[Dave_Miller]

Is there any long par 3's in today's pro golf?

Par 5's and par 4's seem to get longer week after week, but par 3's don't seem to get the same treatment.

Is there any great 250+ yards par 3's out there?

If so, which ones and what makes them great?

Number 11 at Charles River 239 from the back and slightly uphill.  Does that count?
Best
Dave

[Robert Thompson]

I continue to find it interesting how far everyone seems to hit the ball, to the extent we are now calling "long par threes" what "used to be called "Short/Medium Par 4's"."

I played a 195 yard par three the other day, into the wind.  Hit a damn nice three wood eight feet away and made a deuce.  I'd call that a long par three.

Seriously, anything over 180 yards is a long par three for me.  And there remain tons of those.

Yes, for the pros it's a different issue.  But are all of you guys hitting the ball as far as them?

285 is a par 4 for me.  Lucky the 4th at OClub is downhill or I'd be thinking of the back tee there as a par 4 also.

The sky has not fallen.

TH

I think it is interesting that the response to this is -- "well, the pros need these long threes." How many courses actually hold pro events and where are these amateurs really need to face a par three that is more than 230 yards? It seems to me that increasing the length of these par threes just requires more property, more property ups the cost and makes green fees more expensive.
I love many of Stanley Thompson's long par threes -- there's almost one on every course -- but I don't think even in the time he was building these holes that they required more than a three wood - 1-iron.
It just doesn't make sense to me to build holes longer than this -- and 300 yard par threes seem silly.

[Matt_Ward]

Often when people start to whine about long par-3's the issue is almost always tied to their own self interest (how they can or cannot play them) -- not the idea that such holes are folly or unreasonable per se. What's ironic is how the people who whine about long par-3 holes are enamored with the short par-3 holes. Like I said -- nothing like the self interest to guide one's preferences.

Long par-3's are part and parcel of the game. What's amazing is that the old time architects included such holes because hitting the longest of clubs (sometimes driver) to a target set in the far distance was an entirely fair way to examine the skill of such players.

P.S. Simply because such holes have been stretched (the Oakmont example of the 8th there is a good one) doesn't mean all such players need venture to the tips to play it. The added length was meant only for world class players.

[Yannick Pilon]

Doug,

Great reply. I could not have said it better.

Robert,

I also agree with you.  I don't think its good for the game to see par 3's streched to 300 yards, or par 4's stretched to 500 either....  Like you said, more land, more costs, more expensive to play.  And all that for a couple of players who can actually play to those distances....

My post was mostly a question regarding the fact that architects seem to stretch par 4's and par 5's for the pros (or scrath players) to make these holes more difficult, or to "protect the integrity of par" (man, I hate this sentence!), but they seem to rarely do it with par 3's.

Wouldn't it be nice to see the pros play these long par 3's using their 3-woods or drivers?  (Although I'm not fond of that idea on every course around the corner....)  Banging the ball as far as they can simply would not be good enough.  They would actually need the accuracy to go with it.

[Mark_Fine]

Dave,
Is #11 uphill?  I swear the green seemed to be down over the slight hill so it actually played a little down?  

Wayne,
Any thoughts about that tee on #15?  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Flynn originally had two small rectangular tees with rounded corners approximately 35 yards apart with an overall distance from back rear to front forward of 85 yards.  For the 1939 redesign, Flynn created two elongated rectangular tees with rounded corners each about 40 yards long, the forward tee shifted slightly left and about 10 yards forward of the back tee.

The current tee is simply a result of melding the two 1939 tees together.  This created more teeing area and was likely easier to mow.  I don't think it is a bad look, do you?

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
It's at least a little better than this "Flynn" tee  



I don't want to hijack the thread from long par 3's to tees.  
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()