Par 5 Strategy in a Mike Malaska Video... Do you agree?

[cutchemist42]

Watched a video of a playing vlog that had Mike Milaska, and he was discussing par5 strategies.

He said he felt most would benefit from putting the driver away, IF they know their Avg. Driver+Avg. 3-Wood/Hybrid would not give them a realistic chance of reaching the green in 2 shots. He said this way, you avoid the club that might give you penalties or a bad position for your 2nd shot.

Is this a sound way to view par5s?

[klineka]

Its not about getting to the green in 2 shots on par 5s. Its about getting GIR and proximity to the hole. I would rather be in the greenside rough or had a 20 yard pitch for my 3rd shot than be in the middle of the fairway but 120 yds from the pin. I am going to get it way closer with the pitch shots even from the rough than I would from 120 yards. 

Lets say you hit a 3 wood or hybrid off the tee, guess what you can still hit those out of bounds and get penalties too. 

I dont agree with his line of thinking at all. It has been proven that proximity to the hole on approach shots is directly related to the distance left to the hole on said approach shot. Why would not being able to reach the green in 2 shots on a par 5 be a reason for you not to try to advance the ball as far as possible?

[Missouri Swede]

1 minute ago, cutchemist42 said:

Is this a sound way to view par5s?

As a high handicapper, I disagree with that strategy.  I've been on the green in 2 shots once on a par-5 hole, so I fit into the "not realistic to expect to be on green in 2" group.  But I still want to be as close as possible to the green for my third shot--gives me a better chance at GIR.  And that usually starts with a driver for my tee shot.

Also, I thought the driver is supposed to be one of our more forgiving clubs.

[billchao]

In general, no. I agree with @klineka here:

4 minutes ago, klineka said:

I dont agree with his line of thinking at all. It has been proven that proximity to the hole on approach shots is directly related to the distance left to the hole on said approach shot. Why would not being able to reach the green in 2 shots on a par 5 be a reason for you not to try to advance the ball as far as possible?

Obviously you don't want to automatically pull driver on every par 5, either, but that's where individual shot zones come into play. People who come up with these types of ultra-conservative strategies overstate the value of being in the fairway and underestimate the importance of proximity.

5 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Also, I thought the driver is supposed to be one of our more forgiving clubs.

It is the most forgiving club in the bag. You can mis-hits a driver a farther distance from the sweetspot than you can with any other club and still get a decent result.

I started experimenting with a 3/4 driver swing late in the season and I find it to be a better option than a full hybrid or even a 3W.

[Shindig]

Pet peeve:  I hate the idea that you hit a 3-wood off the tee because it's more accurate.  This may have been true in the 60s.  It isn't true today.  I think the crossover point may have been in the early 90s.  If your driver shaft is too long, a short-term fix is to grip it like Anthony Kim.  The better fix is to be fit for your driver.  And I think a bunt with the driver will put you out there as long as a 3-wood and more accurately, because the driver has far more forgiveness features in the clubhead than the 3-wood.  They aren't the same technology anymore. 

Second, if you're hitting your driver into trouble on a hole, put it away on that hole.  This has nothing to do with par-4 or par-5 or par-6.  Or even par-3.  When planning a round, look at the likely range of results for your tee shots on each hole, starting with the driver and moving on down.

If I put away my driver on par-5s on my home course, I'd gain no benefit, even if my longest non-driver were more accurate or even a guaranteed fairway.  There just isn't that much trouble off the tee on those holes for me.  And the only time in my life I've reached a par-5 in two, a week later I played the course again and they moved the tees up and made it a par-4.

Lastly, I hate the idea that a 100 yard shot is a higher probability to get the green than from 50 yards.  Yes, if you play once a year but kinda know your full swing distances, that might be true.  If you're a regular on TST, spend an hour and learn your partial wedge distances.

Look, if it's the last hole of stroke play, everyone with a chance to win except you is in the clubhouse, and you have a three stroke lead, yeah, consider playing the last hole with a hybrid off the tee and two shots from there (or three if it's a par-5) and playing for a bogey.  I'm not sure that's the right strategy even then unless you're a low handicap (because more full swings for a high handicap is an invitation for trouble), but fine, consider it.  As a regular strategy on par-5s?  Only if the driver would get you into trouble, and even then, only because "trouble" not because "par-5."

[Missouri Swede]

Just now, billchao said:

It is the most forgiving club in the bag. You can mis-hits a driver a farther distance from the sweetspot than you can with any other club and still get a decent result.

I started experimenting with a 3/4 driver swing late in the season and I find it to be a better option than a full hybrid or even a 3W.

 

Just now, Shindig said:

Pet peeve:  I hate the idea that you hit a 3-wood off the tee because it's more accurate.  This may have been true in the 60s.  It isn't true today.  I think the crossover point may have been in the early 90s.  If your driver shaft is too long, a short-term fix is to grip it like Anthony Kim.  The better fix is to be fit for your driver.  And I think a bunt with the driver will put you out there as long as a 3-wood and more accurately, because the driver has far more forgiveness features in the clubhead than the 3-wood.  They aren't the same technology anymore. 

That's what I thought.  Kind of OT:

Spoiler

Makes me wonder why Henrick Stenson relies on his 3-wood so much.  Obviously, he's done mind-blowingly well with it.  But shouldn't he do even better with a driver?  Is he just not fitted well? (Ha!  Seems like a joke--but shouldn't a well-fitted driver be better than his 3-wood?)

 

[Lihu]

 

1 hour ago, cutchemist42 said:

Watched a video of a playing vlog that had Mike Milaska, and he was discussing par5 strategies.

He said he felt most would benefit from putting the driver away, IF they know their Avg. Driver+Avg. 3-Wood/Hybrid would not give them a realistic chance of reaching the green in 2 shots. He said this way, you avoid the club that might give you penalties or a bad position for your 2nd shot.

Is this a sound way to view par5s?

They both ended up using driver anyway. So much for their "strategy". . . 

 

[WUTiger]

1 hour ago, Missouri Swede said:

Also, I thought the driver is supposed to be one of our more forgiving clubs.

Since I started using a driver I got fitted for, this is true. It's now my most accurate long club.

As far as par 5 holes, I want to get as close in two shots as I can and still have a flat lie to pitch in from.

Also, I play on hilly courses: Tuesday's drive on hole X may land on an upslope and only gain me 220 yards, while Friday's might hit the downslope and run out to 270. You just have to see where the ball is after your drive.

Now, if there is a par 5 with known trouble about 220 out - cross bunkers or an impinging creek - I would lay up.

[rehmwa]

I'm hitting driver, love the driver, hit it off the tee better than my 3 wood or hybrids.

(unless my driver distance has a lot of trouble in play)

[iacas]

The Rule still rules.

Mike's wrong. Most golfers are shorter - and just as inaccurate - with their 3-woods. If there is a lot of trouble within your driver's Shot Zone, then evaluate using other clubs.

But yeah, as others have said, it's just about creating a Decision Map for every shot. You do it for the tee shot. Then you do it again for the second shot. I've played the same par five driver, 6-iron and driver, 3-wood from nearly identical spots. The difference? The wind. The downwind, right-to-left wind (creek right) was favorable conditions for a 3W, but a healthy wind into me and off the left led to me laying up to a safe spot back away from the creek (which cuts across from the left side of the fairway and then wanders right of the green at about 100 yards out).

BTW I voted "No" but was very close to voting that it's a hole-by-hole decision. I voted "no" because most par fives don't put a ton of trouble off the tee within the driver landing area (or no more trouble than a club or two back).

[dennyjones]

I agree with @iacas.   

On the front 9 of my home course I use a 3W off of the tee for the first par 5 because a driver would require me to place the ball within the fairway.   There is no bailout area with water right and woods left.  

On the second par 5, I use a driver because the creek is well beyond my driver distance.  

[klineka]

11 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

I agree with @iacas.   

On the front 9 of my home course I use a 3W off of the tee for the first par 5 because a driver would require me to place the ball within the fairway.   There is no bailout area with water right and woods left.  

On the second par 5, I use a driver because the creek is well beyond my driver distance.  

Here is one example where it makes sense to use a 3 wood off the tee (unless you can carry it 260-270+). It is about 250 yds to the creek, probably 255-260 to carry the creek depending on which tee you play from. I hit driver once here and was about 3 feet from going into the creek so from that point on I hit 3 wood on this hole since a smooth normal 3 wood wont reach that creek. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, klineka said:

Here is one example where it makes sense to use a 3 wood off the tee (unless you can carry it 260-270+). It is about 250 yds to the creek, probably 255-260 to carry the creek depending on which tee you play from. I hit driver once here and was about 3 feet from going into the creek so from that point on I hit 3 wood on this hole since a smooth normal 3 wood wont reach that creek. 

Yeah. Green Meadows in North East, PA has a similar creek on a par five on the back nine. Unless you can carry it 265-270, 3W is the play (and when it's firm, not even 3W).

[GST1974]

I voted the third option.  There is a hole host of ways to reach the green in regulation that doesn't necessarily require driver as a start.  Just because you are closer to the green than someone else does not mean you will score better than your opponent that is further away.  Surely statistically you have better odds, but odds alone do not determine the outcome.

But at the same time you shouldn't make a habit of putting the driver away and not using it.  Some holes have wide open fairways and you would be a fool to go with anything less.  The tighter fairways can be a challenge for someone that doesn't have accuracy with that club and they may feel better suited with a 3 or 5 wood off the tee.

Personally I don't care about GIR a whole lot.  What matters is what you score on a particular hole.  Just by a mountain of luck someone can get on a green in 2 shots and 3 putt for par, while someone can get on the green on the fourth shot and 1 putt for par.

Play to your strengths.  Don't sacrifice strategy for distance!

[onthehunt526]

Mike's wrong, but sort of correct in a way. Putting your driver away on a par-5 is usually not advisable. Par-5s require distance to even get in a position to have a chance to get a GIR. If you hit less than driver in most situations, you'll have to hit a longer club for your second shot, and so on. 

However, if you are having a bad day with the driver and the only thing you are able to hit is foul balls that day, a shorter club, may be a better option.

There are par 5 holes where because of the way the hole is set up you may even need to hit an iron off the tee. (These I don't see much of on the courses I play.)

I get the whole concept if you can't hit it over the green in two on a par-five don't go for it. But if there isn't a lot of trouble in front of said green, why not try to get as close as you can.

Mike apparently hasn't read LSW or ESC for that matter.

[JonMA1]

I voted "no".

Even this year when my driver was at it's worst, I used it on almost every par 5. I'll pull the 5w or 4i for narrow par 4's, but it isn't like I hit those clubs very straight either.

As far as not getting on the green in two, my only eagle was from a short chip from off the green. That wouldn't have happened had I tee'd off with anything less than a driver.

[mdl]

6 hours ago, Shindig said:

Second, if you're hitting your driver into trouble on a hole, put it away on that hole.  This has nothing to do with par-4 or par-5 or par-6.  Or even par-3.  When planning a round, look at the likely range of results for your tee shots on each hole, starting with the driver and moving on down.

I think the grain of truth in the OP quoted advice is that the cost of putting away the driver on a par 5 is potentially lower than on a par 4.  Say you're a ton more accurate with your 2/3 hybrid than with your driver.  On a mid length par 4, going driver to 3h might mean hitting 8i-PW for your approach to hitting 4i-6i.  That's going to pretty dramatically hurt your expected score.  Now consider a mid length par 5 where driver-3h, both hit well, gets you to 40 yards out.  But 3h-3h puts you 100 yards out.  I'd argue that while yes I totally agree that the whole thing about, pick a full swing wedge distance to lay up to, it's better than being closer, is laughably, provably false, the cost of going from 40 to 100 yards out is not nearly as large as going from 130 to 190 yards out.

That lesser drop in expected score is the key.  I'd still say that most people don't hit their 3h THAT much more accurately than their driver, so if the hole isn't designed to be much more penal when you miss at driver distance versus if you miss at 3h distance (trees pinch in, hazard starts, whatever), then for most people it's still probably a lower expected score to hit driver and get it closer.  But I think because going from 40 yards to 100 yards isn't quite as bad as going from 130 to 190 yards for the approach, that opens up a broader range of players who might benefit from hitting 3h-3h on a par 5.  Say, players who have a larger than average differential in dispersion between driver and 3h.

Like, if a typical player avoids a shot in jail/hazard/OB 5% more often teeing it off with 3h instead of driver, maybe some players avoid it 15% more often, and maybe if you game out the expected score on the par 5s theirs actually would be lower teeing off with 3h.  

[iacas]

1 hour ago, GST1974 said:

I voted the third option.  There is a hole host of ways to reach the green in regulation that doesn't necessarily require driver as a start.  Just because you are closer to the green than someone else does not mean you will score better than your opponent that is further away.  Surely statistically you have better odds, but odds alone do not determine the outcome.

On a single hole? No, it doesn't determine the outcome.

Over a hundred holes? Yes, it does, and you're better off playing for the lowest average score.

1 hour ago, GST1974 said:

Play to your strengths.  Don't sacrifice strategy for distance!

Quite often, the best strategy is to hit it pretty far. Distance is a form of accuracy and makes the next shot after that easier.

Check out LSW, @GST1974.