Fewer Par 3's = Superior Routing ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

At the GCA get together at Alpine, I believe that Brad Klein and others indicated that par 3's could be the gap fillers, or connectors in a routing.

If that is true, would that indicate that a par 70 golf course, with but two par 3's is a product of a superior routing ?

Is the difficulty in successfully finding two additional par 4's
further proof of a vastly superior routing ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

When I mentioned that par 3s can be good "separators" and "connectors" I was only speaking of them in a routing context.

Routing on some properties and some topographies is hard enough to do sometimes--often like an enormous jig-saw puzzle and as such par 3s can often be useful in the problem solving, obstacle overcoming process in a routing context.

That's not at all supposed to mean that they aren't as necessary as par 4s or 5s or that there should be fewer of them to make a superior routing.

Whenever anyone does a routing they're not only trying to find the best holes and in a good and convenient progression but they are also always thinking about the balance and variety of the routing to some extent. As such all the par type hole are important in the grand scheme of thing.

But often when you get stuck par 3s can unstick things--at least that's been my experience so far. Since they're single shot holes they just appear to be slightly more adaptable sometimes--but certainly I'm not suggesting that fewer of them make for a superior routing.

[Forrest Richardson]

The par-3 is an essential element of any routing. It's a change of scenery, pace and chance. Here we can actually put the ball into the hole from the one spot we are forced to stand -- and all in just one swing. Personally, I like more than fewer (par-3s, not swings!) My ideal? Depends, but lately I've seem to be suggesting five per 18-holes -- at least that's what the drawing board reveals.

My lifelong survey of golfers and their expressions, comments and reactions on courses prove that my opinion is shared by a wide majority. People like par-3s. A lot.

As to what makes a good routing in this regard: I agree it depends on the site, of course. But I will opt for a par-3 any day if it can manage itself into a site. Par-3s also take less acreage per stroke to par, which is quite remarkable in terms of land use when you add it all up.

[redanman]

How many par 70's in the world got that way by two threes ?

A-6,476
B-398
C-46
D-0
E-Courses with less than 18 holes


Answer to follow later.

[Jeff Mingay]

I've heard this notion many times, that par 3s are effective "gap fillers." Perhaps.

Stanley Thompson was one golf architect who saw par 3s in a different light. He routed his golf courses by, first, identifying the ideal natural locations for one-shotters, then essentially, using the par 4s and 5s as "gap fillers."

Studying Thompson's courses reveals his methodology to undoubtedly be true. His one-shot holes are consistenly in the best natural locations on a given property, and thus always the highlight of his courses. Always. And, another interesting note is, many of his courses feature five par 3s.

My theory is, Thompson pirated this method of routing from Harry Colt, who reportedly, also routed his courses in a similar manner. Thompson was a young caddie at Toronto GC when Colt came over in 1911 to design a new course for the club. And, two years later, when Colt returned to Canada to lay out a new course for Hamilton G&CC, Thompson's older brother, Nicol, was the pro there. Young Stanley surely observed the master, Colt, at work on both projects. That's my logical presumption anyway.

[Tom Doak]

The only course I know of with just two par 3's is the Old Course at St. Andrews, and it is of course the best of all.

A few great courses have just three par-3's ... Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne Composite, Garden City Golf Club, and National Golf Links.  I cannot think of a poor course that has just three, although I'm sure there are some.

Several of my courses have five par-3's, but I don't see it as a strength ... just the best solution to problems in trying to tie together the holes, or a tight bit of real estate.

[Forrest Richardson]

Good morning, Tom D.  I've always been intrigued with the fact that The Old Course has but two par-5s. One can only guess (with the help of a few facts) as to why and how. As for Pacific Dunes, I felt it was a great asset to be presented with five par-3s, regardless of why it was done. It would be an interesting result to see how those on this discussion might feel about a course with five par-3s versus one with three. Assuming both routings were just as charming otherwise, and on the same property, which one would potentially conjur up more fun and intrigue?

[Doug Siebert]

Well, unfortunately these days TOC has more than two par 3s, certainly 12 at least even from the Open tees is well within the traditional definition of a par 3.  After all, the original idea of a par 3 included holes up to 250 yards, which for even many top players was a driver.  The 12th, at barely over 300 yards is easily reachable unless there's a strong wind in your face.  Even then, for guys like Tiger and Mickelson.

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

To achieve your goal, par 70 isn't the only option.  Just look at the Kapalua Plantation course (where Ernie Els just destroyed par!).  It's a par 73, with four par 5's and only 3 par 3's.  It's very unique in that regard and an excellent golf course and golfing challenge.

[redanman]

To achieve a par 70 with only two threes, it would require no par 5's or a par 2.

Most courses that I know with par 70 have but two 5's as my home course Lehigh and most with less than four threes yields a par more than 72.

I found humour in that, apparently no one else did. (The way I add scores on a card is how many numbers are different from four and there you have it!  Instantly.   Threes offset fives, etc., no addition necessary.)

Firstly:
I generally like par 70, 71 and 73 or the rare 74; I truly know of no par 70 with only two 3's on a serious note.

Next:
Does a par different that 72 indicate a thoughtful routing, a difficult property, a style (Flynn notably seemed to do this a lot and although my Colt&Company experience is personally limited, I believe that was a common characteristic) or just an unintended quirk unrelated to anything.

Ultimately:
"Par" not 72= Good course?

[Hole in One]

In GOLF ARCHITECTURE, by MacKenzie, he writes,

"As the truest economy consists in finality, it is interesting to consider the essential features of an ideal golf course. Some of them are suggested now:
   1. The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes.
   2. There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, two or three drive and pitch holes, and at least four one-shot holes."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hole in one,

Are you saying that MacKenzie advocated a formulaic approach to golf course architecture ?

Tom Doak,

If a developer insisted on having just two par 3's would that make the routing task more difficult, and to what degree ?

When you create par 3's, into what category do they fall.
1  gap fillers or connectors
2  site dictates (natural setting for a par 3)
3  scorecard balance
4  desire for par 72
5 a combination of any or all of the above.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

In my mind, par threes, being short, offer the flexibility of being able to be tucked into the nooks, cranies and corners of the property - and I never heard one complain when I asked him to fill this role.

In that sense, they are great "filler" holes.

But any hole can be a "gap" hole.  

Essentially, when routing a course, the first thing you see are the obvious holes.   "Gap" holes are simply ways of getting from one of those pearls to the next on the routing necklace.  Unlike "filler" holes, "gap" holes are, by comparison to their neighbours, the weaker holes.

The number of par 3s (or par 4s, 5s, 6s and "whatevers") has nothing to do with the quality of the routing.

[Hole In One]

Mr. Mucci, I make no judgement of Dr. MacKenzie, value or otherwise. You may catergorize him to your heart's content. Whatever chips your wedge.

[Tom Doak]

Patrick,

It depends on the topography and the boundaries, of course, but generally speaking, it would be harder to route a course with fewer par-3 holes.

When I find a green site, it could be used for any length of hole -- par 3, 4, or 5.  But some green sites are only useful for a par-3 because any longer hole would be blind, and we try to avoid blind holes except in unusual circumstances.

The more undulating the land, the more likely it is to have places where you can't build a long hole without it being a blind hole.

To cite just one example:  Mike Keiser didn't really want us to build the 11th hole at Pacific Dunes right after the par-3 tenth.  But the tee was right there, and any par-4 or par-5 would have featured a blind tee shot along the coast.  We COULD have walked up to the back of the eleventh green and skipped it altogether, but that would have been a hell of a waste of 140 yards of oceanfront, so in the end back-to-back par-3 holes weren't such a bad solution.