Talking of Par-5's
IN: Golf Architecture | by Tony Cashmore | 26 Jul 2004
When routing and fashioning a golf course on new ground, the hardest thing a golf architect has to do, usually, is to plan out the par-5 holes. I say usually, because sometimes there's a 'natural', as Mackenzie found for the 13th at Augusta National, with its broad rising land mass sloping down left to a tiny rocky stream which then turned right at the bottom of the hill, defining behind it a lovely little plateau. The distance from the top of the hill where you hope to drive, (don't go left!) down to that plateau over the stream was just so scary but enticing for good golfers with the equipment of those early days, allowing tempting thoughts of an almost automatic birdie. And less skilled golfers could always play short of the stream, with a pitch then required into the green.
In that scene lies the essence of a fine par-5 hole - to require an excellent drive to some specific zone fraught with some danger followed by a decision whether to go for a seriously guarded green at a just reachable distance away, when to fail probably means at best a par, or to lay up carefully for a short shot hopefully near to the pin. If the danger associated with the drive could be increased the longer it flies, the joyous dilemma experience can be embellished.
An architect can only design for the equipment and skill levels of his time, with the rider that today, we try to allow for ever greater advances in equipment. Does it matter that the best golfers today can often reach that par-5 13th at Augusta with a drive and a mid-iron, even though the tee for them has been set far back from where it was when Mackenzie and Jones devised the essence of that test? No. Augusta is a members' course primarily, and whilst more members today can easily reach that green in two good shots from the medal tee, most need still to play short of the stream for a third shot in. And that situation applies to most of the fine par-5 strategies abundant in Australian private clubs.
Take Hole 2 West Course at Royal Melbourne. To carry the glorious fairway bunker on the crown to achieve the best position on the fairway must have been a fierce driving test when the hole was laid out. There's talk now of relocating or duplicating that ridge and bunker further away because tournament players fly the present one so easily. But many members gain huge joy still in carrying that bunker, and they can now, with a reasonable drive. If the hole is really a par-4 for tournament players, so what?
I tried to develop a 'new' strategic sense with two par-5 holes on the Beach Course at Thirteenth Beach, but there was pressure from some long-hitters, and the ideas have been constructed out of existence. Essentially, on each of the land parcels over which the holes were to be laid out, there was a natural element which almost precluded a drive longer than about 240 metres - on Hole 4 a stand of gnarled pines defining a narrow passage between that limiting stand and a sharpish slope down to tall grass wetlands, and on Hole 6 a natural and confronting incursion of the wetlands almost across the full broad width of the fairway.
From the perfect, but limited, drive position in each case shots into strongly protected greens were about a further 240-250 metres, but there was ample room short, and the greens were deep enough to take full-blown seconds. So the holes did not need to be longer than about 490 metres, which is fine for the vast majority of golfers who would not be going for the greens in two anyway, and exacted the best 'dilemma' test that a golf course can ask of long-hitters - the need to place the drive at optimum length, and then carry out a very long second successfully if the green is to be reached. No other sort of golf hole can convincingly establish that demand.
But they won't accept that apparently - they want to have the freedom, on every hole to exert their advantage, knowing that a drive to some far away point, barely encumbered means an easily gained green.
A designer cannot create a par-5 hole long enough today (without that limiting element for the drive) to require two really long shots, unless the hole is then horrible and boring for most players we want to design for. Take the 14th at The Beach Course, a good dogleg right par-5 of some 510 metres. The developer insisted on a 'back' tee set on a far-away little ridge which allowed the hole to play at 608 metres! It was then a carry of over 230 metres to reach the fairway, but a middle-age amateur (of significant skill, with a decent wind behind) only needed a drive and a 4-iron to reach the back of the green.
What we can do therefore is either truncate or make increasingly tough the drive, the longer it flies or runs. A dogleg has that ability, if say an echelon of severe bunkers or something defines the corner increasingly, with the far side of the fairway a 'no-go' zone either with strong run-off to make the next shot longer and longer, or beset with some conditions which are wretched for recovery. Royal Melbourne and Augusta National exemplify this strategy on many holes.
The tees then can be set laterally, as well as down the line of the golf hole, so that the angle at which the drive is taken to achieve the preferred zone in the fairway can be increasingly examined by the dogleg corner or strategic conditioning elements.
And then there's the question of the size and presentation of the green setting. Common architects' thinking is that on a par-5, as for a short par-4, the green should be small, because the shot in is most likely to be shortish pitch. But there's a case surely for having the green large, and certainly deep enough to attract and hold the full-blown second from far away. If so, perhaps that green might be 'compartmentalised', with strong contours, and certainly with severe problems apparent if the target is missed. In this way all golfers might have joy in tackling the par-5 hole, albeit in widely diverse ways. And that's the essence of the intention.
