[Brent Boardman]

I was reading the post "Where, Who, and Goals" earlier and was a bit intrigued by Sean Arble's liking to par 3s: "I want at least 5 par 3s - hopefully 6!"  

What are your thoughts on the number of par 3s for 18 holes?  Do you have a set expectation, or are you one to believe that the routing dictates the number of 3s (which can often be fillers and usually leads to the average quantity of four)?  What if a course only had one?  What if there were six, like Sean suggested?  Preferences?

And, though I know there has been recent discussion concerning modern courses lacking longer par 3s (over 220 or 230), feel free to revisit that idea and/or your thoughts on length in general.  

Additionally - since I also read some of the discussion about Brian Silva and bunkers posted by MPCerba - don't hesitate to add insight on your thoughts about bunkering around par 3s (be it functionality, Modern vs. Golden Age design, etc.).

[Andy Troeger]

I'm pretty flexible as such things go, but I enjoy it when a course has more than four; I have nothing against the 6-6-6 philosophy when it comes to par threes, fours, and fives, although its not seen that often.

Forest Highlands Canyon had a neat feature of the routing with par threes as holes 4-6-8-10-12-14. I'd never seen that before, and they were not redundant in the slightest. Jim Engh's courses have tended to have five par threes instead of four. It increases variety in most cases.

[Bill_Yates]

The Old Course has worked successfully for hundreds of years with just two par 3's.  Why don't we offer that model as the best one?

[John Moore II]

I think it all depends on how many fit well on the property. I don't think there is a maximum number that can fit well

[Brent Boardman]

Andy,

Any chance you know where I can get a look at the actual routing of FHC?


B

[Tim Gavrich]

Par 3s seem to be the clever architect's way of passing the "hit every club in the bag" test.  I tend to find courses with a high par 3 "length differential" (to drudge up an old idea of mine) more exciting than those whose par 3s hardly vary in [effective] length.  There's a course called Wedgefield Plantation down in Georgetown, SC that has some potential.  If I were charged with the task of renovating it, the first thing I would do would be to liven up the par 3s which are bland and symbolize a tremendous lost opportunity to have the golfer hit different shots (I hit hybrid into three of them and 4-iron into the other the last time I played the course).

[Gerry B]

as a general rule i don't mind 5 x par 3's  - but the dilemma for me is do you also have 5 x par 5's to make the course par 72 or play it to par 71 with the standard compelement of 4 x par 5's. IMHO - on paper the thought of 5 par 3's and only 3 par 5's (par 70)  paper makes no sense - unless the land  / layout warranted  it -

2 examples where i think it works are

1) Bel Air - 1,8,14 are par 5's and 3,5,10,13,16 are par 3's

2) Atlantic City CC - 4,8,12,15,17 are par 3's and 6,10,13 are par 5's

thoughts?

[Sam Morrow]

I've thought about this before, sometimes I think that a 6-6-6 routing is the way to go and other times I've thought of the concept of 18 par 4's and everything in between. But in the end I really don't care how many par 3's there are if the course is well designed and the holes aren't redundant.

[Jim Nugent]

More par 3's help fight the high-tech problem.  So long as they are not just drop shots, top players must hit more than lob wedges into them.  This is why almost all pro's average over par on the par 3's on the PGA Tour.  

ETA: I think this is also one reason the pro's often tear up TOC.  It only has 2 par 3's.

 

[Ash Towe]

I have just played a course with 5 par 3's.  They each fitted the land very well and provided plenty of variety in terms of length and the demands of what the tee shot required and ultimately the required putts.
These are some of the requirements I believe are needed to determine the number of par 3's not just a fixed number to meet par or anything else.

[Matthew Rose]

I suppose that the par 3 is the great equalizer.... the better golfer tends to make more bogeys there than other holes, but the novice golfer tends to have their best shot at par there. So I have no problem with going over four.... might slow play down, though.

[Andrew Mitchell]

One of my local courses Shipley GC (a MacKenzie design) has six par 3s.  Clearly playing them well is crucial to how you score.

My problem with them is that I only need two clubs to hit my tee shot at all six.  The yardages are 196, 188, 176, 168, 147, and 161.  Whilst there is a variety of distances there the differing gradients on the holes means that I can use a 3 iron on two of them and a 6 iron on the others.  With that many par 3s I feel you need to offer more of a variety of shots.

[Forrest Richardson]

Now in my 4th decade playing golf, and 3rd decade in the field of designing golf courses, I find our work looking for more par-3s, not fewer. While The Old Course sports just two, I believe that the reasons for this go deeper than any of us would know — and they, perhaps, are not based on "design" as much as they are on responses to adjustments to the land on which the course resides. We know very little about The Old Course prior to the 1800s that can be claimed as "sure."

Why more par-3s?

For me it is the realization that golfers enjoy them. And, not just the big hitters, but all golfers. When I play golf with others, I find great joy expressed at the tee of par-3s — more strategy is being contemplated, more excitement is being shared, and there is the great anticipation of watching the ball from its beginning all the way to its end. This is not the case at most par-4s and 5s.

There is a sense of something great at he par-3 compared to a majority of longer holes. It has to do with the possibility of the ball actually finding its way to the hole — and it has everything to do with proximity. Like any hunt in which the hunted is within close range, the exhilaration is heightened when the prey is close by and potentially caught.

Many of our recent designs and studies have 5 or 6 par-3s on 18-holes. We have even used the devil routing (6-6-6) a few times.

[Cory Lewis]

I would love to see a golf course with 5 par 3's that required you to use 5 different clubs.  Too many courses I play these days, including my own, fall into the trap of having the same yardage for two or more of the par 3's.

[wsmorrison]

Does anyone know of a case where a designer took into account  competition formats (eg fourball) when determining the routing progressions?

Given the constraints of the property, it is doubtful that anything like this was taken into account at Merion East.  Interestingly though, the par 3s are all on odd-numbered holes and the most demanding drives (other than 5) are on even numbered holes (2,4,6,12,14,16 (though less so today) and 18).

[John Moore II]

I love the idea of 6 par 3's. The club I was a member of in Raleigh had 6 par 3's, 5 par 5's and 7 par 4's. I can't recall any of the par 3's needing the same club either. This course was only 6200 yards, but with that many par 3's it was fairly difficult. I see nothing wrong with a higher than 4 number of par 3's on a course. I also see nothing wrong with less than 4, as long as the course fits and flows well together.

[Phil Benedict]

I know I am in the minority here but I think par-3's are inherently less interesting (strategic) than par 4's, simply because they involve no decision on where to approach the green from.  I do think that Forest Richardson's post on the emotional appeal of par 3's is a good one and Tim Gavrich's point about par 3's being a way to ensure diversity in approach club selection is another good point.  They are somewhat of an equalizer between low and high handicappers as well, but I'm not sure why this is a good thing.

I don't get Tillinghast's point on the 1-shotters being the key to a course.  Why?  Particularly since it's a lot harder to design a good par 5 than a good par 3.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think it was Tom Simpson who advocated at least five one-shot holes on each course (not that he always followed his own preference, mind).

[Brent Boardman]

Thanks for everyone's comments so far (though I welcome many more).  The idea of more par 3s than less definitely comes across resoundingly, except maybe in Phil's case.  

I can see the perspective that the location of approach has already been decided for you, so you aren't able to determine that yourself like you would on a par 4 or 5.  However, I believe that green aspect, shape, undulation, bunker placement, hole position, etc. at the very least determine how you approach the green from that pre-determined location, including ball flight.  In that way, par 3s can hold their own by being more severe/crazy.

Varying club selection for each 3 is surely a great consideration as well, especially for interest.

Does anyone have any general thoughts on bunkering?  Anything you might be thinking, past or present.


Ally:
Do you know where I could find that Simpson reference?



B

[wsmorrison]

William Flynn, writing in the August 1927 Green Section Bulletin:

...Perhaps the majority of players enjoy the one shot holes on any course better than the longer ones and the architect should be careful to get distinctive short holes of the proper length.

The principal thought in mind is to fit the best possible holes to the ground and while the custom is to have four short holes there is no reason why this number should not be reduced to 3 or increased to 5 if conditions warrant it.[/i]  

[tlavin]

William Flynn, writing in the August 1927 Green Section Bulletin:

...Perhaps the majority of players enjoy the one shot holes on any course better than the longer ones and the architect should be careful to get distinctive short holes of the proper length.

The principal thought in mind is to fit the best possible holes to the ground and while the custom is to have four short holes there is no reason why this number should not be reduced to 3 or increased to 5 if conditions warrant it.[/i]  

This is sage advice which Donald Ross followed in his layout at Beverly.  The routing is over a tight rectangular piece of land hemmed in by a railroad line and an arterial street and Ross included 5 par 3's.  Each of the short holes are distinctive and one (the tenth) is ingeniously wedged into an otherwise difficult-to-use corner of the course.  Having three par 3's on the back nine is fun.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:
Do you know where I could find that Simpson reference?

B

I am pretty sure that it is in the 'Ideal Course' chapter of his 1929 book with H.N.Wethered, "The Architectural Side of Golf"...

I'll check tonight

[Brent Boardman]

Ally,

I thought maybe it would be in that chapter.  I tried to flip through and look for it, but it didn't pop out.  I suppose I should pick it back up and read the chapter  


B

[Tommy Williamsen]

I didn't notice if it was mentioned but Berskshire red is the best example of six par threes (as well as 6 par fives and fours).  I was not awaare of this when I played it or even during the round.  I like it.  All the par threes were different in character and length.  The par fives were a little short but the idea of going 6,6,6 is appealing.

[Brent Boardman]

How about successive par 3s?  Can anyone recall a precedent of where this worked?  Or is it even done?  Maybe it's just a roadblock waiting to happen.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()