Diversity of Par 3 holes

[BVince]

Is diversity of length necessary when considering the rating of par 3 holes?  Truth be told, I have played some courses that have all medium length to long par 3s, yet they are all still great holes. 

It is obvious why par 3s of various lengths on a course are desired, but is it absolutely necessary trait to be considered a top notch golf course?  Would a major turn-off be that the par 3 holes would be too hard? 

For the GCAs, is designing a short par 3 almost mandatory?  When looking at the land, are you automatically trying to achieve par 3 holes of all lengths or are you solely going off of what the land gives you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If it's not, it should be.

Diversity in the par 3's is a real asset.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't think it is too much to ask that courses have par threes of different lengths.  Generally there are only four par threes.  Diversity in length, elevation, and greens complexes are not too much to ask.  I don't think it is mandatory to have a short par three.  But a good short par three is an asset.  Who could ever forget ten at Pine Valley, seven at Pebble, of fifteen at Cypress Point?

[Paul Jones]

I think a 2 or 3 medium lengths par 3 are great if they are in different directions.  That way one will play long another short and other a cross wind.  That way you will probably hit a different club on each.

[John Moore II]

I would not say a diversity in length is a true necessity when analyzing the par 3's of a golf course, but I will say that can factor into my opinion of courses. I suppose with very good terrain and other natural features, you could design all the par 3's to be the same length and they all be interesting and good, but its not likely. Variety is a very good thing for par 3 holes, and all holes for that matter. Ideally, I would like to see One par 3 in the range of 230 yards, One around 130 yards, and the other two around 175, but very different from each other. This, of course can't always happen, but its great to see variety.
--On the same note-is it not good to see diversity in the lengths of the par 4's and 5's as well?

[Gerry B]

varying lengths, direction and difficulty should be considered and was probably the case when some of the  newer courses were designed -many of whom have gone with the 5 x par 3 concept

[Carl Nichols]

I don't think it's diversity of length per se, but diversity of shots--which can be affected by direction/wind, verticality, and green complex.  On some courses, all four par 3s (even if different lengths) require high-flying mid- and low-irons over front bunkers or hazards.  I find those sets boring, and would much prefer sets that reward different kinds of shots with different kinds of clubs.  

[Wade Whitehead]

My judgement of a course's par threes tends to begin with a quick check of whether or not I hit different clubs on all of them.  I think it's a must before calling any set great.

WW

[John Moore II]

WW-I mostly agree with what you say. However, if holes are meant to be played with different clubs, but due to other conditions cause you to hit the same, I would think differently. I also think that two different holes can cause you to hit the same club, but have a different shot shape be the preferred shot into the green. Example--two holes of 165 yards each-one allows for a 7 iron bump and run draw onto the green while the other requires a high fade. Those holes, while needing the same club, do not require nearly the same shot. In that way they are different and the par 3's may still be great.

[Andy Troeger]

I think its a major benefit for par threes to require different shots/clubs. Some of that is different length, but angles, terrain, and direction all play factors as well. Variety among all the holes on a course, and part of that is variety among the par threes. I can only think of one course (Sultan's Run) where I really liked the par threes even though they were all pretty similar (downhill 190 yards with water somewhere although generally not right on the greens). Even then it wouldn't make my top ten sets of par threes because of that lack of variety.

[Jason Connor]

I remember playing Poppy Hills and I hit 7-iron on 4 of the 5 par threes, that's not very fun to me.

I think the one way hitting similar clubs is acceptable is if the holes are longer.  The first time I played The Judge on the RTJT I hit 1, 2, 4, 7.  I thought it was great to have to hit 1, 2, and 4 iron into greens.

In general, I think diversity of club selection is good, though I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule.
Likewise my Poppy experience was just one day.  I don't recall if there was a mild wind that perhaps affected what otherwise would have been more diverse club selection.

[John Moore II]

Jason-I agree with liking having to hit long irons, or even woods into a par 3. That said, I would also like to see a short hole, requiring a 9 iron or Wedge. At Needles (which, may be, so far, the best collection of par 3's I have played) I think I hit 9 iron, 2 iron, 6 iron, 5 iron. Back to the main topic of this thread, differences in yardage (or even effective yardage) is the key to great par 3's.

[Jason Connor]

My home club, Mike Dasher's North Shore GC, has great diversity.

In order I typically hit 2-iron or hybrid; PW or SW; 7-iron; 5-iron.

And the hybrid hole I've had to hit driver in a staunch wind!

[Tom_Doak]

I have to say I think this is a somewhat overrated aspect of golf course design.

Surely, you want variety and diversity throughout the golf course.  I just think the par-3's get too much focus because it's easier for people to pull them out and contrast them ... whereas hardly anyone ever talks about whether the par-5's play in different compass directions, but that's got a lot to do with whether they are reachable in two or not.

[John Moore II]

Tom--I cna agree with what you say about looking at par 3's can be over rated. But how many great courses have 4 par 3's of the same length? Though, you comment does echo what I put down earlier in this thread about isn't variety in the length of par 4's and 5's a great thing to have as well?