next »

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played a very good course yesterday.  The strength of the course were the par threes and the par fives.  The par threes were different in length and demanded very exacting shots.  The greens tended to have a little more slope and undulation than the other greens.  It got me thinking that par threes need more imaginative and difficult green complexes to "protect" par than par fours because only one shot is needed to get on the green.  Am I off base?

[Jim Nugent]

Tommy, I think you are off base for pro's and top players...but maybe right on for average players.

Pro's average highest, against par, on par 3's.  Reason is length.  They can hit many or most par 5's in two.  They often putt for eagle.  On par 3's that never happens.  They must hit a full shot, sometimes with a longer club than they hit into par 5's for their 2nd shots.  Instead of putting for eagle, they putt for birdie. 

Average players are spotted their drive on par 3's, and only must hit their approach.  That is why par 3's are often rated as the highest handicap holes.  They are the longest holes for pro's, but the shortest for average players.  With par 5's, it's just the opposite.  Which is why they often are among the lowest handicap holes. 

[John Nixon]

Par 3s allow one to tee a ball from a preferred spot. Why shouldn't you be expected to hit a better shot?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

Ross wrote that, so it must have some merit......ball on tee, as noted.  Also, with multiple tees the gca can control the difficulty by giving all players a 7 iron, for example, which can't be guaranteed on longer holes.

I agree with Jim that par 3 holes for the good player are now often used to create long approaches that just seem impossible anywhere else - par 5 or even par 4 holes for the longest hitters.

I think average players would be just as happy with four one shotters in mid iron range, rather than a mix from 130-230 or so. I can't recall to many players saying they like really long par 3 holes, although the "design standard" is to vary their length.

I have also long thought that par 3's are good places for "concept" shots, like the Redan, reverse slope greens, etc., that may be more interesting as stand alone shots, but not necessarily difficult.  As above, I can control the shot length through tee placement.  I believe a unique shot type, replaces strategy of locating the tee shot to keep the hole interesting. 

Is there really anything great about a "straightforward" par three that simply requires a more precision shot than what you would also get on a par 4?  The only situation where I favor that is really long par 3s and really short ones.  Again, we can't be guaranteed the good player will ever have a long approach requiring precision on longer holes, which is why I do the long one.  And, we can't be guaranteed the average player will have a short approach anywhere on longer holes, which is why I do the short, precision par 3.

[John K. Moore]

I am not sure if they should be more exacting, but I agree with Jeff that its possible to assure a shot on a par 3 that can't be done on other holes. A par 5 would have to be 700 yards long to make sure players are having full shots into the greens. If you want the better player to hit 3 wood into a par 4, you have to make the hole 525 yds for that to be the case. But you can easily make a par 3 that is 250-275 yards long and it not look too out of line.

--People play holes differently today than they did before. When I played Thanksgiving Point (yeah, its at elevation and all) but I had a PW left for my SECOND shot into a 580 par 5. Not to sound like I'm bragging, but you simply can't design a hole to combat shots like that.

[Kalen Braley]

--People play holes differently today than they did before. When I played Thanksgiving Point (yeah, its at elevation and all) but I had a PW left for my SECOND shot into a 580 par 5. Not to sound like I'm bragging, but you simply can't design a hole to combat shots like that.

JKM,

Why don't you tell him what happened after that?  You did hit a nasty long drive though 

[John K. Moore]

Kalen--that would take away from the shock value if people other than you knew that.

[Chris Kurzner]

Tommy, I think you are off base for pro's and top players...but maybe right on for average players.

Pro's average highest, against par, on par 3's.  Reason is length.  They can hit many or most par 5's in two.  They often putt for eagle.  On par 3's that never happens.  They must hit a full shot, sometimes with a longer club than they hit into par 5's for their 2nd shots.  Instead of putting for eagle, they putt for birdie. 

Average players are spotted their drive on par 3's, and only must hit their approach.  That is why par 3's are often rated as the highest handicap holes.  They are the longest holes for pro's, but the shortest for average players.  With par 5's, it's just the opposite.  Which is why they often are among the lowest handicap holes. 

Interesting.  Our club changed its hole handicapping few years ago from having the 1 handicap being the toughest hole to having the 1 handicap hole being the hole in which a higher handicapper would benefit most from a stroke when playing against a lower handicapper.  Thus, number 3, a 450+ yard, into the prevailing wind par 4 (the previous 1 handicap) became the 13 handicap hole, and number 5, a longish par 5, became the number 1 handicap hole.  As I understand the logic, 3 is a hole in which a low handicapper is more likely to bogey than birdie, so a 12 or higher handicapper would be less likely to need a stroke.  On the other hand, 5 is more of a potential birdie hole (based upon statistical analysis of scorecards over a period of time) for a lower handicapper and more likely to cause a bogey or higher for the high handicapper, so that's why it's rated more difficult (i.e., if you have a stroke, you'd get it on that hole rather than 3 because you're more likely to need it there).

We always joke about how much easier number 3 got after they revised the handicaps.