[wsmorrison]

Yes, but there's a bit and that is better than nothing.  Among many good Thompson quotes is this from 1923,

"Lately there has been a reaction--and rightly so--against the artificiality and grotesqueness of a certain architecture.  Nature must always be the architect's model.  The lines of bunkers and greens must not be sharp or harsh, but easy and rolling.  The development of the natural features and planning the artificial work to conform to them requires a great deal of care and forethought.  In clearing fairways, it is good to have an eye to the beautiful.  Often it is possible, by clearing away undesirable and unnecessary trees on the margin of fairways, to open up a view of some attractive picture and frame it with foliage.  Water not only makes good mental and actual hazards, but the picture which can be created adds greatly to the effect of a course if treated in a natural way.  Streams, ponds and even open ditches, if properly made, give variety, not only to play, but to the aspect of the course, and through their steady motion of quiet permanence inspire a feeling of respectful calm."

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

JES II kind hit the nail on the head of what this post is reaching for.  There has been some decline in consumate ballstriking skills because of technology.  The elite players are consumate ballstrikers, but quite a few players are doing well at the tour level by combining bombing with great putting.  An example of a hole I used earlier is #2 at Shinny--a Corey Pavin is at no disadvantage to an Ernie or Tiger---the reason--the green is super hard to hold and a run-up shot has the best chance of getting close.  Probably Ernie and Tiger would approach the hole with a run-up---now they are playing the hole as equals.  As for future designs, build some slope with the green set at an angle, include room for a run-up, and there is a good chance that a shorter hitter who can strike the ball will be able to compete agianst the longer hitter.

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with those who suggest that a long par 3 is probably one of the best equalizers for a short hitter.  Yes, of course the long hitter ALWAYS has some advantage, but its different on shorter par 3s and longer ones.  On the short ones, a long hitter might hit a 9 iron while a short hitter hits a 4 iron.  That's HUGE, one guy is gunning at the pin and thinking birdie, the other guy has fewer options because a short hitter isn't sticking a 4 iron like a dart unless the greens are soaked and of course it is harder to be accurate with a 4 iron regardless.

When you get to a nice long 240 yard hole, unless you are talking tour pro, it doesn't matter how long you are, your odds of putting it on the green in regulation aren't great because the target becomes pretty small at that distance, even if you carry a 4 iron that far (I'm skeptical there are any tour pros doing that in normal conditions, Tiger was hitting 3 to Medinah's 248 yarder after all and that's downhill too)  Once you miss the green, you are trying to get it up and down like everyone else.  The short hitter who can't even reach the green is laying up and playing position, the guy hitting a long iron into the green could be anywhere around it if he misses, so he will probably have a tougher up and down which will make up for the times he hits the green for an easy two putt par.

A local course added a second nine a couple years ago that includes a long par 3 9th playing into the prevailing wind.  Its 245 from the tips, but since most don't play from there it isn't a big deal.  But from the next set up its 200, and there is OB left and hazard short, right, and long (there is a bit of bailout room on the left if you don't hook it)  I was expecting a lot of people would complain since a 200 yard shot into the wind with that kind of green is a lot to ask, but surprisingly most people seem to really like it because it isn't like the par 3s they usually play.

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn,

Not sure how you morphed into talking about par 5's, but the implication you made in post #43 is that someone shorter than you is getting a shot from you on a long par 3 and this puts you at a disadvantage. Your second sentence in that post just automatically goes to you giving the guy a shot. Why is that?

Now let me ask again, of the people you play with that are of relatively the same handicap, who has the edge on a long par 3 with no shots being given? You, or the guy two clubs shorter than you?

Pure coincidence my posting that. Most of my golf comes with friends that are hacks or tournaments. My answer is still the same. If I am playing in a tournament, my answer is still the same as well, the guy that is better than me or as 'good' as me but shorter still has the advantage. If the par 3 is 240, chances are I will miss the green and make 4, he may hit it or not hit it, but chances are that if he is shorter than me and can compete at a decent level, then he will have a better chance of getting it up and down.

[JESII]

So that shorter hitter does not have an advantage in hitting the green, or better yet closer to the hole than you because he is able to work the ball better with his longer club? Is that right?

[Glenn Spencer]

So that shorter hitter does not have an advantage in hitting the green, or better yet closer to the hole than you because he is able to work the ball better with his longer club? Is that right?

First of all, who claimed that the shorter hitter can work the ball any better than me. I can hit most shots in the book. If he has driver or 3-wood and I have 2-iron from 240, I don't see how he is going to be able to work the ball any better. Secondly, no matter how you twist my words, all I am saying is that when the par 3 hole is long enough and tough enough, the shorter hitter probably has an advantage because of his short game. What are you not understanding?

[JESII]

Glenn,

Do you have any idea what this thread is about? Please take the time to read Robert's initial post and again his post about 5 or 7 posts ago. Than, and only than can this discussion go on.

[A.G._Crockett]

Take a look at the handicap figure for long par 3 holes.  I think in general they are not low handicap numbers but rather mid to high numbers.

Wayne, I thought the question is how the long par 3's play for short vs long hitters, who are of the same overall caliber or handicap.  Robert didn't say that, but otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  

Wayne was right the first time, and this is the reason that Robert's original premise is generally true of ALL par threes.  Par threes are generally higher handicap holes simply because the lesser player is less likely to need a stroke to equalize.  They equalize distance in much the same way.  

I don't mean to generalize and say that the shorter hitter will always be the lesser player, of course, but think of it this way:  if a course was made up ONLY of par threes (of whatever length) much of the long hitter's advantage would be negated, since the distance gap and it's effects on subsequent shots are most pronounced with a driver.  Then scoring would become a matter of shaping shots, short game skills, etc., rather than "overpowering" the course.

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn,

Do you have any idea what this thread is about? Please take the time to read Robert's initial post and again his post about 5 or 7 posts ago. Than, and only than can this discussion go on.

Yeah, I got it. It sounds to me, like 50% of his post is about shaping the shot and 50% of his post is about scoring on the long par 3 hole (the Chrysler tournament comment) I chose to speak on my experience in that department. Is there anything else that you want to explain to me?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()