"With ball technology still unpoliced, one certain victim will be the par 5."

I've been giving some thought to Ron Whitten's story on the future of architecture and one of his more optimistic visions sees the par-5 disappearing from the game:

So where is golf architecture headed? Our prediction is that in the next 20 years, new courses will be wider, drier and probably scruffy around the edges. They'll feature a lot of steep, deep hazards and dramatic slopes, will be more eclectic in their bunkering and green complexes and be positively dizzying in their strategies of play.

They'll still be mostly 18 holes, but the standard of par will drop from 72 to 69. With ball technology still unpoliced, one certain victim will be the par 5. Par 4s now play as long as par 5s used to. Even the glorious 12th at Stonebrae will probably be rendered into a drive and pitch shot by some Nationwide players next March.

To be genuine three-shot holes, new par 5s would have to be 700 yards or more. It'll be impossible to have four of those on any new course, because they'd take up too much precious land and drag each round into a sixth hour. A single par 5 will suffice. The others will be called what they now really are, long par 4s.

First, it's nice to see Ron's optimistic about governing body regulation of the ball. Can't say he's off base with that one!

But do you think he's right that the par-5 is doomed and is this a good or bad thing?

Obviously I agree with the merits of sub-par 70 courses because they take less time and the game needs to downsize the amount of acreage it uses. And he is also right that it'll take 700 yards to make a true three shotter, but really, how many of those are that interesting to play?

However, wouldn't we be losing one of the great treats in the game: the reachable par-5? When the elements are in balance, is there any more exciting or interesting shot than the decision to go for a par-5 in two?