[Jim Johnson]

If a course has six par-3 holes, what do you think of that golf course?

Obviously, four par-3 holes on a course is the norm. Five adds a little bit of "variety" to the norm, while six par-3's may add or detract from the overall experience.

Assuming that there are four par-5's, and the remainder (eight) are par-4's, the total par is 70.

So, basically, if a course has six par-3 holes, does it add, or detract, from your golfing experience?

JJ

[rjsimper]

I think that I have a better chance to break 80 on that golf course.

Ultimately, it depends.  Having just returned from Pacific Dunes, and seeing 4 par 3s on the back nine (obviously not an analagous example to 6 out of 18, but still...) I think my conception of the 4-4-10 golf course is probably less important than it used to be.  

If they're all good holes, and there is variety amongst them (not all heavily bunkered 170-190 yard holes) then I am not opposed to such a design...but at the same time I hope it does not become the norm.

[peter_p]

   Spring Hill in Albany, OR has (had) 6-3s, 6-4s, and 6-5s and never had two holes with the same consecutive par. You're right, as it is saw one of my two rounds sub-par rounds because of more birdie ops on the 5s.
   I looked on it as a gimmick because only two of the 3s really had design/strategy dictated by the land features. They easily could have gone with a more normal hole distribution. Pace of play was also a problem.  

[Garland Bayley]

Spring Hill, Albany, OR still has 6, 6, 6. A great flogging opportunity. I prefer 6, 6, 6 to 2, 2, 14.

[ForkaB]

My home course, Aberdour, has 6 par 3s (plus 11 4s and a 5).  It is MUCH harder to keep a low handicap here than at my other course (Royal Dornoch).  To play off 5 at Dornoch all you need to do is break 80 (10 over par) from time to time and shoot the occasional 75.  At Aberdour you have to shoot 73 (6 over par) and below time after time after time, and as the 3s are all over 160 yards, you don't have a great chance of picking up strokes on them, unless you are a 15+ handicap.....

Aberdour used to consist of 9 3s and 9 4s before it was "modernised" c. 1980.  All the best golfers think it was a better course then, and the record (in terms of producing a crop of very good golfers) bears them out.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Shipley GC, a relatively unknown MacKenzie course in West Yorkshire, also has 6 par 3s. There are 5 par 5s and 7 par4s.

I think the more par 3's there are on a course the more difficult it can be to play to a mid to low handicap. The key to scoring well at Shipley is to play the par3s well. All the par 3s have high stroke indexes (15, 17, 13, 14, 18 & 16) and these are not an accurate reflection of difficulty. Accordingly there is less margin for error when playing the threes.

[ForkaB]

Rich

Your theory is correctomundo.  I don't think may people get this.  Most think that if a guy is a 5 at SooperDooper CC than he is hotshit.  If I had to bet sight unseen, I would take the 5 at Joe Bloggs CC at 6000 par 70 SS 68 over the chap from SooperDooper CC at 7000 par 72 SS 74 anytime.  

Once a guy gets low enough (say 0-3ish) on these short courses there are very few mistakes he can make if he wants to hold his cap.  In effect, these guys get used to making 2-5 birdies every round which makes them great matchplay partners.

Ciao

Sean

Well stated, Sean. All I would add is that the <3 HCP at Joe Bloggs CC needs to be GREAT in getting up and down.  Another reason that (like you) I will bet on him vs. any <3 HCP from SuperDooper GC any time.

[wsmorrison]

The current version of the Old Course at the Homestead has 6 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 6 par 5s.  It is now a mishmash of Ross, Flynn and RTJ.  The course suffers a bit because of the evolution history but it is not because of the par distribution.  

There are some awkward holes (18 for instance) with the lengthened 12th hole a prime example of lenthening for lengthening's sake resulting in a complete disconnect from its former setup in terms of strategy and interest.  The hole has a nice valley and hillside.  With the old tees, many could carry the valley up the hillside and have a view of the next shot.  Today even the longest hitters cannot carry the valley onto the old landing area so that nearly all tee shots roll back down the steep slope and collect in a small area.  There is then a completely blind second shot up a steep hill requiring a lofted club to a steeply sloped fairway.  It is plain silly in its present setup.

[Tim Gavrich]

I feel fine with 6 par 3s, as long as there is enough variation among them in terms of defenses, hazards, length, and terrain.  If the architect can create approach shots for those par 3s that would be more interesting and/or strategic than they would have been as par 4s, then I say that shows a certain boldness in not following convention.

[Tom Roewer]

Haille Plantation in Gainseville Fl., designed by Gary Player also has 6 par 5's, 6 par 4's and 6 par3's.  I have always found it enjoyable to play with different lengths to all in each par category.

[PThomas]

isn't it the Engh formula to build 5 par3's every course?

I have no problem with that, or even 6...but doing so on every course appears to be a bit too formulaic to me

[Tom_Doak]

I understand the theory that having more par-3's should make the course harder in relation to par ... in this day and age, even a 150-yard par-3 is a longer approach shot than a Tour pro will usually have to hit on a par 4.

However, one of the reasons people seem to love Pacific Dunes is that there is the possibility for a great score on the back 9 with all those par-3's.  I know the par-5's have something to do with it, too, but for an average player, it's much more in the realm of possibility to par four par-3's (one good shot each) than four par-4's (usually two good shots required along the way).  The tee ball is a lot more trouble for the average player than for the professional.

[Jim Nugent]

My home course, Aberdour, has 6 par 3s (plus 11 4s and a 5).  It is MUCH harder to keep a low handicap here than at my other course (Royal Dornoch).  To play off 5 at Dornoch all you need to do is break 80 (10 over par) from time to time and shoot the occasional 75.  At Aberdour you have to shoot 73 (6 over par) and below time after time after time, and as the 3s are all over 160 yards, you don't have a great chance of picking up strokes on them, unless you are a 15+ handicap.....

More backup for what you say: PGA touring pro's have more trouble making birdie or eagle at par 3's than they do at par 4's or par 5's.  Their average scores on par 3s are much higher relative to par, than at the longer holes.  

So even on tour, courses with more par 3's should defend par better.  

[PThomas]

... in this day and age, even a 150-yard par-3 is a longer approach shot than a Tour pro will usually have to hit on a par 4.

tis a sad state of affairs.....

[Jim Johnson]

Would "pace of play" not become a problem on a course with six par-3's?

Or, thinking on another line, would it be "faster" than a "regular" course with four par-3's in the theory that it takes longer to play a par-4 (ten of them on a "regular" course as opposed to eight on this course)?

JJ

[Marc Haring]

What Tom is saying about the average golfer finding par 3’s easier is very true and often overlooked by other golfers. If you take a golfer that hits every other shot on average well but skuds all the others then the chances of him hitting a par three green are 2 to 1. But the odds rise to 8 to 1 on a par five simply because he’s got to string three of his good shots together. ( 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1, simple mathematics) I used to play with a golfer like that and where he could par a couple of short holes, the par fives would beat him up.


The Berkshire Red has got the 6:6:6 set-up but some of the par threes are killers like 16 and 10 across the valley. I don't think pace of play was an issue but there again hardly anyone ever plays it.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think Maroon Creek in Aspen may have 6 par 3's, and they come pretty much bunched up, like 7 thru 15, or something close to that.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Marc I do when I get the chance. I’m missing two of the set, but is this the best known example of a course with this set up (also 6 par fives)?

All yardages off the yellows - can't find the card!

10th 188 yards (can bail out left)


7th 181 yards


5th 166 yards


2nd 139 yards


Also have 16 at 205 and 18, 163 yards.

[Jason Topp]

I have recently played a public course with 6 par 3's a few times and it seemed to really slow down play.

[Matt_Ward]

If I am not mistaken I believe the Canyon Course at Forest Highlands in Flagstaff, AZ by the design tandem of Weiskopf and Moorish included six (6) par-3's and with the high altitude there it seems to work quite well.

[Brent Hutto]

To answer the original question, I'd be perfectly accepting of a course with six one-shot holes as long as they weren't all 160-something yards with either a tee shot over water or a bunker front right and back left. I hate, hate, hate playing a course which needs exactly the same mid-iron and pretty much the same shot on three of its four Par 3 holes. What a ripoff.

Tony M,

Perhaps you could annotate those pictures, adding captions with the length of each hole (unless I've currently run out of favors). The one with the heather-covered embankment looks very nice unless it's like 200 yards or some darned thing. The one with the semi-blind green and big bunkers center and right would eat my lunch unless I could hit a 7-iron or something to it.

[cary lichtenstein]

Brent:

When I encounter that situation and I have seen it more than a few times, I just move back to another set of tees and vary it myself.

[Brent Hutto]

Cary,

Me too, except I move up a set  

My former home course had three Par 3's on the "third nine" and all three of them from the men's tees were between 120 and 135 yards and downhill. The only difference among them was that one of them was over water and one of them was in the trees which blocked the wind. Boring unless you hit one in the water.

Doesn't matter now. That nine is as we speak being partially bulldozed and re-routed to spread it out through a couple hundred mini-mansions. Pity, it had two great short Par 4's.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Brent I've added the figures for the distances off the yellows.  I've posted my pictures on to Photoshop and plan to do a full post on the marvellous Berkshire, soon.


Totally agree about the stupidity of offering all par 3's at the same length (are you reading this Crown Golf re South Essex?).  This has to be the laziest and most stupid mistake that a designer can make?

[JohnV]

I always thought it would be fun to build a course with 9 par 3s and 9 par 5s.  Call it No-four.  Par 3s would run from 100 yards to 250 yards while the par 5s would go from 480 to 650 or some such.

Usually I think about this when I wake up in the middle of the night.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()