A par 5 hole for 9Wood

[Fourputt]

This thread is partly for @9wood.  Just to dispel your idea that I only play "easy" courses or holes, here is one the most challenging par 5 holes I've played.  I've played it a couple of times every year for the last 10 years, and I've only parred it once (when I first played it I was still an 11 handicap).  This is the 7th hole of the Meadow 9 at Pole Creek GC in Tabernash, Colorado.  552 yards from the white tees - elevation about 8500 feet above sea level.  Tee shot is somewhat down hill, second shot is more downhill as you work through a wetland valley, then the third shot is steeply uphill to a green where you can't see more than the top of the flagstick.  This is an example of a solid par 5 hole that was laid out on the land, not created by moving a lot of dirt.  (All 27 holes at Pole Creek make great use of the natural terrain for fun but challenging golf).

Yellow track is the "planned" route, but the blue track is closer to the normal way that I end up playing the hole.  That second shot on the yellow track is to a patch of fairway that isn't much larger than a green, with hazard on three sides.  

I usually aim my drive on the yellow track, but only a perfect shot will let me go for the yellow second shot.  If don't hit a perfect drive, I don't even try for it, because the second is from a downhill lie with the ball below your feet as well. I can usually make no worse than bogey by playing my third shot on the blue track, so the blue layup is my usual second shot.  If you carry the fairway bunker on your drive, you have a strong chance then of running through the fairway into a bad lie in deep rough.  If I try the yellow track and my second shot ends up in the hazard, then bogey is mostly just a dream.  Since I play for score, not for whatever esoteric satisfaction you seem to get from the game, I will usually go with the odds.

[iacas]

Here's how I'd play it. Driver, 5I perhaps?

 

[Chilli Dipper]

5-iron to the tee boxes of the adjacent par three, then 7-iron to the green. I don't see any internal OB stakes.

[9wood]

  On 4/30/2016 at 4:15 PM, Fourputt said:

This thread is partly for @9wood.  Just to dispel your idea that I only play "easy" courses or holes, here is one the most challenging par 5 holes I've played.  I've played it a couple of times every year for the last 10 years, and I've only parred it once (when I first played it I was still an 11 handicap).  This is the 7th hole of the Meadow 9 at Pole Creek GC in Tabernash, Colorado.  552 yards from the white tees - elevation about 8500 feet above sea level.  Tee shot is somewhat down hill, second shot is more downhill as you work through a wetland valley, then the third shot is steeply uphill to a green where you can't see more than the top of the flagstick.  This is an example of a solid par 5 hole that was laid out on the land, not created by moving a lot of dirt.  (All 27 holes at Pole Creek make great use of the natural terrain for fun but challenging golf).

Yellow track is the "planned" route, but the blue track is closer to the normal way that I end up playing the hole.  That second shot on the yellow track is to a patch of fairway that isn't much larger than a green, with hazard on three sides.  

I usually aim my drive on the yellow track, but only a perfect shot will let me go for the yellow second shot.  If don't hit a perfect drive, I don't even try for it, because the second is from a downhill lie with the ball below your feet as well. I can usually make no worse than bogey by playing my third shot on the blue track, so the blue layup is my usual second shot.  If you carry the fairway bunker on your drive, you have a strong chance then of running through the fairway into a bad lie in deep rough.  If I try the yellow track and my second shot ends up in the hazard, then bogey is mostly just a dream.  Since I play for score, not for whatever esoteric satisfaction you seem to get from the game, I will usually go with the odds.

Expand  

I like it. 

And like I said, each individual must discover for their own selves what brings them satisfaction. For me, this hole and others like it would present the sort of challenge I like to see. 

[Fourputt]

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:00 PM, Chilli Dipper said:

5-iron to the tee boxes of the adjacent par three, then 7-iron to the green. I don't see any internal OB stakes.

Expand  

The stakes are there.  And that is not much of a target in any event.  Tall trees lie between.

 

  On 4/30/2016 at 4:35 PM, iacas said:

Here's how I'd play it. Driver, 5I perhaps?

 

Expand  

You might have the shots to do that (I certainly don't), but those trees that you are playing over are very tall, and that second that you propose is from a slight downhill lie to a green that is a good 50 feet above you.  You have to get closer to the pond to have a flat lie.  For me that hill on the approach is about 2½ clubs more than the distance would indicate.  From the general area your lines show, I have never reached the green, even with a well hit 3 wood, because it's so much uphill.  I'm sure it can be done, but I've never managed it.

When I lay up there, I try for the beginning of that neck to the right of the pond.  That gives me a flat lie and a chance to get my 5 wood to the green.  It also puts me at risk of missing the shot a little and laying up in the hazard in stead of short, which I've done a few times.  It also leaves the risk of a miss hit third shot and chunking the ball into that hillside covered with sagebrush (which is included in the hazard margin).  I've left a couple of balls there too.

When my brother and I play at Pole Creek, we always pick a time when we can include the Meadow 9 in our round because we like this hole so much.  I really feel that all 27 holes are good fun, but this one is just necessary for us to feel that we had the full experience.

[Avalanche]

This hole favors someone with a nice draw off the tee box.  Looks fun!

[Chilli Dipper]

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:19 PM, Fourputt said:

The stakes are there.  And that is not much of a target in any event.  Tall trees lie between.

 

You might have the shots to do that (I certainly don't), but those trees that you are playing over are very tall, and that second that you propose is from a slight downhill lie to a green that is a good 50 feet above you.  You have to get closer to the pond to have a flat lie.  For me that hill on the approach is about 2½ clubs more than the distance would indicate.  From the general area your lines show, I have never reached the green, even with a well hit 3 wood, because it's so much uphill.  I'm sure it can be done, but I've never managed it.

When I lay up there, I try for the beginning of that neck to the right of the pond.  That gives me a flat lie and a chance to get my 5 wood to the green.  It also puts me at risk of missing the shot a little and laying up in the hazard in stead of short, which I've done a few times.  It also leaves the risk of a miss hit third shot and chunking the ball into that hillside covered with sagebrush (which is included in the hazard margin).  I've left a couple of balls there too.

When my brother and I play at Pole Creek, we always pick a time when we can include the Meadow 9 in our round because we like this hole so much.  I really feel that all 27 holes are good fun, but this one is just necessary for us to feel that we had the full experience.

Expand  

This is the problem with most par fives that I've been talking about in the other thread. For a scratch golfer like @iacas, driver and a long iron or hybrid, even if it doesn't put him on the green, clears the wetlands and leaves a pitch to the hole. For higher-handicap players, we're just trying to survive without picking up. That second layup zone is academic: a good player doesn't need it, and it's too small a target for a less-good player to play safely to. That pond has no reason to exist; alternatively, placing the green in that second layup zone would a heroic 400-yard par four, a far superior hole to what exists now.

[kpaulhus]

This has always been my least favorite Par 5. Summerfield Crossings Golf Club near Tampa, FL. 

A good drive puts you in range to go for it, but you have to go over a marsh with really tall trees without being able to see anything near the green. I've only hit it a few times in two.

I hate hitting a good drive only to have to lay up to a distance further than your layup shot. Long and you're wet, left or too far right and you're OB. Par is a good score.

 

[Dave2512]

I don't like any par 5's that force you to chop it up into three shots. If it's just long and some golfers don't have the umph to get it there so be it. IMO if the tee shot was eliminated from the OP hole doesn't even make a good par 4 the way that pond is positioned. Big reason I don't play much mountain golf, gimmicky.

[Fourputt]

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:37 PM, Chilli Dipper said:

This is the problem with most par fives that I've been talking about in the other thread. For a scratch golfer like @iacas, driver and a long iron or hybrid, even if it doesn't put him on the green, clears the wetlands and leaves a pitch to the hole. For higher-handicap players, we're just trying to survive without picking up. That second layup zone is academic: a good player doesn't need it, and it's too small a target for a less-good player to play safely to. That pond has no reason to exist; alternatively, placing the green in that second layup zone would a heroic 400-yard par four, a far superior hole to what exists now.

Expand  

I have actually played to the "island" layup area on that hole, but I have to be in just the right place to chance it.  In the right circumstances, it's a doable shot as long as you know your carry distances pretty well.  And that pond is just a natural feature of the area.  That entire valley is a natural wetland along a marshy creek, and 2 of the 3 nines play along the edges and bottom of the valley.  The third nine, the Ridge 9, plays up and over a ridge to the north of the Ranch and Meadow nines, with much less water to deal  with but some fun hills to go up and down over.

[Fourputt]

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:49 PM, Dave2512 said:

I don't like any par 5's that force you to chop it up into three shots. If it's just long and some golfers don't have the umph to get it there so be it. IMO if the tee shot was eliminated the OP hole doesn't even make a good par 4 the way that pond is positioned. Big reason I don't play much mountain golf, gimmicky.

Expand  

I disagree with that statement.  It's not gimmicky when the designer mostly uses the natural features to lay a golf course over the land.  It's only gimmicky when he creates trick holes through major construction efforts as Pete Dye is well known for.  

Riverdale Dunes is a course where Dye Designs moved tons of dirt, dug lakes out of a flat onion field, and created a golf course out of nothing.  In Dye's defense, that piece of land had nothing going for it to start out, so he was forced to create the course from scratch.  It's a good course, but it has some of what I call gimmicky holes.  

Most courses have some tricky or gimmicky features.  How well or poorly the gimmicks fit into the natural landscape is for me a measure of the quality of the design.

[Dave2512]

  On 4/30/2016 at 6:01 PM, Fourputt said:

I disagree with that statement.  It's not gimmicky when the designer mostly uses the natural features to lay a golf course over the land.  It's only gimmicky when he creates trick holes through major construction efforts as Pete Dye is well known for.  

Riverdale Dunes is a course where Dye Designs moved tons of dirt, dug lakes out of a flat onion field, and created a golf course out of nothing.  In Dye's defense, that piece of land had nothing going for it to start out, so he was forced to create the course from scratch.  It's a good course, but it has some of what I call gimmicky holes.  

Most courses have some tricky or gimmicky features.  How well or poorly the gimmicks fit into the natural landscape is for me a measure of the quality of the design.

Expand  

Sure it is what it is because they build the courses with what's there, still doesn't make for good golf. It's not like there is only one option for design. Mountain golf is resort golf CO style. It's fun to be there and take in the beauty but my experience has been some holes don't make sense.

There is a par 5 at Keystone that is crazy. Tee is on a butte about 100 feet above a meadow fairway with a massive marshy/stream area cutting across. It was near impossible to make a club choice. Breath taking view but silly golf.

[saevel25]

  On 4/30/2016 at 4:35 PM, iacas said:

Here's how I'd play it. Driver, 5I perhaps?

Expand  

Ditto, probably Driver then 7-5 depending on how much angle is taken off with the drive. 

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:49 PM, Dave2512 said:

I don't like any par 5's that force you to chop it up into three shots. If it's just long and some golfers don't have the umph to get it there so be it. IMO if the tee shot was eliminated from the OP hole doesn't even make a good par 4 the way that pond is positioned. Big reason I don't play much mountain golf, gimmicky.

Expand  

Ditto. This is one I play routinely. I hate this hole. Hole #11 at Beavercreek golf course. 

It's about a 25 yard drop from the tee box to the fairway. The creek sits right where you would hit your tee shot if you play the correct tees. Though you do get more room down the right. A creek runs along the right side of the hole for the 2nd half of the hole and down by the green. There is no OB stakes, but going that deep into those trees leaves pretty much a punch out shot. 

Unless I am feeling really confident in my driver I will just take a hybrid and try to hit it down that right side of the first fairway. It takes me a pretty solid drive to clear that creek unless I shy towards the left side. 

This is a layup shot 80% of the time. 

[Gunther]

Looks like driver would be a risky play for me as my draw with it is not as reliable as I'd like.  I could possibly play a high cut but don't know how tall those trees are.

More than likely it would be a draw 3-wood off the tee and a 3h across the 2 hazards.  Pitch up and 2-putt for par.  If everything went according to Hoyle.

Fun hole.

[iacas]

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:19 PM, Fourputt said:

You might have the shots to do that (I certainly don't), but those trees that you are playing over are very tall, and that second that you propose is from a slight downhill lie to a green that is a good 50 feet above you.  You have to get closer to the pond to have a flat lie.

Expand  

I doubt the trees are 25+ yards tall. And I don't need a flat lie - a slight downslope is fine.

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:19 PM, Fourputt said:

For me that hill on the approach is about 2½ clubs more than the distance would indicate.  From the general area your lines show, I have never reached the green, even with a well hit 3 wood, because it's so much uphill.  I'm sure it can be done, but I've never managed it.

Expand  

Yes, but… it's 8500 feet above sea level, and I don't hit my driver 220, either.

FWIW, Google Earth puts those two points (my second shot start and end points) at 8514 and 8533 feet, respectively. That's only 19 feet of elevation change.

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:37 PM, Chilli Dipper said:

This is the problem with most par fives that I've been talking about in the other thread. For a scratch golfer like @iacas, driver and a long iron or hybrid, even if it doesn't put him on the green, clears the wetlands and leaves a pitch to the hole. For higher-handicap players, we're just trying to survive without picking up. That second layup zone is academic: a good player doesn't need it, and it's too small a target for a less-good player to play safely to. That pond has no reason to exist; alternatively, placing the green in that second layup zone would a heroic 400-yard par four, a far superior hole to what exists now.

Expand  

I disagree that the pond has no reason to exist. It makes the hole more difficult for higher handicappers, or lower ones who get into trouble off the tee. It still has a strategic purpose.

Not every hazard has to affect everyone equally.

  On 4/30/2016 at 5:41 PM, kpaulhus said:

I hate hitting a good drive only to have to lay up to a distance further than your layup shot. Long and you're wet, left or too far right and you're OB. Par is a good score.

Expand  

Why wouldn't you hit the 160-yard shot as your second? Looks like plenty of room to get the ball up, especially if you can do it with a 230-yard shot.

[WUTiger]

In our area, we have a couple of short sucker Par 5s that can be a disaster if you miss a driver shot off the tee. Shown above is No. 7 at The Orchards in Belleville, IL, seemingly only 490 yards long from the Blues. It is a tight hole with creek along the entire right side.

In its original form, you had to hit into a funnel with only about a 20-foot wide landing area. The two red X marks show where big trees were removed when the hole was widened. Before the clean-up, many players laid up to the funnel with a 5i, and then followed up with a FW into the more open area near the green. The left half of the green was only about 10 yards deep, so you had to juice it just right to hold with a short approach to a left pin.

The Prairies in Cahokia has a similar Par 5 in its No. 4, a 450-yarder with trees overhanging the fairway the entire distance. (I have seen players who can hit stingers do pretty well on this one).

[Chilli Dipper]

  On 4/30/2016 at 6:14 PM, saevel25 said:

Ditto. This is one I play routinely. I hate this hole. Hole #11 at Beavercreek golf course. 

It's about a 25 yard drop from the tee box to the fairway. The creek sits right where you would hit your tee shot if you play the correct tees. Though you do get more room down the right. A creek runs along the right side of the hole for the 2nd half of the hole and down by the green. There is no OB stakes, but going that deep into those trees leaves pretty much a punch out shot. 

Unless I am feeling really confident in my driver I will just take a hybrid and try to hit it down that right side of the first fairway. It takes me a pretty solid drive to clear that creek unless I shy towards the left side. 

This is a layup shot 80% of the time. 

Expand  

That looks a lot like a hole at a course I try to avoid, even though it's the second-closest to me.

The seventh hole at Hampton Golf Village: over 600 yards from the tips, 550 from the member tees. The tees are very elevated, and the fairway cants downhill until stopping at a ravine 300 yards out. Whatever your skill level, even 3-wood is too much club off the tee; after an iron or hybrid drive, your options are to either hit a 3-wood off a downhill lie, or hit an iron and still be a long way from the hole lying two.

A par five that, in ideal play, forces a player to use a longer club than what was used on the previous shot is just poor design.

[SavvySwede]

Here is another tough layup choice hole. Very long par 5 with a pond in just the right spot. Hole plays downhill so the potential for a extra long drive is there but you always have a relatively long second shot from a downhill lie to clear the water. Lay up to the end of the fairway and you're stuck with 165+ for the third shot.