PDA

View Full Version : Your thought on par 5s in tour tourneys


Bellyhungry
Jan 26, 2011, 08:06 AM
I have noticed in recent time that many of the par 5s on tour that are either too long or have too much trouble in the driver landing zone that many players have elected to hit a long iron or fairway wood off the tee, thus eliminating the opportunity to go for the green with their second shots.

I think a good par 5 should afford 20-50% of the players in the field to try to get on the green in 2 rather than making it an easy decision for the players to lay up.

Thoughts?

Bentley01
Jan 26, 2011, 08:18 AM
I have noticed in recent time that many of the par 5s on tour that are either too long or have too much trouble in the driver landing zone that many players have elected to hit a long iron or fairway wood off the tee, thus eliminating the opportunity to go for the green with their second shots.

I think a good par 5 should afford 20-50% of the players in the field to try to get on the green in 2 rather than making it an easy decision for the players to lay up.

Thoughts?


While it's always fun to see it when they do get on in 2, IMHO that isn't the way par 5s are supposed to be played. They're three shot holes. Sometimes, with the right strategy (risk/reward) and good shots, the player should be able to get on in two, but it shouldn't be very often.

On the Tour, almost every player has the chance to get onto a few of the par 5s (week in, week out). On Tour, when almost everyone can hit a par 5 in two, it's a par 4, really. It also pisses me off when they're hitting short irons into par 5s for their second shots.

When the course puts a lot of trouble off the tee...it's just asking the player to think through his/her strategy. That's not a good thing?:confused:

goshawk
Jan 26, 2011, 08:30 AM
I thoroughly enjoy having to "think" my way around the course. Having almost the entire field reaching par 5's in two is pretty boring. A few years ago, Zach thought his way around Augusta, playing every par 5 as a 3 shot hole and managed to win by 2 strokes. As for having a lot of trouble in the landing area, that's part and parcel of having a quality course designer. You'd be pretty bored if you played a course where your landing area was 25 yards wider than the rest of the fairway with no bunkers/water/OB anywhere near the area. The trouble makes you evaluate whether to blast away or choose a shorter club and keep it in play.

Bellyhungry
Jan 26, 2011, 08:49 AM
^^^^

I hear you guys.

My point is that if the hole is either TOO long or TOO much trouble at the driver LZ, thus making pulling out an iron or FW becomes automatic, it is not a good par 5.

Weirfan
Jan 26, 2011, 10:20 AM
^^^^

I hear you guys.

My point is that if the hole is either TOO long or TOO much trouble at the driver LZ, thus making pulling out an iron or FW becomes automatic, it is not a good par 5.

golf is more than who can hit it farthest....

with the advances in technology too many tour par 5's are too short and easy for players that they are really just long 4's

if that is what you enjoy then maybe Long Drive would be what you should watch

to be a fair and proper challenge if a course say has 4 par 5's then I believe having two that allow the opportunity to get on the green with your second shot with a good tee shot is plenty. The other 2 should automatically be 3 shot par 5's or have some very high risk reward factor for placement of the tee shot in order to allow the opportunity to get on in 2 shots

par 5's that allow players to hit mid irons into them for their second shot are a joke IMO and should not be par 5's and the tours seems to agree as they have turned many in recent years to long par 4's

oNe16tH
Jan 26, 2011, 11:03 AM
The mark of a good par 5 is that it gives the majority a chance to give it a go in two. Trends now either have them too long so its an automatic 3 shotter and that's not exciting at all. The whole point of a par 5 is that your risk should go up if you decide to go for the green. I agree that 2 of these are usually enough but a auto 3 shot par 5 is just a waste of time in my books.

Take Augusta for example....RISK / REWARD is a huge factor on the back and that makes for exciting golf. You can make an eagle or a big number ... your choice. An auto 3 shotter is cake for these guys as well....but you throw some risk/reward into play for the majority of guys and their course management really comes into play. The front 5's are just as good although much longer and less accessable but not auto 3 shotters

I seem to remember Jack saying that the best holes in golf are reachable par 4's and a reachable par 5 should be no different as long as the RISK aspect is there.

The reason they change some reachable 5's into 4's is because there is no risk involved....take the 1st hole at the Abbey for instance.

mcgsxr
Jan 26, 2011, 01:52 PM
While I agree that the game is more than just who can hit it far enough, watching that south american kid in the tourney this weekend past hit a 230 yard 5 iron just about made me sick! That makes ANY Par 5 reachable in 2...

oNe16tH
Jan 26, 2011, 02:07 PM
While I agree that the game is more than just who can hit it far enough, watching that south american kid in the tourney this weekend past hit a 230 yard 5 iron just about made me sick! That makes ANY Par 5 reachable in 2...

You should see imAnewbie's 200 yard 7 iron :D

chiqui arce
Jan 26, 2011, 05:39 PM
I'm intrigued by a pro's risk mgmt. I tend to view the par 5s as either good par 5s or bad par 5s. The long hitters expose and exploit the bad par 5s.

Good par 5s reguire ball placement/landing, and the short iron is the tool of choice on the 3rd shot. These holes are few and far between.

Fredk
Jan 26, 2011, 08:24 PM
^^^^

I hear you guys.

My point is that if the hole is either TOO long or TOO much trouble at the driver LZ, thus making pulling out an iron or FW becomes automatic, it is not a good par 5.
I always thought the idea behind tournaments was that golfers compete against each other on a level playing field. If its a hard par 5, its a hard par 5 for everyone.

A one stroke lead wins any tournament whether it is at par or at -15.

from an entertainment perspective though, I would agree that you want at least some of the par 5's to be drivable. Sigh, what ever happened to the good old days when you walked 5 miles uphill (both ways) to and from school and sports were sports, not entertainment? ;)

Borbor
Jan 26, 2011, 10:56 PM
You should see imAnewbie's 200 yard 7 iron :D

so you've finally seen it? :p

Shadow
Jan 27, 2011, 08:55 AM
I think a good par 5 should afford 20-50% of the players in the field to try to get on the green in 2 rather than making it an easy decision for the players to lay up. Thoughts?
Not meaning to be cynical or negative, consider this: PAR is a meaningless term. All golf holes are designed for the golfer to play from point A to point B so calling it a par three, four or five, does not alter the distance one has to play. The only thing that counts is the number of strokes taken on a hole and the sum of the 18 holes played.

Calling a score of 4 on a hole a bogey, birdie or a par, does not alter the fact that the score is a 4. Remove the term PAR from the game and what changes? Nothing. It's still total strokes taken.

The second shots on 13 and 15 at Augusta are exciting because they are long and very difficult, not because of the term "par 5."

Lastly, if one needs to use a term to easily figure out where the players stand, use the word "fours," as it relates accurately to how the player is actually scoring.

golf nut
Jan 27, 2011, 05:58 PM
Not meaning to be cynical or negative, consider this: PAR is a meaningless term. All golf holes are designed for the golfer to play from point A to point B so calling it a par three, four or five, does not alter the distance one has to play. The only thing that counts is the number of strokes taken on a hole and the sum of the 18 holes played.

Calling a score of 4 on a hole a bogey, birdie or a par, does not alter the fact that the score is a 4. Remove the term PAR from the game and what changes? Nothing. It's still total strokes taken.

The second shots on 13 and 15 at Augusta are exciting because they are long and very difficult, not because of the term "par 5."

Lastly, if one needs to use a term to easily figure out where the players stand, use the word "fours," as it relates accurately to how the player is actually scoring.
One of the better comments I have heard in a while!

dekker
Jan 28, 2011, 02:22 PM
you'll notice that even the longer players only attempt at reaching the long par 5. Most miss it slightly. With the potential for eagle taken away where was the advantage? Now they'll look silly if they miss their eagle chip or birdie putt and look like chumps if they indeed have to settle for par. Mentally that has to grate on them.

Bentley01
Jan 28, 2011, 02:40 PM
you'll notice that even the longer players only attempt at reaching the long par 5. Most miss it slightly. With the potential for eagle taken away where was the advantage? Now they'll look silly if they miss their eagle chip or birdie putt and look like chumps if they indeed have to settle for par. Mentally that has to grate on them.

Sometimes those little chips/pitches are harder than the 100 yard wedges. Back when the Canadian Open was at Glen Abbey, more than a few guys laid up to 100 or so for an easy wedge in.

petvan
Jan 28, 2011, 07:57 PM
You should see imAnewbie's 200 yard 7 iron :D

i so saw that coming ;-)