2nd shot strategy on Par 5 you can’t reach

[Sean124]

59 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

 

has anyone ever actually pitched out backwards to "get a full yardage"? Never even considered it. 

Of course. It’s called laying down to your favorite yardage. 
 

I made that up. 

[golferdude54]

14 hours ago, WesternRacing said:

Watched a few minutes of round two of the Myrtle Classic.  Danny Walker had 288 in, rather than push it all the way up near the green, he laid up to a full wedge.  Even though there was wide fairway all the way up to a well bunkered green.  Announcers said ‘smart’.  Weird.

And that’s why he’s playing in the Myrtle Beach Classic with a weaker field instead of the Truist Championship with the best players in the world.

[WesternRacing]

1 hour ago, golferdude54 said:

And that’s why he’s playing in the Myrtle Beach Classic with a weaker field instead of the Truist Championship with the best players in the world.

 

Which means he’s still light years better than anyone offering opinions in this thread.  😂

[golferdude54]

9 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

 

Which means he’s still light years better than anyone offering opinions in this thread.  😂

 

Then why are you projecting yourself onto him? You claim you always hit it inside 15 feet from 100 yards which is better than him and also Scottie and Rory. But you actually don't. You bring up these examples that you see on TV and project yourself as them and feed your ego that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

[SNIPERBBB]

11 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

Getting lazy is a poor supportive argument for going all in.

You completely misread what I said.  I was talking about people tend to make bad swings trying to layup because they dont take the shot seriously. They dont focus and they get lazy with their swing.

 

Anytime you try to baby a shot, the tendency is to leave the face wide open the ball goes right of right. That applies from everything from driver to putter.

 

Aggressive swings, conservative targets.

[iacas]

11 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

I said it was unlikely I was part of the 2%, which would not make me part of the 60% either. 

Any way you want to word it, I think you have misconceptions.

 

11 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

When you are standing over a shot are you thinking about all the shots that have come before you or just what you face right now? I'm sure you're aware of all the options, but I don't think you would pull a club or try a shot just because the stats say so. Would you try a shot you were uncomfortable with, or something you had more confidence in? How would your expected outcomes differ?

Yes, I do actually. And players I coach can derive confidence from the fact that they’re making a good choice.

 

3 hours ago, WesternRacing said:

Which means he’s still light years better than anyone offering opinions in this thread.  😂

At playing golf maybe. Not at GamePlanning/strategy, though.

[SNIPERBBB]

At least reference Zach Johnson Masters win if we're making cases for layups.

[GoGoErky]

20 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

At least reference Zach Johnson Masters win if we're making cases for layups.

And that was what 7ish years before strikes gained data was published?

[SNIPERBBB]

22 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

And that was what 7ish years before strikes gained data was published?

Probably,. conditions also sucked that week and of he tried to push the ball as far as possible, he would of found the water on the back 9 par 5s.

 

Course management is DDDS...don't do dumb...stuff.

 

If your longest club puts the ball in the water a[ the end of the fairway...that's a dumb club to hit.  Side trouble can happen on every shot so side trouble isn't given as much weight in club consideration. It effects where to aim .

Edited May 10 by SNIPERBBB

[mshills]

9 hours ago, Valtiel said:

....has anyone ever actually pitched out backwards to "get a full yardage"?

🤣🤣🤣

 

Hadn’t thought about it that way, but that is funny!

 

I’ll attempt my own anecdote 😁 this afternoon and try this. If I stick my one 95 yard wedge (hope it’s only one since I don’t tend to drive it crooked) I punched backwards to set up, as someone said here “forget all the data and statistics”, that’s my strategy from now on!

[PedronNiall]

20 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

There are no guarantees in golf, exhibit A being Rory on the 13th at Augusta - what were the odds on a water ball from there?

 

Two problems here. One, general strategy says Rory should have gone for it if he had the distance to get closer, which he did. The penalty for going long there was a straightforward bunker shot or chip from the grass or mulch, all of which fed back to the hole. Do you think he's better at getting in the hole from 75 or so out over a hazard or from 50 feet putting or chipping? At the absolute worst he ends up in Rae's Creek and has to hit 4 from closer than the lay up position and still has a chance to save Par instead of the guaranteed Bogey or worse he brought into play with his missed 3rd into the creek. 

 

Secondly, Rory tends to lose strokes around the green at Augusta. Even when he doesn't, he gains more strokes from full swing distance than in closer. His complete, specific to him stats show he was better off going for it in two because of his distance off the tee and skill with longer clubs in his hand than trying to finesse a pitch shot under pressure.

 

 

As good as he is he's still not an outlier on that front. He has better results making a full, athletic swing than he does trying to take something off. If you gain 2.5 strokes from one range and less than 1 from another then which do the stats say is more beneficial for you? The odds of a water ball from his lay up were higher for him than they were had he taken the shot that got him as close as he could be, as the numbers suggest all players should do. 

[SNIPERBBB]

9 hours ago, Valtiel said:

one....has anyone ever actually pitched out backwards to "get a full yardage"? Never even considered it. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Valtiel

Ive never considered it from a purely yardage standpoint.

 

 

There's a hole or two on my home course if you get stuck behind trees. You can often go sideways away from the hole so you can get wedge or full short iron over the trees or to an open area when chipping back to the fairway is problematic or advancing the ball towards the hole isnt an option

Edited May 10 by SNIPERBBB

[golferdude54]

 

Tin Cup has the answer, the one who has the balls to go for it gets the same balls wet (am I talking about on the course or off in Roy McAvoy’s case? Who knows!)

 

Edited May 10 by golferdude54

[Pepperturbo]

On 5/5/2025 at 7:22 PM, hardcaliber said:

I know that the specific details and variables on each hole can make a big difference here, but I wonder if there is a general consensus about course strategy for the following situation. It’s your 2nd shot into a par 5. You hit a great tee shot but as a shorter hitter, you are too far back to hit the green with your second shot. What is the best play?
 

Option 1: Hit the longest club you are comfortable hitting (either a fairway wood or hybrid) and hope to leave a 30-40 yard pitch into the green for your 3rd? Problem with this option for me atleast is that the bad shots with fairway wood or hybrid can be off the planet blow up your score kind of bad. 
 

Option 2: Hit a really conservative poke with a mid iron or maybe even a short iron depending on the situation,  trying to avoid any semblance of risk and give yourself between 100-140 yards in on the approach? Not a gimme by any means at that distance for me but maybe less downside risk never having to mess with the fairway wood?
 

I had a stellar round today that was somewhat blighted by 2 bone headed double bogeys on par 5’s. Both situations were the result of disaster 2nd shots with longer clubs where I was just trying to get it up as close as possible to the green hoping for an easy little pitch shot for my 3rd. One of the holes had an awkward pinch point such that if I didnt try to send my 2nd shot 200 yards or so, I would have had to just poke it forward like 100 yards, which feels like a weird thing to do when you are 240 or so out from the flag. 
 

I appreciate any advice that all you better or wiser players might have to share. 

My game is strategic, especially on tees where I face longer Par 4s & 5s, but strategy will only get you so far if ball striking isn't trustworthy.  My drives are still decent, 98% of the time the ball is in the fairway, and I can trust my long irons, 3wd has the most dispersion.  On Par 5s, I always think about positioning my ball for birdie the ole fashion way, as opposed to letting my ego go for max distance to be close, looking for a chippy wedge. 

 

If the 2nd shot has me saying "don't like it", it's probably the better choice.  Generally, I pull 2i-4i for 2nd shot layup.  Unless the fairway and rough are easy to navigate, I am not hitting the ball as far as I can to be close; that increases the chances of missing left into rough, bringing bogie in. 

 

I am a strategist around the course all the time, if there's a game, that's a different story.

[BdaGolfer]

On 5/10/2025 at 4:16 AM, SNIPERBBB said:

You completely misread what I said.  I was talking about people tend to make bad swings trying to layup because they dont take the shot seriously. They dont focus and they get lazy with their swing.

 

Anytime you try to baby a shot, the tendency is to leave the face wide open the ball goes right of right. That applies from everything from driver to putter.

 

Aggressive swings, conservative targets.

I think I read the second line of your post as a continuation of the point in the first, no harm. I agree that getting casual messes up the layups.

[BdaGolfer]

On 5/10/2025 at 4:23 AM, iacas said:

Any way you want to word it, I think you have misconceptions.

 

Yes, I do actually. And players I coach can derive confidence from the fact that they’re making a good choice.

 

At playing golf maybe. Not at GamePlanning/strategy, though.

I'm probably overthinking or incorrectly applying what I think I'm reading. I'm an analyst by profession so reading deeper into everything comes naturally.

 

A genuine question though on how you would coach - how do you balance a players ability to hit a shot/club with the intent to get closer to the hole?

 

Say the shot is 240 out, minimal trouble in front (rough, greenside bunkers) but the player can't get there. A 3 wood can go 200 on a good hit, which is 2/10, 50 yards on a poor strike, but side dispersion is 60 yards, enough to stay within the trees, mostly. The unpredictability means the player is not overly keen of the 3 wood, and this is all based on a friend I played with on Saturday. What is the determining factor for you to recommend the longer club in this case?

 

Also, is you book available in PDF or Kindle? Only copy I saw on Amazon Canada was $169, and I'm not that curious.... 🙂

[BdaGolfer]

On 5/10/2025 at 7:54 AM, PedronNiall said:

 

Two problems here. One, general strategy says Rory should have gone for it if he had the distance to get closer, which he did. The penalty for going long there was a straightforward bunker shot or chip from the grass or mulch, all of which fed back to the hole. Do you think he's better at getting in the hole from 75 or so out over a hazard or from 50 feet putting or chipping? At the absolute worst he ends up in Rae's Creek and has to hit 4 from closer than the lay up position and still has a chance to save Par instead of the guaranteed Bogey or worse he brought into play with his missed 3rd into the creek. 

 

Secondly, Rory tends to lose strokes around the green at Augusta. Even when he doesn't, he gains more strokes from full swing distance than in closer. His complete, specific to him stats show he was better off going for it in two because of his distance off the tee and skill with longer clubs in his hand than trying to finesse a pitch shot under pressure.

 

 

As good as he is he's still not an outlier on that front. He has better results making a full, athletic swing than he does trying to take something off. If you gain 2.5 strokes from one range and less than 1 from another then which do the stats say is more beneficial for you? The odds of a water ball from his lay up were higher for him than they were had he taken the shot that got him as close as he could be, as the numbers suggest all players should do. 

I wasn't commenting on Rory's strategy, just that few would have predicted that the guy leading the tournament would hit such a shot. I think he read the situation and played what he thought to be the safer shot, but that i) went against his typical nature and ii) put him in an uncomfortable spot. Also he said the lie was a bit funky. If he was 1 or 2 back at the time he hits 4 iron/whatever and does better than double 9/10 (the 1 being the long left miss he would occasionally get).

 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, BdaGolfer said:

Say the shot is 240 out, minimal trouble in front (rough, greenside bunkers) but the player can't get there. A 3 wood can go 200 on a good hit, which is 2/10, 50 yards on a poor strike, but side dispersion is 60 yards, enough to stay within the trees, mostly.

 

I'm not into these kinds of hypotheticals. I think the odds of someone with a 3W that…

• 20% of the time it goes 200 yards
• The other 80% of the time it goes only 50?

… are slim to none. I don't think that guy exists, really. If somehow he does (are 3W yips a thing), then I'd likely have him hit a hybrid or something. Like I said, I've thinned a hybrid, or chunked it, for my second on a par five. I often just have a wedge left, like I laid up accidentally. But I'm close when I hit it decent (which is more than 20% of the time fortunately).

 

Discussions like this tend to go nowhere. It's like the discussions of length vs. accuracy. Those arguing for accuracy often make the mistake of saying things like "I'd rather be short but in the fairway than long and in the trees." Sure, so would everyone, but the long hitters aren't hitting EVERY shot in the trees. They're likely missing one or two more fairways than the "accurate" hitter, and yet they're also 25 yards longer (or whatever) on the 12 holes in which they hit their ball into the same condition. They may lose fractions of a shot on the 2 less accurate shots, and gain them on the other 12.

 

You're going to picture something different than what I'm picturing (going so far as to possibly make up a unicorn golfer that has no middle ground with his 3W).

 

9 minutes ago, BdaGolfer said:

Also, is you book available in PDF or Kindle? Only copy I saw on Amazon Canada was $169, and I'm not that curious.... 🙂

 

We sell and ship them ourselves directly through our website.

[BdaGolfer]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I'm not into these kinds of hypotheticals. I think the odds of someone with a 3W that…

• 20% of the time it goes 200 yards
• The other 80% of the time it goes only 50?

… are slim to none. I don't think that guy exists, really. If somehow he does (are 3W yips a thing), then I'd likely have him hit a hybrid or something. Like I said, I've thinned a hybrid, or chunked it, for my second on a par five. I often just have a wedge left, like I laid up accidentally. But I'm close when I hit it decent (which is more than 20% of the time fortunately).

 

Discussions like this tend to go nowhere. It's like the discussions of length vs. accuracy. Those arguing for accuracy often make the mistake of saying things like "I'd rather be short but in the fairway than long and in the trees." Sure, so would everyone, but the long hitters aren't hitting EVERY shot in the trees. They're likely missing one or two more fairways than the "accurate" hitter, and yet they're also 25 yards longer (or whatever) on the 12 holes in which they hit their ball into the same condition. They may lose fractions of a shot on the 2 less accurate shots, and gain them on the other 12.

 

You're going to picture something different than what I'm picturing (going so far as to possibly make up a unicorn golfer that has no middle ground with his 3W).

 

 

We sell and ship them ourselves directly through our website.

The other 80% are some where between 50-200, if that helps (thought that was obvious).

 

 

[iacas]

Again, sorry, I'm not into the hypotheticals. You can picture something completely different than I picture (which is a very generalized distribution based on millions of shots — you're likely picturing something specific, one type of player). If 2/10 go 200 yards, and 7/10 go 140 to 190 yards, and only 1/10 is a 50-yard chunk… then he's at least as good as or better off than laying up 90% of the time.

 

There are millions of shots of data covering all handicap levels. It's generally advisable to get it closer to the green, unless you're in the tiny percentage that actually has basically the yips from 30-50 yards or some other such range.

 

Do what you want — golf's about having fun, etc. I find it fun to plot my way strategically around to shoot the lowest scores I can, often.

[PedronNiall]

7 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

I wasn't commenting on Rory's strategy, just that few would have predicted that the guy leading the tournament would hit such a shot. I think he read the situation and played what he thought to be the safer shot, but that i) went against his typical nature and ii) put him in an uncomfortable spot. Also he said the lie was a bit funky. If he was 1 or 2 back at the time he hits 4 iron/whatever and does better than double 9/10 (the 1 being the long left miss he would occasionally get).

 

 

You asked what the odds of a water ball were for him on 13 at Augusta. The answer was according to his stats higher if he laid up. His numbers say he should have gone for it, the general numbers say anyone with his length or its equivalent from shorter tees should have gone for it. If you want to argue your point then do it with facts, not with moving goal posts.

 

Anyone reading the data would have predicted that on a hole with danger short of the green a person with the ability to do so should clear the danger as quickly as possible. If it went wrong he's still playing for par rather than bogey. Yes, he played what he thought was the safer shot even though both for his own stats and in general he was wrong. I'd even bet when he talked with Jack his plan for 13 was to go for it every day if he hit a good tee shot; that's what he did prior, and if that wasn't in the plans for Sunday he paid the price most do for playing not to lose instead of playing to win. 

[mark m]

Thoughts:

 

First, after playing a ball into a water hazard/ penalty area, if the bank is steep and he will be playing from rough, players will often sacrifice distance and go back for a flat lie in the fairway. The same principle applies when considering club choice on par 5 second shots. If it’s a good course, the par 5 greens are typically well protected by bunkers/slopes/water/ and so on. So, know your game and play smart.

 

Examples:

 

Let’s say you are in a Fourball comp. Your partner is a 3 handicap. He hits his good drives around 250 or so, and carries his 3w 220 on good strikes.

 

He hits a good drive here and most would agree he should have a go: 

 

 

[mark m]

But what about here?

 

He mis hit his tee ball. He can play lay up of around 160 and have 110 to 120 left. Or it takes about 210-215 to carry the bunker. What do you want him to do?

 

 

Edited May 13 by mark m

[mark m]

Finally, here is another real world decision. What should he choose? What line? Etc. What if it’s into a 15 mph wind?

[Rbsiedsc]

39 minutes ago, mark m said:

Thoughts:

 

First, after playing a ball into a water hazard/ penalty area, if the bank is steep and he will be playing from rough, players will often sacrifice distance and go back for a flat lie in the fairway. The same principle applies when considering club choice on par 5 second shots. If it’s a good course, the par 5 greens are typically well protected by bunkers/slopes/water/ and so on. So, know your game and play smart.

 

Examples:

 

Let’s say you are in a Fourball comp. Your partner is a 3 handicap. He hits his good drives around 250 or so, and carries his 3w 220 on good strikes.

 

He hits a good drive here and most would agree he should have a go: 

 

 

No brainer here

36 minutes ago, mark m said:

But what about here?

 

He mis hit his tee ball. He can play lay up of around 160 and have 110 to 120 left. Or it takes about 210-215 to carry the bunker. What do you want him to do?

 

 

This is where understanding your game works. Sure if you cannot guarantee clearing the bunker, yes lay up before trouble.

33 minutes ago, mark m said:

Finally, here is another real world decision. What should he choose? What line? Etc. What if it’s into a 15 mph wind?

Same as middle one. Yes if its into a wind, for sure lay up before the water or if you struggle to hit your long clubs solid.

 

Thanks for posing these questions. In your first scenario, it makes sense. Get as close as you can. Let it rip.

 

Second case, depending on the lie in the rough, think it through. Same with the third case.

 

The big argument here is people that have option 1, laying back farther instead of getting as close as possible.

[BdaGolfer]

19 minutes ago, Rbsiedsc said:

No brainer here

This is where understanding your game works. Sure if you cannot guarantee clearing the bunker, yes lay up before trouble.

Same as middle one. Yes if its into a wind, for sure lay up before the water or if you struggle to hit your long clubs solid.

 

Thanks for posing these questions. In your first scenario, it makes sense. Get as close as you can. Let it rip.

 

Second case, depending on the lie in the rough, think it through. Same with the third case.

 

The big argument here is people that have option 1, laying back farther instead of getting as close as possible.

From my perspective here, I've said I like going for it when I know/feel I can get it close, otherwise I revert to option 2. The issue is that some people (not you) only seem to have Option 1 - the data says get it close so that's it. I'm not so binary in my choices, and as you've clarified above there are times when the better shot (higher % of overall positive outcome) is not Option 1.

 

[Not directed at you here:] Every coach worth their salt would advise against hitting hero shots when in trouble (if you can execute 7/10 etc.). At what point does hitting the longer club become the hero shot? That's the consideration - if a player still hits the longer club then fine, but just recognize that's it's not the only option. You have to accept the risk before you hit (as iacas mentioned earlier) but also like what the shot will leave you, whether or not you pull it off.

[Sean124]

1 hour ago, mark m said:

But what about here?

 

He mis hit his tee ball. He can play lay up of around 160 and have 110 to 120 left. Or it takes about 210-215 to carry the bunker. What do you want him to do?

 

 

Entirely dependent on the lie. If the lie is good enough to reliably cover the bunkers I’m doing it. 

[BdaGolfer]

2 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

You asked what the odds of a water ball were for him on 13 at Augusta. The answer was according to his stats higher if he laid up. His numbers say he should have gone for it, the general numbers say anyone with his length or its equivalent from shorter tees should have gone for it. If you want to argue your point then do it with facts, not with moving goal posts.

 

Anyone reading the data would have predicted that on a hole with danger short of the green a person with the ability to do so should clear the danger as quickly as possible. If it went wrong he's still playing for par rather than bogey. Yes, he played what he thought was the safer shot even though both for his own stats and in general he was wrong. I'd even bet when he talked with Jack his plan for 13 was to go for it every day if he hit a good tee shot; that's what he did prior, and if that wasn't in the plans for Sunday he paid the price most do for playing not to lose instead of playing to win. 

Asking the odds was rhetorical, but I should have known someone would have the data 🙂

 

Apart from a couple of comments has Rory talked about the decision? I would be curious if it just wasn't favourable in the conditions or if the circumstances (don't screw up and you win) swayed his hand. For all we know had he gone for it if not 100% sure he could have missed left off the fairway slope, had to drop where his second ended up and made an 8 or 9, so laying up won the jacket 😉

[Ty_Webb]

5 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

From my perspective here, I've said I like going for it when I know/feel I can get it close, otherwise I revert to option 2. The issue is that some people (not you) only seem to have Option 1 - the data says get it close so that's it. I'm not so binary in my choices, and as you've clarified above there are times when the better shot (higher % of overall positive outcome) is not Option 1.

 

[Not directed at you here:] Every coach worth their salt would advise against hitting hero shots when in trouble (if you can execute 7/10 etc.). At what point does hitting the longer club become the hero shot? That's the consideration - if a player still hits the longer club then fine, but just recognize that's it's not the only option. You have to accept the risk before you hit (as iacas mentioned earlier) but also like what the shot will leave you, whether or not you pull it off.

Not going back through the whole thread, but I think most of the “get it closer” crowd have only ever said get it as close as you *safely* can. Safely is relative, but depending on your game those could absolutely be lay up spots. If you do that though you should still be getting it as far down there as you can without undue risk

[GoGoErky]

8 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Not going back through the whole thread, but I think most of the “get it closer” crowd have only ever said get it as close as you *safely* can. Safely is relative, but depending on your game those could absolutely be lay up spots. If you do that though you should still be getting it as far down there as you can without undue risk

Exactly. People want to if ignore the safely.