Are par-6 holes a new trend?

[bulls9999]

I know some newer golf courses are challenging old norm lengths (i.e., ~7,800-8,000 yards), so does the appearance of a par-6 hole fit into that new scheme? On this course, they fit the 783 yard par-6 in without extraordinary lengthening of the course (just eliminated all par5's on the back and stuck this par-6 hole in.

[https://golfchannel.com/news/meet-783-yard-par-6-challenge-tour](https://www.golfchannel.com/news/meet-783-yard-par-6-challenge-tour "https://golfchannel.com/news/meet-783-yard-par-6-challenge-tour")

[Titleist_PT23]

Not sure. There was a par 6 on a course where I grew up but I think it was only 600 and change. There is also a course where I live now that has one a tad under 700. I've never seen one 700+ before. Still seems like a pretty manageable distance for a pro (~200 yard 3rd shot to try and setup an eagle).

[PostandGhost]

I hope Par 6's don't become en vogue. It's the only hole that you have to layup on and layups should only be for basketball.

[CCTxGolf]

Interesting and fun for ams. Eagle/albatross fest for the pros. Even at 800 yards they would eat them for lunch.

 

Figure 325 yard drive, 300 yard fairway metal then sitting on a mid/short iron in for an eagle putt.

 

Might actually make for some good TV!

[Hawkeye77]

How is one hole a trend? How many others are played on any Tour? How many others played in previous years?

[Pepperturbo]

I have encountered a few unique Par 6 holes in three states, they ranged from well over 600yds to 700+yds. They are fun and though I Par'd each of them, don't see them as a trend nor would I want them commonplace.

 

When holes reach 700+yrds unless fairways are manicured and down-grain with a breeze at one's back on the tee, nobody is eating them up. A 300+yd drive is NOT yet average on the PGA tour. Except for the oddball huge drives touching 400 or more, only 45 tour guys exceed 300yds, and 3 wood averages are 250-270yds. No fuzzy math here, real math. A 700yd hole is a 3 shot hole with a birdie the old fashion way and Eagles would be near non-existent without lots of helping conditions.

[Big A HG]

I've never played a par 6, but I already don't like par 5's that aren't possible to reach in two very much unless they bring some value-added strategy on your way to the green. It's a bit boring to not have to think about your shots very much in the process of just getting close enough to hit it on the green.

[cristphoto]

I played a course several years ago that had an 841 yard par 6. Turned out it was a dumb design. About every 200 yards there was a pond so you were forced to lay up (even on the tee shot). The only reason I played the course was the par 6 hole and it was a disappointment.

[cardoustie]

Played a par 6 at Farmstead in SC/NC ... 767 was the yardage

Yet I've played a 700 yard par 5 on the RTJ Trail

 

[Chanceman]

I would rather see a proper par 5 which is not "reachable in two" for most players. Really the 13th and 15th at ANGC are just long par 4s. The length of such a hole would be 325/350 yards for the drive plus 250/275 for the second shot and then some so I would say 650 yards absolute minimum for a real par 5.. Not sure where these holes exist, maybe the 12th at Oakmont.

[Hateto3Putt]

> @cardoustie said:

> Played a par 6 at Farmstead in SC/NC ... 767 was the yardage

> Yet I've played a 700 yard par 5 on the RTJ Trail

>

 

I played that one as well. Interesting nugget: you tee off in South Carolina and putt out in North Carolina!

 

I made a putt there for a "birdie" 5. First time I circled a 5 on the card.

[bulls9999]

I think an appropriately fitting comment for those 'not liking a par-6' would be: isn't par just a number?, and what if there was no 'par' designations on any holes, you just add up your strokes and have a final tally? Would you play a course differently? Perhaps a bit more strategizing? But I guess small incremental 'par' designations allows some sense of 'victory' (or defeat) if you make/don't make and not everyone could tolerate an entire round without knowing what you're scoring until the end.

[pinhigh27]

> @Chanceman said:

> I would rather see a proper par 5 which is not "reachable in two" for most players. Really the 13th and 15th at ANGC are just long par 4s. The length of such a hole would be 325/350 yards for the drive plus 250/275 for the second shot and then some so I would say 650 yards absolute minimum for a real par 5.. Not sure where these holes exist, maybe the 12th at Oakmont.

 

So because 0.01% of golfers crush it, we should make uber long golf holes. Okie doke

[cardoustie]

> @Hateto3Putt said:

> > @cardoustie said:

> > Played a par 6 at Farmstead in SC/NC ... 767 was the yardage

> > Yet I've played a 700 yard par 5 on the RTJ Trail

> >

>

> I played that one as well. Interesting nugget: you tee off in South Carolina and putt out in North Carolina!

>

> I made a putt there for a "birdie" 5. First time I circled a 5 on the card.

 

I had an eagle putt ! Driver, 3 wood and then 3 iron to 30 feet or so. Was weird having a putt for 4 for eagle. Totally whiffed it, head in the wrong space

 

[Chanceman]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> > @Chanceman said:

> > I would rather see a proper par 5 which is not "reachable in two" for most players. Really the 13th and 15th at ANGC are just long par 4s. The length of such a hole would be 325/350 yards for the drive plus 250/275 for the second shot and then some so I would say 650 yards absolute minimum for a real par 5.. Not sure where these holes exist, maybe the 12th at Oakmont.

>

> So because 0.01% of golfers crush it, we should make uber long golf holes. Okie doke

 

Not at all. I would just like to see a genuine par 5 where a mid handicap golfer who hits a 250 yard drive, 225 yard 3 wood, and 175 yard 5 iron can just reach in 3 while the crushers can always get there in 3 but rarely in 2. I mean its nice to birdie a par 5 but it should only be after 3 good shots and a putt.

[pinhigh27]

Thats so arbitrary and makes no sense. So you want par 4s to require mid capers who hit it 250 to have 175 in? That's a 7700 yard course which isn't playable for mid handicappers.

 

Not to mention since it's a par 5 and you're doing two shots prior to that there is a higher chance of error.

[raynorfan1]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> Thats so arbitrary and makes no sense. So you want par 4s to require mid capers who hit it 250 to have 175 in? That's a 7700 yard course which isn't playable for mid handicappers.

>

> Not to mention since it's a par 5 and you're doing two shots prior to that there is a higher chance of error.

 

Is there not room in the world for challenging golf courses? Must they all be “playable” for mid cappers?

 

 

[AThompson_3]

> @Chanceman said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > @Chanceman said:

> > > I would rather see a proper par 5 which is not "reachable in two" for most players. Really the 13th and 15th at ANGC are just long par 4s. The length of such a hole would be 325/350 yards for the drive plus 250/275 for the second shot and then some so I would say 650 yards absolute minimum for a real par 5.. Not sure where these holes exist, maybe the 12th at Oakmont.

> >

> > So because 0.01% of golfers crush it, we should make uber long golf holes. Okie doke

>

> Not at all. I would just like to see a genuine par 5 where a mid handicap golfer who hits a 250 yard drive, 225 yard 3 wood, and 175 yard 5 iron can just reach in 3 while the crushers can always get there in 3 but rarely in 2. I mean its nice to birdie a par 5 but it should only be after 3 good shots and a putt.

 

So many things about this are just wrong.

[caniac6]

Never seen one.

[farmer]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > Thats so arbitrary and makes no sense. So you want par 4s to require mid capers who hit it 250 to have 175 in? That's a 7700 yard course which isn't playable for mid handicappers.

> >

> > Not to mention since it's a par 5 and you're doing two shots prior to that there is a higher chance of error.

>

> Is there not room in the world for challenging golf courses? Must they all be “playable” for mid cappers?

>

>

 

Given that the vast, vast majority of golfers are high-mid hdcp players, yes. A course that beats up that demographic won't be in business very long, unless it's a high end private where members will accept a beat down for the prestige value.

[Kevlar10]

There was a par 6 at a course near me. A 300 yard drive did not even giv you a look at the green. Second shot needed to be 180+, just to see the green. Three shots minimum just to be on the green, but only if they are all good to great shots. It’s an optional 5/6 from the back tees. It was a fun hole, only if you can hit it long and straight. If not it was a nightmare. The course closed this year, and although it’s a shame. Don’t miss that hole.

[Chanceman]

There is a lot of room for short par 4s of course but there are usually 10 par 4s on a "normal" course so we can afford a little variation. I just think most par 5s are getting too short for the pros and in general should be a little longer than like 550 yards, which is almost reachable in two for a low handicapper. Basically they are becoming "long par 4s".

[ryu123]

I’ve been playing up & down the West Coast for several decades, & have seen only one par 6: the 777 yard ninth hole at The Links at Post Falls, Idaho. In the summer most mornings it plays into the wind & slightly uphill.

 

A very tough hole.

[marmaduk]

Not exactly sure that falls under the definition of a trend. Strokes gained would be the easiest hole on the PGA tour. Driver three wood 80 yard flip wedge. Challenging hole for the rest of us mortals though. It requires a straight drive followed by a straight Threewood which most people don’t have in the bag