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

[mshills]

1 hour 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. As close as possible might not be all that close if there is a pond short right and monkey grass all around left of the green and long.
 

I am a get it closer mafia member…..and no one ever said “just blast it up ‘er!” The player still has to think!

 

@mark m: scenario 1, easy decision. Go. Scenario 2, don’t know. Depends on how strong of a player he is, does he have a reasonably reliable 215 carry, and even more critical is how’s the lie in the rough there? Scenario 3 is a tough shot all the way around including the layup option. That one is entirely situational, and should probably be a layup unless you’re a pretty good ball striker. 
 

The real situation in question here is should a player hit 3w/4w down the fairway and leave a 30-40 yard pitch from the fairway or the first cut? YES. The old cliche of “lay back to a full shot” in the same scenario is the one that makes the guys who won’t use Waze and still carry a Rand McNally map book in their car feel good about the anecdote, but those guys will score worse over a season using that cliche. 

[Forged4ever]

https://golf.com/instruction/two-charts-lay-up-golftec/

 

Apologies if posted previously...

 

Cheers🍻

RP

Edited May 13 by Forged4ever

[SNIPERBBB]

5 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

Exactly. People want to if ignore the safely.

Those who choose safety over birdies deserve neither birdies nor safety!

Edited May 13 by SNIPERBBB

[Petethreeput]

22 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Those who choose safety over birdies deserve neither birdies nor safety!

OK, so I am mulling this over.  Short par 5 by anyone under 55's imagination (I am not), about 500 yards.  Old school green, small, sloped severely back to front with a pond  about 15' in the front of the green.  My theory is, if I am inside the 200 yard marker I go for it, if not I lay up to 90 yards.  Front edge of the green is 185 and I can fly my 4H 190+ with a good strike.

 

Now the question, based on your response and one other above saying clear the water as fast as you can...

 

Say I am 210-215 to the middle of the green, which is pretty common for me.

 

I can fly the 4W 210, but I am not nearly as confident in the 4W and if I do catch it perfectly, it will probably run off the back of the green either into the bunker or down a hill leading to a chip back to a severely sloping green toward the pond.

 

Do I change my whole philosophy and take a crack at it?

 

 

Edited May 13 by Petethreeput

[SNIPERBBB]

Back of the green sounds like you still arent risking bogey  if you go back there unless theres just no way to stop the ball running into the pond on your pitch back.

 

How big is this pond? laying up to 90 unless the pond starts at 70 yards from the green is a rather long lay up especially with these small greens which is what I play. Gotta really be good with your wedges at that range. I like to give myself at least 10 yards of buffer if I'm having to layup.

 

[me05501]

On 5/9/2025 at 10:37 AM, iacas said:

The problem is like 2% of golfers are better from 80 than they are from 40 or 50 but 60% of golfers seem to think they are in that 2%.

 

 

True. Maybe it's because the average golfer practices full swing shots much more than anything less than a full swing.

 

That habit is such an easy thing to change and would probably benefit almost everyone. 

[DaveGoodrich]

3 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

OK, so I am mulling this over.  Short par 5 by anyone under 55's imagination (I am not), about 500 yards.  Old school green, small, sloped severely back to front with a pond  about 15' in the front of the green.  My theory is, if I am inside the 200 yard marker I go for it, if not I lay up to 90 yards.  Front edge of the green is 185 and I can fly my 4H 190+ with a good strike.

 

Now the question, based on your response and one other above saying clear the water as fast as you can...

 

Say I am 210-215 to the middle of the green, which is pretty common for me.

 

I can fly the 4W 210, but I am not nearly as confident in the 4W and if I do catch it perfectly, it will probably run off the back of the green either into the bunker or down a hill leading to a chip back to a severely sloping green toward the pond.

 

Do I change my whole philosophy and take a crack at it?

 

 

 

I would say no.  Too much danger, and not enough potential benefit to outweigh the potential cost.   If carrying the water was the only issue, and you could feel pretty confident in an easy up and down, I'd probably say yes.  But it sounds like even if you carry the water, you will likely end up with a difficult 3rd shot, making it unlikely for you to make birdie anyway.  Laying up makes par your most likely score, with a chance at birdie, and relatively small chance of a big number.  Going for it brings a lot more uncertainty, because of inherent difficulty of the 2nd shot.  So, realistically, you probably wouldn't really be increasing your chance at birdie, and you would be bringing in a much higher likelihood of bogie or higher.  Now if you were a big hitter, and coming into that green from 215 with a 5 or 6 iron that could hold the green, vs. a 4-wood that won't, the calculation would be different.     

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

14 hours ago, Sean124 said:

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

Also, it's in rough, right?  Assuming it's not so deep that I can't get the head on the ball, isn't it going to go farther, probably?  So, go for it on 1 & 2.

 

For 3, pick one of two:  A, can my mishit 3W cover the hazard?  If yes, hit it.  If no, see B.

 

B:  pick up a club where I "reverse cover" the yardage to the front of the hazard. So, hazard starts 190 (?) out, hit a club that even if I nuke it, only goes 180 given conditions.

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

2 hours ago, Petethreeput said:

OK, so I am mulling this over.  Short par 5 by anyone under 55's imagination (I am not), about 500 yards.  Old school green, small, sloped severely back to front with a pond  about 15' in the front of the green.  My theory is, if I am inside the 200 yard marker I go for it, if not I lay up to 90 yards.  Front edge of the green is 185 and I can fly my 4H 190+ with a good strike.

 

Now the question, based on your response and one other above saying clear the water as fast as you can...

 

Say I am 210-215 to the middle of the green, which is pretty common for me.

 

I can fly the 4W 210, but I am not nearly as confident in the 4W and if I do catch it perfectly, it will probably run off the back of the green either into the bunker or down a hill leading to a chip back to a severely sloping green toward the pond.

 

Do I change my whole philosophy and take a crack at it?

 

 

Bag a 5-wood or 7-wood?  Your 4-wood options don't sound great, and I'd lay up too if that was what I had to choose from.

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

1 hour ago, me05501 said:

 

 

True. Maybe it's because the average golfer practices full swing shots much more than anything less than a full swing.

 

That habit is such an easy thing to change and would probably benefit almost everyone. 

100.  Plus, even if you don't really have a "short game area" to practice short shots, and have to do it at the range, since golf is the counterintuitive expletive that it is, practicing the "7-iron that goes 80 yds," shot will both help you get an intermediate distance bracketed and help you hit full shots better.

 

Isn't this game great?!

[Rbsiedsc]

On par 5s where I set myself up decently off the tee, I pulled either my 4w or my 7w on second shots.

 

Scores: 

1st par 5: Drive to middle of fairway. Hit 4w but hit it not so great, still 130 out, so a 9i in.  Dbl bogey, but that was because I over drew the green on my third shot with a 9i and had a pitch and chip (SG killed me there)

2nd par 5. Pulled 7 wood into green side bunker. Got out and made 8' birdie.

3rd par 5. Pulled drive to left. good lie and hit 4w and it went 240. Had a 50 yard pitch to green and made par.

 

Overall +1 taking on this strategy (I did not include the 2 par 5s I had poor drives).

[Petethreeput]

3 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Back of the green sounds like you still arent risking bogey  if you go back there unless theres just no way to stop the ball running into the pond on your pitch back.

 

How big is this pond? laying up to 90 unless the pond starts at 70 yards from the green is a rather long lay up especially with these small greens which is what I play. Gotta really be good with your wedges at that range. I like to give myself at least 10 yards of buffer if I'm having to layup.

 

The front edge of the green is about 55 yards from the front of the green, but the fairway slopes down to the pond and there is about 10 yards of rough so I play to 90 to stay on the fairway and if I hit it 100, its still fairway.

 

The green is, particularly by the pond, really steep, and though the ball will stop before the water it's no picnic.

 

1 hour ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Bag a 5-wood or 7-wood?

Funny you should write this because right after I posted I started looking at 7-woods as the possible answer.  I don't necessarily have the swing speed for a 3-wood as I peak out with driver at 98 but on the course I would guess more like 94-95.

Edited May 13 by Petethreeput

[Rbsiedsc]

16 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

Funny you should write this because right after I posted I started looking at 7-woods as the possible answer.  I don't necessarily have the swing speed for a 3-wood as I peak out with driver at 98 but on the course I would guess more like 94-95.

go 4w. I gap 4w/7w and its wonderful

[PedronNiall]

15 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

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 😉

 

There's a segment in the main post-round interview where he goes through it and explains how the lie got him and such, but he's not talked in detail anywhere that I know of as to why he went to the 3 wood and lay up when he'd gone for it comfortably in the previous three rounds and during most of his rounds there in general. Even with the 3 wood he still had the distance to reach in two. What is is, but there's no changing what the numbers say made sense. Interesting that you're an analyst by trade and want so many specific details to understand what the best decision is but still insist on some whimsy around what a player should do or all's well that ends well being good enough instead of learning from what ignoring his strengths and leaning on weaknesses almost cost Rory. 

 

Given that he then turned around on 15 and blistered driver, 7 iron to a few feet he clearly had the juice to play to win on 13 instead of playing not to lose. Glad for him it didn't cost him the jacket, and yet another confirmation that you send the ball as close to the hole as you safely can. If you can't get to or beyond the hole the majority of the time or long presents additional danger then lay up, but otherwise pull up your britches and get it done. 

[BdaGolfer]

26 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

There's a segment in the main post-round interview where he goes through it and explains how the lie got him and such, but he's not talked in detail anywhere that I know of as to why he went to the 3 wood and lay up when he'd gone for it comfortably in the previous three rounds and during most of his rounds there in general. Even with the 3 wood he still had the distance to reach in two. What is is, but there's no changing what the numbers say made sense. Interesting that you're an analyst by trade and want so many specific details to understand what the best decision is but still insist on some whimsy around what a player should do or all's well that ends well being good enough instead of learning from what ignoring his strengths and leaning on weaknesses almost cost Rory. 

 

Given that he then turned around on 15 and blistered driver, 7 iron to a few feet he clearly had the juice to play to win on 13 instead of playing not to lose. Glad for him it didn't cost him the jacket, and yet another confirmation that you send the ball as close to the hole as you safely can. If you can't get to or beyond the hole the majority of the time or long presents additional danger then lay up, but otherwise pull up your britches and get it done. 

I suspect after the debacle at 13 Rory a) felt he had  to press, and b) didn't want to risk another layup. Had he birdied 13 would he have done the same? The stats say go for it, and he has more than enough firepower, but nowhere in those stats has a player hit that shot - 200+ yards high draw with water surrounding to win or lose a title you've been carrying like an albatross for years. Same with 13, that's why I think he went against type rather than all in. Beware of confirmation bias just because he pulled off the shot. Had he rinsed it we would be questioning why not lay up given the moment. It's that word "safely" that gives the player options, all things considered, we can only guess at why they choose those options.

[Shilgy]

5 hours ago, Rbsiedsc said:

On par 5s where I set myself up decently off the tee, I pulled either my 4w or my 7w on second shots.

 

Scores: 

1st par 5: Drive to middle of fairway. Hit 4w but hit it not so great, still 130 out, so a 9i in.  Dbl bogey, but that was because I over drew the green on my third shot with a 9i and had a pitch and chip (SG killed me there)

2nd par 5. Pulled 7 wood into green side bunker. Got out and made 8' birdie.

3rd par 5. Pulled drive to left. good lie and hit 4w and it went 240. Had a 50 yard pitch to green and made par.

 

Overall +1 taking on this strategy (I did not include the 2 par 5s I had poor drives).

First…that is an anecdote…not data. One round does not decide your future strategy.

Second…the first par 5 which you doubled the strategy was fine-the execution was not.

[Rbsiedsc]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

First…that is an anecdote…not data. One round does not decide your future strategy.

Second…the first par 5 which you doubled the strategy was fine-the execution was not.

yes. lol

 

This is also the strategy I always play. I am not trying to get in the weeds on ancedote vs data or anything like that. I am in the anti layup to a particular distance preferring to get as close as possible. Data shows for me in the year 2025, close is better.

 

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, Rbsiedsc said:

yes. lol

 

This is also the strategy I always play. I am not trying to get in the weeds on ancedote vs data or anything like that. I am in the anti layup to a particular distance preferring to get as close as possible. Data shows for me in the year 2025, close is better.

 

Glad I misunderstood 😉

 

Which raises the point….some will try to explain their reluctance to push it closer on the second shot with excuses like “better from 100 than 40” or  “tried it and made double”. What they don’t do is give it an honest chance and keep the stats over an extended period of time.

 

@Petethreeput in your 500 yard par 5 example what is the danger in being long ?  You list your handicap as being 2 so if you kept really comprehensive stats you’re likely in the 25-30 foot average proximity from that 90 yard or so mark?  Is the green really that steep that you can’t do that safely from over the green? Even if you occasionally have to play “safe” .

 I would venture a guess that what keeps many players from being more aggressive on the second shot is too much emotional input from the times it didn’t work when the fact of the matter is you will occasionally make bogey, or worse, from either strategy but the laying up further back just feels safer.

[Petethreeput]

@Shilgynot sure why I guess.

 

I figure, my miss will be about 5% on average, so 5% is 60’ or more, and I am most likely to miss the 200 yard approach short… which is the pond.

 

I may have to try it more than a few times just to see.  Thanks, darn it I may as well try.

[goaliedad30]

9 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Those who choose safety over birdies deserve neither birdies nor safety!

[Shilgy]

32 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

@Shilgynot sure why I guess.

 

I figure, my miss will be about 5% on average, so 5% is 60’ or more, and I am most likely to miss the 200 yard approach short… which is the pond.

 

I may have to try it more than a few times just to see.  Thanks, darn it I may as well try.

This hole is certainly a case of “a man’s gotta know his limitations “.  The penalty for failure is almost automatically a dropped shot…or two. That said the birdie rate will certainly be higher going for it.  For me 205-210 and in would be a no brainer. Go for it. Yes, there would be days where I mess up but I’d bet my scoring average would be better playing aggressively.

[PedronNiall]

21 hours ago, BdaGolfer said:

I suspect after the debacle at 13 Rory a) felt he had  to press, and b) didn't want to risk another layup. Had he birdied 13 would he have done the same? The stats say go for it, and he has more than enough firepower, but nowhere in those stats has a player hit that shot - 200+ yards high draw with water surrounding to win or lose a title you've been carrying like an albatross for years. Same with 13, that's why I think he went against type rather than all in. Beware of confirmation bias just because he pulled off the shot. Had he rinsed it we would be questioning why not lay up given the moment. It's that word "safely" that gives the player options, all things considered, we can only guess at why they choose those options.

 

Yep, we can only guess on why anyone does anything if they don't tell us. What we don't have to guess about is what the overall numbers and Rory's own stats said one would expect to yield the better outcome. I can't understand why you want to keep emphasizing ifs, maybes, and supposition when we have facts in front of us, especially since you kept saying you wanted more clarity before saying what you'd do over a shot because of your analytic nature. 

 

If he'd rinsed on 15 then it would have been because he hit a bad shot, not because he made the wrong decision based on data and his own tendencies. It was a 7 iron, and if a pro can't hit that to a number they don't deserve the win. Putting things in bold and throwing out "confirmation bias" doesn't change the reality of the data. Nothing else to say about it unless you can produce facts that contradict Arccos, DECADE, and datagolf say was the best choice. 

[BdaGolfer]

7 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

Nothing else to say about it 

We'll agree on this point and leave it there.