[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -

when I'm struggling through a round (which is often), I look forward to the Par 3s, where a decent swing on a teed-up golf ball might have me putting for a rare birdie or saving a good par. 

Then, depending on the wind and topography, I do like the chance to play different irons: so something that calls for a 3 (or a 2-hybrid or 4); one that calls for a 5 (or 4 or 6); the 7 iron (or 5/6 or 8/9); and a 9 (or 8 or PW). The last is my least favourite type, probably because I tend to play them so badly, or at least worse than I think I should -- which is a sucky reason not to like something, I know...

Peter

Bill's post below reminds me that I've not played a links/sea-side course, so have never experienced or thought about Par 3s which offer/demand such a wide range of club selection.

[Bill_McBride]

As to the actual lengths, I've mentioned before that any time I have proposed to build a par-3 shorter than 150 yards from the back, or longer than 225, I've had the client question why.  (Richard Sattler, the client at Barnbougle, has since been an exception to that statement -- but Richard doesn't play golf.)  Ideally, I would have a hole under 150 and a hole over 225 on each course I did, just because it seems to make people uncomfortable.

That's interesting, since my favorite Doak par 3 is #11 at Pacific Dunes!  At 145 yards I've hit everything from 4-iron to 9-iron.  It is truly terrifying from the back tee with the wind howling in your face about 4 clubs.

[Dan King]

This thread demonstrates why par is evil.

To answer the question, par3s should be shorter than the par 4s but longer than the par 2s. If your shortest par 4 is 400 yards, then the 399 yard hole would have to be called a par 3. If you have no par 2s, then the shortest holes on the course would have to be called par 3s.

Cheers,
Dan King

Every hole should be a difficult par and a comfortable bogey.
 --Robert Trent Jones

[Jason Topp]

I think too many par threes play in the 185-215 yard range.  That length tends to be a relatively easy mid iron for good players and a long iron/hybrid for those that hit it 250 or less thereby exacerabating the advantage longer hitters already have.  

As a general rule I think par threes that are shorter or longer than that range are preferable.  Longer par threes are ok because they are difficult for everyone and generally provide a lot of room to miss.  Shorter holes are ok because they are simply fun.  

Taking all of the relevant factors into play I would design at 240-200-160-120 from my tees (usually 6400-6700 or so).

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

There's no set answer -- the land you find determines a good deal.

I would say also that elevation plays a real importance. As Mike C opined you can go to a max of 300 yards but it would be dependent on a number of items. Is the tee area elevated? Is there sufficient room to play a ground game option where the ball can be bounced on?

I'd like to see a combination of holes that take into account the varying wind directions so that you can't zone in on a particular shot and simply repeat it over and over again.

I think given the technology today that the long par-3 needs to be as much a part of any design as having the very short type holes. Unfortunately, too many developers and architects have shied away from such holes because they seem to believe that anything longer than 225 yards will be frowned upon by all involved.

One thing I caution developers and architects is the penchant for the formulaic dropshot par-3 with water fronting the green and sand traps way off to the side. It is as old as father time -- ditto the island green concept.

The long par-3 hole should be a staple but frankly the only people playing such a hole from the tips would be golfers capable in handling the required shot.

If you're talking about a mid-teen hdnicap crowd the max you can go is 200 yards without the bitching and moaning to take off in a big time way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To the esteemed Mr. Matt Ward,

Thanks for kindly letting me know there is "no set answer." Mercy, I would have never though of that! (wink)  Somewhere, deep down in my bowels, I figured someone would point that little nuance out.

However, whilst not explicitly stated, I reckon I covered your variances in my original post sufficiently, by hinting at "the tee you normally play" but understand that when talking about par 3 length, even my examples tended to focus on back tee yardage.   A few posters picked up on the idea, speaking in terms of clubs hit, like 3W, hybrid, mid iron, etc.

I agree that if looking for distance variety, "effective playing distance" is more important than the actual card.  In fact, it would be a conversation point to have a long par 3 actually require a shorter club than a shorter par 3 just to confuse matters.

Interesting to know that Tilly was in the "iron only" camp about par 3.  I wonder how the "flask architecture" school adjusted par 3 holes to account for the increased inspiration combined with decreased abilities towards the end of the flask and round?  Should he have made the latter par 3 holes easier?

Sincerely,

Jeffrey D. Brauer

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

In general, I think people (raters especially) pay too much attention to par-3 holes, simply because they are easier to quantify than the other holes and it's impossible to get yourself "out of position" -- whereas if you are asked to comment on the par-4's, the odds are that you hit two bad drives and didn't get a good sense of those holes.

I do agree that variety is the most important criterion for a good set of par-3's, but I think it's very possible to have two par-3 holes that are both 175 yards and yet play very different.

As to the actual lengths, I've mentioned before that any time I have proposed to build a par-3 shorter than 150 yards from the back, or longer than 225, I've had the client question why.  (Richard Sattler, the client at Barnbougle, has since been an exception to that statement -- but Richard doesn't play golf.)  Ideally, I would have a hole under 150 and a hole over 225 on each course I did, just because it seems to make people uncomfortable.

To the esteemed Mr. Doak,

Thank you for that reply.  Besides Jordan's comment, another inspiration for this thread was a raters downgrade of one of my courses that purposely made all the par 3 holes reachable with irons.  He "called me out" for not having enough distance variety on the par 3 holes, which in my mind, confirms your comments are correct.

A reply to your post mentioned wind variety and I know we have both mentioned the "formula" many tour pros use to have par 3's point to all points of the compass.  I agree in general, but like Matt says, I would rather route to the land than the wind if I don't have the choice.

I also look for shot variety from small greens requiring precision (and sometimes on the longest par 3 to test long iron play), Redans,  Reverse Slope Greens, etc.  Without any strategy from the tee shot, I feel "concept shots" are a good design on par 3 holes.

[John Moore II]

I think there is no such thing as too short a par 3, I think the PGA requires them to be 60 yards in order for the course to be regulation, so I suppose thats as short as I would like. And the max yardage would be in the 300 range at sea level, so long as the course plays firm and fast. In the mountains (such as in Salt Lake City) I could see a par 3 going up to 325ish. I feel that is fair. Now of course, with yardages that long, the green needs to be open and moderately flat.

[Michael]

 A "Redan" style par 3..because of the length of the green and the difference in feet/yards between front/rear pin locations would that eliminate some of the tee box locations?

As opposed to a standard round/kidney shaped green?

[Jason Connor]

I'd say 220-230 is my upper limit of what I'd like to see from the member tees.  An average golfer should be able to hit that far.  And if he can't he should be playing forward / senior tees.

Personally I don't like playing a par 3 shorter than 120 because then I'm hitting a partial wedge.  But I don't mind them because my opponents have to play the same hole.

I love the variety of the par 3's at my home course (Mike Dasher):

210 to the WSW
121 to the west
150 to the south
184 to the NNE

from the member's tee.  235, 138, 170, 201 from the backs.

Nearly perfect 30 yard splits.  And the course is flat, so on a windless day, those splits hold true.  The greens are deep enough (33, 20, 44, 39 yards, respectively) that  they can play very differently (17 is a biarritz green).

I love the variety.  The 121 is very delicate, sort of an opposite of 12 at Augusta, it's very easy to spin a wedge backwards, catch the slope and role in the water. 

185 is easier than it looks.  A fade works perfectly and because of mounds to the left even a miss that goes straight can end up on the green with a friendly kick.

There is plenty of room to miss right on the long par 3. So even a high handicapper can swing hard and a miss right won't hurt him.

[Jim Nugent]

I think some courses should have one par 3 that requires a 3-wood (or more) off the tee.  For the pro's and top am's, that might mean the hole is 275+, depending on conditions.  Other sets of tees can set the correct distance on this hole for players of different abilities. 

Didn't many courses have holes like this in the 1920's or so? 

[Jim Colton]

I was forced to hit driver on the 15th at Greywalls, which was about 240 and playing into the wind.  I don't carry a 3-wood and am pretty long with the irons, but 2-iron wasn't going to be enough carry on that hole for this low-ball hitter.  Generally, I'm not a huge fan of hitting driver off a par 3, probably because I have a hard time hitting a 60-yard wide fairway as it is.  But it's pretty memorable if nothing else.  The only time I've done it is on the 12th (?) at Bandon Trails three years ago...the fact that I remember that tells you how memorable it is.

[Tom_Doak]

One of the reasons I like having a very long par-3 is because I've run across a lot of players who just don't want to hit a "wooden" club on a par-3 hole ... so they will try to kill a 2-iron 20 yards beyond their comfort zone, and get themselves in trouble as a result.

Most of the best links courses have at least one "short hole" that requires a wood when it gets windy.  I've hit 3-wood to the Redan at North Berwick more than once, although I've also hit 6-iron there; I've hit 1-iron to the Eden at St. Andrews (see description above  ); and even Jack Nicklaus in his prime was hitting driver to the 16th at Carnoustie!!  So, I don't think it's over the line to ask a lesser player than Jack to hit a wood on a par-3 every once in a while, but I sure don't think you need to do it on every course.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim N:  Yes, you are correct that a lot of courses in the 1920's had a very long par-3 ... for example, the 17th hole at Brae Burn in Mass. was 255 yards for the U.S. Amateur, in 1928 !!  I think there were fewer competitors that year who professed to being expert architectural critics to correct Mr. Ross' error.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

Thanks for the "esteemed" tagline. Once I see such a starting line I know the punches (wink / wink) are just waiting to happen!

I agree w Doak's comments on how often raters will over-do the importance of such holes and leave out much of everything else.

As I said before -- the land dictates what happens. I'm glad to see the idea of back-to-back par-3 holes is OK provided the routing and quality of the holes works. For many years, such an inclusion would have been frowned upon.

But, as I said previously, the dropshot hole should only be included if it goes beyond the stale, predictable types that have come before it. It's sort of like the situation comedy -- we've seen plenty before -- it's time for a new wrinkle.

In regards to length -- going over 225 yards is really only for people who can handle such a situation. I agree w Doak that often times lower handicap types will strain with the 2-iron when the reality is that a 3-metal or even driver is the proper play. I see such holes as entirely fair game but as I also said before -- many developers and architects shy away from their usage because they'd opt for the easier route in giving people the typical spread of 150-200 yards.

Jeff -- quick question to you -- what is the longest par-3 hole you have created to date. Would you change anything about it now?




 

[TEPaul]

Let's put it this way----back in the day par 3s that even a really good player had to and was expected to go at with his driver was a pretty common occurrence. That day and that expectation is pretty much long gone.

Just for old times sake I would like to see more par 3s that had the capacity to require at least 300 yard tee shots.

[Jason Topp]

Jeff B:

Jeff -- quick question to you -- what is the longest par-3 hole you have created to date. Would you change anything about it now?
 

The 4th at the Quarry is 269 and must be close.  It is a terrific hole.

[BVince]

TEP,

I wouldn't mind the idea of some players having to hit driver to get to the green, but putting a green 300yds away eliminates about 98% of golfers from reaching it.  Are you thinking that a layup would be a necessar option, like 16 at CPC?  It also makes me think, is birdie a critical part of the game?  The further you push back a par 3, the more rare a birdie will become.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I have done a few in the 270 range - the Quarry and Indian Creek to name 2.  In two weeks, I open one that measures 276 or so from the tips, but with a Biaritz (just to see how that plays in this day and age).  Given how many people I figure will play it, that tee is 15 x 15.

[Anthony Fowler]

I don't know why everyone gets hung up on the par of a hole.  I think architects should make the most interesting holes possible and not worry about what par they will put on the card.  If I come to a 295 yard hole, I'm going to dig my teeth into it and try to make the lowest score possible. 

Jeff, to answer your question, any yardage is fair game.  Make fun holes and let the clients decide what to call them.

[John Moore II]

Anthony--People get hung up on par because a 300 yard par 3 needs to be designed far differently than a 300 yard par 4. Same as a 500 yard par 4 must be different than a 500 yard par 5. Thats why we ask questions about par.

[Tom_Doak]

Kenneth:

Your last statement is just a mistake.

A 500-yard hole is a 500-yard hole.  Some people will be able to reach it in two; others won't.  It should make sense for both groups, and it doesn't matter whether it's called a par-4 or a par-5.  In fact it doesn't matter if par is on the card at all ... it's only the number you write down that matters, and whether it's lower than your opponent's number.

[Sean_A]

I've been around enough and seen enough holes that are labelled as par 4s but are comfortably reachable for many.  Some may say these are really par 3s.  I don't think there is any difference between the labels except that I think most people are happier when they are called par 4s. 

This question has no proper answer.   

Ciao

[John Moore II]

Kenneth:

Your last statement is just a mistake.

A 500-yard hole is a 500-yard hole.  Some people will be able to reach it in two; others won't.  It should make sense for both groups, and it doesn't matter whether it's called a par-4 or a par-5.  In fact it doesn't matter if par is on the card at all ... it's only the number you write down that matters, and whether it's lower than your opponent's number.

Tom--If you were to design a 300 yard par 3 would you not likely leave the front of the green open to allow for the ball to roll onto the green, and possibly have a flatter green surface than on a 300 yd par 4 where you may be able to surround the green with bunkers and elevation and have significant contour in the green? Same with a long par 4 or short par 5, I would think the contours on the individual holes would differ? Am I still mistaken? Please educate me, sir.

[Tom_Doak]

Kenneth:

Most architects would design around the chosen par, as you describe.  I might make the same mistake, but I would try to resist it. 

On a 300-yard hole, I would likely leave a bit of the green open in front, no matter whether it was a par-4 or a par-5 [edit - or a par-3 (whoops!)] ... I don't see the point of building a 300-yard par-4 where you have no chance to reach the green other than flying it on.  And I would likely put a fair amount of contour into the green (whether the green was small or large), because I would know that most people were going to be approaching it with a short second shot, no matter what the par says, and they could handle the contour in that case.

As Sean says, most golfers are happier when you give an extra shot for "par" in case of doubt, but there are always a few who downgrade a course for having holes that are "too easy" in relation to par.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()