What makes a great par 3?

[Bart Bradley]

On one of Pat Mucci's many "name the" threads, Tom Doak says he is still not sure what makes a great par 3.

Why don't we tell him what WE think?

So, here is your chance to educate the educator...Let's hear it.

Bart

[Michael Dugger]

stunning terrain

drama

intrigue

[C. Squier]

I think the green complex needs to have a level of excitement (for whatever that means to you) that is greater than an equally good par 4 or 5.  The reason being, you're forced to play from a certain spot on a par 3, whereas on a par 4 or 5 your decision on the tee affects where you will approach the green from.  A great green complex will allow you to strategize on a par 3 and par 4's and 5's don't depend as much on the green to provide the challenge.  I think that's why redan and Biarritz holes work so much better on par 3's.

CPS

[Peter Pallotta]

Bart -

A direct inverse relationship between theory (on the card, simplicity) and practice (in the playing, complexity), to the greatest degree possible.

In other words, a marked psychological sophistication, in a shot-testing context of course.

e.g. the 7th at Shinnecock, Augusta's 12th, Troon's 8th, the 17th at TPC.
 
Peter   

[John Moore II]

What makes a great Par 3?? I'll quote a Supreme Court Justice from several years ago on a different subject: "I know it when I see it."

[Tom_Doak]

These responses so far are perfect.  Let me take the other side:

mdugger:  Yes, I think "stunning terrain, drama, and intrigue" are all factors in most people's minds, but only maybe one of those has anything to do with design.

Clint S:  Yes, I prefer par-4's and par-5's because you don't have positional strategy so much on par-3 holes.  But your criteria would eliminate 95% of the par-3 holes that people tell me are great -- the "surrounded by trouble" holes like 17 at Sand Hills.

Peter:  I would only put two of your four holes (Augusta and Royal Troon) on my own list of great short holes, so there must be something haywire there.

J Kenneth:  See my response to mdugger, above.

[Jim Johnson]

Not sure it makes for a "great" par 3, but in talking with Canadian course architect Les Furber one day, he mentioned that he always tries to builds par 3 holes either fairly level, or downhill, and never uphill. Reason being, he feels it important to be able to view the ball as it rolls into the hole for a hole-in-one. If one can be so lucky. 

[Bart Bradley]

These responses so far are perfect.  Let me take the other side:

mdugger:  Yes, I think "stunning terrain, drama, and intrigue" are all factors in most people's minds, but only maybe one of those has anything to do with design.

Clint S:  Yes, I prefer par-4's and par-5's because you don't have positional strategy so much on par-3 holes.  But your criteria would eliminate 95% of the par-3 holes that people tell me are great -- the "surrounded by trouble" holes like 17 at Sand Hills.

Peter:  I would only put two of your four holes (Augusta and Royal Troon) on my own list of great short holes, so there must be something haywire there.

J Kenneth:  See my response to mdugger, above.

Tom:

Don't you think that the criteria for what makes a par 3 great vary so substantially on whether the hole is a short par 3 or long?   I mean Royal Troon's 8 is a bear from where it plays...It wouldn't be great if it were 210 yds long.  It seems to me that a short par 3's greatness depends mostly on setting...its like a one act play, you've got to wow them visually.  Subtleties seem less important.  For example, would the 7th hole at Pebble be considered a great hole if out on the flatlands of Indiana.  I also think that for a short par 3, the hole has to create a significant and interesting challenge despite its length --some angst when choosing the club---this seems to be true for the holes you mentioned:  12th Augusta, 8th Troon.  This dilemma in club selection can be created with wind, large elevation change (Devil's Cauldron, Banff) or with such a small target (again 8th Troon) that there is no room for error.

Well, feel free to tell me where I've gone wrong...I'll have to ponder the long par 3 issues a bit longer...I think the answers are likely different for those.

Bart

[Phil McDade]

Peter:  I would only put two of your four holes (Augusta and Royal Troon) on my own list of great short holes, so there must be something haywire there.

So what do these two have in common? I'd suggest: not terribly long (the Postage Stamp is quite short); downhill (not excessively so, but downhill nonetheless) tee shots; smaller-than-average greens that are distinctly shaped one way more than another (i.e., the 12th at AN is quite wide but very shallow; the PStamp is exactly the opposite, sufficiently deep but quite narrow), and are quite penal quite close the the green (Rae's Creek, obviously, but not too far past the 12th green it's unplayable; the deep pot bunkers that encircle the PStamp.)

That suggests holes that require extreme precision in club selection and how they are played. Tom -- does that get at why they are great? Are playability aspects a greater role in defining a great par 3 than setting, design elements, and other factors?

[Paul Payne]

I think with a par three the architect has an opportunity to do something really stunning like SH #17, or Sawgrass, or with very dramatically contoured greens. I say he has the opportunity because on a par four or par five hole often these elements do not play well. I personally do not like a par five that ends with an island or near island green. It takes away most chances of getting there in two.

That being said, the hole still has to fit within the context of the land and the context of the course. I think this must be the challenge, to design something that is visually striking and effective without it standing out like a clown nose on the course.

[Dan Kelly]

mdugger:  Yes, I think "stunning terrain, drama, and intrigue" are all factors in most people's minds, but only maybe one of those has anything to do with design.

Which suggests to me:

The designer isn't always central to the greatness of many great holes.

How's that for minimalism?

[Eric_Terhorst]

These comments are already suggesting alot of different ways to make par 3s great. 

Couldn't a designer can add beauty and treachery if he's not working with a great site?  Are there any great ones at Shadow Creek (I wouldn't know)?

A great one can be penal with bunkers, hazards and pits like the Postage Stamp or the par 3s at Pine Valley (? haven't played it, so I don't know exactly)

Or it can have options, like Cypress Point #16, and to a certain extent AGNC #12, where you can play a relatively safe shot or go for broke.  Similarly, with a short hole surrounded by tough bunkering, you can take on a fearsome pin placement as long as you feel good about your bunker skills.

Or a good par 3 can be just plain brawny, an extreme example being that 288 yd par 3 last year in the US Open at Oakmont, where you had run-up or play short options if i recall correctly.

The surrounded by water variety like #17 at TPC are over after the first shot--psychologically challenging and memorable, for sure, but not much brain power required to get through them.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan K - nice.

Tom D - what's haywire is me. Serves me right for trying to push my luck with examples. From now on, I provide no examples, just brilliantly vague uber-criteria.

Well, okay - the 17th at TPC reflects that one element of a great Par 3 is where it comes in the card/routing; whether professional championship or hack-around amateurs, an island green works particularly well at the 17th, I think.  Shinnecock is there because another element is a demand on the player for some architectural acquity; it doesn't say "redan" on the card.

I'd like to think that both fall nicely under the umbrella of psychological sophistication.

Peter

[Don Hyslop]

  The late Stanley Thompson said that he would first walk, walk and re-walk the site looking for the best par 3 hole locations. Given the fact that he produced some of the most memorable par 3 holes, this practice obviously paid off. So the ability of a designer to take advantage of his property in routing the course is a key. Granted it makes it easier if you have a great piece of land to work with but obviously if possible the par 3 hole should be visually stunning. Taking advantage of natural hazards such as ravines, lakes, streams, oceans, etc is important.  Personally, I prefer having a par 3 that plays downhill or from an elevated tee as it adds to my enjoyment if I can see where my ball landed in relation to the hole. To me a boring par 3 is one that follows a flat path to a green that is protected by bunkers that themselves do not present a significant difficulty.

[Steve Lang]

 

1 part mental acuity
2 parts sudden death
1 part recovery
1 part reward for trajectory
a dash of luck
simmer until boiling
cool to room temperature
seasonal flavoring to taste

[Rick Shefchik]

Danger.

On further reflection, a great par 3 does need other components, otherwise you could stick a flag on an iceberg and call it great. But I don't think a par 3 can be great without danger.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think an important part of a great par 3 is three or more good companions.  The 13th at Crail (Balcomie) might be the  best par 3 I've ever played because the other one-shotters on the course are different and solid in their own right.  The most important part of it, I believe, is the variation in lengths.  You can have a great 200 yard hole if the other three par 3s are different lengths.  If you've got four 200 yard holes and one of them is great, there's a feeling of monotony.

[Bart Bradley]

I think an important part of a great par 3 is three or more good companions.  The 13th at Crail (Balcomie) might be the  best par 3 I've ever played because the other one-shotters on the course are different and solid in their own right.  The most important part of it, I believe, is the variation in lengths.  You can have a great 200 yard hole if the other three par 3s are different lengths.  If you've got four 200 yard holes and one of them is great, there's a feeling of monotony.

Tim:

I'm going to disagree.  While it would be nice if the other par 3s are good, an individual hole can be great while its sisters stink.  I can't remember the details of the other par 3s at Royal Troon but the Postage Stamp is a great hole all by itself.

Bart

[Marty Bonnar]

Bart,
I'll disagree with your disagreement. Is that like a double-negative thing where I'm actually agreeing with you???

I really appreciate a good set of 3s.

If they are nicely varied in direction, length, contour, elevation, etc I come to appreciate them individually even more.

Principal Dodd and I played Panmure yesterday as the bookend to his BUDA trip. 4 absolute beauties of par 3s which I think built on each other almost symbiotically. The first, a beguiling 140yd punchbowl with a wicked visual trick which made the back pin placement look like a front one. Southerly-ish. The second, 170yd to a most wonderful greensite tucked behind and in some perfectly scaled dunes and hollows with MAD contouring. Northerly. The third, 160 yd easterly to a most subtly-contoured big green with simply great bunker/mounding combinations and the fourth a monsterish 225yd north-easterly beasterly.

Each one a great hole individually but together like 4 Aces in a pack. Braid Genius indeed!

FBD.

[Kyle Harris]

Great par 3s serve as a good linkage between other holes or in awkward spots on the property. They break up a routine at just the right time and give the golfer something a bit different than what comes before and what comes after.

I'm beginning to wonder the significance of the holes before and after a hole on the particular hole's "greatness." I believe that par 3s are most prone to this.

[Ryan Farrow]

What makes a great par 3 is dependent on the other pars 3's, they must be looked at as a collection and must be distinctly different than each other.


O, and it must have all that other good stuff people have been talking about.

[Dan Kelly]

Danger.

On further reflection, a great par 3 does need other components, otherwise you could stick a flag on an iceberg and call it great. But I don't think a par 3 can be great without danger.

Rick ==

I know what you're getting at, there, but ...

Do you think No. 9 at Sutton Bay is a great par-3? I do -- and there's no particular danger there.

Dan

[Rick Shefchik]

Yes, my definition of danger can be found aplenty on SB #9:



I've knocked it over that green; after searching for five minutes, as I recall, there's nothing back there but rocks, Lake Oahe, and then Montana.

Just a little short and you roll back down to the fairway below, with a chip back up to a flagstick you might or might not be able to see; or you can dump it into one of those two front bunkers and have your fun with that. Go left deep (done that, too) and you can't get to a back right pin without negotiating the swale that cuts through the middle of the green; missing right presents its own set of problems with sand or tall grass -- and though the green is big, all these misses are quite possible with the prevailing 30 mph wind in your face on the 200-yard hole.

Maybe danger is too strong a word for this great hole, but there's trouble and difficulty everywhere.

[Paul Stephenson]

One that gets in your head.

The beauty of this is that there are an infinate number of ways to do this.  Some things that get into my head (and it's a pretty small and simple one at that):

Angled green that requires the correct line and distance.

Large drop in elevation that makes club selection difficult.

A large undulated green that requires a precise shot dispite it's size.

Heck, even an uphill par 3 because I can't see where the ball ended up.

I apologize if this is much too general, but maybe that's why we see so many different looking "great" par 3's.  The common demoninator is to me is that they all get into my head.

[Bruce Katona]

A one-shotter that you begain to think about playing several holes before you arrrive.....it's in your head and blood and by the time you're on the tee the hole has completely defeated you because there are infinate ways of it beating you - tee ball in incorrect quad of the green-3 putt; hazard of some sort your ball finds; visual intimidationform the tee....

The hole doesn't have to be any of the famous ones listed above, it could be your arch nemesis at the local muni you play every week.