Take away that 445y par 4 over water. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by MacDutch

[SavvySwede]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

Vince, not sure what you're talking about here. Par fives tens to back up. Not as much as part threes but much more so than par fours.

Par 5's have always seemed to get the pace back on track in my experience. Perhaps it is just the overall layouts of the courses I play. 

[Gunther]

Ok, I wanna change my vote.  Birdied 3 of 4 par 5's yesterday (never had done that).  14 over on the other 14 holes.  So yeah, bring on the par 5 course, I'm a believer.

[NJpatbee]

No.  I enjoy a mix of 3's, 4's, and 5's.  

[chilepepper]

20 hours ago, Patch said:

Just thinkinking that if the latest LPGA bombshell showed up for a par 5 practice round, there might a few negative opinions reversed....lol

 Who is she this week? Hardin?

Ill vote for Piller this week

[Jim Bloodworth]

If I play from the back tees on my course it seems like a par 5 course. Too long for me. 

[Wally Fairway]

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 2:15 PM, Lihu said:

I doubt such a course would make any sense?

So, I voted "WTF?"

I've played Tobacco Road, so I'd at least try this thing at least once.
It wouldn't be in my regular rotation, but if the design was interesting, the greens fees were reasonable and/or the real estate was spectacular (unlikely due to the amount required) then why not.

But I voted WTF?

Edited May 2, 2016 by Wally Fairway