do you think most average public courses par5's are really long enough to be par 5's?

[Maric]

Par 5's are plenty long enough for me. My drive is only 140 or so. Anything over 400 yds from the reds is a challenge.

 

[rollin]

I mean, that's great and all for a mid single digit handicap and completely plausible. But for the average golfer, who is closer to 20, putting 4-5 shots together no matter the hole "integrity" can be a very daunting task. It's golf and there's so many ways to enjoy it, I just find this rather internet golferish. If someone has an issue with a hole, make a game of it to spice it up or find another course.

why is this "internet golferish"? Ive never once implied I was too good for a short par5. Ive never implied or even mentioned how well or not I always play one. I did however tell of how I hit a poorer tee shot and still was putting for birdie chance. That's the only thing I ever mentioned which in part sort of explains the thought logic that a number of these holes may lack some integrity and really be considered par4.5's. I don't think anything about this is internet golferish at all. Its just an honest feeling about "some" par5's that many of us play at some the public courses we do.

 

[rollin]

I'm going to go ahead and float a theory that the flipside of scoring opportunity, is that a Par 5 gives the average golfer more opportunities to screw up. And, the higher your handicap, the better the odds of any one errant shot. Then, compound those odds exponentially as hole length increases. An errant shot making your next one more difficult, and therefore on average less likely to achieve target. For example:

1 shot hole (Par 3) - 80% good

2 shot hole (Par 4) = 80%^2 --> 64% good

3 shot hole (Par 5) = 80%^3 --> 51% good

The above holds true for things like manufacturing defects, seems like it should apply to golf shot defects too. (Aside from obviously some shots are harder than others, and it matters so some extent which shot you miss and how badly as to how it affects your score.)

In addition, a short par five, you are hitting a long shot into the green for a 2nd, and that's a low percentage (less than 1 in 3) GIR shot for even low handicappers. Most folks will miss the green even if they can "reach"it. So, its still a three shot hole. I like short Par 5's, they offer excitement and if designed well, force you to think.

Par5's are difficult and is whay they are usually among the highest handicap holes on most courses. Most bogey players need the most help on the par5's. And that is exactly due to the odds of making two great and/or three good shots in a row. That absolutely correct and I agree 100% even on shorter and less difficult ones. Our failure rates are simply too high and suggest its least likely possible to execute 2 great shots in a row or 3 good ones in a row.

So its still harder for us than a par4 (including myself too) but that still doesn't mean the hole has more integrity than it does. Its still an easier par5 vs a more difficult one. Short par5's with little to make up for the lack of distance is still a par5 that lacks some integrity. Just like the short par4 with little to make up for its lack of distance doesn't hold much integrity, neither does that similar par5. The mid and high cappers inability to get there doesn't make a hole any more worthy (for lack of a better term) than it is. this is also why I been suggesting that (to me) it doesn't really matter how well or not I often play the hole. As I explained in other posts too much of that is our inconsistencies regardless how hard or not a hole is.

 

[tpluff]

why is this "internet golferish"? Ive never once implied I was too good for a short par5. Ive never implied or even mentioned how well or not I always play one. I did however tell of how I hit a poorer tee shot and still was putting for birdie chance. That's the only thing I ever mentioned which in part sort of explains the thought logic that a number of these holes may lack some integrity and really be considered par4.5's. I don't think anything about this is internet golferish at all. Its just an honest feeling about "some" par5's that many of us play at some the public courses we do.

No worries man, we don't all have to agree and fall to the knees of the same mindset, I think that gets lost sometimes. I just don't think that a few extreme examples justify an opinion, I'd need stats and experience over a length of time with a variety of golfers that can be repeated to the same conclusion. No one tells the tale of when they piped a drive on that style of hole and then ended with a double bogey, but theoretically should have had an eagle chance.

 

[mpeterson]

I'm going to go ahead and float a theory that the flipside of scoring opportunity, is that a Par 5 gives the average golfer more opportunities to screw up. And, the higher your handicap, the better the odds of any one errant shot. Then, compound those odds exponentially as hole length increases. An errant shot making your next one more difficult, and therefore on average less likely to achieve target. For example:

1 shot hole (Par 3) - 80% good

2 shot hole (Par 4) = 80%^2 --> 64% good

3 shot hole (Par 5) = 80%^3 --> 51% good

The above holds true for things like manufacturing defects, seems like it should apply to golf shot defects too. (Aside from obviously some shots are harder than others, and it matters so some extent which shot you miss and how badly as to how it affects your score.)

In addition, a short par five, you are hitting a long shot into the green for a 2nd, and that's a low percentage (less than 1 in 3) GIR shot for even low handicappers. Most folks will miss the green even if they can "reach"it. So, its still a three shot hole. I like short Par 5's, they offer excitement and if designed well, force you to think.

That's why you tend to see the par 5s as the 1-4 stroke holes on the card. Biggest difference between scratch and bogey players.

 

[tucsoncacti]

That's why you tend to see the par 5s as the 1-4 stroke holes on the card. Biggest difference between scratch and bogey players.

I did an experiment the last time I played. Instead of hitting a hybrid or wood on my second shot (all drives were on the fairway) I played a 6i instead. Results were 3 pars and a DB. Probably the best I have ever played Par 5s in a round. The double bogey was a second shot six iron pulled straight left. Good contact just bad alignment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rollin]

No worries man, we don't all have to agree and fall to the knees of the same mindset, I think that gets lost sometimes. I just don't think that a few extreme examples justify an opinion, I'd need stats and experience over a length of time with a variety of golfers that can be repeated to the same conclusion. No one tells the tale of when they piped a drive on that style of hole and then ended with a double bogey, but theoretically should have had an eagle chance.

yes, we don't have to have the same mindset and besides this is all just subjective view from the eye of the beholder. I just didn't see where this was any internet golfersish thing is all I was implying to you. It always was just an honest view point and is all it ever was.

 

[tpluff]

yes, we don't have to have the same mindset and besides this is all just subjective view from the eye of the beholder. I just didn't see where this was any internet golfersish thing is all I was implying to you. It always was just an honest view point and is all it ever was.

It can be an honest opinion, but it can also be internet golferish. After all, look at where we are.

 

[uitar99]

Par 5's are plenty long enough for me. My drive is only 140 or so. Anything over 400 yds from the reds is a challenge.

Well said. My drive is max 210 (downhill, hard ground, wind). 20 cap. Usually play the whites when I can get away with it. Played the blues with three strangers on a 9 hole muni yesterday, 3200 yards. Based on how they played, shoulda played the whites. Found myself 20 yards short on the 5's, made a couple of 4's.

I'm a bogey golfer and pleased when I can get that close. To me thats one over par.

Shot a 46, one stroke higher than my best on that course.

Nope, par 5's are long enough for me.

 

[moosejaa]

I still think if you're going to say shorter par 5s lack integrity then you have to say the same thing about shorter par 4s or even any holes that are ridiculously long for the average hacker. I play a course with a 230 yard par 3 and a couple par 4s 450+. How does that have integrity when you look at the typical amateur golfer. I'll agree if you have a course with all holes on the shorter side that's wrong for me but might be perfect for a shorter hitter for whatever reason (age, gender, etc.).
@rollin you can have your opinion about shorter par 5s as it relates to you and your game but as you can see from the other posts, I think you're in the minority on this one if you're trying to get some sort of consensus.

 

[mpeterson]

I think the note someone made earlier about the "easy" par 5 being the counterpoint to the 200+ yard par 3 is a really good one. I'd say for most of those people, the long par 3 is probably more of a "3.5" for a lot of people.

 

[rollin]

I still think if you're going to say shorter par 5s lack integrity then you have to say the same thing about shorter par 4s or even any holes that are ridiculously long for the average hacker. I play a course with a 230 yard par 3 and a couple par 4s 450+. How does that have integrity when you look at the typical amateur golfer. I'll agree if you have a course with all holes on the shorter side that's wrong for me but might be perfect for a shorter hitter for whatever reason (age, gender, etc.).
@rollin you can have your opinion about shorter par 5s as it relates to you and your game but as you can see from the other posts, I think you're in the minority on this one if you're trying to get some sort of consensus.

I wasn't looking for a team via consensus results to be on my side per say and it is obvious most disagree with me but its still a good discussion imo. I absolutely also do feel there are holes out there that would be considered of too much integrity as well. Sure it does work both ways. I think from any given tee set there should be some easier and some more difficult holes and most should reside in between. But I do think there are holes that go too far in either direction. From my tee set the 465 yrd par5 that also has ittle troubles or the 270 yrd par 4 that has little troubles are both examples of holes that lack too much for my played tees. I also do think (as you suggest) a 450 yrd par is taking things too far the other way and especially if that hole also carries other troubles as weight. Yes it can work both ways. That said, though I do think on the majority of public courses out there we will usually find many more of the holes that lack too much vs ones the have too much to them.