[Patrick Kiser]

So in your estimation what are the makings of great short par 3's?  Say anywhere between 130-180.  

CORRECTION:  75-130!!!  To make the naysayers happy  

I think for me it's the wolf in sheep's clothing thing.  Innocent enough from a distance but will bite your you know what in a hurry if you're not careful.  And even if you are and come up short,  long, or wide with the opportunity to recover you're in for an easy double or triple because the solution is not obvious.

But even more than this is discovering all the possible ways you can screw up and how those ways don't easily reveal themselves up front.  Like a date that makes you come back for more and you're wondering why.  Just when you think you've figured it all out, you'll find out some new way to make a mess of things.  

And yet it's all right in front of you for you to see ... but full of surprises.

Unfortunately, I can't say I've played too many of these.  Wish there were more out there.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

Ian Andrew has been busily writing away on his blog an excellent series of articles, one of which discusses the short par three in all its glory.

http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/short-par-three.html

Temptation has to be perhaps the ultimate arbiter of the great short par three.  No matter where hte flag is cut, no matter the trouble that lingers for various mishits, you just can't resist taking dead aim.

[Phil McDade]

Patrick:

I think the 12th at Whistling Straits is a very good short par 3. Like all the par 3s there, it hugs the lake, and is visually intimidating. It doesn't get the noteriety of WS's 17th, but I think it may be a better hole (maybe...)

It features a somewhat bottleneck green, with the green set at a 45-degree angle (NADEResque) to the lake. The long, runway tee area is also set at a 45-degree angle away from the lake. It's a fairly simple par 3 when the pin is set on the fatter (closer to the tee) part of the bottleneck green. But it's really fun when the pin is set on the upper and much smaller portion of the green, because the the area to hit to looks so small. Dye even made the green pinnable in the middle, narrow section of the bottleneck green by creating a sort of gathering depression there. Short or long is trouble, because of steep falloffs, rough terrain, whispy grasses, and some nasty pot bunkers. Right is death, of course, with the lake looming. The green is also full of contours, making the reads on putts something of a challenge. And then there is usually a breeze to contend with coming off the lake.

It's usually played with a 9-iron or even wedge, and played in the 140-yard range for the pros at the 2004 PGA and around the same distance for this year's Senior US Open. A fun hole -- not a hard par, really, if you hit the green, but built with a variety of pin positions, which I think is somewhat rare for a shortish par 3.

[David Schofield]

The back right pin location there is brutal.  I would imagine some would say "unfair".  Having only seen it on TV, is it possible to stymie yourself by hitting it to the "main" part of the green?

[Phil_the_Author]

The shorter the hole, or planned shoy (e.g. - 3rd of a three-shotter), the more important bunkers become in creating strategy, offering choice of play, value of shots and method of entering the green.

A great example of this is the 7th hole at Pebble Beach.

[Phil McDade]

David:

I watched it in person during a PGA practice round for at least 5 or 6 threesomes, with the pin in that back position. Here's what makes it a bit easier with that back pin -- the runway tee gives the hole a great deal of flexibility in length, so they tend to move the tee forward with that back pin, and back aways with the front pin in the larger section of the green. With the back pin, I don't think they play it any longer than a 9-iron or wedge for the pros, and even then, it can be kind of a 3/4s shot for some folks (kind of like how Tiger plays 7 at PBeach). The wind is what makes it tricky -- I think with a helping wind coming from the south (not unusual in Wisconsin in the summer) it can be really tough; I think the pros can sort of play a knock-down shot into the wind there. It is a tiny portion of the green, but somewhat similar to what you might find at PB's 7th; the 12 at WS does play slightly downhill. I don't think they'd pin it in the back to stymie a short shot to the fat part of the green, although from what I could tell, some "edge" pin positions in the small portion of the green could do that.

[Peter Zarlengo]

The best short 3s I've played are usually ones that have small greens with a lot of hazards surrounding the green.

The best short 3s I've seen, but not played, tend to be different in that they have large greens with a lot of contour as their primary defense.

I think I like both approaches to the design of a short hole. Both holes test your ability to recover from a misplaced first shot, but in different ways. The first example probably puts a little more emphasis on the first shot, with the second example testing putting ability more.

What about you guys? Example #1 or #2?

[Jimmy Muratt]

What makes a great short par 3?

- they are playable by everyone
- because they are so short, you're tempted to play more aggressively that you should
- the best ones penalize you for not pulling off the ideal shot yet still leave room for a great recovery.

Some of my favorites:
#9 Myopia Hunt Club
#17 Sand Hills
#2  Kingsley Club
#6  Boston Golf Club

[Patrick Kiser]

Peter,

I think both can be great in either but the version that stands out in my mind more and remains more memorable are those of the flavor #2 variety.

And it goes back to that wolf in sheep's clothing feeling from the tee that can come back to haunt you.  Looks like an easy enough par 3 ... until you screw up.  Not even necessarily full of temptation to ''go for it'' and dare something.  And then you're in a world of hurt for something you didn't quite notice or appreciate enough up front even knowing the recovery option is there.

Case in point that still remains in the memory bank.  Par3 3rd at TT  Rawls.  Short 158 from the blacks with a couple of deep bunkers facing you.  Like big wide open jaws.  So you're focused on those more and what to avoid.  Less obvious but actually quite more hazardous ... is the shortly mown false front.  Land short and you roll back well into the fairway with a delicate tight lie chip to get back on the green.  Land short on the green and there's also a strong chance you'll roll back off.  Now go long to avoid all this is what I'm thinking and ... unbeknownst to me there are a couple of blindish bunkers lurking back there.  You land in either and you better not try getting out of them with a direct route to a center pin.  WIth the sloping back to front green you will go off the green and into the front bunkers or worse the false front to face a tight lie 3rd from the fairway.  The latter happened to me and the ball ended up in some medium depth rough.  Then this hole sits on a slightly elevated plateau with exposure the wind etc...

I could go on but you get the idea.  It's the less than obvious that gets you.  Brilliant!

With #1 there's much less the feeling the hole is for the taking because most if not all of the trouble stairs you right in the face from the get go.  Less mystery or surprise.  

I'm inclined to say that 3rd at Rawls is a combo #1 and #2.

The best short 3s I've played are usually ones that have small greens with a lot of hazards surrounding the green.

The best short 3s I've seen, but not played, tend to be different in that they have large greens with a lot of contour as their primary defense.

I think I like both approaches to the design of a short hole. Both holes test your ability to recover from a misplaced first shot, but in different ways. The first example probably puts a little more emphasis on the first shot, with the second example testing putting ability more.

What about you guys? Example #1 or #2?

[Mark Manuel]

Pat,

I think you have to limit it to less than 160 yards.  Anything over that feels like a "medium" par 3.  Having said that I always look for a short hole that still invites some indecision with club selection.  Whether it is the ability to move the tees on the box, the pin or the wind comes into play.  Given that criteria I can think of a bunch of great short par 3's on a lot of golf coursed that people don't get to play.

One last thought.  Sometimes walking away and saying "I can't believe I just made a five with a 9 iron on that little POS hole" can make a round more frustrating than making a five on a 220 yard monster par 3.

Mark

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is the second hole at Musgrove Mill.  It is a drop shot that plays between 110 and 135 yards.  As you can see the green is surrounded by waster area and creek both fron and back.  Most of the time you just aim at the middle of the green.  The toughesst pin is the back of the green because the putt breaks sharply and two putts are not assured.

[Jeff Doerr]

In our area Fought and Cupp built a diabolical little hole at Langdon Farms. Hole #6 is so simple, but a par is very difficult if you miss the green. Here is a link to the course image.
http://www.cybergolf.com/site/images/84/hole6.jpg

There is a lone bunker and a shelf in the back of the tabletop green. It is shaved on all sides. The hole is only 122 yards from the back tee location.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Two more examples of great short par 3's that go about things pretty differently are #11 at Hidden Creek and #6 at NGLA.  The 11th at Hidden Creek is a uphill short iron shot to a green surrounded by trouble.  The putting surface is hidden from sight due to the uphill nature of the hole.  The 6th at NGLA is downhill and most of it's defenses are from the green itself, one of the best on the course.  It's really several small greens within the green and makes putting extremely challenging and fun.

Both are great holes that go about things quite differently.  #11 at HC is uphill to a small green where most of the trouble is around the green.  #6 at NGLA is a drop-shot hole where being in the correct section of the green is the priority.  

[Patrick Kiser]

For reference, here's the par 3 3rd at TT Rawls

Peter,

I think both can be great in either but the version that stands out in my mind more and remains more memorable are those of the flavor #2 variety.

And it goes back to that wolf in sheep's clothing feeling from the tee that can come back to haunt you.  Looks like an easy enough par 3 ... until you screw up.  Not even necessarily full of temptation to ''go for it'' and dare something.  And then you're in a world of hurt for something you didn't quite notice or appreciate enough up front even knowing the recovery option is there.

Case in point that still remains in the memory bank.  Par3 3rd at TT  Rawls.  Short 158 from the blacks with a couple of deep bunkers facing you.  Like big wide open jaws.  So you're focused on those more and what to avoid.  Less obvious but actually quite more hazardous ... is the shortly mown false front.  Land short and you roll back well into the fairway with a delicate tight lie chip to get back on the green.  Land short on the green and there's also a strong chance you'll roll back off.  Now go long to avoid all this is what I'm thinking and ... unbeknownst to me there are a couple of blindish bunkers lurking back there.  You land in either and you better not try getting out of them with a direct route to a center pin.  WIth the sloping back to front green you will go off the green and into the front bunkers or worse the false front to face a tight lie 3rd from the fairway.  The latter happened to me and the ball ended up in some medium depth rough.  Then this hole sits on a slightly elevated plateau with exposure the wind etc...

I could go on but you get the idea.  It's the less than obvious that gets you.  Brilliant!

With #1 there's much less the feeling the hole is for the taking because most if not all of the trouble stairs you right in the face from the get go.  Less mystery or surprise.  

I'm inclined to say that 3rd at Rawls is a combo #1 and #2.

The best short 3s I've played are usually ones that have small greens with a lot of hazards surrounding the green.

The best short 3s I've seen, but not played, tend to be different in that they have large greens with a lot of contour as their primary defense.

I think I like both approaches to the design of a short hole. Both holes test your ability to recover from a misplaced first shot, but in different ways. The first example probably puts a little more emphasis on the first shot, with the second example testing putting ability more.

What about you guys? Example #1 or #2?

[David Stamm]

   My definition of a "short" par 3 differs from Patrick's. 170 to 180 yds to my mind does not qualify as short. All things being equal, holes of those distances often require 7 to 5 irons, considered mid- irons by today's standards. That wouldn't be short in my book, it would be medium length.


  To me an ideal short hole is one that requires finesse rather than power. And the placment of this type of hole in the routing can make all the difference in the world. I think this factor is what makes short par 3's sometimes stand out more. When a short finesse shot is called for late in the round after some long demanding holes, the demands of the hole can be even more acute. A hole like the 15th at Spyglass Hill springs to mind. Long, demanding shots have been rquired to that point and then a downhill 125 yd par 3 protected by water is presented. While the hole is not all-world, I think WHEN it comes during the course of the round makes it even better.


Here are some other short par 3's that I enjoy. They could be better or worse depending on their placement in the routing. Nevertheless, I enjoy them for what they are.


15th at Pasatiempo (despite the controversial front bunkers)

3rd at Ojai (present routing)

7th at Pebble

16th at Riviera (it's right on the border of being considered short)

12th at Stone Eagle (even though when I played I buggered the hole badly!)

8th at Rustic Canyon

12 at Soule Park (a rare, good uphill hole that plays longer than the 145 yds.)


 Unfortunately, by and large the beauty of short par 3 holes (like short par 4's) is lost on most of today's architects and players.

[Patrick Kiser]

David,

I never suggested a specific distance.  I believe I stated "say anywhere between 130-180".  More of starting point for discussion.

I'd agree then with what I'm seeing that over 130 gets into the mid length with over 180 getting into the long par 3.

To your point about a short par 3 towards the end of a round ... I'd add Pasa's 18th as a great example.  Don't go long ...

  My definition of a "short" par 3 differs from Patrick's. 170 to 180 yds to my mind does not qualify as short. All things being equal, holes of those distances often require 7 to 5 irons, considered mid- irons by today's standards. That wouldn't be short in my book, it would be medium length.


  To me an ideal short hole is one that requires finesse rather than power. And the placment of this type of hole in the routing can make all the difference in the world. I think this factor is what makes short par 3's sometimes stand out more. When a short finesse shot is called for late in the round after some long demanding holes, the demands of the hole can be even more acute. A hole like the 15th at Spyglass Hill springs to mind. Long, demanding shots have been rquired to that point and then a downhill 125 yd par 3 protected by water is presented. While the hole is not all-world, I think WHEN it comes during the course of the round makes it even better.


Here are some other short par 3's that I enjoy. They could be better or worse depending on their placement in the routing. Nevertheless, I enjoy them for what they are.


15th at Pasatiempo (despite the controversial front bunkers)

3rd at Ojai (present routing)

7th at Pebble

16th at Riviera (it's right on the border of being considered short)

12th at Stone Eagle (even though when I played I buggered the hole badly!)

8th at Rustic Canyon

12 at Soule Park (a rare, good uphill hole that plays longer than the 145 yds.)


 Unfortunately, by and large the beauty of short par 3 holes (like short par 4's) is lost on most of today's architects and players.

[David Stamm]

David,

I never suggested a specific distance.  I believe I stated "say anywhere between 130-180".  More of starting point for discussion.

I'd agree then with what I'm seeing that over 130 gets into the mid length with over 180 getting into the long par 3.

To your point about a short par 3 towards the end of a round ... I'd add Pasa's 18th as a great example.  Don't go long ...



 

Patrick, I hope I wasn't coming across as saying you are wrong about the distances, I just was stating that when you get towrds the extreme end of the presented yardages, it starts getting longer than what I would consider a short hole is or should be, that's all.


I agrre with the 18th at Pasa.  A wondeful hole. And I wouldn't want to be short there either!

[RJ_Daley]

Generally, I think a varied tee like Phil describes at WS 12 to a varied green in either terraces or lobes, that render the target area really only about 3000sf., and all the terraces or lobes have slopes or contours leading to their own set of hazards that severely effect the errant shot.  Chasms to cross are good also.  The widely spread tee angles help to always provide adjustablility to seasonal wind patterns, or just to vary day to day set-ups so it never gets boring for the regular player.  I agree that elevation changes, up or down are a good element as well.  There are a multitude of great shorty par 3s and I wonder if they aren't the most fun for the archie to design.

[RJ_Daley]

All these posts, and folks naming great par 3s and none have mentioned 17 Sand Hills.  You guys are sleeping at the switch!  

[David Stamm]

All these posts, and folks naming great par 3s and none have mentioned 17 Sand Hills.  You guys are sleeping at the switch!  

Sorry RJ. I can't name what I haven't had the privilege to play.

[Jimmy Muratt]

"All these posts, and folks naming great par 3s and none have mentioned 17 Sand Hills.  You guys are sleeping at the switch!     "

RJ,

Read my first post, #7 up above... it's one of my favorites as well  

[Tim Taylor]

I think I remember Tom Paul or maybe Pat Mucci making a comment a long time ago about the difficulty of hitting a wedge or short iron close to the hole on a really large green. I agree with that. Make that green undulating and you have a fun hole that looks easier than it plays. The bogey golfer will be happy to be on the green. The good player will take dead aim and maybe/maybe not be successful.

A few that I can think of are #3 at Tidewater Plantation in Myrtle Beach and #13 at Wrendale in Hershey.

Tim

[Dan Boerger]

Well, there are plenty of great short par 3's, and probably an equal number of styles: elevation change, visual hazards, small greens, etc.

But, to me, the common denominator is that a great short par 3 makes bogey quite difficult for the average golfer. It should allow most of us to go pin hunting, dreaming of the birdie or a tap in par if we hit our spot with our wedge to 8 iron. But, if we miss, there should be hell to pay.

[Tim Gavrich]

Does the 17th at TPC Sawgrass qualify as "great"?

Shivas,

I think that a flattish short par 3 can be great as well, because in that case, bunkers can be used not only as penalty for a missed shot, but also as instruments of obfuscation.

The 9th at Caledonia Golf & Fish Club is an excellent example, I think.  Though it plays only about 110 yards, the flatness of the hole, in conjunction with the bunkering, makes the player very uneasy.  Most times, it is very hard to be exactly certain of the pin's location.  I believe that such a feature is brilliant.  One can either hit the proper wedge shot and walk away with two and charge to the back nine, or miss the green and likely take a further three shots to hole out, heading dejected to the 10th.

~~

Call me a homer, but I think #13 at Pawleys Plantation is great too.  The green is surrounded about 300 degrees by marsh, and there's a deep bunker rear-right.  The wind whips from any angle; it's a thrilling shot.  Hit the green and you're all but guaranteed a par, but miss the green and double bogey is all but guaranteed.  It's a sadistic little monster.

[Mike Hendren]

While not a "great" par three, the 16th at Talking Stick South defies most of the criteria posited above.  Dead flat terrain with no significant hazard.  Quite easy looking.  
Outstanding internal green contouring, however, that is not adequately depicted in this rendering.  The better player will make three instead of two and the average player will make four instead of three much of the time.  Fits Tim Taylor's description to a T.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()