The notion that...
quoted from John Kirk:
...or this proves that par 3 holes aren't what differentiate good from great courses. Because they are designed for one shot, par 3s are the simplest and least interesting holes architecturally.
...rings false with me.
I think a well done set of par 3's are all too rare and are an opportunity to elevate a course to another level of quality.
What would be the keys? Variety in length, setting, green complexities, challenge level etc...
JES,
I see your point. But isn't it true that a well done set of par 4s, or par 5s, offer the same opportunity to "elevate a course to another level of quality"?
I think you are suggesting that a great set of par 3s is harder to find. Why would that be? Either the standard for greatness in a par 3 is set higher, or par 3 holes are less interesting and therefore more difficult to make great.