What Makes a Great Par Three?

[BigEdSC]

A great question.  Whether you are a scratch or a 36 handicap, I think that the feeling you get when you are on the tee and look down towards the green.  The hole looks harder than it really appears.  But when you do hit a quality shot, it's that feeling of anticipation that you really did something good, and when you see the results, you might be rewarded with a hole in one, or at least a makeable birdie putt.  It's different from a 4 par, because even though you hit a really good shot, or even a perfect shot, you still have work to do.

I like Shivas' criteria though.  The first two holes I thought of was #7 at Pebble and Calamity at Royal Portrush.

[PThomas]

Shivas -- I'm having a harder and harder time with your definiton now that you state 12 at AUgusta isn't.....

come on now, that is surly one of the great holes in all of golf, with SUCH a narrow target and such penalties for missing the green..

[THuckaby2]

Ed - those are among the first two I'd think of as great par threes also.

But of course you realize neither meets all of shivas' criteria... there are few three-putts to be found on either green.  Calamity at Portrush might meet the re-written #2 criteria though, as in any sort of wind that is one fiendishly tough tee shot thus a three-jackable green would be asinine.

But there remains no hope for #7PB under his strict guidelines - no threejacks there nor killer up and downs.

 

Paul - #12 ANGC squeaks in under the re-written #2.  Fiendishly tough tee shot making 3jackable green asinine.

Of course just between you and me, it's just his way of getting around giving any credit to setting.

 

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Tom,

I agree with #5, but I'd add this as #6:

Great par 3's are entities unto themselves and have a "presence".  The eye only focuses on the task at hand and they often feel separated from the rest of the course.  I equate the feeling of approaching one of these holes to a boxer entering a ring and seeing his opponent for the first time.

[Stuart Hallett]

I definitely agree with the "sense of place" naturalness that graces the majority of great short holes. I think I'm right in saying that many GCA's pick out par 3 green sites before anything else, or at least they should do!

A second glance at the distance must be a good sign. I believe that a great hole should overcome the simple equation found from a precise distance, a particular club and a solid strike. The variation of features and hazards may encourage a more testing golf shot, adapted to both your game and the hole in question.

A choice of playing lines, trajectories and landing areas give scope. The use of features such as broken ground, ridges, false fronts or grass hollows have infinitely more strategic interest than a barrier of frontal bunkers or water, although I find that frontal hazards is acceptable on the shortest of the set of 3's. The strategic value of longer 3's is greater with the use of shortish bunkering, or open fronts, may it be only left or right. That's just my opinion!  

[THuckaby2]

I like that #6, Geoffrey - it keeps out the dumb blondes, which to me is a good thing.... in this context.

TH

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

#9 at Yale and #9 at Myopia seem to fit all the criteria, no?

btw - could you find two more different par 3 holes with the same position in the routing?

[Craig Sweet]

A great par 3 for me would have a small target (preferably a raised green) or be unusually long.

I don't need bunkers, or water, or a sloping green.

Accuracy off the tee, whether its with a nine iron or a 3 iron, should be the key to the hole. Once on the green you have a reasonable expectation for a par, and the possibility for a birdie.

[Jerry Kluger]

Ted: I believe that Strantz repeated that hole at Royal New Kent because it worked so well.

Tom: I recognize that #12 at ANGC is a great hole for the Masters and is a tremendously demanding shot, but is it a great hole to play on a regular basis as other than the bunker, where else can you recover from if you miss the green? #16 offers far more variety if played on a regular basis. This is not to say that I've ever played ANGC.

[Craig Sweet]

Speaking of a "sense of place"....I think its nothing but eye candy...not nearly as good as those eye candy caddies...last year at the PGA someone said they figured Dye out...he had all that sand and flash bunker stuff and fescue and the lake views etc...and he put it there to distract you. If you ignored it, there were some great golf holes there, and all that other "stuff" was in the way.

[THuckaby2]

Geoffrey:

I've never been to Myopia, but great call re #9 Yale... that has all six criteria, in spades.

Jerry:

Tell me you wouldn't be inspired/scared/excited/loving it if you ever did play #12 at ANGC... just for what it is, the history that occurred there, the huge volumes of writings about it, photos of it, etc.  That's not supposed to matter?  It's a great hole.  Hell so is 16.  And in each case, it matters not if it meets all or any preconceived criteria for greatness - both holes are so off the charts in setting that any perceived weaknesses don't matter for squat.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Your last sentence dooms your criteria as a true definition of greatness.  If those are all great holes then I'm Tiger Woods.  I'll take #15 CPC or #17 Sand Hills over any of them and it ain't even close.  And if the latter is the great plains version of the former - which is a darn good call, btw - then that to me is VERY high praise.

And re #15 CPC specifically, you seem to disregard most of the Seve up and downs I mentioned.  To any pin, go long and you need to be Seve, go short and you need to be Seve on steroids... and the ball can be found and played down there.  But more importantly, hell man I just played a pin in the front neck, and ANY miss there and one does need to be Seve.  What, that doesn't count?

You're being hoisted on your own petard.  Which of course is very, very fun, because you admit it when you say holes are great but don't meet your definition.

 

[wsmorrison]

#17 at Sawgrass -- no up and down

I managed to hold the sandy middle of the causway a year or two after the course opened (the yardage was longer) to the island green hit a sand wedge within 2 feet and made the putt.  That was an up and down I'll never forget.  It can be done, but it ain't easy  

Because of the inherent variety in par 3s, length, slope (back to front; front to back; left to right and right to left), contour, wind, water, etc there are many types of great par 3s.  Shivas listed a number of valid qualifications.

I'll throw this question out to the gang because I think its a bit easier to answer (sorry for the hijacking, Tom).  What makes a great collection of par 3s on a given course?

Is there an architect or are there architects that are known for the strength and  depth of quality in the sets of their par 3s?  What classic era architects do you think provided the best sets of par 3s on a given course and what modern architects are also known for their sets of par 3s.

If the set of par 3s on the golf course are considered the strongest set of pars, can the course still be a great one?  If so, what courses might characterize these courses?

[DMoriarty]

I don't think that it possible to list a definite set of criteria for a great par 3.  Like approach shots, there are just too large a variety to lump under one set of rules.  Any such list would just lead to reduncy.

For example, The first Shivas Rule is much too draconian.  It excludes holes that look easy but have much more to them than first meets the eye.  These holes might not catch the the fancy of a one-play-rater, but they provide long term enjoyment to members and regulars.  They grow on the player and often end up being the most enjoyable in the long run.  
__________

Like Rich, I am not willing to concede that par 3's cannot be strategic.  (Unlike Rich, I'll refrain from lumping every decision a golfer makes under the umbrella of strategy.)  It is possible to build a par three which gives the golfer choices.  

For example Pac Dunes No.5 gives the golfer the choice to run it in from the left or to carry the ball to the green.  

For another example, No. 6 at Rustic Canyon gives the golfer a choice between playing directly at the hole or playing off the hillside right.  I've even seen golfers hit it short of the swale and run it onto the green.  
_________________________

It is probably a pretty good idea to place a par three on a part of the property with interesting wind, a place where the wind switches and swirls for instance.  This seems especially effective on short holes like Augusta 12.

_____________________

I disagree with Shivas' willingness to have 4 par 3s that fit his description.   Variety is a key with par 3s.

__________________________

The golfer will either really look forward to or really fear a great par three.  Ideally, the golfer might just do both.  

[Dan Kelly]

I was trying to think of holes I've played that fit all four of Shivas's criteria, plus Tom IV's #5, and the first one that came to mind: No. 9 at Sutton Bay.

[DMoriarty]

Dave, I think there's plenty of room within my definition -- which I consider to be a pretty loose definition -- to have a varied set of four that all meet it.  (Frankly, I think it's looseness is the reason Tom Doak took to it so quickly.)

Now dont get too big a head Shivas,  Doak said it was the best so far, which might not have been too high a standard.

As for whether there is room enough in your definition for four great holes, I am not so sure I agree.  

First with regard to your first rule, I am really confused after your further clarification . . .  

And Dave, I agree with you that there are great holes that appear easy to most folks that aren't.  That's why I was really heavy on the DISCERNING EYE part of it.  Sure, every once in a while even the discerning eye doesn't see the difficulty of a hole, even after a few plays.  But not that often.  Architects simply ain't THAAAAT good and they don't have THAAAT many arrows in their quivers that discerning eyes haven't seen before.  Usually, you sense on the tee that you'd better hit a good shot or you're screwed.  

In your rule you say that it must look tough to the discerning eye even if it isnt tough.  So the discerning eye can be fooled.  So why cant the discerning eye be fooled by a hole looking easier than it is?  

Further, I think some architects are that good.  At least they should be if they expect to build a "great" par three.  Your tone here already, after only a year, expresses the arrogance of the veteran rater.  You've seen and done it all, the architectect cant fool you.  If you havent seen it in a play or two, then it just isnt there.  

must have a nearly-certain 3 putt/damn near incredible 2 putt from at least one spot to at least one other spot on the green. (this is a different spin on the compartmentalization theory espoused earlier; and the point is that just hitting the green ain't enough)

As you acknowledge, this isnt broad enough.  Sometimes just getting it there is about all that can be expected.

must have at least one virtually impossible/miraculous up and down.

I dont get this, at least not as a requirement.   It leans way to far toward the Wardian "butt-pucker" notion of fun for my tastes.   Challenging and interesting up and downs, yes.  But a requirement for "virtual impossibility?"  Why?  

must reward a great shot with birdie.

No No No No.  No golf hole ever owes you a birdie, no matter how "great" your shot is.  Some golf holes, even great ones, just arent birdie holes, especially with certain pin positions.  Putting should always matter, especially on great holes--  A great shot and a great putt.  What is wrong with that?
______________________

Don't get me wrong Shivas, I like your list, but you exclude too much, as far as I am concerned.   But then I think that is the nature of Art.   Greatness usually takes the viewer/reader/player into unchartered territory, shows him something he has never seen before.   Any list is bound to exclude some great hole somewhere, even if it has yet to be built.  

[Sean Walsh]

Many things make a great par 3 from location to design features I would just like to highlight how wide the definition can stretch.

With credit to the topics author let's start with the 7th at Barnbougle.  Little over 100m but with a small target and frightening bunkers left.  It may be even worse to err right as the the chip/pitch onto a narrow green is up a steep slope and musn't be overcooked or the result is a trip to the aforementioned bunkers.  Short and long both have their own penalties though short is the good miss of all the options.

Now contrast with the 16th at The Island GC, Not long, No real hazards (I don't count the small pond short that really doesn't enter your thoughts from the tee) including no bunkers and a largish putting surface all on flat terrain surrounded by the dunes.  Now go and play it and tell me it's easy(or not a great hole).

In my opinion the quality of a courses short fours and set of par3's is at the top of the checklist for what is a very good/great course.  Barnbougle and The Island are both fine exmaples of both

[Philip Gawith]

I think it was very self denying of Rich G not to cite examples from his favourite course as examples of great par 3's. Surely the 2nd and the 6th at Dornoch qualify?

I think they meet the Shivas test conditions. More importantly,  I look forward to these holes with a sense of both keen anticipation and grim trepidation. The anticipation lies in the knowledge/challenge that nothing short of a very good shot is likely to get a par; the trepidation derives from the knowledge that anything less than a very good shot can easily mean a double bogey or worse.

Anticipation, challenge and trepidation - if those ingredients are present, you are in the presence of a good hole.

[Smokey_Pot_Bunker]

In my mind a great par three consists of a criteria along these lines.

1.  It makes the golfer hit a solid shot on the surface of the green or else the up and down will be of different degrees of difficulty based on the hazards that define the strategy of the hole.  Bascially a hit or miss with the possibility of a three putt as Shivas has mentioned previously.

2.  A great setting is nice but not mandatory.  

3.  Wind should be a factor in the club decision process.

 

[THuckaby2]

I'm with Moriarty in general on this, if I read him correctly.. that is, these definitions and the criteria they present are all well and good, but they shouldn't be taken as hard and fast RULES... For example, Carmen says:

3.  Wind should be a factor in the club decision process.

And in general, yes, that should be a part of it... But does a hole like #16 CPC cease to be great on a windless day?  No way.

I also do tend to think setting matters way more than most here seem to think.  That is, sure, a hole can be great without an inspiring setting... but it better be REALLY REALLY great in all other criteria if so.  Like I said in an earlier post, deficiencies in one criterion could be made up for with huge positivies in the others... My feeling here though is setting is the most important of all, so you'd really have work to do to achieve greatness without it.

Case in point:  #14 Santa Teresa (my home course, a muni in San Jose, CA).  It meets every other definition perfectly, but it is far from a great golf hole (at least in comparison to the others we tend to mention in this context), because the setting is blah in the middle of a nice but relatively blah course.

TH

[THuckaby2]

No Dave, I'd say you have quite too low a threshold for par3 greatness, especially if you'd consider #14 Santa Teresa as such.  If you could only see this golf hole.... but wait, you can.. sort of... click on

http://www.santateresagolf.com/course.htm

Then go to hole 14... I guess the setting isn't wholly unispiring, there is a certain coolness to CA chaparral... but this ain't #15 CPC, let's just say.  And still, it meets all four of your definitions big time.  Seve would have a very hard time getting up and down from long and right, as the green slopes hard away from right to left.  It's also three-jack city to a middle pin if you end up back right.  In any sort of wind it's a long difficult shot.

It's just not a great golf hole unless one's definition of great does mean "they're everywhere."

 

[SIDE NOTE - the hole descriptions in that ST course tour are comical.. good lord is the writer WAY off on most of them...]

Oh well.  At least we understand each other better, I think.  When I say great I mean world-class.  I guess I don't understand how something can be great if it's "everywhere", nor how these holes can be "everywhere" yet you exclude so many truly great ones, as you did in your first post.

Oh well.. it's your definition and you may stick to it.  

 

TH

[Ted Kramer]

Shivas,

What do you think about the inverse of your "looks tough but might not be" criteria.

How about a hole that looks pretty simple but ends up being a lot more tricky than it looks.

I offer #2 at Pine Hill as my example, I think it is a great par3.



It plays about 160 yards with a bunker on the right.
It is tough to tell that the front of the green slopes enough to really be considered a false front. And the hole, although it looks pretty flat is built into the sie of a slope and plays extremely fast from left to right.

From the tee it looks like a prety basic mid to short length par3. But once you've played the hole enough times to have missed left and tried chipping it to a left pin only watch a pretty well struck shot roll about 30 feet past the cup, and then missed right into that deep bunker, and then hit what you thought was a pretty good shot to front pin only to watch the ball roll back about 20 feet into a little chipping area, do you begin to realize that this hole is a LOT tougher than it looks . . .

-Ted

[Jerry Kluger]

TH: I want to ask you - do you think there is a difference between a great par 3 for tournament play versus one for member play on a continuing basis.  I am getting back to number 12 at ANGC.  There is no question that if I ever got the opportunity to play the course playing #12 would be something that I would greatly look forward to.  But my question is if you were an architect creating a course for a membership that appreciates architecture and will be playing the course on a regular basis, would you want to recreate #12.  Of course I am not suggesting that you duplicate it but take the general concepts of the hole.  A short par 3 over a hazard with a very shallow green and a steep hill behind the green and a bunker short in front of part of the green.  I just don't view this as a hole which would be enjoyable to play on a regular basis.  Essentially, either you hit the green or double bogey is the probable outcome. Sure the contours of the green can make the putting very challenging but overall, I view the hole much like the 17th at Sawgrass which is great for tournaments and to play once in a while, but not on a regular basis.  I look at the 10th at Friar's Head or what I believe is the 6th at Hidden Creek (the redan)and say that would be fun and challenging to play on a regular basis.  

[THuckaby2]

Ted:

To me that's a totally separate question from "is #12 Augusta great?"  It is, for all the reasons I state, and nothing else matters much....

So would I want to play it all the time?  Sure.  Heck yeah.  A challenging, ballsy, very tough to figure out golf hole like that is great by me.  Of course I wouldn't want EVERY green site on my course to be like that... but one little 155 yard par 3?  Bring it on.  I'd say the same for #17 TPC Sawgrass.  One hole that's do or die out of my 18?  What's the problem?

TH

[THuckaby2]

I've never seen #14 at Santa Theresa, but if (1) you can't just scrape it up there to the wrong side of the green and expect to make 3, (2) there's a spot that you absolutely, positively cannot miss it because it's a nearly guaranteed 4 from there, (3) it looks hard to you, given your level of sophistication and (4) the green isn't so stupid that you're lagging 5 footers off the green, then it's got the essential elements.  

Remember, these are elements that I think every par 3 needs to be great.  Like every great car needs a dynamite engine, great handling and cool looks.  They ain't everything and it's not an exhaustive list.  They're just the essentials.  Is a Ferrarri with some crappy little 4-cylinder engine a great car?  No.  Is the Honda Element (that ugly little box thing they make) but with a Ferrari engine in it a great car?  No.

So yeah, if your hole is pukeville for other reasons, then it ain't great. But it sounds like at least it could be.  And that's pretty good, no?      

Well said.  I can live with that. Believe it or not the golf hole does meet all of those 4 criteria, without a doubt.

Thus it is is a pretty good golf hole.  It's just not great, nor will it ever be.

In any case this modification solves all issues I have - well done, my friend.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: