Preferred Par 3 Green Shapes

[Bryan Izatt]

Thinking back to #12 at Augusta and the reverence in which it is generally held as a par 3, is it's green shape the best?  That is essentially wide and shallow and offset at an angle.

It occurs to me that there are more par 3 greens that are long and narrow.  There seem to be relatively few that that are wide and shallow and set perpindicular to the line, and somewhat more like Augusta #12 that are essentially wide and shallow but set at an angle.

Below are some examples.  Top middle is wide/shallow. Top left and bottom right are wide/shallow and offset.  The others are long/deep.  

What is the best?  Why?  Is distance control more valued than side-to-side accuracy on a par 3?  What obstacles are necessary for these green shapes to make them great par 3?  Should great courses have at least one of these types?

[wsmorrison]

Good question, Bryan.  A lot depends on wind, topography, where the hole fits into the routing progression, etc.  I think they're all good designs and variety is a key factor.  Distance and angle of play control, shot trajectory and shot shape should all be tested in a round.  On a short or medium length hole, there's nothing wrong with testing a multitude of these factors.  The 11th at Shinnecock may be the best short par 3 I know of.  On a long par 3, just like long approaches on other par holes should have multiple tests as well so as to increase the joy of pulling it off.  The 10th at Rolling Green, the 15th at Philadelphia Country and the 11th at Kittansett are among my favorite long par 3s.

I'm just thankful there aren't any that are shallow and narrow!

[John Foley]

Bryan,

It's got to fit the lay of the land. I for one don't like the wide & shallow nor skinny & deep profiles. I like the redan angle feature as long as you can use the ground. False fronts are great but tounge's of greens in impossible locations look forced. I also very much like the simple raised circle/pedastal green surrounded by a few bunkers.

Can you label the ones you posted? I see ANGC #12, What are the others?

Wayne - Don't you think the 11th @ Shinny is too long to be considered a short par 3? Isn't it around 160 yards? That would be 7I for many of us mortals.

I like to see short par 3's at 120 yards or less.

[Bryan Izatt]

Wayne,

I agree on the things that should be tested by par 3's (except perhaps shot shape on short par 3's, because who shapes short iron shots).  But do you think that green shape in particular tests any of the skills you've mentioned?

John,

The pictures in the first row are ANGC #12,  Venetian Golf #12 (a table top green with no bunkers), and the Postage Stamp 8th at Troon.

The second row is the 14th at Osprey Valley Hoot, the 13th at Oakmont, and the 8th at Uplands in Thornhill, ON.

Interesting that no one wants to weigh in on the merits and goodness of these green shapes in contibuting to these holes' greatness or lack thereof.

[wsmorrison]

John,

The 11th at Shinnecock (the cover photo for my Flynn book) is considered a short hole at 158 yards.  The wind dictates what yardage the hole plays like.  For the longer hitters, it is a 9-iron and for many it is a 6 or, as you say, a 7 iron.  That is a short hole these days.  

Bryan,

I can shape short shots.  Unfortunately they are often the wrong shape  

You ask if the green shape tests the skills I mentioned.  Yes, absolutely.  But the surrounding hazards and topography are factors as well that should integrate properly with the green shape, contour and angle of play (offset).

The offset to the line of play at the 12th at Augusta is about a club or club and a half difference.  I like that quite a bit.  The rear diagonal of the green is also a very nice feature that comes into play as well, heightening the distance demand.  I think the swirling wind is the ultimate factor on this hole for the better player followed closely by the shallow nature of the green.

The shape of the 13th at Oakmont is very interesting.  Depending upon the pin position, there are two different demands.  The front of the green is very narrow and the rear of the green wider.  The green is 40 yards long.  For most pin positions, I'd try to position my tee shot to the middle of the green and hope I hit a good approach putt.  For a front pin, you have to stay below the hole so the narrow green and fronting bunkers really make that the most difficult position.

The only other green I am familiar with is the Postage Stamp.  That to me was a difficult tee shot, not in terms of distance control but in terms of line of play.  I wasn't worried about distance because I knew the distance to the front of the green and had a lot of green to work with.  The side to side demand was great.  I pulled my shot left, chipped close and made par.  I think the green width was a huge factor for me on that short hole.  I think most decent golfers have more problem horizontally than vertically.  Average to below average golfers have difficulty in both direction and distance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Narrow, diagonal greens work well when hazards protect them.

The "Road Hole" green concept also works exceedingly well.

The 7th green at NGLA would be a great par 3 green from any of 360 degrees, from 100 to 200+ yards.

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm thinking that shallow diagonal greens provide the best target for a par 3 (although, obviously a variety of green shapes on a course is also very desireable).  They require both accuracy of line and distance control for the line.

Patrick,

Seventeen at TOC is a good example of a shallow diagonal green, albeit on a par 4.  The fourteenth, Foxy, at Royal Dornoch would also fit.

Does the Road Hole bunker qualify as a hazard in your context?  

What do you think of the Venetian example above.  It's elevated maybe six feet all around with sharp drop-offs, but no bunkers or hazards.  It's shallow but not angled.  I found it got my attention and interest.  But, is it mediocre?  Good?  Very good?  Great?

[TEPaul]

I don't think a par 3 green shape can be labelled as "best". The deal is to use as many different shapes and varieties as possible on a course or throughout golf course architecture.

In the final analysis two things or principles pretty much reign throughout golf and golf architecture and they are "temptation" and "variety".

Believe it or not if "variety" is taken to some extreme some may actually label it "out of character" which to my way of thinking is total bullshit.

[Kalen Braley]

I rather like the eden hole concept at TOC and am surprised it hasn't been mentioned on this thread.  While I haven't played TOC, I have played other variants of it and they were all good fun.

[Paul Stephenson]

I can only really comment on #8 at Uplands.  It's not the green shape that I think makes the hole, but rather it's size and location.

First, it's a really small green for a hole that can play well over 200 yards.  Combine that with a steep front slope and it's a really hard green to hit.  The shape may even make the green more receptive, kicking a right to left shot that is long enough back onto the green.

[Tom_Doak]

Bryan:

I haven't commented on your topic because I am always wary of suggesting that one type of hole is generally better than another -- especially on this board where it might be quoted later as "Doak's fourth law" in some future thread.

I am open to any kind of green site, but I do think that the shallow angled green like the 12th at Augusta is better suited to a par-3 or a short par-4 than to other kinds of holes, because the architect has some control over the length of the approach.  A similar green to the 12th at Augusta on a long par-4 or on a par-5 would be pretty severe as most players could not hold such a green with a long club, and I am generally not in favor of building par-5 greens which can be easily reached by long hitters but just can't be held if they do.

There are lots and lots and lots of good green shapes for par-3's, in fact I cannot think of a green shape which wouldn't work well on a par 3 hole.  One which is under-utilized is the green with a narrow front and wider in back, such as the 15th at Kingston Heath or the 3rd at Winged Foot West.

[Dan Kelly]

I am generally not in favor of building par-5 greens which can be easily reached by long hitters but just can't be held if they do.

What green can't be held if the architect allows a ground-game approach?

[wsmorrison]

Dan,

A front to back sloping green could be pretty tough to hold utilizing a ground approach.  There are several greens at Sunnehanna CC that require very precise shots to hold.  Those are a set of greens that most architectural students should study.  The course was very well done by Tillinghast.  Flynn proposed some outstanding modifications though few were incorporated.  It looks like what is left of Flynn is going, going, soon to be gone.

[Dan Kelly]

Wayne --

Point taken.

I guess I didn't ask my question right.

I should have said:

Why wouldn't a wide, shallow green be perfectly fine for a reachable par-5 if there were a way to reach it via the ground?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm thinking that shallow diagonal greens provide the best target for a par 3 (although, obviously a variety of green shapes on a course is also very desireable).  They require both accuracy of line and distance control for the line.

Patrick,

Seventeen at TOC is a good example of a shallow diagonal green, albeit on a par 4.  The fourteenth, Foxy, at Royal Dornoch would also fit.

Does the Road Hole bunker qualify as a hazard in your context?  

YES, it can be a very effective hazard, especially with certain hole locations.

What do you think of the Venetian example above.  It's elevated maybe six feet all around with sharp drop-offs, but no bunkers or hazards.  It's shallow but not angled.  I found it got my attention and interest.  But, is it mediocre?  Good?  Very good?  Great ?

I couldn't comment until after I had played it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom D,

Such are the hazards of fame, at least around here.  And, now I feel mildly embarassed to say I must have been remiss in my reading - what were Doak's first three laws again?  

As an analytic type, I try to deconstruct why people say thing like the 12th at ANGC is (one of) the best par 3's in the world.  My analysis says that it must be the green shape and the fronting penal hazard.  I'm not trying to say it should be endlessly replicated.  There are infinite possibilities for green sites and the more different ones the better.  How else would new excellent models arise.

As to hard-to-hold greens on reachable par 5's, where does that leave you on a hole like the 14th at Pebble?  Is it not a generally accepted principle that if a par 5 is reachable in two, the green should be well protected and hard to hold (including making it small or shallow)?

I gotta keep working this thread.  It'd be nice to have as many posts as there are on restaurants in Orlando